Organization of Islamic Corporation
(OIC)
Agenda:
1. Should India be allowed to join the OIC?
2. Tackling the Issue of Religious Intolerance
Letter from the Executive Board
Greetings delegates,
We welcome you all to the simulation of the Organization of Islamic Co orporation
(OIC) at the Nashik Model United Nations 2016. It is a privilege and honour for us to
be the part of the Executive Board of this prestigious committee, for the duration of
this conference. OIC is one of the essential and paramount international forum,
discussing issues pertaining to the spectrum of the agendas concerning not only the
past and the present, but also the future. In this session we will be discussing in depth
regarding a set of agendas which has been in the highlight for quite some time now.
All of you need to realize that these agendas have a lot layers and a lot substantial
points, which the executive board expects you to discuss during the span of the
conference.
We will be following the UNA-USA rules of procedure in this committee. Those who
are not well versed with these rules of procedures, kindly have a look through it before
the committee begins. However, the Executive Board will take an orientation session
in the beginning of the committee. The Executive board will ensure that the first
timers will understand each and every aspect of the rules of procedure, the council in
general and the agendas alike.
Delegates, you all are advised to go through the background guide properly. This
document will help in your research. However, you all should realize that this guide is
not the ultimate source of information. The aim of this guide is to provide clarity
regarding the various aspects of the agenda as well as providing direction and path to
your research.
Finally, each and every delegate has to submit a position paper before the beginning
of the conference, ie before the 17th of June. The document should contain the
following:
 Introduction about your nation
 Your nation’s involvement regarding the agenda
 What aspects should be discussed according to you
The position paper can be of maximum 2 pages and minimum 1 page long. Kindly
mail the Position Papers to [email protected], with the subject “Position
Paper OIC – Country name”. No Position paper will be accepted after the 16th of
June.
We sincerely hope that the simulation of OIC at Nashik Model United Nations 2016
will help you gain experience to become better professionals and persons in future.
We are always at your disposal and please do not hesitate to contact us.
Looking forward to see you all in action.
Regards,
Sarthak Tandon
Co-Chairperson
OIC
Priyanka Pai
Co-Chairperson
OIC
Introduction – OIC
With over 1.5 billion followers, Islam is the world’s second largest religion and
is the fastest growing in Europe and North America. While it remains incredibly
diverse around the globe, the idea of a singular, unified Islamic community, or
Ummah, is the guiding force behind the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation
(OIC).
The OIC is the second-largest intergovernmental organization aside from the
United Nations (UN) with 57 Member States from Africa, the Middle East,
Europe, the Caucasus, and Southeast Asia, and several Observers, including the
UN, League of Arab States, African Union (AU), Non-Aligned Movement, and
the Economic Cooperation Organization. Any Member State of the UN can
apply for membership to the OIC as long as said state has a Muslim majority,
abides by the Charter of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC
Charter), and is approved by consensus by the Council of Foreign Ministers
(CFM). The OIC was first established in Rabat, Morocco on September 25,
1969, following a summit of Muslim foreign ministers organized in response to
the arson of the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem. This summit in Rabat eventually
lead to the establishment of an intergovernmental organization tasked with
being the “collective voice of the Muslim world,” and in 1970, the first meeting
of the Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers was held in Jeddah, Saudi
Arabia, where a permanent secretariat and secretary general were selected from
the original 25 Member States present. The OIC Charter was formally adopted
and registered in conformity with the UN on February 1, 1974.
A revised OIC Charter was adopted on March 14, 2008 in Dakar, Senegal. On
June 28, 2011 the organization officially changed its name from the
Organization of the Islamic Conference to the Organisation of Islamic
Cooperation to reflect is changing priorities and goals.
The OIC charter
The OIC Charter, similar to the Charter of the United Nations (UN Charter),
seeks to establish a connective document between all Member States and,
uniquely, establish “bonds of fraternity and solidarity.” The OIC Charter affirms
the principles of the UN Charter and international law, particularly in regards to
the rights of people and the right of self-determination and non-interference in
the affairs of individual Member States. The OIC Charter also calls for all
Member States to “uphold and promote, at the national and international levels”
good governance principles, democratic values, human rights and basic
freedoms, the rule of law, and perhaps most paramount, to protect and defend
Islam and combat all forms of defamation, Islamophobia, discrimination,
and to “encourage dialogue among civilizations and religions.”
The OIC Charter focuses heavily on the unification of Member States and the
strengthening of intra-Islamic economic and trade cooperation, and ultimately,
the establishment of an Islamic Common Market (ICM). The concept of the
ICM calls for Islamic countries to unite under a common socio-economic value
system, a common currency, monetary union, and establish an intra-Islamic
trade zone and has led to the development of several agreements, including the
General Agreement for Economic, Technical and Commercial Cooperation
among the OIC Member States (1977), the Statute of the Islamic States
Telecommunications Union (ISTU), the Trade Preferential System among the
Member States of the OIC (TPS-OIC) (1990) and more recently, the Second
Round of Trade Negotiations in 2006 which established the TPS-OIC Rules of
Origin (TPS-OIC RoO) (2007).
Main Bodies of OIC
The OIC consists of several main bodies, standing committees, and secondary
organs and institutions, all tasked with various responsibilities. The highest
authority is the Islamic Summit, consisting of Kings and Heads of State and
Government. While the Islamic Summit only meets triennially, it is tasked with
the responsibility of deliberation, consultation, policy decisions, and providing
guidance for issues “pertaining to the realization of the objectives as provided
for in the OIC Charter and consider other issues of concern to the Member
States and the Ummah.”
Similar in scope and mandate of the UN General Assembly (UNGA), the
Council of Foreign Ministers (CFM) meets on an annual basis and implements
the general policy of the organization through the adoption of resolutions and
decisions “on matters of common interest in the implementation of the
objectives and the general policy of the Organization.” The CFM also reviews
the progress of such resolutions and decisions, approves the budgetary and other
financial and administrative reports of the General Secretariat and subsidiary
organs (as well as the establishment of any new organ or committee), and
considers “any issue affecting one or more Member State” or “any other issue it
deems fit.” The CFM also elects and appoints the General Secretariat,
consisting of the Secretary General and Assistant Secretaries General. The
General Secretariat is entrusted with the implementation of the decisions of the
Islamic Summit and the CFM.
Agenda
– Should India be allowed to
join the OIC?
As the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) enters the fourth decade of
its existence, it is an opportune moment to introspect on its continued isolation
of India – a country that has the largest Muslim population in the world after
Indonesia.
With a membership of 57 countries spread over four continents, constituting 1.5
billion people and a combined GDP of about seven trillion dollars, the OIC is
the second largest inter-governmental group after the United Nations. The
grouping identifies itself to be “the collective voice of the Muslim world” to
“safeguard and protect the interests of the Muslim world in the spirit of
promoting international peace and harmony among various people of the world”
In spite of having the second largest Muslim population in the world, India isn't
a member or even an observer within the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation.
While countries like Saudi Arabia have overtly supported the inclusion of India
within the OIC, several nations feel that India’s secular status, and 20% Muslim
(minority) population are what's keeping it from the OIC, since the OIC Charter
stipulates that solely Muslim countries willing to push the objectives of the
organisation are eligible for membership. However, many non-Islamic nations
have received membership in the past.
Although India is not an OIC member state, it was a part of the first Islamic
Summit Conference. Held in Rabat in September of 1969, this conference gave
birth to OIC. The original purpose of the summit was the desecration of the Al
Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem. Saudi Arabia’s King Faisal was instrumental in
extending the invitation to India as he argued that the desecration of the third
holiest place in Islam was a matter of concern to all Muslims, not merely to
“Muslim states”, and that India’s very large Muslim population entitled it to be
represented at the conference. Subsequent developments and the antics of the
Pakistani President of the time, Yahya Khan resulted in the forcible exclusion of
the Indian delegation from the subsequent sessions of the Conference. King
Hassan, in his capacity as the chairman of Islamic Conference, decided to
withdraw the invitation extended to Indians and bar the Indian delegation from
entering Morocco. No invitations were extended to India in subsequent years
and the domestic political backlash of the Rabat incident persuaded most people
in India against the OIC.
It was only after the Pakistan-backed insurgency started in Kashmir in
1990 that Pakistan started using the OIC as a forum to produce strident antiIndia resolutions. These resolutions were a source of embarrassment for India
until the world-view on Islamist terror turned around after 2001. Meanwhile,
India was able to contain the armed insurgency in Kashmir.
On the eve of his historic visit to India in 2006, King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz of
Saudi Arabia said that “India should have an observer status in the OIC” and it
would be “beneficial” if Pakistan proposes India’s candidature. Pakistan,
however strongly objected to the proposal, saying that any country wishing to
get observer status with the OIC, “should not be involved in any dispute with a
member state.” and India also did not show interest. The argument for seeking a
limited association with an observer status suggests that since the US and
Russia have an observer status there, it would not hurt India to join as well. The
OIC unilaterally announced that it would act as an envoy for Kashmir if India
legitimized it by seeking any association with the OIC.
The territory of Kashmir was greatly contested even before India and Pakistan
won their independence from Britain in August 1947. Under the partition plan
provided by the Indian Independence Act of 1947, Kashmir was free to accede
to India or Pakistan. The King of Kashmir at first decided to remain
independent, but eventually acceded to India, signing over key powers to the
Indian government in return for military aid and a promised referendum. Since
then, the territory has been the spark for two of the three India-Pakistan wars:
the first in 1947, the second in 1965. In 1999, India fought a brief but bitter
conflict with Pakistani-backed forces that infiltrated Indian-controlled territory
in the Kargil
Although in recent years violence in Indian-administered Kashmir has abated,
the causes of the insurgency have not gone away. Demonstrations still take
place regularly in the Kashmir valley. Many people in the territory, especially in
the Muslim-majority Kashmir valley do not want to be governed by India and
prefer to be either independent or part of Pakistan. The population of the Indianadministered state of Jammu and Kashmir is over 60% Muslim, making it the
only state within India where Muslims are in the majority. The young people in
the Kashmir valley especially sense alienation from Delhi, and the sentiment
has only worsened with high unemployment and the use the military to stifle
protests. Although the insurgency today may not be so vigorously fought as it
was in the 1990s, the scope for violence to resurface is very much present.
In early October 2009, the OIC appointed a special envoy for Jammu and
Kashmir, drawing a wedge between India and itself. The OIC stresses that as
long as the Indo-Pak tension over the region remains unresolved, there's little or
no area for improvement in the organisation’s relations with India. While the
OIC advocates the problem of self-determination and resolution of
Kashmir in accordance with the UN resolutions of 1948 and 1949, India is firm
regarding resolving the difficulty bilaterally with Pakistan. This stand has been
receiving increasing international acceptance, and seems to be the foremost
choice to resolve the Kashmir issue.
Saudi Arabia is mainly responsible for OIC’s creation, and it still considers the
body as an instrument of its foreign policy. India, after being formally invited
on the grounds of having the world’s second largest Muslim community, was
ejected from the 1969 inaugural Summit of the Islamic Conference Organisation
in Rabat, Morocco, due to Pakistan’s machinations. Since then, the OIC and
India have had a hostile relationship mainly due to the Kashmir dispute with
Pakistan. There is a plethora of one-sided and biased OIC Resolutions on
Jammu and Kashmir and the ‘state’ of the Indian Muslim community, all of
which have been categorically rejected by India.
The lingering wounds of the OIC inauguration have not fully healed India’s
stance on rejoining the OIC and leads India to hold the following opinion: If the
debate over India’s association with the OIC reopens, it needs to go back to the
beginning. If India was an original invitee, the question of offering it an
observer status now should not arise. Instead, it should be a simple matter of
restoring the founder-membership that was taken away from India. In fact, the
offer and acceptance of an alternative status would revalidate what was done in
1969. For this reason alone, any offer of an observer status should be rejected.
At the OIC meetings preceding their Summit in 2003, it was proposed that India
should be invited to join the organization. While the proposal was not taken
much further, its point that the Muslim community of India lives and flourishes
in a secular environment, had an impact on the larger membership of the OIC,
especially those which had seen an exponential growth in their economic
relations with India.
India’s growth and economic success and its growing relationship with the
United States has affected the monarchs in the Gulf. This has allowed India to
find ways of marrying the Middle East’s hydrocarbon and financial resources
with India’s skills, human resource talent, and exponentially growing market.
This was the context in which King Abdulla bin Abdul Aziz of Saudi Arabia
proposed that India join the OIC as an ‘Observer’ member during his visit to
Delhi in 2006. India has yet to respond to this Saudi initiative.
While India does not visualize becoming a member of any religiously
oriented international organization, other reasons also hinder it from formally
joining the OIC in any capacity. Joining the OIC will bring India under pressure
to abide by some of its particularly anti-India resolutions on Jammu and
Kashmir. Secondly, India would insist on joining as a founder member after
having been ejected from the inaugural conference in Rabat. Finally, it all
comes down to whether the OIC has genuinely changed its view of India under
the influence of a more progressive and tolerant membership, which has yet to
be tested.
At the same time Saudi Arabia’s offer needs a response, given that the two
countries are now looking at a strategic partnership and that Saudi Arabia is,
and could become, India’s largest supplier of crude. A proposed initiative to
reach an outcome between the two is to hold institutional level dialogue on
civilization, culture, and society with the OIC and India to work at first
improving the relationship and tensions between them.
India’s bilateral relations with the Arab and Islamic countries including those,
which have seen a change towards democratic governance, have not suffered so
far; however, India will need to look at creative ways to ensure that they
continue to grow without being held hostage to the Islamic factor.
While the longstanding Kashmir issue is important enough to be resolved not
only for the sake of the people therein, peace in the subcontinent and the Asian
continent at large, it is equally important for the OIC to look beyond this issue
and address more pressing concerns of the Muslim world. It must also be argued
that while the OIC Charter stipulates that only Muslim countries willing to
promote the objectives of the organisation are eligible for membership, many
non-Muslim countries have secured observer status and even full membership.
The most recent of them is Russia, which came on board as an observer in 2005,
two years after then president Vladimir Putin declared that Russia was a
“Muslim power” that desired to play a role among Muslim countries. With less
than 25 million Muslims in its ranks, the real reason may have well been
Moscow’s attempt to assuage the Muslims over Chechnya and increase its
influence in the Islamic world in order to tip the balance in its favour in its
power politics with Washington. Thailand — a predominantly Buddhist country
— received the same recognition in 1998.It is also an irony of sorts that the
Non-Aligned Movement, of which India is a founding member and has several
non-Muslim countries, got observer status in 1977.Why not India, then? India is
making rapid progress in terms of its influence in the international arena, not
just as a trillion-dollar economic powerhouse, but also as a military and
technological giant, all combining to make it a political heavyweight.
Given the current buoyant state of the Indian economy amid a bleak world
scenario, India’s formal association with the OIC could help forge mutually
beneficial economic deals.
The Charter of the OIC was finalised in March 1972 and was registered with the
United Nations on February 1, 1974. The OIC claimed and was accorded the
status of an inter-governmental organisation. The U.N. General Assembly
routinely adopts by consensus a resolution every year on cooperation between
the U.N. and the OIC. In an essentially practical gesture, with perhaps some
tinge of symbolism, India never sought to oppose this consensus.
Many moons later, and in a changed and changing world, a process of
reassessing the position of the OIC vis-a-vis India was gingerly initiated, first
by Sudan and then by Qatar. The onset of regular talks between India and
Pakistan furthered the re-think in the expectation that it would save many OIC
members from the distasteful task of taking positions.
In the meantime Russia, driven by imperatives of the situation in Chechnya,
sought to reduce hostility in the Muslim world by making overtures that were
accommodated for a variety of reasons. Hence the offer of observer status that
was avidly accepted. The Russians, like some others, had discovered that a
"Muslim cause," to make progress in the OIC, needed a sponsor within the
Organisation. In this background, the Indian government has not reacted
publicly to King Abdullah's exploratory suggestion. It is, of course, possible to
ignore the OIC since the peak of its unfriendly activities is in any case behind us
and is unlikely to be revived. On the other hand, however, an India that is no
longer besieged, may well consider responding differently.
If the debate is to be reopened, it needs to go back to the beginning. If India was
an original invitee, the question of offering it an observer status should not
arise. Instead, it should be a simple matter of restoring the founder-membership
that was taken away from India by a sleight of hand that did no credit to those
who did it, or assisted it in any manner.
The debate is also about recognising India's uniqueness: it is not a part of the
Muslim world but is not away from it; not a Muslim majority state in statistical
terms yet host to the second largest community of Muslims in the world; not a
society focused on Muslim welfare only but one in which Muslims, as an
integral part of a larger whole, get the attention that every other section does.
The Indian experience of a plural society, secular polity, and democratic state
structure is, in fact, relevant to all societies that are not homogenous. It offers an
alternative to the multicultural model that is now under stress in many Western
societies. India is a salad bowl, of pluralism in thought and action. Two
questions inevitably arise.Would the OIC be willing to travel far enough on this question?
Would India be prepared to retrieve its full membership of the club?
The OIC accounts for about 29 per cent of the total membership of the U.N., 47
per cent of the African Union, and 100 per cent of the membership of the Arab
League, the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), and the Economic Cooperation
Organisation (ECO). Nearer home, three of the seven members of the South
Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) are in the OIC and so
are three ASEAN states, with two others (Philippines and Thailand) attending
meetings as guests. The OIC, therefore, is a factor of relevance in multilateral
gatherings and does influence the outcome of elections to U.N. bodies, and their
decisions. Geography is relevant. Muslim countries and societies form the
immediate and proximate neighbourhood of India in South, South East, Central,
and West Asia. Contacts with Muslim countries figure prominently in our
external relations. These for the most part have a substantive economic content,
and considerable potential in terms of our developing capabilities. They have a
bearing on our strategic environment. The challenge now is to define the
contours of policy that would energise these relations, in an imaginative renewal
of existing commitments, in terms of the present-day imperatives.
Current Membership Situation
The requirements for membership to the OIC are as follows:
 Being an Islamic State/having a large Muslim population
 No violation of its values as specified in the OIC Charter
 Absolute Consensus by existing members, approving new memberships
The OIC finalized its criteria for full membership and observer membership
recently. Any member state of the United Nations can apply for either full
membership or observer membership, subject to fulfillment of the conditions
enumerated in the criteria. The OIC, however, has not received any request
from India in this regard.
The debate here isn't regarding Kashmir or regarding Pakistan. The larger
concern is the Muslim world and what it stands to realize with India finding a
grip within the OIC. It's conjointly natural that India would gain reciprocal
diplomatic edges through such a move equally vital are factors that were
highlighted by Hamid Ansari in 2006. The former diplomat and Indian Vice-
President mentioned India deserves to be an OIC member, not simply an
observer, since although India isn't a part of the Muslim world, “it isn't far away
from it; not a Muslim majority state in statistical terms nevertheless host to the
biggest community of Muslims in the world; not a society centered on Muslim
welfare solely however one in which Muslims, as an integral a part of a larger
whole, get the attention that each other section does.” As a result, a formal place
for India within the OIC would augment the collective believability and
negotiation power of the organization. The OIC would be able to leverage India
in regard to vital problems concerning the Muslim world.
This would help the OIC address the “state of disunity” among Muslims, which
many see as one of the worst in 14 centuries of Islamic history. In a post-9/11
21st century, the Muslim world faces numerous challenges – poverty, terrorism,
calls for political reform and unemployment. In addressing these and
implementing the Ten-Year Programme of Action that was laid out at the OIC
Summit in Makkah in 2005, India’s experiences would be more of an asset than
a liability — especially envisaging joint action to promote tolerance and
moderation, modernisation, extensive reforms in all spheres of activities
including science and technology, education, trade, and good governance and
promotion of human rights.
With more than 150 million Muslims, most of them part of the world’s largest
democratic process; India deserves to be associated with the OIC. It is also
important to note that many OIC members are sympathetic to the idea.At the
same time, one needs to also see the issue from the angle that by denying India
any role in the OIC, one is, in fact, abandoning the duty of promoting the
interests of the Muslim population of India. Thus, just like summits have been
called in the past to search for common ground among members of the Muslim
world on various issues, would it be too far-fetched to call another to find
consensus over formalising India’s OIC connection?
The aim should be to –
(a) expand areas of mutually beneficial cooperation,
(b) minimise areas of misperception or divergence of interests, and
(c) maximise advantages that may accrue to India.
Many years back the Islamic Development Bank was permitted to operate a
programme in India. Similarly, some interaction has taken place with the
cultural affiliates of the OIC. This can be developed as part of our cultural
diplomacy. The aim should be to show not the Muslim face of India but the
Indian face that has a Muslim dimension also.Neither an ostrich-like posture of
ignoring neither the OIC nor an avid embrace would serve India's purpose.
Incremental interaction, and a quiet insistence on the restoration of the original
membership, would be a better alternative.
Discussion Questions:
1) What are the advantages and disadvantages of India joining the OIC?
2) How would joining the OIC change India’s relationship with its trading
partners in the Middle East?
3) Under which conditions would Pakistan agree to accept India’s membership
bid?
4) If India does become a member, how will this help solve the Kashmir issue?
Agenda
– Tackling the Issue of
Religious Intolerance”
"A religion does not create murderers. The twisted human psyche does that when it forgets
that the bedrock of all faith is love."
-
Boston Global (2002)
Introduction
Religious intolerance is a multifaceted issue affecting members of religious
minorities throughout the world. It manifests itself in many forms, including
physical violence, defamation of holy sites, discrimination in employment, and
destruction of religious symbols. To say that religious intolerance is afflicted
solely upon a single religion would be false; targets of religious intolerance
range from Muslims to Jews to Orthodox Christians. The common factor behind
the religious intolerance of these religions is a matter of numbers; observers of
these religions are generally targeted because they are considered to be of the
minority religion within their region. Despite Islam being the second largest
religion in the world, Muslims that live in areas where they are considered to be
a minority are frequently faced with discrimination. This is especially true
throughout Europe and the United States. A 2007 estimate places the percentage
of Muslims in the United States at a mere 0.6%.
The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) regards religious intolerance
and the grievous acts associated with it, especially as they relate to Islam, as a
priority of their work. The intolerance that arises from the discrimination of
communities with a minority Muslim population has come to be unofficially
labelled as Islamophobia. Described as a “contemporary form of racism and
xenophobia motivated by unfounded fear, mistrust and hatred of Muslims and
Islam,” Islamophobia is of the utmost concern to the OIC. Despite the
widespread usage of the term, Islamophobia does not have an internationally
agreed-upon definition, thereby making the recognition and subsequent
elimination of it more difficult. In a statement made during the 15th session of
the Human Rights Council, OIC Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu laid
down an eight-point proposal for action to combat religious intolerance. In
addition, the Secretary General called for the High Commissioner for Human
Rights to establish an Observatory to monitor acts of religious intolerance.
In order to eradicate religious intolerance, the traditional belief and definition of
tolerance must first be addressed. The word tolerance is defined as “a sympathy
or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with
one’s own”. However, the notion of tolerance is used to mean “suffering” the
existence of a minority while simultaneously regarding persons belonging to
that minority as inferior beings. This view of tolerance is counterproductive in
the eradication of intolerance because it allows discrimination to exist under the
guide of forced acceptance. The OIC strives in its work to change this view of
tolerance to one of mutual understanding and respect.
Reasons
Discrimination based on religion has been in existence since the inception of
religion itself. Various incidents and events have occurred in past which will be
elaborated upon when we discuss the case studies. Certain reasons have been
cited for these events. Some of them are discussed here:
1. Presence of minority:
In most of the nations, one or more than one religion and its practice
dominate and are followed by the majority of the population. As a result
the rest of the citizen and followers of other religious practices become
minorities. As a result the law and rules made in that nation are made
with respect to the consensus of the majority. Due to this the demands
and rights of the rest of the civilian are ignored. In some instances, their
basic human rights are violated. Some examples being:
 Persecution of Bahá'ís : Bahá'ís is a monotheistic religion whose
followers have been victims to discrimination and prosecution in
various middle eastern countries, especially in Iran have been
subjected to unwarranted arrests, false imprisonment, beatings, torture,
unjustified executions, confiscation and destruction of property owned
by individuals and the Bahá'í community, denial of employment,
denial of government benefits, denial of civil rights and liberties, and
denial of access to higher education.
2. Rise in Terrorism and Crime:
The world’s war against terrorism continues and while that battle is
ongoing, hundreds of lives are being lost every other day. Since the
beginning of 2000, we have lost more lives to terrorist’s attacks than we
did in the last century. In response to these attacks and crimes, the
nations around the world have taken necessary and in places strict
preventive measures. This includes monitoring citizens and non-citizens.
Non-citizens, who in some cases are of some other religious and ethnical
background, undergo through unwarranted searching, detention, torture
and improper representation. This also results in hostility among other
citizens for this religious group since they resemble or look like the
attackers. This is known a “Religious Profiling”. The two religious
members affected the most are:
 Jews: Due to the representation of the Israeli-Palestine conflict, the
Jews around the world have been victims of numerous attacks, some
of which lead to deaths.
 Muslims: Muslims around the world have been victims to numerous
decimations and hate crime, due to rise in the propagation of Islamic
terrorism clubbed with the refugee crisis in Europe.
3) Role of media:
Media plays a pivotal role in portraying news and events for people
around the world and the way they present them, moulds the opinions of
the general public. Reporters have a responsibility to cover the facts, but
we also have a responsibility to avoid unnecessarily stoking hatred and
violence, especially when religious or political tensions are running high.
Hate speech masked as journalism is all too common in many parts of the
world and does a disservice to both readers and society. Sometimes it
merely reinforces unpleasant stereotypes; other times it contributes to
evils far worse.
Article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights broadly defines hate speech as any advocacy of national, racial or
religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or
violence. Apart from that there are laws in various nations with respect to
hate speech. However the bar is too low in some nations and in others the
laws ae somewhat vague. As a result of this we still have instances where
prime time media is used to propagate hate. In other cases the media
themselves comes to a conclusion without even getting their facts
straight. Fox News of the United States of America is a prime example of
both.
 A few years back Fox News reported a terror plot in Miami which
they reported was being propagated by Muslims. It was later found
out that a Christian cult named “Liberty City Seven” were
responsible for the same.
 In numerous shootings in the states, FOX news and other news
channels has called the shooter either an African American or a
Muslim, without commenting about how they reached that
conclusion.
 In 2015, Fox News hosts Jeanine Pirro have delivered dangerous
tirades against Muslims.
When wrong information is spread, wrong opinions are germinated among the
of the public and which results in fear and anger, which we then witness
through hate crimes.
There are many other reasons and the executive board expects the delegates to
discuss in detail about them.
Case Studies
1) Islamophobia:
Islamophobia is a recent form of racial profiling and it has to do with
people who feel endangered by the presence of Muslims in their
environment or attribute negative characteristics to Muslims; it is strictly
related to the idea that Islam promotes violence and hatred or that
Muslims are keen on terrorism. Oxford Dictionary defines Islamophobia
as:
"dislike of or prejudice against Islam or Muslims, especially as a
political force".
It affects Muslim communities within Western countries, Islamic
countries who have been attacked with the unproved excuse of promoting
terrorism, and – most recently – the refugees who try to flee to Europe
after the Arab Spring and the Syrian Civil War. Muslims receive
discriminative treatment in numerous day-to-day occasions, have to put
up with hatred speech and conspiracy theories against them, and their
physical and moral integrity is at stake. Therefore, many of the human
rights of Muslims are being violated as a consequence of Islamophobia in
the public sphere, as far as dignity, equality and safety of people are
concerned. Also, other fundamental rights, related with religion, work
and social life are being disrespected as well.
Islamophobia dominates in mainstream media and public speech;
however, it is no longer limited to unofficial politics. Recently
islamophobic parties are being on the rise throughout Europe, with some
countries, like Hungary, Slovakia, Denmark, Poland and Finland having
them in their very government. We can find examples of extremely
islamophobic behaviour in governmental policies in many countries.
 In August 2015 Slovakia announced that, contrary to the decision
taken at the Summit of the European Council, it will only accept
refugees if they are Christians, with the Interior Minister saying
"How can Muslims be integrated, if they are not going to like it
here?". Likewise, the following November the Polish Minister of
European Affairs, Konrad Szymanski, stated that Poland will
not fulfil its obligations for the EU relocation plan for the Syrian
refugees, because their existence will bring about instability in the
country's political and social life. Surprisingly Eastern European
states, the countries with the smallest percentages of Muslims and
the countries that have sent millions of refugees in the rest of the
World in their recent history, are the ones who have the most
islamophobic stance during the Migratory Crisis.
 Another event that didn’t go unnoticed is the fact that refugees are
sometimes obliged to wear coloured wristbands in order to be
visibly different from other people, in Britain and in Germany.
This is a humiliating policy reminding us of the star-bracelet that
Jews were forced to carry during the Nazi rule
 Also, in December 2015-January 2016 Greece received harsh
critics by the European authorities and various European
governments and it is being threatened with expulsion from the
Schengen Area of free movement of people and capitals, because it
saves all incoming people without distinction of race, nationality
and religion and it does not apply the measures in order to prevent
people from the Middle East and Africa from entering Europe and
identify them, as decided by the EU Summit.
Of course, Islamophobia is also found at many countries' social life, with
numerous events being noticed; those events degrade Muslims and end up
marginalising them. Some of them include:
 In May 2015 a Muslim academician, Tahera Ahmad, during her
flight with an American
airline, United Airlines, was
denied an unopened bottle of
diet coke - unlike the rest of
the passengers - because the
flight attendants believed she
could use the unopened bottle
as a weapon for a terrorist act,
an opinion with which none of the co-passenger disagreed.
 A similar event occurred in Athens, Greece in January 2016. Two
Israeli Jews demanded two Israeli Arabs and one Palestinian to
leave the plane they were on, due to suspicion that the three
Muslims are potential terrorists. The flight delayed 90-100 minutes
over the fights that took place on the airplane and at the end the
three innocent Muslims were forced to abandon humiliatingly their
flight and travel the next day. Even worse, over 60 passengers
defended the demand of the Israeli Jews and no one on the plane
disagreed with the islamophobic opinion; in fact, according to a
passenger’s statement, “no one was racist, we expressed our
concerns in an objective way, just like when you see someone
suspicious in the street”. The incident lead to a complicated
diplomatic incident between Greece and the Palestinian Authority
and even reached the Hellenic Parliament, since the Greek law
(Art. 292 of the penal code) defines that the Israeli Jews should be
sent out of the plane for delaying the flight on purpose instead of
the Muslims being deported for being perceived “suspicious”.
 Earlier, in September 2015, a Muslim student in Texas, Ahmed
Mohammed, suffered an incredible humiliation at his school when
he showed a homemade digital clock he created with a pencil case
– his dream is to become an engineer. The school staff was sure
that Ahmed, being a Muslim, had created a bomb or a hoax bomb
and called the police which immediately arrested the confused and
sad boy.
There are some instances where people take their hostility or hate to the
next level where people can get hurt or even cause death. Some cases
include:
 India
o
o
o
o
2002 Gujrat riots
2006 Vadodara riots
2015 Dadri incident
2016 Jharkhand incident
 Africa
o 2014 Central African Republic – Anti Balaka militia men
targeted Muslims during the internal conflict in the nation,
resulting in many deaths and forced many more to flee the
nation.
 Germany:
o The NSU murders have been famous for the convicts
targeting representatives of Islamic groups.
 USA
o In 2007 an Iranian Muslim was robbed and beaten.
o In 2010 a New York taxi driver was stabbed after a
passenger asked if he was Muslim.
o In 2012 A man was killed after he was pushed onto the
subway tracks by a women who though he was a Muslim.
2) Anti-Semitism:
Anti-Semitism is a longstanding element of many societies, which see
Hebrews as a negative influence for their culture, severely stigmatise
Hebrews as a people full of flaws, consider Jewish communities and
minorities as a burden to the society or disagree with the existence of an
Israeli state. Jews have suffered a lot due to these tendencies throughout
the times, with consequences varying from being deported from their
homeland during the Persian and Roman eras, to being exiled from
Medieval Spain and, most of all, to the shocking period of the Holocaust
during the 20th century, when millions of them were tortured and killed.
Merriam Webster Dictionary defines Anti-Semitism as:
"hatred toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic or
social group".
Nowadays Anti-Semitism still affects Hebrews through conspiracy
theories that blame Jews for numerous international financial and
political problems, through discriminating stereotypes against Jews,
through terrorist attacks on Hebrew spots of various cities and, of course,
by the denial of the right of Israelis to form an independent state in their
historic homeland, as well as by the Holocaust Denial. Also, after World
War II the newly founded Israeli state is heavily criticised for its violent
and discriminating oppression of Palestinian people and for its
extremely militarist character as a society, while recently its lack of
action against ISIS has been negatively commented.
Of course, Jews are not viewed as terrorists by most people, and their
actions are usually deemed as violent acts of oppression, a necessary part
of a war procedure against Arabs or they even have some sympathisers.
The principal element that links profiling and antiSemitism is that anti-Semitism constitutes a
characteristic example where religious profiling
gradually lead to dreadful discrimination by the
authorities within a country, even a democratic
one. Sooner or later the perceptions of the public
sphere – simplistic and populist speeches of
politicians, discourses on mass media, popular
theories of conspiracy, continuous hatred speech
etc – in democratic countries will inevitably lead to
governments who will officially discriminate in order to keep up with the
social tendencies and maintain their popularity. In 2014 the AntiDefamation League published a global survey of worldwide antisemitic
attitudes, reporting that in the Middle East, 74% of adults agreed with a
majority of the survey's eleven antisemitic propositions, including that
"Jews have too much power in international financial markets" and that
"Jews are responsible for most of the world's wars." In 2008 A Pew
Research Center survey found that negative views concerning Jews were
most common in the three predominantly Arab nations polled, with 97%
of Lebanese having unfavourable opinion of Jews, 95% in Egypt and
96% in Jordan.
Some other anti – Semitist incidents that happened only the previous year
include:
 Tunisia - On November 30, 2012, prominent Tunisian imam
Sheikh Ahmad Al-Suhayli of Radès, told his followers during a
live broadcast on Hannibal TV that "God wants to destroy this
[Tunisian] sprinkling of Jews and is sterilizing the wombs of
Jewish women." This was the fourth time incitement against Jews
has been reported in the public sphere since the overthrow of
Tunisian President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali in 2011, thus
prompting Jewish community leaders to demand security
protection from the Tunisian government. Al-Suhayli subsequently
posted a video on the Internet in which he claimed that his
statements had been misinterpreted
 Jordan - Jordan does not allow entry to Jews with visible signs of
Judaism or even with personal religious items in their possession.
The Jordanian ambassador to Israel replied to a complaint by a
religious Jew denied entry that security concerns required that
travelers entering the Hashemite Kingdom not do so with prayer
shawls (Tallit) and phylacteries (Tefillin). Jordanian authorities
state that the policy is in order to ensure the Jewish tourists' safety.
 Palestine - The Hamas, an offshoot of the Egyptian Muslim
Brotherhood, has a foundational statement of principles, or
"covenant" that claims that the French revolution, the Russian
revolution, colonialism and both world wars were created by the
Zionists. It also claims the Freemasons and Rotary clubs are
Zionist fronts and refers to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
Claims that Jews and Freemasons were behind the French
Revolution originated in Germany in the mid-19th century.
3) Anti-Christian Prosecution:
Since the time of Christ, Christians have been victims of numerous
atrocities against them and the followers. In the modern times, although
the hate crimes against them happen worldwide, the majority of them are
concentrated in the Middle East, much as a complement to the fact that
majority of islamophobia is concentrated to the west. Every year, the
Christian non-profit organization Open Doors publishes a list of the top
fifty countries where persecution of Christians for religious reasons is
worst. The 2014 list has the following countries as its top ten "offenders":






North Korea
Somalia
Syria
Iraq
Afghanistan
Saudi Arabia




Maldives
Pakistan
Iran
Yemen
Some events include:
 In 2008, the Taliban killed a British charity worker, Gayle
Williams, "because she was working for an organisation which
was preaching Christianity in Afghanistan"
 On 3 June 2001 nine people were killed in an explosion at a
Roman Catholic Church in the Gopalganj District in Bangladesh.
 A number of attacks took place against the Christians in Mosul,
Iraq, which resulted in more than 40 deaths.
 In Nigeria, the Boko Haram Islamist group has bombed churches
and killed numerous Christians who they regard as kafirs (infidels)
4) Religious Conversion, Apostasy & Proselytism:
There is a very thin line between conversion, Apostasy and Proselytism.
Religious Conversion is when one abandons the beliefs and practices of
one religion and starts following another. Apostasy is when one abandons
one’s religion and starts practicing something that was against the
principles of the same religion. Proselytism is forcing people to convert to
another religion.
It should be noted that Religious Conversion is not illegal. In fact
The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights defines
religious conversion as a human right:
“Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion;
this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief" (Article 18)
However Apostasy and Proselytism are a different case all together.
Many religious groups and even some nations punish apostates. Apostates
may be shunned by the members of their former religious group or
subjected to formal or informal punishment. The reason for this may be
the official policy of the religious group or may simply be the voluntary
action of its members.
Currently, only Muslim countries criminalize public apostasy, and
their apostasy laws only concern apostasy from Islam, citing Islamic
law as justification. Of these countries, 11 were located in the Middle
East. In some of the nations, this offence is punishable to death. No
country in the Americas or in Europe have any law forbidding the
renunciation of a religious belief or restricting the freedom to choose
one's religion.
Proselytism is considered inappropriate, disrespectful and offensive by
some individuals. Some nations have laws against it. However, there have
been instances where this practice has been followed, mostly in areas of
conflict. Example:
 In Iraq, it has been in reported that ISIS members have forced
captives to convert from other religion to Islam, resisting which
they are killed.
Progress up till now
There have been certain actions taken by nations and regions. The Islamophobia
Observatory of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) monitors
Islamophobic acts and catalogues them into Annual Reports presented to the
OIC Council of Foreign Ministers. The member-states of the Council of Europe
have accepted the European Convention on Human Rights. However, methods
of reporting and monitoring religious-based hate crimes, particularly those
committed against Muslims, at the state level are inefficient. Moreover,
religious-based hate crimes, rather than being tracked as a unique category of
crime, are lumped in with all hate crimes. Very few countries track religiousbased hate crimes, and as a result, they are limited in their ability to compile and
disseminate such information. Instead, the international community currently
relies on information provided by Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to
develop policies aimed at eradication religious-based discrimination.
The OIC’s commitment to eradicating Islamophobia is further represented in
several resolutions it sponsors, including Human Rights Council 7/19 and
A/HRC/10/22 and General Assembly Resolution 62/154.92 Each of these
resolutions, having been titled as “Combating defamation of religions”,
expresses concern for the negative stereotype promulgated through the media of
Muslims as being inextricably linked to terrorism. However, while each of these
documents recognizes the need to combat the defamation of religions through
both legislative and non-legislative means, A/RES/62/154 emphasizes the
importance on respecting the right of freedom of expression and the
responsibility associated with this right of maintaining respect for the rights and
reputations of others. A/HRC/16/18, Combating intolerance, negative
stereotyping and stigmatization of, and discrimination, incitement to violence
and violence against, persons based on religion or behalf, further solidified the
OIC’s cooperation with the West in combating religious intolerance. This
resolution, sponsored by the OIC with collaborative efforts made by the US and
the European Union, stepped away from the well-known “defamation of
religions” .By eliminating the term “defamation” from the resolution, the OIC
was able to garner support for the cause from a greater number of Member
States.
In September 2003, the first ever Congress of Leaders of World and Traditional
Religions was held in Astana, Kazakhstan at the initiative of President
Nursultan Nazarbayev.Senior clerics from many religions, including Islam,
Christianity, and Judaism met to establish an interdenominational dialogue
as a means of combating “violence, fanaticism, extremism and terrorism.” This
first congress aimed to “search for universal guidelines in world and traditional
forms of religion, create permanent international interdenominational institute
for realizing the religious dialogue and accepting coordinated decisions.”
Additionally, the representatives present agreed to hold the Congress no less
than once every three years and has since met in September, 2006 and July,
2009. The work of the First Congress and its subsequent meetings is
demonstrative of the progress that is possible through collaboration and open
dialogue. However there is still a lot of scope of improvement and a lot needs to
be done.
QARMAS
1. How do we differentiate between religious hatred and religious profiling?
2. How do we strike a balance between Freedom of Speech and Blasphemy?
3. Does religious profiling undermine human rights and is it meaningful for
it to be illegal?
4. What solutions can be proposed in order to limit indirect or direct
discrimination on the basic of religious beliefs and Ideologies?
5. To what extent do such solutions respect human rights?