|
In the Name of the Most High
Human Rights in Islam
By: Ayatollah Khamenei
Delivered on the occasion of the 5th Islamic Thought Conference January 29-31, 1997
Published in the book "Human Rights in Islam"
The
issue of human rights is one of the most fundamental human issues and
also one of the most sensitive and controversial ones. During the recent
decades, this problem was more political than being either ethical or
legal. Although the influence of political motives, rivalries, and
considerations have made difficult the correct formulation of this
problem , but this should not prevent thinkers and genuine humanists
from probing into this problem and ultimately reaching a conclusion.
In
the West, though the issue of human rights was raised by the thinkers
of the post-Renaissance period, it is only since the last two hundred
years or so that it became an issue of prominence among the political
and social issues of Western society and an issue of fundamental
significance. Perhaps, when we examine the causes of many social changes
and political upheavals, we will find the marks of its presence and its
principal ideals. During the last decades this emphasis reached its
climax in the West. With the formation of the UN after the Second World
War and the subsequent drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, a concrete model came into existence as a result of this
emphasis that can serve as a criterion and basis of our judgment and
analysis of the ideals voiced in this regard during the last two hundred
years and especially in the last few decades.
We
Muslims, of course, know very well that the Western world and the
Western civilization have paid attention to this matter in the recent
centuries. But Islam has dealt with it from various aspects many
centuries ago. The idea of human rights as a fundamental principle can
be seen to underlie all Islamic teachings. And this does not need any
elaboration for a Muslim audience. The verses of the Quran and the
traditions handed down from the Prophet (SA) and the Imams of his
Household (AS), each one of them emphasizes the fundamental rights of
man, something which has started to attract attention in recent years -
this is considered an obvious fact among Muslims, and there is no need
for the scholars to be reminded about this fact. However, I would like
to say, that today it is a big responsibility on the shoulders of the
Islamic community to make this reality known to the world, and not to
allow those essential teachings of Islam to be lost in the storm of
political clamor and propaganda.
There were some
questions which can be raised in this regard, and to answer them is my
principal aim today. Of course, in the course of the conference you
scholars would carry on useful and profound discussions on various
aspects of human rights, which will itself serve as a source of
information for the Muslim world and enlighten them about the viewpoints
of Islam in this regard.
(1- The UN: Impotent and Ineffectual)
The
first question is whether the efforts made during the decades since the
Second World War in the name of human rights have been successful or
not. The addresses, the assemblies and the sessions held in the United
Nations, and the claims made regarding human rights: have they succeeded
in bringing man closer to his genuine rights, or to at least the major
portion of deprived humanity? The answer to this question is not so
difficult, for an observation of the present conditions is enough to
prove that these attempts have not been successful until now. A glance
at the conditions of the underdeveloped societies of the world, who form
the major part of the human population, is sufficient to reveal the
fact that not only the major part of humanity could not achieve their
true rights during the last fifty years, but the methods of encroaching
upon the rights of the deprived nations have become more sophisticated
and complex and more difficult to remedy. We cannot accept the claims
made by those who claim to be champions of human rights, while the
bitter realities of the African and Asian nations and the millions of
hungry human beings are before our eyes, and while we observe constant
violation of the rights of many nations.
Those
who have been outspoken in advocating human rights during the last forty
years, have themselves grabbed the most fundamental of human rights
from the people of the Third World countries. It is with their support
that certain governments and regimes that deny people their most basic
rights have managed to survive. None of the dictators of today's world
and also the despots of the last fifty years in Asia, Africa and Latin
America could have established and preserved their dictatorships on
their own without reliance upon big powers. It is exactly these big
powers who have coined most of the slogans concerning human rights. It
is they who have brought into being the UNO, and even today the UN is at
their service.
The economic poverty, hunger and
loss of life in several countries of the world are of course the result
of intervention, repression, usurpation on the part of the big powers.
Who has caused Africa, the continent of vast resources to undergo the
present afflictions? Who has kept the people of Bangladesh and India for
years and years under exploitation, and, despite their natural
resources and great potentialities, has brought them to the point that
today we hear people die of hunger in those countries? Who has plundered
the wealth and resources of the Third World countries, and has brought
about hunger, poverty and misfortune for these nations, procuring
sophisticated technologies and immense wealth for themselves? We see
that the organizers of the United Nations and the principal drafters of
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and those who even today
shamelessly claim to be the supporters of this declaration are the real
causes of those misfortunes. Otherwise there is no reason as to why
Africa, the continent of exuberance and bounties, Latin America with its
natural wealth, and the great India, and many other Third World
countries should have lagged behind and remained backward in spite of
sufficient manpower and natural resources.
Today,
the system of political domination of capital and power prevails in the
world, and there is no doubt that this system of dominance of capital
and power is controlled and steered by the same people who were the
fathers of the Declaration of Human Rights. Under the wheel of their
capital, power and technology we see the nations of the world being
crushed and struggling helplessly. The UN is the most outstanding
product of the efforts made for human rights, yet what has it done in
the past for the nations of the world, and what is it doing today? What
active role could the UN play in solving the basic problems of nations
and in relieving them of the calamities that befall them? In what
instance did the UN emerge as a deliverer of the oppressed from the
oppressor? At what point could the UN persuade the big tyrannical powers
to refrain from making unjust demands? The UN has even lagged behind
most of the nations in this regard.
Today,
despite all those claims, we are witness to the Apartheid regime in
South Africa and to many instances of racism and racial discrimination
in the advanced countries themselves. Therefore, it is clear that the UN
despite its being the most outstanding example of the endeavor for
human rights, has done nothing in this regard. It has intervened in
international issues in the role of a preacher or priest. The Security
Council is one of the principal organs of the UN and functions as the
main decision-making body in which the big powers have the right of
veto. That is, every decision that is made in the UN and in the Security
Council against the real agents who handicap the nations, could be
vetoed by the same agents themselves, that is, the big powers. The
United Nations and its organs, agencies and organizations, whether they
are cultural, economic or technical, are under the influence and
domination of big powers. The US pressures even hits a cultural agency
like the UNESCO and others that are known to everyone. You witnessed how
the US subjected the UNESCO to pressures during these last two years
just because a Muslim was the chief of the UNESCO who desired to
maintain his own independence as well as that of the agency.
Consequently, we feel that the UN as the most significant outcome of the
endeavor for human rights has proved to be an ineffectual and impotent
element, which has been created as a consolation for nations and is
practically useless. On account of the interference on the part of big
powers, it functions as their feudatory. We do not of course reject the
UN. We believe that this organization ought to exist, and it must be
reformed. We ourselves are a member of it. However, what I mean to say
is that after all those efforts, after all that clamor and the hopes
that were attached to this organization, you can see how inadequate and
ineffectual this organization has remained in securing human rights in
the world today. Hence, the answer to the first question has become
clear. We can say that the efforts made for establishing human rights
and the claims made in the name of human rights throughout the last
several centuries and especially during the last few decades did not
bear any fruit. They have failed to secure human rights.
(2- Efforts in Pursuit of Human Rights: Not Sincere)
The
second question is whether, basically, these efforts had any sincerity?
This question is of course historical in nature and may not have much
practical value. Hence, I do not intend to discuss it at length. It
suffices to mention here that, in our view, these efforts were not
sincere. It is true that there were philosophers, thinkers and social
reformers among the exponents of human rights, but the arena was
dominated by politicians. Even the efforts of those thinkers and
reformers were taken into the service of politicians. If in the annals
of history thinkers, sages, apostles of God, mystics and men are seen to
raise the cry for rights of man, today when we see politicians and
statesmen raise this cry vociferously, we are justified in seriously
doubting their sincerity.
Look around and see who those who plead
the case of human rights are. The ex-president of the US [Jimmy Carter]
projected himself as the defender of human rights during his election
campaign, and won the election on account of it. In the beginning, from
some of the speeches he made and steps that he took, it appeared as if
he was serious in his intention. But we have seen that ultimately he
stood by the cruelest, the most barbaric and tyrannical of rulers, and
the most adamant opponents of human rights in this region. He supported
the Shah and the tyrants of occupied Palestine and other infamous
dictatorships of our days.
Even now those who
plead the case of human rights, the statesmen and politicians who
vociferously voice their support for human rights in conferences and
international forums are no more sincere than their former counterparts.
We do not find any signs of sincerity in their efforts. The aim of
those who drafted the Declaration of Human Rights, and at their fore the
USA, was to extend their domination and hegemony over the world of that
time. Their problem was not to safeguard the rights of men, the kind of
rights that they had violated during the war. They are the people who
have wiped out tens of thousands of human beings by an atomic bomb. They
were the same persons who in order to fight a war which had nothing to
do with the Asian and African nations had recruited the majority of
soldiers from India, Algeria and other African and non-European
countries. We do not believe that Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin and
their like had the smallest consideration for human rights in the true
sense of the word and were sincere in forming the United Nations and
drafting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Accordingly,
the answer to the second question is also clear: No, we do not believe
that the efforts made by the politicians and the most staunch advocates
of human rights were sincere at all.
(3- The Biggest Evil of Humanity: Acceptance of the Culture of Dominance)
The
third question, which is the most basic of them all is: what was the
reason for the failure of these attempts? This is the point to which
more attention should be paid, and I shall discuss it briefly here. I
believe it is the most basic point, because whatever has been presented
in the name of human rights is done within the framework of a defective
and crooked system, a system of dominance which is repressive and
tyrannical.
Those who have created the UN and
have drafted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and those who
most vehemently and vociferously plead for it today, regrettably the
majority of them are statesmen and politicians who believe in the system
of dominance and have accepted it. The system of dominance means that a
group of people dominates and should dominate another group. The system
of dominance is backed by the culture of dominance.
Today
the world is divided into two groups: one is the group of those who
dominate and the other is the group of those who are dominated. Both
groups have accepted the system of dominance, and the big powers believe
that this system should be maintained. Even those who are dominated
have accepted the system of dominance and have consented to its
continuity. This is the biggest flaw in the existing world situation.
Those who do not accept the system of dominance are those individuals or
groups who are not satisfied with the social order in their countries
or with the social and political state of world affairs, and rise in
revolt against this system.
The revolutionary
groups who revolt against the global status quo or revolutionary
governments are very few in number and are constantly subjected to
pressures and victimized. The most illustrative example of it is the
Islamic Republic of Iran, which has rejected domination in all its
forms, and has not accepted anybody's domination. The East as well as
the West are the same for us in this respect. When making decisions it
does not give any priority to the powerful or the rich. The whole world
is witness to the kind of pressures it had to face during the period of
the first eight years after the Islamic Republic of Iran was
established. It was subjected to political, military and economic
pressures, and the pressures of world-wide propaganda launched against
it. The cause of such pressures is clear. It was all done for the reason
that the Islamic Republic has taken a clear and independent stand
against the system of dominance.
If some
progressive governments have resisted Western and US domination, in
majority of cases, there were observable signs of acceptance of and
surrender to Eastern domination. Of course, all of them are not the same
in this regard. Some of them have completely surrendered themselves to
the Eastern bloc and the USSR while some others show signs of
independence in some cases. But if there is a government and a society
that has never yielded to any pressures, it is the Islamic Republic,
which has totally rejected the system of dominance.
Wherever
in the world there is any pressure, high-handedness and unjust demands
made upon a certain nation by a big power in the world, we have made
clear our stand and have openly and bluntly expressed our definite views
without any reservations. But the majority of the world's nations have
accepted this system. You can see that unfortunately the governments of
the same countries which are subject to domination do not have the moral
courage and guts to resist and oppose the domination of the big powers
and fight them, while in our view it is quite possible. We believe that
if the poor countries, the countries that have been under domination and
in spite of their resources have been forced to fulfill the unjust
demands made by the big powers, had they wished to stand against them,
they could have done so. No miracle is needed. It is sufficient that the
governments should rely upon their own people.
Unfortunately,
the weakness of will to resist, and more than weakness the treachery on
the part of some heads of states in some cases, did not allow them to
rise against the system of dominance. This system of dominance prevails
over the world economy, culture, international relations and
international rights. Naturally the issue of human rights has been posed
within the framework of this system of dominance and developed in the
background of this system and its outlook. The very persons, who strive
to secure freedom, opportunities and means of welfare for their citizens
in European countries in the name of human rights, bomb and kill human
beings in other countries by thousands. What does it mean? Does it mean
anything other than the fact that in view of the culture of domination
which prevails over the world, human beings are divided into two
categories: the human beings whose rights are to be defended, and the
human beings who have no rights whatsoever and it is permissible to
kill, destroy, enslave and subjugate them and to seize their belongings?
This system is prevalent all over the world and the conception of human
rights is also the product of such a culture.
This
is the framework of the system of rights in the world of today. Within
this cultural and legal framework the superpowers constantly widen the
gap between the weaker nations and themselves, and exert more and more
pressure on them. The greater the rate of advancement in technology, the
more the weaker countries and nations are threatened and subjected to
mounting pressures. No one asks the big powers today what right they
have to put greater pressure on other countries and nations than ever
before with their greater advancement in technology and
industrialization. Today the satellites launched into space by the big
powers are moving in their orbits around the globe, and gathering
smallest details and probing into the secrets of other countries. Why?
What gives them the right to do that?
Today, most
of the communications between people on the global level, especially
those between statesmen and heads of states, and political and
scientific communications are accessible to those who possess
sophisticated technology. Why? Does anyone ask them this question? Does
anyone raise any objection? Since the US has launched those satellites
and possesses the means of gathering and benefiting from intelligence,
it is given the right by all to obtain that information. Does the
eavesdropping on the communications between the world's people not
amount to a violation of their rights? Does anyone put this question to
the US, USSR, UK, France and Germany? When this question is raised, will
anyone affirm that such a question should be raised? No, everyone says
to himself: they are strong so they can do it. They are capable of doing
it, so they must use the opportunity. Today, the problem of atomic bomb
and the use of nuclear weapons is an issue all over the world.
The
superpowers themselves raise it because they are afraid of each other.
They wrangle over it and each tries to dupe the other by limiting the
nuclear arsenals of its rival while equipping itself with more and more
weapons. But, have the smaller countries ever thought of opposing the
manufacturers of nuclear bombs, by declaring that unless these bombs are
destroyed and defused peace of mind is restored to humanity, which is
exposed to the nuclear threat every moment. They shall not have any
relations with them, nor any trade nor any cooperation in any matter?
Have the Third World countries, the non-aligned nations and other
countries of the world ever thought of making use of some kind of
leverage against the race for nuclear arms? No. If you suggest this idea
to them, they will say that it is an advanced technology, they possess
it, they can, and so they must produce such weapons.
It
means that they have accepted the logic of dominance. The absence of
balance in the present world conditions has equally been accepted by the
oppressor as well as the oppressed nations. The culture of dominance
has been imposed on the minds. When we denounce the East and the West in
international forums on account of their acts, we clearly perceive the
astonishment of heads of the states and representatives of countries.
They consider it something odd and rash, whereas it is a natural stand
by an independent nation. All the nations and states should behave in a
similar manner, but they do not. The conclusion that we draw is that
today the prevalence of the culture of dominance has become the biggest
evil. It is something which has been greatly detrimental for the weaker
nations, and encouraged the big powers to violate human rights.
All
these violations of human rights are easily tolerated whether it is the
US aggression against Grenada, or the massacre of defenseless Lebanese
civilians by the US supported Israel, or the ruthless suppression of the
black population - who are the real masters of the land - by the
government of South Africa, which is backed by the US and some European
governments. But when a frustrated individual infuriated by this state
of affairs in some corner of the world does something, if an explosion
takes place or something happens, it is deplored as an act of terrorism.
But the US aggression against Libya, the bombardment of the homes of
the presidents of a country and encroaching upon its territory, is not
condemned by the world. Whenever there is a mention of terrorism, mostly
the first thing that comes to the minds of people is some desperate act
of a youth, a victim of oppression fed up with life from Palestine or
Lebanon, or some African or Latin American country, rather than the acts
of such big powers as the US, the UK, and others. This is nothing but
the result of the culture of dominance, the culture that unfortunately
dominates human mentality all over the world.
In
the culture of dominance, words also acquire peculiar connotations that
suit the system of dominance. For instance, 'terrorism' is defined in a
way so that the US aggression against Libya, or its intimidation of
Nicaragua or the invasion of Grenada or other examples. does not come
under the definition of 'terrorism'. This is a big flaw in the present
state of affairs. Therefore, the failure of the attempts made in the
name of human rights - even on behalf of those who are sincere and
earnest - is on account of the nature of the framework within which they
want to lay down and declare the rights of human beings - something
which is not possible. This framework is to be broken and the system of
dominance to be condemned. States, nations and countries should
resolutely reject the unfair and unjust domination of the big powers so
that human rights may be understood, pursued and restored.
(4- The Solution: Return to Islam)
Lastly,
the fourth question: what is the remedy? In our view, the answer is
return to Islam, and recourse to Divine revelation. This is a
prescription equally valid for Muslims as well as for non-Muslims. For
this, the Islamic societies do not have to wait for anything. Return to
Islam, revival of the Quran and of Islamic mode of thinking in society,
recourse to Islamic sources (the Quran and the Sunnah) in legal matters:
these are the things and that will enable us to understand the meaning
of human rights and help us to identify the those rights and guide us in
our struggle to secure them. For the purpose of securing human rights,
it is necessary once and for all to give up giving advice and lecturing,
since they are of no use. The Quran says: "Take by force that which we
have given you." [2:63]. God Almighty has granted these rights to
mankind, and they should secure these rights by force. The Islamic
nations should resist the unjust demands and dominance of the big powers
by relying upon the Islamic ideology. These are not the words of an
idealist who speaks about Islamic issues and Islamic ideals from the
corner of a theological seminary. These are the utterances of a
revolution which has gone through experiences and has felt the
realities.
Our revolution is an experience that
is available for study to all nations. I do not say that we have solved
all our problems. We have not. There is no doubt that a great many
problems have been created for us on account of the Revolution and on
account of its Islamic character. But we have solved the problem of
dominance. Today the Iranian nation and the Islamic Republic can claim
that they have rid themselves of all domination and powers and that they
can decide for themselves. Of course, when a nation tries to do away
with all forms of dependence, it has a long path to tread. And
relations, if they are not accompanied by domination, pushing around,
and unjust demands, are something natural and tolerable. It is quite
obvious that our Revolution and the Islamic Republic inherited the
legacy of a decadent society, a shattered economy, and a degenerate
culture.
What was handed down to the Revolution
by the rulers of the past centuries, especially of the last fifty or
sixty years, was an Iran beleaguered from all sides. It is not to be
expected that the Revolution will be able to lead this dissipated
heritage in a short time to the heights of cultural, ethical and
economic achievement and scientific and industrial advancement. We do
not make such claims, but, of course, we do anticipate a good future. We
believe that it is possible for a nation to reach a high level of
material advancement only through independence, self-reliance and by
using its manpower and material resources. But what we positively claim
today is that the Islamic Republic is not under any political pressure
or domination of any power whatsoever. Political pressures do not
influence it to change its course or alter its decisions. It does not
change its path or its momentum on account of any consideration for some
superpower. It means that we have freed ourselves and our people from
the domination of the big powers.
This is an
experience, which, we believe, underlines the significance of the most
basic and precious of human rights in Islam: the right to live, the
right to be free, the right to benefit from justice, the right to
welfare, and so on. These and other such fundamental rights can be
secured in an Islamic society. They can be derived from the Islamic
sources and Islam has incorporated them in its commands to Muslims and
drawn man's attention towards them, long before Western thinkers gave
thought to these rights and values. It is essential to return to Islam.
Muslim
thinkers are charged with the responsibility of thoroughly examining
and studying the subject of human rights or rather the general structure
of the Islamic legal system. This is also the mission of the present
conference, which, I hope, will be a new step taken in this direction,
and, God willing, this work will continue. The nations of the world can
benefit from the sublime outlook of Islam in this regard in coming
closer to securing these rights.
The Islamic
governments should of course help their peoples in securing their
rights, but on condition that they should have no reservations in regard
to the big powers. Unfortunately, today we do not see such a state of
affairs. Most of the regimes governing Islamic countries are under the
influence of the big powers. The majority of them are dominated by the
West and are under US influence. Therefore, their actions and decisions
comply neither with the Islamic principles, nor with the needs of Muslim
nations.
A ready example in this regard is the
conference held recently in Kuwait. You have seen that in this
conference, instead of considering the basic problems of Muslims, what
kinds of problems were discussed and what kind of resolution was passed.
It was by no means compatible with an Islamic approach to the problem.
Instead of rejecting Iraq's aggression against a Muslim country and its
waging of a war against an Islamic revolution, they should have
denounced it and expelled it from the conference. Instead of revealing
the part played by the imperialist powers in igniting the flames of this
imposed war, they came out with a hollow and insipid demand for peace,
and even expressed their satisfaction for Iraq's positive response to
the call for peace. They did it without going into the core of the
problem, without appreciating the fact that a nation's resolve to defend
its own rights is something commendable, and without recognizing that
the willingness of a government and a regime to be influenced by the
pressure of imperialist powers in creating obstacles in the path of a
revolution is something condemnable.
Of course,
these resolutions, decisions and opinions are totally invalid and
weightless as they are remote from Islamic principles and values.
Accordingly, there is no nation or country in the world which looks
forward to knowing what step the Islamic Conference takes in Kuwait so
as to welcome it or be disappointed with it. It means that these
decisions and resolution are so far removed from reality, alien to the
basic Islamic criteria, and the aspirations of nations that they remain
completely indifferent to these. You will not find a single country in
the world whose people should be waiting eagerly to know what the
Islamic Conference has to say, so that its resolution promises a sense
of obligation or the pleasure of receiving some good news. What is the
reason? Why should a gathering of forty-six Islamic states organized on
the highest level of heads of states and leaders be so ineffectual and
so devoid of consequence and content? It is on account of the
unfortunate fact that most of these regimes are under the influence of
the big powers.
As long as this domination of the
big powers and their awe and fear remain in their hearts, the affairs of
the Muslim nations will be in disarray. If we wish to deliver the
Muslim world from its present-day disarray and confusion, the first
thing that is to be done is to drive this fear and awe away from the
hearts, as God Almighty has said: "...So fear not mankind, but fear
Me..." They should not be afraid of anyone except God. If this happens,
the condition of the Islamic nations will move towards betterment.
I
conclude my speech with the hope that, God willing, this Islamic
Thought Conference, during the few days that it will hold its sessions,
will be able to make a significant contribution towards the
understanding of the Islamic truths regarding human rights. Besides, the
exchange of opinions between the Iranian and non-Iranian brothers will
help the communication of the experience of the Islamic Revolution and
the Islamic Republic and their better understanding by the non-Iranian
brothers. It will provide them the opportunity to study that experience,
so that other nations may view the Revolution brought about by their
brethren in Iran as a model and as a new path that can possibly be
trodden.
Greetings be upon you and Allah's mercy and blessings
|
بخشی از بیانات آیتالله خامنهای در 