PRESS RELEASE - For Immediate Release
Palais des Nations, Geneva, 23 August 2005

In the latest step in a long-running campaign at the UN Human Rights Commission in Geneva by three NGOs: the International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU), the Association for World Education (AWE) and the Association of World Citizens (AWC), the IHEU today condemned as "gratuitously insulting" an oral statement made by Pakistani's Ambassador to the UN on behalf of the Organisation of Islamic States (OIC), and issued a detailed rebuttal.

IHEU, AWE and AWC have campaigned for the Commission on Human Rights to "unequivocally condemn any call to kill, to terrorise, or to use violence in the name of God or religion." But in an unprecedented ad hominem attack on our spokesman on 26 July, three members of the Sub-Commission attempted to censor his oral joint statement to the Sub-Commission. Following this incident, a formal letter of complaint was delivered on 2 August to the chairman of the Sub-Commission, who circulated it to all 26 members. But in an 8 August oral statement Pakistan's ambassador, speaking on behalf of the OIC, stated that "some NGO representatives are packaging their crass propaganda as scholarly research in their bid to spread hatred against Muslims".

Commenting on the OIC statement, Roy Brown, president of IHEU said:
"This gratuitous insult has no basis in fact. Instead of providing leadership to the Islamic world on this important issue, the OIC has again chosen to demonise the messenger. This is part of a continuing campaign of misrepresentation by the OIC against NGOs and their representatives at the Commission and Sub-Commission. The OIC statement hides behind accusations of 'Islamophobia' in order to block any discussion of those extremist clerics who call to kill in the name of Islam."

We are deeply concerned at the failure of the OIC and the Islamic States even to recognise that those who call for these terror attacks are Muslim clerics. It creates an obstacle to discussion of this important issue, and will make any solution to the problem of terrorism harder to achieve.

A detailed rebuttal of the OIC statement is given below.

We note that on 11 August the Sub-Commission adopted resolution 2005/10: "Attacks of persons entitled to protection as civilians", which again fails either to condemn calls to kill in the name of religion or to recommend to the Commission that it does so. It merely confirms that anyone who participates in an intentional attack, who intentionally attempts to attack, or who knowingly finances an attack on persons entitled to protection as civilians, which is prohibited by customary international law, is guilty of an international crime. In short, it simply confirms that those who break the law are guilty of a crime.

--ENDS--

See Background below for more details.

IHEU is an NGO with Special Consultative Status with the UN (New York, Geneva, Vienna), General Consultative Status at UNICEF (New York) and the Council of Europe (Strasbourg). IHEU maintains Operational Relations with UNESCO (Paris)

Background

1. In a major campaign against violence in the name of religion, IHEU, AWE and AWC jointly submitted 12 written statements to the Sub-Commission on the Protection and Promotion of Human Rights, posted on the OHCHR website. The references are: E/CN.4/Sub.2/2005/NGO/2 (and NGO/3, /4, /5, /6, /8, /15, /16, /27, /28, /29, /31).

2. The main purpose of these statements was to highlight killing, violence against women and human rights abuse being carried out worldwide in the name of Islam, and to support our joint call to the Human Rights Commission to "unequivocally condemn any call to kill, to terrorise, or to use violence in the name of God or religion" - and to include such a condemnation in the Commission's resolution against defamation of religions.

3. These written statements were described in a joint oral statement delivered to the Sub-Commission on 26 July by AWE representative David G. Littman. See the OHCHR website, or this page.This presentation was interrupted by three members of the Sub-Commission on four separate occasions ("points of order") that included ad hominem attacks on the speaker and an attempt at censorship on the grounds of "Islamophobia". A full verbatim transcript can be found here.

4. IHEU immediately issued a press release.

5. A joint formal letter of complaint to the chairman of the Sub-Commission by René Wadlow, main representative of both AWE and AWC, and Roy Brown, president of IHEU, was handed to the chairman of the Sub-Commission on 2 August with copies for the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the chairman of the Commission. The letter was circulated by the chairman to all 26 members of the Sub-Commission.

6. On 8 August, Ambassador Masood Khan of Pakistan - speaking on behalf of the 56 states of Organisation of the Islamic Conference - made an oral statement to the Sub-Commission, prompted by our statements, in which he attacked the integrity of our appeal, linking our concerns expressed at the Sub-Commission about terrorism to "Islamophobia" and to violence against Muslims. It fails completely to address the issue of violence in the name of religion. A detailed rebuttal on behalf of the three NGOs is included below.

7. An oral statement, prepared by Roy Brown, was presented to the Sub-Commission on 10 August. It condemned all ad hominem attacks on NGOs and others, and urged the members of the Sub-Commission to recognise their responsibilities - which are not to their respective governments or religions - but to all of humanity.

For further information please contact:

Roy Brown, President, IHEU on +41 79 212 5603, or
Babu Gogineni, Executive Director IHEU on +44 207 631 3170 or +44 7801 570 150

IHEU's Response to Statement of the Organization of the Islamic Conference

This is a rejoinder by IHEU to the statement made at the UN Sub-Commission on Human Rights (8 August) by Pakistan Ambassador Masood Khan - speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference. In that speech he made a veiled but scathing attack on the three NGOs who had presented joint statements at the Sub-Commission on the issue of jihad and terror: the Association for World Education (AWE), the International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU), and the Association of World Citizens (AWC).

Extracts from this (OIC) statement are shown in italic; the IHEU response is in normal type. The paragraph numbering is our own.

1. Muslim countries are seriously concerned over the rise in Islamophobia in recent months. In April this year, the Commission on Human Rights in a resolution called for collective efforts to curb Islamophobia. Ironically, the tide of defamation of Islam has become even stronger since then.

'Islamophobia' is being increasingly used as a blanket term to cover both criticism of Islam and hatred of Muslims. It is used by Muslim leaders to demonise even those who express legitimate concerns about any aspect of Islamic practise, such as the stoning of women for adultery, by equating such criticism with hatred of Muslims.

2. OIC countries have strongly condemned terrorist attacks in London and Sharm Al Sheikh as despicable criminal acts. What is more, these attacks are repugnant to the tenets of Islam, a faith of peace, harmony and tolerance, Muslims abhor terrorism. Extremism is alien to the teachings and practices of Islam that emphasises moderation.

Unfortunately there are many imams, mullahs and ayatollahs who do not share this view. Surely the OIC is aware that imams have been quoting the more violent passages from the Koran in support of their extremist teaching of Islam.

3. Yet the terrorist attacks have been used by vested interests to demonize Islam and Muslims.

We agree that Muslims - generally and individually - must not be demonised because of the actions of extremists. However, it has been argued that to blame Islam for terrorism is as wrong-headed as it would have been to blame the Catholic Church for the violence of the IRA. But there was no support for terrorism from any Catholic pulpit. To pretend that the current wave of terrorism does not have an Islamic dimension is to hide from the facts. This is not to say, as the OIC statement seems to be suggesting, that we claim that all Muslims are terrorists. We do not.

4. We would like to share some disturbing trendlines with the Sub-Commission members:

• Tens of thousands of Muslim men, women and children have been subjected to verbal abuse, slurs, and hostility. In one European country alone, 1,200 suspected Islamophobic incidents have been recorded, out of which 269 fall into the category of "religious hate crimes".
• One Muslim was murdered allegedly on grounds of Islamophobia.
• Mosques have been attacked, vandalized and burnt.
• Racial profiling is increasing.
• Discrimination is spreading in work places, where in many instances Muslims are being called "terrorists". Businesses owned or run by Muslims are being targeted.

We share the disquiet of the entire Muslim world at the increasing attacks on Muslims, and have condemned them ourselves. Such attacks serve only to inflame a delicate situation even further, which is precisely the result the terrorists were hoping to achieve. But the Muslim community must understand that the police need to find the terrorists.

As British Muslim journalist Yasmin Alibhai-Brown wrote (Time magazine, 15 August):

"The police do have to stop and search our men and boys. It's deeply upsetting, but this is the fate forced on us by the fanatics. To be honest, I too am nervous on public transport around males who look like members of my family or my close Asian or Arab friends."

5. ASEAN Foreign Ministers in their recent meeting in Vientiane, Laos, have criticised stereotyping of Muslims as possible terrorists and complained that Muslims are being singled out in investigations into the attacks and also at the immigration checkpoints.

We have heard some complaints that Muslims and mosques are being targeted by the police in their search for terrorist suspects, but there is also widespread understanding that such searches are unfortunate but necessary in the present circumstances.

6. A statement issued by the ASEAN Regional Forum said that terrorism constitutes a threat for all, irrespective of its origin, motivation or objectives. Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer has rightly said that wrath should be directed against "criminals and terrorists" not "Muslims".

We agree entirely with this sentiment.

7. Regrettably, this Sub-Commission has been subjected to abuse too. While states show restraint, some NGO representatives are packaging their crass propaganda as scholarly research in their bid to spread hatred against Muslims.

Since our three NGOs were the only ones to address the issue of violence in the name of God or religion at the 57th session of the Sub-Commission, we can only presume that this statement is intended to apply to us. If so, it is completely false. Abuse of the messenger is unhelpful and should not be used as a substitute for addressing the important issues we have raised.

In fact:

• IHEU has been in the forefront of promoting freedom of religion and belief. We have long argued against discrimination against anyone on the basis of their religion. Indeed, following the London bombings we issued a statement in which we condemned attacks on Muslims.
• Many of the 12 joint written statements submitted to the Sub-Commission by AWE, IHEU and AWC were prepared by recognised scholars, historians or writers.
• All of the facts cited in our statements were given with their references, which can be checked. This is in marked contrast to the OIC statement which contains unsupported and unfounded allegations.
• It is regrettable that the OIC statement confuses concern expressed by NGOs about human rights abuse carried out in the name of religion, with hatred of Muslims - and casts unfounded aspersions on those who speak out.
• In many cases, the victims of the abuse, as well as those contributing to our statements have themselves been Muslims.

8. Jihad is being projected as a synonym for terrorism and extremism. The prefix of "Islamic" before terrorism is a sacrilege. Terrorist acts, says Abdul Cadar Asmal, "are antithetical to the fundamental principles of Islam and represent a heretical deviation of the religion". It has been suggested that the noble concept of Jihad for personal inner struggle and collective development of the society has, in fact, an inherent military correlate. This is distortion. The greatest Jihad is struggle with one's self, and an attempt to create a better, harmonious society. The lesser Jihad is military warfare when it is pursued in self-defence.

The sacrilege is not ours but of the terrorists who claim to be acting in the name of Islam. Sadly, the question of whether terrorism is justifiable is still a matter of furious debate within the Islamic world. While we all share the wish of the OIC that it were so, Islam is not universally presented by Muslims as a religion of peace, nor is terrorism always presented in mosques, in schoolbooks, or on Islamic TV, as "a deviation".

On this specific point, three "independent" members of the Sub-Commission (from Pakistan, Morocco, and Cuba) attempted to silence historian David G. Littman, spokesman for our three NGOs on "points of order" when he addressed this very topic, quoting from the Hamas Charter and the slogan of the Muslim Brotherhood: "Allah is its target, the Prophet is its model, the Koran its Constitution; Jihad is its path, and death for the sake of Allah is the loftiest of its wishes." (see UN verbatim tape transcript).

Yet only four days earlier, on 22 July, Al-Arabiya TV broadcast a program on the culture of jihad and martyrdom in which these same words were repeated, as a lesson, ending with the questions:
"What is your path?" - Crowd: "Jihad."
"What is your greatest desire?"- Crowd: "Death for the sake of Allah."

[Clip and English translation: MEMRI, Special Dispatch Series - N° 961, August 19, 2005]

We reserve the right to criticize such ideas (which are regularly presented on Arabic TV), and would only wish that the OIC would take a clear lead in condemning such sentiments on behalf of the 56 States and the Palestinian Authority which it represents.

9. Text books in Muslim countries are being scrutinized minutely. This exercise is meant to banish germs of hatred. This ought to be done by the Muslim countries and they are doing so voluntarily and earnestly.

This would be good news if it were true of all countries, but we have evidence that, at least until very recently, this was not in fact the case. Our joint written statements: E/CN.4/Sub.2/2005/NGO/2 and E/CN.4/Sub.2/2005/NGO/3 give two examples.

10. Critical scrutiny of Western text books is being blocked by forces that want to drive a wedge between Islam and Christianity and between Islam and other religions.

We would be interested to receive evidence of this. As an international NGO with no religious bias, we have long campaigned for the elimination of bias and errors of fact from school books, as have AWE and AWC.

11. The tendency to project Muslims as a monolithic extremist bloc, bent upon bringing the whole world under Islamic law, is both misleading and sinister. Paranoia is being spread that Muslims will strike roots in Europe, proselytise the whole continent to Islam and turn Europe into "Eurabia".

It is equally unhelpful to deny that there does exist within Islam (and has done for over 50 years since the writing of leading Islamic theologians, such as Maulana Maududi, the founder of Jamaat-e-Islami in Pakistan, and Sayed Qutb in Egypt) a strong cult of political Islam aimed at the conversion of the entire world to Islam - by force if necessary.

(Eurabia, the recent book by historian Bat Ye'or has been praised by two highly respected British historians, Sir Martin Gilbert and Niall Ferguson).

12. The contributions of the majority of the Muslims in the United States and Europe are suppressed deliberately. As we know, millions of law abiding citizens are serving their communities as doctors, engineers, scientists, IT specialists, businessmen and academics. Some of them are now elected lawmakers and administrators.

The contribution of Muslims to Western society cannot be doubted. It is vitally important therefore that the Muslim communities face up to the fact of the cancer in their midst, for unless this is eliminated no progress will be possible.

13. Undeterred, we should:

(a) Combat defamation of all religions, especially Islam, through promotion of education, awareness raising, and promulgation of laws prohibiting Islamophobia.

We disagree. "Islamophobia", like "defamation of religion", is being used as a catch-all to silence valid criticism of human rights abuse carried out in the name of Islam.

(b) Prohibit dissemination of xenophobic and Islamophobic ideas and materials.

But first "Islamophobic" must be clearly defined, and accusations of Islamophobia must not be permitted to silence criticism of human rights abuse. In a statement to the 60th Session of the Commission last year, and which we repeated this year, we urged the Commission "to recognize the distinction between defamation of a religion and criticism of its doctrine and practices, and the publication of academic research into its origins and history. Concerns about defamation must not be permitted to stifle honest inquiry and freedom of expression".

(c) Prohibit discrimination on the basis of religion in work places and educational institutions.

Agreed - and this must include Islamic schools.

(d) Promote tolerance and respect for all religions and their value systems

No. Humanists differ from Muslims on many moral issues. We do not respect, for example, the unequal treatment of women and non-Muslims before the law, the stoning of women for adultery, capital punishment for blasphemy, or denying children the right to education free from religious indoctrination. Nor do IHEU, AWE and AWC accept the integration of religion and state, as seen in many Islamic countries - and the primary objective of political Islam.

(e) Initiate and sustain a dialogue of civilizations to promote a culture of tolerance and peace.

We agree. But dialogue is a two-way process. It requires an honest recognition of reality on both sides for progress to be possible. Ad hominem attacks on those who do not share your views can form no part of any useful dialogue.

Final Comment

The veiled attack on AWE, IHEU and AWC by Pakistan's ambassador - speaking on behalf of all the OIC states - was completely unjustified. IHEU has for many years been in the forefront of the world-wide struggle for freedom of religion or belief, and AWE and AWC have made their positions clear on this issue. All three NGOs have never and would never encourage hatred of Muslims, and to accuse us or our spokesman of "a bid to spread hatred of Muslims" is a travesty.

We were disappointed - but not surprised - that the OIC statement by the ambassador made no mention of those who defame Islam by carrying out terror attacks in its name. It is significant that this necessary condemnation is also absent from the resolution "Combating Defamation of Religions," again sponsored by the OIC at this year's session of the Commission, while at the same time condemning those who "defame Islam" by merely speaking of such attacks.

The Muslim world, just as much as the West, is still waiting for a clear lead from the OIC in condemning terror attacks carried out in the name of any religion.