The document discusses differences between liberal and Islamic conceptions of human rights and ethics. It argues that the liberal view of individualism and universal human rights is flawed and not absolute. While there are some commonalities, such as respecting other religions, Islam's view is based on preventing oppression and maintaining social order and status quo. The document also critiques the idea that Islam must conform to rational ethics, saying there is no single standard and ethics are influenced by culture and open to interpretation. Overall it rejects that Islam needs reform and asserts that rights and ethics derive from Islamic teachings and tradition.

1. ONEREASON.ORG

2. 2

3. 3

4. •The assertion that Islam needs to be reformed so it can
conform to the liberal conception of human rights and values
is based on the false assumption that this conception of
rights and values is absolute and true. The liberal conception
of human rights, also known as universal human rights, is
premised on atomism or individualism. Although there are
common grounds between the Islamic and liberal conception
of human rights, there are profound differences. One key
reason for these differences is due to liberalism’s false premise
of individualism, and Islam’s anti-individualistic view of the
society and the individual.
•The perspective that Islam must adhere to, and be
understood, via the prism of rational ethics begs the question:
what does one mean by “rational ethics”? This opens the door
to a broad range of ethical theories that claim to use reason.
Simply arguing that Islam is not in line with rational ethics
implies that there is one ethical standard that one must abide
by, and that rational ethics are free from moral, philosophical
and conceptual problems. This is simply misleading and false.
4

5. 5

6. 6

7. 7

8. 8

9. 9

10. 10

11. 11

12. 12

13. 13

14. 14
The intention being that no change in whatever
state everyone is, shall be made (status quo
shall be maintained). Neither the people shall
be punished for any past crime or murder, nor
shall they be compelled to do military service.
Neither shall ‘ushr (the tax on grain) be imposed
on them, nor shall any army enter their area. If
anyone of the people of Najran demands the
rights, justice shall be done between the plaintiff
and the respondent. Neither oppression shall be
allowed to be perpetuated on them, nor shall they
be permitted to oppress anyone. Whatever has
been written in this pact, God and Muhammad,
his Prophet, are guarantors for it, unless there is
an order from Allah, in this connection, and as
long as the people of Najran remain faithful and
adhere to the conditions, which have been made
for them, except that someone compels them to
do otherwise.”14
The Islamic teachings of respect towards
other people and their beliefs are echoed by
Associate Professor Andrew F. March’s study
on liberal and Islamic values. He opines that
the Islamic scholarly tradition supported the
idea of recognised religious differences and the
contribution to non-Muslim welfare:
“…there was surprisingly strong support from
classical, conservative jurisprudence, particularly
on questions relating to the terms of residence,
loyalty to a state of residence, recognition of
religious difference, and contribution to non-
Muslim welfare.” 15
This toleration and respect is not just for other
religions, but also for people with no religious
beliefs. The Qur’an teaches that we must share
our beliefs and values with “wisdom and good
instruction” while discussing “in a way that is
best.”16

15. 15

16. 16

17. 17

18. 18

19. 19

20. 20

21. 21
Liberalism and Human Rights
Since the premise of liberalism is false, then it follows that its
conception of human rights cannot be accepted as truth or absolute.
This does not mean that the entire liberal project for human rights is
to be dismissed. Many of the rights reflect an essential part of who we
are and how we should treat each other. However, the absoluteness
or universality must be questioned and discussed. Professor Syed
Nasr raises an interesting point that human rights are also determined
by culture, and the claim to “universality” is incoherent because the
“Western understanding of the term has itself changed over time.”33

22. 22

23. 23

24. 24

25. 25

26. This is where many reformists face some
inevitable difficulties. If social pressure or
consensus is argued to form a yardstick for
morals, then the proponents of this assertion
face a huge issue.
Firstly, it renders morals as relative, as they are
subject to inevitable social changes. Secondly, it
leads to moral absurdities. If someone accepts
social consensus as a basis for morals, then how
can we justify our moral position towards what
the Nazis did in World War Two? How can we
claim that what they did was “morally wrong”?
Even if you were to claim that there were people
in Germany who fought against the Nazis,
the point is that there was an overwhelming
consensus or social pressure supporting the
evil. This is why it would be accurate to describe
reformers as intellectual-sheep, as they age for
a moral position in line with social pressure. The
question they should answer is: would you have
been articulating such a position 200 years ago?
Such irrational positions are simply herd-like
moral positions, in reality, a moral view devoid of
thinking and depth.
26

27. 27

28. God. In the Islamic intellectual tradition, there
is a careful interplay between obedience to a
command and using our cognitive faculties to
understand what the command is, its implication,
and context. This can result in differences of
opinion about the understanding of God’s
command, however it still necessitates that if
a valid opinion is established, obedience must
follow. The Islamic intellectual tradition provides
us with volumes of ethical treatises all based on
God’s commands and moral guidance. Some of
these treatises differ in some areas; however
these differences are respected and tolerated,
particularly if they are based on a sound
methodology. Professor Nasr in his introduction
to The Study Qur’an aptly summarises Islamic
ethics,
“The Quran is also a book of ethics. It provides
criteria for discernment between not only truth
and falsehood, beauty and ugliness, but also
good and evil. Although it emphasizes that
human beings should use their God-given gift
of intelligence (al-‘Aql) to discern what is true,
beautiful, and good, it also insists that it is
necessary to have faith in the revelation that
provides the final judgment as to what is true and
good and in fact allows human intelligence to be
fully operative rather than becoming atrophied by
human passions.”38
28

29. 29

30. 30

31. 31

32. ONEREASON.ORG