The Silent Submission: Sacrificing Free Expression on the ‘Altar’ of a Protected Ideology

How international blocs and ideological frameworks are undermining human rights

Nov 23, 2024

I think the world at large is all too familiar with scenes of collective outrage whenever there is some perceived slight against Islam. This could be any action (real, perceived or invented [1]) as mocking or criticizing Islam, Mohammed, or damaging a Koran. It’s important to note that punishment is meted out even when it is the perpetrator’s own property that is damaged and no one is physically assaulted.

Koran 33:57 "Indeed, those who abuse Allah and His Messenger – Allah has cursed them in this world and the Hereafter and prepared for them a humiliating punishment."
Mocking or criticizing Mohammed is considered abuse and done by a Muslim may be considered ‘kufr’, disbelief.

There are two incidents this week that highlight the difference between Islam and other belief systems.

one way sign posted in front of delapidated building. Sepia tone. — Photo: Gratisograpy

In Russia, majority Christian, where the Russian Orthodox Church is ‘legally recognised for its "special role" in the country's "history and the formation and development of its spirituality and culture’ [2], a young man burned his own Koran in Volgograd. At the demand of Chechnya residents – over 800 km distant and majority Muslim – his case was transferred to Grozny where he was sentenced to 3.5 yrs in jail. The ‘Chechen leader published a video in which his son was shown beating and kicking the defendant while he was in prison awaiting trial.’ [3]

Koran 5:33 "Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified..."
Ibn Kathir, Tafsir on 5:33 (8^th Century commentary)
Ibn Kathir explains in his tafsir of Koran 5:33 that ‘waging war against Allah and His Messenger,’ means to ‘oppose or contradict’ - punishable by death or severe punishment ‘and it includes disbelief.’

In Islamic-majority countries, blasphemy laws often carry severe penalties, including imprisonment, mob violence, or even a death sentence [4]. And while there are numerous cases of both Muslims and non-Muslims being punished for blasphemy against Islam or desecration of their own Koran, documented instances of individuals facing legal repercussions for desecrating their own Bible or blaspheming against Christian, Jewish or other deities are virtually nonexistent – although there may be repercussions against those who venerate them [5]. Sharia does not enforce punitive measures for actions like desecrating one's own Bible or blaspheming against non-Islamic deities.

Conversely, in most non-Islamic countries, there is no parallel legal or social enforcement when individuals from any background insult or desecrate Christian or Jewish texts, figures, or symbols—especially when it involves their own property. The response typically remains one of social disapproval rather than legal sanction.

The second incident involves the ‘Black Madonna’ in Switzerland. In front of a Christian congregation, an Afghan asylum seeker ripped the clothes off a statue of Mary, then took her scepter for himself and placed her crown on his head. The response from the church is to call this a ‘regrettable incident’ and that they are ‘are grateful that nothing more happened and, above all, that no one was hurt’ [6]. The priority being the welfare of actual human beings. And even though this was their own precious property, not his, there are no calls for violence against the young man, quite the contrary, there are concerns for his mental health.

This disparity highlights a distinct asymmetry: the strict enforcement of blasphemy laws and severe punishment for actions deemed offensive to Islam, including those involving personal property, contrasts markedly with the lack of reciprocity in cases involving other belief systems. Limits on free speech—especially when they shield certain ideologies from critique—undermine the very principles that ensure a free and open society.

This imbalance reveals the fundamentally "one-way street" nature of protections afforded to Islam versus other belief systems – for example a month to promote awareness of ‘Islamophobia’ at the behest of the ‘Organization of Islamic Cooperation’ in non-Islamic countries even though Muslim women have much more to fear in Islamic states where sharia i.e. permissibility of child marriage or beating one’s wife, is enforced.

Contributing to the delusion of moral equivalency the U.S. 2023 Reports on International Religious Freedom by Country begins with Appendix A – The Universal Declaration of Human Rights preamble [7];

“Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in cooperation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,

Now, therefore, The General Assembly, proclaims this Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction”

There is no mention anywhere of a critical fact: the largest voting bloc at the U.N. is the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). The OIC did not adopt the UDHR in 1948 but instead developed its own 'Cairo Declaration of Human Rights,' which follows sharia and is therefore entirely incompatible with the traditional concept of ‘universal’ human rights [8]. Sharia does not permit freedom of religion or equality before the law, but it does permit slavery. Is it any wonder, with significant omissions such as this shaping perceptions, that there is an appalling lack of public awareness about what sharia actually entails?

Unfortunately, rather than upholding their own principles on freedom of expression and equal treatment, many non-Islamic countries are increasingly incorporating laws that mirror aspects of Sharia in deference to Islam. This is happening despite the clear absence of mob violence or comparable threats from those of other faiths over criticism or desecration of their religious symbols. This unequal enforcement creates a one-way street that benefits only Islam.

The pressing question is: why are non-Islamic countries acquiescing to such demands? Would it not be wiser to resist the adoption of Sharia-like laws, support non-Islamic values at every level and ensure that we do not mirror the very system we seek to avoid?