By Supna Zaidi
The OIC wants a UN resolution to prevent defamation of Islam. Yet, one of its member nations proves yet again that it is simply a pretext to curb criticism of Islamic societies internationally.
The resolution, called "Combating Defamation of Religion," is sponsored by the 57-nation Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). According to the text of an OIC proposal, the new UN body should state clearly that the "defamation of religions and prophets is inconsistent with the right to freedom of expression" and that states, organizations and the media have a "responsibility in promoting tolerance and respect for religious and cultural values.
Malaysia arrested internet blogger, Raja Petra Kamarudin, for insulting Islam, though what he really did was criticize the Malay government. Petra published an article in Malaysia Today website accusing Malaysia's Deputy Prime Minister, Najib Razak, of involvement in the 2007 murder of a Mongolian woman. Mr Razak denies the charge.
The current Malaysian administration under Abdullah Badawi is being challenged not only by critics like Petra, but also Anwar Ibrahim, who is leading the politician. Ibrahim gained national attention after he was thrown in jail under alleged trumped of charges of sodomy and corruption almost a decade ago. He is back in the game, leading the opposition against the Badawi government.
Petra's was sentenced to two years detention under the Internal Security Act, which many critics argue is meant for terrorists, not legitimate critics of government and society. The Islamic Development Department (Jakim) director-general Datuk Wan Mohamad Sheikh Abdul Aziz has argued that the comments and criticisms throughout Petra's writings are reminiscent of "anti-Islamic" statements westerners usually make.
Thus, Petra must be an agent for the west in Malaysia, insulting Islam, the Prophet Muhammad and Muslims with impunity. Malaysia is not the only Muslim country that hides behind religion to attack individuals that they have a very secular "beef" with. Consider:
1. Pakistan repeatedly attacks non-Muslims, especially Christians with blasphemy. In reality many cases involve work, family, or neighborly feuds that have nothing to do with religion. See, here, here, and here.
So, what does the resolution to prevent Defamation against religion really mean to OIC members when blasphemy is used as a tool against political enemies who are Muslim themselves, like Petra? Moreover, what does such behavior suggest if blasphemy were a weapon Muslim nations could yield against non-Muslim nations? Already, we have seen the following encroachments on secular life in the west:
1. Sharia Finance;
2. Islam in public schools;
3. Violations of basic hygiene policy by Muslim medical staff;
4. Censorship of literature.
To debate any of the above, Islamists label dissenters bigots and racist, rather than address the concerns and respond on topic.
Unfortunately, instead of western nations taking a stand against the manipulation behind the OIC resolution, some countries are caving in. Norway, for example, passed anti-blasphemy laws in 2006 after the Dutch cartoon incident.
The Norwegian Penal Code states:
"Law 150-A, which has been approved by parliament, criminalizes blasphemy and clearly prohibits despising others or lampooning religions in any form of expression, including the use of photographs," Norway's Deputy Archbishop Oliva Howika told reporters after a meeting in Doha with Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, the head of the International Union of Muslim Scholars.
The United States, along with many European nations, are trying to defeat the resolution. Critics of the resolution correctly realize that it is meant to curb criticism of Islam though it permeates the economic, political and social life of 57 nations, and Islamist immigrants in the West.
Islamist immigrants are the real threat, and the OIC knows it. Instead of respecting and appreciating the various democratic institutions and values like tolerance and pluralism that many of their home countries lack, Islamists want Sharia.
Curbing criticism of such attempts is what the resolution against defamation of Religion attempts to do. Any challenges to unreasonable requests for religious accommodation by Islamists would now be considered discrimination, ignoring the significant difference between equal treatment under the law with special treatment of one faith over all others.
The resolution must fail. It is hypocritical considering how the 57 Muslim nations treat non-Muslims and even Muslim minorities in their own states. Moreover, it is a weapon to silence the spread of Islamism in the West by tying the hands of critics. Malaysia's Raja Petra Kamarudin is but one example of many victims of blasphemy laws in the Islamic world already. The resolution against the defamation of religion would make detentions' like his the norm and not news worthy if passed.
The OIC wants a UN resolution to prevent defamation of Islam. Yet, one of its member nations proves yet again that it is simply a pretext to curb criticism of Islamic societies internationally.
The resolution, called "Combating Defamation of Religion," is sponsored by the 57-nation Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). According to the text of an OIC proposal, the new UN body should state clearly that the "defamation of religions and prophets is inconsistent with the right to freedom of expression" and that states, organizations and the media have a "responsibility in promoting tolerance and respect for religious and cultural values.
Malaysia arrested internet blogger, Raja Petra Kamarudin, for insulting Islam, though what he really did was criticize the Malay government. Petra published an article in Malaysia Today website accusing Malaysia's Deputy Prime Minister, Najib Razak, of involvement in the 2007 murder of a Mongolian woman. Mr Razak denies the charge.
The current Malaysian administration under Abdullah Badawi is being challenged not only by critics like Petra, but also Anwar Ibrahim, who is leading the politician. Ibrahim gained national attention after he was thrown in jail under alleged trumped of charges of sodomy and corruption almost a decade ago. He is back in the game, leading the opposition against the Badawi government.
Petra's was sentenced to two years detention under the Internal Security Act, which many critics argue is meant for terrorists, not legitimate critics of government and society. The Islamic Development Department (Jakim) director-general Datuk Wan Mohamad Sheikh Abdul Aziz has argued that the comments and criticisms throughout Petra's writings are reminiscent of "anti-Islamic" statements westerners usually make.
Thus, Petra must be an agent for the west in Malaysia, insulting Islam, the Prophet Muhammad and Muslims with impunity. Malaysia is not the only Muslim country that hides behind religion to attack individuals that they have a very secular "beef" with. Consider:
1. Pakistan repeatedly attacks non-Muslims, especially Christians with blasphemy. In reality many cases involve work, family, or neighborly feuds that have nothing to do with religion. See, here, here, and here.
So, what does the resolution to prevent Defamation against religion really mean to OIC members when blasphemy is used as a tool against political enemies who are Muslim themselves, like Petra? Moreover, what does such behavior suggest if blasphemy were a weapon Muslim nations could yield against non-Muslim nations? Already, we have seen the following encroachments on secular life in the west:
1. Sharia Finance;
2. Islam in public schools;
3. Violations of basic hygiene policy by Muslim medical staff;
4. Censorship of literature.
To debate any of the above, Islamists label dissenters bigots and racist, rather than address the concerns and respond on topic.
Unfortunately, instead of western nations taking a stand against the manipulation behind the OIC resolution, some countries are caving in. Norway, for example, passed anti-blasphemy laws in 2006 after the Dutch cartoon incident.
The Norwegian Penal Code states:
"Law 150-A, which has been approved by parliament, criminalizes blasphemy and clearly prohibits despising others or lampooning religions in any form of expression, including the use of photographs," Norway's Deputy Archbishop Oliva Howika told reporters after a meeting in Doha with Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, the head of the International Union of Muslim Scholars.
The United States, along with many European nations, are trying to defeat the resolution. Critics of the resolution correctly realize that it is meant to curb criticism of Islam though it permeates the economic, political and social life of 57 nations, and Islamist immigrants in the West.
Islamist immigrants are the real threat, and the OIC knows it. Instead of respecting and appreciating the various democratic institutions and values like tolerance and pluralism that many of their home countries lack, Islamists want Sharia.
Curbing criticism of such attempts is what the resolution against defamation of Religion attempts to do. Any challenges to unreasonable requests for religious accommodation by Islamists would now be considered discrimination, ignoring the significant difference between equal treatment under the law with special treatment of one faith over all others.
The resolution must fail. It is hypocritical considering how the 57 Muslim nations treat non-Muslims and even Muslim minorities in their own states. Moreover, it is a weapon to silence the spread of Islamism in the West by tying the hands of critics. Malaysia's Raja Petra Kamarudin is but one example of many victims of blasphemy laws in the Islamic world already. The resolution against the defamation of religion would make detentions' like his the norm and not news worthy if passed.
Source: Muslim World Today
 |
Posts
