The idea that an individual has rights just by virtue of being human is seen as a relatively modern one and, according to Alhargan, has its origins in the philosophical and political revolutions of the 17th and 18th centuries (2006 p.42.). Freeman points out that there were, however, ideas about power and its abuse which are much older. The ancient Greeks developed the concept of the tyrant who governs unjustly and treats people oppressively for his own ends. This was similar for the Romans, but neither conceived of the idea that all people had rights (2002 pp16-17).
Chaudhry (1993 p.13), among others, believes that it is possible to see the emergence of the modern concept of human rights during the rise of the Islamic civilisation fourteen centuries ago, which will be explored in more detail later. This section will argue that all modern human rights have religious roots; and will examine two different periods. The first is the late 18th century, when declarations of human rights were proclaimed in North America and France, the second, the present day, from which we look back over the development of human rights and the effects of their important historical interpretation.
Joas (2006 p.3) mentioned Weber who showed that the ideas of natural law and humanity were not, as was often assumed, " merely modern or merely West European concepts"
41
but rather " ideas of a great antiquity". Religion is often identified as a source of ideas about human rights, for example the 10 Commandments are partly about how people should be treated. What all the major religions do have in common are ideas about human dignity and worth. They all contain norms and values about how people should behave towards each other and, in particular, how humans have a responsibility for caring about each other and helping those who are oppressed or suffering. It is in the latter belief that the global nature of human rights resides (Lauren 2008 p.95). Having said this, religious beliefs have often been perverted by leaders who were prepared to sanction oppression, bigotry and even genocide to serve their own ends. Lauren cites the examples of “anti- Semitism, the Spanish Inquisition…wars between Sunnis and Shi’ites and between Catholics and Protestants, violence between Hindus and Muslims, crusades against ‘heathens’, and jihads or holy wars against infidels’’ (Ibid. p.96). It is this disparity between religious principles and the behaviour of those purporting to uphold religious principles that will be later examined in relation to human rights in Saudi Arabia.
The US Declaration of Independence (1776) was based on the idea that citizens were ‘endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights’. This was echoed in the French National Assembly’s Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen (1789). This proclaimed a universal right to ‘liberty, property, security and resistance to oppression. It affirmed equality before the law, freedom from arbitrary arrest and the presumption of innocence’ (Freeman 2002 p24.). However, by the end of the eighteenth century the belief in natural rights was opposed on the one hand by radicals, such as the Jacobins who felt it justified inequalities of wealth, and on the other by conservatives who considered the concept of natural rights too subversive and egalitarian and believed that the French Revolution was stark evidence that their fears were justified (ibid., p.27). Joas cites Jellinek who argues that the belief in the dignity of all people is rooted in the centuries-old Judeo-Christian tradition, though this tradition cannot be treated as an unbroken process of maturation that gave rise to modern ideas (2006 p.11). Joas disagrees saying:' this view cannot be defended. It does not obtain for France in any case; nor did religious freedom exist in most of North America until the 20th century’. He adds
42
that the codification of human rights was more a matter of secular forces (ibid.). It could be argued here, that there is a difference between codification and principles at the roots of human rights. For example, Islamic law contains human rights principles but is uncodified; and that has led to many interpretations which have negatively affected pre- trial procedures as will be explained in Chapter Seven. However, ideas about treating other human beings with respect can be found in both the Judeo-Christian and Islamic philosophies and form an important part of the history of ideas about human rights (Joas 2006 p.12).
Arguably, one of the major challenges for the modern human rights movement is how to engage with different faith communities. According to Marthoz & Saunders (2005 p.2), it is not possible for human rights to become truly global unless their relevance can be acceptable to all states, including those whose behaviour is determined by religion. As far as Muslim States such as Saudi Arabia are concerned, human rights principles are contained in Islamic Law and the state simply needs to establish clear regulations relevant to the native culture. Furthermore, after over sixty years the UDHR has been the backbone of the human rights movement and could usefully be the link between the West and Muslim countries.
States such as Saudi Arabia could be encouraged to ratify the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966 ( ICCPR) if it is demonstrated that its underlying principles are not in contradiction but rather support the human rights principles contained in Islam. Having looked briefly at the origin of human rights in Western thought, it is now important to consider the jurisprudential basis to these rights. This is the means whereby human rights can be encapsulated in law and instruments by which people can have their rights established.