How far we have fallen

References to ‘Islamic’ terrorism and Islam as a religion that promotes violence and intolerance are commonplace. What are consistently and conveniently forgotten are the origins of Islam and the message of the Holy Prophet (pbuh).
There are many today who speak of human rights and how Muslim countries and the Shariah violate these rights, particularly those of vulnerable groups and individuals within society. Isis, Al-Qaeda, TTP and radicals with no real knowledge or understanding of Islam are most frequently associated with the religion and recognised as its flag-bearers.
Having studied in-depth the genesis of international law and the development of international and regional frameworks for the protection of human rights, the thought of drawing an analogy between international law and Islamic principles seemed rather far-fetched.
With the end of World War II, the west began to comprehend the significance of human rights, particularly in the aftermath of the Holocaust. This realisation dawned upon the victors of the war in 1945. It wasn’t until 1949 that the Geneva Conventions set out international legal obligations with regard to the ‘amelioration of the condition of the wounded and sick’, ‘the treatment of prisoners of war’ and ‘the protection of civilian persons in times of war’. It took until 1977 to delineate international obligations pertaining to the protection of victims in international armed conflicts and non-international armed conflicts.
Centuries ago, however, in 622 C E, the world’s first international lawyer and the biggest contributor to the original conception of human rights, the Holy Prophet (pbuh), set in motion the ideas later encapsulated in the Geneva Conventions. The Charter of Medina is essentially the first and most progressive human rights document, particularly taking into account the day and age in which it was formulated. Protection of wounded soldiers and prisoners of war; returning corpses of the enemy whilst prohibiting their mutilation, and standing by treaties agreed upon were some of the rules on armed conflict taught by the Holy Prophet (pbuh).
When the Prophet (pbuh) began spreading the word of God and revealing to his companions the Holy Quran, the message of Islam resonated most with those groups modern-day international law identifies as the most vulnerable: women and minorities. Those who call themselves Muslims and discriminate on the basis of gender, race, colour and/or religion cannot be accepted as representatives of Islam. Islam gave rights to women in a society where they were considered mere objects and simultaneously gave rights to slaves who were treated like property. How, then, are organisations like Al-Qaeda and Isis constantly able to evoke in Muslims a sense of guilt? Why must Muslims consistently apologise for the actions of terrorists to demonstrate to the international community that Islam is a religion of peace?
Islam was the first religion to develop what the modern world is still struggling to enforce: human rights and international legal standards pertaining to war and conflict. In a society where women are killed in the name of honour and raped to settle family scores, how can we truly identify as an ‘Islamic’ society? Muslims and minorities alike are systematically persecuted under the state’s blasphemy laws, ignoring the basic teachings of Islam to protect the rights of all human beings, believers and non-believers both. Children are sexually assaulted and told to stay silent for the sake of ‘family honour’ – what religion allows the bodily integrity of children to be violated?
Instead of identifying and rectifying how far we’ve come from the conception of an Islamic society, we argue, incorrectly, that Islam isn’t liberal, that Islam isn’t progressive, that Islam is a conservative doctrine that imposes harsh obligations and strict duties on its followers. This couldn’t be further from the Islam that spread in the Holy Prophet’s (pbuh) time: the original, undistorted Islam that gave rights to the most persecuted and vulnerable groups in society. Islam challenged the status quo prevalent at that time that favoured the rich over the poor, men over women, slave-owners over slaves.
We focus on trivialities rather than reforming our crippled and failing legal and political system. We demand injection of ‘Islamic teachings’ and rejection of ‘western human rights’ without understanding that if we can’t even stomach the latter, the former is far too progressive for us. Ironic that ‘Muslim’ states are those making the most reservations to human rights conventions, particularly those guaranteeing rights to vulnerable groups such as women (as manifested by reservations made, by Arab states, to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women – Cedaw).
However, taking into account the growing number of international treaties ratified by Pakistan, on subjects ranging from environmental protection to human rights, the state of Pakistan is in an ideal position to transpose into domestic law such international legal obligations, thereby rectifying existing domestic provisions in violation of these rights. Considering the deep attachment to Islam and its principles in this Muslim-majority state, it is crucial to develop a domestic framework for rights protection positively utilising this circumstance rather than allowing it to be misused and transformed into a doctrine of violence and intolerance.
The writer is a research associate at the Research Society of International Law, Lahore.