WEA-RLC Research and Analysis Report

November 12, 2010

Islamic countries have opposed reforms under the garb of fighting  ¢â‚¬Å“Islamophobia ¢â‚¬ 
for over a decade. They have overseen the passage of numerous resolutions
against  ¢â‚¬Å“defamation of religions ¢â‚¬  at the United Nations General Assembly and the
Human Rights Council since 1999 seeking legitimacy for and promoting restriction
of the freedom of speech in nations. This month, they are putting forward
another such resolution for voting at the General Assembly which can have
serious ramifications for the freedom of expression and religion especially in
the Muslim world.

A group of 57 states with large Islamic populations, known as the Organization
of the Islamic Conference, has introduced resolutions condemning defamation of
religions at the UN every year. These declarations  ¢â‚¬“ which allege a systematic
attack on Islam after the 9/11 attacks in the US  ¢â‚¬“ urge governments around the
world to enact special laws to ban any speech that would insult, criticize or
offend any person ¢â‚¬â„¢s religion, particularly Islam. Though non-binding thus far,
these resolutions are gradually empowering Islamic governments to oppose the
growing demand for democracy and associated rights by their people besides
paving the way for a legally binding international ban on criticism of religion.
Most governments of these Islamic nations seem to be caught between a growing
popular demand for political reforms and an increasing resistance to the
Western-style democracy by hardline Muslim groups, both non-violent and violent.
In other words, movements for and against democracy are visible in the Muslim
world. However, the Saudi Arabia-based-and-dominated Islamic Conference  ¢â‚¬“ which
projects itself as a central authority for the entire Islamic community, the
Muslim /Ummah/  ¢â‚¬“ is snubbing progressive Muslims and siding with the hardliners.
Recent elections and developments in many Muslim-majority countries, especially
in Asia, indicate that the people are seeking moderation and tolerance in their
societies  ¢â‚¬“ a glimmer of hope  ¢â‚¬“ but at the same time extremist groups are also
mounting pressure on the governments to remain socially and religiously
conservative. This can be seen in Pakistan, Bangladesh, the Maldives,
Afghanistan and Indonesia among other nations.

The people of Pakistan voted against Nawaz Sharif ¢â‚¬â„¢s right-wing Muslim League
party in the 2008 general elections, and supported the centrist Pakistan
People ¢â‚¬â„¢s Party led by Asif Ali Zardari, who is now the President. One of the
pledges Zardari had made during the elections was to repeal the blasphemy law.
Zardari seems fairly moderate in his religious views, but at the UN, his
government not only votes in favour of but also initiates resolutions meant to
promote blasphemy laws. This is understandable because Saudi Arabia ¢â‚¬â„¢s backing is
crucial for Islamabad which has to face its enemy India, its giant neighbour.
Zardari is also helpless before the right-leaning military of Pakistan and the
intelligence agency, Inter-Services Intelligence, or the ISI, which are visibly
Islamists and more powerful than the civilian government. Given the weakness of
the government, persecution of Shi ¢â‚¬â„¢a and Ahmadi minorities as well as that of
Christians and Hindus has increased in the recent years. And what has fuelled
the harassment of these minorities is the country ¢â‚¬â„¢s blasphemy law (Section 295
and 298 of the Pakistan Penal Code).

Over 10 accused under this law have been murdered before the completion of their
trial. On November 7, a Pakistani court sentenced to death a young Christian
woman, Asia Bibi, in Punjab province for alleged blasphemy. Also, last July, at
least nine Christians were killed and over 45 houses were burned in a Christian
hamlet in Korian village of Gojra town in central Punjab over a rumour that some
pages of the Quran were burnt. The attackers, masked and carrying sophisticated
guns, were believed to be from an Islamist militant outfit, the Sipah-e-Sahaba,
linked to the Afghan Taliban. Its offshoot, the Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, is believed
to be the al-Qaeda ¢â‚¬â„¢s front in Pakistan.

In Bangladesh, an alliance led by Sheikh Hasina ¢â‚¬â„¢s leftist Awami League party won
263 of the 300 contested seats in parliament in the 2008 general elections. The
Islamist Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami party (an ally of the Bangladesh Nationalist
Party) won only two seats, which shows a lack of popular support to Islamist
extremism in the country.

Also, on June 29, 2010, the Supreme Court of Bangladesh scrapped the 1979 Fifth
Amendment to the Constitution, which allowed formation of religious political
parties and legitimised military rule. However, Hasina, seemingly under pressure
and to play a safe game, may not fully implement the court ¢â‚¬â„¢s ruling which can
potentially ban Islamist parties.

In 2008, the Maldives (the only nation after Saudi Arabia that claims a
100-percent Muslim population) became a presidential democracy with moderate
Muslim and democracy activist Mohamed Nasheed as the new President. Multi-party
democracy came after 30 years of dictatorial rule by conservative President
Maumoon Abdul Gayoom. Nasheed ¢â‚¬â„¢s party, the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) is
seen as a relatively liberal Muslim party. However, Gayoom ¢â‚¬â„¢s conservative
Dhivehi Raiyyathunge Party has a simple majority in the 77-member People ¢â‚¬â„¢s
Majlis (Maldives ¢â‚¬â„¢ unicameral Parliament) and opposes the largely liberal
policies of Nasheed ¢â‚¬â„¢s government. Even the Muslim brotherhood party of the
Maldives, the Adhaalath Party  ¢â‚¬“ an ally of the ruling MDP  ¢â‚¬“ opposes reforms in
the Muslim society that Nasheed wants to bring in.

In Afghanistan, which was ruled by the radical Islamist Taliban regime from 1996
until the US military operation in 2001, President Hamid Karzai has emphasised
the importance of human rights, especially for women, and remains the head of
the government for over eight years. While the Taliban seem to have gained
control over most parts of the country outside Kabul, they do not represent the
people of Afghanistan who are generally moderate. However,  ¢â‚¬Å“moderate ¢â‚¬  Karzai has
not been able to amend the Afghan Press Laws that prohibit criticism of Islam
and a law that makes apostasy a crime punishable by death.

In August 2010, the Taliban killed eight foreign medical workers in a remote
northeast region. The killing came soon after a video telecast of underground
Christian prayer meetings on Afghanistan ¢â‚¬â„¢s Noorin TV. The names and faces of
Afghan Christian converts were also shown which sparked riots and demonstrations
throughout the country. Under pressure from extremist groups, Karzai promised
strict action against underground Christian activities. A member of parliament
called for Afghan Christians to be executed, publicly. The Karzai government
banned some Christian aid agencies on accusations of missionary activities.
A similar trend can be seen in Indonesia  ¢â‚¬“ home to the world ¢â‚¬â„¢s largest Muslim
population. This Southeast Asian nation is built on /Pancasila/, five
principles: belief in the one and only God; just and civilized humanity; the
unity of Indonesia; democracy guided by the inner wisdom in the unanimity
arising out of deliberations amongst representatives; and social justice for the
all of the people. However, attacks on Christians and forced closure of churches
are increasing thanks to the growth of extremist groups such as the Islamic
People ¢â‚¬â„¢s Forum and the Islamic Defenders Front. While some local officials have
been found to be colluding with extremist groups, President Susilo Bambang
Yudhoyono is known as a fairly progressive politician. But he remains weak and
hasn ¢â‚¬â„¢t been able to control the growing Islamist vigilante violence.

Even as large sections of Muslims are striving to bring change in their nations,
the UN resolutions led by the Islamic Conference give more teeth to the State
for religious repression and even greater political and social control,
undermining those who want to promote democracy and tolerance. Since there is no
one, acceptable-by-all definition of defamation of religions, the inevitable
ambiguity can be exploited by Islamic regimes to resist even legitimate,
democratic political opposition.

There is little room for doubt that the forces that are pushing the issue of
defamation of religions at the UN actually want to resist demands by the modern
world as well as by its own people and minorities for democracy and rights,
including religious freedom. Also visible is their agenda against Muslim
minorities, converts and reformers  ¢â‚¬“ the three entities Islamist groups and
regimes hate the most.

However, as rights groups are lobbying UN member states, the support for the
resolutions is constantly declining. Therefore, more non-Islamic Conference
nations need to be briefed about the real intent behind these motions and the
possible outcomes of their passage. Only then will it be possible to defeat the
declarations each time they come up for voting.

This should be done urgently because the resolutions on defamation of religions
also seek to export blasphemy laws to other countries, including in the West.
While religious freedom is seen as belonging to an individual in the developed
world, these decrees want religion itself to have rights  ¢â‚¬“ violating the very
basis on which human rights stand.

—————————————

The World Evangelical Alliance (WEA) Religious Liberty Commission (RLC) sponsors
this WEA-RLC Research & Analysis Report to help individuals and groups pray for
and act on religious liberty issues around the world. This report was researched
and written by Fernando Perez, and can be used with attribution to WEA-RLC.

—————————————