UN Special Rapporteur’s Report on Countering Islamophobia/Anti-Muslim Hatred Does Not Stand Up to Scrutiny (Part 1)

The two back-to-back terrorist attacks in the US are bound to increase allegations of “Islamophobia,” as the shooters are Muslims. Expect the UN to lead the charge to fight back. On March 15, the UN observes the International Day to Combat Islamophobia. To supercharge its efforts, in May 2025, the UN Secretary-General appointed the ‘High Representative for the Alliance of Civilizations as the UN Special Envoy to Combat Islamophobia’ to enhance the UN’s collective response. Unrelenting efforts by the UN in this direction are a certainty. What should one make of them?

Recall that in 2021, the UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief published a report entitled Countering Islamophobia/anti-Muslim hatred to eliminate discrimination and intolerance based on religion or belief. The report presented to the UN Human Rights Council and a unanimous UN General Assembly resolution in 2022 recognized March 15 as the International Day to Combat Islamophobia. As his report remains the UN’s definitive statement on Islamophobia, it deserves an examination. It has many weaknesses, of which ten are as follows:

The Special Rapporteur’s report admits that Islamophobia is ‘contested’ but fails to incorporate the views of those who contest it.

He states:

Some policymakers and monitors prefer the label “anti-Muslim hatred,” fearing that the term “Islamophobia” risks condemning all critiques of Islam and, therefore, could stifle freedom of expression. Moreover, the term is contested because charges of Islamophobia have been inappropriately and dangerously levelled at persons who challenge majoritarian interpretations of Islam, such as human rights activists, including women’s human rights advocates; members of minority Muslim communities within majority Muslim contexts; non-Muslims, including atheists and other religious minorities; and dissidents in authoritarian States. (page 3, paragraph 6)

However, the report omits to mention whether the views of those who have been subjected to such ‘inappropriate’ and ‘dangerous’ charges were sought, raising questions about its objectivity and completeness. The views of critics of Islam find no place in the report.

The Special Rapporteur fails to acknowledge that Islamic texts can influence Muslims to act violently.

He states:

Notably, conspiracy theories have been amplified by a number of so-called “counter-jihad” and “alt-news” websites, blogs, and organizations across Europe and North America. These theories have also directly incited terrorists to commit atrocities offline, including in Norway and New Zealand, who frequently referenced such conspiracies as justifications for their acts. (page 6, paragraph 20)

If so, the same logic must be consistently applied when the Quran is implicated. Consider the evidence in a report to the UN Security Council on the massacre of 26 civilians in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in 2017. The group of experts stated

They [the attackers] also recorded information about each person, including their name and religion. They asked them why they had not converted to Islam and showed the Qur’an to one of them. Photos of the dead show that they had been bound, and some had been tied together. After the killings, they shot in the air twice, saying that they had killed all the “kafir” (“infidels” in Arabic).

It is also a verifiable fact that Mohamed Atta, one of the 9/11 hijackers, wrote a note to himself which included the words:

Read al-Tawba and Anfal [traditional war chapters from the Qur’an] and reflect on their meanings and remember all of the things God has promised for the martyrs. Strike, for God’s sake. Shout ‘Allahu Akbar’ because this strikes fear in the hearts of the non-believers. God said: ‘Strike above the neck, and strike at all their extremities…the women of paradise are waiting, calling out, ‘Come hither, friend of God.’ They have dressed in their most beautiful clothing.

If one follows the Special Rapporteur’s logic, and when a Muslim shows or quotes the Qur’an and commits terrorism, as in the above two cases, then should the Qur’an be considered as ‘directly inciting terrorists’?  It is difficult not to see an exculpatory intent in the Special Rapporteur’s report to shield Islamic texts from their role in terrorism. The Special Rapporteur praises his team for their ‘outstanding research and analysis.’ Still, they did not diligently search publicly available and relevant UN documents nor inform themselves of the salient facts concerning the perpetrators of 9/11.

The Special Rapporteur refers to Islam’s diverse interpretations and practices worldwide, but fails to elaborate which ‘interpretation’ is ‘true’ Islam.

He states:

Islam [is] a global religion with widely diverse interpretations and practices worldwide. (page 4, paragraph 12)

This raises the question as to which interpretation of Islam is ‘true’, as some can have horrific real-world effects. Specifically, in 2023, the Afghan Taliban Minister for Education defended the Taliban government’s ban on girls’ schooling as ‘consistent with Islam.’ In 2023, an Amnesty International report argued that the Taliban had committed the ‘crime against humanity of gender persecution.’ In 2024, the UN Security Council was informed that ‘the Taliban’s continued imposition of strict interpretations of Islamic law and Afghan culture has resulted in unprecedented restrictions on women and girls’ and that ‘men are increasingly targeted for not adhering to certain grooming standards, such as shaving their beards or having “western-styled” haircuts.’

One may ask:

• As the Taliban claim they are implementing Islam, what is the doctrinal responsibility of Islam for what is being done to Afghan women and men?
• How should non-Muslims determine which ‘interpretation’ and ‘practice’ of Islam is authentic Islam?
• Are all ‘interpretations and practices’ of Islam equally Islamic?
• Are some interpretations more ‘correct’ than others?
• Is female genital mutilation ‘an interpretation of Islam’ that the UN is attempting to stamp out through its Joint Programme on the Elimination of Female Genital Mutilation?

The Special Rapporteur’s portrayal of Islam as only a religion is factually incorrect, as it is also inherently political and hegemonic.

The report states the Islamophobic mindset denies ‘Islam of its status as a religion and considers Islam a fixed political ideology.’ This is a half-truth, as Muslims consider Islam to be ‘not for the mosque only, it is for daily life, a guide to life in all its aspects: socially, economically, and politically.’ Abundant evidence attests to this:

• 57 Muslim countries have organized themselves into the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), a political organization for the worldwide Ummah. OIC describes itself as the ‘collective voice of the Muslim world’ to safeguard and protect the interests of its member states and as a collective institution for joint Islamic action and solidarity. If Islam were not political, the OIC would not exist. No other group of countries organizes itself under the umbrella of a shared religion and dedicates itself to joint political action.
• Of the 46 countries with majority Muslim populations, 23 declare Islam the state religion in their constitutions. Thirty-nine percent of the world’s Muslims live in 22 countries whose constitutions provide that Islamic law, principles, or jurisprudence should serve as a source of, or limitation on, general legislation, clearly making Islam a political force there.
• Political parties that explicitly base their programs on Islam are common in the Muslim world. The late leader of the Iranian revolution, Ayatollah Khomeini, and the country’s now deceased leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, demonstrate how easily Islam can simultaneously be religious and political. The same can be said about the Taliban, who currently rule Afghanistan.
• Muslims worldwide also support religious leaders having political influence. For example, at least three-quarters of Muslims in Malaysia (82 percent) and Indonesia (75 percent) believe religious leaders should influence political matters, including substantial percentages who say they should play a large role (41 percent and 30 percent, respectively). In South Asia, a large majority in Afghanistan (82 percent) and Bangladesh (69 percent) believe religious leaders should influence political matters, while 54 percent of Pakistani Muslims agree.
• Muslims worldwide support reviving the Caliphate to varying degrees, an Islamic form of government in which political and religious leadership is united. In 2014, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) declared Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi as caliph and ‘leader for Muslims everywhere.’

Ghaffar Hussain, writing in the left-wing Guardian on The real roots of extremism, quotes the influential Muslim thinker Abu Ala Mawdudi:

The Muslim nations are very special because they have a command from Allah to rule the entire world and to be over every nation in the world. Any nation or power in this world that tries to get in the way of that goal, Islam will fight and destroy. In order for Islam to fulfill that goal, it can use every power available in every way it can be used to bring worldwide revolution.

Another Muslim author writes, ‘Islam, in both theory and practice, is ‘exceptional’ in how it relates to politics’ and emphasizes ‘its outsize role in law and governance.’

Based on this evidence, all Islamic ideas or practices cannot be automatically and uncritically considered as the only religion entitled to ‘freedom of religion or belief.’ As such practices could have both political and religious intent, they must be addressed on a case-by-case basis.