I REFER to “Human rightism vs religion” (The Star, Sept 22).
I wonder if the writer realises the supreme irony of the final statement in his piece which calls for more open-minded dialogues to foster understanding and harmonious co-existence.
Does he purport to do this by continually caricaturing proponents of human rights and secularism as nefarious agents determined to undermine the faith of Muslims and to destroy Islam?
It may come as a surprise to him that several of the fundamental concepts which underpin modern human rights principles can be traced back to ancient civilisations, including Muslim civilisations.
A little closer to home, every one of the rights contained within the Fundamental Liberties section of Malaysia’s Federal Constitution mirrors a corresponding set of rights to be found within the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).
Contrary to what the writer says, human rights does not provide for absolute freedom of the individual – an individual’s freedom is limited at the point where it would affect the rights of others.
Human rights are also flexible enough to accommodate diverse cultural and religious practices provided they do not impinge on the core set of rights.
Secularism is a vastly misunderstood concept. It is crucial to distinguish between secularism as a personal outlook and way of life and secularism as a form or style of governance. Secularism as an individual outlook may involve a partial or even a total rejection of organised religion, though not necessarily God.
The Essay on Human Cloning 17
Human Cloning Science is one of the greatest powers on Earth and some people compare it to magic. The reason for such controversial attitude is first of all the nature of science, which is the art of explaining everything in this world in scientific terms. The problem is that many people are not ready to accept the new information and learn the other side of many different things they previously ...
On the other hand, secular governance refers to a form of governance that is devoid of subjective influences. It therefore lends itself easily to promoting the objective notion of human rights. There are many practising and pious Muslims who choose to reside in secular democracies.
I am convinced that human rights, secularism and Islam are compatible, provided that Islam and its tenets are interpreted with compassion.
Let us not forget that compassion and mercy form the two names by which Allah is most often referred to by Muslims by way of the beautiful phrase bismillahirrahmanirrahim, which Muslims utter prior to embarking upon any significant endeavour.
It is thus natural to expect that these values are held dearly by all Muslims, including scholars of fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence).
Yet, how often do we see these values encompassed in today’s so-called Islamic punishments?
The writer suggests that only the ulama should be permitted to discuss matters of religion and in support of this he offers the analogy that one should approach a doctor instead of a layman on advice for a medical problem.
This argument is weak because ulama and doctors are not comparable. With doctors, one is permitted to seek as many medical opinions as one would like and subscribe to any or none of them.
That various aspects of Islam are today being debated by all and sundry is a direct consequence of Islam being thrust into the political arena by politicians, yet I do not see the writer lamenting this fact.
