Fighting for human rights, is there a place in it for religion?

When the Court of Appeals judge, Datuk Mohd Hishamudin Yunus ruled a year ago on November 7, 2014 that Section 66 of the Negeri Sembilan Syariah Enactment 1991 was unconstitutional making it an offence for any man to dress or pose as a woman, it caught Muslim religious figures,

Nov 09, 2015

By Arief Irsyad
When the Court of Appeals judge, Datuk Mohd Hishamudin Yunus ruled a year ago on November 7, 2014 that Section 66 of the Negeri Sembilan Syariah Enactment 1991 was unconstitutional making it an offence for any man to dress or pose as a woman, it caught Muslim religious figures, lawyers and leaders by surprise.

His argument was based on an interpretation of the Federal Constitution – that of the of the Second Part on Fundamental Liberties covering Article 5 (Liberty of the person), Article 8 (Equality), Article 9 (Prohibition of banishment and freedom of movement), Article 10 (Freedom of speech, assembly and association).

No sooner than the Appeals Court judgement was made, objections and opposing views were expressed by various NGOs.

Azril Mohd Amin, executive director of Centre for Human Rights Research and Advocacy (CENTHRA) had responded to the judgement in a statement published by a local news daily a week after the historic court ruling by highlighting the section in first part of the Federal Constitution which clearly states the position of Islam as the Religion of the Federation.

He had warned that such a conclusion could become the start to accepting the practice of all sorts of liberal liberties from the West which is not suitable to our society and against the teaching of Islam.

One year later, and the Federal Court has overturned the Court of Appeals decision overriding the Syariah Court ruling and we are all back to square one with the Syariah court allowed to enforce the ban on cross dressing.

Malaysian Digest had highlighted the plight of Muslim transgenders and the outreach programme provided by religious authorities to educate and reform 'mak nyahs' who are looking to change their ways in another feature story.

While on the other side of the argument, there are also NGOs who have condemned the continued crackdown on 'mak nyahs' in Malaysia as a gross violation of basic human rights, vocally highlighting the injustice to a critical international audience and world human rights bodies.

They are demanding from the court that 'mak nyahs' be given equal rights among society.

Cross dressing and posing as women means that these 'mak nyahs' violate their religious teachings but being sexually abused and shunned by society without any proper protection from the law and unable to seek justice from their country's civil courts also mean that their human rights are being violated which cannot be condoned by any religion.

Does this contradiction only apply in the case of Islam or does the issue crop up in other religions as well?

The push and pull between universal human rights and religious law is not new and transcends countries and cultures. As human beings, we all have every right to be treated like everybody else but it is also undeniable that whatever we do, we have to go back to our religious belief.

Religion’s Place In Human Rights

Riffat Hassan from the University of Louisville says it is always assumed and stated by many advocates of human rights, in both Western and non-Western (including many Muslim) countries, that human rights can exist only within a secular context and not within the framework of religion.

According to Witte and Green in 'Religion and Human Rights: An Introduction' published by Oxford University Press in 2012, various recognized observers have contended that it is a result of these prickly issues that religion ought to have no place in a modern regime of human rights.

They put forward an argument that religious law in particular will find it hard to exist in harmony with contemporary interpretation of human rights and the constitutions of secular nations.

“Religious thoughts may well have been the wellsprings of human rights in prior periods; a few religious groups may even have motivated the modern human rights revolution.

“Be that as it may, has religion now outlasted its utility? Religion by its inclination, is excessively expansionist and monopolistic, excessively patriarchal and hierarchical, too antithetical to the very goals of pluralism, toleration, and equality inherent in a human rights regime.

“Religion is additionally excessively hazardous, divisive, and diverse in its demands to be accorded special protection and is better seen as simply one more classification of private freedom, expression, and affiliation and given no more inclination than its secular counterparts.”

Trevor Phillips, the chairman of the UK-based human rights NGO, Equality and Human Rights Commission said Christians who want to be exempt from equality legislation in the UK are like Muslims trying to impose Syariah, The Telegraph reports.

He stated further that religious rules should end “at the door of the temple” and let the “public law” by Parliament govern.

Philips added religious groups should be free to follow their own rules within their own settings but not outside. “Once you start to provide public services that have to be run under public rules, for example child protection, then it has to go with public law.”

It seems that laws legislated in religions have no place when it comes to human rights.

Are Human Rights Compatible With Islam?

“Islam is a way of life that encompasses every aspect of human life. Hence Muslims ought to embrace Islam as whole,” Ustaz Wan Akashah told Malaysian Digest when contacted.

“If a Muslim faith is strong, he or she will abide by God’s laws, but if the faith is weak, he or she will enticed by devil and his or her lust.

“Hence it is not a surprise that they are fighting for their rights even if it is against the religion,” he opined.

“The reason we saw so many destructions now is because we have been skewed from our natural order.

“That’s why, when God created us, He gave us a manual, His will. If we do not follow His manual, the world becomes chaotic, its civilization, economy, social.

“What we can really take pride from the West? There’s nothing much to be proud of. But their family institutions and social are weak,” he said.

Many detractors who decry that Islam violates many basic tenets of human rights often cite the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which was adopted by the United Nations in 1948.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is held to be the most elevated, or sole, model, of a contract of balance and freedom for every single person, yet, it should be pointed out that given the Western origin and orientation of this Declaration, the "universality" of the assumption on which it is based is subject to questioning.

Therefore, the contradictions between the idea of human rights and religion when in general, or specific religions, for example, Islam, should be inspected in an unprejudiced way.

Akbar Ganji, an investigative Iranian journalist wrote in an opinion article titled 'Islam and Human Rights' in March this year that many traits of Islam that aid human rights are not unique to Islam as they also exist in other religions.

“Of course, since these traits exist in Islam as well as in other religions, they can also be ascribed to Islam,” he said, The Huffington post reports.

He laid out briefly types of elements that favour human rights. Firstly Islam underlines justice, compassion, piety, respect for contracts, Islam never consents to anything more than a reciprocal action, responsibility, strongly oppose terrorism, and Islam does not allow anyone to kill civilians.

The life and property of all citizens in an Islamic state are viewed as sacred, whether a man is Muslim or not. Islam likewise ensures honour. Thus, in Islam, offending others or ridiculing them is not permitted.

Christianity As the Basis of the Declaration Of Human Rights By The United Nations

Thomas P. Schirmacher, Chair in Systematic Theology and President of Martin Bucer Seminary Bonn, says no one disagree that human rights are derived from Christian thought.

The General Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations, of December 10, 1948, clearly demonstrates its Christian roots.

The bans on slavery and torture, the principle of equality before the law, the right to rest and recreation - as seen in the Sabbath or Sunday rest - come from Christian traditions and not by chance are the governments which confirm these rights and anchor them in their constitutions mostly in Christian countries.

In order to understand further, we talked to a Catholic priest in Ampang, Father Aaron about human rights in Christianity.

He opines that human rights precede the government.

“All life comes from God thus human dignity and rights are part us. So the government does not create human right, but they just formulate and protect them.

“The right to life belongs to human being and they don’t receive if from the government hence they don’t have the right to decide its citizens’ right to live, but can be executed at the ruler’s will.

“The Old Testament law commanded the death penalty for various acts: murder (Exodus 21:12), kidnapping (Exodus 21:16), bestiality (Exodus 22:19), adultery (Leviticus 20:10), homosexuality (Leviticus 20:13), being a false prophet (Deuteronomy 13:5), prostitution and rape (Deuteronomy 22:24), and several other crimes,” Father Aaron explained.

Father Aaron also tells us that rights came from nature, from human nature and from all walks of life.

The government should respect these rights and accept the limitations implied by these natural, divinely given rights of the individual, the family and other human social groups.

Buddhism Looks Beyond Just Humans Rights To The Cosmos That Encompass All Beings

In 'Faith in Human Rights: Support in Religious Traditions for a Global Struggle' Robert Traer wrote, many Buddhists are reluctant to identify the dharma (teachings and religion of the Buddha) with human rights.

Masao Abe, a Buddhist scholar wrote “the exact equivalent of the phrase ‘human rights’ in the Western sense cannot be found anywhere in Buddhist literature.”

Abe further clarified that the Western concept of human rights concerns only humans whereas in Buddhism, a human being is not only understood from the human’s view point but a much broader trans-homocentric, cosmological basis.

In Buddhism human being is seen as a part of all sentient beings or even as a part of all beings, sentient and non-sentient as both human and non-human beings are equally subject to transiency or impermanence.

Abe makes the accompanying proposals to encourage human rights and overcome religious narrow mindedness.

To begin with, connection to doctrine and authoritative opinion ought to be wiped out, for this is the reason for intolerance.

Second, wisdom instead of justice ought to be stressed, as this is the premise of empathy and affection.

Third, monotheistic traditions must come to comprehend the Oneness of ultimate reality in a non-dualistic way keeping in mind the end goal to maintain a strategic distance from exclusivity and bigoted attitudes toward different traditions.

Hindu Tradition Incorporates Human Rights As Part Of A Being's Fulfilment Of Duties

In an essay on 'Dharma and the Rights of Untouchables', American scholar in religious studies and sociology, Mark Jurgensmeyer wrote a statement: “If by 'human rights' one means minority rights, then Hindu society can be said to have a human rights tradition, for it has always had a way of incorporating the poor and socially ostracised into the social whole."

Pandeya wrote in 'Human Rights: An Indian Perspective' in Hinduism, like Judaism, there is no word for ‘rights'.

The almost similar word to ‘rights’ is adhikara, which relates to the idea of ‘just claim’. But the concept is used in the context where one has performed some act, or performed a duty.

This relates to the central concept of Dharma in Sanskrit. The root word is dhr meaning to uphold, sustain and nourish.

It is a comprehensive term, which includes duty, morality, ritual, law, order and justice.

The Hindu tradition focuses all in all, that is, the cosmos, and people are seen inside of this cosmos to look after it. They have duties which if fulfilled, carry rights. Hence, human rights are not inborn but rather to be worked towards by the fulfilment of duties.

Very much different from the concept of human rights as seen in the Judeo-Christian tradition is by virtue of being created in God’s image and the state of grace that gives all human beings intrinsic worth.

Human Rights Depend Upon The Values Of Communities, Including Their Religious Beliefs To Give Them Content

Human rights in religion are clearly stated for the benefit of human being. Each religion said human beings are free creatures that have tasks and responsibilities hence we have rights and freedom.

The main point is justice is upholding on equality ground without bias, which means, the duties will not be realized without the freedom, while freedom existentially will not materialize without the responsibility itself.

Equality in religion meant all human beings are equal and have same position as everybody else, the only one who enjoyed an advantage over other human beings is only determined by the level of piety.

Upholding justice for others in the name of human rights is great however if the rights are against the natural order and against God because we hold the misconception that religions have been bypassed by civilization's progress is a bit premature.

As observed by Witte and Green in 'Religion and Human Rights: An Introduction', the two world views cannot exist without the existence of the other.

“The relationship between religion and human rights is complex and problematic throughout the world. Most of the world's religions have been used for violence, repression, and prejudice.

“Yet each of these religions can play a crucial role in the modern struggle for universal human rights.

At the same time, the book also pointed out that each society and culture's definition of human rights is shaped by their religious beliefs and the authors examine the contributions to human rights of Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Confucianism, Buddhism, and indigenous religions.

“Human rights depend upon the values of human communities to give them content, coherence, and concrete manifestation. Religions have constantly provided the sources and scales of dignity and responsibility, shame and respect, restraint and regret, and restitution and reconciliation that a human rights regime needs to survive and flourish.”--Malaysian Digest

Total Comments:0

Name
Email
Comments