News

  • Nation
  • World Updates
  • Courts
  • Parliament
  • Columnists
  • Opinion
  • Honours List

Tuesday September 22, 2009

‘Human rightism’ vs religion

By DR WAN AZHAR WAN AHMAD


THE doctrine of human rights seems to have developed into an ism that has rapidly spread, and been embraced, defended and championed by an increasing number of people beyond ethnic and cultural boundaries worldwide.

This universal human rightism is also perceived by many as an ideology that prevails over national laws and even transcending religions.

For some reasons, conflicts are always portrayed to happen when the values of human rightism are brought against the teachings of Islam.

Such a confrontation either results from a form of discreet campaign to smear Islam out of historical vengeance, fear of the unknown, suspicion and envy, or sheer ignorance and obstinacy of certain quarters to heed to acknowledge the truth.

The drinking case of Kartika Sari Dewi Shukarno and the punishment meted out by the Syariah Court has been, again, exploited as another occasion where the clash purportedly occurs. It generated tremendous interest from inside and outside the country.

A number of self-appointed individuals and organisations came forward to speak for and against Islam, commenting on its legal and judicial system, and the wisdom of the authorities involved.

On the one side, many would agree with the decision to punish Kartika as a deterrent measure and a lesson to other Muslims.

But in the process, was she being sufficiently advised? Is it justified to impose a maximum whipping punishment on a first offender?

All these must be clearly explained in the written judgment of the judge concerned, if any.

On the other side, I wonder why the Syariah Court looks a bit shaky in handling the issue and appears to succumb to external pressure. Once the decision has been made, though deemed controversial from certain perspectives, the court must stand firm by its judgment.

The caning, despite being questioned, must be carried out.

But when the court somehow retracted or deferred the decision, its integrity is at stake. People are making mockery out of the whole episode.

They query the court’s consistency and ability to deal with such a case and similar situation in the future. Sadly, the perceived failure has denigrated the public confidence of the court, and this has to be remedied.

Let’s turn to the mockers of the case. Some remark that whipping for drinking intoxicating beverages is not there in the Quran. It’s true, but the sources of Islamic law is not confined to the Holy Book alone.

Certain provisions of the Syariah are also derivable from three other authentic sources, namely, the prophetic Traditions, analogy and consensus of jurists.

Once established, after fulfilling certain stringent criterion, that particular provision becomes a text of law which is basically unalterable.

Nevertheless, even if a certain position has been established as law, its implementation may be subject to suspension, exemption or deferment, depending on the circumstances.

Criminal offences that come under the purview of hudud, for example, must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Any iota of doubt will oblige the court to drop the prescribed punishment, even though it is clearly carved in the Quran, Traditions, or categorically concluded by means of analogy and consensus.

Another argument goes to the effect that every Tom, Dick and Harry must be given a chance to speak about things even if he has no sufficient knowledge about or no knowledge at all.

It is as if we ask a layman having no knowledge and training in medicine to prescribe medication for a dying patient.

In religious matters, not everybody has the right to claim that he enjoys the freedom to give an opinion as he wishes without first gaining a certain degree of knowledge on the subject matter in dispute.

Religious matters must be left in the hands of qualified ulama to address, in as much as medical matters must be given to qualified doctors.

If one is ill-informed or totally in the dark about any religious precept, then one has to do some research, seek counsel from those who are competent, qualified and authoritative.

In the case of Islamic law, one must understand some basics why certain offences are treated in certain ways.

The entire Syariah aims at preserving the good interests and welfare of human beings, non-Muslims included, either by securing benefit or avoiding harm.

Its objectives are to educate the individuals, to establish justice and to promote the interest of the public.

This covers the protection of religion, reason, body, progeny and wealth.

The prohibition of intoxicating liquors is obviously for the protection of reason.

A man who loses his reason and sanity may inflict injury to himself and others.

Habitual drinking and its resulting intoxication are destructive to one’s family.

Addiction will adversely affect one’s wealth, and the combination of all will ultimately ruin ones’s life and religion.

Islam considers it as the mother of all vices, and thus prohibits it completely.

Interestingly, if one studies other religions or cultures, one may find parallelisms in terms of the prohibitive injunctions of intoxicants, rationales for such prohibitions and traits of punishments for any transgression.

The religious, social and economic ill-effects of intoxicants are too well known, some of which are even objectively and scientifically proven.

Many look at human rightism with awe and embrace its values in toto at the expense of religion, even ethics and morality.

We have become secularists, and have adopted secular humanism as our new guidelines, new religion.

Consciously or unconsciously influenced by Protagoras’s idea that man is the measure of all things, these proponents of human rightism for instance regard absolute freedom as their absolute right.

Along that line, they hold that all values are relative. What has been considered as good today may change tomorrow, and vice versa.

In the light of the fact that all religions or ethical systems promote virtues, we may conclude that human rightism predominantly represents a set of concepts, doctrines and values that are based on secularism.

Both as an ideology and movement, secularism is against all religions. So our common enemy is this secularism, and not among our respective groups.

Therefore, respect each other’s position, do not interfere in any subject matter that we are not well informed of, or that does not concern our interest.

To foster a better understanding and harmonious co-existence, let’s have more dialogues, with open-mindedness.

  • E-mail this story
  • Print this story