Human rights — Islam

What the specification asks for

Paper 1, Section 4, 4.1 (Islam). Assessed on AO1 (knowledge and understanding) and AO2 (analysis and evaluation), weighted equally. Incandio is aligned to this specification. It is not published by, endorsed by or affiliated with Pearson, and it reproduces none of Pearson's indicative content — the point numbers are given so you can check every unit against your own copy.

1 · Understand it

Where does a right come from? If people agreed it, people can un-agree it, and the ones who lose it first will be the ones with the least power to argue. Islam gives a different answer: the dignity was conferred, so a government that takes it away has not changed what is owed — it has failed to pay.

What it means

Karamah is the dignity Allah conferred on human beings, and the crucial word is conferred. It does not depend on somebody's faith, their nationality, their behaviour or their usefulness, because none of those things was the source of it in the first place.

Alongside it sits the maqasid al-Shariah, the purposes Islamic law exists to serve, commonly given as the protection of life, faith, intellect, lineage and property. Naming the purposes matters more than it looks: it gives Muslims an internal test to apply to any ruling, since a ruling that fails to protect one of the five can be challenged on the law's own terms.

Haqq is the word for a right or a due, and the same word means truth — which in Islamic legal language is not a coincidence. Adl is justice, and the Qur'an commands it even where it runs against one's own interest, one's parents or one's own community. Amanah is trust: power held over other people is treated as something entrusted, and therefore something to be accounted for.

Four teachings do the work. Every human being has dignity from Allah. Justice must be done even against oneself. Life is protected absolutely, since taking one life without right is treated as though it were the taking of all humanity. And there is no compulsion in religion, so freedom of belief is stated in the Qur'an rather than conceded later under pressure.

Why believers hold it

The reasoning is entirely about the source. Rights that human beings agreed can be withdrawn by human beings, and history is a long record of exactly that. If the dignity is conferred by Allah, then no ruler and no majority is in a position to remove it — the most they can do is refuse to honour it, which is a different thing and leaves the claim intact.

That is the strongest argument available in this unit, and it has an obvious weakness that a strong answer states rather than hides: a right nobody enforces protects nobody. The Islamic grounding is philosophically robust and practically thin; the secular grounding is practically robust — courts enforce treaties, not theology — and philosophically vulnerable, because it struggles to explain why a majority may not simply change its mind.

The most interesting move is to notice that the two accounts are closer than the argument suggests. The Universal Declaration asserts rights as inherent rather than granted, which is structurally what Islam says. That makes them allies against the position that rights are whatever a state currently allows, and it reframes the disagreement as one about what makes rights inherent rather than about whether they are.

Two criticisms deserve real answers. Some classical rulings — on apostasy, and on the legal status of non-Muslims — sit awkwardly beside modern rights claims, and Muslim scholars argue about exactly this, using the Qur'anic refusal of compulsion. That identifies a live debate rather than a settled position. And the Humanist point is fair: religious traditions, Islam included, have sometimes had to be argued into rights they now defend.

Where it comes from

• The Qur'an — Qur'an 49:13 (translated)

  We created you from a single pair ... and made you into nations and tribes, that you may know one another.

  Human diversity is intended by God, and its purpose is mutual knowledge. The verse also states that the most honoured are the most righteous, not the most powerful.

  What it is doing here: Supplies the single origin and the ranking: the most honoured are the most righteous rather than the most powerful, which removes descent and status as grounds for differential rights.

• The Qur'an — Qur'an 5:32 (translated)

  Whoever saves one life, it is as if he had saved all mankind.

  The sanctity of a single human life, made equivalent to the whole of humanity. The foundation of Muslim teaching on the value of life.

  What it is doing here: Makes the protection of one life stand for the protection of all, which is what turns the sanctity of life from a sentiment into the foundation of a rights claim.

• The Qur'an — Qur'an 2:256 (translated)

  There shall be no compulsion in religion.

  Faith cannot be forced. Cited as the Qur'anic basis for religious freedom and for Muslim engagement in a multi-faith society.

  What it is doing here: States freedom of belief inside the scripture itself, so a Muslim defending religious liberty is quoting the tradition rather than borrowing from outside it.

Where it bites

It shows in Muslim human-rights organisations and lawyers, and in Muslim relief agencies that work without regard to the recipient's religion — a policy that follows directly from a dignity which does not depend on faith. It shows in the documents Muslims cite: the Prophet's final sermon, which states that no Arab is superior to a non-Arab, and the Constitution of Madinah, which set out protections for the city's Jewish tribes. Naming one of those turns a general claim into a developed point, which is exactly what the wording asks for.

It also shows in argument rather than only in action. The maqasid give Muslim reformers a way of criticising a ruling without leaving the tradition: they ask whether it actually protects life, faith, intellect, lineage or property, and if it does not, the challenge is made in the law's own language.

What people get wrong

People think: Islam has no concept of human rights; those are a Western idea.

Actually: Karamah, the maqasid and the final sermon are the material against that, and Muslim rights argument mostly runs through them. What is true is that the grounding differs — conferred rather than constructed — and that is a disagreement about the source, not evidence that one side lacks the concept.

People think: Islamic and secular human rights frameworks say the same things.

Actually: They agree on a great deal and disagree really about apostasy and about the reach of religious freedom, and Muslims debate those questions among themselves. Claiming identity flatters both sides and leaves a learner unable to describe the argument the specification is actually pointing at.

People think: The six religions plus Humanism make seven options on this course.

Actually: Humanism is a non-religious worldview, not a seventh religion. This specification offers six religions and there is no Paper 2 for Humanism; it is examinable content on Paper 1 rather than a route through the qualification, and treating it as a rival scripture misdescribes what it is.

What the examiner expects you to understand

• Use Islamic vocabulary — karamah, maqasid, adl — because a general human-rights answer with no religious content is capped as generic.
• Name an example, since the wording asks for examples of Muslim attitudes to and support for human rights.
• On the twelve-mark question, argue about grounding against enforcement rather than asserting one side.
• Do not claim Islam has no rights tradition, and do not claim it is identical to the secular one.
• Treat Humanism as the non-religious position rather than as a seventh religion with its own scripture.

2 · Grade 9 Notes

Core belief / issue

Islam grounds human rights in something given rather than agreed: karamah, the dignity Allah conferred on human beings, and the maqasid, the purposes Islamic law exists to protect — life, faith, intellect, lineage and property. Because the rights come from Allah, Islamic teaching holds that no ruler and no majority can vote them away, which is the strongest claim available in this unit and the one worth making carefully.

Key terminology

Incandio's mark schemes credit the religion's own vocabulary; spelling variants are accepted, a vague paraphrase is not.

Karamah (also karama)

The God-given dignity of every human being.

Maqasid al-Shariah (also maqasid)

The purposes of Islamic law — commonly given as the protection of life, faith, intellect, lineage and property.

Haqq (also huquq (plural))

A right or a due; the same word also means truth, which is not an accident in Islamic legal language.

Adl (also 'adl)

Justice — commanded in the Qur'an even against one's own interest or family.

Amanah

Trust; power held over others is treated in Islamic teaching as something entrusted and accountable.

What Islam teaches

• shared — Every human being has dignity conferred by Allah, and it does not depend on their faith, nation or usefulness.
• shared — Justice must be done even where it counts against oneself, one's parents or one's own community.
• shared — Life is protected absolutely: taking one life without right is treated as though it were the taking of all humanity.
• shared — There is no compulsion in religion, so freedom of belief is stated in the Qur'an rather than conceded to modernity.

Why it teaches this

The reasoning is about where a right comes from. If rights are agreed by human beings, they can be un-agreed, and the people most likely to lose them are those with least power to argue. Islam locates them in Allah's act of conferring dignity, which means a government that removes them is not changing what is owed but failing to honour it. That is the argument a strong answer makes; the honest counterweight is that a right nobody enforces protects nobody.

Sources of authority

• The Qur'an — Qur'an 49:13 (translated)

  We created you from a single pair ... and made you into nations and tribes, that you may know one another.

  Human diversity is intended by God, and its purpose is mutual knowledge. The verse also states that the most honoured are the most righteous, not the most powerful.

  How to use it: Difference is designed rather than tolerated, so racial harmony is God's plan being fulfilled rather than a compromise — that is a stronger claim and it scores better.

  What it does not settle: It does not by itself settle questions about the roles of men and women.

• The Qur'an — Qur'an 5:32 (translated)

  Whoever saves one life, it is as if he had saved all mankind.

  The sanctity of a single human life, made equivalent to the whole of humanity. The foundation of Muslim teaching on the value of life.

  How to use it: Because one life stands for all, the argument does not weaken as the number of people shrinks — which is why it applies to abortion and euthanasia as strongly as to war.

  What it does not settle: It does not settle when life begins. Muslim scholars differ on abortion, particularly before 120 days, and citing this verse as settling it is inaccurate.

• The Qur'an — Qur'an 2:256 (translated)

  There shall be no compulsion in religion.

  Faith cannot be forced. Cited as the Qur'anic basis for religious freedom and for Muslim engagement in a multi-faith society.

  How to use it: It grounds tolerance in revelation rather than in liberal politics, which makes it a much stronger answer on 4.4 than 'Muslims should be tolerant'.

  What it does not settle: It does not decide how a Muslim-majority state should be organised, and the debate about apostasy is not settled by it.

• The Qur'an — Qur'an 9:60 (translated)

  Alms are for the poor and the needy, and those employed to administer them.

  The Qur'anic basis of zakat, naming the categories of people entitled to receive it. Zakat is an obligation, not a donation.

  How to use it: Because it is a duty with named recipients and a fixed rate, Islamic giving is closer to a tax than to charity — a distinction that scores well on 4.5.

  What it does not settle: Zakat is a minimum; sadaqah is voluntary giving beyond it. Confusing the two is an accuracy error.

Different interpretations

• The maqasid read as a summary of what the law protects, and read as a living framework for judging new questions — the second is how contemporary Muslim human-rights argument mostly works.
• The Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam read as a parallel statement of the same rights, and read as a narrowing of them; both readings are argued by Muslims.
• 'No compulsion in religion' read as covering belief only, and read as extending to practice and to conversion; the disagreement here is real and is where the sharpest criticism of Muslim states lands.

Differences within Islam

The dignity principle is shared. What Muslims genuinely disagree about is how far classical rulings should be revisited in light of it — which is a live scholarly argument, not a split between denominations.

• Sunni — Broad agreement on dignity, justice and the sanctity of life; genuine disagreement about whether classical rulings on apostasy and on the status of non-Muslims can stand alongside modern rights claims.
• Shi'a — The same core commitments and a comparable internal debate; Shi'a jurisprudence has its own developed discussion of reason as a source of law, which shapes the argument.

Application to the issue

It shows in Muslim human-rights organisations and lawyers, in Muslim relief agencies working without regard to the recipient's religion, and in the historical documents Muslims cite — the Prophet's final sermon on the equality of Arab and non-Arab, and the Constitution of Madinah's protections for the city's Jewish tribes. A named example turns a general claim into a developed point.

Arguments supporting

• Rights grounded in God cannot be voted away. — What Allah confers is not in a government's gift to remove. (islam)
  Answered by: In practice they are removed constantly, and a right with no earthly enforcement mechanism protects no one.
• Islamic law states its purposes, so it can be criticised by its own standard. — The maqasid give Muslims an internal test: does this ruling actually protect life, faith, intellect, lineage and property? (shared)
  Answered by: Internal standards are only as strong as the willingness of authorities to be judged by them.

Arguments challenging

• Rights are better grounded in human agreement, because that is what can be enforced. — Courts enforce treaties, not theology. (non-religious)
  Answered by: Agreements have been withdrawn from too, and the Universal Declaration itself asserts rights as inherent rather than granted — which is closer to the Islamic structure than it looks.
• Some classical Islamic rulings conflict with modern rights. — Rulings on apostasy and on the legal status of non-Muslims are the standard examples. (non-religious)
  Answered by: Muslim scholars argue about exactly this, using the Qur'anic statement that there is no compulsion in religion; the criticism identifies a live debate rather than a settled position.

Secular / non-religious perspective

Humanists hold that human rights are a human achievement, worked out through argument and experience and codified in documents such as the Universal Declaration. They regard the absence of a divine guarantor as a strength, because rights can then be extended as understanding improves — and they would point out that religious traditions, Islam included, have historically had to be argued into some of the rights they now defend.

Examinable throughout Paper 1. Nothing here earns a mark on Paper 2.

Evaluation

The hinge: Whether rights are conferred or constructed. Both accounts want them to be unconditional; they disagree about what makes them so.

Defensible conclusions

• The Islamic grounding is philosophically strong and practically weak: it explains why rights cannot be forfeited, and it supplies no enforcement.
• The secular grounding is practically strong and philosophically vulnerable: it explains enforcement and struggles to say why a majority may not simply change its mind.
• The most defensible answer notices that both traditions describe rights as inherent rather than granted, which makes them allies against the position that rights are whatever a state allows.

Not defensible

• Claiming Islam has no concept of human rights; karamah, the maqasid and the final sermon are the material against that.
• Claiming Islamic and secular rights frameworks are identical, when the disagreements about apostasy and religious freedom are real and are debated by Muslims themselves.

Exam use

• Identify · 3 marks — Three Islamic beliefs about human rights, or three examples of Muslim support for them.
• Outline · 4 marks — Two beliefs developed. 'Muslims believe every person has karamah (1) — dignity given by Allah, which does not depend on their faith or nationality (1).'
• Explain · 6 marks — Explain why human rights matter to Muslims: dignity, justice against self-interest, the sanctity of life, and freedom of belief — each with an example.
• Evaluate · 12 marks — 'Human rights come from God.' Argue about grounding versus enforcement rather than asserting one side.

Common mistakes

• Answering with general human-rights material and no Islamic vocabulary, which the grid caps as generic.
• Naming no example, when the Issue 2 wording asks for examples of Muslim attitudes and support.
• Treating Humanism as a religion with rival scripture rather than as the non-religious position.

“The six religions plus Humanism make seven options on this course.” — Humanism is a non-religious worldview. This specification offers six religions and there is no Paper 2 for Humanism. It is examinable CONTENT on Paper 1, not a route.

Write instead: Paper 1 examines religious and non-religious beliefs together, so Humanist, atheist and agnostic positions are directly creditable there. Paper 2 is religion-specific and has no non-religious equivalent. Where a Paper 1 question asks for non-religious views, a Humanist answer is not merely allowed — it is the only kind that scores.

Grade 9 insight

Qur'an 4:135 requires a Muslim to stand for justice even as a witness against themselves, their parents and their kin — and that is a harder demand than any rights document makes, because a declaration binds states while this binds the individual against their own family. A Level 4 answer uses it to argue that the Islamic contribution is not a list of rights but an account of who is obliged to uphold them when it costs.

Carry on through Islam

• Previous unit: 3.6 · Capital punishment
• Next unit: 4.2 · Equal rights and equal opportunities
• Human rights in the other religions: Buddhism · Christianity · Hinduism · Judaism · Sikhism
• Side by side: Relationships between rich and poor across the six religions — What do believers owe the poor?
• All of Islam · Incandio Religious Studies · The 4RS1 specification