I came across an article written by Syerleena Abdul Rashid on the Malaysian Insider dated 21st August 2015 entitled ‘Stop demonising human rights’. It was a response article to what the Prime Minister Najib – no matter how scandalous he is now – said at an international Islamic forum:
“Even though universal human rights have been defined… in our country, human rights are defined in the context of Islam. Though it is difficult to defend internationally, we must defend our definition of human rights.”
Throwing back to previous article
Previously I wrote a response article when she discussed on the idea of intellectualism which was rather manipulative than disciplined. In the previous article, she discussed the notion that Islam does promote discovery of knowledge and the use of intellect – which were admittedly true – but she did not set any limits leaving the discourse an infinite and even dangerous possibilities.
Citing the era centuries after the death of Prophet Muhammad with development of scientific, mathematical and philosophical knowledge, she did not assert any relevant proof to her early submission on intellectualism giving way to erroneous interpretation of Quran along with authentic Hadiths. Unsurprisingly, she came with her latest article on human rights trying to articulate the very essence of what she purported to submit in her previous article; reasoning human rights and rules of deen with logics.
I wish not to discuss deeply on the substantive parts, but the way she tries to articulate human rights in Islam in the latest article poses a few disturbing paradoxes.
Human wants equate human rights?
She claimed that Islam does not seek to curb human wants or desires. As Islam is perceived as rahmatan lil alamin, Islam gives room to humans to decide the best for them on their own. This means to say, if a male Muslim wants to express himself as a woman, if a male Muslim wants to have sexual relationship with or even marry another male, if a person wants to do something that is prohibited by Islam, or if a person wants to leave part of Islamic teachings and instructions, they may do so at their own discretion thinking that that is the best for them.
In her latest article, she somehow suggests that human wants equate human rights, and whatever human wants they may be, Islam considers it as human rights and must be fulfilled and protected. LGBT persons, for instance, are considered as a minority group. Human rights in Islam, according to her, ensure that the rights of the minority are equally protected and not subject to the majority rulings and imaginary dictatorship.
Will of Allah against Men’s desire
This, as a consequence, places the idea of humanism above all else, even the will of Allah, the second paradox of Syerleena’s submission. Humanism means the sense of individualism and the autonomy of an individual is highly paramount. She claimed that Islam means submission to Allah – which was admittedly true – but this claim was followed by the proposition that Islam protects the sanctity and absolute value of human life, which somehow devalues the former claim and is open to misunderstanding.
It is true. Islam is rahmatan lil ‘alamin, often quoted by liberal Muslim group, even proudly pronounced by liberal and secular non-Muslim who seek to cause deviation of Muslims from its preserved understanding.
But how could Islam be rahmatan lil alamin, bless to the world and mankind if mankind is able to decide adversely? For instance, when Islam says LGBT is prohibited because it would destruct the family institution and will ruin the hereditary, does mankind have the option to leave that part and live on their own paths regardless of the consequences?
According to Syerleena’s submission, they have such option, and any act of preventing the people from exercising their own choices would be seen as subversion which is contrary to Islamic teachings and the Constitution, she meant to say. Just as how the court declared section 66 of the state enactment as unconstitutional by providing for the power of the Muslim authorities to fine and detain male Muslims wearing women clothes and expressing themselves as women in the public, such exercise of power is deemed subversion towards minorities.
Human rights in Islam have limits
Though it may appear as such, Muslims need to understand that in Islam there are dakwah and syaukah. Islam teaches and Islam punishes. There is positive action of giving reminder and educate the Muslims, and there is also defensive act of punishment for lessons and prevention.
Muslims, in order to achieve taqwa as put by Abdullah Nasih Ulwan in his book ‘Menuju Ketakwaan’, may go through one of the ways that is mu’aqabah and may submit themselves to the penalties and punishment which are bearable and not extravagance for them to take their sins and wrongdoings seriously and for repentance.
It is arguable that such notion is weakly enlivened by the civil courts which tend to take secular and sometimes liberal approach in deciding matter relating to religion. But such exercise of power is to curb unwanted cultures which are against the religion and even the grundnorm of the local society.
The clash
As how the people acknowledge that there is no limitless freedom, there are also no limitless human rights.
While one side of Muslim groups seek to maintain the traditional understanding of Islam to avoid confusion and deviant teachings, liberal Muslims call for reformation and liberation of the understanding, even declare the former as extremists and going backwards, changing the methodology and way to come about the interpretation which may be overwhelmingly individualistic.
This must come to an end, and responsible Muslims should familiarize themselves and spot on any liberal thoughts with overemphasis on logics or reasons to avoid shifts in their way of thinking. As how Syaitan once argued, as put by Tim Winter, also known as Shaykh Abdal Hakim Murad who is a British Sunni Muslim shaykh, researcher, writer and academic;
“God has commanded the angels to prostrate themselves before Adam, the newly-created, sleepy creature, and they do so, ‘except Iblis’, who protests that ‘You have created me of fire, and him of clay.’ (7:12) Hence this proud worshipper of God Alone, who uses logic to defy God’s own command, is cast out, to be the calamity of the world.” (Source: Tim Winter, Reason as Balance: The Evolution of ‘aql, CMC Papers No. 3)
Danial A. Shaari
Bachelor of Laws (LLB)
The University of Adelaide
Australia
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official views of, and should not be attributed to, Isma or Ismaweb.
