The United Nations again lived down to its reputation. The
recent ministerial meeting in the General Assembly provided a
moment of unintended hilarity. Commenting on the controversy
surrounding the recent film critical of the Prophet Mohammed,
Malaysian Foreign Minister Anifah Aman asked, “Why is it when
Muslims are stigmatized and defamed, it is defended as freedom of
expression?”
He apparently imagines a world in which Muslims demonstrate
striking forbearance in the face of shocking intolerance. He
imagines a world in which Muslim states do not routinely persecute
Christians, Jews, Baha’is, and other religious minorities. He
imagines a world in which non-Muslims do not face arrest, prison,
and death for “blasphemy” toward Islam and Muslims do not face
arrest, prison, and death for converting away from Islam.
Minister Aman imagines a world in which Christian girls are not
kidnapped and forced into marriage in Muslim nations. He imagines a
world in which Muslim mobs do not murder Christians, destroy
churches, wreck Bible schools, and wipe out entire Christian
villages. He imagines a world in which Muslims treat religious
minorities as they demand to be treated in societies in which they
are a minority.
It is a wonderful world. But it is not the world in which we
live today. To the contrary, most majority Muslim states
discriminate and many persecute non-Muslims as well as minority
Muslims. There’s no need for individuals to defame Christians,
Jews, and others when the state imprisons and kills them.
Minister Aman’s wonderful vision does not even describe his own
country of Malaysia. There are worse countries, to be sure. But
Malaysia now is lecturing the rest of the world about religious
defamation and freedom of expression.
How does Minister Aman’s government treat Christians and others
who believe differently than the majority? Consider what the most
recent State Department report
on religious liberty said of Malaysia: “… the constitution as well
as other laws and policies placed some restrictions on religious
freedom.” Muslims are barred from converting to other faiths,
“although members of other religions may convert to
Islam.”
Religious minorities “have expressed concern that the secular
civil and criminal court system has gradually ceded jurisdictional
control to Sharia courts, particularly in areas of family law
involving disputes between Muslims and non-Muslims.” Moreover,
“religious minorities continued to face limitations on religious
expression, including restrictions on the purchase and use of real
property.” Further, there have been “reports of societal abuses or
discrimination based on religious affiliation, belief, or
practice.”
Yes, the Malaysian government certainly has moral standing to
lecture Americans and others about the terribly unfair treatment
accorded Islam in the West.
Malaysia is no better on freedom of expression. Freedom House
gives
Malaysia a 4.0 freedom rating, in the middle of its one to seven
system. That leaves Malaysia only “partly free.” Noting promises of
political reform in 2011, the organization reported that “hopes for
reform were undercut by crackdowns on academic freedom, violations
of religious rights, and the passage of harsh new legislation on
assembly late in the year.”
The State Department published
a detailed 57-page report on the state of human rights in Malaysia.
It makes for depressing reading. Concluded State: “The most
significant human rights problems were restrictions on the rights
of migrants, including migrant workers and refugees; and the
persistence of laws that allow detention without trial.”
But that’s not all. Other issues “included some deaths during
police apprehensions and while in police custody; caning as a form
of punishment imposed by criminal and Sharia courts; restrictions
on freedom of press and religion; obstacles preventing opposition
parties from competing on equal terms with the ruling coalition;
and violence and discrimination against women.” Ethnic Malays
receive official preferences and “there were restrictions on union
and collective-bargaining activity.” The government continued to
prosecute the opposition leader on sodomy charges that many
believed to be trumped up.
Other than that, everything is wonderful in Malaysia. No wonder
Minister Aman felt entitled to lecture the West about freedom of
religion and expression.
What is striking about the West is the fact that nominally
Christian governments allow and sometimes even finance the
defamation of Christianity. Think of a crucifix submerged
in a jar of urine, elegantly titled “Piss Christ” and funded by the
National Endowment for the Arts. Think of the movie The Last
Temptation of Christ, defended as artistic expression despite
the outrage felt by many Catholics. Think of Larry Flynt’s parody
of the late Rev. Jerry Falwell, which the U.S. Supreme Court
declared to be protected by the First Amendment. Think of the
routine criticism of religious beliefs and figures in America
today.
Yet Minister Aman is horrified because someone had the temerity
to — shock! shock! — criticize Islam.
That the functionary of a government which unashamedly restricts
both freedom of religion and expression would lecture the rest of
the world about both issues comes as no surprise. That the rest of
the world seems reluctant to equally unashamedly defend these
liberties is disheartening.
Western governments should explain that they are not responsible
for what their peoples say or do. But it is not the duty of Western
governments to go on to denounce videos, movies, cartoons,
articles, or any other form of criticism of Islam. After all, there
is more than a little to criticize, and there are plenty of people,
including in the West, prepared to rush to Islam’s
defense.
However, Western officials should indicate they will not take
seriously criticism from governments which discriminate and
persecute against religious minorities in their own societies. Even
more emphatically, Western officials should explain that they will
not engage those who murder innocents and destroy everything from
indigenous churches to foreign embassies because someone somewhere
in the Western world criticized Mohammed.
Finally, Western officials should indicate that the existence of
such governments and peoples creates a prima facie case for ending
any financial aid and military support. Those who want to commit
and mayhem should at least do so on their own dime and time.
Particular contempt should be shown those who, like Minister
Aman, sanctimoniously lecture the West even as their own
governments violate basic human rights. Hypocrisy is nothing new in
diplomacy and U.S. officials are not exempt from the disease. The
one thing that the latter should get right, however, is defending
individual liberty. They should politely explain to Minister Aman
and others like him: if you don’t protect religious and political
liberty at home, spare us pious lectures about the travails of
Islam abroad.
There is a serious international problem of religious
intolerance, but today it is characteristic of Islam, not
Christianity. The governments that complain loudest about insults
to Islam are most likely to oppress non-Muslims. The next time
murderous Islamic mobs make their violent appearance overseas,
Washington should defend liberty, not express
sensitivity.
