TEHRAN – At the sidelines of the Conference on “People’s Rights and Legitimate Freedoms in the Thoughts of Ayatollah Khamenei,” The Tehran Times sat down with Mohd Azmi Abdul Hamid, President of the Malaysian Consultative Council of Islamic Organizations (MAPIM), to discuss the evolving landscape of global justice, Palestine advocacy, and the role of the Muslim world in confronting oppressive power structures.

Known for his outspoken positions on humanitarian crises and neocolonial policies, Azmi offers a candid assessment of Malaysia’s responsibilities, the shortcomings of Western human rights frameworks, and the growing moral awakening across the Global South and beyond. In this interview, he outlines strategic pathways for stronger solidarity, principled foreign policy, and people-centered resistance to global injustices.

The following is the text of the interview:

How can Malaysia strengthen its diplomatic and humanitarian support for Palestine and other oppressed regions?

Malaysia already has a strong moral and diplomatic record on Palestine, but in today’s climate that base needs to be upgraded into a more strategic and structured role.

Diplomatically, Malaysia can strengthen its support in several ways by building a coordinated Global South front on Palestine, together with Iran, Turkiye, Indonesia, South Africa, Brazil and others, so that resolutions at the UN and other multilateral forums are not isolated voices but part of a bloc that refuses to normalize genocide and occupation.

By pushing more aggressively for legal avenues, including support for cases at the ICJ and ICC, sanctions on companies complicit in war crimes and concrete diplomatic consequences for states that arm and shield Israel.

By institutionalizing Palestine as a permanent pillar of foreign policy, not an issue that depends on the personal inclination of any particular government.

On the humanitarian side, Malaysia should develop a permanent humanitarian and reconstruction mechanism for Gaza and all occupied territories, with government facilitation and NGO implementation, so that we move from ad hoc relief to long term resilience.

Use its credibility in the Muslim world and ASEAN to convene regional humanitarian coalitions that can negotiate more effective access and protection for aid convoys.

Expand people to people programs such as scholarships, medical treatment, rehabilitation and professional training for Palestinians, so that humanitarian work is not only about emergency survival but about rebuilding human capital.

The same approach should be extended to other oppressed regions such as Kashmir, Yemen, Rohingya camps and occupied or marginalized communities in South Asia and West Asia. Malaysia has the advantage of being seen as less threatening and more independent. That position should be used more boldly.

What are the main challenges you face in mobilizing support for Palestinian causes, both within Malaysia and internationally, and how do you navigate political, social, and diplomatic constraints?

Inside Malaysia, the main challenge is not sympathy. The Malaysian public is overwhelmingly pro Palestine. The challenge is sustaining that commitment beyond moments of outrage. People get fatigued, and local economic issues can narrow the focus. We have to constantly educate that Palestine is not only a foreign issue. It is a moral mirror of the world order and a test of our own integrity.

Internationally, there are three major constraints:

-The securitization of Palestine activism. In some countries, if you stand clearly with Palestine, you are quickly equated with extremism or terrorism, even if your stance is clearly humanitarian and legal.

-The dominance of Western media narratives that either criminalize Palestinian resistance or frame Israel’s actions as self defense, making our advocacy look like it goes against the so called mainstream.

-The diplomatic caution of many governments who sympathize with Palestine in private but fear economic or political repercussions if they take an open and firm position.

We navigate these pressures in several ways.

First, we anchor our narrative in international law, human rights conventions and basic humanitarian principles, so that even those who do not share our religious framework can understand the legitimacy of our position.

Second, we build coalitions that cross ideological lines. We work with Christian groups, secular human rights organizations, trade unions, student bodies and Global South movements. Palestine is not only a Muslim concern. It is the front line of the global struggle against apartheid and impunity.

Third, we use people power as leverage. Large mobilizations, boycott movements, sustained campaigns in universities and professional sectors create a new political cost for governments that continue to shield Israel. In that sense, the street and civil society become an informal diplomatic force.

From your perspective, what is the most urgent challenge to “people’s rights and legitimate freedoms” in South Asia and the Middle East, and how does the framework proposed at this conference (rooted in Islamic principles) offer a better response than Western human rights models?

The most urgent challenge is that state power in many countries has become insulated from moral accountability. Whether in occupied territories, authoritarian states or majoritarian democracies, you see the same pattern. Security language is used to crush dissent. Laws are weaponized to silence minorities. Media is controlled or manipulated. In South Asia and the Middle East, we see a dangerous fusion of ethnonationalism, sectarian manipulation and geopolitical interests. The result is systematic denial of rights, especially for Muslims, minorities, refugees and women in vulnerable contexts.

The Western human rights model gave some important tools, especially after the Second World War, but it has three serious weaknesses in practice

It is selectively applied. Powerful states and their allies are often exempt. Palestine is the clearest example.

It is heavily individualistic, often ignoring structural injustice, economic exploitation and historical oppression.

It is disconnected from a grounded metaphysical and moral anchor, so it can easily be bent to political fashion.

The Islamic framework proposed at this conference is not a rejection of rights language. Instead, it deepens and corrects it.

Islamic principles start from the idea that human dignity is given by Allah, not by the state and not by any race or ideology. Rights emerge from this divine dignity and are balanced by duties. The maqasid al shariah provide a coherent architecture for protecting life, faith, intellect, family, property and honour. Justice is not a slogan. It is a sacred obligation that applies to rulers and ruled, friends and enemies.

This framework can respond better because it insists on consistency and rejects hypocrisy. You cannot condemn one occupation and justify another.

It integrates social and economic justice with civil and political rights. Poverty, usury, exploitation and environmental destruction are all human rights issues.

It recognizes communities and nations as moral entities, not only isolated individuals. Collective rights such as self determination, protection from genocide and cultural survival are central.

In short, Islamic principles do not abolish human rights. They rescue human rights from double standards and moral emptiness.

How do you interpret the global reaction to Israel’s ongoing war in Gaza, particularly the widening gap between Western public opinion and Western governments?

What we are witnessing is historic. For the first time at this scale, Western public opinion, especially among youth, minority communities and many ordinary citizens, is openly defying their own governments on Palestine. Millions have marched in London, Paris, New York, Madrid and other cities. Academic unions, professional associations, artists and even some churches have spoken out clearly.

At the same time, Western governments continue to provide political cover, weapons and diplomatic protection to Israel while talking about humanitarian concern with very little substance. This gap exposes the crisis of Western democracy itself. When the majority of the people no longer trust their leaders on the most basic moral question of life and death, the legitimacy of the system is shaken.

Several factors explain this shift at the public level:

Social media has broken the monopoly of mainstream outlets. People see in real time the killing of children, the destruction of hospitals and the language of dehumanization.

Many Western citizens are already disillusioned after Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and the open hypocrisy in how international law is used. Gaza is the point where patience broke.

The intersection between Palestine and other struggles, such as Black Lives Matter, anti colonial movements and economic justice, has created new alliances.

For us in the Global South, this moment is important. It shows that the West is not one block. There is a ruling establishment that defends imperial interests, and there are societies that are beginning to ask deeper questions. Part of our task is to build bridges with that conscience in the West and turn moral outrage into long term political pressure.

 How do you assess Iran’s role as a strategic actor in West Asia today, especially in shaping alliances with non-Arab regional players?

Whether one agrees with every policy or not, it is undeniable that Iran has emerged as one of the few states in West Asia that openly challenges Zionist and American hegemony in the region. It has paid a very high cost for that stance through sanctions, isolation and constant intimidation, yet it has not surrendered its fundamental positions on Palestine and resistance.

Iran’s importance lies in several dimensions:

First, it has provided strategic depth to the resistance axis in Palestine, Lebanon and elsewhere, altering the calculations of those who once believed that military domination would be easy and without consequence.

Second, Iran has cultivated ties with non Arab actors such as Russia, China and various movements in Latin America and Africa, helping to shape a more multipolar order. This is painful for Western planners, who prefer a region of weak and compliant regimes.

Third, Iran’s insistence on its independent path, including in science and technology, has broken the myth that the only possible route for a Muslim country is to fully submit to Western security and economic frameworks.

At the same time, I believe Iran, Malaysia, Turkiye, Indonesia, Pakistan, Qatar and others must move beyond parallel efforts into more coordinated political and economic strategies. The future of West Asia and the broader Muslim world will depend on whether these countries can cooperate despite differences and present a credible alternative to the current architecture of domination.

What role should Southeast Asian leaders play in resisting neocolonialism and promoting regional solidarity?

Southeast Asia is often seen as economically dynamic but politically cautious. Yet historically, this region has a strong anti-colonial memory, from the struggle against the Dutch in Indonesia and the British in Malaya to the American war in Vietnam. Neocolonialism today is more subtle. It operates through debt, unfair trade, military alignments, digital dependence and narrative control.

Southeast Asian leaders should play several key roles.

They should refuse to be used as proxies or bases in great power rivalries that have nothing to do with the wellbeing of their people. The region cannot afford a new Cold War that turns ASEAN into a chessboard for others.

They should use the economic weight of ASEAN plus the Muslim majority of countries like Indonesia, Malaysia and Brunei to push for fairer trade, more just financial arrangements and stronger South South cooperation with West Asia, Africa and Latin America.

They should articulate a clear moral position on global issues, particularly Palestine, Rohingya, Kashmir and Islamophobia in India and elsewhere, instead of hiding behind neutrality when basic justice is at stake.

They should also invest in building a people centered regionalism where civil society, youth, scholars, trade unions and NGOs from Southeast Asia and West Asia can meet, strategize and act together.

In short, Southeast Asian leaders must understand that neutrality in the face of injustice is not stability. It is a slow surrender of moral authority. True stability comes when a region stands on its own feet, defends its dignity and builds solidarity with other oppressed peoples.