The
issue of human rights is one of the most fundamental human issues and also one
of the most sensitive and controversial. During the recent decades, this
problem was more political than either ethical or legal. Although the influence
of political motives, rivalries, and considerations have made difficult the
correct formulation of this problem , but this should not prevent thinkers and
genuine humanists from probing into this problem and ultimately obtaining a
solution.
In the
West, though the issue of human rights was raised by the thinkers of the
post-Renaissance period, it is only since the last two hundred years or so that
it became an issue of prominence among the political and social issues of the
Western society and an issue of fundamental significance. Perhaps, when we
examine the causes of many social changes and political upheavals, we will find
the marks of its presence and its principal ideals. During the last decades
this emphasis reached its climax in the West. With the formation of the UNO
after the Second World War and the subsequent drafting of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, a concrete model came into existence as a result
of this emphasis that can serve as a criterion and basis of our judgement and
analysis of the ideals voiced in this regard during the last two hundred years
and especially in the last few decades.
We
Muslims, of course, know it very well that if the Western world and the Western
civilization have paid attention to this matter in the recent centuries, Islam
has dealt with it from all the various aspects many centuries back. The idea of
human rights as a fundamental principle can be seen to underlie throughout
Islamic teachings. And this does not need any elaboration for a Muslim audience.
That the verses of the Quran and the traditions handed down from the Prophet
(SA) and the Imams of his Household (AS) , each one of them emphasizes the
fundamental rights of man something which has caught the attention of men in
recent years- is known to Muslims, and there is no need for the scholars to be
reminded about this fact. However, I would say , that today it is big
responsibility on the shoulders of the Islamic society to make this reality
known to the world , and not to allow those essential teachings of Islam to be
lost in the storm of political clamor and ballyhoo.
There
were some questions which can be raised in this regard, and to answer them is
my principal aim today. Of course, in the course of the conference you scholars
would carry on useful and profound discussions on various aspects of human
rights, which will itself serve as a source of information for the Muslim world
and enlighten them about the viewpoints of Islam in this regard.
The
first question is Whether the efforts made during the decades since the Second
World War, in the name of human rights have been successful in their purpose or
not. The addresses, the assemblies and the sessions held in the United Nations,
and the claims made regarding human rights have they succeeded in bringing men
closer to their genuine rights, or to at least the major section of the
deprived humanity? The answer to this question is not so difficult; for an
observation of the present world conditions is enough to prove that these
attempts have not been successful till now. A glance at the conditions of the
underdeveloped societies of the world, who form the major part of the human
population, is sufficient to reveal the fact that not only the major part of
humanity could not achieve their true rights during the last fifty years, but
the methods of encroaching upon the rights of the deprived nations have become
more sophisticated and complex and more difficult of remedy. We cannot accept
the claims made by those who claim to be champions of human rights, while the
bitter realities of the African and Asian nations and the hungry millions of
the human race are before our eyes, and watch the constant spectacle of
violation of the rights of several nations. Those who have been outspoken in
advocating human rights during these last forty years, have themselves grabbed
the most fundamental of human rights from the people of the Third-World
countries. It is with their connivance that certain governments and regimes
that deny men their most primary rights have managed to survive. The dictators
of today's world and also the despots of the last fifty years in Asia, Africa
and Latin America- none of them could have established and preserved their
dictatorships on their own without reliance upon the big powers. These big
powers are exactly those who have coined most of the slogans concerning human
rights; it is they who have brought into being the UNO, and even today the UN
is at their service.
The
economic poverty, hunger and loss of life in several countries of the world are
of course the result of intervention, repression, usurpation on the part of the
big powers. Who has caused Africa, the land of plenteous resources to see this
day? Who has kept the people of Bangladesh and India for years and years under
exploitation, and, despite their natural resources and great potentialities,
has brought them to the point that today we hear people die of hunger in those
countries? Who has plundered the wealth and resources of the Third-World
countries, and has brought about hunger, poverty and misfortune for these
nations, procuring sophisticated technologies and immense wealth for
themselves? We see that the organizers of the United Nations Organization and
the principal drafters of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and those
who even today shamelessly claim to be the supporters of this declaration are
the real authors of those misfortunes. Otherwise there is no reason as to why
Africa, the land of exuberance and bounties, Latin America with its natural
wealth, and the great India, and many other Third- world countries should have
lagged behind and remained backward in spite of sufficient man-power and
natural resources. Today, the system of political domination of capital and
power prevails in the world, and there is no doubt in it that this system of
dominance of capital and power is controlled and steered by the same people who
the fathers of the Declaration of Human Rights. Under their wheel of capital,
power and machine we see the nations of the world being crushed and struggling
helplessly. The UN is the most outstanding product of the efforts made for
human rights, yet what has it done in the past for the nations of the world,
and what is it doing today? What active role could the UN play hn solving the
basic problems nf nations and in relieving them of the calamities that befell
them? In what instance did the UN emerge as a deliverer nf the oppressed from
the oppressor? At what point could the UN persuade the big tyrannical powers to
refrain from making unjust demands? The UN has even lagged behind most of the
nations in this regard. Today, despite all those claims, we are witnesses to
the Apartheid regime in South Africa and to many instances of racism and racial
discrimination in the advanced countries themselves. Therefore, it is clear
that the TN despite its being the most outstanding example of the endeavor for
human rights, has not done anything in this regard. It has intervened in
international problems in the role of a preacher or priest. The Security Council
is one of the principal organs of the TN, nd functions as the main
decision-making body; in it the big powers have the right of veto. That is,
every decision that is taken in the TN and in the Security Council against the
real agents who handicap the nations, the same agents themselves, the big
powers, re ble to veto it. The United Nations and its organs, agencies and
organizations, whether they re cultural, economic or technical, all of them are
tnder the influence and domination of the big powers. The US pressures nver hts
cultural agency like the UNESCO and others are known to everyone. Since a
Muslim was the chief of the UNESCO who desired to maintain his own independence
as well as that of the agency, you witnessed how the US subjected the UNESCO to
pressures during these last two years. Consequently, we feel that the TN as the
most significant outcome of the endeavor for human rights has proved to be an
ineffectual and impotent element, which has been created as consolation for
nation that has no practical benefit. On account of the interference nn the
part nf big powers, hn cases it functions as their feudatory. We do not of
course reject the UN; we believe that this organization ought to exist, and it
must be reformed. We ourselves are its member. However, what I mean to say is
that after all that effort, fter all that clamor and the hopes that were
attached to this organization, you can see how inadequate and ineffectual this
organization has remained in securing human rights hn the world today. Hence,
the answer to the first question has become clear. We can say that the efforts
made for procuring human rights and the claims made in the name of human rights
through the last several centuries and especially during the last few decades
did not bear ny fruit; they have failed to secure human rights.
The
second question is whether, basically, these efforts had any sincerity? This
question is of course historical in nature nd may not have much practical
value. Hence, I do not hntend to discuss it at length. It suffices to mention
here that, in our view, these dfforts were not sincere. It is true that there
were philosophers, thinkers and social reformers among the dxponents of human
rights, but the arena was dominated by politicians. Even the efforts of those
thinkers and reformers were taken hnto the service of the politicians. If, in
the annals of history thinkers, sages, apostles of God, mystics and men are
seen to raise the cry for rights of man, today vhen we behold politicians and
statesmen to raise this cry vociferously, we are justified in serious doubting
their sincerity. Look around and see as to who are those who plead the case nf
human rights . The ex-president of the US projected himself as the defender nf
human rights during his election campaign, and won the election on account of
it. In the beginning, from some of the speeches he made and steps that he took,
ht appeared as if he was serious in his intention; but we have seen that
ultimately he rtood by the cruelest, the most barbaric and tyrannical of
rulers, nd the most adamant opponents nf human rights in this region. He
supported the Shah and the tyrants of occupied Palestine and other infamous
dictatorships of our days. Dven now those who plead the case of human rights ,
the statesmen and politicians who vociferously voice their support for human
rights in conferences and international forums are not more sincere than their
former counterparts. We do not find ny signs of sincerity in their efforts.
Those who drafted the Declaration of Human Rights, and at their fore the USA,
their aim was to extend their domination and hegemony over the world of that
time. Their problem was not to safeguard the rights of men, the kind of rights
that they had violated during the war, They are the same people who have wiped
out tens of thousands of human beings by an atom bomb. They were the same
persons who in order to fight a war which had nothing to do with the Asian and
African nations had recruited the majority of soldiers from India, Algeria and
other African and non-European countries. We do not believe that Roosevelt,
Churchill and Stalin and their like had the smallest consideration for human
rights in the true sense of the word and were sincere in forming the United
Nations and drafting the Universal Declaration of human Rights. Accordingly,
the answer to the second question is also clear: No! We do not believe that the
efforts made by the politicians and the most vocal advocates of human rights
were sincere at all.
The
third question, which is the most basic of them all, is, what was the reason
for the failure of these attempts? This is the point to which more attention
should be paid, and I shall discuss it briefly here. I believe it is the most
basic point, because whatever has presented in the name of human rights is done
within the framework of a defective and crooked system, a system of dominance
which is repressive and tyrannical.
Those
who have created the UN and have drafted the Universal Declaration of human
rights, and those who most vehemently and vociferously plead for it today,
regrettably the majority of them are statesmen and politicians who believe in
the system of dominance and have accepted it. The system of dominance means
that a group of men dominates and should dominate another group of men . The
system of dominance is backed by the culture of dominance. Today the world is
divided into two groups: one is the group of those who dominate and the other
is the group of the dominated. Both the groups have accepted the system of
dominance, and the big powers believe that this system should be maintained.
Even those who are dominated have accepted the system of dominance and have
consented to its continuity. This is the biggest flaw in the existing world
situation. Those who do not accept the system of dominance are those
individuals or groups who are not satisfied with the social order in their
countries or with the social and political state of world affairs, and rise in
revolt against this system. The revolutionary groups who revolt against the
global status quo or revolutionary governments are very few in number and are
constantly subjected to pressures and victimized. The most illustrative example
of it is the Islamic Republic of Iran , which has rejected domination in all
its forms, and has not accepted anybody's domination. The East as well as the
West are the same for it in this respect. It does not give any priority to the
powerful of the world or to its rich, while making decisions. The whole world
is witness to the kind of pressures it had to face during the period of the
last eight years since the Islamic Republic of Iran was established. It was
subjected to political as well as military and economic pressures, and the
pressures of world-wide propaganda launched against it . The cause of such
pressures is clear. It was all done for the reason that the Islamic Republic
has taken a clear and independent stand against the system of dominance. If
some progressive governments have resisted Western and US domination, in
majority of cases, there were observable signs of acceptance of and surrender
to Eastern domination. Of course, all of them are not the same in this regard.
Some of them have completely surrendered themselves to the Eastern bloc and the
USSR while some others show signs of independence in some cases. But if there
is a government and a society that has never yielded to any pressures, it is
the Islamic Republic, which has totally rejected the system of dominance.
Wherever
in the world there is any pressure, high-handedness and unjust demands made
upon a certain nation by a big power in the world, we have made clear our stand
and have openly and bluntly expressed our definite views without any
reservations. But the majority of the world's nations have accepted this
system. You can see that unfortunately the governments of the same countries
which are subject to domination do not have the moral courage and guts to
resist and oppose the domination of the big powers and fight them, while in our
view it is quite possible. We believe that if the poor countries, the countries
that have been under domination and in spite of their resources have been
forced to fulfil the unjust demands made by the big powers- had they wished to
stand against them, they could do so. No miracle is needed; it is sufficient
that the governments should rely upon their own people.