Human Rights Cultural Values In Islam Part 1
Channel: Jamal Zarabozo
File Size: 17.08MB
Episode Transcript ©
Transcripts are auto-generated and thus will be be inaccurate and at times crude. We are considering building a system to allow volunteers to edit transcripts in a controlled system. No part of this transcript may be copied or referenced or transmitted in any way whatsoever.
Hello Molly from rattler
we are about to start our next poll question, Jamal. Before I begin, I need to just clarify something I said at the end of last session, I think many brothers perhaps misunderstood. Perhaps the way I speak and not being clear.
Basically, the speaker gets priority in finishing his talk. Even if that means we don't have any q&a sessions at the end, times are always constrained, limited. So the speaker needs to finish at least his topic and theme in a comfortable way. So it's better not to interrupt him and rush him through to the end. And then it's better just to let him finish the topic and then take question after that there is time. And what I propose in the last session was that if the other speakers agree with their approval only, and I haven't spoken to them yet, because we have no boring number of questions from a number of people who have approached me as well, that we may consider approaching the people
who are doing the seminar and ask them if they can accommodate a q&a session instead of the final session. We haven't cancelled anything. Nothing has been determined yet and I still haven't spoken to any of the speakers yet. And I would only consider approaching them this way if I know beforehand by some means that they will not feel insulted or offended for proposing that even though nothing has been cancelled and a lot of focus days being patient has been canceled haven't been
the third little announcement is that regarding q&a, we really only want the question answer papers to be given to the chairperson and if it's not there, just leave it inside the table and never to the speaker himself while he's talking. And to the brothers were helping out collecting q&a paper strips of paper can you make sure that when you collect the paper you wait till the almost the end of the lecture before submitting the paper not doing it? That's another interruption that way to LACMA from
Santa Monica brothers and sisters.
inshallah, the topic today
will be on human rights and cultural values in Islam. And the speaker, as I'm sure you all already know, shaped Jonathan Zaragoza. We're running a bit late so I think get on with the literature
in Al hamdu lillahi Mehta who want to stay in a holistic role when we let him in Cerulean fusina was the year
yeah, he left Hoefler Mandala oma you drill for the head Yella
was heroine La ilaha illallah wa la sharika Sharona Mohammedan Abdo, or a pseudo MOBA.
In today's lecture,
concerning human rights,
my goal Shalane today's lecture is not to present
what are the human rights
that we find in Islam?
This kind of topic has been discussed by many people before me and even there's been some conferences and some resolutions passed by Islamic organizations
describing the human rights in Islam.
So inshallah, that's not going to be the goal of this lecture.
Similarly, I'm not going to be speaking about
reputation or comments
in defense of some of the attacks made against Islam, on the issues of human rights.
Instead, inshallah, my goal
in this lecture is to discuss, discuss
the human rights movement
and the philosophy behind this movement. And the goals of this moment and what should be the position of the Muslim towards this moment and what should he be aware of concerning this moment.
One thing you'll note,
if you study the topic of human rights
is that many authors,
many researchers consider human rights to be purely a Western concept,
and Elizabeth Meyer, who has written a book on Islam and human rights, very popular book in the United States, I don't know about here but a popular book that is used as
The textbook in many universities,
she writes that the concepts of human rights are just one part of a cluster of institutions transplanted since the 19th century from the west.
Similarly, in an article by Jay Donnelly in the American Political Science review,
he also says that the other areas of the world
not only do they lack the practice of human rights, but they even like the very concept of human rights.
So from the Westerners point of view, and obviously, it is the Westerners who are still dominating
most of the international organizations and most of the human rights bodies.
from their point of view, it is a Western concept. So I want to begin to show love from that
point of view, that it is something that is developed in the West. And I want to discuss how even It was developed in the West.
And then shall I want to move on to critique
what the Human Rights Movement is really all about, and what it represents for the Muslims.
In general, what we could call the modern day,
human rights movement really started.
And at least the western concept of human rights started in the 17th and 18th centuries in Europe.
And if you're familiar with what was occurring in Europe, a number of changes were taking place, a number of ideologies were beginning to appear. Whether we're talking about science or religion, the the discoveries of Galileo and Sir Isaac Newton, the materialism and the philosophy of Thomas Hobbes, the rationalism of Descartes, and Leibniz, all of these things started to appear in that time. To the extent that
one of the historians, one of the writers of the history of
human rights, describes this development as occurring in an area in which the there they encouraged the belief in natural law and universal order. And during the so called Age of Enlightenment, they had a growing confidence in human reasoning, and in the perfectibility of human affairs.
So basically, what happened during this time was there was a break
away from the church that was dominating Europe at that time. And they begin to develop this movement
that gave a predominance to human reasoning,
and the place of the individual.
And these kind of new philosophies and theories that begin to appear, and they begin to attack the idea of dogmatic religious beliefs, and the superiority of religion and the place of God and life, and so forth.
And these culminated.
These culminated, you could say, in the French Revolution and the American Revolution, and the French Revolution, they had the Declaration of the Rights of men and citizens, and of course, in the United States, that the Declaration of Independence and the bills, Bill of Rights and so forth, that was really the the beginning of of this movement, but it is important that we understand some of the philosophy behind it is very clear that this movement developed in an area
and at a time, the due to it, it has a very anti religious bias,
the authority of religion
has been removed and replaced by the authority of human reasoning.
And even up to this day, that same kind of of thoughts,
is drawn as the driving force behind this movement. Now, you know, up to the time of the American Revolution in the French Revolution until World War Two,
there were no what you could go major developments in the human rights movements
in the West.
However, after world war two and in the forming of the United Nations, the different countries came together.
And in particular 1948. They established what is known as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
And as I said, that occurred in 1948
And this has a number of articles stating the different kinds of rights that every human being should have.
And in essence, every country that belonged to the United Nations signed this agreement ratified this declaration, although Saudi Arabia in particular at that time even had some
reservations. And so therefore, they abstained on the vote in particular, they had reservation about article 16 of the Universal Declaration, which says that men and women without any discrimination due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to establish a family. This was understood to mean that they have the right to marry anyone that they wish.
And the representatives from from Saudi Arabia and some other Muslim countries, they noted that this violates Islamic law, that Muslim women are not allowed to marry non Muslim men.
And it also I don't know, actually, if they if they've pointed this out.
But it also violates the Islamic law concerning the fact that a Muslim man is only allowed to marry a Muslim Christian or Jewish woman.
And also article 18, which states that everyone has the right of freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This includes the freedom to change one's religion or belief. Again, the the Saudi representatives
abstain concerning this issue again, because it violates the law of Russia or apostasy and Islam.
They say that took place in 1948. But over the years since that time, there have been other developments, other covenants that they have passed, in particular 1966, they passed a couple of covenants that were passed in 1966, and took effect in 1976.
Which recalled the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. But what we see since 1948, and these covenants in 1966, and in the platforms that have existed since then, is that the demands
and the rights that are being claimed for all individuals of the world, simply because they are human, they are becoming bolder, and they're becoming more specific.
For example, in the in the fourth Fourth World Conference on Women,
the conference sponsored by the United Nations that took place in Beijing, China in 1995, which a number of Muslim organizations including brother Lee, actually who was present at that conference,
in the Platform for Action, in other words, what they are, what they are asking for, to be implemented on an international basis and to become fourth of international law, and the Platform for Action in Article 97. They say that the human rights of women include the right to have control over and decide freely and responsibly on matters related to their sexuality, including sexual and reproductive health.
What they are saying here, if you read the papers and explanations of those who participated in the program,
there are saying that it is a woman's right
to have a freedom of choice with respect to her sexuality,
and even her reproductive
decisions. So this means she has the right for example, if she wants to become a homosexual, this is her human rights. If she wants to commit Zina illegal sexual intercourse, this is her human rights.
If she wants to marry, for example, if she's a Muslim woman, she wants to marry a non Muslim man. This is a human right. If she's pregnant, if she wants to have an abortion, this is her human rights.
If she's if she's in a marriage, and she decides that she does not want to have any children, this is her human rights.
And this is I said, this kind of thing. They're getting bolder in their approach and more specific, and the thing that they are demanding as human rights that are supposed to be for every individual simply because of the fact that he is a human. And in fact, even recently in the case that happened.
I guess it is still going on in Egypt.
The BBC reported
in Egypt. Some of you might have probably heard about this, there was 52 homosexual men who were arrested on a luxury line.
And arrested for debauchery.
And some of the international human rights movements
are upset, because they feel that the human rights groups in Egypt are not doing enough to defend and help these homosexual men who are arrested.
And the response of the human rights groups
in Egypt, which these are Egyptians, Arabs, some with Muslim names, some with Christian names.
Their response was that it is not the case that they
that human rights or that homosexuality is not part of their agenda, human rights is not what they said.
They said that at the present time, given the situation in Egypt, they would lose credibility, if they stood up for these kinds of issues at the present time. In other words, it is part of their long run agenda. And they have no problem with the concept of homosexuality, and they believe it should be allowed in Egypt, but they are saying that at the present time, their movement is so weak and fragile, they cannot call for those things explicitly within Egypt. But they are accepting them. And they are saying basically, that it is part of their long term goal or long term agenda. Now, these things, the goal of these things, and the goal of these platforms and conferences that the
is to make these things part of international law to make them part of international law.
And basically, international law. Now it is, what it implies if you if you study International Law School, for example, is that these international covenants.
In reality, they are not just on the basis of the government level. But even with individuals within the Gup within a certain cities, certain country. If that country has signed any of these covenants or any of these pacts,
then the international community has the right to object to what is occurring, even within private organizations within that country,
not just at the government level.
So in other words, if, for example,
a Muslim country, let's say like Egypt, or Morocco, or India or India, or Pakistan, should sign one of these covenants, and many of them have.
That means that even in Islamic organization within that country, in other words, not just at the government level, but if we wanted to open, let's say, a mosque, and we decided that Okay, we have a mosque here and and we decide as part of our articles of declaration, that it's not allowed for a woman to be the Imam of the mosque.
international bodies can come
and argue that this is a violation of the covenant that the government has signed. And so therefore, they can put pressure on that government to actually put an end to this kind of discrimination. And once a country signs that science, that covenant, as one author wrote, countries are not permitted to opt out of their international legal obligations at will on pretexts of their own devices.
derogation from international human rights standards is permitted only under specific narrow conditions, which do not include denying people human rights by appeal to the standards of any particular religion.
So what they're saying here is that suppose for example, the Muslims of Britain
gets involved in the elections and they take over the government.
So they cannot say, Okay, now we are Islamic government, whereas Islamic State, and we're going to implement Islamic laws, and we are going to withdraw from these covenants that we say
the international community can still use whatever means it has available, whether it be boycott, whether it be legal means and maybe even forced.
At times, it can be even forced
to make sure that this new Islamic government is not able to put in any kind of laws that they considered discriminatory. Even if they say, Well, now we're Muslims, even if all of a Britain becomes Muslim, and they say, Well, now we're Muslims, and this is what the religion says, even if they refer to their religion, by international law, this would not be acceptable.
So this is the
Little bit of background about the international law about human rights and its place in international law.
Before critiquing some of this concept of human rights and before discussing what it means for individual Muslims and from Muslim nations nowadays,
I want to go back to the idea that human rights as a concept is something that is not known or something that was not known except from the west.
It seems to me that this kind of statements,
is somewhat arrogant to say the least.
And if we read, for example, even the lives of the different prophets
we see that the prophets were were demanding things or they were standing for things which by definition nowadays must be considered like human rights.
In the case of for example, musala is around
when he was
demanding the freedom of bunnies royal
and Bani Israel at that time, the the Pharaoh was, was slaughtering their children
and leaving, of course, their females.
And it was moosari saddam who was demanding an end to this and demanding the Venice royal be released in his charge. This is what kind of issue was this describing the problem, don't listen to what dad even describes it, the Pharaoh was oppressing them was oppressing those people.
If we look, for example, in the case of shave,
shave, if you study shravan, what he said with respect to
telling the people that they have to be just and fair in their business dealings. These are some of the same concepts that you'll find on the covenants of civil and the covenant signed in 66. And put into effect in 1976.
And there's even other concepts that the West is completely ignorant of,
but are really truly concepts related to human rights. And that's for example, the case of Ruth Elisa Lam.
The people were committing homosexual acts in their public clubs in their public gathering places.
And it is this should be a basic human right that a human should be allowed to live under such circumstances that he doesn't have to put up with that kind of facade or that kind of looseness in his society.
But and when would we come to the Bahamas, tell them
when we look at the the sherea of the promises and and we see that
the province or sell them or the Sharia has established, many important rights. And even they're called in Islam, they've been called in Islamic law for many years.
When the Prophet sent him, for example, said in the demo Kumamoto, Kumara, Kumara karanka, honka Hurmati, Yama cuchara, he built a political mhada Shahada.
The prophet SAW sent him said barely your brother, your blood, your wealth in your honor, are inviolable to you like the sacredness of this day of yours, in this land of yours in this month of yours.
This is exactly this kind of speech
in which the province has sent him is saying that your blood and your life and your honor are inviolable, does exactly the same kind of speech that you find in the preamble or some of the articles of the of the United Nations universal declaration.
The Prophet system said love the law. And it is no cause of harm and there's no reciprocating of harm.
And it is not allowed for any individual to go out and intentionally cause harm to anybody else.
This obviously sets a standard for
human rights that goes far beyond what any of the Western
laws that they have come up with this time.
Many scholars when they have studied the Sharia, they have noticed that the Sharia has some basic goals, that the laws of the Sharia are intended to establish these aspects to support them, to propagate them
and to enforce them.
And these goals known as the mocassin, of the Sharia, they are basically five and that is the religion itself. Life mental capacity, familiar relationships. And well, if you look at the Sharia if you study the Sharia
and you'll see that the Sharia
guarding and protecting these things.
Of course, religion comes first because from the Islamic point of view, if you don't have religion, then you don't really have life you don't have what you have is not worth
So the Sharia seeks to protect religion seeks to protect people's lives.
It seeks to protect their mental capacity, it seeks to protect family relationships, and also well, and these are the things that from the Sharia point of view, these are the real rights
and the real aspect that every human needs.
And these are the aspects that should be supported and defended.
And this is from the guidance of Allah subhanho wa Taala.
But if you look at these aspects, and you can study you can see the difference between something that has come from Allah Subhana, WA tada and somebody that has come from the product of human reasoning, and the desires of humans, even if they call it knowledge or philosophy or science or whatever, is really their desires.
For example, here to have these
aspects of the Sharia.
Nowadays, Western philosophers and Western human rights advocate would consider these to be violation of human rights.
And in the way Allah subhanho wa Taala. promotes, or the way the Sharia promotes mental capacity and protects mental capacity Lachlan, and protects the nuts and the family relationships. It does it in such a way that according to the west, this is actually a violation of human rights.
And as I said, this shows you the difference between any when love comes from Allah subhanho wa Taala. And when it is based on
the whims and the desires of mankind.
Because for men, what they've come up with what the West in particular and others have come up with,
is that it is a right to go out and drink and get drunk.
This is a right
it is a right to be able to go out and commit Zina.
This is the right according to them.
And it shows you how very different these two perspectives are. Because no one does not in one's life, but one wants to have a happy life and a true, a truly happy, wholesome life. It doesn't have to have the right to go out and drink and commit Zina, and these kinds of things. And this is what the Sharia which comes from Allah subhana wa Tada. This is what the city is showing us. And this is what it is establishing in our lives.
So in Islam,
the basis of the human rights comes from Allah subhanho wa Taala. Unless you handle it, God is the one who created us.
And I'll listen to what God is actually the only one who can tell us what our rights and what are not our rights.
And also almost to handle a gala is the only one who has the knowledge to know really what
is in our best interests.
As Allah subhanho wa Taala says Allah Yala woman Hala Hala Javier, and he's not the one who created is not Isn't he the one who knows about what he created.
And so therefore he Allah subhanho wa Taala in his mercy as a blessing to us. Allah subhana wa tada gave us this Sharia and the Sharia protects for us all of the things that we need to live a good and wholesome life in this room.
And all of it is taken as a whole
to preserve everything which is essential.
And whenever we move away from that guidance from Allah subhana wa tada and we start relying upon our own human intellect, which is always the human intellect is always going to be biased. human intellect may be very much influenced by its desires and its own goals.
And every time we stray from what Allah subhana wa tada has revealed for us, it is going to lead to harm in both this life in India because any other way of judging any other way of life, any other rulings other than the what Allah subhanho wa Taala has given us or no none other than what Allah subhana wa tada has described as Jamia or ignorance, as Allah subhanho wa Taala says, of a homogeneous grown woman, phenomenal life Hawkman you're forming your own. Do they then desire or seek after a judgment of jelenia of the days of ignorance, but who for people whose faith is assured, can give better judgment than Allah subhanho wa Taala
And I'll listen to what God has told us that what He commands us, in fact, is justice and everything Allah subhanho wa Taala has commanded us in the Quran is just and proper, given our nature as human beings. Allah subhanho wa Taala is in the middle, yet a little bit larger. And Allah subhanho wa Taala commands justice, and at the same time, he permits, he prohibits all shameful deeds and injustice. As Allah subhanho wa Taala continues in that verse we're waiting on in Basanti, when Moncure.
When Allah subhanho wa Taala has revealed a right in the Quran,
or in the sooner the pronounced and it is think that Allah subhanho wa Taala is established in the Sharia. These things are permanent rights,
or permanent aspects of life until the day of judgment.
And the Muslim believes in them
as being the truth.
And so therefore, you will one big difference you will find between what we have in Islam, the human rights in Islam.
And what the human the human rights of the Western moment presents is that the human rights in Islam actually have some
what we could say some teeth or some validity or some force behind them.
Because of Allah subhanho wa Taala tells us in the Quran that we should establish this right, for every individual of the Islamic State, or for every Muslim or for every human being,
then the believer is going to believe in it, and he's going to sacrifice for it.
And he will not give up that principle for any worldly need for any worldly benefits.
And this is, as I'll talk about in just a few seconds. This is one of the things that makes the difference between the two human rights, which have this source with Allah subhanho wa Taala. Because when it comes from Allah subhanho wa Taala, that means there's going to be believers in it. That means there's going to be people who are going to be willing to sacrifice their life, to enforce what Allah subhana wa God has prescribed for us.
But if you study the situation of human rights in the West,
every, every writer you can find, at least every writer I could find who wrote about human rights admits
that whenever there is a conflict between human rights and the economic or political interests of any country, then human rights are going to be sacrificed.
Because it is just a theory, it is just an idea with really no true force behind it. When they divorced, when they took out God from their lives, when they took out God from being the main factor for implementing these human rights, they were left with nothing.
They were left with no real reason to implement these human rights, just a false claim, an empty claim. And so therefore, when it is in their interest, to support human rights, they support human rights. When it is not in their interest to support human rights, you find all of them, they are silent.
And as I said, this is something even the writers of the West,
they have to admit. And we can find so many examples.
Even if you go back, for example, to the Shah of Iran,
if you look, for example, to see what the Shah of Iran was doing to the people of Iran, and you compare it to those covenants, and those declarations that the people of the Western United Nations are talking about, you see that you violated many of them.
But he was a friend of the West.
And so therefore, those people who talk about human rights, even the president of that time, who claim to be an advocate for human rights, they were supporting him until the very end.
If you look, for example, at what happened in Algeria,
one of the claims of the human rights movement is that democracy is a human right.
People should have the right to freedom to vote for whatever leadership for whatever government that they want to vote.
So what happened in Algeria, then
when the Muslim when the Muslims were, or the Islamic system as they call them, when the Muslims were when they won the first stage of the election, and it was very clear that they were going to take over the government. When the elections one of the most important aspects of the human rights movement of the West
When the elections were stopped,
and the process was stopped after the process after they seen that the results of the process were not those that they would like. Then all of a sudden the Human Rights people were saying, the governments of the West. In fact, supportive friends in particular supported the blocking of the election.
Because again, they have nothing. They have nothing to base their claim, or booth to back up their claim and belief in human rights.
It is really just a matter of economic and political interests.
And even in the even the feminist movement, you might think the feminist movement, someone might believe in true sisterhood.
But even the feminist woman, you have to question what is their agenda?
Because they speak so much about whenever, for example, a country says you have to wear hijab, for example, when Iran said that or they talk about the situation in Saudia.
Yes, whenever women are accosted
or attacked, or even put in prison for wearing a job,
or whenever they're denied jobs, because they're wearing a job, like what happened in Syria years back, or even like what's happening in Turkey nowadays? Where are their voices? Were the voices of these feminists?
Why is it a matter of freedom to go out without wearing clothes, but it is not a matter of freedom, if you want to go out cover.
If they're really interested in freedom, and human rights, they should stand up just as much for the woman who wants to go out and wear hijab, as they do for the woman who wants to go out without a job.
But this shows that maybe their agenda is something else.
Maybe their agenda is more
of an issue of freedom,
freedom in the sense of freedom from religion, freedom from moral restrictions, but not necessarily freedom to choose to follow a righteous path if you want to.
And much, in fact, really have this concept of freedom
and human rights that they are putting out.
As I just alluded to, which is more of a question of freeing the hell out of reading the freeing the people to follow their desires to follow their lust.
And of course, they put it in very nicely, they're not going to put it in those names, right? They're not going to come through a Muslim country, and even even in the West, even in the United States, they're not going to say that we believe in just permissibility. And let's allow everything
for instead, they put it in very nice sounding names, like freedom of expression.
They put it they call it art. They call it culture.
You know, you can have a movie that's sexually explicit from the beginning to the end. Why do they allow because they says it's not just sex. It's art, its culture.
And this is the kind of thing I told you the five goals of the *tier
you know, religion, and life and wealth and so forth. But it is really this kind of thing that the freedom to go out
and show sexual acts. The freedom for example, for someone like Marilyn Mason to come to your city and give a concert, have you know who Marilyn Mason is? I hope none of you know
what's Marilyn Mason? A very strange person. When it comes to a city sometimes some people in that city don't want them.
And then all sudden, there's an explosion. What do you mean, we're gonna stop this person from coming? This is a matter of freedom of expression. He has to be allowed to come and they will, they will argue and scream at the top of their voices. They'll take a day off of work to go and protest that this man should be allowed to come. This is what they consider the important values.
This is what they consider the aspects of human rights that we and all human beings should respect.
And when you consider these human rights that they consider so important when you think about them.
The real crux of the issue, you know, there's some there's a whole school and human rights theory. There's a whole school of those people who are called the cultural relativist relativist as opposed to the university Universalist.
The Universalist say that these human rights
For everyone throughout the world, and so therefore, we have to make sure that they implemented everywhere. And some people say this is a Western bias, and it doesn't apply to, for example, Islamic land and so forth. But that is not actually the real problem.
The real crux of the issue.
The real problem is, on what basis? On what basis? Are you going to come to us as Muslims, for example?
Or what basis are you going to anybody and claim that a certain thing is a human rights?
And this question of what is the basis for what we call human rights? This is really an ideological question, a philosophical question. And it's, it strikes at the root of the matter, and the difference between us and then.
Because On what basis, are you going to say that something is human rights,
you're going to make a claim that for everyone just because of the fact that he is human.
That's what they mean by human rights just because of the fact that someone who's a human, he should have these rights. Okay, what were these run what you base these rights on?
You're on Islam Hamdulillah, we have a very strong and very clear basis.
But what do you base your rights on? can you possibly claim that it's just a question of freedom and everybody should have all the freedoms that they want?
Nobody claims that of course.
Everybody understands that some freedoms or freedom to some extent has to be restricted.
Milton Friedman, the economist of the monetarists is very famous for the statement that my freedom to swing my fist ends where your nose begins.
So there has to be some, I mean, even the the people of the West they realize that there has to be some limits, even on freedom,
even on rights.
So the question is, on what basis you say something should be right, or something should not be right.
And this is where their whole This is where their whole program falls apart.
Because they have no basis.
And in fact, what they are arguing today to be human rights. Just 40 years ago in the West they considered to be something objectionable
homosexuality 40 years ago on the west end and accept homosexuality, and now they're saying it's a human rights
40 years from now, maybe they'll change their mind and say it's an aberration again.
On what basis now? Are they saying that a woman as the platform from Beijing said in 1995, a woman should have complete control
over whether or not she will have an abortion.
Again, abortion just 3040 years ago in the West, something completely unacceptable.
What about here's a classic case, the case of pornography for example.
pornography, I choose that case because some feminists, as they say, many feminists regard pornography as an affront to human dignity.
Here I actually agree with the feminist. It's hard to believe but
Okay, so here we have some feminists saying that pornography is an affront to human dignity, it should not be allowed.
But What rights do they say to What rights do they have? And to try to put this into their platforms and make for example pornography illegal?
But really, what right? Do they have to tell other women
that she doesn't have the right to take off her clothing and get paid, you know, 50,000 100,000 whatever. They're paying them nowadays.
And even among the feminist, there's a disagreement because, again, they have no basis for what they're saying.
Except Hawaii, except for human desires. And human women's humans nowadays say abortion is okay okay, we want to bush
they have no real basis for it as opposed to as I said, for example, like us Muslims, we can base our beliefs, our ethics and our rights upon what Allah subhanho wa Taala has revealed.
Now, this human rights movement, though, we must be aware of the fact that it is spreading and it is spreading, obviously, too.
Muslim lands. And it is spreading to Muslim individuals, especially those living in the West, those studying in western universities, for example, they're very much influenced by many of these concepts.
But also because the Human Rights Movement
stresses political and civil rights.
Many times when it reaches Muslim lands as many Muslim lands in which the people never had a chance to vote in their life, they don't have much say, in what goes on in the political system or what goes on in their lives. So when someone comes to them saying, Oh, we should start this movement, demanding our rights, so we can vote and we can choose the government. And we can do all these other kind of things.
And many Muslim nations that sounds very appealing.
And so Muslims start jumping on the bandwagon of this, this human rights movement without even realizing, really what does it mean in the end? And what are what is it?
Its agenda. And unfortunately, another another thing that happens
is that many Muslims, even unfortunately, among our scholars, they become very apologetic when it comes to Islam.
And they think human rights moment, you know, that sounds good, right?
As I said, Danny, all of these things, they put them in very nice names. So they look for example, at the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
passed in 1948, then they immediately say, oh, you're always now we support all those. I can quote your many office I don't want to kinda not my purpose here. But they say oh, Islam supports all of these rights as humans. And then that statement that they make is taken up by other human rights advocates saying look, we have Muslims saying they support these things, what's wrong with those venality fanatics and extremists who have any kind of problem with it?
So, we have there is a danger in the sense that
as I said, we have Muslims in the West Muslims are studying in western institutions being influenced by it, when it comes to some Muslim lands and sounds very appealing. And unfortunately, we have even some of our allama or some of our leading speakers saying yes, all of these things we accept.
So it is it is a danger and it is spreading and as I said, we have to be aware of it. And we have to be aware of what it is going to be demanding from the Muslims.
And first and foremost, I think we all have to be aware of the fact that it is another plot from a shift on
the Human Rights Movement is clearly another plot from the chiffon
and when I say that, I don't mean necessarily
you know that everything in it is evil.
You know, she thought is more clever than that. Right? He doesn't come through he doesn't come to human being and say, hey, let's you know go out and commit code and then we'll go to the Hellfire together haha you know,
he prevent prevents, he presents, you know, very nice reasonable arguments, you know, what's wrong with human rights? You know, we should defend human rights and, and these people are defending human rights, let's join with them.
Don't humans deserve rights? How many of you would say humans don't deserve rights?
See, everyone would agree with that.
So, any shed thought or this movement is coming to us in a very any pictured in a very nice way. And of course, all of the international organizations are behind it.
But we have to realize that it is another struggle between the Dean of truthiness
and COVID and in the name of God.
In fact, in the in the Vienna declaration, which took place in the 90s.
They stated that
one of their agendas, and this is by the way, this is the Warren Christopher, the Secretary of State.
The United States was at that conference and he pretty much really reiterated what it says in the declaration.
The declaration states the importance of working towards the eradication of any conflicts which may arise between the rights of woman and the harmful effects of certain traditional or customary practices, cultural prejudices, prejudice, prejudices, and religious extremism.
Now, how do they define religious extremism?
And actually, there's a book by abdomen and metodi called the wolfy Dean
which also has been published in English. He has a very nice section on on the
How the others view religious extremism.
How, for example, the scholars, the so called scholars of the West, how they define religious extremism, in particular among Muslims, and how do the secular Arab Muslims, how do they find define religious extremism?
Basically, any call to implement the Sharia as it is, this is a form of extremism.
In essence, I mean, you can summarize the view that the idea that the Sharia is still to be applied today. This is extremism.
And this is the kind of thing that human rights movements are not going to accept.
They're not going to listen to that form of extremism. So in other words, for example, if you went to the Quran, and it just to take one example, if you quoted the verse in the Quran, saying Allah lm to Mohan mo minassian falassarna jo Hoon, a little too far,
the Honda Helen lahoma, Home Loan alone. And in this verse in which Allah subhanho wa Taala is talking about the believing woman, if you if you ascertain that there are believers, do not send them back to the unbelievers. They are not lawful as wise, as the meaning is as wise for the unbelievers, nor the unbelievers lawful for them, meaning as husband, if you quoted this verse,
And you said that this means that a Muslim woman is not allowed to marry a non Muslim man, then by definition, you are an extremist.
And he basically, as I said, if you meet if you want to implement the Sharia,
you are an extremist. So these human rights movements, they are stressing.
And they are promoting an alternative form of Islam. In other words, they are finding those people, those Muslims, they call them Muslim scholars or whatever, who are presenting an alternative form of Islam.
And they are using this they are presenting it actually to the people of the West.
And they are saying that, for example, there are other forms of Islam, which we will accept human rights movement can accept.
One, for example, one author, his name is Michael J. Perry and a book called The idea of human rights. Earlier in the book.
He admitted that basically his background is in Christianity and that's what he knows about.
He had the If you ask me, he had the audacity to write.
Indeed, the arguments advanced in feminist Islamic theology,
are compelling arguments to be affected, the dominant insiders do misunderstand the tradition that they marginalize or deny the deepest truths of the tradition.
So here's a non Muslim who admittedly doesn't know much about Islam, going through these feminists writers who probably you know, like Fourth Amendment leasing these kind of people. And he's saying that the insiders misunderstand Islam. And these feminists are showing that these dominant insiders, he's dominant inside, who is he talking about? He's talking about those alama, who spent their whole life learning the Quran, learning the Hadith, learning the Arabic language, they have no understanding what Islam is about.
That's what he said. They miss understand the tradition.
And a typical argument that you hear over and over and this is very important to, to recognize this argument, because you hear it as I said, over and over, especially if you are studying or working in any Western institution. And that is the the argument that
there is no monitor monolithic cultural position, or cultural aspect of Islam. Basically, what they're saying is, there's no such thing as one Islam.
There are different variations of Islam. And so therefore,
we and in the Human Rights Movement, we have to support those variations
that are more compatible with the Human Rights Movement. For example,
an author Shaheen Ali writing on human rights and in particular women's rights, and Islam.
She's complaining about the silencing of the more egalitarian aspect of Islam by patriarchy,
which is being which is achieved by adopting a literalist approach as opposed to progressive interpretations of Islamic law.
So she's saying she's, uh, you know, she has a Muslim name, she's from my if I remember correctly, she's from Pakistan.
And here she is writing as an official
On Islamic law, and she's saying that the problem is that we need a more progressive interpretation of the sources of Islamic law.
So in other words, basically every issue every text in the Quran, every law can that can be derived in the Quran and Sunnah becomes an issue of debate or discussion.
You know, first there was the issue of hijab, the issue of polygamy the issue of right to divorce racial inheritance, the prohibition of Riba. I've seen all of these before, but in a book called The East meets West human rights and democracy in East Asia, I actually came across a new one.
Here, the author writes, his name is Daniel Bell, but he's, he's relying upon Muslim by the name of Dylan name, who was a human rights advocate.
He had mentioned in the text that the Muslims don't drink alcohol. And then the footnote he says, in fact, this is an area of dispute within Islamic circles.
Some progressive and he puts them in quotation marks some progressive interpreters argue that the injunction against drinking alcohol refers only to certain types of liquor, and the obligation not to be inebriated during prayer time, and not a blanket ban on drinking alcohol. The source for that conversation with Abdullah name
until a name is one of the
I don't know if chef, Chef Java is here, but he's one of the fans of what was the name of Sudan mahoto republican brothers, and he translated his works
into into English.
But the strange So here they are, they are supporting. They're trying to support a new version of Islam. But the strangest twist you get
comes to comes when you see how they discuss,
and what they consider the concept of freedom of religion.
Because in that universal declaration, Article 18, it says clearly that everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and so on, it goes on.
Let's see how they understand how that is to be implemented.
According again from an Elizabeth Meyer, who has written quite a bit on Islam and human rights.
She said Muslims may have the sincere conviction that their religious tradition requires deviations from international law, and such bribed private beliefs must be respected. Thank you very much, I appreciate that you respect my privacy.
the situation becomes different. One believes that Islamic rules should supersede human rights, are marshaled to promote campaigns or measures for stripping others have rights to which they are entitled under international law, or when such beliefs are cited to buttress governmental policies and laws that violate the international Bill of Rights. Then she said, the resulting curves on rights and freedoms go well beyond the realm of protected private beliefs, and enter the domains of politics and law. What is she saying here? She's saying that you have the right to believe in any religion that you want, as a private belief. But don't dare try to establish that religion as part
of the law, important to state. In other words, you can believe in religion as long as you're a secularist.
That's what you're saying, you know, believe in any religion you want as your private. But if you think you're going to establish that religion as the law, and that that religion violate any of these international human rights, documents and international law, then you've gone beyond your rights to practice religion. So one of the articles of the declaration is freedom of religion.
But we see that in reality, what they mean by freedom of religion as you can believe what you want, what you cannot actually implement.
What does that mean for Islam?
They are basically saying you don't have the right to be a Muslim.
As a Muslim is supposed to be according to the Sharia.
They are saying you don't have that, right. They are coming to our lands, talking about human rights. And in reality, they believe that no one has the right to be a Muslim in the complete sense of the word.
This is what they're coming to us with.
If you read some of the things that they don't want to change, you know they came to the Muslim lands
and they tried to implement for example,
Some of the rights
there are sanctioned by the *tier. They came, for example, to the effects of condoms.
And they said, for example, that we should support the women, the wives, in order to get their mom. Because still, in many places that matter is going to be a course on divorce or death. And the woman actually never gets it.
And in fact, in some places in India, still the mind is paid by the woman to the man.
So if she were to, you know, if they would come and say we should change these kind of things, of course.
But instead, what they want to change,
as the same author wrote, but in a different book book called woman's rights, woman's rights, human rights, international feminist perspectives, the things that they want to change are things which are clearly in the Quran.
For example, She says that the laws in the Muslim Middle East commonly provide that the wife must obey her husband, that wives are not allowed to work outside the home without their husbands permission that the man may take up to four wives that the Muslim woman may marry outside may not marry outside the faith.
In some areas, one may find a woman are compelled to wear concealing garments and public and so forth. She mentioned a number of things that come clearly from the Quran and Sunnah.
And talking about these things, as these are the things that they have to change. And these are the things that they have to eradicate.
And they are using all their force and pressures, I said, to try to present that new Islam that will be compatible with this way of life of the West. And one of their approaches, is presented by a man by the name of john Esposito. And I want to just mention what he has to say, because unfortunately, john Esposito is a man who
is even being invited by Muslim organizations to come to speak at Muslim conferences, to Muslims about Islam.
He's invited to many conferences, representing Islam and talking to Muslims,
And unfortunately, many of those conferences, also the people who come to those conferences, you know, they don't really have the ability to see what he's saying is correct or not.
So he says that in the Quran, you find that there are two kinds of values. He says the Quran is the ethical, religious revelation, and it has a hierarchy of values. One or the other, that and the other other Lama.
I assume you can, you can already guess where he's going from here.
Yeah, but ups are fixed and permanent. We can't change that we shouldn't touch them. The molars were meant for a certain time, and we have to understand the idea behind them, the concept behind them, and we have to change them to meet the current needs.
And of course, how do you change them? Why do you change them in every way that the West thinks should be changed in the contemporary?
The contemporary time
and is there
one of the leading feminist, and woman rights advocate is a woman by the name of Georgina Ashworth.
And she was one of the members who developed that platform at the Beijing conference.
And here again, we see the attitude that they have.
The basically religion means nothing to them.
And don't try to come and defend your position on the basis of any religion.
Even though that religion exists, as long before Gina Ashworth ever came along, we should be asking her, you know, don't come along and tell us, you know, to change our religion.
But she was writing she said that the religious fundamentalists, and we all know who they are basically, right.
She said, the religious fundamentalist among the United States and in the Islamic and Hindu worlds.
She say now they have some political force. They persecute and make outcasts of proponents of toleration. They also threaten the livelihoods and even the security of anyone courageous enough to stand up for woman self determination. Let me just stop on that point.
First of all, this is a bogus argument.
She's saying that it is the religious right, or the fundamentalists, who are persecuting and making outcasts or proponents of toleration.
If you are in the United States, for example, and even if you're a Christian, and you stood up and said, Christianity does not believe in homosexuality, you're going to be the one who's going to be ridiculed. You're going to be talking about
In the press, people are going to write letters about you.
Don't tell me as soon as two people have the rights who are in the power of war, persecuting others, even in the Muslim lands, if you call for the Sharia, to be applied in many places, you're going to be taken directly to prison.
However, what she says after that,
she says the combined claim of unique righteousness and the interpretation and fulfillment of their faith, and the right to exterminate heretics makes them sainted perpetrators of human rights violations, who deny their human accountability by calling on metaphysical support.
I should pass that on to all of you think about what
basically what she's saying is I said, and he This is the most biased
and anti religious statement I've seen put put in a very objective looking passage.
what she is saying is that you do not answer to God anymore, don't come to us and say, oh, look my texts like this. So we're gonna do this.
She's saying, Don't give us this false religion, and sainthood and think you can protect yourself by going back and claiming this as your religion.
She's saying basically, you don't answer to God anymore. You asked her to answer to us, as other human beings,
and don't go hide behind your religion, to claim that you can violate any of these human rights.
And this woman, as I said, is one of the leading spokesman for human rights and is very influential and many of the international bodies and this is what they are. This is what they're imposing upon us.
they are basically telling us that no, we can no longer
take the Quran and the Sunnah as our standards.
And if we try to do so,
they are claiming they're trying to make the claim and put pressure on us that what we're doing is violating international law. And we no longer have the right to do that. In the face of the human rights movement. I hope inshallah every Muslim realizes what that means.
inshallah no Muslim is going to give up any part of his Deen any part of the religion of Allah Subhana what God has revealed something in the fraud or something in the sooner that is meant for all times until the day of judgment.
If we're not meant for all times until the day of judgment, and especially those Muslim writers like Abdullah net name and this woman it
if they really believe that the Quran has been revealed by Allah subhana wa Tada. Don't they realize that if this law was not meant, as Allah has stated in the Quran, Allah subhana wa Taala could have sent many other prophets and revealed many other books after the Quran to give us new laws for each time.
But Allah subhanho wa Taala didn't do that, but instead gave us these laws clearly in the Quran, Sunnah. And these laws are meant for all of mankind to the devil, gentlemen. And we as Muslims don't have the right to give up any of these. It is not our human rights to give up anything that Allah subhana wa tada has ordered us in the Quran was similar, because we cannot claim any rights, actually, unless it comes from Allah subhanho wa Taala.
Anyone who comes to us and says we should change this, that Allah said or given up this in the name of human rights, again, as I said, On what basis you claim this as a human right, I'm telling you that our Creator, Allah subhanho, wa Taala has sent us down in the revelation, what basis are you coming now and telling me No, this is not part of human rights, this violates human rights.
They can give you no basis.
But this is what they want us. They want us to give up our religion.
They want us to give up our rights to please Allah subhanho wa Taala for the sake of what they're calling human rights, which as I said, is baseless has nothing behind it. And even those people themselves, as I said, if there's any
but if there's any economic interest or any political interests that are more important, they're going to give up human rights even themselves.
The real people who should stand up for human rights are where the real human rights are going to be among the Muslims.
If someone is really interested in human rights, as they should be, which will be best for them in this life in the after, that person should become a Muslim, and make Jihad for the sake of Allah subhanho wa Taala to establish the love of God,
then the real rights, the real way of life will be established for all human beings.
And let me just mention one last point. I think they've already gone on long enough right? For them, jet is very quiet.
Now like most of the people, they get to sit next to me.
Of course, that's probably because he wants me to go to Australia. And he probably knows that if he balls me too much, I may say, Well, I'm not going to Australia.
Let me talk about the greatest and the most important, right? And this is the right that none of these other people can offer us or have anything to say about.
And this is found in the Hadith of the prophets. I send them one time when the process was so Selim was was with them live in Java. He has smarter than Benjamin has helped a dreamer, hapa Laliberte?
Yes, madam and Java. Do you know what is the rights of Allah subhanho wa Taala upon His servants
or the rights of Allah, this is something in human rights.
Now we're can completely foreign territory for those people, the Human Rights Movement, what is the rights of Allah subhanho wa Taala upon us
and was told them that Allah and His Messenger know best he told him that the hapa Layali, buddy and Yabu whether you should cobija the rights of a law upon His servants is that they worship Him and they do not ascribe any partners with him.
ascribing partners with Allah subhana wa tada would include going to someone else for your Shinya for your rules and for your laws.
So going to
the human rights movement and getting our rights and laws from them. This is violating actually the rights of Allah subhanho wa Taala
What if we fulfill that right?
Then we'll get something inshallah. Good. As I said, none of these human rights people can help us in any way and every Muslim must be aware of that fact.
You should not be willing to sacrifice this right that Allah subhana wa tada is going to give him the towel mentioned for any of these kinds of human rights people or movements. Because then the promise of Silla mastermind, has said remarkable hopefully very light, either by law.
Do you know what is the rights of the servants of Allah subhana wa Tada. Now this is the real right?
This is Allah subhana wa tada declaring it. Do you know what is the right of the servants of Allah as they do that? They worship Allah subhanho wa Taala and don't ascribe any partner to him, and why them and Joe told them online is messenger Novus, the brother says, dinham said helpfully birdie on the lay. And now you have
the right of the servant upon Allah subhana wa tada if they do that, if they worship Allah subhanho wa Taala and not subscribe any partner with him, is it almost some kind of what the Allah was not punish them?
This is the real right.
This is the right that we should be working for.
This is the right that we should be yearning for. And this right we will get if we worship Allah subhanho wa Taala and not ascribe any partner to him. We worship Him by accepting the Quran and the Sunnah and applying it in our lives with the proper beliefs to the best of our ability and inshallah we will have that right which is the real right, coming from Allah subhana wa Tada. And on that point, I will end the lecture open the floor for