The UN/Islamist Assault on Freedom of Religion

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.

www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iRHXSIoJJdXQpG3kPrRO2LWMnWTAD975TOK00
in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-38730220090326
www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/001590.php

[926 words]

12 Replies to “The UN/Islamist Assault on Freedom of Religion”

  1. Hi Bill,

    It’s heartening to see that all European Union countries voted against this. Maybe they’re finally waking up to the threat in their midst.
    Did an Australian representative go along in the end, and if so, which way did he vote? I think I remember reading of a possible Australian boycott a while back

    Mansel Rogerson, Melbourne

  2. Thanks Mansel

    At the moment Australia is not a member of the U.N. Human Rights Council. There are only 6 Western European nations on the Council, but yes they did vote correctly here.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  3. It is just as well we had a free speech amendment, attached to the religious hatred bill that the UK government brought in under pressure from the Muslim Council of Britain, in January 2006 in exchange for a Muslim vote in the 2005 general election. The claim by Muslims that freedom to report on Islamic practices of honour killings, of taking over whole areas of urban territory, of the subjugation of women and Islamic terror tactics, all of which are undermining Britain’s basic Christian values and beliefs, would result in a wave of violence against them, has not, apart from a few isolated incidents, materialised. This restraint on the part of the British public has nothing to do with censorship of the press but rather to do with the salting of our society with Christian values of respect and tolerance that allows others to hold beliefs different from our own.

    Unsurprisingly, where cases of needing to apply the religious hatred law have in fact been necessary, these have been used against the very group, the Muslims, that demanded them in the first place. Michael Nazir, the bishop of Rochester is certainly an authority on the temperance of Islam.
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article3292032.ece

    How soon before You Tube and Google are persuaded to remove all evidence of Muslim violence from the web?
    http://timescolumns.typepad.com/gledhill/2008/02/has-the-archbis.html#more
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2am8liXCxZ0

    The United Nations is living proof that evolutionary humanism is no match for Islam. Within few years Secularism will be swept aside in Europe as Islam fills a vacuum of certainty that human nature so craves.

    David Skinner, UK

  4. Bill, it may be time to start proposing Australia’s withdrawal from the UN.
    John Angelico

  5. It seems a bit late to try to withdraw Australia from the UN at the very time that our dear leader, Comrade Rudd, and his crew have been pushing for a seat on the council.

    Is there is a reason why a country would “abstain” rather than vote against? One sees a sense of cowardice in that. I bet the muslims would be encouraged by it.

    Bill, I agree that the words “and wrongly” are appropriate, however, that would a be a statement of Truth, and we don’t do truth anymore. As nations we have turned our backs on the truth and we end up with this absurdity as a consequence.

    Jeremy Peet

  6. Hi Bill,

    It’s nice to be able to agree with you wholeheartedly on something!

    James Beattie

  7. David I saw a great YOU TUBE video by the English folk group SHOW OF HANDS it is called Roots. Perhaps the revival of English culture is occurring in the younger generation’s hands, but it needs to be given Christian leadership. But His Insipidship Rowan Williams is nowhere to be seen.
    As for Australia departing from the UN -no way, because that would deprive the toxic Greens of their Utopian dreams, and diplomats of their ‘dream life”.
    Rowland Croucher on his John Mark ministries website makes the comment in reviewing a book by Jean Varnier that there are communities of Hindus, Christians and Muslims in India who meet twice daily for prayer; would that happen here? I doubt it unless there are Moslems and Hindus prepared to be labelled as being tainted by Christianity.
    If you read the Barnabas Funds lent booklet, consistently it is Islam that persecutes Christians and other faiths across the world. Therefore there should be NO Compromise in our Faith and Practice.
    Wayne Pelling

  8. Thanks James

    So there is maybe hope for you yet? Just kidding! Who knows, we might even agree on many other things as well. And in all seriousness, I would love it if one day you came to agree with me about the most important thing in life – reconnecting with God through a personal relationship with Christ.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  9. A resolution of the Human Rights Committee is just that; it does not have the standing of a binding Declaration or Covenant that nations are called upon to give assent to.

    To the extent it is a worry, more of a worry to secularists – the cultured and uncultured despisers of Christianity.

    David Palmer

  10. Bill, did you know that freedom of religion is the promotion of idolatry. When you read the old testament good kings, the things that they did (getting rid of poles of worship, false god statues) if they were in America they would have been thrown in jail for violating the states “freedom of religion” policy. We christians don’t always think biblical in terms of Government. What do you think? Please read the accounts of Kings in 1 & 2 Kings and think biblically.
    Karl Meihofer

  11. Thanks Karl

    I have read I & II Kings numerous times, and I do try to think biblically. But I am not a theonomist, if that is where you are coming from. Israel was a theocracy; America is not. In ancient Israel church and state were united. But that is not the case today under the New Covenant.

    Jesus laid this out quite clearly when he spoke of obeying both God and Caesar (Matt. 22:21). We have obligations to the state (which God ordained) and we have obligations to God. Thus we are citizens of two kingdoms, and we have two sets of responsibilities, which may often overlap.

    In the New Testament paradigm, the church deals with matters of sin, while the state deals with matters of crime. Again, they may overlap but are often different. I deal with these issues more fully here:
    https://billmuehlenberg.com/2008/02/13/islamisation-versus-christendom/
    https://billmuehlenberg.com/2008/07/26/a-review-of-christ-and-culture-revisited-by-da-carson/

    If we followed your thinking here, should we establish only one church, and punish all those who are not part of it? And if so, which church. Catholic? Ortodox? Protestant? If Protestant, which one? Baptist? Anglican? Prebyterian? If Presbyterian, which one? The PCUSA? The RPCUS? The WPCUS?

    There is both continuity and discontinuity between the Testaments Karl. Sorry, but a theocracy is not one of those things which continue into the NT.

    So I will continue to read the Bible and seek to think biblically. I trust you will do the same.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *