Independent Journalist brands the Qur'an as 'Hate Book'

The editorial section of The Independent featured a vicious attack on Islam with defamation of the Qur'an. The author, Joan Smith writes: "Personally, I have very little time for the Bible and find the Koran dull and repetitive, as well as containing passages that strike me as prima facie examples of anti-Semitism or incitement to hatred of Christians and non-believers." (Independent - 11/10/05)

Write in or call with the following points of contention:

1) Joan Smith seems to think that the Qur'an contains passages that incite hatred of Jews, Christians and non-believers

. What is her source for this belief?

. Which passages specifically is she referring to?

. Does she know anything about the science of interpretation (Tafsir) of the Qur'an? Or has she appointed herself an instant Islamic scholar qualified to interpret the Qur'an?

. What translation/interpretation has she referred to?

. The true Islamic position towards Christians, Jews and other non-Muslims is very forthcoming and tolerant.

. The Independent should ensure journalists writing about Islam refer to reliable sources of expertise to ensure the accuracy of their statements.

. The Independent should give space to Muslims to reply to this inaccurate statement about the Qur'an.

2) Opposition to the Incitement to Religious Hatred Bill

. Joan Smith argues "religion is a matter of personal choice" and so there is no need for laws to protect religious minorities – tell that to the thousands of children raped, murdered and terrorised in the Gujarat massacre of 2002 simply for being Muslim. Or maybe it was their fault for making the wrong personal choice?

. The Bill is designed to protect people not ideas, and therefore will not prevent criticism of the doctrines of any religion - the only religion protected by a blasphemy law is Christianity.

. Jews and Sikhs are already protected from incitement to hatred under the Race Relations Act – people from other faith communities should be given equality under the law.

3) Religion (Islam) oppresses women

. The notion that Islam oppresses women is a complete fallacy. Some misconceptions arise, either from traditional practices which are thought to be "Islamic," but are not, or else from prejudices.

. The real issue is how women are regarded in the Islamic faith, and when we look at this, we see that Islam gives women great social value, freedom and comfort.

-----------

Contact details:

Such attitudes of Christian people that are based on the concepts of compassion, mercy, modesty and justice, constitute a fact that God has pointed out in the Qur'an. A verse of the Qur'an states:

"You will find the people most affectionate to those who believe are those who say, 'We are Christians.' That is because some of them are priests and monks and because they are not arrogant". (Surat al-Ma'ida, 82)

Anti Semitism has no justification in Islam neither does it condone racism in any shape or form. The Qur'an teaches that superiority does not lie in race, colour or any other feature, but in closeness to God and living by faith and morals. The Qur'an states this truth: Mankind! We created you from a male and female, and made you into peoples and tribes so that you might come to know each other. The noblest among you in God's sight is that one of you who best performs his duty. God is All-Knowing, All-Aware. (The Qur'an, 49:13)

Read the full Independent article below:

Joan Smith: Why does it have to be different for girls?
The evidence of the lethal nature of misogyny is all around us
Published: 11 October 2005

Nearly 20 years ago, I published a book called Misogynies, in which I catalogued the routine denigration and degradation of women: everything from sexist jokes and song lyrics to football crowds in the north of England turning the Yorkshire Ripper into a folk hero. It has occasionally crossed my mind that I should publish updates, a quarterly bulletin identifying the latest and most egregious insults based on gender.

Eminem would get a place, for lyrics that glorify the murder of women, and bands such as Prodigy (for "Smack My Bitch Up") and rap stars who think it's cool to dismiss women as "hos". I'd include statistics that weren't available in 1989, such as Home Office research suggesting that one woman in four will be a victim of domestic violence, while two are killed each week by current or former partners. I would chart the vertiginous drop in convictions for rape, to a point where there is virtually no legal sanction on serious sexual assault in this country.

To the horrors in the original text, I would add a string of cases in which divorced or separated men have murdered their former partners and children, and the phenomenon of honour killings in which fathers, brothers and uncles murder female relatives who have supposedly brought "shame" on their families through their choice of dress, friends or partners.

But I don't need to do all that, because the evidence of the lethal nature of misogyny is all around us. Instead, in the week that MPs return to Parliament from the summer recess, I want to pose a question: is there a fair-minded backbencher who cares enough about the welfare of women to introduce a private member's bill outlawing incitement to gender hatred?

After all, the Government is in the middle of legislating to ban incitement to religious hatred in this country, claiming it is absolutely necessary to defend religious minorities; bizarrely, ministers have shown no interest in extending similar protection to women, even though we make up slightly more than half the population.

Is this fair? Of course not. Is it logical? No, because the Government defends its controversial Bill on the grounds that religion is analogous to race, pointing out that we already have laws banning incitement to racial hatred. Critics of the Bill have countered that the two categories are distinct: race is innate, something none of us can do anything about, whereas religion is a matter of personal choice. Laws outlawing race hatred and discrimination protect people, whereas the Government's Bill will have the effect of ring-fencing ideas, some of them barmy or downright offensive.

Personally, I have very little time for the Bible and find the Koran dull and repetitive, as well as containing passages that strike me as prima facie examples of anti-Semitism or incitement to hatred of Christians and non-believers. Ministers responsible for the Bill have not addressed this paradox - that it would protect the haters as well as the hated - or the fact that they propose giving legal protection to religious authorities, some of whom actively encourage discrimination and even violence towards women and gay men.

This is an area where rights conflict. Much has been written about the right to freedom of expression, which will undoubtedly be curtailed by the Bill, versus the right of the devout to protection under the law. What has hardly been addressed is the conflict between the latter "right", and the right of women to be protected from clerics who justify subservient roles for wives, or support practices such as lapidation.

While the Government persists in its attempt to criminalise critics of religion - the maximum penalty in the bill is seven years in prison - it has done nothing about the casual misogyny that continues to poison men's minds and allows women to be denigrated as slappers, slags, whores and bitches. Yet the parallel between race and gender, unlike the spurious link ministers make between race and religion, is real and incontrovertible.

I can't change the fact that I'm a woman - nor do I want to, as it happens - but MPs can do something about the non-stop stream of misogyny that creates an atmosphere of ambivalence, if not tolerance, towards domestic violence, trafficking and other forms of abuse towards women.

It goes without saying that the law I'm proposing would protect men as well, particularly gay men who continue to be targets of homophobic abuse. But the current imbalance between misogynist and misandrist invective suggests that women and girls would be the initial beneficiaries. So where is our champion, the backbench MP prepared to challenge the Government's myopic attitude towards misogyny and tell the House of Commons that it's no longer different for girls?

{moscomment}

---