❖ The Tyrannical System of Modern States Based on Human Rights ❖
✍ By Dr. Zahid Mughal
◈ The Modern State and the Hypothesis of Human Rights
Modern-day states have embraced “Human Rights” as a kind of religion, presenting them under the guise of a “neutral position.” However, the fundamental difference is that these rights are based on man-made principles. Merely changing the label does not alter the reality.
It is claimed that the modern state, being above all religions, determines the rights of all its citizens impartially. Yet, when one asks these claimants, “On what basis are these rights determined?”, most are either unaware or evade the question. Only a few admit that these rights are grounded in the liberal thought and the framework of Human Rights.
◈ The Foundation of Human Rights and the Islamic Perspective
The modern state asserts that citizens’ rights should be determined on the basis of Human Rights.
In contrast, our argument is that rights should be determined in light of the Qur’an and Sunnah.
The critical question arises: How can a Muslim set aside the Qur’an and Sunnah to prefer Human Rights derived from Western philosophy?
◈ Intellectual and Political Dominance Through Human Rights
Today, “violation of human rights” is treated with the same seriousness that “violation of Shariah rights” once held in the past.
Modern thinkers question: Why should non-Muslims accept Shariah?
But then, this question also arises: Why should Human Rights be accepted, given that they are rooted in Western philosophy?
The truth is that Human Rights have become a tool of coercion against local values and traditions.
European powers used them extensively during the colonial era.
For example, John Locke justified European occupation of American lands through his philosophy, claiming that only those individuals who make the land usable through “labor” are its rightful owners.
This way, native Americans were deprived of land ownership, simply because they did not utilize land according to European concepts of property.
◈ The Foundation of International Law
European nations formulated a principle for international law: any land that does not belong to a state (terra nullius) can be occupied and claimed by any state.
This principle primarily served European interests, resulting in the subjugation of non-European nations.
To be recognized as a nation-state, non-European nations were required to meet three conditions:
① Reach a specific level of civilization
② Accept European international law
③ Be recognized by the international community
These very principles still underpin today’s international laws, and are used to exert pressure on nations that do not conform.
◈ Double Standards of Human Rights
The European Union has made “promotion of human rights” a condition for GSP Plus status, forcing countries like Pakistan to amend their laws, such as imposing a ban on capital punishment.
Recently, the United Nations demanded Pakistan to legalize fornication and asked Indonesia to recognize homosexuality
(Express Tribune, 7 February 2018; 9 April 2018).
In contrast, if Muslim countries were to demand that European nations criminalize fornication and homosexuality, it would be labeled colonial mentality.
When Human Rights advocates impose their concept of morality on others, it is called “justice,”
But when Muslims legislate according to Shariah, they are accused of being against globalization.
◈ Iqbal’s Insight
Iqbal foresaw these contradictions a century ago:
“The demon of democratic despotism dances in royal attire —
And you believe it to be the fairy of freedom!”
