DEFENDING THE INDEFENSIBLE

On 26 March 2009, the Geneva based U N Human Rights Council adopted a resolution moved by Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Countries condemning “defamation of religion” as a violation of human rights. Twenty three of the 47 member body voted in favour of the resolution, 11 voted against while 13 abstained from voting. Although India expressed its opposition to the resolution on the floor it abstained from actual voting..

" Defamation of religions is a serious affront to human dignity leading to a restriction on the freedom of their adherents and incitement to religious violence," says the Resolution adding that "Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism." It calls on states to." ensure that religious places, sites, shrines and symbols are protected, to reinforce laws “to deny immunity” for those exhibiting intolerance of ethnic and religious minorities ,and “ to take all possible measures to promote tolerance and respect for all religions and beliefs Pakistan, speaking for the 56-nation Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), said a "delicate balance" had to be struck between freedom of expression and respect for religions.

Earlier, on 24 Nov 2008, the UN general Assembly had adopted a similar OIC sponsored resolution calling on all countries to alter their legal and constitutional systems to prevent "defamation of religions," asserting that "Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism." Among other things, the resolution "urged states to take actions to prohibit the dissemination ... of racist and xenophobic ideas" and material that would incite to religious hatred. It also urged states to adopt laws that would protect against hatred and discrimination stemming from religious defamation.

BACKGROUND

The resolutions are plainly an effort by the Muslim member countries of the United Nations and its bodies to put Islam and many of its beliefs and practices beyond criticism. Reacting to the deteriorating image of Islam and its followers in western countries the sponsors are seeking to present Islam as an innocent party needing protection of the international organizations against unmerited criticism. There is also an implied threat that if criticism is not kept within acceptable limits, those exercising their freedom of expression by criticizing Islam may face violent protests from those whose feelings are hurt by their criticism.

Criticism of Islam and its alleged association with terrorism started figuring prominently in international media following the devastating Al Qaida attacks on vital targets within USA on 11 Sept 2001 and gathered strength with the spate of terrorist attacks in UK, Spain, Indonesia, etc. The gruesome murder of the Dutch film maker Theo Von Gogh in Amsterdam in November 2004 (for having produced a short documentary film entitled “Submission”), and the widespread disturbances across the Muslim world in protest following the publication of some blasphemous cartoons of Prophet Mohammed in a Danish paper Jyllands- Posten in September 2005 led to a prolonged controversy in the international media on the subject of freedom of expression and hurting of Muslim sentiments. The recent effort of Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders to screen his film “Fitna” in UK and USA has served to revive the controversy.

A SERIOUSLY FLAWED CASE

The case of the sponsors of the resolutions seems to suffer from several serious and obvious flaws which for some reason or the other do not appear to be visible to the sponsors. An extremely wide and possibly unbridgeable gulf seems to separate the fundamental perceptions of the proponents of the resolutions from those of the opponents. Let us examine the justifications quoted and the objectives sought to be achieved by movers of the resolution.

1. “Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism.” : That Islam is frequently associated with human rights violations and terrorism is a fact. But to say that it is wrongly blamed is simply not true. Reports of cases of human rights violations and acts of terrorism perpetrated by the followers of Islam figure frequently in the world media, including the media of some Islamic countries giving rise to the cliche “All Muslims are not terrorists but all terrorists are Muslims” All these acts (involving human rights violations and terrorism) are committed by their perpetrators invoking the authority of Islam for their actions. The e-mail warning sent by the Indian Mujahideen quoting copiously from the Quran and the Hadith just before the terrorist attacks in Ahmedabad is just one example. While the Islamic apologists argue that the aggressors are misguided individuals who are wrongly interpreting Islam the overwhelming majority of practitioners of Islam plainly disagree. Human rights violations of minority citizens or women routinely receive quiet approval/acceptance of the Muslim majorities. Many have been seen rejoicing after successful terrorist attacks carried out against infidels. Neither the arguments of Islam’s sophists nor the speeches of the suave and sophisticated OIC diplomats during the sessions of international bodies reflect the true fate of the victims of Islam’s prejudices against unbelievers, minority sects and women. One has only to look at the actual condition of the minorities and women in Pakistan to realize the pervasiveness and frequency of violations of human rights of these unfortunate members of Pakistan’s population. The situation in other Islamic countries is not much better.

2. “Defamation of religions is a serious affront to human dignity leading to a restriction on the freedom of their adherents and incitement to religious violence”: There are several elements in the above statement of which two need to be examined here. Firstly, what is meant by defamation of religion and secondly, why should criticism of religion lead to incitement to religious violence? Defamation essentially involves making a false allegation with the intent of injuring someone’s reputation. The clinical, objective examination of the tenets of a religion and exposing its shortcomings can by no means be called defamation. A religion after all is a product placed before the humanity with a claim of possessing certain virtues and inviting outsiders to embrace it. The virtues claimed have to be, in all fairness, investigated and appraised and the appraisers’ view made available to all concerned. In fact it is necessary for the good of humanity that all religions are subjected to a deep and dispassionate scrutiny so that the people are enabled to make a free and informed choice.

The second point for examination is the link between the alleged defamation and incitement to religious violence. Promoters of many religions have at times been guilty of presenting intentionally distorted pictures of the beliefs and practices of other religions, particularly if they seek to win converts. Intentional, malicious misrepresentation of any religion from whatever motive deserves to be condemned. Misrepresentation proceeding from ignorance will be a shade less blameworthy. Those whose feelings are hurt by misrepresentation or even by exposure of faults in the religion held dear by them have always the liberty of expressing their unhappiness through legitimate means. But use of violence as the means of expressing protest is neither legitimate nor indeed allowed under the law of any country. It is also seen that protests against alleged insults do not generally lead to religious violence except in the solitary case of Islam. Even there the violence is not usually a spontaneous reaction but on most occasions is the result of incitement by clerics. It indeed needs to be examined as to why, among all the religions of the world, do the Muslims alone express their protests by resorting to violence. It also needs to be considered whether the clerics who incite their congregations to violence should be made liable to penal action.

3. Exhortation to states to ensure that religious places, sites, shrines and symbols are protected, to reinforce laws” to deny impunity” for those exhibiting intolerance of ethnic and religious minorities, and "to take all possible measures to promote tolerance and respect for all religions and beliefs."

While the steps recommended by the resolution, to be taken by the governments of the member countries, are indeed laudable, the irony of the proposition is really astounding. Protection of religious places, tolerance and respect for religions of the minorities is most conspicuously absent in the leading Islamic countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan and even the smaller Islamic states like Bangladesh, and Malaysia. What kind of tolerance or respect does the leader of the Islamic bloc, Saudi Arabia, show for other religions? What kind of record does the frequent spokesman for the block, Pakistan, have in the matter of protection of religious places ,sites shrines, and symbols of non –Muslims or for tolerating ethnic and religious minorities? The Hindus and Sikhs, subjected to unremitting oppression, have been reduced from 24% in 1947 to 1%.The Baluchis (an ethnic minority) have revolted repeatedly against the tyranny of the Pakistan government. Christians, who started as equal citizens have been facing the heat for decades. The Ahmadiyyas who gave Pakistan their first Foreign Minister (Sir Zafarullah Khan) and several war heroes and distinguished civil servants have not only been declared Non-Muslims but are liable to be jailed if they call themselves Muslims or refer to the places of their community prayers as “mosques”. Even the Shias have been targeted by aggressive Sunnis who demand that they be declared Non -Muslims . Having consistently oppressed and decimated the religious and ethnic minorities within their own territories, it is the height of hypocrisy for these countries to ask other countries to take steps for the protection of the religious symbols etc. of the minorities. What the sponsors of the resolution seem to be seeking is that irrespective of what Islamic countries do to their minorities, the rest of the world must be protective and respectful of the beliefs, practices and persons of Muslims minorities in the non-Muslim world !!

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE FUNDAMENTAL PERCEPTIONS OF THE TWO SIDES

Differences in the thinking of the Muslim countries and the rest of the world on the subject of human rights surfaced soon after the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the United Nations GA in December 1948.While most of the Muslim countries signed the non-binding declaration, Saudi Arabia refused to do so on the ground that the provisions of the declaration were in conflict with the shariah. With the increase in their strength and influence in international affairs the Islamic countries kept pursuing the objective of evolving an Islamic version of UDHR and in 1990 came up with the Cairo Declaration of human Rights in Islam (CDHRI). It will be instructive to compare the provisions of the two Declarations dealing with human rights.

The Preamble to the Universal Declaration (UDHR) opens with the following statement -
“Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,….”

Compare this with the opening statement of the Preamble to the Cairo declaration ;

“Reaffirming the civilizing and historical role of the Islamic Ummah which God made the best nation …….; and the role that this Ummah should play to guide humanity …………..
“Wishing to contribute to the efforts of mankind to assert human rights, to protect man from exploitation and persecution, and to affirm his freedom and right to a dignified life in accordance with the Islamic Shari’ah ..”

The articles of the two Declarations specifically dealing with human rights and freedoms are equally illustrative.

The UDHR provides;
“Article 18.
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
“Article 19.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers…”

The Cairo Declaration CDHRI
Article 24
"All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari'ah."
Article 25

It likewise declares that "The Islamic Shari'ah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification of any of the articles of this Declaration."

The above extracts illustrate the reason behind the queer logic of the OIC members. In deciding what is right and what is wrong the Muslims have necessarily to follow the instructions handed down to them by Allah through His Messenger. There is no scope whatsoever for independent thinking beyond the confines of the Holy book and the shariah. And therein lies the crux of the problem. The Muslim countries have been commanded to believe not only that their religion is the best but that the Umma has to play the role of the guide for the rest of the humanity. The Qur’an divides human beings into three categories- (

(1) the Muslims (the believers and therefore the best),

(2) the Christians and the Jews (the other People of the Book, but misguided and therefore second class, only to be tolerated if they willingly accept their status as Dhimmis ) and

(3) the unbelieving rest (accursed, destined to roast for ever in hellfire, and deserving to be put to sword if they do not accept conversion to Islam).Women too are condemned to a God ordained inferior status. While the Muslims are entitled to hold whatever beliefs they want to (howsoever wrong or outrageous in the eyes of others) they are by no means right or logical in expecting that those who are abused by Islam’s scriptures would or should respect Islam.

The simple solution to the acrimonious debate between those demanding respect for Islam and those insisting on freedom of expression would be the acceptance of the golden rule—do unto others what you would like others to do unto you. But reciprocity would imply acceptance of equality. Unless those crusading for respect for Islam come round to showing respect to others, the resolutions and discussions in the international for a are unlikely to lead to any satisfactory solution.

……..J P Sharma
(copyrights author)