Comparison of the Foundations and Sources of the Islamic Human Rights School and Other Legal Schools

The life of the individual in today’s complex world is not feasible without the enjoyment of rights. In reality, the answers to many questions and ambiguities depend on the philosophical foundations that justify the existence of human rights. Human rights are not a collection of concepts, foundations, rules, and laws that exist independently of other areas of knowledge. These rights are epistemologically and logically subsequent to other bodies of knowledge. Among the types of knowledge that logically precede human rights are the foundations and sources from which rights are derived. Foundations are a set of principles and rules upon which human rights rely, such as principles related to justice, freedom, ownership, and human well-being. Sources, on the other hand, are the origins from which principles, rules, and rights are adopted, such as reason, revelation, custom, culture, history, and others. Those who engage in the codification of human rights draw upon the principles and sources accepted within their own intellectual framework. When these foundations, principles, and sources align and operate in harmony, a legal school emerges. This hidden yet compelling source of obligation is referred to as the "foundation of rights." One of the most complex issues in the philosophy of law is distinguishing this foundation. The central question arises: Why should these rights be obeyed? Each legal school has sought to answer this question from its own perspective. This article, through a descriptive-analytical method and utilizing library-based sources, explores the views of natural law theory, positivist law, Islamic law, and the perspectives of several scholars, comparing the foundations and sources of each school and thinker. The findings of this study indicate that the Islamic school occupies a significantly higher and superior level.