Human Rights: A Weak Contender and a Failed Project
The ‘human rights’ propagated by liberal institutions and various NGOs with the agenda of spreading liberalism is increasingly becoming at odds with Human rationality and Islam. There are growing opposition against the liberal onslaught on religious values by the adherents of the three main Abrahamic faiths which are weaponized by the liberal West. As propagators of the ideology of west, NGOs that once attained credibility as the defenders of lofty values of Human rights are now on a mission to spread the agenda of normalizing homosexuality. Religious minorities who oppose Homosexuality are finding their rights to dissent and freedom of expression curtailed ironically in the name of protecting freedom. It is once again bringing the ideals cherished by liberals into spotlight on its claims of universality and superiority.
Universal or Euro-American values?
Although the laws are derived from the 1948 Human rights declaration by United Nations, the concept and meaning of rights are ever evolving for the worst. Its claims of universality or universal application of these laws on everyone attracted criticisms several decades earlier. Among the ardent critics of the global imposition of human rights from the west were Adamantia Pollis and Peter Schwab. In their book published in 1982 titled- Towards a Human Rights Framework, they argue that the universality of the Human rights declaration is largely political. This is a lived reality for every materialistically underdeveloped country. The politically powerful states of Europe and North-America while violating the very declarations often justified invasions and occupations of other countries in the name of Human rights violations. Pollis and Schwab argue that since human rights originated historically in western Europe and North America, they are confined to the philosophies of Occidental traditions. The German philosopher George Picht however derives the idea of Human rights from ancient stoicism.[i] He claims that the “Utopia of a global order of human rights is but an empty illusion”.[ii] The famous author of “Clash of Civilizations”, Samuel Huntington also propounds his thesis arguing that values of Democracy, liberalism and Political secularism are all western and is convinced that universal human rights are bound to fail.[iii]
Although United Nations passes several resolutions against signatory countries that violates human rights of their citizens or occupying populations, none of its resolutions are binding or enforceable. This renders Human Rights laws meaningless and implies the self-defeatism of its principles. This is because, Human rights laws or United Nations do-not have any solutions to tackle defaulting states or state heads. Moreover, imposing punishments can even go against the very principles of Human rights! Asserting the understanding of Pollis and Schwab that Human rights are a political tool used by NATO states to justify their imperialism. They also evade any form of accountability for their violations and crimes against humanity due to their impunity and hegemony over the International institutions they built.
Human rights contradiction with Shariah
Islamic criticism of Human rights is not merely because of the unenforceable nature of its laws. It is from the truth that human beings cannot ascertain or assign rights or duties themselves. As the creator and sustainer of everything that exist in the whole worlds, only Allah has the authority and wisdom to give rights to his servants. This is embodied in the final revelations of Qur’an and the teachings of final messenger, prophet Muhammad (s.a.w.s) which is the essence of Shariah Law. Islamic scholar Abul A’la Maududi in his book Human rights in Islam explains further:
In Islam, human rights have been conferred by God, no legislative assembly in the world, or any government on earth has the right or authority to make any amendment or change in the rights conferred by God. No one has the right to abrogate them or withdraw them.
Among the various rights conferred upon humans via Qur’an mentioned by Maulana Maududi is the right to cooperate and not to cooperate.[iv] In the Surah Al-Maida, Allah mentions:
“… Help one another in acts of righteousness and piety, and do not help one another in sin and transgression.”
This verse decrees an injunction and a safeguarding right for believers from being violated with transgressing deeds and sins by others. Islam, unlike any existing political or religious philosophy, has a clear conception of what is right and wrong, true and false etc. Qur’an explicitly states major sins and defines transgressions. As a criterion to be followed until the day of Judgement, Allah has given laws regarding major issues in all aspects of human life and its consequences for rejecting his commandments. Since only Allah knows what is good for his creatures and due to the fact put plainly by John J. Mersheimer that “human beings clearly have a real limit for what we can do with our critical faculties to reach an agreement on first principles or questions about good life” , it is very clear that we can’t ascertain rights to ourselves without failing.
Homosexuality is one of the transgressions with huge consequences. Human rights laws are increasingly normalizing a behaviour that has no scientific basis to substantiate it. In her book ‘The end of gender: debunking the myth about sex and identity in our society’, Dr. Debra soh deconstructs all the liberal claims about gender with scientific proofs. She also mentions about the intimidations faced by scientists in the field of sexology from researching and bringing out findings that contradicts with the liberal agenda.
Human rights organizations and liberal states in the west are however spearheading a campaign of LGBT among other things, and are imposing it in schools and other important public institutions in order to indoctrinate a new generation with its evil. Not only are these harmful for its practitioners, it is violating the God-given right of a believer to abstain from and pursue non-cooperation in it.
Homosexuality is addressed in the Qur’an as an immoral and indecent deed. Allah says in the Qur’an as Prophet Lut speaking to his people:
“Do you realise you practice an indecency of which no other people in the world were guilty of before you?”
7:80
Allah stands witness that the sin of homosexuality was first practiced by the people of prophet Lut (a.s) and was not done by any society before them. Allah also warns of the consequences in this life and hereafter for people who wish to see this spread and normalized which is what human rights organisations are presently pursuing all over the world.
Contradictions of Human Rights laws
One only stare at the glaring self-contradictions of Human rights laws. Even arguing using the framework of Human rights, article 19 that guarantees the right to freedom of opinion and expressions without interference, Muslims are denied this right in marking their opposition for same sex marriages or similar things having to do with homosexuality. This also stands true for conservative Christians and Orthodox jews who wish to safe guard their belief and freedom.
Article 29 of the HRD gives limitations to the exercise of rights and freedoms “as determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality …”. According to this article, legislations done to meet the just requirements of morality are the limitations to the freedom and rights of a person. It does not define morality which is clearly beyond its capacity. Liberal conception of morality (if it ever has any) contrasts significantly with the morality defined by Allah and taught by his Messengers.
Indeed, those who love that indecency should be spread (or publicized) among the believers will have a painful punishment in this world and the hereafter. And Allah knows and you do not know.
24:19
After mentioning of the predicament for spreading immorality, Allah states the limitations of human rationality. Human beings do not foresee future, nor understand the perils of their deeds done defying the laws of our creator, Almighty.
There are several instances of Human rights organisations breaching the bounds of morality and Human rights law itself. Recent example is of a January 26th report by Human Rights Watch on homosexuals of Afghanistan. The report featured a drawing of an elder bearded man holding the hand of a young boy, explicitly a Bacha bazi scene. HRW’s decision to use this illustration puts ideas in people’s minds as Bacha bazi as some kind of persecuted alternative lifestyle in Afghanistan when in reality, it is sexual exploitation of boys by older men. The govt. which is taking actions against the criminal offenders and immoral practitioners are being criticized as
Human Rights violations.
HRW report are also criticized by many Afghans including Sangar Paykhar, an analyst on Afghanistan and host of the media ‘Afghan Eye’. Paykhar calls out the absurdity of HRW which claims in the report that Taliban raped gay man. On the one hand the report says Taliban is criminalizing homosexuality and on other, contradictory and irrational arguments are attributed to Taliban. Bacha bazi was supported by occupying forces who permitted the Afghan soldiers of previous regime to keep young boys for their pleasure.
HRW is attacking the Islamic emirate for retaining the criminalization of Bacha bazi (it was criminalized by law by the previous regime) and homosexuals in line with the Qur’anic laws and morality. This is also in violation of HRD article 29. These NGOs are also aiming to normalize immorality and social evils in Muslim majority countries. There is evidently a clash of values, principles and ideological bias of Human Rights laws and its proponents are becoming prominent. All these suggests that principles of Human rights are losing its claim to superiority and universality as they are becoming increasingly contradictory with its own principles and Shariah laws.
[i] Heiner Bielefeldt “”WESTERN” VERSUS “ISLAMIC” HUMAN RIGHTS CONCEPTIONS? A Critique of Cultural Essentialism in the Discussion on Human Rights” ( SAGE publications, 2000), 90
[ii] Georg Picht, “Zum geistesgeschichtlichen Hintergrund der Lehre von den Menschenrechten,” in Hier und Jetzt: Philosophieren nach Auschwitz und Hiroshima (Stuttgart, Germany: Klett-Cotta, 1980), 116-35 at 127
[iii] Ibid, Heiner Bielefeldt.
[iv] Syed Abul A’la Maududi, Human rights in Islam, p.10
