The trend of Islamophobia, Shiaphobia, and Iranophobia started after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the bipolar system, the growth of Islamist currents in the East and the West, and the magnificent growth of Islamic values influenced by the Islamic Revolution of Iran. Among the obvious examples of Islamophobia are the publication of offensive films and cartoons, harassment of Muslim minorities in Western countries, and recently the desecration of the Holy Quran.
The most fundamental reason for “Islamophobia” is the spread and deepening of Islamic beliefs in American and European societies, and Western governments have always countered this trend by creating fear, hatred, and irrational prejudice towards Islam and Muslims. Although America and Europe claim to support “equality” and “tolerance”, they have based their actions towards Islam and Muslims on intolerance, discrimination, and hatred.
Even though some Western politicians pretend to treat Muslims equally, their deep “Islamophobia” continues to shape their political orientations; including accepting or condoning offensive acts, such as burning the Quran and opposing resolutions that condemn such acts in the United Nations Human Rights Council. These approaches indicate who uses the so-called “freedom of speech” to create confrontation and fuel the conflict between civilizations.
Needless to say that burning the Quran and insulting Islamic holy things is not a new phenomenon. Since the beginning of Islam, polytheists and deniers of the authenticity of Islam and the Quran have tried to confront it with different methods and have been defeated over time. The righteousness of this religion and its holy book has caused its continued existence and rapid growth during 14 centuries; in such a way that in the present era, about a quarter of the world’s population are its followers. The high logic, the conformity of this religion with the natural nature of man and the promise of God in the Holy Quran, who said: “Indeed We have sent down the Reminder, and indeed We will preserve it” (Al-Hijr/9), has preserved Islam so far despite all these attacks, insults and destruction, and it will continue to be so in the future.
Therefore, according to numerous international human rights documents, European regional and even the Swedish constitution, the shameful act of burning the Quran violates the basic human rights principles. In the following, these violated principles are briefly mentioned based on the documents above:
- According to Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, although “everyone has the right to freedom of thought and religion and even to change it”, however, neither this article nor any other convention allows insulting, cursing, and disrespecting other religions. The act of burning the Quran cannot be justified under the banner of freedom of speech and thought; And because it has caused the persecution of the believers in Islam, it is reprehensible and in truth, it is considered the freedom of insulting and cursing. Therefore, mocking or insulting the Quran or other religious books is contrary to the right to freedom of thought and religion and violates Article 18 of the declaration.
- According to Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; and this right includes the freedom to have an opinion and belief without [worrying] about interference [and nuisance]”. Insulting the Quran in European countries as human rights claimants is a clear interference with the right to freely choose one’s opinion and a violation of Article 19 of the Declaration.
- According to Article 28 of the Declaration of Human Rights, “everyone is entitled to guarantee their freedom and social right”, which includes the right to freedom of choice of belief and religion as specified in Article 18 of the Declaration. Therefore, even if the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has not explicitly spoken about the prohibition of insulting other religions, this issue does not give any right to people to insult the beliefs of others who have chosen that belief based on their freedom and social right. For that reason, insulting the Holy Quran is a violation of Article 28 of the declaration.
- According to Article 29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, “Based on the law, to realize the just requirements of ethics and social system and public interest, restrictions can be imposed on the implementation of the rights of individuals and their enjoyment of freedom, with the aim of securing and respecting the rights and freedoms of others; also, these rights and freedoms should not be in a way that contradicts the goals and principles of the United Nations”. Undoubtedly, the desecration of the Holy Quran, the most important religious book of Muslims is among the behaviors that completely violate mutual respect, peace, global security, and other goals and principles of the United Nations. Therefore, this action, which should be legally prohibited, is a violation of Article 29 of the declaration.
- The United Nations Charter is one of the mandatory rules and all countries are required to comply with it without any exceptions. This charter has always emphasized maintaining international order and peace and deepening and developing peace between governments and nations. In the meantime, the countries that claim to respect human rights and bear the United Nations Charter should know that their support and cooperation in insulting the Quran is a clear violation of the United Nations Charter.
- Article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political declares: “Any invitation (incitement) to national or racial or religious hatred (grudge) that is a trigger for discrimination or conflict or use of force is prohibited by law”. Therefore, the act of burning the Quran is a definite example of violating Article 20 of this covenant.
- Although Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights protects freedom of speech; however, the Committee of Ministers of the European Union and the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, absolutely and without providing any conditions, exclude hate speech from the protection of the mentioned convention. Additionally, the Parliamentary Assembly of the European Union in 2007 called on member states to criminalize hate speech. In addition, the Parliamentary Assembly of the European Union in 2007 called on member states to criminalize hate speech. More remarkably, according to Article 17 of this Convention, no freedom and right should be used to abuse and attack other rights and freedoms.
The Swedish constitution consists of four separate parts, and the final part is called freedom of speech (Yttrandefrihetgrundlagen). Although freedom of speech in this legal system is defined as the freedom to communicate through speech and writing or images and other methods, as well as the freedom to express thoughts, opinions, and feelings, however this legal system, like any other legal system, does not accept absolute freedom of speech and has set restrictions for it. According to Article 13 of the Swedish Constitution, freedom of speech and freedom of information can be restricted due to national security, public livelihood, public order and security, dignity of individuals, respect for private life, or the prevention of crimes. Additionally, other important factors have also been accepted as restrictions on freedom of speech, the most important of which is creating social tension and spreading hatred. Therefore, insulting the Holy Quran is a clear violation of the Swedish constitution. In the meantime, the Swedish government is obliged to show a decisive reaction against this action to protect its most important national law. The action of the Swedish government and other related governments, such as Denmark and France, in a dual and contradictory understanding of freedom of speech, means a violation of the rule of law in form and substance, a violation of international and European human rights documents. In addition to showing the obvious paradox of these countries in the two spheres of opinion and action, this requires follow-up in international and regional forums to prevent a repetition of the practice.