Indonesia: Blasphemy Law Abuse

From time to time, documents from IHEU, Freedom House, and similar non-governmental organizations will make reference to the abuse of blasphemy laws to deny the human rights of religious minorities. An editorial in the Jakarta Globe, from December 30, is a case in point.

The article calls for the government and religious leaders to take "concrete and substantial steps" to stop the abuse of "religious freedom in Indonesia". The editorial calls for amendments to the laws and reform in their enforcement. The specific reference is to " article 156a of the Criminal Code.

Jakarta Globe 12/30/09
Abuse of Religious Freedom Hurts Indonesia And Renders God Defenseless

Interestingly, the government often has turned a blind eye when radical Islamic groups violate this very article. Most of the “deviant” sects and individuals charged under this law practiced their beliefs peacefully, yet it has been conservative groups like the Islamic Defenders Front (FPI) and the Indonesian Mujahideen Council (MMI) that have incited hostilities against these very groups. If the government was to enforce this law strictly and without bias, those conservatives and radicals proven guilty of spreading hatred against humanity through demonstrations, raids, religious gatherings or jihadi Web sites would have been put behind bars long ago.

Such a change would require revision of the 2006 civil registration bill that requires Indonesian citizens to identify their religion on their national identity cards (KTP). The category for religion could either be removed entirely, or people from minority groups could finally be allowed to acknowledge their real beliefs. This would decrease religious discrimination against those whose beliefs lay outside of the country’s six recognized religions. On this note, the government could further promote religious freedom by no longer officially acknowledging only six religions, but by embracing the multitude of religions and beliefs practiced in Indonesia.

The government also must address the violation of religious freedom and human rights made possible by the existence of religious institutions such as the Coordinating Board for Monitoring Mystical Beliefs in Society (Bakor Pakem) and the Indonesian Council of Ulema (MUI). Tasked with monitoring and resolving instances of deviant interpretation of religious doctrine, Bakor Pakem’s authority has increased state intervention in religious issues in a way that clearly violates the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom.

Those excerpts from the editorial are sufficient to clarify the issue of undesired side effects of "defamation of religion" resolutions and the proposed protocol to ICERD. The UNHRC is scheduled to take up these Issues March 23. Now is the time for us to make our objections known.

Sphere: Related Content

Combating Defamation of Religions: Vote Trend

The optimists will say that the General Assembly vote trend on Defamation of Religions resolutions favors freedom. I am not so optimistic. Only eight votes swung in our favor between '08 & '09 and the abstention trend was flat. The slope of the yes vote line seems flatter this year compared to the previous decline. The quantitative growth has been in abstentions, not negations. Abstentions have no effect on the outcome. Unfortunately, a plurality still supports the resolutions, voting against freedom of religion and expression.

2005 101 53 20
2006 111 54 18 Wikipedia
2007 108 51 25
2008 86 53 42
2009 80 61 42* ACLJ * ACLJ shows 42 abstentions, the UN tally shows 43.

Yes votes

No votes

Abstentions

If the current trend holds, the resolution could be defeated in '11. but I do not expect that to happen. I expect that, if the vote grows closer. many member states will jump from abstention to the yes column. If they wanted the resolution to fail, they would vote no instead of abstaining.

Sphere: Related Content

Defamation of Religions: Preliminary Vote

WND reports that the Third Committee held a preliminary vote Nov. 12 on the Defamation of Religions resolution: 81:55:43. Support declined by 5 votes, opposition increased by 2 and abstentions increased by 1. The present level of support indicates that the General Assembly will pass the resolution.

The good news is that, while the resolution will pass, it will not become enforcible law. The bad news is that it will give the UN stamp of approval to blasphemy laws used by Pakistan and other nations to suppress and persecute Christians and other minorities. The resolution calls on member states to enact and enforce legislation to criminalize criticism of Islam.

The Department of State expresses opposition to inclusion of references to defamation of religions, but it supports inclusion of negative stereotypes, as included in the recent Freedom of Belief and Expression resolution. Examine the relevant text from that document. [Emphasis added.]

Also expresses its concern that incidents of racial and religious intolerance, discrimination and related violence, as well as of negative racial and religious stereotyping continue to rise around the world, and condemns, in this context, any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, and urges States to take effective measures, consistent with their obligations under international human rights law, to address and combat such incidents;

This sample is from last year's draft resolution.

Expresses deep concern at the negative stereotyping of religions and manifestations of intolerance and discrimination in matters of religion or belief still evident in the world;

The following sample is from Pakistan's submission to the Ad Hoc Committee for Elaboration of Complementary Standards.

legal prohibition of publication of material that negatively stereotypes, insults, or uses offensive language in matters regarded by followers of any religion or belief as sacred or inherent to their dignity as human beings, with the aim or protecting their fundamental human rights,

What are they really complaining about? We can get a hint from their latest Islamophobia report, which contains a list of "Islamophobic incidents".

Political and Social Campaigns against Islam and Muslims

Campaign Warns Americans about Looming Shariah Code – Detroit billboard said religious law imposed by Islam threatened rights. Members of the United American Committee (UAC) stated that Shariah might be spreading around the world, but it was not going to be established in the United States without opposition. Officials had reportedly erected a 48-foot-long billboard just outside of Detroit, home to one of the largest groups of Muslims in the U.S.


Danish Muhammad Cartoonist Returns with New Work – Kurt Westergaard, the Danish caricaturist forced into hiding after the publication of his depiction of the Prophet Muhammad in the newspaper Jyllands-Posten in 2005, was set to return with a new set of potentially controversial drawings. According to a Report in the Copenhagen Post, Westergaard was expected to have 26 illustrations in a new book that compiled the
sardonic columns by Danish writer Lars Hedegaard for the Berlingske Tidende newspaper.

Wilders plans second anti-Islam film – Rightwing MP Geert Wilders has told De Telegraaf newspaper that he was planning to make a follow-up to his controversial anti-Islam film, Fitna. The new piece, expected to be released in 2010, will deal with the negative effects of what Wilders called the advance of Islam in Western countries.

If those examples do not make it clear to you, examine this quote from a letter sent by the OIC to the Chairman of the Ad Hoc Cmte. in October.

For instance, the British National Putty leader Nick Grffin has referred to Islam as a "a vicious and wicked religion"; some in Switzerland are strongly opposed to the construction of minarets on mosques as symbols of Islam; while in Denmark and the Netherlands the personality of Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) has been deliberately ridiculed with the intention to violate the sentiments of Muslims. These are only some of the clear examples not just of discrimination against Muslims as individuals but of Islam as a religion as well as well as its revered personalities and sacred symbols. Accordingly, the contention that human rights standards should apply only to individuals is not credible. Therefore, the OIC ls advocating the need to address these concepts in a holistic and legal manner: to avoid their negative impact on the fundamental rights and freedoms to be enjoyed by the individuals, groups of individuals and communities. [Emphasis added. ]

It becomes clear that Islam will not tolerate any criticism whatsoever. Islam seeks to criminalize all criticism, regardless of the truth thereof. The obvious references to Fitna and the Danish cartoons leave no doubt. Fitna displayed the hate speech & violence which fill the Qur'an along with their effects in the Arab street. The Cartoons depict Moe as a terrorist, which he was even though he never possessed a bomb. He said that he was "made victorious with terror."

What can we do about this situation? Nothing directly, but we can sign and promote two on line petitions opposing the resolution and one that counter attacks.

• Open Doors has a Free To Believe campaign.
• ACLJ has a petition campaign of their own and is lobbying the European delegations.
• The International Qur'an Petition is a good counter attack. Sign it send it to everyone you can influence. Exhort the recipients to sign and forward the petition.
• A sense of the House resolution opposing the OIC censorship campaign languishes in the Foreign Affairs Cmte. It has gained two more co-sponsors, but it needs to be voted on before the final vote in the General Assembly.
• H.Res. 763: Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the United Nations resolutions on the "defamation of religions" are incompatible with the fundamental freedoms of individuals to freely exercise and peacefully express their religious beliefs.

Sign those petitions and solicit the support of everyone you can hope to influence. Urge your Congressman to sign onto H. Res. 763 as a co-sponsor and work to get it to the floor for a vote. If you know your Zip Code, you can use the email form at http://www.congress.org/ .

Sphere: Related Content

Letter from OIC to Ad Hoc Committee.

Religion Clause, the blog of Professor Howard M. Friedman, published an article revealing the existence of a letter from the OIC to the Chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee for the Elaboration of Complementary Standards. The letter was issued coincident with the introduction of the current draft of the Defamation of Religions resolution in the Third Committee. It is an attempt to reinforce the supposed necessity of protecting Islam from criticism.

The blog post also reported the existence of a U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom publication: The Dangerous Idea of Protecting Religions from "Defamation": A Threat to Universal Human Rights Standards.


There is a clear contrast between the OIC's letter and the USCIRF's report. Reading both of them will help you to understand the necessity of defeating the Defamation resolution in the General Assembly.

Sphere: Related Content

UN Renews Censorship Demand

I am informed by a press release from UN Watch that a UN Committee adopted the Defamation of Religions Resolution by a vote of 85:50 with 42 abstentions. A plenary vote is expected later this month. At the time of this writing, the link to the resolution does not work. The link provided in my previous post on this subject also fails.

UN Watch counts as a gain the shift of 23 votes from support to abstention compared to last year’s vote. Big deal. I would consider it a gain if they had voted against the resolution. Abstention displays a lack of conviction and courage, two characteristics vital to the survival of western civilization. Without courage and conviction, our cause is lost and the lamp of liberty will be extinguished.

My most recent post on this subject, Stop Sharia!!!, includes links to previous posts related to this subject and extensive quotes from relevant Islamic law.

The following statement from the resolution was pointed out in the UN Watch press release:

Also expresses its deep concern that Islam is frequently and wrongly
associated with human rights violations and terrorism;

To which feces I respond:

• Is there any deception more egregious than this? No intelligent & sane person who has read the Qur’an & hadith can be fooled by such lies. Terrorism is sanctified by 3:151, mandated by 8:12 and exemplified by 33:26. Muhammad bragged about being made victorious with terror.
• How in Hell can anyone read the Qur’an’s imperatives to genocidal conquest and claim that Islam is not associated with rights violations?
• How in Hell can anyone read the Qur’an’s imperative to cast terror and claim that Islam is not associated with terrorism?
• How in Hell can anyone read Moe’s bragging about being made victorious with terror and claim that Islam is not associated with terrorism?
• How in Hell can anyone have knowledge of Reliance of the Traveller Book O, Chapter 11, Paragraph 5 and claim that Islam does not violate human rights?

Ignore the flowery rhetoric and examine exactly what Islam seeks to impose upon us through national & international law as revealed by Reliance of the Traveller.

O8.7: Acts that Entail Leaving Islam

(O: Among the things that entail apostasy from Islam (may Allah protect us from them) are:

-1- to prostrate to an idol, whether sarcastically, out of mere contrariness, or in actual conviction, like that of someone who believes the Creator to be something that has originated in time. Like idols in this respect are the sun or moon, and like prostration is bowing to other than Allah, if one intends reverence towards it like the reverence due to Allah;

-2- to intend to commit unbelief, even if in the future. And like this intention is hesitating whether to do so or not: one thereby immediately commits unbelief;

-3- to speak words that imply unbelief such as “Allah is the third of three,” or “I am Allah”-unless one’s tongue has run away with one, or one is quoting another, or is one of the friends of Allah Most High (wali, def: w33) in a spiritually intoxicated state of total oblivion (A: friend of Allah or not, someone totally oblivious is as if insane, and is not held legally responsible (dis: k13.1(O:) ) ), for these latter do not entail unbelief;

-4- to revile Allah or His messenger (Allah bless him and give him peace);

-5- to deny the existence of Allah, His beginingless eternality, His endless eternality, or to deny any of His attributes which the consensus of Muslims ascribes to Him (dis: v1);

-6- to be sarcastic about Allah’s name, His command, His interdiction, His promise, or His threat;

-7- to deny any verse of the Koran or anything which by scholarly consensus (def: b7) belongs to it, or to add a verse that does belong to it;

-8- to mockingly say, “I don’t know what faith is”;

-9- to reply to someone who says, “There is no power or strength save through Allah”; “Your saying `There’s no power or strength, etc,’ won’t save you from hunger”;

-10- for a tyrant, after an oppressed person says, “This is through the decree of Allah,” to reply, “I act without the decree of Allah”;

-11- to say that a Muslim is an unbeliever (kafir) (dis: w47) in words that are uninterpretable as merely meaning he is an ingrate towards Allah for divinely given blessings (n: in Arabic, also “kafir”);

-12- when someone asks to be taught the Testification of Faith (Ar. Shahada, the words, “La ilaha ill Allahu Muhammadun rasulu Llah” (There is no god but Allah, Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah) ), and a Muslim refuses to teach him it;

-13- to describe a Muslim or someone who wants to become a Muslim in terms of unbelief (kufr);

-14- to deny the obligatory character of something which by the consensus of Muslims (ijma`, def: B7) is part of Islam, when it is well known as such, like the prayer (salat) or even one rak’a from one of the five obligatory prayers, if there is no excuse (def: u2.4);

-15- to hold that any of Allah’s messengers or prophets are liars, or to deny their being sent;

(n: `Ala’ al-din’ Abidin adds the following:

-16- to revile the religion of Islam;

-17- to believe that things in themselves or by their own nature have any causal influence independent of the will of Allah;

-18- to deny the existence of angels or jinn (def: w22), or the heavens;

-19- to be sarcastic about any ruling of the Sacred Law;

-20- or to deny that Allah intended the Prophet’s message (Allah bless him and give him peace) to be the religion followed by the entire world (dis: w4.3-4) (al-Hadiyya al-`Ala’iyya (y4), 423-24). )

There are others, for the subject is nearly limitless. May Allah Most High save us and all Muslims from it.)

Examine the Islamic law as it applies to Dhimmis (that’s us after we are conquered by Muslims). Pay close attention to the clauses I have emphasized.

Chapter O11.0: Non-Muslim Subjects of the Islamic State (Ahl Al-Dhimma)

O11.1

A formal agreement of protection is made with citizens who are:

-1- Jews;

-2- Christians;

-3- Zoroastrians;

-4- Samarians and Sabians, if their religions do not respectively contradict the fundamental bases of Judaism and Christianity;

-5- and those who adhere to the religion of Abraham or one of the other prophets (upon whom be blessings and peace).

O11.2

Such an agreement may not be effected with those who are idol worshippers (dis: o9.9 (n:) ), or those who do not have a Sacred Book or something that could have been a Book.

(A: Something that could have been a Book refers to those like the Zoroastrians, who have remnants resembling an ancient Book. As for the psuedoscriptures of cults that have appeared since Islam (n: such as the Sikhs, Baha’ is, Mormons, Qadianis, etc.), they neither are nor could be a Book, since the Koran is the final revelation (dis: w4). )

O11.3

Such an agreement is only valid when the subject peoples:

(a) follow the rules of Islam (A: those mentioned below (o11.5) and those involving public behavior and dress, though in acts of worship and their private lives, the subject communities have their own laws, judges, and courts, enforcing the rules of their own religion among themselves);

(b) and pay the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya).

O11.4: The Non-Muslim Poll Tax

The minimum non-Muslim poll tax is one dinar (n: 4.235 grams of gold) per person (A: per year). The maximum is whatever both sides agree upon.

It is collected with leniency and politeness, as are all debts, and is not levied on women, children, or the insane.

O11.5

Such non-Muslim subjects are obliged to comply with Islamic rules that pertain to the safety and indemnity of life, reputation, and property. In addition, they:

-1- are penalized for committing adultery or theft, thought not for drunkenness;

-2- are distinguished from Muslims in dress, wearing a wide cloth belt (zunnar);

-3- are not greeted with “as-Salamu ‘alaykum”;

-4- must keep to the side of the street;

-5- may not build higher than or as high as the Muslims’ buildings, though if they acquire a tall house, it is not razed;

-6- are forbidden to openly display wine or pork, (A: to ring church bells or display crosses,) recite the Torah or Evangel aloud, or make public display of their funerals and feastdays;

-7- and are forbidden to build new churches.

O11.6

They are forbidden to reside in the Hijaz, meaning the area and towns around Mecca, Medina, and Yamama, for more than three days when the caliph allows them to enter there for something they need).

O11.7

A non-Muslim may not enter the Meccan Sacred Precinct (Haram) under any circumstances, or enter any other mosque without permission (A: nor may Muslims enter churches without their permission).

O11.8

It is obligatory for the caliph (def: o25) to protect those of them who are in Muslim lands just as he would Muslims, and to seek the release of those of them who are captured.

O11.9

If non-Muslim subjects of the Islamic state refuse to conform to the rules of Islam, or to pay the non-Muslim poll tax, then their agreement with the state has been violated (dis: o11.11) (A: though if only one of them disobeys, it concerns him alone).

O11.10

The agreement is also violated (A: with respect to the offender alone) if the state has stipulated that any of the following things break it, and one of the subjects does so anyway, though if the state has not stipulated that these break the agreement, then they do not; namely, if one of the subject people:

-1- commits adultery with a Muslim woman or marries her;

-2- conceals spies of hostile forces;

-3- leads a Muslim away from Islam;

-4- kills a Muslim;

-5- or mentions something impermissible about Allah, the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), or Islam.

Exactly what part of O11.10.5 do you not comprehend? Please expose your full ignorance in the comment section; I will try to help you to understand what they are attempting to impose upon us.

Any negative statement about Allah, his Messenger, his commands or their activities carries the death penalty. Am I a liar? Am I in error? Read the bold red text in the Shariah quotes again, then read the following quote.

O8.1

When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed.

O8.2

In such a case, it is obligatory for the caliph (A: or his representive) to ask him to repent and return to Islam. If he does, it is accepted from him, but if he refuses, he is immediately killed.

The resolution uses broad, amorphous terms without narrow, predefined common meanings, conflating opposition to Islam with racism.

Urges States to take action to prohibit the advocacy of national, racial or
religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence;

Emphasizes that everyone has the right to hold opinions without
interference and the right to freedom of expression, and that the exercise of these
rights carries with it special duties and responsibilities and may therefore be subject
to limitations as are provided for by law and are necessary for respect of the rights
or reputations of others, protection of national security or of public order, public
health or morals and respect for religions and beliefs;

Expresses its deep concern about the negative stereotyping of religions
and manifestations of intolerance and discrimination in matters of religion or belief
still in evidence in the world;

In a previous post: You’ve Been Mooned! I revealed the real intention behind that ambiguity. The Secretary General made remarks condemning FITNA, a short video created by Geert Wilders. Fitna quotes the Qur’an and displays the relationship between its commands, rabble rousing kutbah and riots & terrorism. It is neither false, distorted nor out of context. In FITNA: Supporting Documentation, I listed the ayat cited by Wilders in a speech to the Dutch Parliament, linking each ayat to source and providing tafsir links for many of them. Some but not all of those ayat are cited in the video.

Observe now what Ban Ki-moon said about FITNA.

“There is no justification for hate speech or incitement to violence,” Ban said in a statement. “The right of free expression is not at stake here.”

The only hate speech or incitement to violence contained in FITNA is in the Qur’an and kutbah quoted along with it. Wilders neither expresses hate nor incites violence. The right of free expression is very much at stake:

• Muslim organizations & regimes attempted to suppress the video.
• The Dutch government attempted to suppress the video.
• The Kingdom of Jordan charged Wilders with blasphemy and is demanding his arrest and rendition for trial.

According to Reuters, Ban described FITNA as ”offensively anti-Islamic”. Now we know the true standard: that laid down in Reliance of the Traveller. Quoting the Qur’an and Jumah Sermons is ”offensively anti-Islamic”. The same standard would outlaw my blog posts.

• Related petitions:

  • Outlaw Islam!
  • Quit the U.N.!

• Related blog posts:

  • U.N. Bans Criticism of Islam: Pretext & Context (analysis of influential documents & previous resolutions.)
  • United Nations Ban Criticism of Islam (’07 resolution)
  • More UNHRC AssWholliness (March ‘08 UNHRC resolution)
  • You’ve Been Mooned! (Extremely offensive remarks by the Secy. Genl.)
  • Tolerance (This and the remaining links are to posts in a blog dedicated to exposing lies told by two OIC Ambassadors. Their lies were influential in shaping previous resolutions.)
  • Violence is Alien to Islam
  • Extremism is Integral to Islam
  • Terrorists Don’t Speak for Islam
  • 9/11 Violated Islamic Law
  • Islam Forbids Violence
  • Spread by the Sword

Sphere: Related Content