Essay on Modern Islam's Human Rights Commitment: Obstacles and Possibilities

Khaled Abou El Fadl authors the chapter on the "human rights commitment in modern Islam", where he identifies some of the main obstacles that hinder serious Islamic engagement in the areas of human rights, also looks at the possibilities within the Islam teachings for realizing a vision of human rights. The chapter dwells much on the doctrinal aspects in the Muslim faith, and particularly sharia which would legitimize, promote, or subvert the emergence of a human right practice in Muslim cultures. Fadl goes ahead to note that, in the modern times that span even before the 9/11 attacks, Muslim communities have been plagued by have caught the rest of the world as offensive and shocking.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Khaled Abou El Fadl also names a few of these events which seems to contradict the Islamic belief in respecting and protecting human rights. Such activities include the publication of the Satanic Verses, the stoning and imprisoning of rape victims in Pakistan and Nigeria, public floggings, degradation ow women and sexual harassment of domestic workers in some areas where Islam is the predominant religion. However, he aims not to necessarily explain the sociopolitical reasons for the pervasiveness of the acts in the modern Islamic context, but to discuss the tension between Islamic traditions and the human rights system of the belief and to investigate whether a normative reconciliation between the two moral traditions can be achieved. To do this, Fadl breaks down his analysis into various categories as indicated.

In this analogy, Fadl points out that the construct of human rights has gained notable symbolic significance in the contemporary world. In the past 50 years, human rights have become a significant aspect in international relations, as there has been a global human rights concerns and discourses. Importantly in the Muslim world, the human rights movement has won the indigenous converts, and it is now common to hear people making demands based on these rights. However, despite some countries like Tunisia, Egypt and Lebanon drafting a critical bill of rights for their people, there remains a considerable tension between the traditional Islamic law and the preservation of human rights. In particular such tensions exist in matters concerning personal status laws, freedom of religion, harsh Islamic penalties, and equal rights for women. These challenges have been blamed on colonialism and the taunting criticism of orientalists against the Islamic traditions and a system of beliefs.

Colonialism and institutional orientalism played a crucial role in undermining traditional Islamic institutions and also posed a severe challenge to Muslim epistemologies of knowledge and the sense of moral values. This experience made it hard for the Muslims to understand the western concept of the human rights in an Islamic context, and most importantly among the Muslim intellectuals who perceived the human right concept as political and plagued by western hypocrisy. The Muslim response to these concepts could be summed up in two orientation of apologetic or defiant or exceptionalism. In Apologetic, orientalism, a large number of Islamists made an effort to salvage the Islamic system and traditions from the onslaught of westernization and modernity by emphasizing on compatibility and supremacy of Islam regarding human rights.

In the late 20th century, the Muslim world witnessed an Islamic resurgence which embraced puritan movement demanding the restoration of authentic Islamic identity through the restoration of the Shari'ah law. Puritanism rejected the indeterminacy of the modern age by escaping to a strict literalism which became the only source of legitimacy. Based on Puritans, it was necessary to return to the simple and straightforward Islam which followed the commands and precedents of the prophet. On the issue of universal human rights, the puritan did not seek a relativist cultural exception to the universalism of human rights. Instead, the puritans stipulated that whatever human freedom that would be enjoyed would be according to the Shari'ah law. The acknowledged that humans have rights, but such rights could not exist unless granted by God.

Based on the two significant responses of apologetic and puritanism, the subject of human rights has remained vastly underdeveloped in the Muslim world. The tension between religion and human rights is not in subjective experiences. However, it is possible for genuine regard for human rights to be expressed in a manner that it is entirely consistency with one's religious convictions. In modern Muslim discourse, there is an ambiguity where inadequate commitment to human rights is due to the failure to confront the two objectified experiences of Islam and human rights. Fadl notes that it is possible that God does not seek to regulate all humans' affairs and also it could be possible that God leaves it to human's beings to regulate their affairs as long as they observe some minimum standards of moral conducts. Such could include the promotion of human dignity and honor because according to the teachings of the Qur'an, humans are the vicegerents of God and inheritors of the earth and the most valued of the God's creation. Therefore, basing the concept of human rights on Shari'ah laws could be problematic because these laws are poorly understood by modern Muslims, let alone by non-Muslims. The issue of God's supremacy and moral commitments within the Shari'ah paradigm needs to be analyzed through a more informed understanding of the epistemology of Shari'ah.

Conclusion

The essential idea of having a government is to resolve conflict, protect religion and uphold justice. In some instances, justice is a core aspect that justifies the existence of the government. In the Quran, justice is an obligation to God also owed by human beings to one another. Also, the imperative of justice adjoins the good and forbids the evil and the necessity of bearing the witness on God's behalf. In Qur'an, God asserted himself as inherently just and decreed mercy upon humans. Significantly, it is not possible to achieve justice unless every person is granted their rights. A society that fails to accord people the fundamental human rights is not merciful or just society. After all, God created all humans beings with responsibilities to commit oneself to protect the well-being of individuals and take God's creation seriously. Each human is a representation of God's miracle, and thus it is the responsibility of Muslim faithful to commit himself/herself to the rights and wellbeing of fellow humans. The Quran does not limit mercy to only Muslims, but it repeatedly asserts that no human being can limit the divine mercy in any way or even control who is entitled to it.