The fate of Hamza Kashgiri is now in the hands of rabid and bloodthirsty Saudi clerics. The young Saudi journalist accused of disrespecting the prophet Mohammad on Twitter was recently deported from Malaysia to his home country so as to stand trial for alleged blasphemy. The offense is punishable by death in Saudi Arabia.
Surely this appears like a scene from the desert landscape of seventh-century Arabia. One would have hoped that in the 21st century, dissident voices would come to be acknowledged as legitimate self-expression in all four corners of the world. Alas, such is not the case in countries like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, where the slightest perceived attack on religion can imperil the lives of freethinking individuals. Shameful!
In arresting Kashgiri, the country has obviously kowtowed to Islamist groups, especially the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). This international Islamist outfit has taken upon itself to quash any legitimate criticism of religious practices.
Although the OIC's UN resolution 16/18 employs a change in terminology from the original "combating defamation of religion" to "combating intolerance," in essence its objectives remain the same -- crushing any criticism of orthodox Islamic belief or practice. UN resolution 16/18 states: "Combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of, and discrimination, incitement to violence, and violence against persons based on religion or belief."
But shouldn't this wording work both ways? Why then are the Saudis so intolerant of this young man's religious beliefs? Or is this provision meant to only prevent criticism of Islam?
As for Kashgiri, he was only expressing some very human doubts about his relationship with the prophet of Islam. His post, which was later deleted, had read:"I have loved things about you and I have hated things about you and there is a lot I don't understand about you...I will not pray for you."
His statements evoked a number of hostile tweets from enraged Saudi citizens. Presumably, the majority of people who tweet in Saudi Arabia are young. It is indeed shocking that so many young people in Saudi Arabia remain so unenlightened as to seek death for their fellow citizen who dares to disagree with the accepted religious narrative? Facebook was no exception. A Facebook page titled "The Saudi People Demand the Execution of Hamza Kashgari" also attracted more than 13,000 members.
But the question remains: How can one construe Kashgiri's musings as deserving of execution even in the archaic world of Muslim blasphemy laws?
The man does not deserve to die for his opinions -- and admittedly, this is not saying much. It amounts to setting the bar extremely low for what should constitute as tolerance.
Tolerance in fact demands that we take up this man's cause and try to save his life from destruction at the hands of totalitarian governments.
Furthermore Malaysia, a supposedly moderate Muslim country, has partnered with Saudi Arabia in castigating this courageous young man. Demonstrations must be organized in front of both the Saudi and Malaysian embassies and consulates to highlight this sinister partnership.
Follow Farzana Hassan on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@FarzanaHassan1
Speaking of the Facebook page (calling for a human beings death due to a tweet) - I was very suprised when I flagged it that Facebook responded to me it was not a violation of there terms. ( I guess what with the IPO coming up and all its bad for their subscriber numbers to delete that page)
And to Mr Walker's point about you placing the "Middle East in a box", well I don't mind that, I think he's missing the point that this article is more concerned about Mr Kasgari being placed in a box!
So far the Dutch goverment has stood up in favor of Mr Kasgari, lets hope the Canadian and US Goverments will follow suit.
I guess my concern, from reading previous writings by Hassan, is that the dehumanization, the removal of rational or logical attributes to Middle Eastern mindset, does more of a disservice to these people than good. We already live in a time where Western governments are dehumanizing the middle eastern people in an attempt to legitimize extreme violations of human rights that affect millions more than the single individual in this case. I sort of expect the rare writer of middle eastern descent who has a large platform, to not play into the "they are all irrational cave dwellers" meme. What Saudi Arabia is doing is reprehensible, but identical to what the United States and Canada has been doing for at least half a decade.
If we want to prevent countries like Saudi Arabia from violating human rights in this way, we must start in our own nations. I guess my point is that Mr. Kasgari's case should function as an example to begin a larger dialogue about reigning in the abuses of social media, as a surveillance technology, by theocracy and democracy alike. This may do much to help us understand how to address these human rights abuses, to better understand our enemies, and maybe bring changes universally.
Isn't that every bit as tyrannical as what Saudi Arabia is doing? The only difference is that it is to enforce ideological homogeneity rather than religious. But hasn't religious and political ideology always been entwined.
I guess my point is, as always, I take offense to your need to place the Middle East in this box where all actions derive of an irrational, primitive, "archaic" motivation when in this case it reads as a very rational application of policy derived of the West, simply adapted to the laws and objectives of Saudi Arabia.
I am not defending this. Far from it. I am simply stating that it is just as obscene when the West engages in this sort of activity, as when Saudi Arabia does it. I think your analysis would benefit from more objectivity and less reliance on demonizing, or dehumanizing those in the middle east. Saudi Arabia may be an oppressive theocracy, but it is the West that supplied them with the rationale for this new draconian policy.
Try living in Saudi Arabia where there is precious little legal and legislative freedom, let alone freedom of thought and expression. Only last week, the ACLU sued the US government (FBI, Department of Justice and CIA) over extra-judicial killings. Try voicing ANY dissent in Saudi Arabia let alone having avenues for legal recourse.
Your "it's all the same" fanciful notion (however noble the motive behind it) is completely dishonest and damaging. The US HAS constitutional rights and charters that, even as they are violated by government or class interests, are vigorously defended by others.
Your Western liberal guilt is not helping the decent people (like Farzana) who have lived-and-personal experiences of institutional and social oppression in the East. It is actually strengthening and arming the THUGS who are the enemies of decency. You would never in your right mind lend them this sort of support (admittedly unintentional) if it were now not all "fashionable" and "decent" to support Muslims and hold them to far far FAR lower standards than you do Westerners.
I, for one, could do without your corrosive brand of soft racism.
Your post is brilliant!!
Also, you say the US is different because of its constitution. But it is violating that constitution. Sure the ACLU has sued, but it has sued numerous times this last decade and had almost every case dismissed because of an invented right to "State Secrets". This week Pakistan judges moved to hold the ISI accountable for wrondoing. This would never happen in the US. Iran also has a constitution. IT promises more economic freedom than the US constitution. A constitution means nothing if we have no mechanism for enforcing it.
Lastly. I do not hold Muslims to lower standards than Westerners. I just hold them to the standards expoused in their Charter. I am not arrogant enough to expect everyone in the World to live like the West. I just expect people to not violate their own laws.
I am not showing any racism. I am simply not going to demonize individuals for not being secular westerners. If you want to see a change in policy, start a revolution. But don't make intellectually dishonest and emotional arguments.