Tuesday June 6, 2006

Freedom to do what is right

Ikim Views
By WAN AZHAR WAN AHMAD

HUMAN rights concern the “fundamental rights” of every person to justice, equality and freedom.

According to the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948, all men and women, regardless of social, economic or political status, are born free and equal in dignity and rights and are entitled to all the rights and freedoms stated in the declaration.

This document grants absolute freedom to both men and women.

Reference to religion is peripheral whereas its secular orientation is overwhelming.

Islam has been portrayed as a religion that clashes with the modern discourse on human rights, suggesting an ongoing enmity between the secular West and the Muslim East.

Is Islam or Syariah really an antithesis to human rights?

The Westernised liberal advocates championing human rights and discerning Muslims concerned about the sanctity of their religion have been defending their respective positions.

Which one should prevail? To some, the answer is clear but to others, it is obscure.

The problem stems from misgivings both have due to lack of knowledge and exposure to the ideas of each other.

However, these conflicting perceptions can be reconciled.

What is important is open-mindedness and willingness to recognise authorities.

“Authorities” here refer to erudite scholars and credible scholarship.

The opinions of these authorities may be embraced to the extent that one of the parties may need to modify or abandon their earlier position.

Otherwise, there will be chaos and anarchy in society because if truth is rejected due to ignorance and stubbornness, then arrogance and obstinacy will triumph.

Consequently, the issue will never be resolved.

The exponents of both positions must have relied upon principles derived from those deemed authoritative in building the framework of their understanding of these issues.

The modern doctrine of human rights is based on the philosophy of humanism, where man is regarded as the measure of everything.

This philosophy was founded upon secularism.

It says the entire world is at the complete disposal of humans who could do whatever they liked.

This notion is prominent in the contemporary discourse on human rights.

“Rights,” “freedom,” “equality” and “justice” are the key terms dominating the discussion.

We will examine the first two. And since we are doing so from the Islamic angle, the term “syariah” will be included.

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, it is possible to briefly understand the meanings of the interrelated terms both in their Western and Islamic-Arabic nuance.

Islam acknowledges human rights but not without certain forms of control and limitation.

This is reflected in the Universal Islamic Declaration of Human Rights of 1981.

It states that human conduct is governed by syariah.

Syariah refers to the totality of Islamic law pertaining to the faith and conduct of every Muslim where God and His injunctions reign supreme.

Nothing falls outside this corpus of divine law.

“Rights” allude 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 and morally or socially correct.

The literal Islamic-Arabic equivalent of “rights” is huquq, referring to a state, quality or property of being wise, just, right, true, real and proper.

There is an 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 secular humanists, all these noble elements evaporate into thin air.

Instead, these secularists propagate a concept of “rights” devoid of God, religion or morality.

It is this irreligious and amoral idea of human rights that suffocates religion, particularly Islam.

Islam abhors this notion of human rights and offers another concept that embraces all the aforementioned positive meanings and values.

Accordingly, things which are religiously or morally wrong cannot be deemed “rights.”

Murder, suicide, robbery, adultery, rape, homosexuality and same-gender marriages are all wrong and despicable acts from both the perspectives of Islam and morality.

These acts are even considered as crimes in many countries.

This suggests that unregulated rights are against the law.

Thus, one cannot claim to have the liberty to legalise or commit any of those 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 cannot leave Islam as it is both a crime and a sin.

As such, it is religion which has priority over any teleological claim of human rights.

“Freedom” refers to the condition of being free or the state of being free to act.

In Islam, this concept is couched in the term ikhtiyar, meaning power of choice.

The term is derived from the word khayr, which means good.

Freedom in Islam implies free choice of what is good or better.

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, as far as Islam or morality is concerned, is not real freedom.

In this spirit, the Islamic concept of freedom differs from that of the secular idea.

Hence, the so-called freedom to be homosexual, for example, cannot be seen as a real freedom as it is not a choice for the better.

This can be extended to many other cases where man tends to opt for the bad, disregarding the many other good things available.

News Poll

Latest Jobs from Star-Jobs

Latest from StarProperty