ISLAM IS REPUGNANT TO HUMAN RIGHTS

ISLAM IS REPUGNANT TO HUMAN RIGHTS


This article addresses the question—“Why does the civilised world feel that Islam is repugnant to democracy, freedom, fair play and human rights?”

That Islam is at war with modernity is a common feeling. It is a natural tendency among Muslims to say that non-Muslims are prone to discredit the noble religion propagated by Mohammed and the Quoran out of ignorance and ill will and that, in practice, it is a religion of peace and universal brotherhood. They allege that the propaganda against Islam is unfounded and based upon some stray acts of misguided Muslims who do not represent Islam.

Here are two reports that speak of Islamic intolerance, injustice and cruelty, perpetrated not by some stray misguided Muslims but, rather, by an Islamic country’s government and the judiciary, officially.


********

REPORT ONE

http://freethinker.co.uk/2010/06/01/death-threats-against-man-who-renounced-isla...

Summary / Excerpts from the Report


“From: FREETHINKER MASTHEAD
(The voice of atheism since 1881)
1 June 2010

Death threats against man who renounced Islam at a Naik lecture in the Maldives

“APOSTATE” Mohamed Nazim has been taken into custody and threatened with death in the Muslim-majority north Asian nation of Maldives after declaring his atheism at a lecture given by lunatic Islamic hate-preacher Dr. Zakir Naik, who is soon due to tour the UK.

Courageous Nazim – who was in a crowd of thousands – told Naik:

I am a Maldivian. I am still struggling to believe in religion. That is why I just came to the front of this row. I was born a Maldivian. My parents taught me the religion of Islam. They are good practitioners, actually. I read a lot of books. I have read the translation of Quran. Yet, I still do not believe in a religion. So what do you say, [about] my verdict in Islam?

Naik responded:

In Islam, death penalty should not necessarily be evoked on every person who leaves Islam, but to those who propagate the non-Islamic faith and speak against Islam.

Naik asked: “Are you a Muslim?” and Nazim replied “I am not.”

According to this report, the brief exchange sparked hatred from an angry crowd of around 11,000, with many calling for his death. Several people rushed towards him as an official of the Islamic Ministry tried to escort him out. Police, however, came between Nazim and the crowd and took him into custody.

The newspaper report also stated that a crowd gathered outside the police station and demanded that Nazim be handed over to the crowd, who shouted anti-atheism slogans and called for Nazim’s beheading.


The Maldives constitution mandates that all citizens of Maldives must be Muslims. A December 2009 study showed the Maldives (with a 99 percent literacy rate) to be in the top five percent of the worst nations for religious freedom abuse. It is a nation that has been building its criminal law based on sharia, and its Parliament bans non-Islamic houses of worship. There have been repeated reports on Maldives government publicly whipping of women and the Maldives is in the bottom rankings of nations with a global gender gap.

Defence lawyer Mohamed Ibrahim Waheed called for counselling for Nazim, saying he should be given the chance to “repent” before capital punishment is considered.

First, he should be counselled. If he does not take the advice and repent, the penalty stated in Shari’a should be evoked on him. According to Shari’a, the punishment for apostasy is death.


Meanwhile, the Islamic Foundation has called for the self-declared apostate to be stripped of his citizenship and sentenced to death if he does not repent and return to Islam.


The London Times has quoted Zakir Naik as stating that:

People who change their religion should face the death penalty …If a Muslim becomes a non-Muslim and propagates his/her new religion, then it is as good as treason. There is a ‘death penalty’ in Islam for such a person.”


******

REPORT TWO

Three years ago, the Malaysian Supreme Court had refused permission to a lady to quit Islam and become a Christian. The news report in the Guardian dated 30 may 2007can be viewed at:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2091216,00.html

Excerpts from the report are reproduced below:


“The highest court in Malaysia today rejected a Muslim convert's appeal to be recognised as a Christian, ending a six-year legal battle that will heighten the country's religious minorities' concerns over discrimination. Lina Joy, 42, had fought the decisions of Malaysia's lower courts in an effort to have the word "Islam" removed from her identity card, arguing that the country's constitution guarantees her religious freedom. But in a landmark ruling the three judge panel decided in a majority verdict that it had no power to intervene in apostasy cases, which fall under the jurisdiction of Malaysia's Sharia courts. The woman, who gave up her job and went into hiding last year after being shunned by family and friends, was not in court. Earlier her lawyer said she realised her chances of victory were slim but believed she had to battle on to win the right to a normal life.
Two hundred Muslim protesters who gathered in a prayer vigil outside the federal court buildings today greeted the verdict with cries of "Allah-u-Akbar" (God is great).


Malaysia's civil courts run in tandem with the Sharia courts, which rule on family issues such as divorce, child custody and inheritance for Muslims. However, it has never been made clear which branch of the court takes precedence.


Ms. Joy - born Azlina Jailani - started attending church in 1990 and was baptised eight years later. She was given permission to change her name, but "Islam" remained on her identity card under her religion.

In 2000 Ms. Joy, who has an ethnic Indian Catholic boyfriend, applied to the high court to have her religion changed but was referred to the Sharia court. She challenged the decision in the appeal court and finally took the matter to the apex federal court.

"She cannot simply at her own whim enter or leave her religion," Judge Ahmad Fairuz said during today's ruling. "She must follow rules."

******

COMMENTS—

1—Both the incidents quoted above are violative of various provisions of the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948. More specifically, the following articles of the declaration are violated:

Article 3.
• Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 15.
• (1) Everyone has the right to a nationality. (Note--This refers to the demand of, the Islamic Foundation of Maldives that the self-declared apostate be stripped of his citizenship.)

Article 18.
• Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

2—Islamic states across the world violate various human rights openly and officially as a part of state policy / law.

3—As long as Islam continues to be an intolerant religion having the avowed aim of converting the whole world to Islam, and as long as Islam refuses to abide by the universally accepted human rights and to the spirit of democracy, it would continue to be a threat to world peace.


[NOTE—This article, which is written in a serious, academic, logical style and is based on documented facts and does not use disparaging language, is about intolerance in Islam. A fine example of such intolerance is apparently afforded by the first rating I received for it—an anonymous one star rating, the minimum one, without any review attached to it. Presuming that it came from a reader proclaiming the Muslim faith, as is rather very likely, it simply confirms my statement / thesis. Those who are open minded and tolerant to others’ views come out openly and discuss things and point out flaws in the other person’s arguments, rather than, a jihadi guerilla like, shoot while remaining hidden, like a coward.]


M C Gupta
28 June 2010