The phenomenon of offending religions is not newly born, rather it is rooted in history, so it is not objective to link it to what has been happening in the developments of the West’s relationship with Muslims and Islam since the events of Sept. 11, 2001, to this day.

Prejudice against religions has existed for a long time, but it strengthened dramatically after the European Renaissance. It was a remarkable moment in the deepening of this offense through the literary writings, which became widespread with the spread of the printing press, then later through cinema and radio, and finally television and social media.

The issue of defamation of religions is among the issues that continue to haunt some of the United Nations organs for more than a decade. Decisions have been issued regarding it aimed at condemning its practitioners, but unfortunately, these decisions are not legally binding despite their moral and ethical influence. Interest in religious issues has begun in recent years within the United Nations, especially within two important organs, namely the General Assembly and the Human Rights Council. There are three basic trends about the importance of religion in international human rights law, and its place in the United Nations organs concerned with the subject, which are:

• The first trend is that religion should not have any normative role in the international law, and this approach is adopted and defended by most Western jurists who argue that the international law must remain neutral.

• The second trend recognizes the actual and fundamental role of the religious factor in the international law, without demanding any important role of religion in the public sphere. This trend believes that religion plays a prominent and important role in the development of the international law, and in the direction of maintaining international peace and security.

• The third trend believes that religion should play a central role in the international law, not only as a source, but also as a standard tool. This trend is described as conciliatory, and a number of jurists who consider that religion is very important and essential in international life supports it.

It is noted that the third trend has dominated the practices of the United Nations organs that seek to take moderate positions, as they have taken in recent years relatively supportive stances to criminalize offending and insulting religions and religious symbols, and international documents seem to distinguish between defamation and insulting of religions, and calling and inciting religious hatred.

Unrestricted freedom of opinion and expression in all its manifestations, including satirical caricatures, was followed by intense discussions and violent criticism aimed at preventing contempt and insulting of religions. This led to the formation of strong pressure groups pushing towards the need to develop national legislation, as well as international legislation that prevent criticism and insulting of religions, and despising them. These initiatives find their legitimacy in their relentless pursuit of reducing crimes resulting from both racial and religious hatred. The goal behind this is not to limit the exercise of human rights, or to work to restrict them, as much as the goal is to take measures to reduce exaggeration in insulting them by one party or another.

Reconciling human rights with freedom of opinion and expression, and especially religious freedom, is very difficult, and cannot be achieved unless a law is put in place that protects these from that. Otherwise, religious freedom and human rights will be anarchically violated punctuated by the tyranny of freedom of opinion and expression and the domination of the media.

The Human Rights Council witnessed a sharp debate among its members about the concept of offending religions and its relationship to freedom of expression in 2008, especially after the publication of caricatures insulting Prophet Mohammad, peace and blessings be upon him, in some Danish and French newspapers, when discussing a report on the subject prepared by the U.N. Special Rapporteur on aspects of racial discrimination in it, in which he proposed replacing the concept of "insulting religions" with the concept of "incitement to hatred". The Council members were divided, those who see the need to place a law protecting religions, and those who reject it with a justification that it will undermine the freedom of expression.

On April 11, 2011, the United Nations General Assembly approved Resolution 65/224. The resolution evoked the various efforts that were made in this context since the inception of the United Nations to the moment of its issuance, reviewing the various international agreements, declarations and resolutions related to issues of non-discrimination in all its forms, especially religious discrimination and hatred against Islam and Muslims in the first place, then Judaism and Christianity.

This resolution affirmed in its ninth paragraph that the United Nations General Assembly expresses its dissatisfaction with the use of print, audiovisual, and electronic media to incite acts of violence and xenophobia, and the related intolerance and discrimination against any religion, and against the targeting of holy books, places of worship, and the religious symbols and violate their sanctities. This resolution also reaffirms the general recommendation No. 15 issued by the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, which stipulates the prohibition of publishing all ideas based on racial superiority or racial hatred in a manner consistent with freedom of opinion and expression, and without falling into incitement to religious hatred. Based on the text of this resolution, the United Nations General Assembly calls on all states to implement the provisions of the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief. At the same time, it urges its member states to work within the framework of their legal and constitutional systems to provide adequate protection from all acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from the degradation of religions and their status.

Some U.N. member states have taken some steps to protect religious freedom and respect for religions, by enacting laws to prevent insulting of religions, and to prevent negative stereotypes from displaying followers of religions. Nevertheless, these stereotypes are still spreading strongly in some Western countries under the justification of opinion and expression freedom, and freedom of media. These countries have also remained reluctant to issue national legislation, in line with the rules of international human rights law, in order to punish whoever violates the sanctity of religions even if under the pretext of the freedom of opinion and expression that contradicts with religious hatred and discrimination.

In light of these data, a set of questions arises. How to prevent insulting religions? What are the mechanisms for the practical implementation of the United Nations resolution? Have the effects of some legislation that prevent this started to appear? On the other hand, is the matter still as it was, in light of the events taking place in many regions in the Middle East, North Africa and sub-Saharan Africa that are characterized by the spread of extremist religious movements that threaten global peace and security and escalated Islamophobia? Is it time for developing a binding international agreement for respecting religions and distinguishing between freedom of opinion and expression and the issue of insulting religions, considering this as a violation of human rights at a time when the wave of discrimination, hatred and racism on the basis of race and religion has increased in Europe?

The questions continue: How to do this? Is it by imposing restrictions on the freedom of the media, and thus on the freedom of opinion and expression, or by unleashing it uncontrollably, or by making the right to respect religions and their freedoms equal to freedom of expression? The tyranny of one of them over the other may lead to the violation of two ancient principles inherent in the human rights system, one of which cannot be sacrificed in order to preserve the other. Working on these issues and reaching objective and comprehensive answers regarding them will undoubtedly be a qualitative addition to regional and international efforts exerted to promote dialogue between followers of religions and coexistence among people in order to confront movements and currents that resort to violence and terrorism in the name of religion and threaten global peace and security.

The Muslim World League, as an umbrella for the Islamic people, is one of the most qualified Islamic and international organizations to contribute to this mission. The Makkah Declaration affirmed, "Enacting legislation that deter hate propagandists and instigators of violence, terrorism and civilized clash is sufficient to dry up the causes of religious and ethnic conflict". Moreover, the justification for the MWL's eligibility for this mission is based in our opinion on two basic considerations:

• First: It is represented in the great and continuous efforts made by the SG of MWL, Sheikh Dr. Muhammad bin Abdulkarim Al-Issa, in order to spread goodness, peace and harmony. In addition to promote dialogue with the followers of religions, introduce correct and noble Islamic values in their human and civilizational dimension. Promote the concept of one human family that is based on love and cooperation in building a civilized society, fight any form of abuse against this family in its harmony, rapprochement, cooperation and favoritism in its various religions, ethnicities, cultures and countries. Invite followers of religions and cultures to enhance their human communication and cooperation within the framework of common and interests.

• Second: it is represented in the MWL's objectives, calling for removing the factors of conflict and discord, strengthening cohesion between people and nations, caring for civilized communication, and spreading the culture of dialogue. The MWL has become at the forefront of civilizational, cultural, and religious institutions around the world because it was able to present a civilized discourse that preserved the values of Islamic identity and constants, and opened positively for shared human values. It also concluded cooperation and partnership agreements with a number of Islamic and international organizations such as the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, the Islamic World Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (ISESCO) the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), the World Council of Religious Leaders, the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, and the Call of Conscience Foundation of America, to promote the values of harmony and fight extremism.

In addition, the MWL concerning the French arena in October 2020 issued a statement condemning the methods of insulting the followers of religions, including the "religious symbols" of any religion, and clarifying that Islam forbids this. The MWL affirmed that the human rights principle of "freedom of expression" must be framed by human values that are based on respect for the feelings of others. The freedom of opinion, when it deviates from those values, undermines the moral meaning of freedoms and harms the purposes of the constitutional and legal legislation that ensured the freedom of expression in any legitimate manner. This was not intended to incite hatred and racism under the pretext of freedom of opinion, nor to fabricate cultural and civilizational conflict between nations and people.