Is Human Rights a supra religion?

By Saybhan Samt

(March 10, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) Today the buzz words are Human Rights, which has got its authority in the Declaration of Human Rights by the United Nations in 1948. Its founders claim that the history of human rights covers thousands of years and draws upon religious, cultural, philosophical and legal developments throughout recorded history. Several ancient documents and later religious philosophies included a variety of concepts that may be considered to be human rights.

Notable among such documents are the Cyrus cylinder of 539 BC, a declaration of independence by the Persian emperor Cyrus the Great after his conquest of the neo-Babylonian Empire; the Edicts of Asoka, issued by Asoka the Great of India between 272-331 BC; and the constitution of Medina of 622 AD drafted by Prophet Muhammad(S) to mark the formal agreement between all the significant tribes and families of Medina, including Muslims, Jews and Pagans. The English Magna Carta of 1215 is particularly significant in the history of English law, and is hence significant in international law and constitutional law today.

Today a human- rights has been elevated to the status of a new religion. It is rather unconventional to call the Declaration of Human Rights a religion since the central concept of religion i.e. is God and the pivotal figure of the religion i.e. the prophet is missing in it. However putting God and prophets aside, there are many features in the Declaration that makes it very similar to a religion.

First there are sweeping value judgments in the Declaration about the world, the human being, human relations and human conduct. Second since values are based on faith and belief rather than fact and observation, it demands conviction, commitment and dedication from all its advocates. Third it is being preached and proselytized as though it is the new religion of the world. Fourth it is enforced upon those who do not believe in it or are unable to meet its standards by recourse to all means including military force. And finally, those who do not believe in it are ostracized from the intellectual community excommunicated and sent to Coventry.

There is, however, nothing wrong in all these if it was not for one very crucial feature; that is its claim to universality here, unlike the concept found in some great religions like Islam, Christianity and Buddhism is not the claim to an alternative that could accepted by everyone, every where at every time after they have abandoned their previous religions. Rather, the Declaration claims that people of all different persuasions could and should accept, it and at the same time may remain faithful to their individual convictions if they so wish. It is not an alternative, but a universal imperative that overrules all the other standards and values. It is not a religion among other religions; rather it is a supra-religion to which all other religions should fine-tune in, and by the values of which all others values should be judge and evaluated. Hence the claim of advocates of human –rights to its universality is spurious.

As far as the religion of Islam is concerned the main pivotal and most pervasive concept of Islam is God; the One, The Creator and the commander of all worlds. He has created human- beings and has given them their rights. However they also have some duties and responsibilities towards Him. They cannot do whatever they wish or live in whatever way they like, even if all of them agree and have consensus about it; and even if what they agree upon gives all of them the greatest pleasure in the world. It is not the case that whatever a people want to enjoy is right and gives them a right to realize it. This is where the concept of sin creeps into religious ideology. Sin is the violation of duties and responsibilities explained in the Book of God. These duties and responsibilities might have no bearing on this-worldly administration of the society, since religion sets itself the task of looking after both this worldly and other – worldly well being of its followers.

The Declaration of Human Rights, having its roots and origins in the liberalist mind-set of the modern West, can by no means accommodate in its entire frame-work the concept of God, the concept of the world beyond and the practical implication of these two, i.e. the concept of sin. The very language, tone, insinuation and undertone of the Declaration are all in defiance of such a concept.

Thus, until the Declaration of Human Rights insists on its liberal origins and on neglecting the concept of sin and sacrilege and human responsibility it can by no means bring the followers of Islam in its fold and cannot uphold any claim to universality.

It is common knowledge today that the Human Rights Declaration is used as an aggressive instrument for pressure in the field of foreign affairs and that such a pressure instrument is used in a selective way for reasons of geopolitical or domestic political interests. It is very clear that with the passage of time that human rights protection has become a convenient vehicle for the major powers seeking dubious causes to justify entry into otherwise forbidden territory, to further their interests.

It is the liberalism of the West and its notoriety for double standards that have defined a specific notion of the human-being which in turn has defined the rights of humans. This of course is not going to win over the minds and the souls of other people with different values attitudes and ideas. It is only through a democratic process of defining the rights of humans that the way would be paved for drafting an all-encompassing declaration acceptable to all.

The democratic process would require all advocates of the dignity of man to treat every party with the same weight and let the real representatives of each thought, faith and persuasion to participate in a fair procedure to determine the basic – rights of humans. Although what is achieved through this process would be a minimal standard of human rights, but it would establish the necessary requirements for mutual co-operation at an international level. That array of human rights would seem to be much less demanding than the present liberal-spirited Declaration of Human Rights, however, the present excess of liberalism arising out of secular proponents in the document might as well undo the Human Rights Declaration in its entirely and usher the world into a new phase of extreme fundamentalism and consequently plunge the human race into a modern era of hatred and conflict as is happening now. Just like the League of Nations even the United Nations with all its declarations, conventions, treaties, charters and a flawed concept of human-rights may soon crumble. -Sri Lanka Guardian