Human Rights and Islam

Published: 1st of July 2023

Introduction

As June comes to an end and another time in the year Pride is celebrated, there has been a significant amount of news concerning the topic within the wider Muslim community this month. For the first time, US Muslims have collectively signed an articulation on Islam’s stance on gender and sexual ethics, i.e. values and morals of the LGBTQ+ ideology [1]. Several incidents have sparked controversy regarding the Muslim community’s response to LGBTQ+ activities. For instance, a child in Londonderry, Canada was criticized for skipping school to avoid LGBTQ+ events [2]. This was not an act of abuse or disrespect, but simply a refusal to participate in certain activities. Moreover, there is growing concern about the inability to opt out of education related to sexual and gender identity on freedom of expression [3]. Although these events may seem distant from us in the UK, they could soon affect us too, if they haven’t already.

Human rights – a term that conjures up images of justice and equality today. A set of fundamental rights that every human is entitled to, regardless of age, ethnicity, language, or location. At least, that was the idea when the UN charter was adopted by most Western countries. But in practice? The reality is far from equal. Simply look at the use around the world today. In France, the ban on the niqab threatens the practice of religion and women claim the use of human rights to protect their right to wear the niqab. Meanwhile, in Iran, people fight for the right to remove the niqab and hijab – and the West celebrates, while women advocate for the human rights to wear as they please. So why are human rights so flawed? The answer lies in their very origins. The term has become loaded and has been subjected to much debate by philosophers regarding human nature, morality, ethics, and ultimately what makes a human, a human.

This article briefly explores the concept and origins of human rights and how the term has become increasingly contentious and problematic when discussing the rights of others.

Human Rights

The roots of human rights emerged during the 17th century. The European wars of religion during this period gave rise to the age of enlightenment or better known as the age of reason. This was the largest philosophical and intellectual movement to occur in Europe since the advent of Christianity some 1500+ years ago. Following the scientific method, the enlightenment phase focused on individual liberty and favored a rational approach that challenged the theistic authority of the church on all values and morals pertaining to humans. Questions pertaining to today’s topics include:

What is a human?
What rights does a human possess inherently?

As a consequence, Europe was at a crossroads of two paths. One was to maintain the theistic perspective that God created man and prescribed a set of laws to govern humans. The other that emerged is the rise of modern liberalism in Naturalism. The 3rd viewpoint that could be given is combining such laws – known as theistic naturalism, but such would contradict God’s commands as you would insist on a human paradigm [4]. Naturalism can be linked closely to materialism, though there is some discussion on whether this is an ontological or methodological sense. For the sake of argument, let us assume this generally.

Naturalism

Naturalism is closely related to Materialism, in that all of reality can be accounted for by the material world. That humans are the product of an evolutionary process that began with matter that through time, chance resulted in what we observe around us. Everything can be understood by physical processes. Therefore, anything that a theistic mind would attribute to God, Soul, Heaven/Hell, will be dismissed as material phenomena such as social constructs, hallucinations, false dreams.

Following naturalism, the human must arrive at a conclusion of their rights. What natural rights do you and your consciousness possess? If you are in control, you exercise autonomy; autonomy being the ability for self-governance without interference.

In the 18th century, philosophers Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill reached two different conclusions regarding the role of autonomy in ethics. Kant came to a principle noted as “Categorical Imperative (CI),” which states that what drives one’s autonomy is driven by an imperative from which all laws stem. An example that illustrates this principle at a basic level is the case of an individual who seeks to borrow money without returning it. Such would break a principal maxim of his called contradiction in conceivability [5]. On the other hand, John Stuart Mill understood autonomy to lie in a theory called Utilitarianism. The essence of this theory is that the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people determines the greater sense of morality [6]. A simple example of this is in the popular trolley problem that addresses this level of moral thought. Taking this example, the utilitarian approach will argue to save five workers instead of one [7]. This can increase and decrease one’s autonomy according to their inclinations, unlike what Kant says. This theory is one that society has embraced for the most part, but leaving that aside, today’s ‘my body my choice’ or ‘my gender my choice’ raises a fundamental question that arises. Who does one serve when God is removed? Though both philosophers argued for two differing points, a key argument of difference is the role of one trait: Desire.

Anatomy

One’s anatomy is seen as the highest value, as long as it doesn’t infringe on the rights of another individual/state (a discussion for another day). Anything that seeks to restrict one’s autonomy is seen as lying in opposition. You live by the motto YOLO (You Only Live Once), which encourages living in the moment and pursuing one’s desires. For example, marriage is viewed by many today as a constraint. Promiscuity is no longer considered immoral. Bachelor parties are referred to as the last chance to indulge in hedonistic behavior. This stands in direct contrast to theistic values.

However, this emphasis on individual autonomy can be easily manipulated by those with their own ulterior motives. Society lacks a common vision of the values and morals that matter most and as a result, a strong moral compass. Values shift from one generation to another based on desire. As a result, any attempt to promote a more religious society is often met with resistance by those who prize individual autonomy above all else. This narrow understanding worldview results in a fragmented society where consensus on fundamental values is hard to achieve.

The concept of autonomy and naturalism is flawed and limited. Questions related to morality, consciousness, or more would be unanswerable. The idea of subservience to one’s whims, which are as unpredictable as a leaf in the wind, is not freedom. True freedom lies in submission to Allah. This epistemic prison (a term coined by Hamza Tzortzis) is one that shackles their minds and, as a result, in a desperate attempt, keeps reinventing the wheel with more subdivisions – anxious to address the weaknesses of their predecessors.

The Islamic Paradigm

The Islamic paradigm lies in complete opposite to these constructs. Allah states in the Quran:

وَمَا خَلَقۡتُ ٱلۡجِنَّ وَٱلۡإِنسَ إِلَّا لِيَعۡبُدُونِ

I did not create jinn and humans except to worship me (51:56)

Allah declares the purpose of creation of humans: to worship him. Notice how Allah singles out the humans and jinn for this command. The reason for this is because Allah has granted the choice to worship Allah or not. Therefore, Allah specifies that worship if the only reason for their existence. That his worship alone be the central point that we revolve our life around, from birth to grave.

أَفَرَءَيۡتَ مَنِ ٱتَّخَذَ إِلَٰهَهُۥ هَوَىٰهُ وَأَضَلَّهُ ٱللَّهُ عَلَىٰ عِلۡمٖ وَخَتَمَ عَلَىٰ سَمۡعِهِۦ وَقَلۡبِهِۦ وَجَعَلَ عَلَىٰ بَصَرِهِۦ غِشَٰوَةٗ فَمَن يَهۡدِيهِ مِنۢ بَعۡدِ ٱللَّهِۚ أَفَلَا تَذَكَّرُونَ

Have you seen those who have taken their own desires as their God? Allah left them astray knowingly, sealed their hearing and hearts, and placed a cover over their sight. Who then can guide them after Allah? Will you not then be mindful? (45:23)

In response to following one’s desires – Allah condemns those who take their desires as their God. Interestingly, some of the exegetes, such as At-Tabari and Ibn Kathir, have offered a different interpretation of the meaning of the word knowledge here (knowingly in the translation). The first, which is more apparent from the translation, is that by virtue of Allah’s knowledge, he made his desire as God and drove him astray. The other is that despite Allah granting this person knowledge, he was driven astray by Allah. Instead, he becomes a slave of his desire with the knowledge granted being of no benefit to them.

Regarding the issue of anatomy, this body that Allah has given us is a gift and not one to be misused. Allah has entrusted us stewardship over it for a small period as opposed than ownership. We have it for a limited time before Allah will question us about how we used it [8].

There is a greater need to address which forms these terms can be taken, but this is beyond me currently to address or press with my opinion.

Conclusion

There is a greater discussion needed within the community about moving away from these principles or slogans used that are contrary to Islam. The persistent use of the verse will erode the rights that we enjoy as a minority but are beginning to lose. As for Islam, it lies in complete opposition to the foundations of naturalism and co. Submission lies in complete contrast to desire-driven morals.

This article aimed to address human rights from a general perspective and not in great detail. As noted earlier, many of the philosophical theories have sub-branches that may differ from them. There is scope to tackle some of these soon as a dedicated set of blogs.

Drees, W.B., 1996. Religion, science and naturalism
Practical Philosophy, translated by Mary Gregor, 1996. Includes: “An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?,” Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, Critique of Practical Reason, and The Metaphysics of Morals.
West, Henry R., 2004, An Introduction to Mill’s Ethics, Cambridge: CUP.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/trolley-problem-moral-philosophy-ethics
Abu Abd-Allah Muhammad ibn Abd-Allah al-Hakim, Al Mustadrak, Hadith 7846: Ibn Abbas reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “Take advantage of five before five: your youth before your old age, your health before your illness, your riches before your poverty, your free time before your work, and your life before your death.”