HUMAN RIGHTS IN ISLAM

[Baashi]

HUMAN RIGHTS IN ISLAM

 

By Abu Al'Ala Muadudi

 

CHAPTER ONE:

 

HUMAN RIGHTS, THE WEST AND ISLAM

 

Before I discuss the human rights in Islam I would like to explain a few points about two major approaches to the question of human rights: the Western and Islamic. This will enable us to study the issue in its proper perspective and avoid some of the confusion which normally befogs such a discussion.

 

The Western Approach:

 

The people in the West have the habit of attributing every good thing to themselves and try to prove that it is because of them that the world got this blessing, otherwise the world was steeped in ignorance and completely unaware of all these benefits. Now let us look at the question of human rights. It is very loudly and vociferously claimed that the world got the concept of basic human rights from the Magna Carta of Britain; though the Magna Carta itself came into existence six hundred years after the advent of Islam. But the truth of the matter is that until the seventeenth century no one even knew that the Magna Carta contained the principles of Trial by Jury; Habeas Corpus, and the Control of Parliament on the Right of Taxation. If the people who had drafted the Magna Carta were living today they would have been greatly surprised if they were told that their document also contained all these ideals and principles. They had no such intention, nor were they conscious of all these concepts which are now being attributed to them. As far as my knowledge goes the Westerners had no concept of human rights and civic rights before the seventeenth century. Even after the seventeenth century the philosophers and the thinkers on jurisprudence though presented these ideas, the practical proof and demonstration of these concepts can only be found at the end of the eighteenth century in the proclamations and constitutions of America and France. After this there appeared a reference to the basic human rights in the constitutions of different countries. But more often the rights which were given on paper were not actually given to the people in real life.

 

In the middle of the present century, the United Nations, which can now be more aptly and truly described as the Divided Nations, made a Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and passed a resolution against genocide and framed regulations to check it. But as you all know there is not a single resolution or regulation of the United Nations which can be enforced. They are just an expression of a pious hope. They have no sanctions behind them, no force, physical or moral to enforce them.

 

Despite all the high-sounding ambitious resolutions of the United Nations, human rights have been violated and trampled upon at different places, and the United Nations has been a helpless spectator. She is not in a position to exercise an effective check on the violation of human rights. Even the heinous crime of genocide is being perpetrated despite all proclamations of the United Nations. Right in the neighbouring country of Pakistan, genocide of the Muslims has been taking place for the last twenty- eight years, but the United Nations does not have the power and strength to take any steps against India. No action has even been taken against any country guilty of this most serious and revolting crime.

 

The Islamic Approach:

 

The second point which I would like to clarify at the very outset is that when we speak of human rights in Islam we really mean that these rights have been granted by God; they have not been granted by any king or by any legislative assembly. The rights granted by the kings or the legislative assemblies, can also be withdrawn in the same manner in which they are conferred. The same is the case with the rights accepted and recognized by the dictators. They can confer them when they please and withdraw them when they wish; and they can openly violate them when they like. But since 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. Nor are they the basic human rights which are conferred on paper for the sake of show and exhibition and denied in actual life when the show is over. Nor are they like philosophical concepts which have no sanctions behind them.

 

The charter and the proclamations and the resolutions of the United Nations cannot be compared with the rights sanctioned by God; because the former is not applicable to anybody while the latter is applicable to every believer. They are a part and parcel of the Islamic Faith. Every Muslim or administrators who claim themselves to be Muslims will have to accept, recognize and enforce them. If they fail to enforce them, and start denying the rights that have been guaranteed by God or make amendments and changes in them, or practically violate them while paying lip-service to them, the verdict of the Holy Quran for such governments is clear and unequivocal:

 

Those who do not judge by what God has sent down are the dis Believers (kafirun). 5:44 The following verse also proclaims: "They are the wrong-doers (zalimun)" (5:45), while a third verse in the same chapter says: "They are the evil-livers (fasiqun)" (5:47). In other words this means that if the temporal authorities regard their own words and decisions to be right and those given by God as wrong they are disbelievers. If on the other hand they regard God's commands as right but wittingly reject them and enforce their own decisions against God's, then they are the mischief-makers and the wrong-doers. Fasiq, the law-breaker,is the one who disregards the bond of allegiance, and zalim is he who works against the truth. Thus all those temporal authorities who claim to be Muslims and yet violate the rights sanctioned by God belong to one of these two categories, either they are the disbelievers or are the wrong- doers and mischief-makers. The rights which have been sanctioned by God are permanent, perpetual and eternal. They are not subject to any alterations or modifications, and there is no scope for any change or abrogation.

 

 

CHAPTER TWO:

 

BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS

 

 

The first thing that we find in Islam in this connection is that it lays down some rights for man as a human being. In other words it means that every man whether he belongs to this country or that, whether he is a believer or unbeliever, whether he lives in some forest or is found in some desert, whatever be the case, he has some basic human rights simply because he is a human being, which should be recognized by every Muslim. In fact it will be his duty to fulfil these obligation

1. The Right to Life

2. The Right to the Safety of Life

3. Respect for the Chastity of Women

4. The Right to a Basic Standard of Life

5. Individual's Right to Freedom

6. The Right to Justice

7. Equality of Human Beings

8. The Right to Co-operate and Not to Co-operate

 

Source

[Al-Rasheed]

I have heard that somewhere in the UN building there is a statement of Omar AlFaroq, the 2nd caliph "When were you enslaved people when their mothers bore them as free people"

 

Islam teachings are really the basics of human rights which westerns today making their child and its sole advocates.

[Khayr]

good topic that shows the confused mentality of muslims. I was listening online to a talk to Hamza Yusuf when blurted out that we should aspire to this idea: 'LIFE, LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS' Does that sound familiar?

 

Those who do not judge by what God has sent down are the dis Believers (kafirun). 5:44 The following verse also proclaims: "They are the wrong-doers (zalimun)" (5:45), while a third verse in the same chapter says: "They are the evil-livers (fasiqun)" (5:47). In other words this means that if the temporal authorities regard their own words and decisions to be right and those given by God as wrong they are disbelievers. If on the other hand they regard God's commands as right but wittingly reject them and enforce their own decisions against God's, then they are the mischief-makers and the wrong-doers. Fasiq, the law-breaker,is the one who disregards the bond of allegiance, and zalim is he who works against the truth. Thus all those temporal authorities who claim to be Muslims and yet violate the rights sanctioned by God belong to one of these two categories, either they are the disbelievers or are the wrong- doers and mischief-makers. The rights which have been sanctioned by God are permanent, perpetual and eternal. They are not subject to any alterations or modifications, and there is no scope for any change or abrogation.

 

1. The Right to Life

2. The Right to the Safety of Life

3. Respect for the Chastity of Women

4. The Right to a Basic Standard of Life

5. Individual's Right to Freedom

6. The Right to Justice

7. Equality of Human Beings

8. The Right to Co-operate and Not to Co-operate

Are these Rights unconditional or conditional?

 

What is the defintion of Human in the Islamic Tradition?

 

Is there Equality of Human Beings?

 

Are these Rights Absolute?

 

What comes first-Fulffling Divine Rights or Human Rights?

[codetalker]

^

 

In Islam, fulfilling Divine rights comes first.

 

Those who do not judge by what God has sent down are the dis Believers (kafirun). 5:44 The following verse also proclaims: "They are the wrong-doers (zalimun)" (5:45), while a third verse in the same chapter says: "They are the evil-livers (fasiqun)" (5:47). In other words this means that if the temporal authorities regard their own words and decisions to be right and those given by God as wrong they are disbelievers.

Powerful.

[Tarsan]

Agree!

 

It all boils down to that taking lifes and abuse others are forbidden in the eyes of Allah.

 

I think this is the case in all mayor religions.

 

Many have used religion to depress others as we know, but It can never be right.

The case is : Allah is perfect...

The people who claim speaking on his behalf is not!

 

Don`t do anything against your concience, it will stick to your soul.

[Salahh]

You listed eight fundamental human rights. But in essence, I think some of these rights don't play with what Islam had to offer when it came on the table. Looking at the three rights listed below, how did they factor into Islam when slavery was rampant?

 

5. Individual's Right to Freedom

7. Equality of Human Beings

8. The Right to Co-operate and Not to Co-operate

 

If an individual has a right to be free, and this in itself is a divine right, why wasn't slavery abolished as soon as Islam was introduced? How can two men be equal if one is a slave? What would happen to a slave if he chose not to co-operate?

[Viking]

Salahh,

Originally posted by Salahh:

If an individual has a right to be free, and this in itself is a divine right, why wasn't slavery abolished as soon as Islam was introduced? How can two men be equal if one is a slave? What would happen to a slave if he chose not to co-operate?

Slavery wasn't abolished immediately probably because it would have had a massive impact on the economy of the society. The conditions were changed immediately though, they were treated more humanely and given more rights and more emphasis was put on the virtues of freeing or marrying a slave. Look at the lives of people like Salman al-Farsi (a Persian) and Bilaal ibn Rabaah (an Abyssinian) to see the role slaves played in Islam.

 

Slavery was eventually eradicated and abolished much faster in Arabia than it was anywhere else in the world.

[Naden]

Viking,

 

Indeed, slaves were given rights and slaveowner responsibilities with the birth of Islam. When Henri Dunant, red cross founder, visited several muslim countries in North Africa (1860), he commented on the 'relative mildness' of the slavery practice in comparison to common colonial practices.

 

Slavery wasn't abolished immediately

probably

because it would have had a massive impact on the economy of the society.

I think a ‘gradual’ abolition is but one deduction from the link between freeing slaves and acts of worship and/or righteousness. Freeing a slave in some instances in the Quran is akin to spending of one’s wealth, and a person who cannot do either can substitute with fasting. A slave is a part of one’s wealth, and giving of one’s wealth away (as in the case of freeing a slave or marrying one) are but one of the ways a Muslim gives away precious property to absolve sin, gain righteousness and so on. The issue whether this link was designed to eventually end slavery may remain a matter of conjecture.

 

I've always believed the economic impact of slavery abolition and how it needed to be gradual was also conjecture at best. What was more central to the Arab/Bedouin’s economic, social, and spiritual life than polytheism? Nothing, probably. With Islam, it needed not to be eradicated in steps but was forbidden wholly and immediately.

 

Owning a human being is a stinky affair practiced in all civilizations in one form or another. I think it was regulated by Islam as were other human relationships in the Quran. It's abolishment, I believe, came along with other human advances in knowledge and awareness. This design of God, in my opinion, is more relevant.

 

Slavery was eventually eradicated and abolished much faster in Arabia than it was anywhere else in the world.

I believe Saudi Arabia and Yemen both abolished slavery in 1962. While it is true that Saudi Arabia was only a country for about 3 decades by then, Islam was there close to 1400 years. A gradual plan of abolishment would have seen the death of enslavement not more than a few generations after the compiling of the Quran.

[Viking]

naden,

It's 2006 and Saudi Arabia despite being the centre of Islam is still a despotic monarchy and a nation where even Muslims feel uneasy to stay. The important thing for people to understand is that Islam does not condone slavery and that the slavery of the 10th century Arabia was nothing like the American slavery where people were over 400 million people were taken from Africa and bred solely as slaves based on the colour of their skin.

[Khayr]

Originally posted by Naden:

Owning a human being is a stinky affair practiced in all civilizations in one form or another. I think it was regulated by Islam as were other human relationships in the Quran. It's abolishment, I believe, came along with other human advances in knowledge and awareness. This design of God, in my opinion, is more relevant.

Did the majority of muslim scholarship, 1400yrs worth of scholarship, abolish slavery? If yes, which of the great pre-20th century Ulama/muslim scholarship forbade slavery in islam?

 

Abolishment of slavery came along with other human advance in knowledge and awareness

 

What is the definition of human advancement?

 

What do humans advance towards? Is that their purpose? i.e. to become progressive

 

Advances in what kind of knowledge and awareness of whom or what subject (s)?

[Naden]

Khayr

 

How come you never answer some of the questions you pose? You remind me of humanities classes in university, make a girl shake in her boots . Tell you what, I will answer the first 2 if you answer the last 2. Okay?

[Khayr]

Originally posted by Naden:

Khayr

 

How come you never answer some of the questions you pose? You remind me of humanities classes in university, make a girl shake in her boots

. Tell you what, I will answer the first 2 if you answer the last 2. Okay?

I hope that all those smog alerts have not weakened your movements and your rubber sharp wits.

 

We await your responses.

 

Good day!

[Johnny B]

Some brothers are as usual trying to make excuses for islamic slavery by pointing to the fact that Islam diden't introduce slavery or the rate with which it was abolished in Arabia , or asking cheap rhetoric questions, but In the words of Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, one of the greatest scholars and chroniclers of Islam,

Slavery was practiced by Mohammed(pbuh) himself, his wives and all his family and relatives.

 

"Zad al-Ma'ad" (Part I, p. 160), (part 1, pp. 114, 115, and 116),

 

Here , we're not talking about the bounties(today's POWs), we're talking about trading slaves, buying and selling a human beeing.

 

"Muhammad had many male and female slaves. He used to buy and sell them, but he purchased (more slaves) than he sold, especially after God empowered him by His message, as well as after his immigration from Mecca. He (once) sold one black slave for two. His name was Jacob al-Mudbir. His purchases of slaves were more (than he sold). He was used to renting out and hiring many slaves, but he hired more slaves than he rented out."

 

Here are the names of Mohammed (pbum)'s slaves.

 

Radwa,Yakan Abu Sharh, Aflah,Salma Um Rafi', 'Ubayd, Dhakwan, Tahman, Mirwan, Hunayn, Sanad, Fadala Yamamin, Anjasha al-Hadi,Rayhana, Mad'am, Karkara, Abu Rafi', Thawban, Ab Kabsha, Salih, Rabah,Khadra, Yara Nubyan, Fadila, Waqid, Mabur, Abu Waqid, Kasam, Abu 'Ayb,Maymuna daughter of Abu Asib,Razina, Abu Muwayhiba,Um Damira, Zayd Ibn Haritha,Maymuna daughter of Sa'd,Mary the Coptic, and also a black slave called Mahran, who was re-named (by Muhammad) Safina (`ship'),in addition to two other maid-slaves, one of them given to him as a present by his cousin, Zaynab, and the other one captured in a war.

[NGONGE]

In the middle of the present century, the United Nations, which can now be more aptly and truly described as the Divided Nations, made a Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and passed a resolution against genocide and framed regulations to check it. But as you all know there is not a single resolution or regulation of the United Nations which can be enforced. They are just an expression of a pious hope. They have no sanctions behind them, no force, physical or moral to enforce them.

 

Despite all the high-sounding ambitious resolutions of the United Nations, human rights have been violated and trampled upon at different places, and the United Nations has been a helpless spectator. She is not in a position to exercise an effective check on the violation of human rights. Even the heinous crime of genocide is being perpetrated despite all proclamations of the United Nations. Right in the neighbouring country of Pakistan, genocide of the Muslims has been taking place for the last twenty- eight years, but the United Nations does not have the power and strength to take any steps against India. No action has even been taken against any country guilty of this most serious and revolting crime.

Seeing that the author failed to compare like with like and instead chose to regard the West as some sort of faith that is an equal (or at least an alternative) to Islam. Wouldn’t the above quote apply to Islam too?

 

The rules and commandments of Islam are very clear yet, in most cases, they’re not being followed. Does this not equate to the United Nations charter and how it’s also not being followed? Isn’t a case of “just an expression of a pious hope†in both instances, rendering this piece null and void?

 

Of course, the author, bogged down by his narrow interpretation of events and carried away by his desire to prove a moot point, has neglected to mention that the Magna Carta, Declaration of Human Rights and many other man made laws have borrowed from and adapted from many other divine faiths (seeing that Christianity was and is the major faith in those parts).

 

With the utmost respect to sheikh Abu Al'Ala Muadudi I still believe this piece to be nothing but pointless humbug. My only hope is that this was not the whole article and that he expanded (and explained) on his points as he went on.

 

The issue of slavery is a different kettle of fish altogether. Today, in this prosperous and relatively safe world that we live in (yes, I said safe), we can turn our noses up at slavery and regard it as some sort of abomination that should never and can never be condoned. The conditions we have now give us the privilege and luxury to dismiss it in such a way and pose such thoughtful questions about it. However, what if circumstances change and the world reverts back to the disorganisation and wars of the past? What if the conditions are created in which slavery is forced on the people of the world again? Do you believe the justifications for it will not be forthcoming from all sides (Westerners and Muslims)?

 

Having not consulted any historical sources or done in through research on the subject but, instead, relied on fragments of stories and history from my memory, I recall that many tribes/people of the past used slavery as a method of guaranteeing their own safety. Once another tribe was conquered, the safest way to ensure that they don’t regroup and threaten you again was to sell them into slavery in far away lands.

 

In addition, humans in general enjoy lording it over their subordinates and inferiors. One need only look at the domestic servants in any Arab/Western or African homes to see such a characteristic in action. Granted, the ‘ownership’ here is not by force but rather by need (the servant needs the money and, in most cases, is willing and resigned to accepting your domination over him/her). I expect that the general retort here would be that many modern bosses (owners) treat their subordinates well and that they in no way compare to the wicked slave-owners! Still, I’d like to wager that many slave-owners were not wicked and oppressive and that many slaves, having given up on freedom, loved their owners. Now, with such an inherent characteristic coupled with a change in circumstances and a mental conditioning borne by that change, would the acceptance of slavery seem like such a great leap?

[Viking]

JB,

No rest for the wicked eh?