The Great Theft: Wrestling Islam From the Extremists (23 page)

• standards so that the inconsistency between the two is re- solved?
  

  In part, what makes democracy and individual rights con- troversial, not only in Islam but in many cultures around the world, is that both concepts emerged from the unique histori- cal experiences of the West. Whether it is desirable or even possible to transplant democracy and individual rights out of their historical natural habitat in the West to the non-Western world is a highly contested matter. Although there are many international treaties and declarations that inscribe a fairly long list of rights that purportedly belong to all human beings, many Muslims and non-Muslims have insisted that there is no
  particular
  set of rights that are recognized by all cultures and people. These writers have argued that any attempt to expli- cate a list of specific rights that are supposed to be transcul- tural and valid for all people is necessarily an indulgence in what they call “false universals.”
  1
  Indeed, rights that are listed in international treaties and declarations tend to vary greatly. For instance, these international documents speak of an indi- vidual right to freedom of conscience and belief, freedom of speech, and a right to privacy, but they also speak of a right to a home or shelter, the right to sufficient nourishment and sustenance, and even the right to a paid vacation or paid ma- ternal leave. Therefore, it is not possible to discuss whether every right found, for instance, in the Universal Declaration of International Human Rights or the Covenant for Political and Civil Rights is compatible with Islam. However, the important point is to focus on whether moderates or puritans accept the very idea of human rights in principle or as a concept, and whether there is a uniquely Islamic scheme of rights.
  

  Most moderate Muslims are very skeptical of the idea that either democracy or human rights are so-called false univer- sals, or that they are uniquely Western practices not suitable
  

  or appropriate for any other culture. Such claims often act to conceal a certain degree of ethnocentrism because they amount to saying that non-Westerners are by their very nature incapable of living under a democratic system of government that is bound by the rule of law, and also incapable of under- standing or respecting the rights of human beings. While it might be true that the West invented the idea of democracy and also the concept of basic and inalienable individual rights, this, however, does not mean that non-Westerners—because of their supposed cultural boundaries—are doomed to suffer despotism forever. Moderate Muslims believe that it is a mat- ter of fundamental moral principle that respect for human rights, far from being a false universal, should be sought after and pursued as an ethically desirable goal. In fact, many mod- erate Muslims believe that while it would be disingenuous to pretend that Islamic law offers its own ready-made list of human rights, human rights as a concept and democracy as a system of governance are entirely reconcilable with Islamic theology and law. Some moderates go even further and argue that not only are Islam and democracy and human rights rec- oncilable, but that Islam
  mandates and demands
  a democratic system of government.
  

  Building upon the Islamic tradition, moderates argue that at a minimum all human beings have a right to dignity and lib- erty. The moderates’ belief in democracy and human rights be- gins with the premise that oppression is a great offense against God and human beings. The Qur’an describes oppressors as corrupters of the earth and also describes oppression as an of- fense against God. In moderate thinking, it is recognized that all human beings are entitled to dignity. The Qur’an clearly states that God has endowed all human beings with dignity.
  2
  Liberty and choice are the essential components that consti- tute human dignity. I think it is all too obvious that when
  

  human beings are shackled, imprisoned, suppressed, or denied the means to self-determination, they feel that their sense of self-worth is greatly diminished. The most powerful, over- whelming, and systematic forms of denial of liberty are despo- tism and oppression by the state. Oppression enables the state to rob people of their dignity without any recourse to individ- uals against the state. Typically, moderate Muslims observe that the modern nation-state possesses unprecedented capabil- ities to conduct surveillance and to intrusively interfere with the lives of its citizens. And because of its exclusive right to use force, it has the ability to control the conduct of its citizens through threats and violence simply by hunting dissenters down, arresting them, and torturing them. Importantly, the Qur’an soundly condemns this kind of despotism and whimsi- cal exercise of power and advises Muslims either to resist it, or if they are incapable of doing so, to desert such oppressive lands by migrating to countries that are more just and equi- table. In fact, the Qur’an comments that Muslims who acqui- esce to living in lands plagued by despotism and become complacent and submissive before oppression are being unjust and iniquitous toward themselves.
  3
  

  In a well-known Islamic tradition, ‘Umar, the second caliph and the close Companion of the Prophet, declared that hu- mans are created free. ‘Umar instructed one of his governors that injustice could be a form of enslavement and subjugation, and he rhetorically asked his governor: Who has the right to oppress people when God has created them free? Moderates usually cite this tradition and others in arguing that liberty is a natural right for all human beings, and that robbing people of their liberty is equivalent to subjugating and enslaving them. Submission to God can only be meaningful if human beings are free to submit or not to submit. Without freedom of choice, obedience and submission to God become entirely
  

  meaningless. Choice (liberty) is a Divine gift, and this gift is part and parcel of the ability to submit to God, and hence, the freedom to pursue Godliness or to refuse to do so.
  

  Being enslaved or subjugated by a human being is funda- mentally inconsistent with the duty to submit oneself without reservation to God. In fact, the Qur’an invites Muslims and non-Muslims to reach a consensus between them to worship God alone and not to take one another as lords.
  4
  For moder- ates, this verse affirms a basic and crucial principle: human be- ings should not dominate each other. The only submission that is ethical is submission to God, but the submission of a human being before another is nothing but oppression. This Qur’anic discourse encourages Muslims and non-Muslims to find an ar- rangement according to which each one of them does not dominate the other.
  

  Another element that makes democracy necessary in mod- erate thinking is the notion of
  haqq
  in Islam. This notion also plays a critical role in the efforts expended by moderate Mus- lims to make the ideas of human rights and democracy well rooted in Islamic law and theology.
  Haqq
  has two meanings: it means a right or entitlement, and it also means the truth. Ac- cording to the theory of
  haqq
  in Islamic law, both God and human beings have their own set of rights. Importantly, if an individual owns a right, the individual possesses such a right against
  whoever
  violates or threatens that right. As a matter of principle, the right is firmly held and not even the state is al- lowed to void or cancel out that right. Even God will not void a right held by an individual unless the individual who possess the right decides to forgo it—in other words, unless the indi- vidual decides to forgive or waive away his right, no one may legitimately deny an individual his/her right. The meaning of these legal principles is that according to Islamic law an indi- vidual’s right, whatever that right might be, is sacrosanct, and
  

  the possessor of the right enjoys an immunity that cannot be disregarded or violated, even by the state.
  

  These doctrines are critical for building a foundation for the notion of human rights in Islam. Moderates build on the Islamic legal tradition by affirming that God does have rights and individuals have rights, however, they argue that while the rights of God will be vindicated in the Final Day by God, the rights of individuals must be guarded and vindicated by human beings on this earth. In effect, God will take care of God’s rights in the Hereafter, but human beings must take care of their rights on this earth, recognizing the human rights of individuals and protecting the sanctity of these rights.
  

  In the classical Islamic tradition, justice is a core and funda- mental value. The classical scholars emphasized justice as an Islamic obligation to the point that some of them argued that in the eyes of God, a just non-Muslim society is superior to an unjust Muslim society. Other classical scholars argued that true submission to God is impossible if injustice prevails in so- ciety. If injustice is prevalent within a society, moderates like Abd al-Rahman al-Kawakibi and others argued, this leads to the spread of traits and characteristics that are inconsistent with the ability of submission to God. Those traits include fear, apprehension, and lack of tranquility as people live in fear of injury; dishonesty and hypocrisy as people have to lie and dissimulate their true beliefs and convictions in order to survive; insecurity and opportunism as people learn that there is no correlation between acts and results; and suffering as people are ultimately robbed of their rights. In essence, the ex- istence of injustice means the absence of Godliness, while jus- tice means the presence of Godliness. And although only God is capable of perfect justice, humans must work hard and strive to achieve as much justice as possible.
  

  The basis upon which justice revolves is giving each person
  

  his or her due rights. Perfect justice means to achieve a perfect balance between duties/obligations and dues/rights. Moderates reason that the pursuit of justice mandates that Muslims must attempt to construct a political system that is the most capable of creating the right kind of balance between rights and duties in society. Furthermore, the pursuit of justice obligates Muslims to find a system in which people must have access to powers and institutions within society that can redress injustices and protect people from oppression. In moderate thinking, both ac- cess to institutions of power and accountability are necessary in any system that could be capable of achieving justice.
  

  Human experience has clearly demonstrated that only a constitutional democratic system of government can fulfill these conditions. In nondemocratic systems, it is very difficult to hold a state accountable for its abuses, and it is also very difficult to guarantee access to venues that could correct or re- dress social imbalances or injustices. But even more, experi- ence amply demonstrates that only a system of government that is founded upon a constitutionally recognized list of indi- vidual duties and rights is capable of respecting the basic dig- nities of people.
  

  The Qur’an and the Prophet Muhammad’s traditions make clear that human beings have a right to certain entitlements and safeguards in life. In the Islamic jurisprudential tradition, the classical scholars constructed a scheme of human rights based on what they called the “protected interests” of human beings. The classical scholars identified five protected inter- ests: life, intellect, lineage, reputation, and property. According to this theory, protected interests are interests that the political and legal systems are duty-bound to safeguard, honor, and promote. Therefore, the Islamic political and legal systems must protect and promote the lives of people (life); the ability of people to think and reflect (intellect); their right to marry,
  

  procreate, and raise their children (lineage); their right not to be slandered, defamed, or maligned (reputation); and their right to own property and not to have their property taken without fair and just compensation (property). Some classical scholars argued that lineage and reputation implied a right to privacy. In support, these scholars cited the precedent of the second Caliph Umar who ruled that if the state unlawfully ob- tains evidence through spying then the illegally obtained evi- dence must be excluded in a criminal prosecution. Although the classical scholars spoke in terms of the five protected
  inter- ests,
  most moderates contend that these categories should be called the five basic
  rights
  instead of interests.
  ‌
  

  The classical scholars did not believe that the five protected interests (rights) constituted a full and complete list of all that is due to human beings. The five interests or rights represented the basic, but not the exhaustive, entitlements that ought to be recognized as belonging to human beings. Put differently, the five recognized interests are not the end result of thinking about the rights of human beings; they are just the starting point.
  

  In order to enhance the protections afforded the five inter- ests, the classical scholars created a three-part categorization, arguing that issues relating to all of the protected interests can be divided into
  necessities, needs,
  and
  luxuries
  :
  

• Necessities
  consist of the things that are basic and essential for the sustenance and protection of the interests or rights in question. Necessities are the kind of things that if not provided the interest or right in question cannot be protected at all.
  

• Needs
  are less critical. Needs are the kind of things that are very important for the protection of the interest or right in question, but they are not of pivotal
  

  importance. Unlike a necessity, if a need is not supplied, the interest or right can still be protected, but it is greatly undermined.
  

  • Luxuries
    are things that are neither critical nor very important for the protection of an interest or right. Rather, a luxury, if supplied, would perfect the enjoyment of an interest or right.
    

An example will help clarify this three-part categorization. As noted above, life is one of the protected interests or rights in Islamic law. A prohibition against killing is a
necessity
in order to protect the right to life. Furthermore, welfare laws that ensure that a human being has enough to eat and drink, and also has shelter or a place to live is a
necessity
for the preservation of life. Providing adequate health care, primary and college education, clothing, or employment could be con- sidered a
need.
Providing a means for graduate education, transportation, personal psychological counseling, or paid va- cations could be considered
luxuries
.