Ahmed Ali Sawad’s PhD thesis has rightly been hailed ‘brilliant’, and we must all be pleased that a mind of such brilliance lives amongst us. This comment cannot at all do justice to its depth and scope. This is a quick comment in the hope of starting a debate on our own rejection of certain human rights.
‘Cultural’ universalism
Sawad’s thesis is in many ways a demonstration of the remarkable ability of a ‘culturally different’ mind’s grasping of other ‘culturally different’ conceptions of human rights and self-understandings.
Sawad’s culturally different background has not prevented him from grasping the major ‘Western’ conceptions of rights, from natural law theories to John Rawls’s political liberalism. He could also engage in a vigorous ‘universal critique’ of those conceptions (unless ‘universal’, inter-subjective communication would be meaningless and ineffective.)
Of course Sawad would not accept cultural relativism, especially of the ‘thick’ variety. He instead advocates a ‘diversity paradigm’ for human rights. For him, human rights are not based on universalism, but on ‘plural consent’ of ‘States’ based in ‘cultural-legal’ milieu.
New paradigm for rights
The thesis covers a remarkably extensive study of the Shari’a-based reservations by ‘Islamic states’ (including the Maldives) to demonstrate that human rights are not ‘ontologically’ universal. Besides, other universalisms such as Michael Ignatieff’s ‘minimalist’ universalism, Rawlsian ‘overlapping consensus’ universalism, and Donnelly’s ‘relative universalism’ also do not capture this reality. What captures this reality is diversity paradigm.
However, Sawad agrees that the ‘Islamic states’ accept almost all human rights, presumably because they are Shari’a-based. Thus, there are only few areas of divergence, including ‘absolute’ right of religion and gender-based inequality.
Sawad also acknowledges that Shari’a is not monolithic, thus there are differences on, for instance, the issue of apostasy as demonstrated by Abdullah Saeed and Hassan Saeed. However, he quotes Malaysian scholar Hashim Kamali to point out this diversity is ‘diversity in unity’ as there are areas where agreement exists. If one considers Salwa Ismail’s argument in Rethinking Islamist Politics that even such basic notions like ‘God’ have no consensus around them, this unity must indeed be very thin!
Human rights in classical Shari’a?
However, Sawad’s thesis does not attempt to scrutinize the Islamic bases for human rights. He only briefly considers Muslim thinkers such as An-Nai’m. I submit this lack of scrutiny has implications of his overall argument.
The fact of the matter is that classical jurists have not provided any theory of human rights. Khaled Abou El Fadl rightly argues that Muslim thinkers to-date have mainly only provided apologetic views on human rights. Indeed, as Mawlana Mawdudi did, ad hoc Quranic injunctions such as ‘do not kill innocents’ can be presented for an apologetic understanding of human rights that compromises the purpose of human rights. This is what religious scholars like Ibrahim Rasheed Moosa and Mohamed Iyaz Abdul Latheef have done too.
Human rights, in this sense, are not ‘culturally’ authentic in any pre-modern society, West or the East.
If this is so, one wonders how ‘cultural-legally’ authentic would even ‘Islamic states’’ existing convergence on human rights be? If one grants that Shari’a has not given a theory of human rights, it is an escapable point that this convergence cannot be consistently Shari’a-based.
But these ‘Islamic states’ still find it acceptable to converge on non-Islamic human rights. In my view, this acceptability of almost-all human rights by ‘Islamic states’ finds no particularly stronger cultural-legally authentic basis than the rejection of certain other rights simply because a particular group’s current understanding of Shari’a contradicts those rights.
This point is strengthened by the fact that most of the Muslim majority states that have made reservations are authoritarian. We have reason to suspect that an authoritarian state’s action would represent the voice of the people and their ‘cultural-legal’ representation would have any legitimacy.
Relevance of a universal ethic
I think if Sawad considered the arguments of people like An-Na’im and El Fadl on the anthropomorphism or human element involved in the interpretation of Islamic Texts (almost always by male Muslims) and the necessity for a methodologically systematic re-interpretation of these Texts, it would be difficult to reject the arguments for an ‘overlapping consensus’ on human rights.
Of course, the whole point of ‘overlapping consensus’ is that there cannot be a single universal basis (either religious or secular) for human rights. Different comprehensive doctrines will come up with different bases for an ‘overlapping consensus’.
Sawad’s argument against overlapping consensus may be right as far as the practice of reservation goes, but only because ‘Islamic states’ so far have failed to come up with a religiously coherent basis for human rights.
Without such a coherent basis, we only get ad hoc views on human rights, where the equality and equal freedom of human beings are compromised in the name of one group’s understanding of Islam.
I submit, equal rights for all human beings simply because they are humans ought to be a universal value, although only plural bases for an ‘overlapping consensus’ around such a universal value would exist in a diverse world.
We must be direct and critical on this: ad hoc convergence on human rights that results in rejecting equal rights for some human beings simply represents one group’s domination of the other.
The purpose of human rights is exactly to reject such domination.
All comment pieces are the sole view of the author and do not reflect the editorial policy of Minivan News. If you would like to write an opinion piece, please send proposals to [email protected]
(0)Dislikes
(0)Related Posts
STELCO explains power cuts- DQP MP lashes out at parliament’s “insincerity”
- Defence lawyer of minor sentenced to flogging appeals case in High Court
- Threatening texts were sent via a computer application, say police
- Police officer caught with charged mobile phone batteries in Maafushi Prison
- Government intimidating opposition, Umar Naseer tells Asian Tribune
JJ what a pathetic attempt at pleasing the current government is this!
I mean I understand they have lot of strings they could pull (including you being able to work here and what not) but this is way too biased even for you. You should be ashamed as an Australian, a country where people have always accepted basic human rights which I am sure you share as a fellow Aussi. I say this because in this article you sugar coated (to say the least) the abhorrent views of Sawad when it comes to universality of human rights.
For example: “However, Sawad agrees that the ‘Islamic states’ accept almost all human rights, presumably because they are Shari’a-based. Thus, there are only few areas of divergence, including ‘absolute’ right of religion and gender-based inequality”.
Say it the way how he meant it, no need for sugar coating these issues any more. Sawad’s view of Human Rights (in the screwed way he sees it), does not include full equality in gender or sexual rights, nor does it allow for freedom of religion.
Yeah cry cultural relativism, saying that every culture is different. Sorry humans are humans first and these rights can even be found in UDCHR a document that was accepted by people of all religions, cultures. Maldives and its reservations on all international human rights documents nothing more than a sorry attempt to make it look like Maldives is country that respects human rights. People who live here knows its baloney, as any atheist (o yeah they do exist here in “100 % moslem land”)
Oh and that little bit about Sharia it is just too rich for my taste:
“Sawad also acknowledges that Shari’a is not monolithic”
Sharia is and will never be human rights friendly and to try to spin it in saying there are many views within sharia doesn’t really cut it. What are these different views…. Is it on freedom of religion, gender rights----where one sharia experts says punishment is death when the other one say no its stoning to death…if this is what’s meant by not monolithic than I completely agree.
Please note that this article was automatically and incorrectly bylined to the poster of the content (not the writer). Minivan News regrets the error. -Minivan News team
Brilliant piece of work by Dr Ahmed Ali Sawad. Congratulations!
I am informed that Maumoon used to say that the Dhivehi nation would fall apart if freedom of religion were allowed in the Maldives.
Could somebody please, anybody, try to present the argument for Maumoon's position.
If I can be convinced that the sovereignty, security of the Maldives would fall apart if full human rights were introduced, I would never comment on it again in the context of Maldives.
As far as I can tell, repression of religious thought or expression creates fear. The religious frustration of many people's capacity to construct an independant sense of self, an 'internal locus of control' causes tension, anger, despair, hatred, which translates into an overwhelming sense of ultimate meaninglesness, darkness.
This existential darkness gives birth to the violent hedonism we see on the streets.
Or else it creates a culture where deception and masking one's true feelings becomes essential for social survival, for connectedness. Love based on a lie of who one is makes one feel unworthy of that love and consequentially resentful that they cannot be accepted for who they really are.
The culture of deceipt, mistrust, disrespect, inhumanity and narcissism (how can one express empathy when by definition empathy depends on one 'understanding' what one is feeling yet one cannot even express what one is feeling AND HAS TO HIDE IT) may be rooted in the repression of independant religious or existential thought.
I see, what I see, is a society living in deep fear and helplessness, I mean so deep, that it is expressed as hedonism, moral apathy, or religious anger - which is another vehicle to express frustration at the whole hedonistic lifestyle.
In fact, what I see fills me with sorrow, because from what I can tell, most Maldivians have extra-ordinarily gentle, beautiful souls and acutely sharp minds, I mean, I think Maldivians are usually aware that they have are on average quite superior in intelligence. So it is so sad for me to see the repression.
I have so much more to say on this issue, but I will take it all back and grovel when I am convinced Maumoon's point was correct.
A country that has always accepted human rights? http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/11/australia
There is no reason why Islam cannot be compatible with human rights and democracy, if Christianity can, which has a much less democratic past and was much more monolithic.
Hey Mr. Ali Ahsan
Are you created your own? If you say yes... your story is correct..Please give me answer? Who you create?
"What is the matter with you, that you are not conscious of Allah's majesty, seeing that it is He Who has created you in diverse stages? See you not how Allah has created the seven heavens one above another, and made the moon a light in their midst, and made the sun as a (glorious) lamp? And Allah has produced you from the earth, growing (gradually)" (71:13-17)
"If there had been in them (the heaven and the earth) other gods beside Allah, then surely both would have gone to ruin." 21:23
Saeed & Saeed's work on Riddah (apostasy) is exceptional, your mentioning it in this article reminded me how it is relevant here.
Prof. Saeed expounds the contexts of the the scriptures which, if read out of context, do seem to advocate the necessity of co-ercion into Islam through force. He presents Ayat, Ahadith and Seerah.
He shows how, the Ummah directly challenged the power base of the non-Muslims, not as a threat of force initially but as a moral threat to the exploitative use of Paganism, Judaism and Christianity. Consequentially, to be a pagan, Jew or Christian came to mean you were charged with the duty to attack Muslims, so co-ercion was protection of the developing Ummah, it was protection of its sovereignty. To leave Islam, in most contexts was to join those attacking Islam, hence the reason behind punishment for apostasy.
Yet in contexts where being an apostate pr non-Muslim did not mean you were a threat, apostasy was not punished and Islam was not imposed through force.
So, for me, as I said, to justify religious repression in Maldives religiously one must first demonstrate that it is genuinely for the protection of the Maldives and for the preservation of Maldivian sovereignty.
The part of Prof. Saeed's book which Maldivian Muslims who advocate co-ercion should read is where by imposing Islam, Islam itself is brought into disrepute, as Muslims by name only who do not take up Islam's noble struggle to represent virtue, give Islam a bad name.
For Prof. Saeed, who has devoted much of his life to elevating the Majesty, the Glory and the Beauty of Islam for a non-Muslim audience, it must hurt him to see people live without any moral scruples with Muslim names.
Prof. Saeed has worked so hard through books, t.v. shows, lectures, newspaper articles, and other media to help Muslims by clearing misconceptions about Islam and promoting Islam here in my country, he is a deeply committed, prayerful, Muslim... So there is no way he is advocating people to leave Islam or social disunity (fitna.) Yet his point is one the orthodox scholars have not seeen YET MUST.
Dear Scholars of Islam in Maldives, please ask yourselves this question? Do you like that people who behave - as you see it - immorally, represent islam by being called a Muslim? Would it not be better for the reputation and the dignity of the Religion if they could just freely admit they are not Muslims? Can't you see by imposing Islam via the Constitution you are damaging the Grand Essence and reputation of Islam?
Islam, by definition, is the embrace of submission to the Will of Allah, it makes the religion look like nonsense when ppl who call themselves Muslim do not embrace the moral struggle which is the essence of Islamic dignity.
So just, for the sake of Islam, do not insist that they call themselves Muslims, please!!!
"Give every other human being every right you claim for yourself"
Well, just one comment... If "Dr. Sawad" is such a professional, I wonder why he mislead Maldivians for 3 years pretending he'd already concluded his doctorate.
Apologies I take back my comment about JJ, as JJ pointed out it was mistake.
In any case Dr. Sawad is no more tolerant than Maumoon, so stop preaching other about rights... don't' preach that which you don't live by !
Also @ Ghina on Thu, 26th May 2011 12:20 AM.... has a legitimate question.... shows lack of integrity...then again most people in Maldives lack that quality.
Imran
There are many Maldivians now who completely reject the Qur'an simply because they are not believers of Islam. I for one am not a believer of Islam and I am a vocal opponent of Islam.
So don't quote, lines from your book (which i think is the greatest fabrication in the history of mankind) and expect us to believe. You argument is not convincing to us.
As for anybody who think Islam can be reformed or made modern, think again.
http://alisina.org/the-illusion-of-reforming-islam/
Me @ Gmail Dot Com on Thu, 26th May 2011 4:14 PM :
Many of us Maldivians still continue to completely accept the Qur'an simple because we are believers of Islam. I for one am a believer and I am a vocal adherent of Islam.
So we believers will quote lines from our book, regardless of whether the disbelievers believe it or not.
Erm..Me @ Gmail:loop loop! I hear loop loop!
Me @ Gmail Dot Com on Thu, 26th May 2011 4:14 PM :
Many of the Maldivians, in fact the majority of the Maldivians completely reject empty prattles and pseudo-intellectual rhetoric.
You got nothing more than argumentum ad hominem? Now, come on bring it on, you'd have better than that up your sleeve, right?
Oh one more thing Mr.Me, how convenient are the arguments of the disbelievers to the believers? The believers certainly believe not the rhetoric of the disbelievers just the same way that disbelievers believe not the arguments of the believers. Ahem! Ahem!
Mister Me, is this not why we are bringing forth our arguments? Because we want to convince what we believe as truth to those who do not believe them? The same goes to believers and disbelievers.
Think about it, Mister Me @ gmail dot
@ Me Gmail Dot Com
You deserve a space in the Guiness book of world records as the most ignorant person in the world.
Many atheist scientists and professors failed to prove Qur'an is fabricated, while you, the most ignorant human on the planet earth just said it in one word, who would buy it? Someone more ignorant than you...LOL