By Farhang Jahanpour, University of
Oxford
Note: This article was first published by Journal of
Globalization for the Common Good
Abstract
The paper examines whether
human rights concepts are applicable to Islam or not. It provides a comparative
study of the popular perceptions of Islam versus the West, and argues that with
a correct understanding of the Koran and Islamic teachings it is possible to
defend human rights concepts from inside the Islamic texts. It also argues that
most Western views of Islam are due to insufficient understanding of Islam and
often based on political considerations, rather than on what Islam stands for.
The long history of Islam's peaceful coexistence and interaction with other
cultures and civilisations proves that the theory of a 'clash of civilisations'
is wrong, and it is possible to establish real dialogue and understanding with
Muslims.
War is the greatest scourge
of our time. In many ways, the twentieth century was the worst century in human
history in terms of people who were killed as the result of local, regional and
international wars, most of them fought in the name of good causes, such as
freedom, democracy, socialism, etc. Yet it was the age of mass killing on an
unprecedented scale. It was the century of technological barbarism and
mechanised butchery. It is estimated that between 150-170 million people were
slaughtered in various wars during that century.
A great American peace
activist, Phil Berrigan, who spent 11 of his 79 years in prison for his
non-violent protests against war, ended his review of Sr. Rosalie Bertell's
book, Planet Earth: The Latest Weapon of War, with these words:
"The military as an instrument of
mass killing is a waste institution - humans, energy, oil, metals, scientific
and technical skills, money - it consumes all and restores nothing to the
resources of the planet. Any faithful or sane scrutiny would conclude that it
must be dismantled. It kills, threatens and wastes - it is the BIG LIE
institutionalized. Its veneer and untouchability gives new meaning to the
demonic. Is anybody out there listening?"1
At a time when a number of
neocons are once again inciting war and violence, this time against
Iran, on equally dubious
grounds that led to the invasion of Iraq, the time has come for all the
people of goodwill to raise their voices louder against this insane venture.
Ever since the fall of the Soviet Union, some people who are not able to live
without a real or imaginable enemy have put forward the dangerous philosophy of
a clash of civilisations. The whole history of 800 years of coexistence between
Islam and Hinduism and Buddhism in India; the coexistence of Muslims, Christians
and Jews in Spain; the coexistence of Muslims and followers of other faiths in
Iran, Turkey, Egypt, etc show that it is possible for the people from different
religions or civilisations to live peacefully together.
Since the dreadful events
of 9/11 this drive to divide the world between 'those who are with us' and
'those who are against us' has intensified and has produced many unfortunate
consequences. The world has been divided as never before and a climate of fear
and suspicion has enveloped the world. If those who wish to prevent the
realisation of that nightmare do not oppose that pernicious philosophy, it may
become a self-fulfilled prophecy with all that it might
entail.
While up to less than two
decades ago there was a serious clash between the West and the communist bloc,
since the collapse of the Soviet Union Islam or Islamic fundamentalism has been
portrayed as the enemy that has to be defeated. This is the undeclared focus of
the 'war on terror', not realising that terror is a tactic not an enemy.
Although communism posed a deadly threat to the West, it was an economic or at
best a political ideology, without deep roots in people's souls and
consciousness. Islam, like Christianity, Hinduism or Buddhism is a religion that
has profound roots in the consciousness of hundreds of millions of adherents.
Unlike secular ideologies, religions tend to get stronger as the result of
persecution. The best way to deal with religious fundamentalism is not to wage a
war against it, but to remove or moderate its influence through rational
arguments, preferably borrowed from the same religious discourse from which they
emerge. This is what happened in the West during the Reformation and the Age of
Enlightenment, and this is what needs to be done in Islam, by Muslims
themselves.
The concepts of democracy
and human rights are said to constitute part of the Western crusade against the
so-called 'Islamo-fascism'. It is argued that these concepts are incompatible
with Islam and, therefore, logically it follows that their success requires the
defeat or the elimination of Islam. Not only is such an argument dangerous and
provocative, it is essentially wrong. In this paper I intend to discuss some
Islamic concepts that provide a fertile ground for the development of human
rights among Muslims.
In order to discuss the
universal definition of human rights, it may be useful to start by saying that
like terrorism, the definition of human rights is not as easy as it looks. After
the terrible events of 9/11, the United Nations spent a lot of time trying to
figure out what terrorism is and they didn't reach any conclusion. Then there
was a meeting of the Islamic countries and they tried to come to an agreement,
and they didn't come up with anything. It cannot be easily defined, because one
country’s terrorist is another country’s freedom fighter. Look at
Israel. Both the Israelis and the
Palestinians describe the activities of the other side as terrorism. Hopefully,
the situation may be a little easier in the case of human
rights.
In describing the
relationship between Islam and the West, let me start with what are the popular
perceptions of Islam in the West, and by that I do not mean among the readers of
tabloids but among the educated and on the whole tolerant people. In recent
years, I have been teaching an online course on Islam and the West for the
universities of Oxford, Yale and Stanford. In one of the
sessions of the course, I asked the students to list what they see as
differences between Islam and the West. One of the students provided the
following list, which may act as a good basis for appreciating Western views
about Islam. Here I quote the entire list as was written by my
student:
1. Islam is Theocratic, the
West is Secular.
2. Islam wants religion to
have a major role in governance and in society, whereas the West wants it
excluded.
3. Islam wants to dominate
the world, the West believes in coexistence.
4. Islam encourages war in
defence of the Islamic Faith (the so-called ‘lesser Jihad’); the West encourages
a ‘live and let live’ approach to matters of faith [Clearly there have been no
religious wars in the West].
5. Morality is absolute in
Islam; it is often situational and relative in the West.
6. Islam is idealistic; the
West is pragmatic. (In the West, if it works, do it; in Islam, if the Koran
permits it, do it).
7. Islam cherishes the rule
of God as made known in the Koran; the West cherishes the rule of man by the
exercise of his reason, and changes the rule as and when reason
dictates.
8. Islam is Puritanical,
the West is Hedonistic. ("If it feels good, do it" in the West, versus "If it
feels good, don’t do it" in Islam).
9. In Islam ‘Progress’ is a
return to a Golden Age (the time of the Prophet). In the West ‘Progress’ is out
there somewhere in the unknown future to be achieved with the advancement of
science.
10. Islam honours
tradition, the West honours innovation.
11. Islam honours the
community; the West honours the individual.
12. Islamic economics
rejects the paying and collecting of interest. In the West interest is one of
the two pillars that finance economic development. Think bonds, mortgages,
deficit financing, and bank loans. (The other pillar in the West is equity
participation in financial ventures, which is also permitted in Islam.)
13. The family structure in
Islam is extended and patriarchal; in the West it is nuclear and
parental.
I have quoted the above
list in full because it provides a good example of public perceptions in the
West about the differences that separates Islam from the West. These ideas are
deeply ingrained, and it is not possible to dispel them easily. What surprised
me, however, was not the list itself. I would have expected such a list from a
secular Western observer who is indifferent or even hostile to religion as a
whole and Islam in particular. What surprised me was that it was prepared by an
ordained clergyman who, one can assume, is religious and makes a distinction
between secular or even hedonistic aspects of contemporary Western culture, and
its Christian roots that still permeate the society and provide it with its
spiritual and moral underpinnings.
From the above list, one
can see that the student is not comparing Islam with the 'West', but is
providing a list of differences between a religious and a materialistic or
secular point of view. If we look at the list and simply replace the word Islam
with Christianity, we will see that nearly all the differences are still valid.
Like Islam, Christianity is theocratic, not secular; it believes that religion
must play a major role in one's life; it believes that morality is absolute and
its rules are laid out in the Bible; it is idealistic, not pragmatic; it
believes in divine law rather than human law; it honours tradition, supports
family life, cherishes community and is not hedonistic. Christ preaches that his
kingdom is not of this world, and prepared his followers for admission to the
Kingdom of
God. As for wishing to
dominate the world, neither Christianity nor Islam wants to dominate the world,
although both of them would like to teach their faith to the whole world. So,
people seem to be confusing religious versus secular worldviews with Islam
versus the West. They are juxtaposing Islam, a diverse and varied religion with
followers spread from Indonesia to Tunisia, with
the West, which is a geographical or cultural or political
concept.
In the same way, that it
was possible for Christians to move towards the establishment of democracy and
the institutionalisation of human rights, there is no reason why the same cannot
take place among Muslims. The approaches to the application of human rights to
the Middle East and other developing countries
are threefold: The first approach was that of the colonialist period that saw
the Western way of life as intrinsically superior and universal and looked down
upon all other cultures and civilisations. It believed in the necessity of
civilising the natives, i.e. forcing them to wear Western dress and follow a
Western way of life, to adopt Western laws and to relinquish their own religious
beliefs.
The second approach was
exclusively selective and non-universalist. It was concerned with the fate of
Christians and citizens of Christian states in the Muslim world, as was the case
in Lebanon where the Christian minority
was given power over the Muslim majority. This approach has now been extended to
the support of the Jewish state, where the activities of the Israeli forces and
the killing and maiming of thousands of Palestinians and the destruction of
homes and orchards are often described as acts of self-defence, while any form
of Palestinian resistance is described as terrorism. Israel has
become part of the West and its ideology is part of the 'Judeo-Christian'
civilisation, while Islam which is also a continuation of Judaism and
Christianity and furthermore accepts and reveres the mission of Christ is
regarded to be outside that exclusive club.
The third approach that has
been given the clumsy term "hegemonic abstentionism" basically tries to limit
the application of universal concepts of human rights, sometimes with good
motives. Numerous other terms are used to describe this approach, namely
communitarian, relativist, tradition-based, post-modernist, realist, etc.2 According to this approach, concepts of
democracy and human rights are limited and applicable entirely or to a large
measure to the West, while other societies must live by different set of rules
that suits them best. This approach suits those in the West who wish to downplay
the issue of human rights, democracy and justice in the Middle East. It also suits the Middle
East despots who, in the name of regional authenticity or Islam or
whatever else, violate norms of human rights. The fundamentalists in some
Islamic countries use this tactic in order to fend off the criticism of their
denial of human rights to their citizens or those who are under their
occupation, by claiming that their behaviour is sanctioned by
Islam.
When the Iranian President
Mohammad Khatami started his presidential campaign in 1997, he introduced a
number of very interesting slogans. Two of the most important slogans of Khatami
were civil society and the rule of law. Of course, these terms do not evoke a
great deal of interest or controversy in the West, but in a conservative Islamic
society such as that of Iran under the mullahs the slogans were revolutionary,
especially as the Persian terms signify a meaning that is not conveyed by their
English translations. Jame’e-ye madani (civil society) stands opposed to
jame’e-ye dini (religious society), and hokumat-e qanun (the rule
of law) stands opposed to the rule of the Shari’a or religious law. In the same
way, at the beginning of the 20th century when some people were
calling for a constitutional government (hokumat-e mashruteh), the
leading clerics of the time, Sheykh Fadlollah Nuri, called for "hokumat-e
mashru’eh" or a government based on the Shari’a.
These words made alarm
bells ring among the conservative clergy. Therefore, shortly after becoming
president, Khatami decided to soften the blow by saying that he advocated an
"Islamic civil society" (which actually sounded like a contradiction in terms in
Persian, the same as Islamic democracy. There is no Islamic, Jewish, Hindu or
Christian democracy. Democracy is democracy, period). In a speech he gave to the
Islamic Conference Organisation in Tehran, in which more than 50 heads of Islamic
countries were assembled, Khatami said:
"The kind of civil society that we
wish to establish and develop in our country, and which we also recommend to
other Islamic countries, is qualitatively different in its historical origins
and its fundamentals from the kind of civil society which is based upon Greek
philosophy and Roman political legacy. The two, however, are not necessarily in
conflict and contradiction in all their manifestations and consequences. This is
exactly why we should never be oblivious to judicious acquisition of the
positive accomplishments of Western civil society. From a historical point of
view, the Western civil society is derived from the Greek city states and its
theoretical foundations are based on the Roman [and European] political system;
while the civil society which we have in mind, is ideologically rooted in the
Koran and historically based on the City of the Prophet." 3
When Muslim philosophers
refer to Madinat al-Nabi, or the "City of the Prophet", by that they do
not mean only what was going on in Medina at the time of the Prophet; but as the
Prophet also acted as the head of the state, Muslims believe that his government
there represented the most perfect form of government and acted as a model for
subsequent governments. The main difference between Prophet Muhammad and Jesus
and Moses and other prophets is that while those prophets were only spiritual
leaders and not the head of the state, Muhammad managed to form a government in
Medina and later in the whole of Arabia. Therefore, the concept of the City of the Prophet
also conveys a philosophical idea; namely a city modelled on the one established
by Muhammad in Medina.
Shortly after this speech
by Khatami, a leading religious cleric in Iran, Hojjat
ol-Eslam Sadeq Larijani, wrote an article in an Iranian magazine, pointing out
the logical incoherence in Khatami’s statement.4 He pointed out that "civil society" has
an accepted, historical meaning. He asked why one should use that term if one
has a different meaning in mind and when one is only referring to the City of
the Prophet. He wrote: "If we are trying to establish a society which is
inspired by the City of the Prophet and the values that govern that concept,
namely Islamic values and culture, is it not more appropriate to speak of
‘Islamic society’, so that we can avoid unnecessary confusion of terms with
their different philosophical connotations?"
He then questions the value
systems that are implied in that term. In Western usage, the term civil society
refers to a different value system from the one that is behind the concept of
the City of the Prophet. He continues with firstly providing a brief account of
the historical development of the term. Secondly, he defines the concept of
civil society as it is understood in the West, which is a society based on a
form of contractual definition provided by the people and is free from religious
restrictions. Thirdly, he discusses the principles of an Islamic society or the
City of the Prophet. He speaks of the close relationship between civil society
and Western liberal democracy.
He points out that the
powers of the government are purely "borrowed" rights, derived from the people,
and the government represents the wishes of the people. "The role of the
government is to allow the individuals to enjoy the greatest freedom, so that
they can pursue their rights and interests in the way that they see fit. The
role of the government is not to impose its own values, goals and principles
upon the citizens, and it should in no way interfere in such issues… The role of
the government is to provide a suitable environment that would allow the
individuals to make their own choices in the society." As John Locke said:
"Where law ends dictatorship begins."
Larijani goes on to say:
"There is no doubt that the existence of laws, the rule of law, the equality of
individuals before the law, and the just implementation of the law are among the
principles that are supported by an Islamic society and in any other society
that wishes to live in a rational and reasonable way." However, he points out
that laws have a different meaning in civil societies and in Islamic societies.
In Western civil societies the government is neutral and must implement the laws
promulgated by the legislature. The task of the government is only to provide
and ensure individual freedom. In other words, civil society and liberalism are
like twins. This is a thinking that is not in keeping with Islamic laws,
according to him.
The Islamic society is not
based on the laws made by men, but on the general principles set out in the
Koran. Sadeq Larijani wrote: "We support a society which is based on the spirit
of Islam and religious faith, in which Islamic and religious values are
propagated, in which every Koranic injunction and the teachings of the Prophet
of Islam and the Imams are implemented. It will be a society in which the
feeling of servitude to God Almighty will be manifest everywhere, and in which
people will not demand their rights from God but are conscious of their
obligations to God." In other words, it has less to do with individual rights,
than with religious obligations. It looks for a political environment that
allows the people to perform their religious obligations. It is less interested
in individual freedom and more concerned with social
responsibilities.
He criticises the views of
people, such as Abdol-Karim Soroush, who say that there is no such thing as an
Islamic society or an Islamic civilisation, but the society of Muslims or the
civilisation created by Muslims. Soroush maintained that Muslim radicals were
trying to use Islam as an ideology, while Islam is a spiritual and individual
way of life.
This debate is not limited
to Iran, but is the common preoccupation
of many Muslims or Islamists throughout the Islamic world. Sa'id Hawwa, a Syrian
theologian, wrote: "Democracy is a Greek term, which signifies sovereignty of
the people, the people being the source of legitimacy; it is the people who
legislate and rule. As for the shura, it denotes consultation [by the
ruler] with a person or persons with regard to the interpretation of a certain
point of Islamic law. In Islam the people do not govern themselves by laws they
make on their own, as in a democracy; rather, the people are "governed by a
regime and a set of laws imposed by God, which they cannot change or modify in
any case." The concept of majority rule is rejected by Islam "because Islam
would not concur that the majority is sovereign, whatever its mistakes and
errors."
Across the border in
Tripoli, Dannawi
summed it all up in a simple formula: "The state in Islam obeys Divine Law, not
the people; liberating the state from subservience to human passions, whims and
fancies... be they of the majority or the minority."
This kind of thinking is
not limited to Islam. Many Christian and Jewish fundamentalists and indeed the
members of the Moral Majority in the United States say the same thing.
Those who attack abortion clinics in the United States
and kill or injure the doctors who are carrying out abortions do so because they
believe that the law of God supersedes the laws made by men.
Is there a way of bridging
the gap between these two points of view? I believe one answer to this anxiety
felt both by sincere Muslims and Christians is to point out that modern concepts
of democracy and human rights have themselves evolved out of a religious
context. In a broad-ranging book, The Secularization of the European Mind
in the Nineteenth Century, Professor Owen Chadwick argues convincingly
that the concepts of democracy and human rights and the separation between
religion and state developed out of religious debates in Europe and
America.5 They were born out of a desire to put an
end to the conflict among various denominations and to provide an environment in
which different sects could hold on to their own principles and follow their own
religious injunctions.
I would go a step further
and argue that, in fact, religious concepts that regard man as being created in
the image of God according to Christianity, or as the vicegerent of God on earth
according to the Koran, provide the proper underpinning for human rights. If we
regard human beings as mere flesh and blood, as economic consumers or as animals
in a human zoo, we would have fewer qualms about suppressing their rights than
if we believe that human beings have an intrinsic value in themselves, that they
are masters of their own fate, that they are the children of God and that they
are related to us as members of a universal human family.
The third way of bridging
this gap, and arguing particularly from an Islamic point of view, is to show
that the Koran itself is not hostile to human rights. The Koran contains a
variety of law-making provisions and legal injunctions interspersed throughout
its chapters (suras) and verses (ayat). A number of rules exist
for interpreting these provisions, such as the position of a given ayah
within the context of the sura, which in turn is interpreted in
accordance with its place in the sequence of revelation, its reference to other
revelations, and its historical context in relation to particular conditions
which existed at the time of the given revelation.
These and other rules are
known as the science of interpretation (ilm usul aI-fiqh). According to
these rules, for example, one initially is to refer to a specific provision and
then to a general provision dealing with a particular situation. In other words,
religious injunctions must be placed in their historic context, and must be
interpreted in such a way that they do not contradict the more general universal
concepts. If one verse that refers to a particular event contradicts the more
general and universal principles expressed in other verses, the universal
principle must be adopted as it overrules the verse that referred to a
particular event in the past.
Reasoning by analogy
(qiyas) is permitted, except where expressly prohibited. Simplicity and
clear language are always preferred. Similarly, the clear spirit of certain
prescriptions cannot be altered by inconsistent interpretations. A
policy-oriented interpretation within the confines of the rules of jurisprudence
is permissible and even recommended, as is the case with the doctrine of
ijtihad (progressive reasoning by analogy).
Most Muslim scholars do not
consider Islam to be an evolving religion, but rather a religion and legal
system, which applies to all times. It is, therefore, the application that is
susceptible to evolution. Indeed, the provisions of the Koran are such that by
their disciplined interpretation, with the aid of the Hadith and Sunna
and other sources of interpretation, Islam can be interpreted in such a way
that it can provide the solution to contemporary social problems.
There are numerous verses
in the Koran that tell the believers not to oppose or molest the followers of
other faiths. For instance, The Koran preaches that there should be no forceful
conversion. The believers are told to only discuss their faith with others in
the kindliest manner: "Summon men to the way of the Lord with wisdom and kindly
warning. Debate with them in the kindliest manner." (Koran xvi, 126). God
admonishes the believers not to force others to join their faith: "Wilt thou
force men to become believers?" (Koran, x, 10). There is this clear injunction
in the Koran: "Let there be no compulsion in religion" (Koran ii, 257). The way
the sentence has been formulated in Arabic has led many Muslim theologians to
say that not only there should be no compulsion in religion, but by its nature
religion is not susceptible to compulsion. Due to the nature of faith that is a
matter of personal conversion and the relationship between man and God, there
simply cannot be any compulsion in religion. Otherwise, conversion and faith
mean nothing. Faith must be voluntary, or it is meaningless. It is a personal
and fateful act and not a communal venture.
Even the Prophet himself is
ordered to desist from forcing other people to follow his teachings: "It is not
for a Prophet to be fraudulent and put people in chains: for he who puts others
in chains shall bring the fruit of enslavement upon himself on the Day of
Judgement." (Koran, III, 161). This is a very important statement that teaches
that anyone who tries to enslave other people’s minds and souls will enslave
himself and will bring the fruit of enslavement upon himself on the Day of
Judgement.
Many early believers wanted
Muhammad to force the Arabs to become Muslims, but he is told by God: "We are
best aware of what they say, but thou (O Muhammad) art in no wise a compeller
over them. But warn by the Koran him who feareth My warning." (Koran, 50: 45).
Therefore, the Prophet’s job, as it is stressed elsewhere in the Koran, is
merely to warn and to call the people towards God, but not to coerce them to
follow it. Faith and guidance ultimately comes from God: "Say: The truth is from
your Lord; then whosoever will, let him believe; and whosoever will, let him
disbelieve." (Koran, 18: 28)
Muhammad was unhappy that
some of his close relatives, including his favourite uncle, had not become
Muslims, but he was told in another verse: "And if thy Lord had willed, whoever
is on the earth would have believed, all of them, altogether. Wouldst thou then
compel the people, until they are believers?" (Koran, 10:98). Again: "Say: O
mankind! Now hath the truth from your Lord come unto you. So whosoever is
guided, is guided only for his own soul, and whosoever erreth, erreth only
against his soul. And I am not a warder over you." (Koran, 10:
107)
There are many references
in the Koran, telling Muhammad that he is not people’s guardian, that he has no
authority over them, and that he should not force the people to believe.
Therefore, if the Prophet himself has no authority over others, and if his job
is merely to warn and preach the word of God, clearly none of his followers can
claim to have greater authority than him. They should not force those who are
not members of the Islamic community to become Muslims or to be oppressed, and
they should not force members of the Muslim community to do what the clerics or
authorities tell them to do. People are responsible for their own action and
must be given freedom to make their own choice freely.
As far as jihad or
the war against the non-believers is concerned, the most important Koranic verse
that defines the limits and conditions for jihad is the following: "Fight
in the way of God against those who attack you, but begin not hostilities.
Verily god loveth not the aggressors… And if they [the enemies] incline towards
peace, incline thou also to it, and trust in God." (Koran, 2: 189). According to
many Muslim theologians, this verse means that the only form of war permitted by
Islam is a defensive war. They regard this verse as providing the parameters of
a "just war". Muslims are told to "fight in the way of God", in other words not
for any personal or aggressive intention, but merely for the sake of God,
"against those who attack you", but they are emphatically warned "but begin not
hostilities". Therefore, there is absolutely no suggestion that Muslims should
go and eliminate the people in the "House of War".
There is another Koranic
verse that allows the Muslims to fight against those who drove them out of their
houses, and to pursue them until there is no persecution. The Koran says: "And
kill them whenever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you
out, for persecution is worse than slaughter… And if they desist, then lo! God
is Forgiving, Merciful. And fight them until persecution is no more, and
religion is for God; but if they desist, then there should be no hostility
except against oppressors" (Koran, 2:190-193). All Koranic commentators have
said that this verse refers to the attacks that were launched by Meccans against
Muhammad’s followers, and is not a blanket authority for waging war. That verse
too only allows a defensive war against those who had attacked the Muslims, but
even here it says, "but if they desist, then there should be no hostility except
against oppressors."
Therefore, there is
absolutely no authority anywhere in the Koran or in Islamic jurisprudence for
attacking the people in the "House of War". There is a long tradition of
treaties and agreements going back to the time of the Prophet that allows other
people to live in peace, so long as they do not attack Islamic communities.
Those territories were said to belong to the House of Peace, or House of
Security, as opposed to those who lived in the House of War, namely those who
were engaged in a war against Muslims. When Muslims conquered
Iran, Egypt and parts of the Byzantine Empire, at the beginning there was a certain
amount of violence, but there was no attempt for the forced conversion of the
conquered nations. The bulk of the Iranian population did not become Muslims
until about two hundred years after the initial conquest. Large Christian and
Jewish communities also survived in Egypt and other Islamic lands.
In fact, as non-Muslims who
lived in an Islamic country had to pay a higher rate of tax because they did not
contribute to the military, very early in Islamic history some greedy rulers
discouraged people from joining Islam in order to increase their own tax
revenue. This was the case in Iran and Iraq under Hajjaj bin Yusef who was the governor
of Mesopotamia in the first century of the
Islamic calendar who sent orders to his local officials telling them to stop
converting the people to Islam.
The situation with Islam is
the same as we find with other traditions. What is the Bible's position on war
and violence? For some, the Bible authorised the Crusades, the Inquisition,
slavery, the extermination of the American Indians, the killings of the Ku Klux
Klan, the atrocity in Oklahoma
City, and most recently, the organised genocide against
Bosnian Muslims. For others, the Bible has motivated and sustained movements of
non-violence, the anti-slavery movement, efforts to support Bosnian Muslims and
others in the face of genocide, the nurturing of movements of democracy and
social justice, and lifetimes of sacrifice in the service to other human
beings.
Many reformist Muslims have
started interpreting Islamic texts with the help of Hermeneutics. A great
Iranian reformer, Ayatollah Mohammad Mojtahed Shabestari has written many
volumes about the need to interpret the Koranic verse in a way that they can be
applicable to the present age. Shabestari maintains that Islam has three main
categories of teachings. They are: Spiritual and devotional [Ibadat];
issues dealing with social matters, including politics, economics, various forms
of transactions between people [Mu’amilat]; and finally religious
injunctions [Ahkam], including hudud (religious punishments) and
qisas (retribution), based on the Shari’a or Islamic law. He
maintains that the spiritual elements of Islam – like those of other faiths –
are eternal and unchangeable and can provide Muslims with guidance and
spirituality today. Some of the teachings belonging to the second category,
namely social teachings, and can be adapted to present circumstances through
ijtihad (independent interpretation of the law). As far as the third
category, namely ahkam, hudud, qisas, etc are concerned,
their time is passed, in the same way that the laws dealing with slavery are no
longer operative because the time for slavery has come to an end. In the modern
world, Muslims must formulate new laws on the basis of modern requirements. 6
He says that when he asks
his friends why they do not refer any more to the Koranic teachings regarding
slavery, they say that the time for that has been passed. He then asks them why
they cannot see that the time for harsh Islamic punishments, flogging those who
drink, killing the adulterer and the adulteress, chopping off hands, unequal
treatment of women, etc has also passed.
If we wish to create a more
harmonious world, we must seek ways of reducing differences and hostility.
Instead of dwelling upon differences, we must stress similarities. Instead of
giving the most negative and limited interpretation to any Koranic or Biblical
text, we must look for the most enlightened and the broadest interpretation.
There is no disagreement among different religions that a good society, a
well-governed society, is one in which people feel that they have equal chances
to find fulfilment and where there is a sense of justice. How do we achieve that
in the world? I believe that the idea of human rights, the rights of
individuals, can be achieved through dialogue and collaboration among nations,
rather than as the result of recrimination and point scoring. I must add that
this is a difficult task to perform, especially in the light of the clash among
various cultures and civilisations that we are witnessing
today.
The way to begin is by
supporting institutions like the International Criminal Court. Religious and
secular leaders and scholars must lay down the principles and concepts that are
acceptable and those that are not. We need to encourage the United Nations to
begin to develop regional courts of human rights to try those who violate the
principles of the Human Rights Charter. Step by step, we'll get closer to a
Supreme Court of human rights within the context of the United Nations. It is
very shortsighted for the US
– alongside Somalia and a few other undemocratic
nations - to refuse to join that court. In the light of the terrorist attacks,
now we need such international institutions more than
ever.
What we can also do as
individuals and organisations is to encourage dialogue among people and
civilisations. Instead of spending hundreds of billions of dollars on weapons of
war, we can achieve much greater harmony in the world by spending a fraction of
that on bringing the people from various countries together and encouraging
dialogue between them. Of course, dialogue is much more difficult in practice
than it sounds. It requires listening, as well as talking. It requires a feeling
of genuine respect for the views of others and a desire to learn. At the moment,
due to its technological, military, economic and intellectual pre-eminence, the
West is more interested in lecturing others and telling them what to do, instead
of engaging in a real two-way dialogue.
Andre Gide said once that
the individual was the most irreplaceable of beings. A moment's thought
indicates how true this is. Individuals are irreplaceable. All religions also
stress the uniqueness and the sanctity of human beings. Therefore, their rights
are absolutely vital and extremely precious, and their rights must be preserved.
We must insist that human rights are universal and we must apply them without
discrimination, both in the West and in the rest of the world.
Endnotes
About the
Author
Farhang Jahanpour is a British
national of Iranian origin. He received his Ph.D. Degree in Oriental Studies
from the University of Cambridge and is a former professor and dean of the
Faculty of Languages at the University of Isfahan. He has taught at the universities
of Cambridge and Oxford, as well as teaching online courses for Oxford, Yale and Stanford.
He spent a year as a Senior Fulbright Research Scholar at Harvard. Dr Jahanpour
also spent many years as Editor for Middle East and North
Africa at the BBC Monitoring Service. For the past 20 years he has
been a part-time tutor at the Department of Continuing Education at the
University of
Oxford. He is the author of
three books and numerous articles in academic journals.
... Payvand News - 4/16/07 ...
