Religious Hatred

Religious hatred over the centuries has taken many forms. In the past, religious disagreements were resolved by, say, going to war, launching an Inquisition, putting heretics on the rack. Today, we hope, in Britain at least, they are resolved by debate. But for how much longer? I found myself in a difficult argument with a charming Iranian Muslim woman and a Bahai friend of hers the other day. They contested that the Koran contained nothing but sweetness and light towards other religions and challenged me to prove otherwise. I emailed them this passage: "O You who believe! Do not take the Jews and Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people." (5:49-51) You can read more in similar vein here.

By publishing this here, or even by sending my protagonists that email, am I inciting hatred against Muslims? I should hope not, for what is wrong about revealing the truth?

But imams will not be prosecuted for reading passages such as this out in mosques. At least, not according to the Muslim Council of Britain, whose director Sir Iqbal Sacranie formed part of a delegation to the Home Office about a year ago to secure such reassurance.

I am used to monitoring mentally everything I write, and all comments posted on this blog, for potential defamation. We have some of the strictest libel laws in the world, rightly so. But in future, after the Incitement to Religious Hatred Bill reaches the statute books as it will very soon, I will certainly have to switch on another monitor, one that can throw some light on dilemmas such as the one above. Unless one of the Lords amendments are successful, and I doubt they will be, it will not be a defence to claim that there was no intention on my part to stir up religious hatred. All that will have to be proved, to send me to prison for up to seven years, will be that my words did incite hatred. Even if I didn't mean them to.

(Update: as readers will by now be aware, due to the failure of the Prime Minister to vote the Lords amendment inserting intent was accepted by the Commons. What a relief. Read David Charter's story in The Times here. The bill is on the statute books, still a matter of concern to some no doubt, but much watered down from the original. See reactions here.)

I am not the only worried person writing about religion. Dave Walker is concerned that his excellent and very funny cartoons will become illegal.

Recently, I wrote a couple of stories that generated enormous vitriol against the author of one of the reports in question or even me personally in the blogosphere. One was about a research paper challenging the benevolent effects of religious belief on society, the other about a document of the Roman Catholic bishops of England and Wales that threw new light on biblical interpretation. I am not going to incite further religious hatred against myself by linking to the offending blogs, you can find them out there if you look hard enough, if they are still there. My original articles were Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible and Societies worse off 'when they have God on their side'.

In our modern high-tech globalised world, where religious belief is resurgent, it is terrifyingly easy to incite hatred in others, completely without intention. In relation in particular to the Catholic bishops story, I was attacked without mercy, mainly in the US. One attack in particular was astonishing in its vitriol and certainly defamatory. This was even though my reports were devoid of comment and simply summarising and reporting what other people had written and said. Yet I had clearly, inadvertently, simply by doing my job in a professional manner, incited hatred in these people, and it was clearly religious hatred. Some of their hatred was directed at me, although they would probably argue that I had incited hatred of their religious beliefs by writing these stories.

And then there is Richard Dawkins, in his recent Channel 4 programme, The Root of All Evil. I was employed as the fact checker on the programme, and spent hours of my spare time one weekend watching the programmes and reading the scripts. There were no major factual errors, yet Christians, particularly evangelical Christians, will have found the programme offensive. And it must certainly have inspired contempt, possibly even hatred, in some non-Christians and non-religious who watched it. I am not a fan of Dawkins, and believe that he utterly failed to do his highly rational and scientific intelligence justice in this intemperate TV polemic. But under no circumstances do I believe he should go to jail as a result.

As always there is another side. I understand and agree with the point of view of Sir Iqbal, who I spoke to earlier today to try and clarify exactly what reassurances were given by the Home Office about the Koran, and indeed other scriptures. There are many passages in the New Testament, for example, that could be said to incite hatred against the Jewish people. Two thousand years worth of hatred in fact. And after all, what else, if not the New Testament, was the justification for the Inquisition based on? (I have just read and really recommend Kate Mosse's extraordinary new book, Labyrinth, to learn about the travails of the Cathar "bon hommes" heretic sect under the discipline of the Host, as the Inquisition was known.)

Sir Iqbal said the Home Office had given reassurance that nothing in the Bible, Koran or any other scripture could lead to a prosecution because passages such as the one above had to be read in the context in which they were revealed to the Prophet. "There were some malicious rumours flying around that there might be passages in the Koran that could not be recited or may not be used in prayers," he said.

He went on to make a fair point, on which I could not help but agree. This new legislation fills a gap in existing legislation. Jews and Sikhs are protected under existing race hatred legislation. Muslims are not. In addition, in Northern Ireland a similar religious hatred bill has been in force for some time, and comics, journalists and others have not exactly led a vociferous campaign to have it repealed.

Sir Iqbal said: "This is exactly the same protection that has already been extended to others. The opponents of this bill are being inconsistent and showing double standards. There is a total silence about the race hatred legislation that we find rather bizarre.

"This bill will not curtail criticism of faiths. It will prevent inciting hatred against communities, against individuals. Jokes are made against Islam." (Yes they are, but not by anyone with any sense. Look where it has got one Danish newspaper editor, who has now apologised after he published some cartoons, including a drawing showing Mohammed wearing a turban shaped as a bomb. Arab leaders are saying the apology is not enough. Saudi Arabia has already recalled its ambassador from Copenhagen and Libya has closed its embassy. Iran’s Foreign Ministry summoned the Danish ambassador in protest. Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshiyar Zebari told the Danish ambassador of the government’s “condemnation of the insult and disrespect expressed by a daily Danish newspaper”. And from the Gulf:  “Qatar does not accept anything that ridicules Islam or the Prophet,” said Foreign Minister Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jabr al-Thani.  Surely no-one in the UK needs this new law to understand that it is not a good idea to make fun of Islam.)

Sir Iqbal continued: "Criticisms have been made of Islam for centuries. There are many volumes of it in our libraries. The argument is rather sad. They are saying it is fine for Jews and Sikhs to be protected but not Muslims. There are double standards and inconsistencies all the way through. There is an unfounded fear being generated in the minds of ordinary people that they will not be able to criticise religions. That is simply false. This legislation is not going to inhibit criticism of religions."

All we can do is wait and see what happens. One real risk must be that the legislation will make free speech martyrs of extremist groups that least merit the honour. I can't say much about it now because of an ongoing trial under race hatred legislation. Another trial in a related area, that of Muslim cleric Abu Hamza, is taking place under the 1986 Public Order Act. But there will be "provocateurs" who seek deliberately to test this law. One certainty is that this is all going to guarantee lots of work for religious affairs correspondents in future - if we don't end up in prison first. (Are prisoners allowed to blog? Does anyone know?)

My own solution to the dilemma would have been to keep race hatred on the statute books but repeal the blasphemy law. It is wholly unjust that Christians have this protection where others do not. But where this course of action might represent common sense, it would hardly be a vote winner. We are stuck with this bill. If nothing else, it will be News. And at least Muslims will have the protection that, to be fair, they deserve, given the protection already afforded to other faiths.

Comments

[Robert Nowell]

I share your forebodings, and recall the refrain in the first chorus of Aeschylus' Agamemnon: Cry woe, woe, but may the good prevail. (It didn't.)

[Phil Craig]

I can't agree that the law that protects Jews and Sikhs, and not Muslims, is unfair. Jews and Sikhs are bound not just by intellectual or religious belief, but by race. I am white British--could I become a Sikh by choice? I don't think so. As for anti-Semitism, racism is so intwined with any criticism of Jewish belief that it is surely right for the law to protect Jews.

Muslims, on the other hand, span racial and ethnic divides, as do Christians. Noone claims that Christians should receive the same protection as Jews and Sikhs, so why Muslims?

I acknowledge that in different situations-- the Middle East, for example-- this argument may not apply (there is a correlation between being Muslim and Palestinian, for example). But for the UK, the argument is not persuasive.

[Steve]

Jesus is listed in the Koran as a prophet; the same title given to Mohammed. Jesus was only ever a prophet for a single God: The Lord God Almighty. Jesus was a Jew. Therefore, Elohim = The Lord God Almighty = Allah. We, Jews, Christians, and Muslims all worship the same God. Who wins when we fight amongst ourselves? Certainly not God.

[Rabbi Jonathan Romain]

It is entirely right that individuals are not subject to hatred as a result
of their religious identity, but entirely wrong for faiths themselves to be
immune from criticism or satire. No one secure in their religious beliefs need fear laughter, while the Bible
itself contains not only the occasional giggle, but divine humour too. What is
required is legislation banning inflammatory words that lead to violence, but leaves the hearty laugh or skeptical guffaw unmuffled

[John]

Ruth,

I was one of the US bloggers who wrote about the Gregory S. Paul study on religion based initially on your reporting of it. My post did not mention you directly since, as you say, you were just doing your job.

So it surprised me today to read that you were attacked without mercy by US blogs over that article. I thought I was aware of much of the US blog response to Mr. Paul's study and I hadn't noticed any attacks on you.

You may be familiar with the website Technorati, which tracks over 2 million sites, including blogs. To refresh my memory, I did a search of your name and read every post related to the Gregory S. Paul study. I was unable to find any examples of defamation or "religous hate" or even mild irritation with you.

I'm sure you did receive some negative feedback (I get it too) but it doesn't appear to have come from US blogs, at least not that I could find. Could you clarify? Is there a specific blog which was defamatory of you related to the Gregory Paul study?

rg replies: there were a few critical of me on this study but the worst one actually related to the RC bishops story. It was so distressing I didn't keep a record of the site myself, but David Virtue pointed it out to me. If you contact him through his website, he might be able to enlighten you further. But thank you for your comments and for that piece of research, I have altered my post a little to avoid any misleading impressions I might have given about the Paul study. (Am I allowed to do this in blogging convention btw? Guidance would be appreciated. If you want to see what I originally wrote, follow the trackback link to John's site or look here. http://www.verumserum.com/?p=187)
It is interesting though that my memory of the response to the Paul study is so much worse than the reality. As you rightly say, technorati reveals that most of the comment was neutral or objective. There is one critical blog here, http://magicstatistics.blogspot.com/2005/09/from-our-bulging-how-not-to-do.html
But although I obviously disagree with the comments made in this blog, I in no way object to them being made.
There's another one here.
http://magicstatistics.blogspot.com/2005/10/times-religion-correspondent-smacked.html

[Alistair McBay]

Ruth
Perhaps Sir Iqbal Sacranie can answer this one.

If I say that a religion which advocates and practises stoning women to death for adultery is barbaric and should be forcefully challenged, am I committing an offence under this legislation? I am hating the sin but not the sinner.
Suppose I amend this slightly, and say that people who profess absolute belief in a religion which advocates and practises stoning women to death for adultery are barbaric and should be forcefully challenged, am I now committing an offence? Is it wrong of me as a human being to at the very least have a mild distaste for such people, who dig a hole in the ground, bury a woman in an all-enveloping shroud in this hole up to her neck , and throw stones at her head until she is pronounced dead, all because of a religious decree? But would it constitute incitement to religious hatred against Muslims for me to say so? Would it be “reckless” of me, since recklessness appears also to be an offence under the bill? Is it more of an offence to profess loathing for those who murder a woman in this way, than to commit the deed?

You will no doubt recall the cases in Nigeria which frame my query, but even if I am talking in this country about events outside Britain, I could be deemed to be inciting hatred of Islam and Muslims here, for the apparent "crime" of having more than a slight aversion to some Islamic practices, to which I could add putting men to death in places like Iran and Saudi Arabia for the 'crime' of being homosexual.

I might even have similar views on those in the UK who carry out so-called honour killings. Would condemning Muslim perpetrators of such a crime constitute incitement to religious hatred, or could it be smoothed away as a cultural issue?

[Ray Stacey]

The good did prevail by one vote. It only takes One to make a difference

[Steve Ward]

While all the zealots of various persuasions throw insult and injury at one another, the real winners are those who manufacture weapons and the instruments of war; for with such fools to serve, theirs is a guaranteed bounty.
What a great pity that those who hatefully murder and argue over their own ignorance of Creation do not stop to think of whom they should really be giving their Souls to.

[Andrew Clarke]

In your article about the Roman Catholic acceptance of truth, I found your way of putting the situation to be rather naive. Just because something is metaphorical doesn't mean that it is not 'true' in some sense, even if it is not the 'literal truth' that fundamentalists would have us believe.

Muslims have to interpret which parts of their holy scripture are the most accurate revelation from God. As we can see texts that discourage women from dressing in a revealing way are being considered more important than texts against drinking, gambling or forgiveness. Perhaps even these texts saying that Allah condemns the unbeliever are being interpreted more lightly by the majority of muslims (taking the view that people of other faiths or of strong values are merely mistaken rather than complete 'unbelievers' - which might be interpreted as a kind of nihilism)? It concerns me that you should use a fundamentalist Christian site to highlight the more frightening verses of the Koran.

Nevertheless, the recent muslim hatred being shown publicly against Denmark for the simple printing of a single newspaper cartoon seems to show just why so much attention is given to religious offence. Personally I find it hard to see how muslims can take themselves seriously when they are sending death threats and asking for a formal apology from an entire nation at the printing of a small picture. However there can be no doubt as to why WE need to take them seriously. - These irrational reactions are frightening.

Perhaps the question should be whether appeasement is the best way to deal with the problem though? Is the fundamentalist anger the true muslim voice? If not, where is the moderate muslim voice to calm our fears?

[Keith Downer]

I mean no disrespect to Islam in suggesting that words aimed at a simple people in simple times should be carefully re-examined to understand the essence of the teaching rather than assuming they represent a clear road-map for action in today's advanced and sophisticated world . Our Christian Bible is a good example of this. I live in a democratic, tolerant society where it should be possible to debate these issues, openly and freely without fear of retribution or imprisonment. In England today, it is important that we maintain our Christian perspective and are not afraid to test and question any beliefs or actions which may threaten the stability and security of our community.

[Scott]

Ruth,

Like John, who wrote to you yesterday, I am one of the bloggers who commented on your news story about the Gregory S. Paul study. Indeed, when John asked for specific examples of defamation or religious hatred, the only two blog posts you cited (except for John's) are from my blog. Allow me to respond.

To deal with the second blog post first, I have to admit your criticism is fully justified. I have no excuse for the personal attack against you contained therein. I can only say that I was relatively new to blogging and I was linking to and, unfortunately, agreeing with another blog post attacking you. That, of course, doesn't excuse what I wrote. I have this morning removed that post from my blog. (I know that it lives on cached somewhere in cyber space, but that's all that can done now, as far as I know.) My apologies.

My other blog post you mentioned is this one: http://magicstatistics.blogspot.com/2005/09/from-our-bulging-how-not-to-do.html

That one, I think, is defensible. There was criticism of your Times news article, but no personal attacks. I said that you made a common and honest mistake in interpreting Mr Paul's study. By far, the major part of that post was devoted to criticism of the actual study.

You asked about blogging convention in amending items after they have been posted. I don't know if it's a convention, but what is often done is to make the change and add at the bottom of the post text labeled 'Update' or something similar and a description of the substance of the amendment.

Regards,
Scott

[Pardesi_Chick]

What's all the fuss about? Well it's about portraying images and caricatures of Mohammed. Its strictly forbidden in Islam, after all it forms part and parcel of the tenets and beliefs of the religion.
Discouraging idolatry is one of the reasons. There's a fine line between freedom of speech, expression of views and demeaning someone elses religious beliefs.

The newspapers that printed the images are seen in the eyes of the Muslim world as "anti Islam" whether they intended offence or not is now irrelvant. Every lunatic, fanatic and wingnut in the Middle East and elsewhere now has a cause to fight. After all they've been handed it on a platter. Does anyone want to reason with Hamas, Al Aqsa martyars brigade and God forbid Al Qaeda? Those irresponsible enough to print the pictures probably didn't think this far ahead.

The repercissions are just beginning, Danish products have been wiped off Arab supermarkets in the middle east, Hospitals and surgeries are refusing to touch medical supplies made by Novo Nordisk. Muslim countries are recalling their ambassadors from Denmark, Danish envoys are being summoned by others. All for the price of? "Mohammeds caricatures". If the west wasn't happy enough with Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran, I guess they've just opened up another war front. Only this time it wont be as easy as dropping a few laser guided bombs and missiles in some dusty Iraqi town.

[Zeus]

>> "What's all the fuss about? Well it's about portraying images and caricatures of Mohammed. Its strictly forbidden in Islam, after all it forms part and parcel of the tenets and beliefs of the religion.
Discouraging idolatry is one of the reasons. There's a fine line between freedom of speech, expression of views and demeaning someone else’s religious beliefs."

...Writes a contributor to this blog; and so finely sums up the subtle arrogance of those who invoke religious belief for to dominate those of us who would otherwise enjoy Creation.

We in the world who are for the world wonder why such vehement views are not applied to Living things as they are tortured and maimed about us; this mainly in the name of belief.

Creation forbids many things. No Human Being, regardless to kind or creed properly recognises the upshot of this. If a caricature makes your blood boil then your blood is bad, not the caricature. Like wise if your ways make for terror, then they are terrible.

[steve]

There is one great statistic; in all history it is the most disgraceful. Contributors to the gruesome number include Kings and peasants, heroes and villains, men and women, et al, and every single one of those instrumentally. The value I speak of records the countless numbers of deaths attributable to human belief(s), in virtually all cultures and races; and it is a value no believer” cares to hear.
But from the superstitious to the down right malicious, from the transcendental to the plain mental, religion motivates spurious gestures, often including murderous congregational acts - the larger the religion the greater the congregation the more impacting the acts.
Religious groups fervently antagonise other belief systems and if there is no other then they will turn on them self; this, an inevitable consequence of obsessive behaviour, which is what zeal-ism’ is when it is transcribed into theocratic thought.
Anyone who truly understood the words of the prophets, every one of them would understand their true message to be one of not believing in God but of having Faith in Creation, which confers on a human being true oneness with aliveness and not the disassociated ‘sense of being’ argued out by theologians and openly worshipped into outward expression by (the) congregations.

[ronan]

Why are religious fundamentalists considered racist? Racism refers to colour and not creed. It is impossible to make a judgement on someone solely on his or her race. Fools therefore make statements such as “I hate (insert colour of choice) people”. With the propergation of this simple logic we have seen racism thankfully decline.

Religious prejudice however is not like racism. To make an informed criticism about someone else’s religion should be acceptable. Why is it wrong to dislike the way someone else chooses to live his or her life if it affects you directly? If Muslims criticise Christian religion and society, I believe that’s their right as long as it is based on fact.

The government is wrong in trying to introduce religious hate legislation, as this does not solve the problem of religious hate it simply hides the symptoms. Acting as a rickety dam holding back Enoch Powells ‘rivers of blood’. The government thinks that it can use the same methods successfully implemented to reduce racism during the 80's and this is obviously flawed.

Does anyone have any evidence of Christians and Muslims living together amicably in history? If not, then is this the worst social experiment the world has yet seen? Finally can we suggest a new word for religious hate, as it certainly is not racism!