The Star
IKIM VIEWS By Dr WAN AZHAR WAN AHMAD, Senior Fellow/Director, IKIM
Also notable is his incredible engagements with human rights related organisations worldwide.
Sections of the following discussion are rephrased from his paper while some others are reproduced and, to a certain extent, quoted verbatim from what he had written.
Mashood begins his 15-page deliberation by underlining the importance of exploring means to ensure a better understanding between fundamentals of religions and human rights principles.
I share his opinion that religion has the potential strength to contribute meaningfully to better acceptance of human rights. I also share his disappointment that this has not been fully explored, and religion is still perceived by many as part of the problem in human life, rather than part of the solution.
Mashood treats religion and human rights as very important and inter dependent forms of social ordering across the world. Rejecting those who hold that the two should fight for their survival, he opines that both religion and human rights should stay side by side, and neither is likely to disappear for the other.
He says that “a positive relationship between the two is necessary for the realisation of universal human rights as well as the humane ideals promoted by all religions”.
Thus he suggests that both the advocates of religious norms and the vanguards of human rights doctrines “must as a matter of necessity promote a harmonious co-existence between the two”.
He further notes that religion has been associated with human existence since time immemorial. It has shaped human behaviour and social order in different ways for centuries.
Apparently, religion plays a powerful influence in the individual and collective lives of billions of people either privately or publicly everywhere.
Since the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) in 1948, human-rightism has become “a global ideal that cannot be ignored, not only by states but also by individuals and communities all over the world”. Thus, apart from religion, human-rightism as an ideology has also established itself as a parallel and formidable form of social ordering.
“There is no doubt that the implementation of human rights norms in most societies today requires thoughtful and well-informed engagement with religion because religious considerations are too important for the majority of people for human rights scholars and advocates to continue to dismiss them simply as irrelevant, insignificant, or problematic,” Mashood opines.
“Similarly, human rights are too appealing to a vast majority of religious adherents in today’s world for religious scholars and advocates to dismiss it as simply superfluous.”
Next, Mashood turns to the conceptual understanding of the relationship between religion and human-rightism. It is underpinned by three theoretical perspectives, namely, the separationist, accommodationist and double-edged perspectives. I will only discuss the first two as they well illustrate the positions adopted by the masses.
The separationist concept is that religion and human-rightism “should tenuously occupy their separate realms of the divine and the secular respectively”.
This perception obviously promotes a rigid secular approach to human-rightism without any intermingling with or interference of religious or moral norms. It is a strict either/or approach.
From this perspective, human-rightism is perceived as a strictly secular concept based on a secular humanistic ideology with an emphasis to confer upon man a kind of absolute autonomy, freedom and liberty in whatever he/she does or chooses.
Ironically, though freedom of religion is recognised as one of the human rights principles under this concept, religion itself is not considered as a source or basis for human rights norms.
Mashood cautions Muslims of one apparent danger of this perception. It is the tendency to represent human-rightism as a complete alternative ideology that is in direct confrontation with religion. He warns that this perspective is not healthy to be promoted to, and embraced by, Muslims.
On the other hand, the accommodationist concept “perceives religion as a relevant and important normative factor that can be accommodated for the promotion and protection of human rights, particularly in religious-oriented societies or communities”.
This perspective is generally based on a naturalist perception linking its foundations with the concept of natural rights, traditionally underpinned by religion.
Its primary argument is that since human-rightism is mainly characterised by the need for humanness, considerations or morality and human dignity, religious fundamentals and teachings can make positive contributions in this regard. Therefore, it has to be normatively accommodated.
This concept provides a means through which religious teachings and human rights principles can be harmonised to operate in synergy.
Unlike the separationist concept, the accommodationist theory does not perceive the relationship between the two as a competition of values. On the contrary, it encourages understanding, constructive engagement and dialogue between the two.
Mashood holds that in Muslim countries, this accommodationist perception represents the best way to encourage a harmonious relationship between Islamic principles and human rights norms.
IKIM VIEWS By Dr WAN AZHAR WAN AHMAD, Senior Fellow/Director, IKIM
Religion has the potential strength to contribute meaningfully to better acceptance of human rights, the two being interdependent forms of social ordering across the world.
THE relationship between religion and human rights (what I personally term human-rightism) is complicated and likely to remain controversial. To foster a better understanding between them, Ikim took the initiative to organise the seminar Religion and Human Rights: Towards a Better Understanding in June.
Fifteen papers were deliberated, including a keynote address by Mashood A. Baderin, Professor of Law and Head of the School of Law, School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), University of London.
THE relationship between religion and human rights (what I personally term human-rightism) is complicated and likely to remain controversial. To foster a better understanding between them, Ikim took the initiative to organise the seminar Religion and Human Rights: Towards a Better Understanding in June.
Fifteen papers were deliberated, including a keynote address by Mashood A. Baderin, Professor of Law and Head of the School of Law, School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), University of London.
Mashood, who specialises in human rights, Islamic Law and international human rights law, is a prolific scholar on the subject matter, with books and numerous articles as well as paper presentations all over the world.
Also notable is his incredible engagements with human rights related organisations worldwide.
Sections of the following discussion are rephrased from his paper while some others are reproduced and, to a certain extent, quoted verbatim from what he had written.
Mashood begins his 15-page deliberation by underlining the importance of exploring means to ensure a better understanding between fundamentals of religions and human rights principles.
I share his opinion that religion has the potential strength to contribute meaningfully to better acceptance of human rights. I also share his disappointment that this has not been fully explored, and religion is still perceived by many as part of the problem in human life, rather than part of the solution.
Mashood treats religion and human rights as very important and inter dependent forms of social ordering across the world. Rejecting those who hold that the two should fight for their survival, he opines that both religion and human rights should stay side by side, and neither is likely to disappear for the other.
He says that “a positive relationship between the two is necessary for the realisation of universal human rights as well as the humane ideals promoted by all religions”.
Thus he suggests that both the advocates of religious norms and the vanguards of human rights doctrines “must as a matter of necessity promote a harmonious co-existence between the two”.
He further notes that religion has been associated with human existence since time immemorial. It has shaped human behaviour and social order in different ways for centuries.
Apparently, religion plays a powerful influence in the individual and collective lives of billions of people either privately or publicly everywhere.
Since the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) in 1948, human-rightism has become “a global ideal that cannot be ignored, not only by states but also by individuals and communities all over the world”. Thus, apart from religion, human-rightism as an ideology has also established itself as a parallel and formidable form of social ordering.
“There is no doubt that the implementation of human rights norms in most societies today requires thoughtful and well-informed engagement with religion because religious considerations are too important for the majority of people for human rights scholars and advocates to continue to dismiss them simply as irrelevant, insignificant, or problematic,” Mashood opines.
“Similarly, human rights are too appealing to a vast majority of religious adherents in today’s world for religious scholars and advocates to dismiss it as simply superfluous.”
Next, Mashood turns to the conceptual understanding of the relationship between religion and human-rightism. It is underpinned by three theoretical perspectives, namely, the separationist, accommodationist and double-edged perspectives. I will only discuss the first two as they well illustrate the positions adopted by the masses.
The separationist concept is that religion and human-rightism “should tenuously occupy their separate realms of the divine and the secular respectively”.
This perception obviously promotes a rigid secular approach to human-rightism without any intermingling with or interference of religious or moral norms. It is a strict either/or approach.
From this perspective, human-rightism is perceived as a strictly secular concept based on a secular humanistic ideology with an emphasis to confer upon man a kind of absolute autonomy, freedom and liberty in whatever he/she does or chooses.
Ironically, though freedom of religion is recognised as one of the human rights principles under this concept, religion itself is not considered as a source or basis for human rights norms.
Mashood cautions Muslims of one apparent danger of this perception. It is the tendency to represent human-rightism as a complete alternative ideology that is in direct confrontation with religion. He warns that this perspective is not healthy to be promoted to, and embraced by, Muslims.
On the other hand, the accommodationist concept “perceives religion as a relevant and important normative factor that can be accommodated for the promotion and protection of human rights, particularly in religious-oriented societies or communities”.
This perspective is generally based on a naturalist perception linking its foundations with the concept of natural rights, traditionally underpinned by religion.
Its primary argument is that since human-rightism is mainly characterised by the need for humanness, considerations or morality and human dignity, religious fundamentals and teachings can make positive contributions in this regard. Therefore, it has to be normatively accommodated.
This concept provides a means through which religious teachings and human rights principles can be harmonised to operate in synergy.
Unlike the separationist concept, the accommodationist theory does not perceive the relationship between the two as a competition of values. On the contrary, it encourages understanding, constructive engagement and dialogue between the two.
Mashood holds that in Muslim countries, this accommodationist perception represents the best way to encourage a harmonious relationship between Islamic principles and human rights norms.
No comments:
Post a Comment