In an interview with a delegation of the International Day for Religious Tolerance and Human Rights, one of the attendees said to me:
It is the human being who has the right to determine natural rights.
I said: Imagine that you were a guest of someone who owns a massive house with nicely furnished rooms, dining table, kitchen utensils, etc.
The question here: Do you have the right to eat at his dining table, use his kitchen utensils, or break any furniture without his permission?
Of course, this act will be reprehensible for every sane person because you acted on someone else’s property without his permission.
The question now: If the house owner allows you to control the house’s assets, do you have the right in this case?
Of course, the answer according to the mind is different here. The mind will answer with acceptance.
But why is the answer different here?
The answer differed because the concept of “right” is completely linked to “ownership.”
The wise and just owner (man) is the only one who has the right to control his assets. In addition, the owner is the only one who has the authority to give others the right to manage his property. Without the owner’s permission, any act of the home’s assets is considered an act reprehensible for sane people. The mind builds on the fact that this universe has a Creator who created it from nothingness, and the attributes of perfection characterize this Creator.
The question here: Does the mind tell us that this universe was created only by this Creator? Or is it also owned by this Creator?
The Creator is also the Owner.
for example: When I make something by myself, people will immediately understand that I am the owner of this invention.
If the mind judges man-made inventions to their inventors with ownership, what about the creation of the universe? In this case, the creation will be greater because God created it from nothingness, so the ownership of the Creator is the Absolute Ownership.
The Creator said in Surat Al-Zumar:
God sets forth the parable of a slave owned by several quarrelsome masters, and a slave owned by only one master. Are they equal in condition?Praise be to God! In fact, most of them do not know.(29)
In the sense that what is the best condition for man, to be shackled to one God or many gods?
The Creator in the Qur’anic verse did not assume that man could obtain absolute freedom by not surrendering to God, as some people claim today. Man, of course, did not choose his family, his homeland, his color, his race, or his size. He is shackled to his Creator in any way.
The Creator expects man to choose to be shackled to Him in the matters in which he has the freedom to choose, otherwise man will become shackled to anything other than his Creator.
For example, many believe that the unveiled woman is free! But in fact, she is bound by the opinions of others in her; she is never free, but rather restricted by the beauty industry, fashion, customs and traditions. Therefore she is subjected to more than one side. The free women is the one who is not restricted by whims, desires, or opinions. All of the above did not prevent her from being subjected to the command of the One Creator.
Since the Creator is the Owner of what He created, then the Creator of this world is the only one Who has the authority to establish the rights regarding His property.
We understand from the preceding that rights must be based on what the Creator defines for humans through communicating with them through the Messengers.
Each human being has a strong instinct to know his/her origin and the reason for their existence. Instincts always drive the human being toward knowing their founder. When someone is born, and he/she doesn’t find their parents, they get this intense need to see them as if they were the reason for their existence.
How can man’s rationality come from an irrational source like the matter, and by an irrational and random process?
There must be a creator.
If a person built a building, then abandoned it without making it appropriate for accommodation, we would undoubtedly judge this person as unwise and unstable, as God is ideal. There must be wisdom behind creating the heavens and the earth and exploiting them for human service.
We understand from this that the declaration of human rights without considering the existence of the Creator is control of others’ property. Therefore, it is reprehensible, incomplete, and lacks logical, rational value and wisdom.
From what I read and caught my attention:
In Paris, on the tenth of December 1948, the United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as the common standard that all peoples and nations should work for. (Freedom of expression, the right to education, property ownership, etc.).
These rights seem rational and logical but are mentioned without any clear evidence.
While it is validated according to them in two ways.
The first way is: Alert on their usefulness and impact. For example, it was mentioned in the Human Rights document: “The common people aspire to the emergence of a world in which the individual enjoys the freedom of speech and belief, and to be free from fear and poverty, along with its compatibility with the nature of human beings, their inclination, and their necessity for it.”
The French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau, one of the theorists of the idea of natural rights, says: “Freedom is a part of the nature of man, and man cannot give up his nature.”
But are these methods of deriving a conclusion correct and logical?
What is meant by right? The right is the fixed and active principle, which is abhorrent not to be observed by everyone without exception, such as dealing with justice, fulfilling the covenant, keeping the trust, etc.
Accordingly, the first way to infer rights through the statement of their benefits is not rationally correct. Just because human interests are beneficial to a particular person or group does not mean that it is one of his rights, and others must admit it.
Just because an idea is in my favor does not mean it is correct.
And not just because I have some interests; they should be considered natural rights binding on others.
Concerning the second method, which is inferring rights through their compatibility with the tendency of human beings, here we ask an important question:
Is mere psychological inclination to something considered a justification for claiming it and considering it a right?
I found during my travels that in some African countries, people tend to urinate in public. Does this tendency give them the right over others to support them and defend their movement?
Is the thief’s tendency to steal one of his rights?
The human inclination to a particular idea does not make it correct. Instead, it is always and forever needed to provide rational and logical proof that accurately explains an answer to this question. Why does a person have a right over others that they must respect?
It is not sufficient to answer this question by saying that it corresponds to his nature and inclination, so everyone must observe it.
An American lady once asked me: Why don’t you Muslims recognize gay rights?
I told her: Do you recognize the right to practice incest?
She said: No, I do not. This behavior is disgraceful and affects the mental integrity and sanity of the community.
I told her: Why? Are you the one who decides what kind of rights are allowed and affect mental integrity or not?
More than a hundred years ago, the death penalty was the penalty for homosexuality. They reduced the penalty later to a life sentence. The reduction reached a few years in prison until it reached a small fine, then allowed to the extent that it is considered a legitimate and supported right, then defend it and punish those who attack it.
Who would later prevent humans from following the same policy with incest?
I have recently seen a video of a brother and sister claiming their right to establish a marital relationship and officially register their marriage.
We need a stable system that does not succumb to the whims of humans, from the Creator of human beings Himself, who knows their nature and what works for them and what is not.
There are philosophical problems regarding the concept of human rights and natural rights.
What is the concept of a” human being”?
Is it the creature in his mother’s womb before birth?
Or is it a newborn child? Is the madman a human? What about the disabled?
Why are rights restricted to human beings only?
For if there is a natural right for every being, then these rights must include the rights of all creatures without exception.
Animals’ rights, insects, plants, and even bacteria and germs, must be considered.
And if we accept that some vegetarians abstain from eating animal meat on the pretext of animal rights, why not demand the right of animals trapped in gardens, insects that are exterminated with pesticides, and even germs that are killed with toothpaste?
Failure to observe these being’s rights violates the basic rule on which the theory of “natural rights” was built and is even considered a crime.
The Creator, the owner of this universe, is the one who determines the type of animal we can eat and the animal we cannot eat. What is not helpful is that we must get rid of it, and what is useful is that we must take advantage of it.
So, back to the main question:
Who gave man the right?
Is man the one who gave the right to man?
Where does this right come from? If it is proven that he has no right to establish rights, then what is the alternative?
The religion of Islam established human rights 14 centuries ago:
O humanity! Indeed, We created you from a male and a female, and made you into peoples and tribes so that you may ˹get to˺ know one another. Surely the most noble of you in the sight of God is the most righteous among you. God is truly All-Knowing, All-Aware .
Religion says that we have to have a direct connection with the Creator.
- There is no god except The Only God, the Creator, and Sustainer of the whole universe and its contents.
- Pray only to Him and no others (not through priests, saints, Idols, etc.).
- Believe and follow the messengers (of that period, including Jesus and Moses). (The messengers prophesied the coming of the last Prophet- Muhammad, and urged their followers to believe in him and follow him if they reach his time).
- Do good and avoid evil.
Equality between human beings is a moral peculiarity. It is not a natural, material, or mental truth. People from a physical, natural, or mental perspective are undoubtedly unequal. Some are tall, and others are short, including white and black. It is only based on the belief in the Creator that humans can claim equality. Human beings are equal only if the man is a creature of God.
God says:
O humanity! Be mindful of your Lord, Who created you from a single soul, and from it, He created its mate, and through both, He spread countless men and women. And be mindful of Allah—in Whose Name you appeal to one another—and ˹honour˺ family ties. Surely Allah is ever Watchful over you.
Ali Izetbegovic says:
“Ethics, as a natural phenomenon in human life, cannot be explained rationally, and perhaps this is the first and practical argument of religion.
Either the ethical behavior is meaningless, or it has meaning through faith in the existence of God. There is no third choice. Either we drop morals as a heap of fanaticism or include in the equation a value that we can call “immorality.”
If we include the condition of immortal life, there is a world other than this world, and God exists. The moral behavior of man has meaning and is justified”.
What I read and liked to share:
“When an atheist denies the existence of God because of the existence of evil, he is contradicting himself. Atheists admit that they do not believe in the existence of God, claiming that they believe only in what is material and tangible. Therefore, they deny the unseen world (angels, jinn, heavenly messages, prophets, and miracles). On the other hand, they recognize the substance “nature.”
By their admission, nature or matter (environment) is entirely neutral. Nature is not subject to evil’s inevitability or the inevitability of good. Let alone be subject to or a source of morality. So, if the man is the son of nature, he is purely materialistic. He who lacks something does not give it to others.
Why was a man not also neutral about good, evil, and morals?
How can an atheist be proud of his morals while nature, by his admission, does not know morals, according to his claim?
The moral concepts that an atheist is proud of are a gift from the Creator, Who the atheist denies His existence, the gift which was planted in us to make us able to receive His message through the messengers.
As for the mind, we communicate by it with the unseen world and the material world:
- Metaphysical – an essential part of the mind is abstract – so we understand the heavenly messages.
- Materialistic: To reconstruct it according to the dictates of the heavenly moral message.
The British atheist “Richard Dawkins” say:
“Nature is not evil, but unfortunately, it is indifferent. This fact is one of the most difficult lessons for man to comprehend. It is difficult for us to admit that all things are neither good nor evil, neither merciful nor fierce, it is indifferent to all human sufferings, for nature has no Goal.”
Some religions explicitly adopt the caste system in terms of religiosity.
The system divides Hindus into rigid hierarchical groups based on their karma (work) and dharma (the Hindi word for religion, but here it means duty). (Brahmins,Kshatriyas,Vaishyas, Shudras).
All the religions of India believe in “karma” (the condition of a man of wealth and poverty depends on the work that he did in his previous life). Therefore, the caste system is adopted by them. Castes are rigid social groups characterized by hereditary transmission of lifestyle, occupation, and social status.
In addition, Judaism is based on ethnicity: The children of Israel (Prophet Jacub) are: “God’s Chosen People.”
Islam is distinguished from other religions by the absolute equality between the children of Adam.
A Jew once asked me: Did God not say about you in the Qur’an: You were the best nation ever raised for humankind?
Therefore, you believe in ethnicity just like the Jews.
I said to him: This verse was revealed based on God’s prior knowledge that Muslims will preserve His message, enjoin good and forbid evil. It is not based on racial discrimination, as the number of Muslims increases daily from all races and nations.
for example: The principal of a particular school can nominate a student from the school for a scholarship and recommend him by saying: He is the best student I have.
This praise and nomination are based on the principal’s prior knowledge of the student’s excellence and diligence, not on ethnicity. Considering the difference between the Creator’s absolute knowledge and limited human knowledge.
You are the best community ever raised for humanity—you encourage good, forbid evil, and believe in Allah. Had the People of the Book believed, it would have been better for them. Some of them are faithful, but most are rebellious .
The Messenger of God said in his farewell sermon:
O people, your Lord is one, and your father Adam is one. There is no favor of an Arab over a non-Arab, nor a non-Arab over an Arab, and neither white skin over black skin nor black skin over white skin, except by righteousness. Have I not delivered the message? .…Hurt no one so that no one may hurt you. Remember that you will indeed meet your Lord and that he will indeed reckon your deeds .
One of them asked:
How do we know what the Creator wants and the way He wants us to worship Him?
I told her:
The Creator sent with His Messengers a system of life for humans to abide by.
The books of the previous messengers were changed and distorted. This distortion has been admitted by the followers of these books. The last book, the Qur’an, remains preserved.
She said:
What is the criterion for differentiating between the valid book from the distorted one?
I told her:
The criterion for differentiating between the valid book from the distorted one is:
- The valid book should not ascribe animal or human attributes to the Creator, that are not befitting of His majesty.
- The valid book should honour and purify the Creator’s messengers from shortcomings.
- The valid book should be preserved in its original language.
- The valid book should not have contradictory and multiple copies of it.
- The valid book should not be inconsistent with human instinct.
- The valid book should not be inconsistent with modern science.
- The valid book should be preserved from distortion.
- The valid book should acknowledge all the Creator’s messengers from Adam to Muhammad, including Jesus Christ and Moses, peace be upon them all.
All these conditions are found only in the Noble Qur’an.