What does Islam say about human rights?

McBell said:

The United Nations pinpoint the origin of Human Rights to the year 539 BC. When the troops of Cyrus the Great conquered Babylon, Cyrus freed the slaves, declared that all people had the right to choose their own religion, and established racial equality. These and other precepts were recorded on a baked-clay cylinder known as the Cyrus Cylinder, whose provisions served as inspiration for the first four Articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Click to expand...

This is complete nonsense though.

The Cyrus Cylinder is basically a building dedication, an imperialist propaganda document justifying the rule of Cyrus over conquered peoples. It wasn't even particularly original propaganda. It has nothing to do with human rights and Cyrus was a typical empire builder of classical antiquity - and these empires were not built on human rights, "freeing slaves" or anachronisms like "racial equality", but violence and the threat of violence.

“Much of our knowledge of the fall of Babylon comes from the so-called Cyrus Cylinder – a clay foundation deposit written in Akkadian discovered near the sanctuary of Marduk in the city. It was presumably composed on Cyrus’ orders, although the whole document is written from a Babylonian point of view in traditional Babylonian terms. As a piece of imperial propaganda, the Cylinder attempts to legitimize Cyrus’ conquest of Babylon by representing the king as the champion of the god Marduk, who finds in Cyrus the city’s saviour. It seems that the Babylonians benefited from Cyrus’ capture of their city; certainly the Jews of Babylonia profited from his benevolence and were allowed to return to their homelands. Other peoples did not fare so well under Cyrus: the citizens of Opis were massacred en masse, and, following the fall of Lydia, the population was deported to Nippur in Babylonia, where a community of Lydians is later attested.”

L Llewlyn-Jones - The first Persian Empire


In the 60s, the Shah wanted to appropriate Cyrus to prop up his legitimacy, hence a myth was born.

Augustus said:

This is complete nonsense though.

The Cyrus Cylinder is basically a building dedication, an imperialist propaganda document justifying the rule of Cyrus over conquered peoples. It wasn't even particularly original propaganda. It has nothing to do with human rights and Cyrus was a typical empire builder of classical antiquity - and these empires were not built on human rights, "freeing slaves" or anachronisms like "racial equality", but violence and the threat of violence.

“Much of our knowledge of the fall of Babylon comes from the so-called Cyrus Cylinder – a clay foundation deposit written in Akkadian discovered near the sanctuary of Marduk in the city. It was presumably composed on Cyrus’ orders, although the whole document is written from a Babylonian point of view in traditional Babylonian terms. As a piece of imperial propaganda, the Cylinder attempts to legitimize Cyrus’ conquest of Babylon by representing the king as the champion of the god Marduk, who finds in Cyrus the city’s saviour. It seems that the Babylonians benefited from Cyrus’ capture of their city; certainly the Jews of Babylonia profited from his benevolence and were allowed to return to their homelands. Other peoples did not fare so well under Cyrus: the citizens of Opis were massacred en masse, and, following the fall of Lydia, the population was deported to Nippur in Babylonia, where a community of Lydians is later attested.”

L Llewlyn-Jones - The first Persian Empire


In the 60s, the Shah wanted to appropriate Cyrus to prop up his legitimacy, hence a myth was born.

Click to expand...

Okay. Maybe you guys if you want to continue though, make a new thread. This thread has potential to digress a lot, I want it to stay on point as much as possible.

Link said:

(1) "Human rights" is a subset of rights of humans, sounds weird but it refers to rights of humans pertaining to what should be held or enforced by the government in abstract form while there will be particular applications of it that can differ given situation and circumstances.

(2) Given that this is a very logical thing to hold that there is rights in that category, and are important to deal with, if Islam is silent about the issue, then it fails to guide humanity in one of the more important issues.

(3) Human rights issues interlocks with other issues such as economical models, socialism vs capitalism, poverty, disability rights, as well as political issues and how it can be weaponized for colonialism, gender issues, and sex is also related to it. I will expand as we go in this thread.

I'm holding the definition has to be found in Islam in some form or another (1) or it's a false religion. I further argue the details of human rights has to be in Quran and Sunnah as well or it's a failed religion.

Click to expand...

Are you saying that Islam offers a form of Human Rights (although this may differ significantly from common modern conceptions), that Islam's traditional version of HR is broadly in alignment with modern views, or that we can find ways to contextualise Islamic teachings to make them broadly align with modern views of HR (or something else)?

Augustus said:

Are you saying that Islam offers a form of Human Rights (although this may differ significantly from common modern conceptions), that Islam's traditional version of HR is broadly in alignment with modern views, or that we can find ways to contextualise Islamic teachings to make them broadly align with modern views of HR (or something else)?

Click to expand...

More of the first. But I think people will find that it's even more advanced than views we have today. For example, see what Imam Ali (a) says about appointing the administrator of justice:

Select as your Chief Justice from the people, one who is by far the best among them – one who is not obsessed with domestic worries, one who cannot be intimidated, one who does not err to often, one who does not turn back from a right path once he finds it, one who is not self-centred or avaricious, one who will not decide before knowing full facts, one who will weigh with care every attendant doubt and pronounce a clear verdict after taking everything into full consideration, one who will not grow restive over the arguments of advocates and who will examine with patience every new disclosure of fact and who will be strictly impartial in his decision, one who flattery cannot mislead or one who does not exult over his position. But it is not easy to find such men.
Once you have selected the right man for the office, pay him handsomely enough, to let him live in comfort and in keeping with his position, enough to keep him above temptations. Give him a position in your court so high none can even dream of coveting it and so high that neither back-biting nor intrigue can touch him.

There are requirements from top to bottom of government. At top, the requirements of Ahlulbayt (a) are even higher criteria.

Also, it's viewpoint of discourse, is more advanced than that of Foucault even.

I will also present a definition of secularism that I believe Islam offers and is found in the Quran. I will expand when I get there. But to get a glimpse, people were to be free do judge per their religion and choose their own judiciary, except in certain issues. This is why Quran says for instance, why don't Jews judge by the Torah and not make Mohammad (s) a judge, yet says he can judge or not judge them. For the things he won't judge them, they should judge themselves. For things to do with more broad issues that involve everyone, that he will judge. Imam Ali (a) would say he would judge every religion per their own books, and it's said Imam Mahdi (a) will do the same per some hadiths. I will expand on this issue realizing no country has this but I believe it's the way forward.

Augustus said:

This is complete nonsense though.

The Cyrus Cylinder is basically a building dedication, an imperialist propaganda document justifying the rule of Cyrus over conquered peoples. It wasn't even particularly original propaganda. It has nothing to do with human rights and Cyrus was a typical empire builder of classical antiquity - and these empires were not built on human rights, "freeing slaves" or anachronisms like "racial equality", but violence and the threat of violence.

“Much of our knowledge of the fall of Babylon comes from the so-called Cyrus Cylinder – a clay foundation deposit written in Akkadian discovered near the sanctuary of Marduk in the city. It was presumably composed on Cyrus’ orders, although the whole document is written from a Babylonian point of view in traditional Babylonian terms. As a piece of imperial propaganda, the Cylinder attempts to legitimize Cyrus’ conquest of Babylon by representing the king as the champion of the god Marduk, who finds in Cyrus the city’s saviour. It seems that the Babylonians benefited from Cyrus’ capture of their city; certainly the Jews of Babylonia profited from his benevolence and were allowed to return to their homelands. Other peoples did not fare so well under Cyrus: the citizens of Opis were massacred en masse, and, following the fall of Lydia, the population was deported to Nippur in Babylonia, where a community of Lydians is later attested.”

L Llewlyn-Jones - The first Persian Empire


In the 60s, the Shah wanted to appropriate Cyrus to prop up his legitimacy, hence a myth was born.

Click to expand...

Are you saying the translation is wrong and it does not mention human rights?
Or perhaps the date attributed to it?

If your claim is neither of those, then how does the story behind it effect that it talks about human rights?

There has been no claim (at least to my knowledge) that it was followed at all.
Only that it wastranslated to be mentioning human rights.

Link said:

More of the first. But I think people will find that it's even more advanced than views we have today. For example, see what Imam Ali (a) says about appointing the administrator of justice:

Select as your Chief Justice from the people, one who is by far the best among them – one who is not obsessed with domestic worries, one who cannot be intimidated, one who does not err to often, one who does not turn back from a right path once he finds it, one who is not self-centred or avaricious, one who will not decide before knowing full facts, one who will weigh with care every attendant doubt and pronounce a clear verdict after taking everything into full consideration, one who will not grow restive over the arguments of advocates and who will examine with patience every new disclosure of fact and who will be strictly impartial in his decision, one who flattery cannot mislead or one who does not exult over his position. But it is not easy to find such men.
Once you have selected the right man for the office, pay him handsomely enough, to let him live in comfort and in keeping with his position, enough to keep him above temptations. Give him a position in your court so high none can even dream of coveting it and so high that neither back-biting nor intrigue can touch him.

Click to expand...

Cool story - and to which right in the UDoHR is this a parallel?
And do you think that this is how judges are appointed in Islamic countries? And who is wise enough to find the wise?
And if it isn't so, why is that?

Heyo said:

"Human rights", the notion that humans have inherent rights, is only about 300 years old, and it only penetrated the western and western associated world. I wouldn't expect it in anything older than the Enlightenment.
And if we compare the Universal Declaration of Human Rights | United Nations, probably the most current and most wide-spread concept of human rights, we find that the Quran (as well as the Bible) is in stark opposition to it.

Click to expand...

This doesn't make sense to me. I think that commandments such as "though shalt not murder" and "thou shalt not steal" are acknowledgements of a humans right for life and right to property. Jesus' golden rule is also implies that all humans are kin and should be treated equally and fairly. Most of the other major or community religions took stances on universal standards for human justice. It just wasnt called human rights.

Samael_Khan said:

This doesn't make sense to me. I think that commandments such as "though shalt not murder" and "thou shalt not steal" are acknowledgements of a humans right for life and right to property.

Click to expand...

Not if you read further than the ten. The death penalty is the go-to punishment for a wide variety of "sins", which is not compatible with an inalienable right to life.

Samael_Khan said:

Jesus' golden rule is also implies that all humans are kin and should be treated equally and fairly. Most of the other major or community religions took stances on universal standards for human justice. It just wasnt called human rights.

Click to expand...

Yeah, equal and fair treatment. Ask the RCC, the biggest Christian denomination, what their position on the equality of the sexes is - until today.

You may find a verse or two you can cherry-pick and interpret as promoting a human right, but there are a few dozen verses contradicting that and millennia of practice.

Heyo said:

Not if you read further than the ten. The death penalty is the go-to punishment for a wide variety of "sins", which is not compatible with an inalienable right to life.

Yeah, equal and fair treatment. Ask the RCC, the biggest Christian denomination, what their position on the equality of the sexes is - until today.

You may find a verse or two you can cherry-pick and interpret as promoting a human right, but there are a few dozen verses contradicting that and millennia of practice.

Click to expand...

I think you are confusing the idea of human rights with the very subjective idea of what is considered a human right. I am not saying that what they considered to be a human rights or not was acceptable or the same as today.

Besides human rights are still evolving in concept. People 100 years from now will look at us as barbaric because of how we limit the concept.

Samael_Khan said:

I think you are confusing the idea of human rights with the very subjective idea of what is considered a human right. I am not saying that what they considered to be a human rights or not was acceptable or the same as today.

Click to expand...

I'm using the OP's idea of human rights. @Link has not yet opposed to using the UDoHR as a standard.

Samael_Khan said:

Besides human rights are still evolving in concept. People 100 years from now will look at us as barbaric because of how we limit the concept.

Click to expand...

Just what I said. There is no comparison between today's human rights and what didn't exist in the past.

McBell said:

Are you saying the translation is wrong and it does not mention human rights?
Or perhaps the date attributed to it?

If your claim is neither of those, then how does the story behind it effect that it talks about human rights?

There has been no claim (at least to my knowledge) that it was followed at all.
Only that it wastranslated to be mentioning human rights.

Click to expand...

It simply has nothing whatsoever to do with human rights.

Can read the text here and see for yourself.

Link said:

Salam

Click to expand...

Human rights were properly established in 1948 with the declaration in / by the UN, so I'm going to go out on a limb here and state that Islam says exactly nothing about them.

Having said that, traditional islamic rules / law is in violation with quite a few of the basic human rights (for example its stance on slavery and apostacy)

Link said:

I'm holding the definition has to be found in Islam in some form or another (1) or it's a false religion. I further argue the details of human rights has to be in Quran and Sunnah as well or it's a failed religion.

Click to expand...

Spiritual / religious freedom is one of the basic human rights.
Islam calls for the death penalty for apostates.

I guess by your own acknowledgement, Islam must be a false religion.

//thread

Link said:

Humans having inherent rights is as old as humanity.

Click to expand...

You're joking, right?

You must be............

TagliatelliMonster said:

Human rights were properly established in 1948 with the declaration in / by the UN, so I'm going to go out on a limb here and state that Islam says exactly nothing about them.

Having said that, traditional islamic rules / law is in violation with quite a few of the basic human rights (for example its stance on slavery and apostacy)



Spiritual / religious freedom is one of the basic human rights.
Islam calls for the death penalty for apostates.

I guess by your own acknowledgement, Islam must be a false religion.

//thread

Click to expand...

It is well established that the Islamic and UNO conceptions of human rights clash with each other, but I think that this is a bit of a tangent to the purpose of this thread. That would be learning and establishing what the Islamic view of human rights is according to Link's interpretation.

After that we might follow up with comparisons to the UN view if we want to.

TagliatelliMonster said:

You're joking, right?

You must be............

Click to expand...

Why do you think so?

LuisDantas said:

Why do you think so?

Click to expand...

I think there are more then enough examples of civilizations that kept humans as slaves (for example) where those humans were seen like pieces of furniture or cattle, or even less then that. Where they had zero personal rights, were seen like "property" of their masters and where those masters were able to mistreat them in any way they saw fit with zero repercussions.

TagliatelliMonster said:

I think there are more then enough examples of civilizations that kept humans as slaves (for example) where those humans were seen like pieces of furniture or cattle, or even less then that. Where they had zero personal rights, were seen like "property" of their masters and where those masters were able to mistreat them in any way they saw fit with zero repercussions.

Click to expand...

Understandings of human rights change, but it does not follow that they were not present from very ancient times.

LuisDantas said:

Understandings of human rights change, but it does not follow that they were not present from very ancient times.

Click to expand...

What rights, worthy of the name, did a slave in ancient rome have?

Link said:

That's not a good translation especially given the same chapter allows marriage to Christians and Jews. The hadiths also don't show this to be the proper translation. We can discuss the context and meaning of the verses here Verse 5:55

Click to expand...

But if you look at countries that follow Shariah Laws. Which one do you think has good human rights?

TagliatelliMonster said:

I think there are more then enough examples of civilizations that kept humans as slaves (for example) where those humans were seen like pieces of furniture or cattle, or even less then that. Where they had zero personal rights, were seen like "property" of their masters and where those masters were able to mistreat them in any way they saw fit with zero repercussions.

Click to expand...

I agree with what you are saying. I would argue, one of the disasters that took place, is that slavery was seen as allowed by God. I've had threads if slavery was ever allowed by God: