
This section holds my current writings in draft forms, which
are still being edited, corrected, updated and improved. I
shall gratefully receive notification of errors that you are
bound to find. At present this section includes:
Archive of
Completed Works
Archive 1: A Brief History of Bengal for Diaspora
Bangladeshis
– from Ancient time to its Creation in 1971.
(has been published as a Free Knidle book, by
ww.Lulu.com)
Archive 2: My Memoir: Why Did I Success Academically – My
Early Life in Bangladesh and Beyond (is being published as a
Free Kindle book by ww.Lulu.com)
Archive 3: Shahzaman and Abdullah
Archive of
Continuous Works [available only on the Internet)
Archive 4: My Science-Notes, partly inspired by the Keele
University Inquiry Group.
Archive 5: Scids: important items from my blog on Science
Digest
Future Work
: The intended book: the Universal Values Under Islam (yet
to be written), updated on 12 Dec 2015.
Blogs:
There are two blogs that I have written, with details
provided below:
The first is a series of blogs called "Science Under
Islam" and can be found at the following link:
http://scienceunderislam.blogspot.co.uk/
The second blog is called "An Ijtihad (My Endeavour)
into Human Rights Under Islam" and is my view endeavour to
understand Human Rights in terms of Islam.
You can either access it direct from the blog:
http://universalvaluesunderislam.blogspot.co.uk/
Or read it below:
An Ijtihad (My Endeavour) into Human Rights Under Islam
Sayyed Misbah Deen
Emeritus Professor of Computer Science
Keele University
Author: Science Under Islam – Rise Decline and Revival
[www.scieneunderislam.com]
Blogger: Science Digest
[www.scienceunderislam.blogspot.com]
Email:s.m.deen@keele.ac.uk
Based on my seminar given at Oxford, on Friday 16 Nov,
2012.
MY BACKGROUND
I am a former particle physicist and now an Emeritus
Professor of Computer Science. These days in my
retirement life I am taking an interest in Islamic
reform, an interest that led to my book Science Under
Islam – Rise Decline And Revival. I am not a
theologian, nor a HR (Human Rights) expert, but an
ordinary mortal, struggling to understand HR in terms of
Islam. I present here my endeavour, my ijtihad, so that
I can benefit from your comments and observations.
This article forms part of my intended series on the
theme, Universal Values Under Islam – An Ijtihad into
Quran and Hadith, to be posted in the blogsite
www.univeralvaluesunderislam.blogspot.com. If the series
interests you, please do let me know.
The content list of this article
§
Introduction
§
Islamic Tradition and Modern Needs
§
Interpretation of Divine Truth
§
Our Approach and Methodology
§
Application of Our Methodology
§
Conclusion
Introduction
The UN Universal Declaration of Universal Human Rights
proclaims universal rights for all human beings,
supporting: equality of all human beings of all races,
creed, religion and colour, freedom of speech, freedom
from want and fear, and equal rights for men and women.
The document (Charter) has 30 clauses. The European
Convention of Human Rights which is now part of the
British law is based on this UN Charter, supporting all
aspects of human rights, irrespective of race, creed,
colour and religion.
In contrast in 1990 the Organisation of the Islamic
States produced a Universal Islamic Declaration of Human
Rights, which states: Muslim societies are the best in
the world, and all rights are allowed, subject to
Sharia. The document is larger than the UN document in
volume, and is claimed to be based on the Quran and
Sunnah. Given that Sharia is viewed differently in
different countries, each country having its own version
of Sharia, every Muslim country can (and does) claim
that it is observing the Islamic HR, as do Iran and
Saudi Arabia. We should remind ourselves that Sharia
does not support democracy, freedom of speech, rule of
law, equality of men and women, equality of faiths, and
so on – among many other things that are forbidden in
the UN Charter. Therefore we should conclude that
Islamic HR is not worth much.
Islamic Tradition vs Modern Requirements
A group of Muslims, including the Prophet’s daughter
Rukia and her husband the future Khalifa Uthman)
temporarily emigrated to Abyssinia, where they were
expected to follow the law of the host country. Since
then the acceptance of the law of the host country
has been the Islamic tradition. Recently Prof Tareq
Ramadan of Oxford declared that British law is his
Sharia. So presumably, he supports the British Human
Rights law as well.
So what is the problem for us the Western Muslims? There
is no problem if we want to be only law-obeyers but not
law-makers. If we want to be law-makers as well, then we
need to have common values (in which we believe) for
such laws in that society. If we can demonstrate that
the Quran supports such common values, then our life
will be richer and more fulfilling in that society.
Therefore it will be a good idea to get endorsement of
HR from the Quran, noting at the same time that the
Quran is not a HR charter, and hence what we can get is
only general support for HR, as we seek here. I start
with two scenarios:
Scenario A: Constitution of Medina
·
Multiple communities, each with its own laws
·
Headed by the Prophet as the arbitrator to resolve
inter-community issues
Scenario B:
·
The Arbitrator is the elected Government (State,
strictly its Judicial Arm)
·
State makes laws through a democratic process for a
single community of its citizens, irrespective of their
religious and/or other affiliations.
How do we move from A to B under Islam?
The formula that worked in the 7th Century Medina needs
modification for the UK (or any other Western Country)
with a 21st Century value system. It is essential to
accept that we Muslims in the West do not live in “Darul
Harb” (Abode of War), we live in an integrated society
of a projected Darus Salaam [Abode of Peace], where we
all are expected to contribute, as citizens, towards the
achievement of peace, harmony, well-being and prosperity
of all, irrespective of their religious and/or other
affiliations in a democratic society. If you, the
reader, do not subscribe to this view then this article
is not for you. By the way, observe that the term Darul
Harb does not appear in the Quran, nor in Hadith.
Theological Sources
To arrive to Scenario B from Scenario A under Islam, we
need to examine the Islamic sources of law:
·
The Quran
·
Sunnah (Hadiths)
I ignore the third source ijmah (consensus). The fourth
source is ijtihad (personal endeavour) which I shall be
applying here.
There was no Sharia as such during the time of the
Prophet right up to the time of the Umayyads and early
Abbasids. Sharia is largely based on Hadiths. It was
developed roughly between the 10th to the 12th century
CE and it fully bloomed under the Ottomans (14th century
CE onward).
Hadith writing was forbidden by the Prophet and Khalifa
Umar even punished Abu Huraira for spreading Hadiths.
But the same Abu Huraira was cultivated by the first
Umayyad Khalifa Muawiya for Hadiths – in fact Hadiths
flourished, with numerous fakes, under the Ummayyads,
who needed a justification for their rule. Even
though Hadith writing was forbidden by the Prophet
himself, six written collections of Hadiths appeared
some 200 years after his death. Now, how are we to trust
them, given the numerous fakes in and poor checks on
authenticity of, these Hadiths in these collections?
Even the Sahih Bukhari, which is believed to be the most
authentic collection, is full of many obviously
ridiculous and absurd Hadiths. [See my book “Science
Under Islam”, among others, for more detail] So,
whether Hadiths are true or not, I shall play safe and
return to the Quran alone.
Interpretation of Divine Truth (Deeper Truth, Common
Good and Necessity)
The human understanding of the divine word can never be
perfect (that is, always incomplete) due to the
limitation of our imperfect human language, our limited
mental capacity, and our specific social and cultural
context. This is why we say: the Quran is a Dynamic
Text, that unveils new insights with the passage of
time and with reasoning. So how do we interpret it
correctly for our time for the derivation of deeper
(greater, higher) truth (or values)? Consider the
Quranic ayahs [55:5/6]:
The sun and the moon follow courses (exactly) computed;
And the herbs and the trees - both (alike) bow in
adoration.
These verses conjure up at the literal level an image
of everything physically prostrating before God, while
at an abstract level these can be used to deduce a
deeper truth of universal laws, as interpreted by
Al-Kindi (d 870 CE). Following this thought of
abstraction, we shall develop the concepts of Common
Good and Necessity
The Quran is full of verses commanding us, humans, to
look after our parents, old people, orphans, the infirm,
the needy etc. It (the Quran) repeatedly says that
prayer alone is not enough, you must also do good. Note
also that monkhood is not acceptable in Islam – we must
live in a community and do good.
Thus we arrive at the concept of Common Good
Next consider the following verse [16:15] for Necessity
He has only forbidden you dead meat, and blood, and the
flesh of swine, and any (food) over which the name of
other than God has been invoked. But if one is forced by
necessity, without willful disobedience, nor
transgressing due limits - then God is Oft-Forgiving,
Most Merciful. [16:
There are similar other verses, e.g, verse [2:173].
In these verses life has a higher value (or deeper
truth) and abstinence from haram food is lower down in
the value scale, and hence haram food can be eaten,
where Necessary, to preserve life, the higher truth.
This is an example of both higher truth and Necessity.
There was a famine during the rule of Khalifa Umar. He
did not give the Quranic punishment of cutting hands to
the thieves, on ground that they stole to feed their
starving families. Thus the lesser truth of punishment
was abandoned for the greater truth alleviating hunger.
When Iraq was conquered Khalifa Umar awarded all the
conquered lands (war booty) to the State, without giving
any (let alone 4/5ths) to the soldiers, despite the
contrary Quranic verse [08:41]:
And know that whatever booty that you may acquire (in a
war), one-fifth thereof belongs to God and the Apostle,
and the near relatives, the orphans, the needy, … …".
He did this on grounds that the soldiers who knew
nothing of farming, would destroy the agricultural land
and create a famine. Both these actions he took against
the opposition other Companions, apparently including
Ali. Thus Umar placed higher value to Common Good and
greater Necessity, in direct contradiction to the
Quranic injunctions. See my book Science Under Islam for
more details.
Finally Necessity and Common Good are the two
instruments (ideas) that are used these days even by the
orthodox (e.g. Saudi Arabia) for areas not covered by
Sharia, areas such as Bio-ethics and Organ
transplantation.
Our Approach and Methodology
Summarising we have established from the Quran and
Muslim tradition, three important concepts
Deeper (greater/higher) Truth
Common Good
Necessity
We shall employ these instruments, with logic, to
examine some Quranic verses to explore HR under Islam
suitable for a universal society of all faiths
(including atheists) for all the children of Adam in a
“Darus Salaam” in the 21st Century. Recall the Quran is
a Dynamic Text that unveils new insights with the
passage of time and with reasoning.
In my investigation I came across four difficulty levels
in the interpretation of the Quran for HR:
Easy,
in which the interpretation was relatively
straightforward
Logically Derived,
in which the conclusion was logically derived
Moderately difficult,
in which I had to struggle to interpret
Most difficult,
in which I had to examine a group of verses, some
apparently contradictory, and then to apply over them
all the three instruments, as well as logic and context,
to extract a greater truth.
I shall now give examples from each difficulty level,
using only a handful of verses out of many that are
available.
Application of Our Methodology
Easy Interpretation for Equality
Mankind was one single nation [2:213]
O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male
and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that
ye may know each other (not that ye may despise (each
other)). Verily the most honoured of you in the sight of
God is (the one who is) the most righteous of you.
[49:13]
These two verses proclaim the highest HR truth, the
equality of man, irrespective of race and colour, and
also declare the best (the most honoured) person) among
us (male or female) to be the one who is most righteous.
So the Quran supports meritocracy, irrespective of race,
colour and gender.
Logically Derived Interpretation
Right to Life
--- if any one slew a person - unless it be for
murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would
be as if he slew the whole mankind: and if any one saved
a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole
mankind. [05:32]
Freedom of Faith
I worship not that which ye worship, nor will ye
worship that which I worship. [109:2-3]
Let there be no compulsion in religion [2:256]
If it had been thy Lord's will, they would all have
believed -- all who are on earth! Wilt thou then compel
mankind, against their will, to believe? [10:99]
So it is God’s Will that there are different people with
different faiths (including no faith).
In the verses below, we examine what God in His kindness
does for human beings, and by implication we must also
do the same.
Right to the essential necessities of Life
Of the bounties of thy Lord We bestow freely on all --
These as well as those: The bounties of thy Lord are not
closed (to anyone). [17:20].
Therefore by implication God’s bounties – the essential
necessities of life must not be denied to anyone.
Justice
On no soul doth God place a burden greater than it can
bear. [2:286]
Hence, by implication, it is unjust to burden someone
with tasks beyond his/her capability. There are many
other verses on Justice.
Moderately Difficult Interpretation
Do not marry unbelieving (pagan) women until they
believe. [2:221]
How do we interpret it? I think it is highly contextual
of that time of Muslim existence, which we do not have
now. Consider the case of Zeinab (Prophet’s eldest
daughter) and her pagan husband Abul Aa’s, When Zeinab
moved to Medina to live with her father, Abul Aa’s
remained a pagan in Mecca. but still devoted Zeinab,
even though the marriage was supposed to have been
broken as he was a pagan. He fought against the Prophet
in the battle of Badr and was captured, which the
Prophet did not know at the beginning. When a piece of
jewellery was brought to him as a ransom from a Meccan
prisoner, he immediately recognised it as that which
Khadija gave to Zeinab, and he realised that the
prisoner was Abul Aa’s. The Prophet freed him and
allowed him to return to Mecca without any ransom. After
some time, Abul Aa’s, still a pagan, returned to Medina
to live with his wife Zeinab, who then made a
declaration in the Prophet’s mosque after a Jumma prayer
that she had given sanctuary to Abul Aa’s and therefore
no Muslim could harm him. The Prophet responded by
telling the community present that he was surprised by
this declaration, but it was her right, which must be
honoured by the community. Abul Aa’s remained a pagan
until the fall of Mecca when he entered Islam. Thus
Zeinab remained married to Abul Aa’s even when he was
not only a pagan but was also fighting against the
Prophet. How do we interpret this situation?
My interpretation is that the above verse and some
similar verses were important in that time when there
was a general existential threat for the Muslims, but
the verse was not applied to Zeinab, as her case did not
create any existential threat. Likewise, this verse, in
my opinion, does not apply today, when there is no
existential threat for the Muslims, and when the
cultivation of Common Good and Necessity requires that
such marriages be allowed. In defence of this
conclusion, I should also cite the example of Khalifa
Umar’s relaxation of the Quranic verse on war-booty.
Most Difficult Interpretation
Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because
God has given the one more (strength) than the other,
and because they support them from their means. … As to
those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and
ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to
share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly);
[04:34]
It says men are the protector, because they are
stronger, and the financial supporter, but today the
physical strength is less important and women can earn
more. But the right to beat, even if lightly, is very
problematic. We must ponder on this verse. We examine
more verses on gender.
And to every soul will be paid in full (the fruit) of
its Deeds; and (God) knoweth best all that they do.
[39:70]
For Muslim men and women -- for believing men and women,
for devout men and women, … … and for men and women who
engage much in God's praise -- for them has God
prepared forgiveness and great reward. [33:35]
***There many such verses in the Quran.
The Believers, men and women, are protectors one of
another. [9:71].
The only conclusion I can arrive at is that in God’s
eyes man and woman are equal, but not in that early
society. God even declares women as the protector of
men.
Conclusion
I have taken the ideas of Common Good, Necessity, and
Deeper Truth from the Quran and Muslim practices
(including that of Khalifa Umar) and applied them with
logic to explore the support for HR from the Quran
itself. I discovered so far four difficulty levels in
interpretations: (I) Easy, (ii) Logically derived, (iii)
Moderately difficult and (iv) Most difficult. In the
last case (i.e. the Most difficult case), it is
important to explore a group of related verses, some
apparently contradictory, to perceive the greater truth.
I have presented only some of the verses of those that I
have examined, but there are many more verses that one
can study for the support of HR. Finally, I am pleased
that I did this exercise. I would like to benefit from
your comments.