The United Nations concept of human rights is unacceptable to Muslims. The points where they clash are numerous, yet Muslims seem afraid to focus on these points, perhaps for fear of upsetting the international “powers that be”. When Abdullah Badawi formulated his “Islam Hadhari”, for example, he carefully avoided all these points in his “Ten Principles”, thereby robbing “Hadhari” of any distinctively Islamic identity. Undoubtedly, he was trying to “sell” Islam to the world in some moderate, essentially emasculated form.
We can start with interest banking. Without percentage interest based on the passage of time, the entire global economic system would fall. In point of historical fact, even the Christians in the Catholic Church prior to the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century outlawed interest, based on the famous Biblical story of Prophet Isa (a.s.) throwing the money changers bodily out of the church. This is one of the very few scenes of physical violence appearing in the stories of this prophet’s teachings.
Muslims compromise on this point in order to survive, in spite of the strong and clear Qur’anic verses and Prophetic Hadith on the matter. Malaysia’s middle classes all rely upon bank credit and bank loans, to provide houses and cars for their families.
Nevertheless, before retirement, Tun Mahathir Mohamed was calling our attention to steps that needed to be taken to begin the transition from interest entanglements to a purely Islamic and therefore HALAL, economic life here in SE Asia. Some scholars, including Imran Hosein had written and lectured on the urgency of this transition, before he became unable to travel due to many governments considering him “non grata”.
In Islam, women do NOT have to right to expose their bodies freely in public. Whatever “Sisters in Islam” and others may say, the Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w.) indicated with perfect clarity the meaning of the Qur’anic verses on the subject, such as 33:59.
Since the hadith, which explicate Qur’anic verses are obligatory on us, it is therefore unarguable the western, universalist habit of using women’s exposed bodies to sell things, to participate in non-Muslim fashions, to relax among non-family members, or even to go swimming at the beach, is forbidden.
The Arabic term “khalwah” refers to the Islamic law, strictly enforced here in Malaysia that forbids unmarried male-female couples from shutting themselves behind closed doors in homes, flats, hotels, or anywhere.
It is not what they do behind closed doors; it is the inevitable damage to their reputations that will result from closing the door in the first place. Bill Clinton was outrageously forgiven by local Americans for committing this sin before the entire world, when he closed himself in his Oval Office alone with Monica Lewinsky, for forty minutes on one occasion. Such damage is contrary to the Muslims’ stewardship of the created universe, as well as their Qur’anically stated duty to witness for the entire human race on the Day of Judgment.
Anthropologists sometimes divide human cultures according to “alcoholic” and “non-alcoholic”. Central to the smooth functioning of the entire global business and diplomatic communities is the social ritual known as the “cocktail party”. Unmarried couples co-mingle while walking around drinking alcohol, eating snacks, and smoking. The world community as we know it could hardly continue to function in the absence of this Islamically forbidden practice.
Much fuss is made of the “freedom of religion”, which includes individual free choice of choosing or changing his/her religion. According to the Islamic law against “murtad” (apostasy), severe pressure must be brought to bear on Muslims who try to convert out of Islam. This issue is virtually irreconcilable with “universalist humanism”.
Whereas Muslims are often reduced to violent defenses of their lives and beliefs, the spiritual fact is that only Muslims possess and transmit an uncorrupted spiritual legacy through the generations. And it is also their duty to bring this legacy to the attention of the entire world, although the world may rail against it in favor of their own corrupted scriptures. Neither inter-religious dialogue nor Islamic outreach can be conducted without reference to this truth which is so “inconvenient” to the humanists.
The modern “sovereign state” is a creation of the West. The desire to change these borders is punishable as the severe crime of “sedition”. And yet, these borders were specifically drawn by western powers after winning their world wars, to bifurcate and emasculate the Muslim Ummah.
Forced to live within such artificial borders, Iraqi Sunnis, Shi’ites, and Kurds, for example, are forced to live together in Iraq. Any attempt by Muslims to re-draw such borders according to their own aspirations for liberty and privacy are severely resisted, by, for example, the central non-Muslim governments of Thailand, the Philippines, Sudan, Myanmar, China, India, and Russia.
The United Nations is committed to the total defense of these western-drawn “sovereign borders”, which can be changed as, for example, in the former “sovereign state” of Yugoslavia, only by great bloodshed and sacrifice.
The “sovereign” islands of Trinidad and Tobago recently inserted into their constitution the stipulation that all of their citizens agree to belief in the “fatherhood of God”. Humanists thought that this was a religious belief that could unite the Muslims with others.
They were completely mistaken. A strong Muslim resistance was mounted against this formulation. Allah swt is our Creator, not our “father”. Moreover, the term “father” implies “son”, an implication which is favored for obvious reasons by some religious communities who try to impose this blasphemy on others.
The primacy of constitutions among modern nation-states is seen, in the case of Trinidad for example, to be pure “syirik”, in which the constitutional authorities presume to make “halal” what Allah swt has made “haram”, and vice versa. Sheikh Imran goes so far as to say that participation in elections staged by these constitutional authorities is itself “haram” for Muslims. And yet, like “riba banks”, how can we survive without them?
A virulent “favorite” among universalist/humanist ideologies is that of western feminism. The central platform of feminist belief is gender equality, which goes so far nowadays as to sanction masculinization of women’s appearance (and vice versa), and even freedom of individual gender choice, including same-gender marriages.
A huge billboard advertising “Sell Your Baby” stands in a certain neighborhood in San Diego, California, with a phone number to call. What sort of community would set up such a business? It was the all-male homosexual community of that neighborhood, since purchase is the only way these so-called “couples” can obtain children to raise. And the government permits this crime against children.
A number of desecrations follow from this western version of “gender equality”. Women work, even in Malaysia, to the point that they no longer even wish to perform as housewives or homemakers, and openly advocate the right of singlehood even though this right is specifically forbidden by the Prophet (s.a.w.).
Western women often refuse to wear their wedding rings when they leave home, since their husbands exercise this same right. Western women have long since obtained the “equal right” that their husbands had had, to leave their children with their husbands and start a new life quite alone. California women can divorce their husbands by a telephone call to the courthouse, requesting simple forms to be sent by mail. After one month, if the husband is unable to resist for any reason, the divorce becomes legal without anyone ever meeting with a judge.
The right to drive automobiles leads to women insisting on leaving their homes (and the children in the care of their husbands) while they go wherever they wish, for as long as they wish, without informing their husbands of their location. Western women meet their secret lovers by this method, as western men used to do.
Men who object to tolerating homosexuals are labeled as “homophobes” by liberal humanists, that is, people who have an “irrational” and “unacceptable” prejudice against gays of both genders. Homosexuals teach legally in the public schools. Wives ask their husbands to bring fast food to feed their families, instead of lovingly preparing that food themselves, in the manner of “ubat jiwa” (soul food) to help keep their families together.
The list goes on and on. And this is a brief analysis of only one of the tenets of Universalist “human rights”, gender equality.
We must draw the line somewhere. Qur’anic history is replete with examples of entire communities entirely destroyed for following such practices, and it is entirely possible that 9/11, whoever actually perpetrated it, was a “final warning” from Allah swt to all Americans to cease and desist their ignoring the basic moral standards which they used to stand for, and which Christians everywhere are required to meet, i.e., the Ten Commandments.
It is to be noted that after such a final warning, according to Qur’anic history, everyone who continues to live in and tolerate the blasphemies of such communities, is destroyed.
It makes no difference if these blasphemies are labeled “human rights”. The people will be punished and destroyed, all the people.
There may have been no real “innocents” in the World Trade Center, and there may be no real innocents in the financial collapse now spreading like wildfire throughout American society. Muslims must continue to witness according to the teachings of Al Qur’an, and deal with the satanic kick-backs as best they can, including the kick-back of superior and ingenious technologies that continue to deny Allah swt His Ownership of all that impressive knowledge.
Ya Allah! Protect us! Protect Your believing servants from the punishment of hellfire! Protect us! Protect our faith, our belief, our bodies, and our families! Protect our peace-of-mind, and grant us the absolute conviction that we must do the right thing and teach the right knowledge always! AMIN.