I refer to the Malaysiakini report on Abdullah Ahmad Badawi's call to abandon ‘secular human rights’ .

Abdullah’s use of ‘secular’ with reference to human rights is problematic. Unfortunately, we have been using this phrase far too often and I may have also been guilty of this sacrilege.

This is one situation where common public usage should defer to political correctness, if only because Muslims here often show an open hostility to the word and seem to have lost all reason.

 

The term which has its origin in European societies, is used to distinguish the temporal (secular) from the spiritual (religious). When used in the context of governance, we know that secularism does not mean the absence of religion from public life.

France is perhaps the only country today that actively promotes this strict separation. And unlike other countries, France also prohibits the use of religious symbols in public.

 

The relevant point here is whether religious ethics and identity should be expunged from public life. We may agree that there must be a separation between the state and religion, but it would be very difficult to agree that religious ethics and identity should be banished from public life.

 

Furthermore, human rights are not free from religious ethics. There are human rights scholars of all religious persuasions who will argue that there is no separation of religion and human rights.

Since the defense of human rights has been echoed by prophets in many of our religious traditions the term ‘secular human rights’ is misleading and a disservice to religious traditions.