The United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. Is there such a thing as universal human rights?
Last night's PROMUDA Leading Minds series lecture hovered over "Human Rights and Human Wrongs", skirting over macro issues and zooming right into specifics e.g. the Internal Security Act, failure of enforcement, role of the judiciary etc.
Panelists include:
1. Y. Bhg. Tan Sri Harun Hashim, Vice Chairman of Suruhanjaya Hak Asasi Manusia (SUHAKAM) and Former Judge, Court of Appeal Malaysia
2. Opposition party activist, Encik Sivarasa Rasiah, Head of Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM) and Vice President, Parti Rakyat Malaysia
3. Mr. Joseph Roy, Research Director, Amnesty International
4. Tuan Haji Sulaiman Abdullah, Ex Chairman, Bar Council of Malaysia and Lawyer to Former Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim
One question I wanted to ask of the Muslim panelists was: How do we rationalise 'universal' human rights and the enforcement of Islamic laws?
In Nigeria, courts have upheld a ruling that Amina Lawal be sentenced to death by stoning for committing adultery.
In Malaysia, pious Muslims circulate emails about the benefits of the more famous of Hudud laws, stoning as punishment for those who commit adultery because it is there is no cure for AIDS. Hands of thieves are amputated as a deterrent for them to commit further thefts. All these reasons are too simplistic and prey on the sentiments of people who are disillusioned with declining morals and increasing crime rates. While I want so much to believe in my own faith, such reasoning defies logic and my own innate sense of right and wrong. One could argue, the whole point of faith is to believe things we don't understand. And well and good, if the judgement doesn't land in our backyard. Should this happen, will we weep in silence?
Some argue that this is why religion and government should be kept mutually exclusive. This contravenes my belief that since Islam is to be my way of life, it should also be the way in which I choose to be governed. If a line is to be drawn, where should it be?
I am sad that while the Islam that I have known is beautiful and merciful, some of the worst perpetrators of human rights abuses are Muslims and Muslim governments who commit such acts in the name of Allah and in the name of Islam.
Shouldn't it be enough for us to say that those acts of sin committed by a person that does not encroach on the rights of another should not be governed by man, but rather by God - especially in meting out sentences as severe as taking the life of another human being?
Quote of the Evening:
"In the Constitution of Malaysia, freedom of speech is guaranteed. What is not guaranteed is freedom after speech."
The quote of the day on yesterday's evening function (at least for me was) goes something like:
"Those who fought for the justice of 'maritial-rape' victims are usually unmarried person who have nothing better else to do."
That was blunt. (:
Posted by: Mohammed Shakur at 2003年06月05日 15:00What was more blunt was the follow-up comment: "And they have so much time to think about these things because all the shopping centres are closed."
Posted by: lane at 2003年06月05日 15:05Great blog, and this might interest you:
http://forums.indigital.co.uk/id-argument/messages?msg=20046.1
Posted by: Azlan at 2003年06月06日 09:29hudud law is a preventative law.
people become scared when some group in a society want to implement hudud.
people had scared before it implementation, logically, will they commit wrong after the implementation? yeah, some will still commit offences but i guarantee the number will reduce.
if we are not a thief, we should be afraid of hudud. if we are no adulterer, we should not afraid of hudud.
it is not fair right to give the judgment before the hudud implementation.
i'm reading law. thus, man-made law still bad and evil. ISA for example.
i propose, give a chance for hudud implementation first, than if it is unfair and injustice, we should come back to man made law.
Posted by: pakdi at 2003年06月07日 00:13correction,
if we are not a thief, we should not afraid of hudud. if we are not an adultere, we should not afraid of hudud.
hudud is only to them who commit hudud offences.
Posted by: pakdi at 2003年06月07日 00:15I agree in principle that a severe sentence prevents crime more effectively than a light one. However, what people usually question is the integrity of the people who mete out justice and the processes that support it.
It seems that in their haste to implement such sentences, they forget the processes that must take place : from the selection process of the people who will be party to the investigation, deliberation and sentencing, to the processes themselves. Only then can such a sentence be put into place. Even with man-made law, there is always room for us humans to make mistakes. When we do implement hudud law, mistakes become more costly. Imagine an innocent man who is mistakenly accused of theft, who has his hands cut off. We have to bear in mind that while the rules can be perfect, those who implement them are human.
The problem with religious zealots is that they care more about the end bits (which are more obvious to the public) in their quest to prove their piety, rather than the processes that support such a system.
That's why I believe that only smart people should implement Islamic law.
Posted by: indigoblue at 2003年06月07日 01:14Dear Pak Di and geng,
Thanks for all the info. The purpose of me posting on this topic was to get some answers. I do have faith in the concepts in Islam, however, due to my lack of knowledge, I am not aware of its effective implementation, esp in the area of human rights.
Posted by: najah at 2003年06月07日 01:17if she gets punished now, MAYBE it won't be so bad at the end.
All the non virgins of KL would definitely feel strongly about this I think. No hudud law! We want the right to feel sexy!