Religious pluralism, versus the defamation of religion and freedom of speech have become an increasing source of conflict in international politics and interreligious relations. Preachers of hate and activists in America, Europe, and many Muslim countries are engaged in a culture war. Far right anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim political leaders and parties warn of the Islamization of America and Europe to garner votes. The acquittal on June 22, 2011 of Dutch politician Geert Wilders on charges of "inciting hatred and discrimination against Muslims," is a political victory for Wilders but also a sign of the times, growing normalization of anti-Islam bashing in the West.
The OIC (Organization of the Islamic Conference which represents some 57 countries) lobbied the United Nations for more than a decade to address this issue. Initially targeting Islamophobia, it broadened its request to a resolution on "defamation of religions" that would criminalize words and actions perceived as attacks against religion.
Opponents, in particular the U.S. and E.U., maintained that the resolution could also be used to restrict religious freedom and free speech, and foster religious intolerance and violence against religious minorities Indeed, in recent years attacks against Christians and other religious minorities have risen in Egypt, Malaysia, Sudan, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia and Pakistan. These conflicts have varied from acts of discrimination to the bombing and burning of churches and murder.
Pakistan's blasphemy law exemplifies the issue. In 2009 Asia Bibi, a Christian and 45-year-old mother of four was sentenced to death on charges of insulting Islam, a charge she strongly denied. The case sparked international outrage that was heightened in 2011 by the brutal assassination of Salman Taseer -- the governor of Punjab and an outspoken critic of the blasphemy law, and the assassination of Pakistani Chief Minister Shahbaz Bhatti, a Christian and outspoken opponent of Pakistan's blasphemy law.
The United Nations Human Rights Council recently ostensibly resolved the conflict over "Defamation of Religions." After close discussions with the U.S. and E.U., Pakistan introduced a compromise resolution on behalf of the OIC, which addressed the concerns of both the OIC and those of member states and human rights organizations, including the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom.
The "Combating Discrimination and Violence" compromise resolution affirms individual rights, including the freedoms of expression and religion that are part-and-parcel of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. At the same time, the 47-member state body also called for strengthened international efforts to foster a global dialogue and the promotion of a culture of human rights, tolerance and mutual respect.
But will this U.N. resolution prove to be an effective tool in combating the rise of Islamophobia? A clear sign of the limits of the resolution can be seen in the stunning verdict in Geert Wilder's acquittal. Wilders' track record includes the charges that "Islam is a fascist ideology," "Mohammed was a pedophile," and "Islam and freedom, Islam and democracy are not compatible" and warnings of a "tsunami" of Muslim immigrants. Wilders' "missionary" efforts have extended other parts of Europe to the US where his admirers refer to him as a "freedom fighter." Plaintiffs had charged that Mr Wilders' comments had incited hatred and led to a rise in discrimination and violence against Muslims. But Judge van Oosten ruled that although he found Wilders remarks "gross and denigrating", they had not given rise to hatred. Spiegel Online's headline of the acquittal read "Wilder's Acquittal a 'Slap in the Face for Muslims.'"
The exploitation of freedom of speech to promote religious intolerance emerged only days after the Wilders' decision. Stop Islamisation of Europe (SIOE) and Stop Islamization of America (SIOA), a coalition of far right anti-Muslim European and American groups billing themselves as human rights organizations, had scheduled "United We Stand: First Transatlantic Anti-Islamization" in Strasbourg, France on July 2. On June 28, French and EU authorities' cancelled the conference. In response, the Islamophobic cottage industry and their websites' headlines blared: "Free in speech rally cancelled in Strasbourg over Muslim violence threats" and "Democracy Collapses in Europe: EU Cancels SIOA/SIOE Free Speech Rally."
Freedom of speech is a precious right that must be guarded carefully. But what happens when that right is used to incite hatred and to feed religious intolerance, such as Islamophobia, that is spreading like a cancer across the United States and Europe? While some statements may not immediately be the direct cause of a specific act of violence, they spread seeds of intolerance and anger that lead to legitimizing and accepting acts of bigotry and hate, like the "Burn a Quran day" that took place in Florida, the desecration of mosques, physical attacks against Muslims including women and children. As a result, the public slowly becomes inured to Islamophobic actions and statements. At the same time, this ideology of hatred has a very real effect on the everyday life of Muslims and Arabs: issuing in verbal attacks from their community members, Islamophobic statements by political candidates, or law-enforcement policies that target Muslims and Arabs.
The issue of freedom of speech and the rights of hate groups is not new in American history. Even today, the Ku Klux Klan, neo-Nazi and anti-Semitic organizations are allowed to express their disdain for certain ethnic and religious groups, regardless of how distasteful their ideologies may be. However, their power to attack has greatly diminished and their words have become a social taboo in the public square because our country has created a social environment where racism and anti-Semitism are loudly condemned and discredited in public life and in media. Muslim Americans and Europeans are entitled to the same treatment, rights and protections.
Islamophobia and its impact, like racism and anti-Semitism, must be countered by creating a climate in which hate speech and discrimination in the public square are not tolerated even when bigots exploit freedom of speech. Today, one can engage in anti-Islam and anti-Muslim hate speech and threats in print, media, and protest rallies that promote a popular culture that paints the religion of Islam, not just terrorists, as a threat to America. These preachers of hate and Islamophobia must be rejected and marginalized. Their mission to polarize our society must not be allowed to threaten our belief that religious tolerance and free speech are indeed compatible.
Follow John L. Esposito on Twitter: www.twitter.com/johnlesposito
I guess the rule here is:
Freedom of speech for Muslims, but not for anyone else...
As part of the authors' strategy to demonize criticism of religion as "hate speech," they try to put it in the same class as racism. But in fact those of us who criticize religion are motivated by our view that religion is a source of misery to it's own followers, and we want to reduce the misery. Far from being motivated by hatred of anyone, we are motivated by compassion.
As an atheist, knowing that many people consider atheists to be nothing more than immoral disciples of Satan, would I ever want to "create a climate" in which expressing such a view is "not tolerated?" Of course not! If someone thinks atheists are disciples of Satan, let him say so, and then I will have a chance to answer him, and perhaps change his mind. (And if anyone expresses such views, I won't try to call it "hate speech," either.) And that is the attitude any person would have, if he truly and sincerely does believe in free speech.
I don't care if you are a Christian, Muslim, Mormon, Scientologist, atheist, Hindu or whatever. You win no brownie points, and do not advance your argument one inch by ridiculing, threatening, demonizing, pronouncing doom or damnation upon, or in any other way marginalizing or pigeonholing those in other camps.
You win friends and influence people by knowing (not stereotyping) your audience and offering them a compelling narrative - even getting them to reflect on or ponder their own assumptions.
Those of us who have been defamed, belittled, lied about, discriminated against for what we do or don't believe, know only the pain and resentment - even embryonic enmity that these feelings spawn, of being mistreated in word or in deed. We do not know the "joy" and "freedom" and "fulfillment" of believing as you believe (or don't) and, so long as we are set upon for our differing opinions, never will.
So when you attack the world-view of others, you do so only for your own gratification - for it serves no other purpose and achieves no other end.
You are free to speak. We all are. Even to no productive purpose.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Are you insane! I might disagree with what you say, but I will fight for your right to say it.
As far as Islam is concerned, it is my opinion that the whole ideology lives to suppress free thought and free expression, which is contrary to the values of a free society. Can't you see that by looking at its affects in other countries. It's bad for liberty, so bad.
When Christianity had state protection and support, it became just as much of a cancer - with its inquisitions, crusades, persecution and torture. When the West woke up to the great truths of the Enlightenment, Christianity no longer had such state support - and had to change.
The same is true of Islam today. The evil deeds being done all over the world in the name of Allah could not, and would not occur, if the sixty Islamic states became secular, pluralistic and democratic societies.
It is ONLY in such free societies that women, religious minorities, homosexuals, and free thinkers can live their lives freely, without fear of being tortured or killed for making their own personal choices.
The hard truth is that religion + statism = totalitarianism, no matter how wonderful the ideals of the religion are. The ideal of Christianity is "love thy neighbor as thyself", and yet the earth is drenched with the blood of those killed in the name of Jesus when the Church gained secular power.
Islam is no different.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01J_d278mCc&feature=player_embedded
This progressive audience is showing itself unwilling to tolerate the ethical shortcomings of the various religions, particularly when they attempt to impose those ethical shortcomings upon the rest of us.
Certainly, persecution and acts of violence against peaceful members of any religious group, whether Muslims, Jews or any other, is dead wrong. We all agree on that.
But there is also broad agreement that we can, and we must, speak out boldly - over and over again - to decry any violation of basic human rights perpetuated in the name of anyone's God.
Of all the world's major religions, right now Islam is most guilty of such violations. Therefore it is the duty of every sane, progressive and ethical person to speak out condemning such violations, and calling those members of the religion to leave medievalism behind, and join the rest of us in the 21st Century.
That is NOT Islamophobia. To pretend that it is is disingenuous as well as dangerous.
I'm not interested in 'religious' tolerance. How about just tolerance in general? Keep your religion to yourself and out of my government and we have no problems. Try to legislate your religion or shove it down my throat and I no longer feel the need to provide you with the tolerance you refuse to give others.
In fact the acquittal of Wilders upheld the free speech rights of Muslims just as much as everyone else's. And that is why, far from being any "slap in the face" to any Muslim, it was just as much the best decision from a Muslim's point of view as it was from any other person's point of view.
It's kind of Orwellian. You can find words to say that Big Brother is a bad guy, but this makes no sence since you can't find words to explain this idea of yours.
But one thing is clear - PC helps Islam Islamize the West, and when the mission is over, PC will be thrown out.
And there you have it. This article , btw, is a lot of double-talk. First the autor complains there is too much "islamophobia " and how dangerous it is, and then he insists he believes in freedom of speech. That's pretty typical. To the autor : WAKE UP-- it isn't unfair treatment of Muslims we need to worry about , it's their stealthy plans to Islamize the free world. Wake up to that !
And when it comes to Geert Wilders--he's one of the best things to happen to Europe in a long time. He is the bravest man in the world, and has rare good sense and unusual insight. He's carrying a torch for those who have been intimidated into fear of speaking out and we should follow him. Shut up and listen to him.
This is a critical issue that needs to be examined because it affects Muslims and non-Muslims. It is surprising that just like racism was an acceptable cultural practice in America and Europe, Islamophobia and Muslim bashing has become a badge of honor. Religious tolerance should to everyone regardless of the religion. Only then can we have a mature level of understanding that is conducive to our co-existence. Islam is an Abrahamic religion that is compatible with the west. Islam will complement the west and Muslims will continue to bring their depth of civilization to the west. Those who are making millions from fear mongering should be marginalized. Muslims understand justice and compassion for these are foundations of Islam. Thus, mutual respect and tolerance is something that most Muslims aspire to--and I hope many people have open mind about others regardless of our differences.
Pakistan's leading Islamic party is the Jamaat-e-Islami. Here is an interview with one of their religious leaders:
http://www.themuslimtimes.org/2011/05/countries/pakistan/what-islam-wants-an-illuminating-interview-of-a-jamaat-e-islami-leadrer
Some quotes that demonstrate the mutual respect and tolerance most Muslims believe in:
"the Prophet Mohammad’s (PBUH) views on women are the exact views of Qazi Ahmed and the Jamaat. Equality of men and women is stupidity... Women are weak physically and mentally compared to men."
"We wrote in the JI pamphlets that destroying each pagan temple makes a Muslim move closer to the heaven of Allah. We used the Hadiths in all the pamphlets. Babar destroyed the Ram temple in Ayodhya because he was a true believer. The same way, every Muslim should take it upon himself to destroy the Hindu temples in Pakistan."
"Qazi's vision is to make the entire India a 100% Muslim Nation. A United India, where Hindus are majority is an impediment to that. Like Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) made Muslims out of pagans of Arabia, Qazi also wants to make Muslims out of the pagans of India. "
The true measure of a belief system is what people do when they are in the majority, not how they behave when they are in the minority. This is Islam in 99% Muslim Pakistan.