FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND RELIGIOUS SENSITIVITY: A COMPARATIVE REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS AND ISLAMIC TEACHINGS

Abstract

The intersection of the right to freedom of expression and the preservation of religious sensitivity stands as one of the  most polarizing challenges in modern constitutionalism and global governance. This paper provides a comparative  analysis of international human rights law (IHRL) and Islamic legal traditions to map out their structural divergences,  normative overlaps, and potential pathways for systemic reconciliation. Utilizing a doctrinal and comparative  methodology, the study evaluates the scope of textually guaranteed expressions under mainstream instruments  alongside the corresponding restrictive thresholds intended to protect public order, public morals, and the spiritual  sensibilities of faith communities (Cox, 2020). The international paradigm primarily relies on a rights-holder model  where limitations are strictly confined to preventing imminent violence, discrimination, or hate speech targeting  vulnerable individuals rather than protecting abstract metaphysical doctrines or sacred symbols from insult (Telle,  2021). Conversely, classical and contemporary Islamic frameworks approach this dynamic from a duty-centric  worldview grounded in Maqasid al-Shari'ah (the foundational objectives of Islamic law), prioritizing the safeguarding  of religion (Hifz al-Din) and the preservation of communal stability (Sadd al-Dharai) over absolute individual  assertions (Fayyaz, 2025). This paper reveals that while Western-influenced international mechanisms increasingly 
push for the complete decriminalization of blasphemy to protect public dissent, international legal precedents— particularly within the European Court of Human Rights—simultaneously tolerate certain national restrictions to  preserve "religious peace" and prevent profound social fractures (Jurečková, 2025). Ultimately, the study argues that  bridging this conceptual divide requires moving away from zero-sum polemics and instead leveraging mutual  frameworks like the United Nations Human Rights Council Resolution 16/18 and the Rabat Plan of Action, which shift  the legal emphasis from protecting abstract creeds to protecting human persons from targeted incitement and cross cultural hostility.