The best way to insure human rights in a modern society is to insure that God has none except those vested in the voice and vote of individual citizens.
Recently a group of Muslim scholars from across the world signed a document called the Marrakesh declaration. Based on their reading of Muhammad’s original treaty with the people of Medina the scholars affirmed the rights of religious minorities under Muslim rule. (http://www.marrakeshdeclaration.org/)
But it isn’t only document from a group of Muslim leaders in the last few months. In Pakistan 500 Muslim scholars signed a letter asking for the pardon of a policeman who assassinated a regional governor. Their reasoning was that the governor had insulted Islam by questioning laws against blaspheme. Thus they believe his assassin had done the right thing in killing him. http://spme.org/news-from-the-middle-east/500-pakistani-muslim-clerics-and-scholars-justify-and-praise-assassination-of-governor-as-a-revival-of-a-1400-year-old-tradition-of-dealing-with-blasphemy/9267/
These two contradictory documents tell us a lot about how difficult the emergence of religious freedom in the Muslim world will be.
The Marrakech document is groundbreaking in several ways.
- It declares that the principles embodied in the Media agreement is in harmony with the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. Up to this point the great majority of Muslim governments have refused to agree to the UN Declaration, and have instead put forward their own Cairo Declaration of Human Rights, which actually offers only the systematic undermining of human rights by religious claims.
- Closely related to this is the assertion that at least in principle the Medina agreement contained “principles of constitutional contractual citizenship.” Now frankly, reading the so-called “Constitution of Medina” it is hard to see this. In reality it is the formation of a tribal confederation under Muhammad with rights guaranteed not to “citizens” (a concept unheard of at that time and place) but to tribes. Still, a document means what those who hold it as authoritative believe that it means, so if Muslims believe that the Medinan agreement is a “constitution” that establishes “contractual citizenship” then it is all to the good.
- Finally, the document calls upon Muslim scholars to “develop a jurisprudence of the concept of “citizenship” which is inclusive of diverse groups.” Current Muslim political theory has focused almost entirely on the state and its institutions in relation to divine law, or on justifying pre-modern tribal political processes by dubious alignments with modern democratic processes or (more positively) visa versa. In most Islamic political theory non-Muslim persons are treated not as individuals with rights and obligations vis-a-vis their fellow citizens, but as members of groups who possess collective protections under God’s command to Muslims. The Marakkesh document, by focusing on citizenship, invites Muslims to bring their political theory into the modern world. Which, I note, isn’t that great a stretch. Despite the collective nature of premodern Islamic political theory, which like all pre-modern political theory evolves out of systems of clan or tribe relations, Islam has a deep sense of the individual as a morally responsible agent. A theory of citizenship simply extends that understanding into the realm of social/political contracts. It is groundbreaking but not earth shattering.
The problem with the Marakkesh document is what it fails to do – which is to condemn without reservation the kind of gross violations of human rights found in the letter of the Pakistani clerics, and being perpetrated on the basis of Islamic law in every dominantly Muslim country in the world. Instead it chooses to blame oppression of religious minorities on armed conflict and the weakening of legitimate governments, which is a smokescreen. The Islamic justification for the violations of the rights of religious minorities aren’t just taking place in Iraq, or Libya, or Pakistan with their failed states and criminal regimes setting up quasi-states. They are taking place in Saudi Arabia, in Egypt, in Iran, in Turkey, and in Malaysia. Just as they are taking place in every country (Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Christian, or Jewish) in which religious law has a place in government.
Both Muslims and non-Muslims living under the influence of the progressive vision at Marakkesh are fortunate. But as yet it hasn’t spread widely enough.
The stark reality is that while we religious people tend to believe that our religion teaches us to love, or at least respect our neighbors, all religions create oppression with their belief (which is formalized in the structure of Islamic law) that God has rights vis-a-vis God’s human creatures. Then as soon as someone steps in claiming to represent God’s rights, you can be sure that human rights will go out the window, whether that person claims the title of caliph, or imam, or pope, or bishop, or priest, or rabbi, or for that matter a US senator from Texas.
There is an another option. In the very first revelations to Muhammad God repeatedly tells Muhammad to leave those who deny God’s revelation to God’s final judgment and attend to his own work as messenger. In the Christian New Testament Jesus (and later Paul) reminds his followers to distinguish between what is owed to God and what is properly the business of secular authorities. The Talmud has a remarkable story of how a group of rabbis dismiss God from a discussion when God takes the side of the minority. The majority declare that God has entrusted to them the interpretation of the Torah, and must respect their decision. And the story goes on, God laughs with delight because they get it. They understand and have taken on their responsibility as human beings.
Would that all of us who genuinely desire justice and human rights dismiss all heavenly voices from the room and take up our human responsibility to “go beyond mutual tolerance and respect, to providing full protection for the rights and liberties to all religious groups in a civilized manner that eschews coercion, bias, and arrogance.” It is a good thing that Muslim scholars are urging the systematic exploration of political systems based on an equal citizenry engaged in a social contract that will guarantee the rights of religious minorities. One hopes they will realize that the best way to insure human rights is to insure that God has none, or at least none to be exercised in this world.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In