A brief understanding of the concept of Human Rights in Islamic Culture in light of

the United Nations Universal Declaration on Human Rights

The U.N. Universal Declaration on Human Rights implicitly and explicitly presumes that
notwithstanding the different cultural background and existential conditions of the individual
human being, there is a set of rights which is available to all who fall within the species of
‘human beings’. One can, to an extent, say that this is a precondition on which the other
provisions of the declaration are based. The reason for the use of the phrase ‘other
provisions’ is because the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, in article 1, declares the
concept of universality which is so inseparably fused with all the following provisions. This is
also Farhang’s view. However, it is on this point that Islam feels that its own interpretation
of human rights differs fundamentally from Western philosophy and perspective.

In the Islamic religious tradition it is believed that the community, particularly the religious
community, comes before the individual. Islam can be understood as being a self-contained
and self-supportive entity. Khadduri describes Islam as being "a compact wall, whose bricks
support each other". However, many believe that at some point Islamic principles cease to
be rational and tend to shift onto the plane of arbitrariness and religious (religio-traditional)
autocracy veiled by the justification that it is the will of Allah, and thus the Divine law, which
is unquestionable and thus unalterable. 

Muslims believe that the role of the person is not only to ensure the preservation of the
cultural traditions, but moreover, to recognize that the community provides for the
integration of the human personality (a diplomatic way of hindering the possibility of free
thought). After this concept is instilled into the mind of the Muslim follower, self-abnegation
is no longer an issue and thus it becomes relatively easier to perform in a way which
promotes solely the collective good for the community.

Within the African perspective it is also clear that the emphasis is on ‘duty’ more than it is
on ‘rights’, and this has undeniably been culturally determined. In Islam specifically, an
individual’s obligation is consolidated by it being owed to Allah. One necessarily also finds
that what has been said is relevant when speaking, in a manner, within the context of
Natural law. Natural Law consists solely of obligations, and the rights which seem to
emanate from it are merely a derivant of the other party’s obligation. However, in Natural
law the obligation is not owed to any supranatural being but rather to human dignity, and
human dignity is something which can be observed, which makes the basis in natural law,
unlike at times in Islamic law, rational in nature. This is the major differentiating factor
between Natural Law understanding of Human Rights and the Islamic view in this regard.
Hence one cannot equate the former’s understanding on the concept of human rights with
that of the latter’s.
The rules of conduct for Muslims have been laid down by Allah in the Qu’ran and
communicated to them through the Prophet Muhammad; Muslims do service to Allah by
following them. With this known, one can clearly see that the only reference which is made
is done in regard to ‘duties’.‘Rights’ are always, as a result, superseded by ‘duties’. From
this one can then assert that in Islam human rights are one and the same with obligations,
derived from the Divine’s mandate. The force and authority of human rights in the Islamic
culture is asserted from this religious connection, seen always as being the privilege of
Allah, within whom all authority ultimately resides. 

There is a firm belief that one can only truly be free if there is complete surrender to the
Divine. In fact, basing his ideas on this notion, Nasr argues that Islam favours ‘freedom to’,
rather than ‘freedom against’. This whole issue is very arguable when seen in regard to the
reality brought about by, say, apostasy. When a person changes religion from Islam, or
even when that person is not Islamic for that matter, that person, according to a very close
interpretation of what Islam believes loses all human rights, or in the case of the person not
being Islamic, does not have any rights to begin with if one follows the line of thought
adhered to by Muslims that rights granted to a person are only due to a submission to the
mandate of Allah. In fact when one reads the punishment for apostasy under Shari’a law
one finds that there is complete and utter disregard for any dignity which that person is
entitled to. This, many hold, is a clear example of the arbitrariness of the Islamic
perspective of human rights. Muslims, through their religious traditions and written texts,
exclaim that for human rights to ever be ‘universal’ there must be global conversion to
Islam. 

The Islamic perspective of human rights is fundamentally different from that which governs
the perspective of human rights in the Western world since the latter is based solely on the
principles of human dignity, while the Eastern view is centered around the idea that it is
one’s obligation to Allah to perform in a manner according to what was communicated by
Him through His Prophet Muhammad. The fundamental problem which keeps Islam from
ever being in line with the modern interpretation of what are a person’s rights is that the
Qu’ran cannot be interpreted in today’s post-modern world and thus what were not
considered to be rights 1400 years ago are rights today. The scripture is the major
contributor in keeping the Muslim community from advancing in regard to human rights,
and will continue to do so until, if ever, this cultural obstacle is done away with.

This short article is not meant to be a conclusive statement on the human rights aspect in
the Eastern tradition, particularly in Islam. It merely acts as an eye-opener, or rather food
for thought, on the issue regarding the rights which are, or better yet, which ought to be
afforded to each and every person irrespective of cultural or existential conditions to which
that person is subjected. Many critics support the idea that unless laws, particularly human
rights laws, find their basis to be the dignity of man, those laws are no laws at all. In the
words of St. Augustine of Hippo, "an unjust law is no law at all".