A brief understanding of the concept of Human Rights in Islamic Culture in light of the United Nations Universal Declaration on Human Rights
The U.N. Universal Declaration on Human Rights implicitly and explicitly presumes that notwithstanding the different cultural background and existential conditions of the individual human being, there is a set of rights which is available to all who fall within the species of ‘human beings’. One can, to an extent, say that this is a precondition on which the other provisions of the declaration are based. The reason for the use of the phrase ‘other provisions’ is because the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, in article 1, declares the concept of universality which is so inseparably fused with all the following provisions. This is also Farhang’s view. However, it is on this point that Islam feels that its own interpretation of human rights differs fundamentally from Western philosophy and perspective.
In the Islamic religious tradition it is believed that the community, particularly the religious community, comes before the individual. Islam can be understood as being a self-contained and self-supportive entity. Khadduri describes Islam as being "a compact wall, whose bricks support each other". However, many believe that at some point Islamic principles cease to be rational and tend to shift onto the plane of arbitrariness and religious (religio-traditional) autocracy veiled by the justification that it is the will of Allah, and thus the Divine law, which is unquestionable and thus unalterable.
Muslims believe that the role of the person is not only to ensure the preservation of the cultural traditions, but moreover, to recognize that the community provides for the integration of the human personality (a diplomatic way of hindering the possibility of free thought). After this concept is instilled into the mind of the Muslim follower, self-abnegation is no longer an issue and thus it becomes relatively easier to perform in a way which promotes solely the collective good for the community.
Within the African perspective it is also clear that the emphasis is on ‘duty’ more than it is on ‘rights’, and this has undeniably been culturally determined. In Islam specifically, an individual’s obligation is consolidated by it being owed to Allah. One necessarily also finds that what has been said is relevant when speaking, in a manner, within the context of Natural law. Natural Law consists solely of obligations, and the rights which seem to emanate from it are merely a derivant of the other party’s obligation. However, in Natural law the obligation is not owed to any supranatural being but rather to human dignity, and human dignity is something which can be observed, which makes the basis in natural law, unlike at times in Islamic law, rational in nature. This is the major differentiating factor between Natural Law understanding of Human Rights and the Islamic view in this regard. Hence one cannot equate the former’s understanding on the concept of human rights with that of the latter’s.
The rules of conduct for Muslims have been laid down by Allah in the Qu’ran and communicated to them through the Prophet Muhammad; Muslims do service to Allah by following them. With this known, one can clearly see that the only reference which is made is done in regard to ‘duties’.‘Rights’ are always, as a result, superseded by ‘duties’. From this one can then assert that in Islam human rights are one and the same with obligations, derived from the Divine’s mandate. The force and authority of human rights in the Islamic culture is asserted from this religious connection, seen always as being the privilege of Allah, within whom all authority ultimately resides.
There is a firm belief that one can only truly be free if there is complete surrender to the Divine. In fact, basing his ideas on this notion, Nasr argues that Islam favours ‘freedom to’, rather than ‘freedom against’. This whole issue is very arguable when seen in regard to the reality brought about by, say, apostasy. When a person changes religion from Islam, or even when that person is not Islamic for that matter, that person, according to a very close interpretation of what Islam believes loses all human rights, or in the case of the person not being Islamic, does not have any rights to begin with if one follows the line of thought adhered to by Muslims that rights granted to a person are only due to a submission to the mandate of Allah. In fact when one reads the punishment for apostasy under Shari’a law one finds that there is complete and utter disregard for any dignity which that person is entitled to. This, many hold, is a clear example of the arbitrariness of the Islamic perspective of human rights. Muslims, through their religious traditions and written texts, exclaim that for human rights to ever be ‘universal’ there must be global conversion to Islam.
The Islamic perspective of human rights is fundamentally different from that which governs the perspective of human rights in the Western world since the latter is based solely on the principles of human dignity, while the Eastern view is centered around the idea that it is one’s obligation to Allah to perform in a manner according to what was communicated by Him through His Prophet Muhammad. The fundamental problem which keeps Islam from ever being in line with the modern interpretation of what are a person’s rights is that the Qu’ran cannot be interpreted in today’s post-modern world and thus what were not considered to be rights 1400 years ago are rights today. The scripture is the major contributor in keeping the Muslim community from advancing in regard to human rights, and will continue to do so until, if ever, this cultural obstacle is done away with.
This short article is not meant to be a conclusive statement on the human rights aspect in the Eastern tradition, particularly in Islam. It merely acts as an eye-opener, or rather food for thought, on the issue regarding the rights which are, or better yet, which ought to be afforded to each and every person irrespective of cultural or existential conditions to which that person is subjected. Many critics support the idea that unless laws, particularly human rights laws, find their basis to be the dignity of man, those laws are no laws at all. In the words of St. Augustine of Hippo, "an unjust law is no law at all".
Author: John-Claude Mizzi – LL.B. III
Co-Author: Catherine Grima – LL.B. III
The U.N. Universal Declaration on Human Rights implicitly and explicitly presumes that notwithstanding the different cultural background and existential conditions of the individual human being, there is a set of rights which is available to all who fall within the species of ‘human beings’. One can, to an extent, say that this is a precondition on which the other provisions of the declaration are based. The reason for the use of the phrase ‘other provisions’ is because the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, in article 1, declares the concept of universality which is so inseparably fused with all the following provisions. This is also Farhang’s view. However, it is on this point that Islam feels that its own interpretation of human rights differs fundamentally from Western philosophy and perspective.
In the Islamic religious tradition it is believed that the community, particularly the religious community, comes before the individual. Islam can be understood as being a self-contained and self-supportive entity. Khadduri describes Islam as being "a compact wall, whose bricks support each other". However, many believe that at some point Islamic principles cease to be rational and tend to shift onto the plane of arbitrariness and religious (religio-traditional) autocracy veiled by the justification that it is the will of Allah, and thus the Divine law, which is unquestionable and thus unalterable.
Muslims believe that the role of the person is not only to ensure the preservation of the cultural traditions, but moreover, to recognize that the community provides for the integration of the human personality (a diplomatic way of hindering the possibility of free thought). After this concept is instilled into the mind of the Muslim follower, self-abnegation is no longer an issue and thus it becomes relatively easier to perform in a way which promotes solely the collective good for the community.
Within the African perspective it is also clear that the emphasis is on ‘duty’ more than it is on ‘rights’, and this has undeniably been culturally determined. In Islam specifically, an individual’s obligation is consolidated by it being owed to Allah. One necessarily also finds that what has been said is relevant when speaking, in a manner, within the context of Natural law. Natural Law consists solely of obligations, and the rights which seem to emanate from it are merely a derivant of the other party’s obligation. However, in Natural law the obligation is not owed to any supranatural being but rather to human dignity, and human dignity is something which can be observed, which makes the basis in natural law, unlike at times in Islamic law, rational in nature. This is the major differentiating factor between Natural Law understanding of Human Rights and the Islamic view in this regard. Hence one cannot equate the former’s understanding on the concept of human rights with that of the latter’s.
The rules of conduct for Muslims have been laid down by Allah in the Qu’ran and communicated to them through the Prophet Muhammad; Muslims do service to Allah by following them. With this known, one can clearly see that the only reference which is made is done in regard to ‘duties’.‘Rights’ are always, as a result, superseded by ‘duties’. From this one can then assert that in Islam human rights are one and the same with obligations, derived from the Divine’s mandate. The force and authority of human rights in the Islamic culture is asserted from this religious connection, seen always as being the privilege of Allah, within whom all authority ultimately resides.
There is a firm belief that one can only truly be free if there is complete surrender to the Divine. In fact, basing his ideas on this notion, Nasr argues that Islam favours ‘freedom to’, rather than ‘freedom against’. This whole issue is very arguable when seen in regard to the reality brought about by, say, apostasy. When a person changes religion from Islam, or even when that person is not Islamic for that matter, that person, according to a very close interpretation of what Islam believes loses all human rights, or in the case of the person not being Islamic, does not have any rights to begin with if one follows the line of thought adhered to by Muslims that rights granted to a person are only due to a submission to the mandate of Allah. In fact when one reads the punishment for apostasy under Shari’a law one finds that there is complete and utter disregard for any dignity which that person is entitled to. This, many hold, is a clear example of the arbitrariness of the Islamic perspective of human rights. Muslims, through their religious traditions and written texts, exclaim that for human rights to ever be ‘universal’ there must be global conversion to Islam.
The Islamic perspective of human rights is fundamentally different from that which governs the perspective of human rights in the Western world since the latter is based solely on the principles of human dignity, while the Eastern view is centered around the idea that it is one’s obligation to Allah to perform in a manner according to what was communicated by Him through His Prophet Muhammad. The fundamental problem which keeps Islam from ever being in line with the modern interpretation of what are a person’s rights is that the Qu’ran cannot be interpreted in today’s post-modern world and thus what were not considered to be rights 1400 years ago are rights today. The scripture is the major contributor in keeping the Muslim community from advancing in regard to human rights, and will continue to do so until, if ever, this cultural obstacle is done away with.
This short article is not meant to be a conclusive statement on the human rights aspect in the Eastern tradition, particularly in Islam. It merely acts as an eye-opener, or rather food for thought, on the issue regarding the rights which are, or better yet, which ought to be afforded to each and every person irrespective of cultural or existential conditions to which that person is subjected. Many critics support the idea that unless laws, particularly human rights laws, find their basis to be the dignity of man, those laws are no laws at all. In the words of St. Augustine of Hippo, "an unjust law is no law at all".
Author: John-Claude Mizzi – LL.B. III
Co-Author: Catherine Grima – LL.B. III
0 comments:
Post a Comment