Author: Polly Toynbee
Publication: The Guardian
Date: October 5, 2001
Religious extremism must not be
put beyond criticism by legislation - or accusations of Islamophobia
The only good religion is a moribund
religion: only when the faithful are weak are they tolerant and peaceful.
The horrible history of Christianity shows that whenever religion grabs
temporal power it turns lethal. Those who believe theirs is the only way,
truth and light will kill to create their heavens on earth if they get
the chance. Tolerance only thrives when religion is banished to the private
sphere, but bizarrely this government is marching backwards, with more
faith schools, more use of "faith communities" and now Blunkett's new laws
against "religious hatred" to save religion from vulgar abuse. Wherever
religion burns, it seeks power: Israel has become ever more dangerous (to
itself and others) as religious parties gain power over secular ones. Religious
politics scar India, Kashmir, Northern Ireland, Sri Lanka, Sudan ... the
list of countries wrecked by religion is long. But the present danger is
caused by Islamist theocracy.
There is no point in pretending
it is not so. Wherever Islam either is the government or bears down upon
the government, it imposes harsh regimes that deny the most basic human
rights. Religions never accept universal human rights because their notion
of rights derives from a higher revealed truth. Hundreds of emails from
Muslims around the world flooded in this week claiming that UN human rights
are a western construct, alien to their culture. A moderate one wrote:
"Islam has its own understanding on human rights and the social order and
the relationship between men and women established 1,400 years ago." Islam
does have as wide a spectrum of interpretation as Christianity's long stretch
from Ian Paisley to the Pope to the Quakers - but their Paisley element
is alarmingly powerful.
This may be the last chance to say
so before emergency measures ban "incitement to religious hatred". To say
that religion is dangerous nonsense is indeed intended to incite people
against irrational superstition in favour of reason. But this law will
insulate religious ideas in a sanctuary beyond scrutiny, refutation or
ridicule. Why does religion deserve a realm beyond questioning?
Lady Thatcher's outburst yesterday
was a false accusation that Muslims in Britain had failed to condemn the
September 11 horror, when every mosque (bar the notorious two) rapidly
denounced the atrocity in shocked terms - as did all Muslim countries except
Iraq and the Taliban. At a time when the Muslim News reports more than
200 attacks on mosques, what she said was nastily inflammatory. But satisfying
though it would be to see the baroness thrown in the slammer for incitement,
this proposed law will never work. It is a Dangerous Dogs Act in the making:
it is as difficult to define "religion" as it was to define a pit bull.
The charity commission regularly wrestles with ineffable nonsense so that
Odin worshippers qualified but some pagans did not.
Religions will seek to use these
new laws against anything they deem blasphemous. Incitement to religious
hatred will be an offence, along with "religious hatred" as an aggravating
factor lengthening the sentences of people caught committing a crime. The
rationale for this hurried law is that the BNP put out leaflets in Oldham
with pictures of the World Trade Centre, reading, "This is what Muslims
believe should happen to the west." But where Muslim is simply used as
a blatant proxy for race, existing anti-racist laws can be used. It was
originally mooted for Northern Ireland - though whether Protestant parents
already committing several intimidatory offences by hurling abuse at Catholic
children need a special law against calling them Taigs is doubtful. Religious
lobbies have wanted this for years. The danger is that they intend to use
it as a proxy blasphemy law: it is indeed disgraceful that our archaic
blasphemy law covers only Christianity - but it should be abolished altogether.
This will muddy the waters between race and religion, tarring all religious
critics with the smear of racism, something that has already intimidated
the rational into silence on Islam - leaving it to feminists, gays and
the doughty National Secular Society.
I bn Warraq, director of the Institute
for the Secularisation of Islamic Society, is an apostate scion of a Koranic
school and author of Why I Am Not A Muslim. He strongly opposes the proposed
law: "Already there is an intellectual omerta on any criticism of Islam,
great intellectual cowardice in facing up to the Koran and what it actually
says. Politicians mouth platitudes about Islam as a peaceful, tolerant
religion. The left dare not criticise it, tongue-tied with post-colonial
guilt. New laws risk stifling the golden thread of rationalism that western
civilisation is built on." He considers that Blair and Bush have their
own raison d'etat for wooing Islam, pretending it is a tolerant faith while
needing allies.
But the blood-curdling words of
the Prophet are there for all to read: "Kill those who join other gods"
(Koran, 6: 5-6). Muslims must "slay or crucify or cut the hands and feet
of the unbeliever" (5:34). "From them [the unbelievers] garments of fire
shall be cut and there shall be poured over their head a boiling water
whereby whatever is in their bowels and skin shall be dissolved and they
will be punished with hooked iron rods" (22:19-22). The Prophet commands
for any unbeliever, "Seize ye him and bind ye him, And burn ye him in the
Blazing Fire. Further make him march in a chain whereof the length is seventy
cubits... Nor hath he any food except the corruption from the washing of
wounds." There is much more, with smiting above necks and smiting all fingertips
off. It is notable that his early words of tolerance spring from when he
was weak, while the murderous talk comes from his later all-conquering
days. As for women's rights, slave-maids are the spoils of war, just as
scores of celestial virgins are the reward for martyrs. Husbands have the
right to scourge disobedient wives, women's evidence is inadmissible in
court - all this jars with the hundreds of emails I had explaining how
well Islam respects women.
How do so many moderate, peaceful
and contemplative Muslims translate the many savage words on the page into
a quite different version of Islam? Many disclaim the barbaric practices
of Muslim regimes as essentially non- Islamic, but tribal. Ibn Warraq says:
"Sometimes they claim there are no such verses. They tell westerners it
is different in Arabic - but I know Arabic and the translations are accurate.
Moderates try to reinterpret it which you can a little, but the Koran is
not infinitely elastic." Warraq warns people not to be intimidated out
of challenging Islamic ideas, but he fears new laws would do just that.
Emails will flow in again in their thousands, taking deep offence. But
religion must not be placed beyond criticism by accusations of Islamophobia,
which has become a code for racism.
