The doctrine of human rights basically concerns the so-called ‘fundamental rights’ of every person to justice, equality and freedom. As adopted by the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR, 1948), it proclaims that all men and women, regardless of their social, economic or political background and status, are “born free and equal in dignity and rights,” and “everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind”. In a nutshell, this document, by detailing the individual and social rights and freedoms, grants absolute freedom to mankind, male and female alike. Reference to religion is peripheral whereas its secular orientation is overwhelming.
Islam has been portrayed as a religion that seems to clash with the ensuing modern discourse concerning human rights, simultaneously suggesting an ongoing enmity between the secular West and the Muslim East. Is Islam, or its Syariah, really an antithesis to such a doctrine of human rights? The Westernized liberal advocates championing the course of human rights as well as discerning Muslims concerned about the sanctity of their religion have been exchanging arguments asserting, imposing and defending their respective positions. Which one should prevail? To some, the answer is clear, but to some others, it is still obscure. It appears that the root of the problem stems from misgivings both have for each other as a result of a lack of knowledge, understanding and exposure to the ideas of each other. Nevertheless, these conflicting perceptions are not without possible reconciliation. This brief writing represents a modest attempt to bridge the two combatants. What is important which must be recognized by both parties, including those in between afflicted with confusion, is the open mindedness and willingness to acknowledge and recognize authorities. “Authorities” here does not necessarily mean administrative or political, but rather the erudite scholars and credible scholarship. Once established, the opinions of these scholarly authorities may be embraced to the extent that one of the parties may need to modify or even completely abandon their earlier position. Otherwise, there will be chaos and anarchy in the society because if truth is rejected as a result of ignorance and stubbornness, then arrogance and obstinacy will triumph. Consequently, the issue at stake will never be resolved. Undoubtedly, the exponents of both positions must have relied upon certain principles derived from those deemed authoritative in constructing the framework for their understanding of these issues.
It must be further explained that the modern doctrine of human rights is based on the philosophy of humanism, where man is regarded as the measure of everything. If one is cognizant of the history and development of this philosophy, one can easily see that it was founded upon secularism, where neither God nor religion plays any slightest role. It teaches that the entire world is at the complete disposal of human beings who are at liberty to do whatever they like without restriction. This secular notion persists as a prominent feature in the contemporary discourse on human rights.
“Rights”, “freedom”, “equality”, “justice”, are among the basic key terms dominating such contentious discussion. We will examine only the first two. And since we are deliberating the issue from the Islamic point of view, the term “Syariah” will be added to this brief exposition. In the process, one must be aware that Islam and the Arabic language are inseparable. The latter is founded upon a semantic root system, upon which various conceptions are possible. And as it is language which shapes the worldview, hence it is possible to briefly understand the meanings of the above mentioned interrelated terms both in their modern Western sense as well as in the Islamic-Arabic nuance.
In reply to the question posed earlier, Islam does acknowledge human rights but it is not without certain forms of control and limitation. This acknowledgement and limitation is reflected by the Universal Islamic Declaration of Human Rights (UIDHR, 1981). It states that anything pertaining to human conduct is to be governed by the Syariah. The Syariah refers to the totality of Islamic Law pertaining to the faith and conduct of every Muslim where God and His injunctions reign supreme. There is nothing that falls outside this corpus of divine law.
Rights. In the context of the discussion here, “rights” alludes to “things one may legally or morally claim, or the state of being entitled to a privilege or immunity or authority to act.” Originally, even in Western ideology, it refers to codes of conduct which are just, true, morally or socially correct. The literal Islamic-Arabic equivalent of the term “rights” is huquq (sing. haqq), referring to a state, quality or property of being wise, just, right, true, real and proper. Here, one cannot but admit the apparent parallelism of meanings and implications of the term employed in the two cultures. However, when combined to form the notion of “human rights” as perceived by the secular humanists, all these noble elements evaporate into thin air. Instead, these secularists propagate a conception of “rights” devoid of God, religion or morality. It is this godless, irreligious and amoral idea of human rights that suffocates religion in the contemporary world, particularly Islam. Islam abhors this notion of human rights and offers an alternative conception that embraces all the aforementioned positive meanings and values. Accordingly, things which are religiously or morally wrong cannot be considered as “rights”. Killing, suicide, robbery, adultery, rape, homosexuality, lesbianism, same gender marriages, etc., are all wrong and despicable acts from both the perspective of Islam and morality. In fact these acts have been legally considered criminal offences in many countries. This suggests that unregulated rights are also against the rule of law. Thus one cannot claim to have liberty to legalize, legitimize or commit any of those wrongful acts under the pretext of human rights. Man simply has no right to do wrong. Bearing that in mind, Islam, for example, forbids apostasy. Therefore, a Muslim is not entitled and has no right to leave the religion of Islam as it is both a crime and a sin antithetical and detrimental to the teachings of Islam. As such it is religion which has priority over any teleological claim of human rights.
Freedom. Freedom refers to the condition of being free or unrestricted, or the state of being free to act. It becomes relevant when one, in a given circumstance, encounters two or more alternatives from which to choose. In Islam, this situation and concept is couched in the term ikhtiyar, meaning free preference or choice, i.e. power of choice. The term is derived from the word khayr, which means good. Ikhtiyar or freedom in Islam, therefore, implies free choice of what is good or the choice for the better. Here, one cannot separate “freedom” from “rights”, in the sense that the freedom to choose must always be done for the right, true, just and correct. It follows that a choice for something bad or worse, as far as Islam or morality is concerned, is not the real freedom. In this spirit, the Islamic conception and practice of freedom differs from that of the modern secular idea of freedom. Hence, the so-called freedom to be homosexual, for example, can never be conceived as a real freedom by virtue of the fact that it is not a choice for the better. This can be extended to many other cases mentioned above where man tends to opt for the bad in disregard of many other good things available to him. Obviously, in the exercise of freedom, one needs to have knowledge of good and evil. The determination of good and evil cannot be understood by human reason alone because reason can be susceptible to error. Thus, absolute, supernatural or spiritual guidance is necessary. Here, religious and moral education constitutes significant prerequisites in understanding human rights. It is at this juncture that Islam offers divine intervention.
Rights and freedom can neither be separate nor detached from religion and morality. They are not territories without borders. They require certain regulations. They must be understood in light of proper knowledge acquired after experiencing a proper system of education, without any dualistic approach and without making a dichotomy between reason and morality at the expense of religion.