Freedom to Hate-Javaria-MDS

The United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) recently adopted a resolution titled, ‘Countering religious hatred constituting incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence’. The motion, co-sponsored by Pakistan on behalf of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), called for states to review their existing laws and fill in  gaps, especially the accountability gaps that ‘impede the prevention and prosecution of acts and advocacy of religious hatred’. Among 47 countries, 28 countries voted in favour of the resolution, 7 abstained and 12 countries voted against the motion. The European Union (EU) and the United States (US) voted against the resolution on the pretext that it challenged their ideological position on protecting human rights and freedom of expression.

The UNHRC resolution came in the wake of public instances of burning of the Holy Quran in Sweden. An Iraqi Christian immigrant Salwan Momika desecrated the Quran by tearing it up and setting it ablaze repeatedly outside a Stockholm mosque. The incident sparked widespread protests in the Islamic world, resulting in diplomatic backlash with Muslim nations demanding action against perpetrators of religious hatred. They have urged governments to put a stop to such disgraceful acts known to fuel violence and disrupt interfaith harmony.

The response of the EU and other Western countries regarding the resolution highlights the complexity of this issue. As per their viewpoint, the resolution seems more about safeguarding religious symbols rather than human rights. Their argument is founded upon the idea of freedom of expression and the right to free speech.

However, the vilification of Islam and other such incidents of hatred have a deeper history than the philosophy of freedom of expression. The boisterous slogans of free speech obscure the long-standing history of anti-Muslim sentiments and the changing conceptions of Christians. Their hostility towards Muslims and Islam dates back to the Crusades and European imperialistic ventures. According to Crusades historian Tomaz Mastnak, it was during the Mid-ninth Century when the Christians united under the banner of Christendom and started seeing Muslims as the normative and fundamental enemies of Christianity instead of viewing them as another group of pagans.

Nonetheless, Western ideology immensely transformed in the years after the religious wars in Europe. According to Joram van Klaveren, who is a board member of the Islam Experience Centre (an organisation working towards fostering a connection between Muslims and other communities), the rise of secularism has given a new perspective to how Muslims are viewed by the general public in the Western world. For an ordinary citizen in Europe, it is hard to comprehend Muslim outcry over the desecration of the Holy Quran or defamation of the Holy Prophet (P.B.U.H). Since religious doctrines have mostly taken a backseat in the West, the public in these countries expect similar indifference from Muslims to incidents such as the burning of their Holy Book. Unaware of Muslim sensitivities to such issues, they find Muslim reactions to such incidents unjustifiable. The far-right exploits such incidents for a more sinister purpose. 

The far-right portrays Muslim reactions as a violent conspiracy by followers of Islam to (re) conquer Western homelands. They ring alarm bells over the rate at which Muslim populations are increasing in the West which would eventually lead to a major demographic shift. Owing to this narrative and a generally secular mindset, many ordinary Europeans are likely to see protesting Muslims as remnants of the past – a horrific reminder of religious persecution in Europe that had resulted from fissures within Christianity. The extremists use Quran burning incidents as an instrument to provoke Muslims into violent protests and then use these protests as a cautionary warning for the Europeans to stand up against so-called Muslim assault on Western values.

Unfortunately, it is a glaring reality that the world is facing an alarming rise in anti-Muslim incidents.  According to a recent report on hate crimes in 2022 published by the Home Office of the United Kingdom, 42% of the total offences were against Muslims. However, those in positions of authority pull the freedom of expression card to justify their biased and prejudiced behaviours. Hence, it is pertinent to recognise that every freedom comes with its own responsibilities. While freedom of expression and speech is universal, it is not absolute. Safeguarding the right to express freely is imperative but the responsibility to shun divisive policies and prejudice against other people or religions is also equally important.

Moreover, addressing and combatting such hateful occurrences is essential. Doing so requires much more than a resolution at the UNHCR or mere proposals to ban Quran burnings such as being considered by Denmark, since we are yet to see whether these will even be effective or sufficient in addressing deeper, systemic causes of Islamophobia. Practical steps to build inter-faith harmony and prevent the normalisation of Islamophobia can only be undertaken if there is genuine political will and a sincere desire to do so. So far, both have been found in short supply among leaders in the Western world.

Javaria Nisar is a Research Assistant at the Centre for Aerospace & Security Studies (CASS), Islamabad, Pakistan. She can be reached at [email protected].

Design Credit: Mysha Dua Salman


Share this article

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn

Recent Publications

Browse through the list of recent publications.

The Cover-up: IAF Narrative of the May 2025 Air Battle

Even after one year since the India-Pakistan May war of 2025, the Indian discourse regarding Operation Sindoor remains uncertain under its pretence of restraint. The Pahalgam attack on 22 April, which killed 26 people, triggered an escalatory spiral. New Delhi quickly accused Pakistan-linked elements, while Islamabad refuted the allegation and demanded an independent investigation. On 7 May, India launched attacks deep inside Pakistan under what it later termed as Operation Sindoor. The political motive was intended to turn the crisis into coercive signalling by shifting the blame onto the enemy and projecting a sense of military superiority.
This episode, however, began to fray immediately as war seldom follows the intended script. Within minutes PAF shot down 7 IAF aircraft including 4 Rafales. On 8 May, Reuters reported that at least two Indian aircraft were shot down by a Pakistani J-10C, while the local government sources reported other aircraft crashes in Indian-occupied Jammu and Kashmir

Read More »

Why the IAF’s Post-Sindoor Spending Surge is a Sign of Panic

After Operation Sindoor, India is spending billions of dollars on new weapons. This is being taken by many people as an indication of military prowess. It is not. This rush to procure weapons is in fact an acknowledgement that the Air Force in India had failed to do what it was meant to do. The costly jets and missiles that India had purchased over the years failed to yield the promised results.

Sindoor was soon followed by India in sealing the gaps which the operation had exposed. It was reported that Indian Air Force (IAF) is looking to speed up its purchases of more than 7 billion USD. This will involve other Rafale fighter jets with India already ordering 26 more Rafales to the Navy in 2024 at an estimated cost of about 3.9 billion USD. India is also seeking long-range standoff missiles, Israeli loitering munitions and increased drone capabilities. Special financial powers of the Indian military were activated to issue emergency procurement orders. The magnitude and rate of these purchases speak volumes.

Indian media and defence analysts have over the years considered the Rafale as a game changer. When India purchased 36 Rafales aircrafts at an approximate cost of 8.7 billion USD, analysts vowed that the aircraft would provide India with air superiority over Pakistan. Operation Sindoor disproved all those allegations. Indian aircraft did not even fly in Pakistani airspace when the fighting started. India solely depended on standoff weapons that were launched at a safe distance. The air defence system of Pakistan, comprising of the HQ-9 surface-to-air missile system and its own fighters, stood its ground.

Read More »

May 2025: Mosaic Warfare and the Myth of Centralised Air Power

Visualise a modern-day Air Force commander sitting in the operations room, miles away from the combat zone, overseeing every friendly and enemy aircraft and all assets involved in the campaign. In a split second, he can task a fighter, reposition a drone, and authorise a strike. In today’s promising technological era, he does not even need an operations room; a laptop on his desktop will suffice. The situation looks promising as it offers efficiency, precision, and control. The term used for such operational control is ‘centralisation’, which has been made possible with advanced networking, integrating space, cyber, surveillance, artificial intelligence, and seamless communication, enabling a single commander to manage an entire campaign from a single node. Centralised command and control, championed by the Western air forces and then adopted by many others, has thus been seen as a pinnacle of modern military power.
The concept of centralisation, enabled by state-of-the-art networking, may seem promising, but it is nothing more than a myth.

Read More »