Human rights not coined in heaven

By Dr Wan Azhar Wan Ahmad
Senior Fellow/Director, Centre for Syariah, Law & Political Science, Ikim

Islam was the first universal religion guaranteeing human rights. This fact is reflected in the Medina Charter, written and ratified 1,400 years ago.

In the middle of July, I attended a dialogue on human civil and political rights at the office of the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (Suhakam). I have some observations to share.

It is no exaggeration to say it would appear that the current discourse on human rights has been regarded by certain quarters as the most sacred thing, to the extent that should it come into conflict with any other human interest – be it religious, ethical or legal – the former must always prevail.

The notion of human rights seems to have been understood synonymously with unlimited freedom, that mankind is free to do whatever he pleases.

Many look delusional and choose to ignore credible reminders. Freedom is never something absolute.

The three Semitic religions – Judaism, Christianity and Islam – teach their followers that Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden of Eden because they crossed the limits of freedom prescribed to them in that realm.

It is generally true that the doctrine of human rights transcends religious beliefs, political affiliations, socio-economics status, ethnic practices, and so on.

But it is not absolute in the sense that when one commits oneself to a certain religion, value system, or state, one is bound by the rules and practices of that religion, system or nation.

As such one must be prepared to bear the consequences if those rules are broken.

Religious freedom, for example, does not imply an unregulated liberty to choose or change religions as one pleases.

Rather it means freedom to practice that particular religion in accordance with the established teachings of that religion.

If one’s religion is such that by virtue of its nature being complete and all encompassing, at once projecting truth according to the confines of the nature of man, then to opt to leave that religion due to a whim or fancy is both antithetical to truth and contradictory to the nature of man.

All considerations with regard to the concept of ‘worldview’, the ‘nature of man’ and so on must be respected by followers of other religions, particularly if those other religions do not project the same worldview or are devoid of conceptual philosophies relative to the nature of man and the intimate unity between the sacred and the profane.

In short, if one’s religion teaches that he/she cannot change religion at whim and fancy, followers of other religions must respect that, especially if they don’t have any provision to the same effect.

It is the duty of those within the religion, or those who want to embrace it, to understand this.

The idea of human rights does not arise ex nihilo – out of nothing. It arises from responsibility, a failure of which would render the so-called ‘rights’ unjust.

My emphasis is, a right is not independent of responsibility.

A ‘right’ implies that it must be true, good, genuine, beneficial, justifiable, and so on. One just cannot claim a right to be right if it is wrong, false, evil, harmful or unjustifiable, i.e. against one's worldview as defined by religion, the rules of ethics and morality, or law, including the law of nature.

In the Malaysian context, why is it that certain individuals and non-governmental organisations appear to regard foreign documents on human rights as noble or sacred as religious texts?

One possible explanation for this is perhaps they have become disillusioned secularists, detaching themselves from all forms of religious control, or value systems.

This would explain why secularism is a common enemy of all religions and value systems.

Why have those same groups of people come to regard those international documents as being nobler than our Federal Constitution – the supreme law of the land?

Section 4(4) of The Human Rights Commission of Malaysia Act 1999 clearly states that “? regard shall be had to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 to the extent that it is not inconsistent with the Federal Constitution”.

Therefore, it would imply that any contradiction to any provision in the Constitution must either be rejected, or carefully scrutinised so as to make it in line with the spirit of the Constitution.

If the Constitution is premised upon some considerations for a particular religious precept, then all the more reason for an erudite understanding of that religious precept.

There are also impressions that the promotion and protection of human rights is something alien to the worldview of Islam.

This is perhaps a result of the shortcomings within Muslims or their institutions, for example, their over zealousness in administering matters affecting non-Muslims.

Many are not aware that some of those actions are against Islamic principles.

Many are ignorant that the religion of Islam is in fact the first universal religion guaranteeing human rights. This fact is reflected in the Medina Charter, the world’s first constitutional document written and ratified by all parties concerned 1,400 years ago.

Compared with the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948, the Medina Charter precedes the United Nations’ declaration by one-and-half millennium!

Note that Islam is the only religion that truly affords the non-Muslims their fair share.

Sceptics who doubt the authenticity of my previous remark can refer to old and new historical data, until to the 20th cen-tury.

Islam was also the first religion, from its very inception, which tremendously elevated the status of women and reinstated their dignity when most parts of the world treated them as slaves, as mere sexual objects and a commodity to be traded.

The general public must understand that the modern doctrine concerning human rights is neither divine nor sacred; it is primarily based on the secular teleo-logical philosophy of humanism where man is the measure of all things, good and evil.

It is my contention that some of the ideas surrounding the modern interpretation of human rights run counter to those professed by religion.

Particularly for Muslims, the contemporary discourse on human rights must not be placed above the religion of Islam.

A scrutiny of the latter will show that it does not conflict with the former. If there appear to be contradiction, it is the result of man’s feeble mindedness and ignorance, and not the fault of Islam.

Source