Last week a peak UN body approved a motion by Islamic nations, declaring that Muslims be protected from criticism of their religion. The U.N. Human Rights Council adopted the non-binding resolution, which was put forward by Pakistan on behalf of Muslim nations.
The resolution asks nations to provide “protection against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from defamation of religions and incitement to religious hatred in general.” The text also says, “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”. The whole drift of the resolution is to free Islam of any criticism.
Fortunately a number of nations voted against this. A majority of 23 members of the 47-nation Council voted for the resolution, while eleven nations, mostly Western, opposed it. Thirteen nations abstained from the vote. One press account mentions concerns raised:
“Opponents of the resolution included Canada, all European Union countries, Switzerland, Ukraine and Chile. ‘It is individuals who have rights and not religions,’ Canadian diplomat Terry Cormier said. India, which normally votes along with the council’s majority of developing nations, abstained in protest at the fact that Islam was the only religion specifically named as deserving protection. India’s Ambassador Gopinathan Achamkulangare said the resolution ‘inappropriately’ linked religious criticism to racism.”
The folly of the document stands out in numerous places. Consider this line: “Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism.” That is one of the biggest howlers in the whole document. Remove two words (“and wrongly”) from the sentence and you have a perfectly true statement.
Of course Islam is associated with terrorism and human rights abuses. That is because Islam encourages terrorism and human rights abuses. I have documented this elsewhere. Normal freedoms found in the West are not part of Islamic ideology and culture.
And the Koran, Muhammad (in word and deed), and the hadith all condone religious violence, or terrorism. Jihad is enjoined upon Muslims, and we have seen plenty of examples of Islamic terror in the past few decades. Yet the UN is quite happy to go along with this nonsense.
Consider just one area of concern: religious freedom and freedom of conscience. Such freedoms are largely non-existent in the Muslim world. Indeed, just try leaving the religion of Islam. Such a move is considered to be apostasy, and worthy of death.
A leading critic of Islam – and former Muslim – Ibn Warraq has written extensively on such themes. Consider a few paragraphs of testimony he gave to the UN Commission on Human Rights in Geneva in 2004:
“The very notion of apostasy has vanished from the West where one would talk of being a lapsed Catholic or non-practicing Christian rather than an apostate. There are certainly no penal sanctions for converting from Christianity to any other religion. In Islamic countries, on the other hand, the issue is far from dead.
“The Arabic word for apostate is murtadd, the one who turns back from Islam, and apostasy is denoted by irtidad and ridda. Ridda seems to have been used for apostasy from Islam into unbelief (in Arabic, kufr), and irtidad from Islam to some other religion. A person born of Muslim parents who later rejects Islam is called a Murtadd Fitri – fitri meaning natural, it can also mean instinctive, native, inborn, innate. One who converts to Islam and subsequently leaves it is a Murtadd Milli, from milla meaning religious community. The Murtadd Fitri can be seen as someone unnatural, subverting the natural course of things whose apostasy is a willful and obstinate act of treason against God and the one and only true creed, and a betrayal and desertion of the community. The Murtadd Milli is a traitor to the Muslim community, and equally disruptive.
“Any verbal denial of any principle of Muslim belief is considered apostasy. If one declares, for example, that the universe has always existed from eternity or that God has a material substance, then one is an apostate. If one denies the unity of God or confesses to a belief in reincarnation, one is guilty of apostasy. Certain acts are also deemed acts of apostasy, for example treating a copy of the Koran disrespectfully, by burning it or even soiling it in some way. Some doctors of Islamic law claim that a Muslim becomes an apostate if he or she enters a church, worships an idol, or learns and practises magic. A Muslim becomes an apostate if he defames the Prophet’s character, morals or virtues, and denies Muhammad’s prophethood and that he was the seal of the prophets.
“It is clear quite clear that under Islamic Law an apostate must be put to death. There is no dispute on this ruling among classical Muslim or modern scholars, and we shall return to the textual evidence for it.”
It is understandable that the Muslim world would want to become immune from any criticism and careful scrutiny. The Muslim world as a whole leads the world in terms of basic denials of human rights and freedom of all sorts. So one can understand their reluctance to allow for any critical analysis of it.
But for the UN to jump on the band wagon shows how out of touch that body is as well. It is often doing its best to help in the promotion of Islam, and the universal spread of sharia law. This is but one more example of a globalist Islam and a subservient UN. The two make for a great couple.