THE concept of rights was thought to have originated from prehistoric man. When strangers met, a line was drawn between them and one would declare: “What is on that side is thine (yours) and what is on this side is mine.”
This is the simplest form of rights, a luxury prehistoric man, living in relative isolation with an abundant supply of nature’s bounties, could easily afford.
As the population grew and supplies dwindled, the search for a living became man’s main preoccupation. To protect him against maltreatment, the original concept of rights had to be firmed up.
History reveals that although man’s conscience was constantly under threat from oppressive forces, it never failed to triumph. For instance, the Magna Carta of 1215 halted the debauchery of King John of England.
Under the pressure of a vicious war with France, John conceded the demand of his nobles for freedom the country had enjoyed in the past.
Three important articles were embedded in the Magna Carta – that no man was to be imprisoned or punished by the King except in due course of law, that justice should never be sold, denied or delayed, and that no money was to be appropriated from anyone for the King’s use.
The rights later on inspired scholars and thinkers such as Hugo Grotius and Thomas Hobbes to come up with the concept of rights of individuals whereby one is at liberty to do anything which is necessary to ensure one’s self-preservation.
This concept is aptly captured in the Englishman cliche on liberty: “Gentlemen, your liberty ends where my nose begins.”
The theory of natural rights espoused by Grotius and Hobbes is thought to be the underpinning factor for the success of the French and American Revolutions.
The theory was individualist both in its assumption that individuals have priority over communities in the imagined history of the state of nature and the origin of civil society, and its assertion of the moral claim that individuals had over groups.
The Americans subscribed fully to this idea of personal liberty, so much so that they were willing to fight a relentless civil war over the issue of slavery.
Since then, Americans appear to have become the torchbearers of freedom and the rights of man. Today the original concept of natural rights is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The theory of natural rights is not without its critics. For one, rights are deemed to reciprocate duties. The Spanish 16th century jurist Francisco Suarez thought the true meaning of rights to be something that also imposes a duty on others.
It therefore follows that the definition of a civil society should be a collection of not only rights-demanding but also duty-bearing individuals who are united by the principles of peace, justice and equality.
And thus, the debate between rights and duties rages on. Today it is also the main bone of contention between the Western and non-Western concept of human rights.
Second, although some may call it mediaeval, the fact remains that the stress on community above the individual has always been an important Asian value.
According to Professor Ching-Ying Cheng of the University of Hawaii, both Confucianism and Islam are community-oriented, stressing the importance of community living and inter-dependence of people in a community. This contrasts strongly with the ascetic individualism of Western tradition.
In many parts of Asia, a greater value is placed on the family and on the needs and interests of the community than on the individual and his or her rights to absolute personal freedom.
Fulfilling one’s responsibility towards the family and community comes before the right to claim individual privileges. If an individual transgresses the rights of the community, that person is really robbing from the majority.
Third, the prevalent model of the so-called universal human rights tends to over-emphasise on civil and political rights, at the expense of economic, social and cultural rights. Thus, advances made in the latter three areas are conveniently dismissed as immaterial if the former two are judged as have been compromised.
These objections to a universal human rights based on the theory of natural rights are clearly enumerated by Kevin Dwyer, former official of Amnesty International, in his book Arab Voices.
Dwyer writes, “To those who argue that attaining full human rights is universal aspirations, others may respond that the notion of human rights is simply a product of one particular civilisation’s history.
“Is human rights a clearly defined and well-understood concept, perhaps as enshrined in international agreements (like the UDHR), or subject to varied and sometimes contradictory interpretations?
“Is it an authentic reflection of moral conscience, or a tool manipulated by opportunistic local, national and international political forces? Is it a need deeply felt by masses of people, or the plaything of an intellectual elite?
“Is it a sign of human progress towards a life of greater dignity and quality, or does it betray a parochial view that disregards life’s deeper needs (such as environmental protection, peace, disarmament and assured food supplies)?”
Dwyer himself asserts that Amnesty’s approach to improving human rights practices worldwide can be further enhanced if local, national and regional contexts are taken into account.
Consequently, the consistent “bulldozing through” human rights reports of this and that country by unsolicited adjudicators do not, in any way, help clear up the murky waters of rights and responsibilities.
On the contrary, more often than not, their persistently biased, unilateral assessments have led to rigorous denials and even counter-attacks from the affected countries or communities.
These controversies are some of the reasons why certain parts of the Muslim world are unable to endorse the UDHR in its present form. As a matter of both faith and principle, Muslims subscribe to an Islamic notion of human rights.
The Quran commands that, the practice of human rights must lead to positive results.
Thus, only those rights will be regarded as human rights that do not go against the spirit of nature. Hedonism, perversion and resorting to violence for whatever means can never be a human right.
Similarly, although freedom of expression is prescribed, the Quran forbids speaking in a seditious manner.
In short, the teaching of Islam contends that liberty without restraint is not the aim of human rights. While the rights of individuals are safeguarded, the society should not be prevented from evolving and progressing.
The relevant cliche for Muslims could perhaps be: “Gentlemen, your absolute freedom ends where you nose ends.”