In its report about the recent UN conference for interfaith and cultural dialogue, the UN Committee for Human Rights mentioned that it is concerned with the campaign that aims to insult religions and prophets as well as violations of human rights and terrorism. This report was issued as a result of 85 votes against 50 votes which disagree with condemning insulting religions claiming that this contradicts the principle of freedom of expression.
The question is, who voted against a decision that protects the sanctity of religions and prophets? “They are not the communists for both China and Cuba voted for the decision,” al-Rikābī says, “Those, who voted against it, were the Western countries, without exception, as if they all agreed to allow attacking religions and insulting God’s prophets.”
They explained their rejection by saying that such a decision contradicts freedom of expression. “This claim mocks people for there are certain issues and topics that are not allowed to be discussed in Europe,” al-Rikābī comments.
In Europe, the British historian, David Irving, was given a jail sentence after being accused of denying the holocaust against the Jews during Nazi rule. “What did Irving do to be imprisoned?” al-Rikābī wonders, “He did not steal or betray his country. All he did was to express his personal opinion regarding the holocaust saying that it simply did not exist in the same way people imagine it.”
In European universities and research centers it is not possible to tackle the issue of the holocaust from a point of view that disagrees with the Jewish and Zionist beliefs.
“And here comes the paradox,” al-Rikābī further comments, “It is the European countries that controlled freedom of expression when it comes to the holocaust and it is the same countries that attacked the UN for the welfare of freedom. These contradictory situations lead to the conclusion of certain points:”
The sanctity of the Jewish holocaust surpasses that of religions and the prophets.
Freedom of expression is either a lie or a tool manipulated by political and intellectual situations. In other words, it becomes important when related to religions and prophets and absent when it comes to the holocaust
The third possibility is that agreeing to the UN report that condemns attacking religions and God’s prophets includes an indirect admission of the presence of Islam and the Prophet Muhammad. Objecting to a report that admits that the prophecy of Muhammad contradicts with the Western beliefs that do not recognize Muhammad as a prophet in their religion.
“This last conclusion is proven by the fact that a great church has objected before to one of the previous interfaith conference’s reports where it was mentioned that all religions and prophets should be respected,” al-Rikābī comments, “This is a major issue in the whole idea of dialogue for it is strongly connected to the principle of tolerance between mankind regardless of his religion … Christians are about to celebrate Christmas and Muslims believe in Jesus Christ as a prophet. The question now is: who is more tolerant, those who believe in Jesus Christ or those who do not admit the prophecy of the Prophet Muhammad?”