Human Rights in Islam

Inaugural Address at the 5th Islamic Thought Conference
By Grand Leader of I.R. of Iran
Hazrat Ayt. Seyed Ali Khamenei

HUMAN RIGHTS IN ISLAM
(1987)
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 in their purpose 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 men closer to their
genuine rights , or to at least the major section of the deprived
humanity? The answer to this question is not so difficult; for an
observation of the present world conditions is enough to prove that
these attempts have not been successful till 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 of 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 hungry
millions of the human race are before our eyes, and watch the constant
spectacle of violation of the rights of several nations. Those who
have been outspoken in advocating human rights during these last forty
years, have themselves grabbed the most fundamental of human rights
from the people of the Third-World countries. It is with their
connivance that certain governments and regimes that deny men their
most primary rights have managed to survive. The dictators of today's
world and also the despots of the last fifty years in Asia, Africa and
Latin America-- none of them could have established and preserved
their dictatorships on their own without reliance upon the big powers. 
These big powers are exactly those who have coined most of the slogans
concerning human rights; it is they who have brought into being the
UN, 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
land of plenteous resources to see this day? 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 Organization 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 authors of those
misfortunes. Otherwise there is no reason as to why Africa, the land
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 man-power
and natural resources.

Today, the system of political domination of capital and power
prevails in the world , and there is no doubt in it that this system
of dominance of capital and power is controlled and steered by the
same people who and the fathers of the Declaration of Human
Rights.Under their wheel of capital, power and machine 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 befell 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 witnesses 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 not done anything in
this regard. It has intervened in international problems 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 it the big powers have
the right of veto. That is, every decision that is taken in the UN and
in the Security Council against the real agents who handicap the
nations, the same agents themselves, the big powers, are able to veto
it. The United Nations and its organs, agencies and organizations,
whether they are cultural , economic or technical, all of them are
under the influence and domination of the big powers. The US pressures
over its cultural agency like the UNESCO and others are known to
everyone. Since a Muslim was the chief of the UNESCO who desired to
maintain his own independence as well as that of the agency, you
witnessed how the US subjected the UNESCO to pressures during these
last two years. 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 nation that has no practical benefit. On account of the
interference on the part of big powers, in cases 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
its member.

However, what I mean to say is that after all that effort, after all
that clamour 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 procuring human rights and the claims made in the
name of human rights through the last several centuries and especially
during the last few decades did not bear any fruit; they have failed
to secure human rights.

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 wre taken into the service of the politicians. If, in
the annals of history thinkers, sages, apostles of God, mystics and
0en 6f c6nsc5ence are seen t6 ra5se the cry for rights of man, today
when we behold politicians and statesmen to raise this cry
vociferously, we are justified in serious doubting their sincerity.
Look around and see as to who are those who plead the case of human
rights . The ex president of the US 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
barbarous 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 not more sincere than their
former counterparts. We do not find any signs of sincerity in their
efforts.

Those who drafted the Declaration of Human Rights, and at their fore
the USA, their aim 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 same people who have wiped out tens of thousands of human
beings by an atom 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 vocal advocates of human rights were sincere at all.

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
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 men
dominates and should dominate another group of men . 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 the dominated. Both the
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 it in this respect. It does not give any
priority to the powerful of the world or to its rich, while making
decisions . The whole world is witness to the kind of pressures it had
to face during the period of the last eight years since the Islamic
Republic of Iran was established . It was subjected to political as
well as 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
maijority 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 do 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 heads of some 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. As a result the very persons who strive to secure freedoms ,
opportunities and means of welfare for their citizens in European
countries in the name of human rights , they bomb and kill human
beings in other countries by thousands. what does it mean? Does it
mean anything other than this that in the 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 to 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 and its speed accelerates, the more are the weaker
countries and nations threatened and subjected to mounting pressures . 
No one asks the big powers today as to 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 the space by the big powers are moving in
their orbits around the globe, and gathering minutest details and
probing into the secrets of other countries. Why? What gives them
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? Does anyone raise
any objection? Since the US has launched those satellite and possesses
the means of gathering and benefiting from intelligence, it is given
the right by all to obtain that information . Doesn't the
eavesdropping on the communications between the world's people 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 atom
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 . But , have the smaller countries ever thought of
opposing the makers of nuclear bombs, by declaring that unless these
bombs are destroyed and defused and unless peace of mind is restored
to humanity , which is exposed to the nuclear danger 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- have they 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 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 fora 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 like manner , but they don't. 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.

Whether it is the US's 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-- all these violations
of human rights are easily tolerated. 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's aggression against
Libya, the bombardment of the residence of the president of a country
and the violation upon its territory, is not condemned by the world. 
Whenever there is a mention of terrorism, mostly that which 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.

I n the culture of dominance, words also acquire peculiar connotations
that suit the suit the system of dominance. For instance, 'terrorism'
is defined in a way so that the US's aggression against Libya, or its
intimidation of Nicaragua or the invasion of Grenada, etc. 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 right-- 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 the 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.

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 actualities.

Our revolution is an experience that is available for study to all the
nations. I do not say that we have solved all our problems. We
haven't. 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 dominations and powers and that they can decide
for themselves. Of course, when a nation tries to do away with all the
forms of dependence, it has a long path to tread. And dependence if
not accompanied with domination, pushing around, and unjust demands is
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 incorportated them in
its commands to Muslims and drawn man's attention towards them , much
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 should
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 may 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 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 kind 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 over
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 much 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 much so 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 as
to 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 much 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 word form its present-day disarray and confusion, the first
thing that is to be done is to drive this fear and awe from the hears
, 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 verities 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 be possibly trodden.

Wassalam 'alaykum wa rahmatullah wa barakatuh.
Send mail to webmaster@aghayan.com with questions or comments about this web site. Copyright © 2007 Alexander Aghayan & Assoc, Inc. Last modified: 04/27/07 [Back] [Home] [Up] [Next]

Send mail to webmaster@aghayan.com with questions or comments about this web site. Copyright © 2007 Alexander Aghayan & Assoc, Inc.
Last modified: 04/27/07 [Back] [Home] [Up] [Next]
