The Organisation for Islamic Cooperation does what it can to wear the clothes of human rights despite the human rights records of many of its member states.  The Geneva based NGO UN Watch reported  that the 56 member voting bloc in the UN refused to participate in a debate about homophobic violence.  It appears that the OIC mask is slipping and it is beginning to show its true colours.

Readers of this website will no doubt be aware that the OIC has been campaigning against freedom of speech for many years in its effort to create a global blasphemy law.  Western governments have already embarked on a policy of appeasement with regard to the OIC and its tyrannical demands.  The US State Department has already hosted a meeting of the ‘Istanbul Process’ and the EU plans to follow suit later this year.  If freedom of speech is abolished then perhaps the OIC will try to pass the persecution of homosexuals off as a religious right and therefore demand punishment for anyone who criticises it.

The OIC’s attitude towards homophobia is completely unacceptable and the way such an organisation gets to lecture the world on human rights issues beggars belief.  It is incomprehensible that supposedly progressive Western states fawn on this organisation and apparently indulge its every whim.  The Istanbul Process is an effort on the part of the OIC to spread its outdated and tyrannical practices to societies that were once free.  It is time for Western leaders to  see OIC efforts for what they are.

The leaders of Western countries by acquiescing with the demands of the OIC are showing their own tyrannical streak.  They may claim to be tolerant and progressive but their actions suggest otherwise.  It would appear that the human rights garb worn by the OIC  and its member states is the most ill fitting and dishevelled ensemble that fools no one but perhaps the credulous pro-sharia leaders of the Western world.

In January we reported on the plight of Ahmadiyya Muslims in Kirklees in the United Kingdom.  We would now like to show how the intolerance toward this peaceful Muslim group is more general, and indeed perhaps a global phenomenon.

The People of Shambhala website has recently drawn attention to the attack on a mosque used by Ahmadiyya Muslims in West Java, Indonesia.  It seems that the attack was motivated by a feeling of intolerance from the surrounding orthodox Muslim community who do not regard Ahmadiyyas as proper Muslims.  Quite what gives one group of Muslims the right to judge another is unclear, but we are familiar with persecution of what one group regard as heretics from our own European history.

Those who campaign against the imposition of sharia norms on Western societies are frequently accused of seeing Islam as a monolith – something that is clearly not the case.  However, it seems that those who judge some of their coreligionists as heretics actually want to make Islam into a monolithic culture.  The hypocrisy of Islamist rhetoric, that seems to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds, is clear for all to see.

We call upon Western Governments to provide greater support and encouragement to minority Muslim groups, such as the Ahmadiyya in their jurisdictions, who genuinely support peace and tolerance.  Such governments should avoid policy making which gives comfort to those who want to persecute such groups.  Moderate Muslims as well as liberal Islamic reformers deserve the support and encouragement of those with political power.

More information about the The Ahmadiyya Muslim Community can be found HERE.

Those who claim that sharia law is just a moral code and something used to settle family disputes may be surprised that it could result in the death of a man who is accused of ‘insulting the Prophet Muhammad’ in tweets.  Even though he apologised for his tweets people are still demanding that he be executed in view of the seriousness of this most heinous of ‘crimes’.  It looks like the actual charge will be for apostasy as THIS article at SouthEastAsiaRealtime reports. Further information on this heartbreaking case can be found at National Post.

Malaysia, of course, is a member of the Organisation of Islamic Co-operation (OIC), the very same organisation that is lobbying against freedom of expression and demanding a global blasphemy law.  The instrument for this is the innocuous sounding United Nations Resolution 16/18 which refers to:

“Combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatisation of, and discrimination, incitement to violence and violence against, persons based on religion or belief.”

We can see clearly from this case, if people are willing to spend a few short minutes reading the articles that we have linked to,  that the accused young man has been stigmatised, discriminated against, been the victim of incitement to violence, and may ultimately be the victim of state sanctioned violence on the basis of beliefs stated in a casual communication via Twitter.  It that the sort of fearful world that people want to live in?  If United Nations Resolution 16/18 becomes the basis of a global legal norm then that is the direction that the world is likely to take.

It seems from these kinds of cases that sharia law can be used as an instrument of terror to punish thought crime.  It is a very sad testament to the state of Western democracy when sharia compliance is put forward as something that is reasonable and ethical and something to be embraced on human rights grounds.  Western Governments are currently encouraging the OIC’s anti free speech efforts by supporting the Istanbul Process.  Do they really think that it is a good idea for legislation to be created that can potentially be abused in this way to effectively punish people as heretics? Perhaps the powers that be want a docile compliant population who are afraid to give voice even the most basic of thoughts.

Laws that place unreasonable restrictions on freedom of expression, such as those based on sharia compliance, only serve to destabilise society by creating an atmosphere for mob rule and witch hunts.  They do not create happy societies or just societies and they are designed to only to protect established interests and entrenched dogma.  The vicious and spiteful way in which this young man has been hounded and put into a state of terror is a perfect illustration of why freedom of expression and universal human rights are essential.  Sharia compliance provides for neither and serves to undermine them both.  Increasingly people are persecuted in Western countries when they disagree with and campaign against sharia.  Western societies are becoming darker and more fearful places as a result of the gradual slide towards sharia ‘justice’.

By making excuses for sharia and encouraging the creation of sharia norms in Western societies national leaders are demonstrating that they are moving their societies away from the values of the Enlightenment.  They are making people think that their rulers actually support the terror that sharia can inflict as a means of increasing and consolidating their own political power.

Much has been said to reassure non-Muslims that sharia law will not apply to them, but are these reassurances valid? CNSNews.com has reported on a case in the Indian province of Jammu and Kashmir that put non-Muslims are the very centre of a sharia ruling.  The article at CNSNews.com states:

“A “shari’a court” in Srinagar, capital of India’s Jammu and Kashmir state, has issued a decree expelling four pastors from the territory, after accusing them of using financial inducements to convert young Muslims to Christianity.”

So much for sharia apologists who say that sharia is just a ‘moral code for Muslims’ that just cover matters relating to marriage and family disputes, and do not affect non-Muslims in any way.  Of course the spread of sharia compliance to the West in the wake of constant lobbying by the Saudi based Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) has created an atmosphere of sharia inspired discrimination there too.  People may recall the case in Birmingham in the United Kingdom when Christian preachers were confronted by a Police Community Support Officer (PCSO) and told that converting Muslims was a hate crime.

It is true that many Muslims regard apostasy as an extremely serious issue, but learning to tolerate people who choose to change their religion is something that such people need to work on.  Governments and servants of the state should not be encouraging such attitudes either through their action or inaction.  It seems that governments in many countries seem to encourage Islamist ideas and are apparently unwilling to support liberal Islamic reformers who could help promote understanding and community cohesion.

Sharia apologies tend to explain such examples away as just isolated negative examples.  If this is indeed the case then where are the positive examples of the practice of sharia where it stands clearly in favour of universal human rights?  Where does sharia stop the practice of stoning, amputating, and flogging?  Where are the positive parts of sharia that give non-Muslims and women equal rights?  Where are the parts of sharia that combat homophobia? Where is sharia active in promoting the most fundamental of freedoms – freedom of expression?  It is time for opinion formers to stop making excuses for sharia, and it is time for governments to stop encouraging it.

Much Western treasure and sacrifice was invested in the liberation of Kuwait following the aggression of Saddam Hussein in 1990.  It is therefore very disappointing to read a report at the website of Al-Akhbar that Islamists are pushing for sharia to become the law of the land in Kuwait following their recent electoral success.  Sadly, from a human rights point of view, increasing numbers of Muslim countries are opting to build societies and legal systems based on sharia.  Many of these have adopted such systems under Western tutelage or following Western support for internal rebellions and by direct military intervention.

Sharia law violates basic Western values such as equality before the law, gender equality, and freedom of expression, and in this way it could even be referred to as anti-Western.  It is therefore surprising that everything the West touches these days seems to have a remarkable ability to move in the direction of sharia compliant governance.  Is this the result of incompetent policy making or deliberate planning on the part of Western leaders?

In Iraq, another country where Western treasure was used to unseat a tyrant has seen a mass exodus of Christians which indicates the existence of serious intimidation at the hands of Islamists. The website Christians of Iraq gives the following information:

“There is no specific statistics about the total population of Christians in Iraq but their population was estimated to have been about 800.000 strong before the 2003 United State invasion of the country. Since then about half a million of christians have been forced to flee to the neighboring countries or have migrated to the West. Some hundred thousand internally displaced have taken shelter in northern Iraq in the Plain of Nineveh the historic homeland of the Christians of Iraq.”

Following the Western backed ‘Arab Spring’ the Muslim Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice party has become the largest party in the Egyptian parliament.  With the even more extreme Al-Nour party in second place Islamists now have a firm political grip on the country.  Similarly elections in once liberal Tunisia favoured the Islamist Ennahda party. It will be interesting to see how the Muslim Brotherhood will do in Libyan elections later this year.  Undoubtedly Islamists in all these countries will not rock the boat too much at first, but we have seen in the West how extreme even liberal party’s can get once they get fully ensconced.

In Afghanistan, even though the purpose of Western military intervention was to oust the Taliban and reduce the power of Islamism, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has even suggested that the United States Government may be willing to open negotiations with the Taliban.  Even without Taliban participation the Afghan government, with assistance from the US State Department, managed to put together a sharia based constitution (quoted below from Afghanistan Online) which starts positively in its Preamble when it makes reference to:

“Observing the United Nations Charter and respecting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights”

You might think that this means that the constitution actually respects human rights, until you read Article 3 which states:

“In Afghanistan, no law can be contrary to the beliefs and provisions of the sacred religion of Islam.”

The positive content in the Preamble is therefore nullified by Article 3 just like the Islamic alternative to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam, does in its Articles 24 and 25.  This competitor to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was drawn up by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (now renamed Organization of Islamic Cooperation) and adopted by it in 1990.  Afghanistan, of course is a member of this organisation.

The rise of Islamism in North Africa, the Middle East, and beyond may mean that religious minorities in those countries will get a poor deal if the example of other Islamist controlled countries such as Iran and Saudi Arabia are anything to go by.  It is also likely that gender inequality and homophobia will increase and that governments will be more anti-Western in their foreign policy.

Some people now argue that Western governments are themselves anti-Western because of their encouragement of greater sharia compliance in their own societies.  Sharia compliance at home and support for Islamism abroad certainly indicates an integrated and cohesive worldview on their part and an anti-Western bias in their policy making.  The encouragement Western governments for the Istanbul Process that seeks to create a global blasphemy law and undermine freedom of expression is perhaps an indication that this direction of policy will be unlikely to change any time soon.  Of course this is very disappointing as such policies give comfort to Islamists and undermine liberal Islamic reformers both at home and abroad who Western governments should be actively supporting.

The euphemistically titled ‘Arab Spring’ has been celebrated by Western elites and the chattering classes, but how much is it a beginning for Islamist tyranny rather than for democracy.

Pink News a gay news service based in the United Kingdom has highlighted a situation that seems to be emerging in Tunisia indicating that homosexuals do not deserve the same rights as other Tunisians.  The article refers to remarks from the country’s Human Rights Minister, Samir Dilou, which indicate that the Arab Spring might not have been a festival for freedom after all.  Some of the comments made in the discussion are unacceptible.  Mr Dilou made the remarks in an interview with TV presenter Samir El-Wafi that discussed the publication of a new magazine in Tunisia.  The following dialogue and associated commentary is quoted from Pink News:

“Dilou told El-Wafi he’s against having such a magazine in Tunisia: ‘This country has its own history, heritage, religion and customs and we need to deal with everything on such a basis.’

El-Wafi asked: ‘We can’t deny that this phenomenon of sexual perversion exists but shall we deny these people from expression mediums?’

And Dilou responded: ‘Yes, freedom of expression has limits.

‘They live as citizens but they must respect the red lines set up by our religion, heritage and civilization.’

When asked if the magazine should be banned, the minister said: ‘I have no knowledge if this magazine have applied for a permit or not but I’m against it even though I’m a minister of human rights.’

They concluded laughing that sexual orientation is not a human right and ‘sexual perversion needs to be treated medically’.”

Read the full article at Pink News.

We have heard a great deal about the ‘limits of freedom of expression’ in the West since Islamist groups began their political agitation.  We have seen how the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation has been putting pressure on Western governments to adopt what amounts to a global blasphemy law.  We have seen Western politicians cave in to this pressure.  Many Western countries now seem to be on the verge of placing limits on freedom of expression to the extent that such freedom is likely to lose all meaning. What will happen to gay rights in the West if sharia compliance continues to be a guide to the formulation of legislation?

Following the election of the Islamist Ennahda Party in October 2011 the BBC website reported the following:

“Ennahda has sought to reassure secularists and investors, nervous about the prospect of Islamists holding power in one of the Arab world’s most liberal countries, by saying it would not ban alcohol, stop tourists wearing bikinis on the beaches or impose Islamic banking.”

How long will this position last, and to what extent is it temporary window dressing while the Ennahda party consolidates its power?  Islamic banking is an Islamist position that is even been encouraged in Western countries, so it is highly likely that it will eventually take root in countries like Tunisia.  The attitude towards homosexuality of the Minister with responsibility for human rights perhaps indicates that the mask is already slipping.

Watch out for more electoral success for Islamist parties across North Africa and for more sharia compliant legislation in the West.

As a follow up to our article on the rise of Islamism in Kyrgzstan, we now take a look at the issue of homophobia in Central Asia.  Our previous article looked at the Russia Today (RT) news report of the increasing influence of Islamism in Kyrgzstan.  Today we look at an article on the GroundReport website entitled Homophobia Endemic in Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan.

The article outlines the harrowing experiences of some homosexuals in those countries which indicate that homophobia is deeply ingrained in such societies.  It is unlikely that that an increase in the influence of Islamism in the region will lead to improvements in gay rights.  The article does acknowledge that there have been improvements since the fall of the Soviet Union:

“Since the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s, there have been some improvements to gay rights in both countries. Homosexuality, which could lead to several years in prison during the Soviet era, has been decriminalised.”

However, will this remain the case if Islamism consolidates its influence in this region?  Under Sharia law, homosexual acts are hudud crimes – crimes against God, and as such can be subject to extreme fixed punishments.  Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan both follow the Hanafi Madhhab (school of law) and the way Alisher was treated by his father, as described in the article, seems to be consistent with the Hanafi Madhhab.  The way that homosexuals are treated in the countries that are now sending missionaries into Central Asia means that the plight of homosexuals in the region may become more severe in the years ahead.

The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) is currently lobbying to restrict freedom of expression in the West, and Western Governments seem to be acquiescing with them.  Perhaps the OIC and Western governments should spend more time standing up for the rights of homosexuals in OIC countries than devising ways to restrict freedom across the world.  If the plan to create what amounts to an international blasphemy law is implemented then will the principles of sharia become more entrenched in the Western world?  Such a situation would be unlikely to help confront homophobia and improve human rights.  All people who value freedom need to oppose the spread of sharia compliant legislation both in the West and in the Islamic world.

More information on homosexuality and Islam can be found at ReligionFacts and at WikiIslam.

Russia Today (RT) has reported on how fundamentalist Islam is gaining a foothold in Kyrgyzstan. This could have implications for basic freedoms in the country and of the status of women in Kyrgyz society if the effects of Islamism elsewhere in the world are anything to go by. An article on the RT website refers to the issue as follows:

“Kyrgyz people converted to Islam in the 17th century but they were never over-zealous about their faith. Mixed with shamanism and nomadic customs, the Kyrgyz version of Islam has long been more of a moral code than a religious doctrine. It has helped shape a society where women are just as active and ambitious as men, and where religiosity went hand in hand with a good education. Now, though, that is starting to change.”

At present Kyrgyzstan seems to be one of the more moderate members of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). However, Ahmadiyya Muslims suffer official discrimination and there have been instances where converts from Islam to Christianity have been subjected to hostility. Nevertherless, it appears that persecution is much less severe than in some other members of the OIC, though that of course is no consolation to those who suffer persecution because of their religious beliefs. It would be interesting to see if the levels of persecution have increased since Islamic missionaries from the Middle East and elsewhere became active. Undoubtedly, as extreme forms of Islam rise in prominence this problem will undoubtedly get much worse. Saudi funding for mosques has, in many people’s eyes, led to increased radicalisation in the West – Kyrgyzstan will probably not be an exception to this apparent trend.

[The photograph at the top of this article is the Russian Orthodox Holy Trinity Cathedral in the Kyrgyz city of Karakol]

The American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD) and the American Islamic Leadership Coalition (AILC) have both come out in support of the anti-Jihad film The Third Jihad.  The press releases that relate to AIFD and AILC support for The Third Jihad film can be found HERE and HERE.  This follows calls for the resignation of New York Police Commissioner Ray Kelly.  There have been accusations that the film is ‘Islamophobic’ and that therefore, presumably, its use as a training film by the New York Police Department is example of Islamophobia.

However, at the beginning of The Third Jihad film it is made perfectly clear:

“This is not a film about Islam.  It is about the threat of radical Islam.  Only a small percentage of the world’s 1.3 billion Muslims are radical.”

This makes it very clear that the film is not about Islam but is about Islamism.  The film is even narrated by Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser who is himself a Muslim.  It seems that critics of the film are implying that Muslims who speak out against extremism are Islamophobes too.  Such suggestions are outrageous and show clearly how the term ‘Islamophobia’ is used as a political weapon.    If supporting the film is Islamophobic then perhaps it can be argued that those who oppose it are in effect supporters of Islamism and the Islamist narrative? Where are the members of the political, academic and media establishments when moderate Muslims speak out against extremism?

The objections to the film seem to be motivated by the same impulses as the objections that the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) has towards freedom of speech.  Accusations of Islamophobia are designed to shut down debate on issues of important public interest.  Many will undoubtedly see the complaints against The Third Jihad as religiously motivated bulling that give encouragement to reactionary Islamists who want to crush dissent from liberal Muslims and other supporters of Enlightenment values.

Our political, academic, and media elites have spoken a great deal about moderate Muslims, but have done very little to support these courageous people who are willing to openly stand up to the extremists.  Western governments and the chattering classes seem more willing to lend their support to Islamists and Islamism than to the growing liberal reform movement.  Why is the American Government not backing up groups like the American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD), and the American Islamic Leadership Coalition (AILC)?

Other articles about the recent criticism of The Third Jihad film can be found HERE and HERE – they are well worth reading.

The International Civil Liberties Alliance would like to take this opportunity to endorse an important rally that is to take place on 11 February 2012 at 2pm at the Old Palace Yard which is opposite the House of Lords.

One Law for All is an organisation that has supported The Arbitration and Mediation Services (Equality) Bill sponsored by Baroness Caroline Cox Bill and should be commended for this and be worthy of the gratitude of all people who value the most basic, though most vulnerable, of our traditional freedoms.

We have seen the acquiescence of the political class to endorse the Islamist interpretation of Islam and to undermine the liberal movement and its courageous advocates within Islam.  It is vital that liberal Islamic reformers are supported by our Government and by the general public.  Supporting sharia finance is to support Islamist interpretations because even Al Azar University, according to Patrick Sookhdeo’s book – Understanding Shari’a Finance: The Muslim Challenge to Western Economics, suggests that sharia finance is unnecessary and that pious Muslims who endorse it are effectively been led astray.  In the United States a group called American Islamic Forum for Democracy are showing the way for other liberal Islamic reformers.  This group should be emulated across the world.

Instead of endorsing Islamist interpretations of Islam, the Government should be standing full square behind those courageous individuals who are willing to stand up to the extremists.  The utterances of the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the former Lord Chief Justice Lord Phillips, did such a disservice to moderate Muslims in Britain who were standing up to the extremists.  These pillars of the Establishment should be ashamed of the damage that they have done to Moderate Islam in Britain.

Furthermore, the elite of the European Union who have agreed to host the next meeting of the ‘Istanbul Process’ or as it is more commonly known – the ‘Campaign Against Free Expression’ are effectively acquiescing with the expansion of sharia principles in the United Kingdom.  The Organisation of Islamic Co-operation which is responsible for United Nations Resolution 16/18 has serious persecution issues to address in its own member states before it lectures the world.

It is vitally important that all those who share One Law for All’s objectives and values participate in this significant demonstration in the cause of freedom.  Freedom of expression will be lost if people do not take the opportunity to stand up for it.

The International Civil Liberties Alliance believes that the approach that One Law for All is taking with regard to this is issue is commendable and worthy of support and encouragement.