Al Qur’an makes it clear from the first Surah that the Shaitan will tempt and corrupt all human beings possible, since he is jealous that humankind is only made out of earthly mud while the Shaitan himself was one of the angels made out of fire. Allah SWT gives Shaitan permission to try any tricks he may wish, that in the end, those humans who test well in their behavior and refrain from performing mischief in the earth, will be protected and chosen by Allah SWT to enter Paradise when they die.
And Qur’an also mentions that those chosen will tend to decline as time marches on, implying the relative success of the Shaitan in his campaign of corruption and deceit, which now includes a powerful secular “push” to accept non-binary (male/female) behavior in the public life. The Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w.) also confirms this observation in his own Hadith. Among other things, toward the “End of Time”, the entire earth will be covered by the “dust of Riba”, meaning sinful economic activity from which no one can escape and still take care of their families. And also, men will begin to look like women, and women will begin to look like men.
All this should be clear to any Muslim Qur’an reader. Therefore, all these contemporary discussions about “human rights” have missed the boat – they all focus on the definition of “rights” rather than “human”. They all assume that any being that takes the human form is due certain “absolute rights” as defined either by religion or by politics, or most usually in the Secular West, by the philosophy of “humanism” that refuses to take religious concepts into account beyond giving people the freedom to choose whichever one they wish (itself NOT a right according to Islam).
Exactly WHO are the “humans” who may claim the “rights” enumerated by the United Nations Universal Declaration, theCairo Declaration, the American Bill of Rights, and others? In 2013, Malaysia will be reviewing its human rights record along with twelve or fifteen other UN members to be rotated at the UN’s newly-established review mechanism at theirHuman Rights Council (HRC) in Geneva. The discussions that have already been published in preparation for this meeting, especially including the recent “Yogyakarta Principles”, all heavily weighted on a definition of RIGHTS that can be shared as “inalienable” (Thomas Jefferson’s term) amongst all human beings and religions, and what exactly can be done to relieve the suffering of those who are not free to practice them in minority or marginal ways?
It is interesting to see what the United States of America has turned into, after having established itself by considerable bloodshed in its 1776 Revolution precisely to protect the right to worship freely in religious groups of their own choosing, a right that was often denied by European royalty.
It is undoubtedly easier to analyze “rights” in terms of observable human behavior. This is, in fact, the well-known western “behaviorism” that used to underlie even their basic scientific attitudes. However, the other term in the equation, “human” is much more difficult to define.
No one is raising the issue that the unease which many people feel with UN enforcement of certain rights may arise from the gut-level feeling that people who “lack” certain of these rights, or protest at being limited in their exercize of them, may not in their souls be fully human in themselves. They may be, in other words, so corrupted by the Shaitan that the concept of giving them legal and sympathetic protection becomes a matter of “sub-human rights”, although applied to those in human form.
It is the suspicion of many that people in this new “LGBT” group (a grouping of those other than the dominant heterosexuals in human society) are asking for “rights” that they do not deserve since their behavior disqualifies them from being fully “human” in themselves. Perhaps they are being driven to ask for more than is their due, if we take the survival of civilized human society, or the human gene pool, as an ultimate responsibility of human behavior and religion.
If we take influences on our children to be our “human right” to monitor and manage, then how was it that the California legislature ruled long ago that homosexuals could be employed among public school teachers as long as they did not touch the children or teach them their homosexual lifestyles? Did the legislature not understand that these LGBT people often “radiate” their values and behaviors with OR WITHOUT tactile contact? Evidently not, and here is where “humanistic” rights clash irrevocably with those of the majority of family groups and the values they cherish. Do you agree to have your 6-year-old taught by a male or female with the typical body language and same-sex-biased attitudes of the homosexuals or bisexuals? Or by those who may long to be the gender other than as they were created by Allah SWT? He did — that is the arrogance of the homosexual.
The United Nations is not doing the human race any favors when it tries to disseminate freedom-of-gender-choice or same-sex public behavior in the public life. It is well time that Malaysia and other Muslim countries to properly guide and educate these unpleasant non-binary minorities (whom we seem to have to thank for AIDS/HV) so that they are not merely returning BACK in the closets they have always inhabited heretofore. We cannot even let them be less-than-human in private, as Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w) tells us in a hadith, “Three things which save: fear of Allah in public and private, moderation in poverty and in wealth, and speaking the truth when angry and when contented. And three things which lead to destruction: obedience to greed, following of hawaa and a person’s being pleased with himself.” Only then they can demand that we respect them as recipients of rights and protections meant only for those who are fully developed in the deepest souls of their humanity.
Azril Mohd Amin is vice president, Muslim Lawyers Association of Malaysia.