Some Muslims are concerned that the content of their holy book might breach the religious hatred law when it comes into force. This concern may have been initiated by Boris Johnson’s question in Parliament recently. I’m quoting directly from a Muslim forum that you can find here (the subject is, ‘Quoting Koran Could Be Illegal Under Proposed UK Bill’). The person who posted the comment quotes from CNS News.com.


A British lawmaker says reading excerpts from the Koran that advocate harsh treatment for Christians, Jews and unbelievers would violate a religious hatred bill currently before parliament.

“If this bill makes any sense at all, it must mean banning the reading, in public or private, of a great many passages of the Koran itself,” Conservative MP Boris Johnson said.

Mr Johnson read out several chapters from the Qur’an regarding the treatment of non-believers, including this from Sura 22:19:

“As for the unbelievers, for them garments of fire shall be cut and there shall be poured over their heads boiling water whereby whatever is in their bowels and skins shall be dissolved and they will be punished with hooked iron rods.”

Well that doesn’t leave me with much to look forward to then.

Johnson said while the Koran was not “unique in its hostility to other creeds,” he challenged a government minister to explain “why and how you think the repetition of those words in a public or a private place does not amount to an incitement to religious hatred of exactly the kind this bill is supposed to ban.”

As a non-believer I’m absolutely buggered either way but I’ve always thought that, if I were truly a believer then I wouldn’t worry a hoot about what other people said about my relgion because I’d have god on my side and the critics wouldn’t. Mr Johnson puts it a bit more eloquently:

“If a religion is worth believing it ought to be strong enough, frankly, to withstand the most scurrilous and monstrous attacks and, if a religion is worth believing in, those assaults should diminish the critics and not the religion itself,” he said.

There’s also a mention of comic Rowan Atkinson’s opposition to the law:

“Mr. Bean” actor Rowan Atkinson has voiced reservations that a politician “subject to the political agendas of the day” should hold such discretionary powers.

The government may see it as desirable at some point “to prosecute a few writers or journalists or playwrights in their desire to ingratiate themselves with a particular religious community,” he said this week.

Well, my friend, the whole bill’s the result of Blair wanting to ingratiate himself with the Muslim community after upsetting them with his Iraq adventure.

But then, zooming along to The Muslim Weekly ( 8-14 June edition, under the ‘MCB News’ tab), we find that, in fact, Muslims’ fears that the more fiery parts of their religion will fall foul of the legislation are unfounded. A delegation of Muslim scholars and leaders met with Home Office Minister Paul Goggins to seek clarification.

The Minister assured the Muslim community that there was nothing in the bill that would prevent scholars from delivering their sermons or from reciting from the Qu’ran and ahadith. The Minister reiterated that what the bill would do is criminalise incitement to religious hatred against individuals.

Now this worries the heck out of me. And it makes me a bit cross too. I recognise myself as being one of the targets of the verse quoted by Boris Johnson (above). Those lines are hateful. If you change the word ‘unbeliever’ to ‘atheist’ or ‘Christian’ or ‘Jew’ or ‘Black’ or ‘Jamaican’ or ‘Welshman’ you have a very clear idea of who the speaker is referring to. The word ‘unbeliever’ is actually an umbrella term for all the above.

Sir Iqbal Sacranie [one of the delegation] stated that he was at eased that matters that had caused some obfuscation in the community had been cleared.

‘We’re happy that the Home Office has agreed to consult the faith communities when preparing the guidelines to the bill. Muslim scholars may proceed uninhibited in the performance of their duties’, he said. The delegation made suggestions to the minister to that it may be preferable to totally exempt the holy text, which will include the Qu’ran and the hadiths from the remit of the Act.

(Emphasis mine).

But doesn’t this need to exempt their religious texts from the legislation amount to an admission by these Muslims that at least some small part of their holy text is hateful? How on earth can this delegation demand that the rest of us not be hateful while requesting special exemptions so that they themselves can be hateful?

I don’t know if I’m the last person to spot this - I usually am - but this is a very serious problem with a bill that is already pretty seriously flawed. If I put Boris Johnson’s points next to The Muslim Weekly’s article I’m left with the uncomfortable feeling that, more than just creating legislation for a particular group of target voters to be used against the rest of us (which is bad enough) we find that the beneficiaries of this law are being assured by a government minister that they will not have to obey it themselves.

How on earth this will foster peace, respect and goodwill amongst British people I do not know. This legislation divides us neatly into two camps: Muslim and non-Muslim. Islam already does that - it has The House of Islam and The House of War. Which is pretty charming in itself. But now, when more than ever we need peace and unity between all British people, the Labour government is helping those divisions along! Can you imagine what the British National Party (BNP - far right party, anti-Muslim, not always the gentlest of souls) will make of this?

Now Paul Coggins did respond to the delegation’s request the whole Qu’ran be exempted from the law:

The minister said, it would be difficult to exempt scriptures because there is likelihood that extreme groups like the BNP may use verses of the Qu’ran to incite hatred against the Muslim community. Therefore, the very purpose of the Act would be defeated.

Well, he’s effectively said that imams can quote from the Qu’ran and the ahadith freely so that amounts to a de facto exemption in itself.

But what do his comments about the BNP mean? Is he saying that if he exempts the holy text from the law then the BNP get free reign to quote from it in order to stir up trouble with Muslims? So does he not want to exempt it from the law so that they can’t? Doesn’t that also amount to an admission that there’s stuff in the Qu’ran that is sufficiently fiery that it could be used to stir up hatred?

My head’s spinning… It seems this Muslim delegation and the Home Office Minister recognise there’s hateful verses in the Qu’ran, fully accept it, and just want to make sure it’ll have no effect on Muslims when the law passes.

Wonderful. Just dandy. This is ‘do as I say, not as I do’ on a legislative scale. It’s oppressive, deeply unfair and may very well exacerbate the very divisions that Muslims claim already exists. What laws will they come up with then?