What does Islam say about human rights?

[Link]

Spiritual / religious freedom is one of the basic human rights.
Islam calls for the death penalty for apostates.

I don't think it should. Killing for apostacy is against Quran.

 

[Link]

Oh, and I found I said this in one of the threads:

I want to put out there. I believe in human rights first, and am a human first. If someone can prove Quran definitely allows slavery, I will leave this religion, not out of hatred but because I can't accept slavery being allowed by God at any time in history.

 

[LuisDantas]

What rights, worthy of the name, did a slave in ancient rome have?

That is a worthwhile question to express and answer, but not a question that challenges the idea of human rights being an ancient idea.

I don't understand why you are presenting it in this thread.

 

[Link]

Since government to a degree has to be accepted as means for human rights, as opposed to no government, I will quote what Imam Ali (a) says about need of government with the term "Amer" (Commander). Also, I noticed Imam Ali (a) picked this word which allows room for anarchist interpretation of government as non-power but implementer of law. He (a) not using the word Sultan or leader or king or ruler, suggests to me, Imam Ali (a) was allowing room for anarchist view of government even though they don't call it "government" per se.

When the “Kharijites”1 objected to Imam Ali about the issue of “Hakamayn”2 and claimed that the verdict lies but with God, Imam Ali said:

كَلِمَةُ حَقٍّ يُرادُ بهَا باطِلٌ! نَعَمْ إنَّه لا حُكْمَ إلاّ للهِ، ولَكِنَّ هؤلاءِ يَقولونَ: لا إمْرَةَ إلاّ للهِ. إنَّه لا بُدّ للنَّاسِ مِن أمِيرٍ بَرٍّ أو فاجِرٍ يَعمَلُ في إمْرَتِهِ المُؤمِنُ ويَسْتَمْتِعُ بها الكافِرُ ويُبَلِّغُ اللهُ فيها الأجَلَ ويُجمَعُ به الفيءُ ويُقاتَلُ بِه العَدُوُّ وتَأمَنُ بها السُّبُلُ ويُؤخَذُ بِه للضَّعيفِ مِن القَويِّ حَتىّ يَستريحَ بَرُّ ويُستَراحَ مِن فاجِرٍ.

“The statement is right but what (they think) it means is wrong. Yes, it is true that verdict lies but with God, but these people say that (the function of) governance is only for God. The fact is that there is no escape for men from a commander, whether good or bad. The faithful persons perform (good) acts in his rule while the unfaithful ones enjoy (worldly) benefits in it. During the rule, God would carry everything to end. Tax is collected by the ruler, enemies are fought with, roadways are protected and the right of the weak is taken from the strong till the virtuous enjoys peace and is allowed protection from (the oppression of) the wicked.”


Now I want to say the translation is hard to do here, because "rule" is the translation, but the Arabic word "imratihi" which sticks to the commander root. The way Imam (a) used the words here suggests anarchists view of government is not ruled out.

 

[Link]

I'm using the OP's idea of human rights. @Link has not yet opposed to using the UDoHR as a standard.

Just what I said. There is no comparison between today's human rights and what didn't exist in the past.

It was the start point of the definition. Right now, it's more advanced then that, but human right studies suggest it can also be weaponized into colonialist views.

That is because moral rights of humans is disputed just as morality in general is disputed, it would be understood that subset of those rights can be disputed (the human rights).

Therefore it can be used in oppressing others and imposing culture same way as in the past except the words "civilized" was the catchy word.

 

[Link]

Now Imams (a) said that we need a government good or bad as opposed no government (the worse of all options), but have not condoned accepting a bad government:

The Noble Prophet of Islam said:

لِكُلِّ شَيءٍ آفَةٌ يُفْسِدُهُ وآفَةُ هَذا الدِّينِ وُلاةُ السُّوءِ.

“For everything there is a blight that corrupts it. The blight of this religion is evil rulers.”19

Imam Baqir said:

ثَلاثَةٌ لَيسَ لهُم حُرمَةٌ: صاحِبُ هَوىً مُبْتَدِعٌ وَالإمامُ الجائِرُ وَالفاسِقُ المُعْلِنُ فُسوقَهُ.

“There are three groups of people who are not entitled to respect: those who have a lust for innovations (in religion), those who are oppressive leaders, and corrupt people who manifest their corrupt deeds.”

 

[Link]

Cool story - and to which right in the UDoHR is this a parallel?

The rights in theory writing them and endorsing them does not mean they will be implemented. What Imam Ali (a) says is just one of the ingredients necessary if we are going to implement those rights.

 

[stevecanuck]

Salam

I didn't mention this verse, but I will discuss the secularism and religious pluralism and the model I believe Quran and hadiths espouse. This thread is not about the fighting verses, there are plenty of threads where we discussed that.

You can't have it both ways. If you want to convince us that Islam supports universal human rights, then you're going to have to tell us how fighting unbelievers until they surrender to Islamic rule complies with your contention.

 

[Link]

You can't have it both ways. If you want to convince us that Islam supports universal human rights, then you're going to have to tell us how fighting unbelievers until they surrender to Islamic rule complies with your contention.

We have threads discussing your topic. I agree if was as you suggested Islam would be against human rights. But this thread is not about the fighting verses and how they are to be interpreted.

 

[stevecanuck]

We have threads discussing your topic. I agree if was as you suggested Islam would be against human rights. But this thread is not about the fighting verses and how they are to be interpreted.

You, and everybody else, knows there's no 'IF' about it. Verse 9:29 could not be more clear.

 

[Link]

You, and everybody else, knows there's no 'IF' about it. Verse 9:29 could not be more clear.

Words are always clear in Quran due to context. Your interpretation would make most of the verses talking about fighting and peace void and meaningless.

 

[stevecanuck]

Words are always clear in Quran due to context. Your interpretation would make most of the verses talking about fighting and peace void and meaningless.

'MY' interpretation? I don't have one. Yusuf Ali, etc. do all the heavy lifting in that department. I just report on them.

 

[Link]

Salam

Economics is important. I want to talk about a theory at least partially as far as Karl Marx goes. That money is a form of power. It creates levels of power in this regard.

What does Islam say about this theory of Karl Marx. I think it agrees with him:

أَهُمْ يَقْسِمُونَ رَحْمَتَ رَبِّكَ ۚ نَحْنُ قَسَمْنَا بَيْنَهُمْ مَعِيشَتَهُمْ فِي الْحَيَاةِ الدُّنْيَا ۚ وَرَفَعْنَا بَعْضَهُمْ فَوْقَ بَعْضٍ دَرَجَاتٍ لِيَتَّخِذَ بَعْضُهُمْ بَعْضًا سُخْرِيًّا ۗ وَرَحْمَتُ رَبِّكَ خَيْرٌ مِمَّا يَجْمَعُونَ | Is it they who dispense the mercy of your Lord? It is We who have dispensed among them their livelihood in the present life, and raised some of them above others in rank, so that some may take others into service, and your Lord’s mercy is better than what they amass. | Az-Zukhruf : 32


This can be seen talking about money as a power and that others are made into service of others.

Now, this is realistic. But then the verse itself does not say if it's a positive thing or negative thing, but that God's mercy is better than what they amass highly suggests, it to a degree is a bad thing.

Now I'm not saying Islam says communism. This is not what I'm saying. I'm saying it acknowledges that money is power and this part of Karl Marx theory is correct.

Imam Mahdi (a) is said to remove the awaj (bending) between rich and poor in Du'a nudba, but this doesn't mean there won't be relatively people with more money than others. What it means most likely I would argue, is that the manipulation and injustice that causes division rich and poor will be gone.

Also, it is said that people will want to spend on poor for goodness and reward with God, but will find no one to give charity to during Imam Mahdi (a) rule.

Again, this doesn't mean communism per se, but it does mean some social justice in terms of economics, will leave everyone better off.

One reason why Quran and hadiths may not have a hardline minimum wage, is because that changes situation to situation, time, and place, and is relative to circumstances that a universal shoe fit all thing won't work.

However, this is important, in that people were contending with Mohammad (s), that he ought to be one of the great men in two cities, meaning one of the rich wealthy affluent people is what they meant greatness in terms of.

This contention is similar to what chiefs of Bani-Israel contended with Talut (a) when Samuel (a) appointed him as leader and king.

In fact, there is a big theme about economics in Quran and Sunnah. We already saw Imam Ali (a) is quoted to have written:

Then there is the class of the poor and the needy, whose maintenance is an obligation on the other classes

 

[Ebionite]

I'm holding the definition has to be found in Islam in some form or another (1) or it's a false religion. I further argue the details of human rights has to be in Quran and Sunnah as well or it's a failed religion.

Where does the Quran or the Sunnah mention humans? Human rights are not the same as the natural rights that men have.

 

[Regiomontanus]

"Human rights", the notion that humans have inherent rights, is only about 300 years old, and it only penetrated the western and western associated world. I wouldn't expect it in anything older than the Enlightenment.
And if we compare the Universal Declaration of Human Rights | United Nations, probably the most current and most wide-spread concept of human rights, we find that the Quran (as well as the Bible) is in stark opposition to it.

Hey brother.

I disagree.

The writings of the early Church Fathers contain principles that align with many aspects of human rights, such as the dignity of every individual, compassion for the poor and oppressed, and the idea of justice.

For example, St. Augustine emphasized the inherent worth of every human being as created in the image of God and advocated for fair treatment and compassion towards all. Similarly, St. Thomas Aquinas articulated principles of natural law that recognize certain fundamental rights and duties based on human nature and the common good.

While the terminology and framework of contemporary human rights may not have been explicitly articulated by the early Church Fathers, their teachings laid the groundwork for later developments in moral and legal thinking regarding the rights and dignity of individuals.

 

[McBell]

Human rights are not the same as the natural rights that men have.

How do you distinguish the two?

 

[Link]

Where does the Quran or the Sunnah mention humans? Human rights are not the same as the natural rights that men have.

Human rights is sub category of natural rights, and is what pertains to government and should be held by the government. Rights pertaining to government is being shown to be part of Islam.

 

[Ebionite]

Human rights is sub category of natural rights,

No, they aren't. Natural rights are from deity, but human rights are from the state. This goes back to Romans 13 and Paul's position that Rome was an agent of deity. The distinction that the righteous servant Yeshua (Isa) made between Rome and deity was related that one of the false accusations that was made against him prior to the crucifixion.

 

[Link]

No, they aren't. Natural rights are from deity, but human rights are from the state. This goes back to Romans 13 and Paul's position that Rome was an agent of deity. The distinction that the righteous servant Yeshua (Isa) made between Rome and deity was related that one of the false accusations that was made against him prior to the crucifixion.

I'm saying God enjoins human rights and wants government to serve a specific purpose. This is what I'm proving in this thread from an Islamic perspective.

 

[Ebionite]

I'm saying God enjoins human rights and wants government to serve a specific purpose. This is what I'm proving in this thread from an Islamic perspective.

Just saying it doesn't make it true. It's interesting that you're pushing the doctrine of the man that the Quran ignored, though.