JaLaaL
18-04-2002, 21:54
(with sound)
http://kvc.minbuza.nl/uk/archive/amsterdam/ukverslag_hassan.html
A Muslim's Reflections on A New Global Ethics and Cultural Diversity
I have been asked to address the topic of a New Global Ethics from an Islamic perspective and to say
something about issues pertaining to cultural diversity, the wider context of this
discussion. [/p]
Let me begin by saying that I find the term 'New Global Ethics' to
be interesting but also problematic. It reminds me of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights which, although it was called universal, was – as pointed out by Raimundo
Panikkar – 'articulated along the lines of historical trends of the Western world
during the last three centuries, and a certain philosophical anthropology of
individualistic humanism which helped justify them'. The basic assumptions underlying the
Declaration were a) of a universal human nature common to all the peoples, b) of the
dignity of the individual, and c) of a democratic social order.[/p]
In the decades since the Declaration, the term 'human rights' has become
an integral part of both political and popular discourse, particularly among Western, and
Western-educated, persons. Until recently most of this discourse has been in largely
secular terms. In fact, it has been frequently assumed, as well as 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.[/p]
Underlying the stance that the concept of human rights is fundamentally
secular, and, therefore, outside of, and even antithetical to, the world view of religion,
is – of course – a certain view of religion in general, or of particular
religions. In some Muslim countries such as Pakistan, for instance, it is often remarked
by secular-minded proponents of human rights that it is not meaningful to talk about human
rights in Islam because, as a religious tradition, Islam has supported values and
structures that are incompatible with the assumptions which underlie the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights. [/p]
The fact that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights does not
acknowledge religion as a source of human rights points to what I consider a critical flaw
in the orientation of the United Nations. It is understandable why, in 1948, against the
backdrop of massive human conflicts, the United Nations would have wanted to distance
itself from any sort of identification with religion which has contributed significantly
throughout history to divisiveness and strife in the world. However, it is far less
credible that the United Nations should have become so trapped in its secular discourse
that it could continue until recently to refuse to deal with the fact that for millions of
human beings whose lives are rooted in belief rather that unbelief, human rights become
meaningful only when they are placed within the framework of their belief-system.[/p]
UNESCO used to maintain friendly relations with the communists. That caused few problems as liberals shared the belief in universal equality and the possibility of progress by mankind with the communists who also began as progressive. But to openly take the side of communist revolutions was of course not possible. The old appeal to respect human rights and therefore to support peace is still valid, but now it has been joined by a universal right to diversity. And that produces real problems.
It has become increasingly clear in the last few years as the United
Nations has tried to grapple with concrete issues pivotal to human development and
self-actualization, that neither the alleged universality of the United Nations Universal
Declaration of Human Rights nor the modern Western assumptions which underlie it, are
universally acceptable or applicable. This has been pointed out by Johan D. van der Vyver
who was one of the co-ordinators of a two-year international project on religion and human
rights sponsored by Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia, to which I was privileged to
contribute. In the introduction to the two-volume publication entitled Religious Human
Rights in Global Perspective which resulted from the project, Professor Van de Vyver
stated: [/p]
'There has been a new rivalry looming in international politics,
founded, more or less, on an East-West contingent; and in this instance not centred upon
the divergence of economic structures, but instead on the schism of religiously-based
forces. Eastern religions, with Islam in the lead, are increasingly questioning the
Western perceptions of human rights and challenging the claim to prime authenticity of the
liberal individualistic nuance of the human rights ideology as devised and understood in
the West. While Western traditions by and large founded the typical liberal perceptions of
human rights on a secularized base, most Eastern proponents of human rights seek to
construct an intimate link of the values embodied in that ideology with decidedly
religious presuppositions. In the East, more so than in the West, human rights perceptions
are accordingly conditioned by uncompromising tenets of religious belief.'[/p]
A strong showing of resistance, particularly by Muslims, to what was
perceived as 'secular humanism in the West with a strong individualistic nuance'4 was
visible at the NGO forum of all the recent United Nations conferences, namely, the World
Conference on Human Rights in Vienna in 1993, the International Conference on Population
and Development at Cairo in 1994, and the World Conference on Women at Huairou in 1995.
The fact that at the conclusion of the Cairo Conference, perhaps the most controversial of
all the United Nations conferences to date, religion – which had not been mentioned
in the original draft of the conference – and ethics and culture – which had
been mentioned a few times only in passing – were clearly recognized as factors
relevant in population planning and development, marked a shift radical enough to be
called a paradigm shift, in the orientation of the United Nations. That religion – a
topic which was long considered taboo – was one of the major subjects of discussion
at the NGO Forum in China – shows that there has been a decisive shift away from the
wholly secular mindset of the world organization. This development is likely, in my
judgment, to make the United Nations more effective in reaching out to masses of people in
many parts of the world.[/p]
The idea of developing a Declaration of the Religions for a Global Ethic
was launched by the Council of the Parliament of the World's Religions in Chicago as part
of the commemoration of the centenary of the first Parliament of the World's Religions
meeting in Chicago in 1893. This important enterprise represented, in a significant way,
an attempt by representatives of world religions to develop a document which would, in
some ways, be complementary to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. But whereas the
latter had dissociated itself from religion the new declaration would be grounded in
religion.[/p]
The task of preparing the draft of this declaration was given to
Professor Dr Hans Küng, one of the most eminent religious thinkers and scholars of our
times with whom I have had the honour of working in the context of Christian-Muslim
interreligious dialogue both in Tübingen and in Pakistan. Referring to this assignment,
Professor Küng stated: [/p]
'That was for me an extremely difficult task. However after I was
able to deal with the problems of such a declaration throughout the entire summer semester
(1992) in an interdisciplinary colloquium with participants from various religions and
continents, I was in a position to produce an initial draft and then send it to various
colleagues and friends for correction. This first draft received broad agreement from all
those to whom it was sent. At the same time dozens of formal as well as material
suggestions for corrections were submitted, which I have now taken into account as
carefully as possible in a second draft, the text has thereby gained in precision.'[/p]
The Declaration Toward a Global Ethic developed by Professor Küng 'was
signed by most of the nearly two hundred delegates who attended the Parliament of World's
Religions'6 in September 1993. Here, it is of interest to note that in January 1993, at an
annual meeting of a Jewish-Christian-Muslim trialogue held in Graz, Austria, a document
entitled 'Universal Declaration of a Global Ethic' had been presented for an in-depth
analysis and critique by Professor Dr Leonard Swidler. I have had the privilege of working
since 1979 with Professor Swidler who is the initiator of the trialogue or Interreligious
Dialogue among Jews, Christians and Muslims, in the United States, and was a participant
in the discussion which took place in Graz, although, unfortunately, illness prevented me
from attending the discussion on global ethics directed by Professor Küng at Chicago.[/p]
I have deep respect for both Professor Küng and Professor Swidler and I
know that their efforts to develop documents which could be regarded as universally-agreed
ethical guideposts for a world which faces serious moral, political, economic and
ecological crises on the eve of the twenty-first century, stem from a lifetime of
dedication to the pursuit of truth and justice not only in scholarship, but also in real
life. I am also aware of the fact that both Professor Küng and Professor Swidler have
consulted with various persons, including scholars, from the major religious traditions of
the world in their endeavour to make their documents as representative of a global
consensus on ethical principles as they possibly could in their given settings and
time-frames. Further, both Professor Küng and Professor Swidler have presented their
documents as 'a tentative draft' and 'not an end but a beginning'. The Preface to A Global
Ethics edited by Professor Küng and Professor Kuschel expressed the hope[/p]
'that this document may set off a process which changes the
behaviour of men and women in the religions in the direction of understanding, respect and
cooperation. And if all goes well, in the not too distant future we shall have other
declarations which make the global ethics of the religions more precise and concrete and
add further illustrations to it. Perhaps one day there may be even a United Nations
Declaration on Global Ethics to provide moral support for a Declaration of Human Rights,
which is so often ignored and cruelly violated.'[/p]
While appreciating the intentions and affirmations, and the hopes of my
esteemed colleagues Professor Küng, Professor Swidler, and also Professor Kuschel, as a
Muslim and as a woman human rights activist I must express the difficulties I experience
with the concept as well as the methodology of what is popularly being referred to as a
New Global Ethics – a title which troubles me and raises two important questions for
me. 1) What is new about this ethic or ethics? and 2) in what sense is this ethic or
ethics global?[/p]
While the two versions of the declaration towards, or on, global ethic
or ethics with which I am familiar purport to identify and include those ethical
principles which are common to most, particularly the major, religions of the world, it
seems to me that their fundamental presuppositions are a priori. They are not the products
of an internal dialogue within each religion regarding its central ethical concerns and
principles, widening into a dialogue with other religions on the same matters. Rather,
they represent the thinking of post-Enlightenment Westerners who are mostly Christian
either religiously or culturally. In this context I find the following remarks by
Professor Dr John Hick, another respected partner-in-dialogue, to be highly pertinent: [/p]
'The difficulty in offering a distinctively Christian comment on
Leonard Swidler's draft is that it is already in an important sense a Christian document.
For since the European Enlightenment of the eighteenth century Western Christianity has
been increasingly suffused with the individualistic, democratic, liberal,
historically-minded, science-oriented outlook of the Enlightenment, an outlook that
constitutes what can comprehensively be called the ethos of modernity. Indeed
Christianity, as a cultural influence, is identified in the minds of many Christians,
particularly when they make comparisons with other religions, with these liberal ideas of
modernity. From an historical point of view, this is paradoxical. For what has happened is
that secular modernity has transformed the outlook of most of the Christian World, rather
than that Christianity has out of its own distinctive religious resources introduced these
modern liberal values into Western culture. Indeed during much the greater part of its
history Christianity has been neither democratic, nor liberal, nor science-oriented, nor
historically-minded or individualistic in the modern sense. In saying, then, that Leonard
Swidler's is a Christian draft I merely mean that it comes out of contemporary Western
Christianity and embodies the spirit of post-Enlightenment culture. Anyone reading it can
readily identify its provenance, reflecting as it does the concerns and presuppositions of
modernity.'[/p]
The fact that the comments of non-Westerners or non-Christians have been
elicited to the drafts prepared by Western Christian scholars does not alter the fact that
these drafts do not reflect the ethos of the religions of the world. The references to
selective citations from different sacred texts to support the presuppositions of the
drafts do not substantiate the claim that these presuppositions represent a consensus of
the world's religions on ethical principles. We have all heard the saying, that the devil
can quote the scripture for his purpose. It is not only the devil, but all of us, who are
susceptible to the temptation to cite quotations out of context or to look at them in a
limited context when we are trying to prove what we consider to be a self-evident truth.
In other words – in the language of computer science – when we are goal-driven
rather that data-driven, we tend not to see the total picture and its complexity but to be
content with simple answers to complicated questions. In this context also, the comment by
Professor Hick in response to Professor Swidler's draft, merits serious consideration: [/p]
'This first draft, produced by Leonard Swidler (and likewise the
basically similar draft produced by Hans Küng), must not stand as the one official draft
which is to be amended, added to, and developed by contributions from the rest of the
world. It is essential that as early in the process as possible other independent initial
drafts be forthcoming from within the cultures of China, Africa, Russia, India, the
Islamic world, the Buddhist world, the primal life-streams. Only then, with the comparison
and interaction of these perhaps significantly different drafts, will the movement towards
a genuinely global declaration be able to proceed beyond its present state. At least as
important, then, as the organizing of intensive discussions of our Western draft must be
the eliciting of Asian, African, Pacific and other drafts.[/p]
In this first stage of the search for a global ethic, rather that
getting the peoples of other cultures to debate our Western draft, agreeing or disagreeing
with it as the only document on the table, we should say: 'Here is the kind of draft that
comes naturally to us in the industrialized West. What kind of draft comes naturally to
you, and to you, and to you?' And then the next stage beyond this should be to bring a
plurality of drafts together and see what comes out of the interaction between them.[/p]
I do not think that in any of this I am diverging from what Leonard
Swidler has in mind. I want particularly to stress, however, the need to move as soon as
possible from a one-draft to a multi-draft situation. So long as we have a modern Western
draft there will be the danger of the whole project looking like an act of Western
cultural imperialism. This has never been the intention. And the danger can be avoided by
directing every effort to get people from within the other great cultural streams of human
life to participate in the search from their own independent points of view.[/p]
It is not a legitimate criticism that the search for a global ethic
originated in the West; for it had to originate somewhere! And the West probably contains
more abundantly than elsewhere the practical resources required to launch and promote the
process. But it would be a ground for legitimate criticism if the search remained
concentrated around our Western contribution to it. The challenge is now to find ways of
opening the discussion up on an equal basis within all the great traditions of the earth.'[/p]
Having stated my wider philosophical reservations to the way in which
global ethic or ethics has been conceptualized or developed in the West in the last few
years, I wish to respond to the topic of a New Global Ethics from a Muslim religious
perspective. The ethos of the Muslim world is quite different from that of the Western
world which rests on Graeco-Roman foundations and in which reason has generally been
regarded as the co-equal if not the superior, or the arbiter, of revelation. For the vast
majority of Muslims, however, revelation constitutes the highest source of knowledge and
is normative for Muslims collectively and individually, in their public as well as their
private lives, both in relation to the material world and inner as well as transcendental
reality.[/p]
There is hardly any doubt that even though Islam is one of the three
Abrahamic faiths and is regarded by many Jews and Christians as a prophetic religion,
many, if not most, Westerners find it harder to understand or accept Islam and Muslims
than any other major religion or its adherents. This is not the time or place to analyze
all the historical, political, socio-cultural and theological factors which have brought
about such a wide gap of understanding or amity between Islam/Muslims and many non-Muslim
Westerners. However, I find it difficult as a Muslim to accept as authentic or effective
the lofty principles relating to justice and equity for all peoples contained in the
Declaration of Global Ethics, when I see the violence directed against both Muslim men and
women in much of the Western world.[/p]
I am saddened when I read the statement that 'one day there may even be
a new United Nations declaration on a global ethic to provide moral support for the
Declaration of Human Rights, which is often ignored and cruelly violated'. One major
reason why the Declaration of Human Rights is ignored is because it is not grounded in
reality or in the lives of the majority of the peoples of the world. I do not find it
helpful when I travel through the Muslim world talking to the average Muslim woman. They
have three characteristics: they are poor, they are illiterate and they live in a village.
A large number of the over 500 million Muslim women in the world share these
characteristics. If I as a person committed to women's empowerment were to try to reach
one of these women living anywhere between Ankara and Jakarta, how would I do it? Could I
say to her, 'I bring you liberation or empowerment in the name of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights (1948)?' This statement would mean nothing to her. But if I
were to say to her, 'You believe in God and you know that God is just. Therefore, it
cannot be the will of God that you should live in sub-human conditions and be brutalized
or oppressed'. This makes instant sense to her because her religious beliefs constitute
the matrix in which her life is rooted. A light begins to shine in her eyes as she
realizes that she is not powerless... that the source of empowerment lies within her since
God, the universal creator and sustainer, is a just and merciful God who does not condone
injustice in any way.[/p]
There is no doubt that the very existence of a Universal Declaration of
Human Rights is an outstanding achievement of humanity as a whole and that if there were
to be a complementary Declaration of Global Ethic this also would be a similar
achievement. But declarations alone do not bring about moral or social transformation of
society or human beings. Even in the West, the validity of the Greek notion that knowledge
is a virtue – that knowing what is right necessarily leads to virtuous conduct –
was challenged by David Hume and modern psychology. The Qur'an tells us that the condition
of people changes only when they change what is in themselves. If the superpowers which
had been instrumental in drafting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights had practised
what they preached and had refrained from violating human rights within their own borders
or supporting autocratic, anti-human-rights forces in other countries, the state of the
world today would have been very different from what it is today. The lesson to be learnt
by those who are engaged in developing a Declaration of Global Ethic – I believe
– is that any kind of ethic begins at home, with oneself. And that, often, it is much
easier to make generalized statements about abstract ethical principles than to deal
honestly and deeply with the specificity and complexity of the lives and beliefs of
others, particularly those who are seen as adversaries or aliens.[/p]
A better world order will not be introduced on the basis solely of international law, as long as such a law rests on the unlimited sovereignty of states and is focused more on the rights of states than on the rights of peoples and individuals. If moral convictions and moral intentions do not back a law, armistice or treaty, powers as in Bosnia are not even prepared to defend the principle that only peaceful and negotiated territorial change is acceptable in Europe.
Just as the strongest resistance to the Western notion of human rights
has come from Muslims, it is likely that the strongest resistance to the new Western
notion of Global Ethics will also come from Muslims. Setting aside for the moment the
political and psychological factors which may be involved in this resistance, let me focus
on what I consider to be the major religious reason why many Muslims would have difficulty
subscribing to a New Global Ethic as is being discussed in this forum. In the first place,
for the majority of Muslims the highest source of what they consider to be normative Islam
or Muslim ethics is the Qur'an as revealed to the Prophet Muhammad in the seventh century.
Hence for them there is nothing new about the ethics which is relevant to their lives.
Secondly, for them the ethical framework of the Qur'an embraces what may be called
'fundamental human rights' or 'principles of global ethics'. Hence there is no need for
them to develop a New Global Ethic.[/p]
Given the widespread stereotyping of Muslims as fanatic and irrational,
or anti-modern and backward, there is a danger that my words may be misconstrued as
representing what the West wrongly calls Islamic fundamentalism. While, like the
overwhelming majority of Muslims, I, too, believe that the Qur'an is God's Word and the
highest source of normative Islam, I also believe that the Qur'an is the Magna Carta of
human rights and that a large part of its concern is to free human beings from the bondage
of traditionalism, authoritarianism (religious, political, economic, or any other),
tribalism, racism, sexism, slavery or anything else that prohibits or inhibits human
beings from actualizing the qur'anic vision of human destiny embodied in the classic
proclamation: 'Towards God is thy limit.'[/p]
Islam is not involved, while from the viewpoint of human rights and Enlightenment you should in fact oppose all attempts to introduce the medieval Sar'yia (medieval Islamic law).
Since I have a life-commitment to promoting what I consider to be
authentic dialogue in the Büberian 'I-Thou' mode, and have spent almost twenty years of
my life intensively engaged in a variety of dialogues with men and women from different
religions, ideologies, cultures and races, it is my earnest hope that those who are
committed to developing Global Ethics in the West will make a serious effort to understand
Islam and other religions not from outside but from within. I would like to facilitate
this effort in the context of my religious tradition by sharing with you my understanding
of what I call the ethical framework of the Qur'an consisting of the rights and
responsibilities which are emphasized by qur'anic teachings.[/p]
In the account which follows, reference is made to the Qur'an's
affirmation of fundamental rights which all human beings ought to possess because they are
so deeply rooted in our humanness that their denial or violation is tantamount to a
negation or degradation of that which makes us human. From the perspective of the Qur'an,
these rights came into existence when we did; they were created, as we were, by God in
order that our human potential could be actualized. Rights created or given by God cannot
be abolished by any temporal ruler or human agency. Eternal and immutable, they should be
exercised since everything that God does is for a 'just purpose'.[/p]
A. RIGHT TO LIFE[/p]
The Qur'an upholds the sanctity and absolute value of human life14 and
points out that, in essence, the life of each individual is comparable to that of an
entire community and, therefore, should be treated with the utmost care.15[/p]
B. RIGHT TO RESPECT[/p]
The Qur'an deems all human beings to be worthy of respect16 because of
all creation they alone chose to accept the trust of freedom of the will.17 Human beings
can exercise freedom of the will because they possess the rational faculty, which is what
distinguishes them from all other creatures.18 Though human beings can become 'the lowest
of the low', the Qur'an declares that they have been made 'in the best of moulds',19
having the ability to think, to have knowledge of right and wrong, to do good and to avoid
evil. Thus, on account of the promise which is contained in being human, namely, the
potential to be God's viceregent on earth, the humanness of all human beings is to be
respected and considered to be an end in itself. [/p]
Every person has a right to respect because a life without respect is meaningless. Thus a society that damages people's self-respect is by definition unjust and uncivilized. [!--EINDE CITAAT --] [b]
[font color="#000080" size="4"]C. RIGHT TO JUSTICE[/p]
The Qur'an puts great emphasis on the right to seek justice and the duty
to do justice. In the context of justice, the Qur'an uses two concepts: 'adl and ihsan.
Both are enjoined and both are related to the idea of balance, but are not identical in
meaning.[/p]
'Adl is defined by A.A.A. Fyzee, a well-known scholar of Islam, as 'to
be equal, neither more nor less.' Explaining this concept, Fyzee wrote: '...in a Court of
Justice the claims of the two parties must be considered evenly, without undue stress
being laid upon one side or the other. Justice introduces the balance in the form of
scales that are evenly balanced'. 'Adl was described in similar terms by Abu'l Kalam Azad,
a famous translator of the Qur'an and a noted writer, who stated, 'What is justice but the
avoiding of excess? There should be neither too much nor too little; hence the use of
scales as the emblem of justice'. Lest anyone try to do too much or too little, the Qur'an
points out that no human being can carry another's burden or attain anything without
striving for it.[/p]
Recognizing individual merit is a part of 'adl, the Qur'an teaches that
merit is not determined by lineage, sex, wealth, worldly success or religion, but by
righteousness, which consists of both right belief (iman) and just action ('amal).
Further, the Qur'an distinguishes between passive believers and those who strive in the
cause of God pointing out that though all believers are promised good by God, the latter
will be exalted above the former.[/p]
Just as it is in the spirit of 'adl that special merit be considered in
the matter of rewards, so also special circumstances are to be considered in the matter of
punishments. For instance, for crimes of unchastity the Qur'an prescribes identical
punishments for a man or a woman who is proved guilty, but it differentiates between
different classes of women: for the same crime, a slave woman would receive half, and the
Prophet's consort double, the punishment given to a free Muslim woman. In making such a
distinction, the Qur'an while upholding high moral standards, particularly in the case of
the Prophet's wives whose actions have a normative significance for the community goes
beyond this concept to ihsan, which literally means restoring the balance by making up a
loss or deficiency.28 In order to understand this concept, it is necessary to understand
the nature of the ideal society or community (ummah) envisaged by the Qur'an. The word
ummah comes from the root umm, or 'mother'. The symbols of a mother and motherly love and
compassion are also linked with the two attributes most characteristic of God, namely,
Rahim and Rahman, both of which are derived from the root rahm, meaning 'womb'. The ideal
ummah cares about all its members just as an ideal mother cares about all her children,
knowing that all are not equal and that each has different needs. While showing undue
favour to any child would be unjust, a mother who gives to a handicapped child more than
she does to her other child or children, is not acting unjustly but exemplifying the
spirit of ihsan by helping to make up the deficiency of a child who needs special
assistance in meeting the requirements of life. Ihsan, thus, shows God's sympathy for the
disadvantaged segments of human society (such as women, orphans, slaves, the poor, the
infirm, and the minorities). [/p]
D. RIGHT TO FREEDOM[/p]
As stated earlier, the Qur'an is deeply concerned about liberating human
beings from every kind of bondage. Recognizing the human tendency toward dictatorship and
despotism, the Qur'an says with clarity and emphasis in Surah 3: Al-'Imran: 79: [/p]
[font size="3"]It is not
That a man, to whom
Is given the Book,
and Wisdom,
And the Prophetic Office,
Should say to people:
'Be ye my worshippers
Rather than Allah's'
On the contrary
[He would say]:
'Be ye worshippers
Of Him Who is truly
The Cherisher of all.'[/p]
The institution of human slavery is, of course, extremely important in
the context of human freedom. Slavery was widely prevalent in Arabia at the time of the
advent of Islam, and the Arab economy was based on it. Not only did the Qur'an insist that
slaves be treated in a just and humane way,. but it continually urged the freeing of
slaves. By laying down, in Surah 47: Muhammad: 4, that prisoners of war were to be set
free, 'either by an act of grace or against ransom',. the Qur'an virtually abolished
slavery since 'The major source of slaves – men and women – was prisoners of
war'.. Because the Qur'an does not state explicitly that slavery is abolished, it does not
follow that it is to be continued, particularly in view of the numerous ways in which the
Qur'an seeks to eliminate this absolute evil. A book which does not give a king or a
prophet the right to command absolute obedience from another human being could not
possibly sanction slavery in any sense of the word.[/p]
The greatest guarantee of personal freedom for a Muslim lies in the
qur'anic decree that no one other than God can limit human freedom34 and in the statement
that 'Judgment (as to what is right and what is wrong) rests with God alone'.. As pointed
out by Khalid M. Ishaque, an eminent Pakistani jurist: [/p]
'The Qur'an gives to responsible dissent the status of a fundamental
right. In exercise of their powers, therefore, neither the legislature nor the executive
can demand unquestioning obedience [...] The Prophet, even though he was the recipient of
divine revelation, was required to consult the Muslims in public affairs. Allah addressing
the Prophet says: '[...] and consult with them upon the conduct of affairs. And [...] when
thou art resolved, then put thy trust in Allah'.[/p]
Since the principle of mutual consultation (shura) is mandatory, it is a
Muslim's fundamental right, as well as responsibility, to participate in as many aspects
of the community's life as possible. The qur'anic proclamation in Surah 2: Al-Baqarah:
256, 'There shall be no coercion in matters of faith' guarantees freedom of religion and
worship. This means that, according to qur'anic teaching, non-Muslims living in Muslim
territories should have the freedom to follow their own faith-traditions without fear or
harassment. A number of qur'anic passages state clearly that the responsibility of the
Prophet Muhammad is to communicate the message of God and not to compel anyone to believe.
The right to exercise free choice in matters of belief is unambiguously endorsed by the
Qur'an which also states clearly that God will judge human beings not on the basis of what
they profess but on the basis of their belief and righteous conduct, as indicated by Surah
2: Al-Baqarah: 62: [/p]
Those who believe [in the Qur'an]
And those who follow the Jewish ,
And the Christians and the Sabians,
Any who believe in God
And the Last Day,
And work righteousness,
Shall have their reward
With the Lord: on them
Shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.[/p]
The Qur'an recognizes the right to religious freedom not only in the
case of other believers in God, but also in the case of non-believers in God (if they do
not behave aggressively against Muslims).[/p]
In the context of the human right to exercise religious freedom, it is
important to mention that the qur'anic dictum, 'Let there be no compulsion in religion'
applies not only to non-Muslims but also to Muslims. While those who renounced Islam after
professing it and then engaged in acts of war against Muslims were to be treated as
enemies and aggressors, the Qur'an does not prescribe any punishment for non-profession or
renunciation of faith. The decision regarding a person's ultimate destiny in the hereafter
rests with God. [/p]
The right to freedom includes the right to be free to tell the truth.
The qur'anic term for truth is haqq which is also one of God's most important attributes.
Standing up for the truth is a right and a responsibility which a Muslim may not disclaim
even in the face of the greatest danger or difficulty. While the Qur'an commands believers
to testify to the truth, it also instructs society not to harm persons so testifying.[/p]
E. RIGHT TO ACQUIRE KNOWLEDGE[/p]
The Qur'an puts the highest emphasis on the importance of acquiring
knowledge. That knowledge has been at the core of the Islamic world-view from the
beginning is attested to by Surah 96: Al'Alaq: 1-5, which Muslims believe to the first
revelation received by the Prophet Muhammad. [/p]
Asking rhetorically if those without knowledge can be equal to those
with knowledge, the Qur'an exhorts believers to pray for advancement in knowledge. The
famous prayer of the Prophet Muhammad was 'Allah grant me knowledge of the ultimate nature
of things' and one of the best known of all traditions (ahadith) is 'Seek knowledge even
though it be in China.'[/p]
According to qur'anic perspective, knowledge is a prerequisite for the
creation of a just world in which authentic peace can prevail. The Qur'an emphasizes the
importance of the pursuit of learning even at the time, and in the midst, of war.[/p]
F. RIGHT TO SUSTENANCE[/p]
As stated in Surah 11: Hud: 6, every living creature depends for its
sustenance upon God. A cardinal concept in the Qur'an – which underlies the
socio-economic-political system of Islam – is that everything belongs, not to any
person, but to God. Since God is the universal creator, every creature has the right to
partake of what belongs to God.50 This means that every human being has the right to a
means of living and that those who hold economic or political power do not have the right
to deprive others of the basic necessities of life by misappropriating or misusing
resources which have been created by God for the benefit of humanity in general. [/p]
G. RIGHT TO WORK[/p]
According to qur'anic teaching every man and woman has the right to
work, whether the work consists of gainful employment or voluntary service. The fruits of
labour belong to the one who has worked for them – regardless of whether it is a man
or a woman. As Surah 4: An-Nisa': 32 states: [/p]
[...] to men
Is allotted what they earn,
And to women what they earn.[/p]
H. RIGHT TO PRIVACY[/p]
The Qur'an recognizes the need for privacy as a human right and lays
down rules for protecting an individual's life in the home from undue intrusion from
within or without.[/p]
I. RIGHT TO PROTECTION FROM SLANDER, BACKBITING, AND
RIDICULE[/p]
The Qur'an recognizes the right of human beings to be protected from
defamation, sarcasm, offensive nicknames, and backbiting.53 It also states that no person
is to be maligned on grounds of assumed guilt and that those who engage in malicious
scandal-mongering will be grievously punished in both this world and the next.[/p]
J. RIGHT TO DEVELOP ONE'S AESTHETIC SENSIBILITIES AND
ENJOY THE BOUNTIES CREATED BY GOD[/p]
As pointed out by Muhammad Asad, 'By declaring that all good and
beautiful things of life – i.e., those which are not expressly prohibited – are
lawful to the believers, the Qu'ran condemns, by implication, all forms of life-denying
asceticism, world-renunciation and self-mortification. In fact, it can be stated that the
right to develop one's aesthetic sensibilities so that one can appreciate beauty in all
its forms, and the right to enjoy what God has provided for the nurture of humankind, are
rooted in the life-affirming vision of the Qur'an.[/p]
K. RIGHT TO LEAVE ONE'S HOMELAND UNDER OPPRESSIVE
CONDITIONS[/p]
According to qur'anic teaching, a Muslim's ultimate loyalty must be to
God and not to any territory. To fulfill his prophetic mission, the Prophet Muhammad
decided to leave his place of birth, Mecca, and emigrated to Medina. This event (Hijrah)
has great historical and spiritual significance for Muslims who are called upon to move
away from their place of origin if it becomes an abode of evil and oppression in which
they cannot fulfill their obligations to God or establish justice.[/p]
L. RIGHT TO THE 'GOOD LIFE'[/p]
The Qur'an upholds the right of the human being not only to life but to
the 'good life'. This good life, made up of many elements, becomes possible when a human
being is living in a just environment. According to qur'anic teaching, justice is a
prerequisite for peace, and peace is a prerequisite for human development. In a just
society, all the previous human rights may be exercised without difficulty. In such a
society other basic rights such as the right to a secure place of residence, the right to
the protection of one's personal property, the right to protection of one's covenants, the
right to move freely, the right to social and judicial autonomy for minorities, the right
to the protection of one's holy places and the right to return to one's spiritual centre,
also exist.[/p]
Having outlined the general ethical norms and principles embodied in
qur'anic teachings, it should be remembered that there is a wide discrepancy throughout
the world of Islam between qur'anic ideals and Muslim practice. For hundreds of years,
Muslims have been taught that they were created to serve God by obeying those with
authority over them and by enduring with patience whatever God willed for them. For
hundreds of years, Muslim masses have patiently endured the grinding poverty and
oppression imposed on them by those in authority. Not to be enslaved by foreign invaders
whose every attempt to subjugate them was met with resistance, Muslim masses were enslaved
by Muslims in the name of God and the Prophet, made to believe that they had no rights,
only responsibilities; that God was the God of retribution, not of love; that Islam was an
ethic of suffering, not joyous living; that they were determined by Qismat, not masters of
their own fate. The heroic spirit of Muslim thinkers such as Syed Ahmad Khan and Iqbal,
who were born in India in the last century – products not only of a pluralistic
society but also of an East-West synthesis – brought about a renaissance in the
Muslim world and liberated Muslims from political bondage. Their work, however, was not
completed, since the traditionalism which has eaten away the heart of Islam continues to
hold sway over most of the Muslim world. What we are witnessing today in the Muslim world
is of extreme interest and importance, for we are living in an age of both revolutions and
involutions, of progression and retrogression, of great light and great darkness. It is
imperative that Muslims rethink their position on all vital issues, since we can no longer
afford the luxury of consoling ourselves for our present miseries and misfortunes by an
uncritical adulation of a romanticized past. History has brought us to a point where
rhetoric will not rescue us from reality and where the discrepancies between Islamic
theory and Muslim practice will have to be accounted for.[/p]
No discussion of human rights or global ethics in the context of Islam
would be complete without reference to the situation of women in Muslim societies and
communities. Muslim men never tire of repeating that Islam has given more rights to women
than any other religion. Certainly, if by Islam is meant Qur'anic Islam the rights that it
has given to women are, indeed, impressive. Not only do women partake of all the general
rights mentioned in the foregoing pages, they are also the subject of much particular
concern in the Qur'an. Underlying much of the Qur'an's legislation on women-related issues
is the recognition that women have been disadvantaged persons in history to whom justice
needs to be done by the Muslim ummah. Unfortunately, however, the cumulative (Jewish,
Christian, Hellenistic, Bedouin and other) biases which existed in the Arab-Islamic
culture of the early centuries of Islam infiltrated the Islamic tradition and undermined
the intent of the Qur'an to liberate women from the status of chattel or inferior creature
and make them free and equal to men.[/p]
A review of Muslim history and culture reveals many areas in which
– qur'anic teaching notwithstanding – women continued to be subjected to diverse
forms of oppression and injustice, often in the name of Islam, while the Qur'an, because
of its protective attitude toward all downtrodden and oppressed classes of people, appears
to be weighted in many ways in favour of women, many of its women-related teachings have
been used in patriarchal Muslim societies against, rather than for, women. Muslim
societies, in general, appear to be far more concerned with trying to control women's
bodies and sexuality than with their human rights. Many Muslims when they speak of human
rights, either do not speak of women's rights at all, or are mainly concerned with how a
women's chastity may be protected. (They are apparently not worried about protecting men's
chastity).[/p]
Women are the targets of the most serious violations of human rights
which occur in Muslim societies in general. Muslims say with great pride that Islam
abolished female infanticide; true, but, it must also be mentioned that one of the most
common crimes in a number of Muslim countries (e.g., in Pakistan) is the murder of women
by their husbands. These so-called 'honour-killings' are, in fact, extremely dishonorable
and are frequently used to camouflage other kinds of crimes.[/p]
Girls are discriminated against from the moment of birth, for it is
customary in Muslim societies to regard a son as a gift, and a daughter as a trial, from
God. Therefore, the birth of a son is an occasion for celebration while the birth of a
daughter calls for commiseration if not lamentation. Many girls are married when they are
still minors, even though marriage in Islam is a contract and presupposes that the
contracting parties are both consenting adults. Even though so much qur'anic legislation
is aimed at protecting the rights of women in the context of marriage61 women cannot claim
equality with their husbands. The husband, in fact, is regarded as his wife's gateway to
heaven or hell and the arbiter of her final destiny. That such an idea can exist within
the framework of Islam – which, in theory, rejects the idea of there being any
intermediary between a believer and God – represents both a profound irony and a
great tragedy.[/p]
Although the Qur'an presents the idea of what we today call a no-fault
divorce and does not make any adverse judgments about divorce, Muslim societies have made
divorce extremely difficult for women, both legally and through social penalties. Although
the Qur'an states clearly that the divorced parents of a minor must decide by mutual
consultation how the child is to be raised and that they must not use the child to hurt or
exploit each other, in most Muslim societies, women are deprived both of their sons
(generally at age 7) and their daughters (generally at age 12). It is difficult to imagine
an act of greater cruelty than depriving a mother of her children simply because she is
divorced. Although polygamy was intended by the Qur'an to be for the protection of orphans
and widows, in practice Muslims have made it the Sword of Damocles which keeps women under
constant threat. Although the Qur'an gave women the right to receive an inheritance not
only on the death of a close relative, but also to receive other bequests or gifts during
the lifetime of a benefactor, Muslim societies have disapproved greatly of the idea of
giving wealth to a woman in preference to a man, even when her need or circumstances
warrant it. Although the purpose of the qur'anic legislation dealing with women's dress
and conduct, was to make it safe for women to go about their daily business (since they
have the right to engage in gainful activity as stated in Surah 4: An-Nisa': 32) without
fear of sexual harassment or molestation, Muslim societies have put many of them behind
veils and shrouds and locked doors on the pretext of protecting their chastity, forgetting
that according to the Qur'an, confinement to their homes was not a normal way of life for
chaste women but a punishment for unchastity.[/p]
Woman and man, created equal by God and standing equal in the sight of
God, have become unequal in Muslim societies. The qur'anic description of man and woman in
marriage: 'They are your garments. And you are their garments' (Surah 2: Al-Baqarah: 187)
implies closeness, mutuality and equality. However, Muslim culture has reduced many, if
not most, women to the position of puppets, to slave-like creatures whose only purpose in
life is to cater to the needs and pleasures of men. Not only this, it has also had the
audacity and the arrogance to deny women direct access to God. It is one of Islam's
cardinal beliefs that each person – man or woman – is responsible and
accountable for his or her individual actions. How, then, can the husband become the
wife's gateway to heaven or hell? How, then, can he become the arbiter not only of what
happens to her in this world but also of her ultimate destiny? Such questions are now
being asked by an increasing number of Muslim women and they are bound to threaten the
existing balance of power in the domain of family relationships in most Muslim societies. [/p]
However, despite everything that has gone wrong with the lives of
countless Muslim women down the ages due to patriarchal Muslim culture, there is hope for
the future. There are indications across the world of Islam that a growing number of
Muslims are beginning to reflect seriously upon the teachings of the Qur'an as they become
disenchanted with capitalism, communism and Western democracy. As this reflection deepens,
it is likely to lead to the realization that the supreme task entrusted to human beings by
God, of being God's deputies on earth, can only be accomplished by establishing justice
which the Qur'an regards as a prerequisite for authentic peace. Without the elimination of
the inequities, inequalities, and injustices that pervade the personal and collective
lives of human beings, it is not possible to talk about peace in qur'anic terms. Here, it
is of importance to note that there is more qur'anic legislation pertaining to the
establishment of justice in the context of family relationships than on any other subject.
This points to the assumption implicit in much qur'anic teaching, namely, that if human
beings can learn to order their homes justly so that the human rights of all within its
jurisdiction – children, women, and men – are safeguarded, then they can also
order their society and the world at large, justly. In other words, the Qur'an regards the
home as a microcosm of the ummah and the world community, and emphasizes the importance of
making it the abode of peace through just living.[/p]
Turning finally to the subject of Islam / Muslims and Cultural
Diversity, living in the West, I am all too painfully aware of the fact that Westerners in
general – including many Christians and Jews who, like Muslims, are 'People of the
Book' – perceive Islam as a religion spread by the sword, and Muslims as religious
fanatics who are zealously committed to waging holy war against non-Muslims or even
against non-conforming Muslims. While it is beyond the scope of this presentation to
examine the historical roots of these perceptions, I would like to point out that cultural
diversity has been strongly affirmed both by qur'anic teachings and by prophetic example.
For instance, the Qur'an states: [/p]
'O humankind! behold We have created you out of a male and a female, and
have made you into nations and tribes, so that you might come to know one another. Verily
the noblest of you in the sight of God is the one who is most deeply conscious of God.
Behold, God is all-knowing, all-aware.'[/p]
What this passage says to me is that we should be mindful both of our
unity and our diversity, that one of the basic purposes of diversity is to encourage
diverse groups and persons to know one another, that a person's ultimate worth is
determined not by what group he or she belongs to but how God-conscious he or she is.[/p]
A powerful testimony of how strongly the Prophet of Islam affirmed
cultural diversity may be found if one visits the Prophet's Mosque in Medina and looks at
the names of his close companions inscribed therein. Prominent among them are the names of
Bilal the black slave from Abyssinia who became the first muezzin of Islam and Salman who
came from Iran. During the first three hundred years of their history when Muslims created
not just a vast empire but one of the greatest civilizations the world has ever known,
they were proud of their cultural diversity, of the fact that there was an Arab Islam, an
Iranian Islam, an Indian Islam, a Turkish Islam, a Spanish Islam and so on. It is most
unfortunate that today there are many Muslims who seem to think that there is only one
right kind of Islam – namely Saudi Arabian Islam – which interprets the
universally-oriented, life-affirming teachings of the Qur'an in a narrow way.[/p]
Many Muslims in the contemporary world feel beseiged by negative forces
– whether these are perceived to be associated with Western political or cultural
imperialism or with the oppressive new-colonialism which prevails over much of the World
of Islam. Instead of dealing with the reality of their life-situation in a pro-active way,
they often tend to regress into reactive modes of thinking and behaviour which make them
forget the emphasis which the Qur'an places on the creative aspects of living with those
who are different from us. They should remember the message implicit in numerous qur'anic
verses such as the following: [/p]
To each is a goal
To which God turns him;
Then strive together [as in a race]
Towards all that is good.
Wheresoever ye are,
God will bring you
Together. For God
Hath power over all things
(Surah 2: Al-Baqarah: 148)[/p]
To each among you
have We prescribed a Law
And an Open Way.
If God had so willed,
He would have made you
A single People, but [his
Plan is] to test you in what
He hath given you: so strive
As in a race in all virtues.
The goal of you all is to God;
It is He that will show you
The truth of the matters
In which ye dispute
(Surah 5: Al-Ma'idah: 51)[/p]
'And [know that] all humankind were once but one single community, and
only later did they begin to hold divergent views. And had it not been for a decree that
had already gone forth from thy Sustainer, all their differences would indeed have been
settled [from the outset].' (Surah 10: Yunus: 19)[/p]
It is clearly the perspective of normative Islam that God who has
decreed diversity has also decreed dialogue in order that we may discover our common roots
and journey together toward our common goal. The paths we follow may not be the same but
the agony of the quest, the passion of seeking is the same. There is much in the Qur'an
which relates particularly to the relationships of the 'People of the Book' – Jews,
Christians, Muslims – to God and to each other. I believe that if we could understand
what the Qur'an is telling us we would be able to overcome many difficulties which impede
our inter-religious or inter-cultural dialogue. But much work has to be done – by
Muslims, Jews and Christians – separately and together, before we can comprehend, and
transcend, all that separates us as human beings and as believers in the same loving,
merciful, just and dialogue-oriented God.[/td]
http://kvc.minbuza.nl/uk/archive/amsterdam/ukverslag_hassan.html
A Muslim's Reflections on A New Global Ethics and Cultural Diversity
I have been asked to address the topic of a New Global Ethics from an Islamic perspective and to say
something about issues pertaining to cultural diversity, the wider context of this
discussion. [/p]
Let me begin by saying that I find the term 'New Global Ethics' to
be interesting but also problematic. It reminds me of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights which, although it was called universal, was – as pointed out by Raimundo
Panikkar – 'articulated along the lines of historical trends of the Western world
during the last three centuries, and a certain philosophical anthropology of
individualistic humanism which helped justify them'. The basic assumptions underlying the
Declaration were a) of a universal human nature common to all the peoples, b) of the
dignity of the individual, and c) of a democratic social order.[/p]
In the decades since the Declaration, the term 'human rights' has become
an integral part of both political and popular discourse, particularly among Western, and
Western-educated, persons. Until recently most of this discourse has been in largely
secular terms. In fact, it has been frequently assumed, as well as 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.[/p]
Underlying the stance that the concept of human rights is fundamentally
secular, and, therefore, outside of, and even antithetical to, the world view of religion,
is – of course – a certain view of religion in general, or of particular
religions. In some Muslim countries such as Pakistan, for instance, it is often remarked
by secular-minded proponents of human rights that it is not meaningful to talk about human
rights in Islam because, as a religious tradition, Islam has supported values and
structures that are incompatible with the assumptions which underlie the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights. [/p]
The fact that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights does not
acknowledge religion as a source of human rights points to what I consider a critical flaw
in the orientation of the United Nations. It is understandable why, in 1948, against the
backdrop of massive human conflicts, the United Nations would have wanted to distance
itself from any sort of identification with religion which has contributed significantly
throughout history to divisiveness and strife in the world. However, it is far less
credible that the United Nations should have become so trapped in its secular discourse
that it could continue until recently to refuse to deal with the fact that for millions of
human beings whose lives are rooted in belief rather that unbelief, human rights become
meaningful only when they are placed within the framework of their belief-system.[/p]
UNESCO used to maintain friendly relations with the communists. That caused few problems as liberals shared the belief in universal equality and the possibility of progress by mankind with the communists who also began as progressive. But to openly take the side of communist revolutions was of course not possible. The old appeal to respect human rights and therefore to support peace is still valid, but now it has been joined by a universal right to diversity. And that produces real problems.
It has become increasingly clear in the last few years as the United
Nations has tried to grapple with concrete issues pivotal to human development and
self-actualization, that neither the alleged universality of the United Nations Universal
Declaration of Human Rights nor the modern Western assumptions which underlie it, are
universally acceptable or applicable. This has been pointed out by Johan D. van der Vyver
who was one of the co-ordinators of a two-year international project on religion and human
rights sponsored by Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia, to which I was privileged to
contribute. In the introduction to the two-volume publication entitled Religious Human
Rights in Global Perspective which resulted from the project, Professor Van de Vyver
stated: [/p]
'There has been a new rivalry looming in international politics,
founded, more or less, on an East-West contingent; and in this instance not centred upon
the divergence of economic structures, but instead on the schism of religiously-based
forces. Eastern religions, with Islam in the lead, are increasingly questioning the
Western perceptions of human rights and challenging the claim to prime authenticity of the
liberal individualistic nuance of the human rights ideology as devised and understood in
the West. While Western traditions by and large founded the typical liberal perceptions of
human rights on a secularized base, most Eastern proponents of human rights seek to
construct an intimate link of the values embodied in that ideology with decidedly
religious presuppositions. In the East, more so than in the West, human rights perceptions
are accordingly conditioned by uncompromising tenets of religious belief.'[/p]
A strong showing of resistance, particularly by Muslims, to what was
perceived as 'secular humanism in the West with a strong individualistic nuance'4 was
visible at the NGO forum of all the recent United Nations conferences, namely, the World
Conference on Human Rights in Vienna in 1993, the International Conference on Population
and Development at Cairo in 1994, and the World Conference on Women at Huairou in 1995.
The fact that at the conclusion of the Cairo Conference, perhaps the most controversial of
all the United Nations conferences to date, religion – which had not been mentioned
in the original draft of the conference – and ethics and culture – which had
been mentioned a few times only in passing – were clearly recognized as factors
relevant in population planning and development, marked a shift radical enough to be
called a paradigm shift, in the orientation of the United Nations. That religion – a
topic which was long considered taboo – was one of the major subjects of discussion
at the NGO Forum in China – shows that there has been a decisive shift away from the
wholly secular mindset of the world organization. This development is likely, in my
judgment, to make the United Nations more effective in reaching out to masses of people in
many parts of the world.[/p]
The idea of developing a Declaration of the Religions for a Global Ethic
was launched by the Council of the Parliament of the World's Religions in Chicago as part
of the commemoration of the centenary of the first Parliament of the World's Religions
meeting in Chicago in 1893. This important enterprise represented, in a significant way,
an attempt by representatives of world religions to develop a document which would, in
some ways, be complementary to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. But whereas the
latter had dissociated itself from religion the new declaration would be grounded in
religion.[/p]
The task of preparing the draft of this declaration was given to
Professor Dr Hans Küng, one of the most eminent religious thinkers and scholars of our
times with whom I have had the honour of working in the context of Christian-Muslim
interreligious dialogue both in Tübingen and in Pakistan. Referring to this assignment,
Professor Küng stated: [/p]
'That was for me an extremely difficult task. However after I was
able to deal with the problems of such a declaration throughout the entire summer semester
(1992) in an interdisciplinary colloquium with participants from various religions and
continents, I was in a position to produce an initial draft and then send it to various
colleagues and friends for correction. This first draft received broad agreement from all
those to whom it was sent. At the same time dozens of formal as well as material
suggestions for corrections were submitted, which I have now taken into account as
carefully as possible in a second draft, the text has thereby gained in precision.'[/p]
The Declaration Toward a Global Ethic developed by Professor Küng 'was
signed by most of the nearly two hundred delegates who attended the Parliament of World's
Religions'6 in September 1993. Here, it is of interest to note that in January 1993, at an
annual meeting of a Jewish-Christian-Muslim trialogue held in Graz, Austria, a document
entitled 'Universal Declaration of a Global Ethic' had been presented for an in-depth
analysis and critique by Professor Dr Leonard Swidler. I have had the privilege of working
since 1979 with Professor Swidler who is the initiator of the trialogue or Interreligious
Dialogue among Jews, Christians and Muslims, in the United States, and was a participant
in the discussion which took place in Graz, although, unfortunately, illness prevented me
from attending the discussion on global ethics directed by Professor Küng at Chicago.[/p]
I have deep respect for both Professor Küng and Professor Swidler and I
know that their efforts to develop documents which could be regarded as universally-agreed
ethical guideposts for a world which faces serious moral, political, economic and
ecological crises on the eve of the twenty-first century, stem from a lifetime of
dedication to the pursuit of truth and justice not only in scholarship, but also in real
life. I am also aware of the fact that both Professor Küng and Professor Swidler have
consulted with various persons, including scholars, from the major religious traditions of
the world in their endeavour to make their documents as representative of a global
consensus on ethical principles as they possibly could in their given settings and
time-frames. Further, both Professor Küng and Professor Swidler have presented their
documents as 'a tentative draft' and 'not an end but a beginning'. The Preface to A Global
Ethics edited by Professor Küng and Professor Kuschel expressed the hope[/p]
'that this document may set off a process which changes the
behaviour of men and women in the religions in the direction of understanding, respect and
cooperation. And if all goes well, in the not too distant future we shall have other
declarations which make the global ethics of the religions more precise and concrete and
add further illustrations to it. Perhaps one day there may be even a United Nations
Declaration on Global Ethics to provide moral support for a Declaration of Human Rights,
which is so often ignored and cruelly violated.'[/p]
While appreciating the intentions and affirmations, and the hopes of my
esteemed colleagues Professor Küng, Professor Swidler, and also Professor Kuschel, as a
Muslim and as a woman human rights activist I must express the difficulties I experience
with the concept as well as the methodology of what is popularly being referred to as a
New Global Ethics – a title which troubles me and raises two important questions for
me. 1) What is new about this ethic or ethics? and 2) in what sense is this ethic or
ethics global?[/p]
While the two versions of the declaration towards, or on, global ethic
or ethics with which I am familiar purport to identify and include those ethical
principles which are common to most, particularly the major, religions of the world, it
seems to me that their fundamental presuppositions are a priori. They are not the products
of an internal dialogue within each religion regarding its central ethical concerns and
principles, widening into a dialogue with other religions on the same matters. Rather,
they represent the thinking of post-Enlightenment Westerners who are mostly Christian
either religiously or culturally. In this context I find the following remarks by
Professor Dr John Hick, another respected partner-in-dialogue, to be highly pertinent: [/p]
'The difficulty in offering a distinctively Christian comment on
Leonard Swidler's draft is that it is already in an important sense a Christian document.
For since the European Enlightenment of the eighteenth century Western Christianity has
been increasingly suffused with the individualistic, democratic, liberal,
historically-minded, science-oriented outlook of the Enlightenment, an outlook that
constitutes what can comprehensively be called the ethos of modernity. Indeed
Christianity, as a cultural influence, is identified in the minds of many Christians,
particularly when they make comparisons with other religions, with these liberal ideas of
modernity. From an historical point of view, this is paradoxical. For what has happened is
that secular modernity has transformed the outlook of most of the Christian World, rather
than that Christianity has out of its own distinctive religious resources introduced these
modern liberal values into Western culture. Indeed during much the greater part of its
history Christianity has been neither democratic, nor liberal, nor science-oriented, nor
historically-minded or individualistic in the modern sense. In saying, then, that Leonard
Swidler's is a Christian draft I merely mean that it comes out of contemporary Western
Christianity and embodies the spirit of post-Enlightenment culture. Anyone reading it can
readily identify its provenance, reflecting as it does the concerns and presuppositions of
modernity.'[/p]
The fact that the comments of non-Westerners or non-Christians have been
elicited to the drafts prepared by Western Christian scholars does not alter the fact that
these drafts do not reflect the ethos of the religions of the world. The references to
selective citations from different sacred texts to support the presuppositions of the
drafts do not substantiate the claim that these presuppositions represent a consensus of
the world's religions on ethical principles. We have all heard the saying, that the devil
can quote the scripture for his purpose. It is not only the devil, but all of us, who are
susceptible to the temptation to cite quotations out of context or to look at them in a
limited context when we are trying to prove what we consider to be a self-evident truth.
In other words – in the language of computer science – when we are goal-driven
rather that data-driven, we tend not to see the total picture and its complexity but to be
content with simple answers to complicated questions. In this context also, the comment by
Professor Hick in response to Professor Swidler's draft, merits serious consideration: [/p]
'This first draft, produced by Leonard Swidler (and likewise the
basically similar draft produced by Hans Küng), must not stand as the one official draft
which is to be amended, added to, and developed by contributions from the rest of the
world. It is essential that as early in the process as possible other independent initial
drafts be forthcoming from within the cultures of China, Africa, Russia, India, the
Islamic world, the Buddhist world, the primal life-streams. Only then, with the comparison
and interaction of these perhaps significantly different drafts, will the movement towards
a genuinely global declaration be able to proceed beyond its present state. At least as
important, then, as the organizing of intensive discussions of our Western draft must be
the eliciting of Asian, African, Pacific and other drafts.[/p]
In this first stage of the search for a global ethic, rather that
getting the peoples of other cultures to debate our Western draft, agreeing or disagreeing
with it as the only document on the table, we should say: 'Here is the kind of draft that
comes naturally to us in the industrialized West. What kind of draft comes naturally to
you, and to you, and to you?' And then the next stage beyond this should be to bring a
plurality of drafts together and see what comes out of the interaction between them.[/p]
I do not think that in any of this I am diverging from what Leonard
Swidler has in mind. I want particularly to stress, however, the need to move as soon as
possible from a one-draft to a multi-draft situation. So long as we have a modern Western
draft there will be the danger of the whole project looking like an act of Western
cultural imperialism. This has never been the intention. And the danger can be avoided by
directing every effort to get people from within the other great cultural streams of human
life to participate in the search from their own independent points of view.[/p]
It is not a legitimate criticism that the search for a global ethic
originated in the West; for it had to originate somewhere! And the West probably contains
more abundantly than elsewhere the practical resources required to launch and promote the
process. But it would be a ground for legitimate criticism if the search remained
concentrated around our Western contribution to it. The challenge is now to find ways of
opening the discussion up on an equal basis within all the great traditions of the earth.'[/p]
Having stated my wider philosophical reservations to the way in which
global ethic or ethics has been conceptualized or developed in the West in the last few
years, I wish to respond to the topic of a New Global Ethics from a Muslim religious
perspective. The ethos of the Muslim world is quite different from that of the Western
world which rests on Graeco-Roman foundations and in which reason has generally been
regarded as the co-equal if not the superior, or the arbiter, of revelation. For the vast
majority of Muslims, however, revelation constitutes the highest source of knowledge and
is normative for Muslims collectively and individually, in their public as well as their
private lives, both in relation to the material world and inner as well as transcendental
reality.[/p]
There is hardly any doubt that even though Islam is one of the three
Abrahamic faiths and is regarded by many Jews and Christians as a prophetic religion,
many, if not most, Westerners find it harder to understand or accept Islam and Muslims
than any other major religion or its adherents. This is not the time or place to analyze
all the historical, political, socio-cultural and theological factors which have brought
about such a wide gap of understanding or amity between Islam/Muslims and many non-Muslim
Westerners. However, I find it difficult as a Muslim to accept as authentic or effective
the lofty principles relating to justice and equity for all peoples contained in the
Declaration of Global Ethics, when I see the violence directed against both Muslim men and
women in much of the Western world.[/p]
I am saddened when I read the statement that 'one day there may even be
a new United Nations declaration on a global ethic to provide moral support for the
Declaration of Human Rights, which is often ignored and cruelly violated'. One major
reason why the Declaration of Human Rights is ignored is because it is not grounded in
reality or in the lives of the majority of the peoples of the world. I do not find it
helpful when I travel through the Muslim world talking to the average Muslim woman. They
have three characteristics: they are poor, they are illiterate and they live in a village.
A large number of the over 500 million Muslim women in the world share these
characteristics. If I as a person committed to women's empowerment were to try to reach
one of these women living anywhere between Ankara and Jakarta, how would I do it? Could I
say to her, 'I bring you liberation or empowerment in the name of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights (1948)?' This statement would mean nothing to her. But if I
were to say to her, 'You believe in God and you know that God is just. Therefore, it
cannot be the will of God that you should live in sub-human conditions and be brutalized
or oppressed'. This makes instant sense to her because her religious beliefs constitute
the matrix in which her life is rooted. A light begins to shine in her eyes as she
realizes that she is not powerless... that the source of empowerment lies within her since
God, the universal creator and sustainer, is a just and merciful God who does not condone
injustice in any way.[/p]
There is no doubt that the very existence of a Universal Declaration of
Human Rights is an outstanding achievement of humanity as a whole and that if there were
to be a complementary Declaration of Global Ethic this also would be a similar
achievement. But declarations alone do not bring about moral or social transformation of
society or human beings. Even in the West, the validity of the Greek notion that knowledge
is a virtue – that knowing what is right necessarily leads to virtuous conduct –
was challenged by David Hume and modern psychology. The Qur'an tells us that the condition
of people changes only when they change what is in themselves. If the superpowers which
had been instrumental in drafting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights had practised
what they preached and had refrained from violating human rights within their own borders
or supporting autocratic, anti-human-rights forces in other countries, the state of the
world today would have been very different from what it is today. The lesson to be learnt
by those who are engaged in developing a Declaration of Global Ethic – I believe
– is that any kind of ethic begins at home, with oneself. And that, often, it is much
easier to make generalized statements about abstract ethical principles than to deal
honestly and deeply with the specificity and complexity of the lives and beliefs of
others, particularly those who are seen as adversaries or aliens.[/p]
A better world order will not be introduced on the basis solely of international law, as long as such a law rests on the unlimited sovereignty of states and is focused more on the rights of states than on the rights of peoples and individuals. If moral convictions and moral intentions do not back a law, armistice or treaty, powers as in Bosnia are not even prepared to defend the principle that only peaceful and negotiated territorial change is acceptable in Europe.
Just as the strongest resistance to the Western notion of human rights
has come from Muslims, it is likely that the strongest resistance to the new Western
notion of Global Ethics will also come from Muslims. Setting aside for the moment the
political and psychological factors which may be involved in this resistance, let me focus
on what I consider to be the major religious reason why many Muslims would have difficulty
subscribing to a New Global Ethic as is being discussed in this forum. In the first place,
for the majority of Muslims the highest source of what they consider to be normative Islam
or Muslim ethics is the Qur'an as revealed to the Prophet Muhammad in the seventh century.
Hence for them there is nothing new about the ethics which is relevant to their lives.
Secondly, for them the ethical framework of the Qur'an embraces what may be called
'fundamental human rights' or 'principles of global ethics'. Hence there is no need for
them to develop a New Global Ethic.[/p]
Given the widespread stereotyping of Muslims as fanatic and irrational,
or anti-modern and backward, there is a danger that my words may be misconstrued as
representing what the West wrongly calls Islamic fundamentalism. While, like the
overwhelming majority of Muslims, I, too, believe that the Qur'an is God's Word and the
highest source of normative Islam, I also believe that the Qur'an is the Magna Carta of
human rights and that a large part of its concern is to free human beings from the bondage
of traditionalism, authoritarianism (religious, political, economic, or any other),
tribalism, racism, sexism, slavery or anything else that prohibits or inhibits human
beings from actualizing the qur'anic vision of human destiny embodied in the classic
proclamation: 'Towards God is thy limit.'[/p]
Islam is not involved, while from the viewpoint of human rights and Enlightenment you should in fact oppose all attempts to introduce the medieval Sar'yia (medieval Islamic law).
Since I have a life-commitment to promoting what I consider to be
authentic dialogue in the Büberian 'I-Thou' mode, and have spent almost twenty years of
my life intensively engaged in a variety of dialogues with men and women from different
religions, ideologies, cultures and races, it is my earnest hope that those who are
committed to developing Global Ethics in the West will make a serious effort to understand
Islam and other religions not from outside but from within. I would like to facilitate
this effort in the context of my religious tradition by sharing with you my understanding
of what I call the ethical framework of the Qur'an consisting of the rights and
responsibilities which are emphasized by qur'anic teachings.[/p]
In the account which follows, reference is made to the Qur'an's
affirmation of fundamental rights which all human beings ought to possess because they are
so deeply rooted in our humanness that their denial or violation is tantamount to a
negation or degradation of that which makes us human. From the perspective of the Qur'an,
these rights came into existence when we did; they were created, as we were, by God in
order that our human potential could be actualized. Rights created or given by God cannot
be abolished by any temporal ruler or human agency. Eternal and immutable, they should be
exercised since everything that God does is for a 'just purpose'.[/p]
A. RIGHT TO LIFE[/p]
The Qur'an upholds the sanctity and absolute value of human life14 and
points out that, in essence, the life of each individual is comparable to that of an
entire community and, therefore, should be treated with the utmost care.15[/p]
B. RIGHT TO RESPECT[/p]
The Qur'an deems all human beings to be worthy of respect16 because of
all creation they alone chose to accept the trust of freedom of the will.17 Human beings
can exercise freedom of the will because they possess the rational faculty, which is what
distinguishes them from all other creatures.18 Though human beings can become 'the lowest
of the low', the Qur'an declares that they have been made 'in the best of moulds',19
having the ability to think, to have knowledge of right and wrong, to do good and to avoid
evil. Thus, on account of the promise which is contained in being human, namely, the
potential to be God's viceregent on earth, the humanness of all human beings is to be
respected and considered to be an end in itself. [/p]
Every person has a right to respect because a life without respect is meaningless. Thus a society that damages people's self-respect is by definition unjust and uncivilized. [!--EINDE CITAAT --] [b]
[font color="#000080" size="4"]C. RIGHT TO JUSTICE[/p]
The Qur'an puts great emphasis on the right to seek justice and the duty
to do justice. In the context of justice, the Qur'an uses two concepts: 'adl and ihsan.
Both are enjoined and both are related to the idea of balance, but are not identical in
meaning.[/p]
'Adl is defined by A.A.A. Fyzee, a well-known scholar of Islam, as 'to
be equal, neither more nor less.' Explaining this concept, Fyzee wrote: '...in a Court of
Justice the claims of the two parties must be considered evenly, without undue stress
being laid upon one side or the other. Justice introduces the balance in the form of
scales that are evenly balanced'. 'Adl was described in similar terms by Abu'l Kalam Azad,
a famous translator of the Qur'an and a noted writer, who stated, 'What is justice but the
avoiding of excess? There should be neither too much nor too little; hence the use of
scales as the emblem of justice'. Lest anyone try to do too much or too little, the Qur'an
points out that no human being can carry another's burden or attain anything without
striving for it.[/p]
Recognizing individual merit is a part of 'adl, the Qur'an teaches that
merit is not determined by lineage, sex, wealth, worldly success or religion, but by
righteousness, which consists of both right belief (iman) and just action ('amal).
Further, the Qur'an distinguishes between passive believers and those who strive in the
cause of God pointing out that though all believers are promised good by God, the latter
will be exalted above the former.[/p]
Just as it is in the spirit of 'adl that special merit be considered in
the matter of rewards, so also special circumstances are to be considered in the matter of
punishments. For instance, for crimes of unchastity the Qur'an prescribes identical
punishments for a man or a woman who is proved guilty, but it differentiates between
different classes of women: for the same crime, a slave woman would receive half, and the
Prophet's consort double, the punishment given to a free Muslim woman. In making such a
distinction, the Qur'an while upholding high moral standards, particularly in the case of
the Prophet's wives whose actions have a normative significance for the community goes
beyond this concept to ihsan, which literally means restoring the balance by making up a
loss or deficiency.28 In order to understand this concept, it is necessary to understand
the nature of the ideal society or community (ummah) envisaged by the Qur'an. The word
ummah comes from the root umm, or 'mother'. The symbols of a mother and motherly love and
compassion are also linked with the two attributes most characteristic of God, namely,
Rahim and Rahman, both of which are derived from the root rahm, meaning 'womb'. The ideal
ummah cares about all its members just as an ideal mother cares about all her children,
knowing that all are not equal and that each has different needs. While showing undue
favour to any child would be unjust, a mother who gives to a handicapped child more than
she does to her other child or children, is not acting unjustly but exemplifying the
spirit of ihsan by helping to make up the deficiency of a child who needs special
assistance in meeting the requirements of life. Ihsan, thus, shows God's sympathy for the
disadvantaged segments of human society (such as women, orphans, slaves, the poor, the
infirm, and the minorities). [/p]
D. RIGHT TO FREEDOM[/p]
As stated earlier, the Qur'an is deeply concerned about liberating human
beings from every kind of bondage. Recognizing the human tendency toward dictatorship and
despotism, the Qur'an says with clarity and emphasis in Surah 3: Al-'Imran: 79: [/p]
[font size="3"]It is not
That a man, to whom
Is given the Book,
and Wisdom,
And the Prophetic Office,
Should say to people:
'Be ye my worshippers
Rather than Allah's'
On the contrary
[He would say]:
'Be ye worshippers
Of Him Who is truly
The Cherisher of all.'[/p]
The institution of human slavery is, of course, extremely important in
the context of human freedom. Slavery was widely prevalent in Arabia at the time of the
advent of Islam, and the Arab economy was based on it. Not only did the Qur'an insist that
slaves be treated in a just and humane way,. but it continually urged the freeing of
slaves. By laying down, in Surah 47: Muhammad: 4, that prisoners of war were to be set
free, 'either by an act of grace or against ransom',. the Qur'an virtually abolished
slavery since 'The major source of slaves – men and women – was prisoners of
war'.. Because the Qur'an does not state explicitly that slavery is abolished, it does not
follow that it is to be continued, particularly in view of the numerous ways in which the
Qur'an seeks to eliminate this absolute evil. A book which does not give a king or a
prophet the right to command absolute obedience from another human being could not
possibly sanction slavery in any sense of the word.[/p]
The greatest guarantee of personal freedom for a Muslim lies in the
qur'anic decree that no one other than God can limit human freedom34 and in the statement
that 'Judgment (as to what is right and what is wrong) rests with God alone'.. As pointed
out by Khalid M. Ishaque, an eminent Pakistani jurist: [/p]
'The Qur'an gives to responsible dissent the status of a fundamental
right. In exercise of their powers, therefore, neither the legislature nor the executive
can demand unquestioning obedience [...] The Prophet, even though he was the recipient of
divine revelation, was required to consult the Muslims in public affairs. Allah addressing
the Prophet says: '[...] and consult with them upon the conduct of affairs. And [...] when
thou art resolved, then put thy trust in Allah'.[/p]
Since the principle of mutual consultation (shura) is mandatory, it is a
Muslim's fundamental right, as well as responsibility, to participate in as many aspects
of the community's life as possible. The qur'anic proclamation in Surah 2: Al-Baqarah:
256, 'There shall be no coercion in matters of faith' guarantees freedom of religion and
worship. This means that, according to qur'anic teaching, non-Muslims living in Muslim
territories should have the freedom to follow their own faith-traditions without fear or
harassment. A number of qur'anic passages state clearly that the responsibility of the
Prophet Muhammad is to communicate the message of God and not to compel anyone to believe.
The right to exercise free choice in matters of belief is unambiguously endorsed by the
Qur'an which also states clearly that God will judge human beings not on the basis of what
they profess but on the basis of their belief and righteous conduct, as indicated by Surah
2: Al-Baqarah: 62: [/p]
Those who believe [in the Qur'an]
And those who follow the Jewish ,
And the Christians and the Sabians,
Any who believe in God
And the Last Day,
And work righteousness,
Shall have their reward
With the Lord: on them
Shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.[/p]
The Qur'an recognizes the right to religious freedom not only in the
case of other believers in God, but also in the case of non-believers in God (if they do
not behave aggressively against Muslims).[/p]
In the context of the human right to exercise religious freedom, it is
important to mention that the qur'anic dictum, 'Let there be no compulsion in religion'
applies not only to non-Muslims but also to Muslims. While those who renounced Islam after
professing it and then engaged in acts of war against Muslims were to be treated as
enemies and aggressors, the Qur'an does not prescribe any punishment for non-profession or
renunciation of faith. The decision regarding a person's ultimate destiny in the hereafter
rests with God. [/p]
The right to freedom includes the right to be free to tell the truth.
The qur'anic term for truth is haqq which is also one of God's most important attributes.
Standing up for the truth is a right and a responsibility which a Muslim may not disclaim
even in the face of the greatest danger or difficulty. While the Qur'an commands believers
to testify to the truth, it also instructs society not to harm persons so testifying.[/p]
E. RIGHT TO ACQUIRE KNOWLEDGE[/p]
The Qur'an puts the highest emphasis on the importance of acquiring
knowledge. That knowledge has been at the core of the Islamic world-view from the
beginning is attested to by Surah 96: Al'Alaq: 1-5, which Muslims believe to the first
revelation received by the Prophet Muhammad. [/p]
Asking rhetorically if those without knowledge can be equal to those
with knowledge, the Qur'an exhorts believers to pray for advancement in knowledge. The
famous prayer of the Prophet Muhammad was 'Allah grant me knowledge of the ultimate nature
of things' and one of the best known of all traditions (ahadith) is 'Seek knowledge even
though it be in China.'[/p]
According to qur'anic perspective, knowledge is a prerequisite for the
creation of a just world in which authentic peace can prevail. The Qur'an emphasizes the
importance of the pursuit of learning even at the time, and in the midst, of war.[/p]
F. RIGHT TO SUSTENANCE[/p]
As stated in Surah 11: Hud: 6, every living creature depends for its
sustenance upon God. A cardinal concept in the Qur'an – which underlies the
socio-economic-political system of Islam – is that everything belongs, not to any
person, but to God. Since God is the universal creator, every creature has the right to
partake of what belongs to God.50 This means that every human being has the right to a
means of living and that those who hold economic or political power do not have the right
to deprive others of the basic necessities of life by misappropriating or misusing
resources which have been created by God for the benefit of humanity in general. [/p]
G. RIGHT TO WORK[/p]
According to qur'anic teaching every man and woman has the right to
work, whether the work consists of gainful employment or voluntary service. The fruits of
labour belong to the one who has worked for them – regardless of whether it is a man
or a woman. As Surah 4: An-Nisa': 32 states: [/p]
[...] to men
Is allotted what they earn,
And to women what they earn.[/p]
H. RIGHT TO PRIVACY[/p]
The Qur'an recognizes the need for privacy as a human right and lays
down rules for protecting an individual's life in the home from undue intrusion from
within or without.[/p]
I. RIGHT TO PROTECTION FROM SLANDER, BACKBITING, AND
RIDICULE[/p]
The Qur'an recognizes the right of human beings to be protected from
defamation, sarcasm, offensive nicknames, and backbiting.53 It also states that no person
is to be maligned on grounds of assumed guilt and that those who engage in malicious
scandal-mongering will be grievously punished in both this world and the next.[/p]
J. RIGHT TO DEVELOP ONE'S AESTHETIC SENSIBILITIES AND
ENJOY THE BOUNTIES CREATED BY GOD[/p]
As pointed out by Muhammad Asad, 'By declaring that all good and
beautiful things of life – i.e., those which are not expressly prohibited – are
lawful to the believers, the Qu'ran condemns, by implication, all forms of life-denying
asceticism, world-renunciation and self-mortification. In fact, it can be stated that the
right to develop one's aesthetic sensibilities so that one can appreciate beauty in all
its forms, and the right to enjoy what God has provided for the nurture of humankind, are
rooted in the life-affirming vision of the Qur'an.[/p]
K. RIGHT TO LEAVE ONE'S HOMELAND UNDER OPPRESSIVE
CONDITIONS[/p]
According to qur'anic teaching, a Muslim's ultimate loyalty must be to
God and not to any territory. To fulfill his prophetic mission, the Prophet Muhammad
decided to leave his place of birth, Mecca, and emigrated to Medina. This event (Hijrah)
has great historical and spiritual significance for Muslims who are called upon to move
away from their place of origin if it becomes an abode of evil and oppression in which
they cannot fulfill their obligations to God or establish justice.[/p]
L. RIGHT TO THE 'GOOD LIFE'[/p]
The Qur'an upholds the right of the human being not only to life but to
the 'good life'. This good life, made up of many elements, becomes possible when a human
being is living in a just environment. According to qur'anic teaching, justice is a
prerequisite for peace, and peace is a prerequisite for human development. In a just
society, all the previous human rights may be exercised without difficulty. In such a
society other basic rights such as the right to a secure place of residence, the right to
the protection of one's personal property, the right to protection of one's covenants, the
right to move freely, the right to social and judicial autonomy for minorities, the right
to the protection of one's holy places and the right to return to one's spiritual centre,
also exist.[/p]
Having outlined the general ethical norms and principles embodied in
qur'anic teachings, it should be remembered that there is a wide discrepancy throughout
the world of Islam between qur'anic ideals and Muslim practice. For hundreds of years,
Muslims have been taught that they were created to serve God by obeying those with
authority over them and by enduring with patience whatever God willed for them. For
hundreds of years, Muslim masses have patiently endured the grinding poverty and
oppression imposed on them by those in authority. Not to be enslaved by foreign invaders
whose every attempt to subjugate them was met with resistance, Muslim masses were enslaved
by Muslims in the name of God and the Prophet, made to believe that they had no rights,
only responsibilities; that God was the God of retribution, not of love; that Islam was an
ethic of suffering, not joyous living; that they were determined by Qismat, not masters of
their own fate. The heroic spirit of Muslim thinkers such as Syed Ahmad Khan and Iqbal,
who were born in India in the last century – products not only of a pluralistic
society but also of an East-West synthesis – brought about a renaissance in the
Muslim world and liberated Muslims from political bondage. Their work, however, was not
completed, since the traditionalism which has eaten away the heart of Islam continues to
hold sway over most of the Muslim world. What we are witnessing today in the Muslim world
is of extreme interest and importance, for we are living in an age of both revolutions and
involutions, of progression and retrogression, of great light and great darkness. It is
imperative that Muslims rethink their position on all vital issues, since we can no longer
afford the luxury of consoling ourselves for our present miseries and misfortunes by an
uncritical adulation of a romanticized past. History has brought us to a point where
rhetoric will not rescue us from reality and where the discrepancies between Islamic
theory and Muslim practice will have to be accounted for.[/p]
No discussion of human rights or global ethics in the context of Islam
would be complete without reference to the situation of women in Muslim societies and
communities. Muslim men never tire of repeating that Islam has given more rights to women
than any other religion. Certainly, if by Islam is meant Qur'anic Islam the rights that it
has given to women are, indeed, impressive. Not only do women partake of all the general
rights mentioned in the foregoing pages, they are also the subject of much particular
concern in the Qur'an. Underlying much of the Qur'an's legislation on women-related issues
is the recognition that women have been disadvantaged persons in history to whom justice
needs to be done by the Muslim ummah. Unfortunately, however, the cumulative (Jewish,
Christian, Hellenistic, Bedouin and other) biases which existed in the Arab-Islamic
culture of the early centuries of Islam infiltrated the Islamic tradition and undermined
the intent of the Qur'an to liberate women from the status of chattel or inferior creature
and make them free and equal to men.[/p]
A review of Muslim history and culture reveals many areas in which
– qur'anic teaching notwithstanding – women continued to be subjected to diverse
forms of oppression and injustice, often in the name of Islam, while the Qur'an, because
of its protective attitude toward all downtrodden and oppressed classes of people, appears
to be weighted in many ways in favour of women, many of its women-related teachings have
been used in patriarchal Muslim societies against, rather than for, women. Muslim
societies, in general, appear to be far more concerned with trying to control women's
bodies and sexuality than with their human rights. Many Muslims when they speak of human
rights, either do not speak of women's rights at all, or are mainly concerned with how a
women's chastity may be protected. (They are apparently not worried about protecting men's
chastity).[/p]
Women are the targets of the most serious violations of human rights
which occur in Muslim societies in general. Muslims say with great pride that Islam
abolished female infanticide; true, but, it must also be mentioned that one of the most
common crimes in a number of Muslim countries (e.g., in Pakistan) is the murder of women
by their husbands. These so-called 'honour-killings' are, in fact, extremely dishonorable
and are frequently used to camouflage other kinds of crimes.[/p]
Girls are discriminated against from the moment of birth, for it is
customary in Muslim societies to regard a son as a gift, and a daughter as a trial, from
God. Therefore, the birth of a son is an occasion for celebration while the birth of a
daughter calls for commiseration if not lamentation. Many girls are married when they are
still minors, even though marriage in Islam is a contract and presupposes that the
contracting parties are both consenting adults. Even though so much qur'anic legislation
is aimed at protecting the rights of women in the context of marriage61 women cannot claim
equality with their husbands. The husband, in fact, is regarded as his wife's gateway to
heaven or hell and the arbiter of her final destiny. That such an idea can exist within
the framework of Islam – which, in theory, rejects the idea of there being any
intermediary between a believer and God – represents both a profound irony and a
great tragedy.[/p]
Although the Qur'an presents the idea of what we today call a no-fault
divorce and does not make any adverse judgments about divorce, Muslim societies have made
divorce extremely difficult for women, both legally and through social penalties. Although
the Qur'an states clearly that the divorced parents of a minor must decide by mutual
consultation how the child is to be raised and that they must not use the child to hurt or
exploit each other, in most Muslim societies, women are deprived both of their sons
(generally at age 7) and their daughters (generally at age 12). It is difficult to imagine
an act of greater cruelty than depriving a mother of her children simply because she is
divorced. Although polygamy was intended by the Qur'an to be for the protection of orphans
and widows, in practice Muslims have made it the Sword of Damocles which keeps women under
constant threat. Although the Qur'an gave women the right to receive an inheritance not
only on the death of a close relative, but also to receive other bequests or gifts during
the lifetime of a benefactor, Muslim societies have disapproved greatly of the idea of
giving wealth to a woman in preference to a man, even when her need or circumstances
warrant it. Although the purpose of the qur'anic legislation dealing with women's dress
and conduct, was to make it safe for women to go about their daily business (since they
have the right to engage in gainful activity as stated in Surah 4: An-Nisa': 32) without
fear of sexual harassment or molestation, Muslim societies have put many of them behind
veils and shrouds and locked doors on the pretext of protecting their chastity, forgetting
that according to the Qur'an, confinement to their homes was not a normal way of life for
chaste women but a punishment for unchastity.[/p]
Woman and man, created equal by God and standing equal in the sight of
God, have become unequal in Muslim societies. The qur'anic description of man and woman in
marriage: 'They are your garments. And you are their garments' (Surah 2: Al-Baqarah: 187)
implies closeness, mutuality and equality. However, Muslim culture has reduced many, if
not most, women to the position of puppets, to slave-like creatures whose only purpose in
life is to cater to the needs and pleasures of men. Not only this, it has also had the
audacity and the arrogance to deny women direct access to God. It is one of Islam's
cardinal beliefs that each person – man or woman – is responsible and
accountable for his or her individual actions. How, then, can the husband become the
wife's gateway to heaven or hell? How, then, can he become the arbiter not only of what
happens to her in this world but also of her ultimate destiny? Such questions are now
being asked by an increasing number of Muslim women and they are bound to threaten the
existing balance of power in the domain of family relationships in most Muslim societies. [/p]
However, despite everything that has gone wrong with the lives of
countless Muslim women down the ages due to patriarchal Muslim culture, there is hope for
the future. There are indications across the world of Islam that a growing number of
Muslims are beginning to reflect seriously upon the teachings of the Qur'an as they become
disenchanted with capitalism, communism and Western democracy. As this reflection deepens,
it is likely to lead to the realization that the supreme task entrusted to human beings by
God, of being God's deputies on earth, can only be accomplished by establishing justice
which the Qur'an regards as a prerequisite for authentic peace. Without the elimination of
the inequities, inequalities, and injustices that pervade the personal and collective
lives of human beings, it is not possible to talk about peace in qur'anic terms. Here, it
is of importance to note that there is more qur'anic legislation pertaining to the
establishment of justice in the context of family relationships than on any other subject.
This points to the assumption implicit in much qur'anic teaching, namely, that if human
beings can learn to order their homes justly so that the human rights of all within its
jurisdiction – children, women, and men – are safeguarded, then they can also
order their society and the world at large, justly. In other words, the Qur'an regards the
home as a microcosm of the ummah and the world community, and emphasizes the importance of
making it the abode of peace through just living.[/p]
Turning finally to the subject of Islam / Muslims and Cultural
Diversity, living in the West, I am all too painfully aware of the fact that Westerners in
general – including many Christians and Jews who, like Muslims, are 'People of the
Book' – perceive Islam as a religion spread by the sword, and Muslims as religious
fanatics who are zealously committed to waging holy war against non-Muslims or even
against non-conforming Muslims. While it is beyond the scope of this presentation to
examine the historical roots of these perceptions, I would like to point out that cultural
diversity has been strongly affirmed both by qur'anic teachings and by prophetic example.
For instance, the Qur'an states: [/p]
'O humankind! behold We have created you out of a male and a female, and
have made you into nations and tribes, so that you might come to know one another. Verily
the noblest of you in the sight of God is the one who is most deeply conscious of God.
Behold, God is all-knowing, all-aware.'[/p]
What this passage says to me is that we should be mindful both of our
unity and our diversity, that one of the basic purposes of diversity is to encourage
diverse groups and persons to know one another, that a person's ultimate worth is
determined not by what group he or she belongs to but how God-conscious he or she is.[/p]
A powerful testimony of how strongly the Prophet of Islam affirmed
cultural diversity may be found if one visits the Prophet's Mosque in Medina and looks at
the names of his close companions inscribed therein. Prominent among them are the names of
Bilal the black slave from Abyssinia who became the first muezzin of Islam and Salman who
came from Iran. During the first three hundred years of their history when Muslims created
not just a vast empire but one of the greatest civilizations the world has ever known,
they were proud of their cultural diversity, of the fact that there was an Arab Islam, an
Iranian Islam, an Indian Islam, a Turkish Islam, a Spanish Islam and so on. It is most
unfortunate that today there are many Muslims who seem to think that there is only one
right kind of Islam – namely Saudi Arabian Islam – which interprets the
universally-oriented, life-affirming teachings of the Qur'an in a narrow way.[/p]
Many Muslims in the contemporary world feel beseiged by negative forces
– whether these are perceived to be associated with Western political or cultural
imperialism or with the oppressive new-colonialism which prevails over much of the World
of Islam. Instead of dealing with the reality of their life-situation in a pro-active way,
they often tend to regress into reactive modes of thinking and behaviour which make them
forget the emphasis which the Qur'an places on the creative aspects of living with those
who are different from us. They should remember the message implicit in numerous qur'anic
verses such as the following: [/p]
To each is a goal
To which God turns him;
Then strive together [as in a race]
Towards all that is good.
Wheresoever ye are,
God will bring you
Together. For God
Hath power over all things
(Surah 2: Al-Baqarah: 148)[/p]
To each among you
have We prescribed a Law
And an Open Way.
If God had so willed,
He would have made you
A single People, but [his
Plan is] to test you in what
He hath given you: so strive
As in a race in all virtues.
The goal of you all is to God;
It is He that will show you
The truth of the matters
In which ye dispute
(Surah 5: Al-Ma'idah: 51)[/p]
'And [know that] all humankind were once but one single community, and
only later did they begin to hold divergent views. And had it not been for a decree that
had already gone forth from thy Sustainer, all their differences would indeed have been
settled [from the outset].' (Surah 10: Yunus: 19)[/p]
It is clearly the perspective of normative Islam that God who has
decreed diversity has also decreed dialogue in order that we may discover our common roots
and journey together toward our common goal. The paths we follow may not be the same but
the agony of the quest, the passion of seeking is the same. There is much in the Qur'an
which relates particularly to the relationships of the 'People of the Book' – Jews,
Christians, Muslims – to God and to each other. I believe that if we could understand
what the Qur'an is telling us we would be able to overcome many difficulties which impede
our inter-religious or inter-cultural dialogue. But much work has to be done – by
Muslims, Jews and Christians – separately and together, before we can comprehend, and
transcend, all that separates us as human beings and as believers in the same loving,
merciful, just and dialogue-oriented God.[/td]