Hate speech is, yet again, rearing its ugly head. Carefully prepared PowerPoint presentations are doing the email rounds, as are equally meticulous articles.

The focus of their attentions: the retention of the Kadhi's courts in the proposed constitution. The ostensible aim: to garner a 'no' vote from the Christian faithful during the referendum.

What the detail of their preparation does not obscure, however, is their real objective, which is nothing less than to create fear and a sense of siege occasioned by what they allege is a real Muslim threat.

What the supposed analysis and logic they contain fails to hide is the prejudices and stereotypes their authors hold vis-à-vis Muslims, whom they treat as homogenous.

They do, in that sense, make for scary reading – I, for one, felt the same chill I felt in the lead-up to the 2007 general election on reading the latest one that crossed my desk. The hatred they embody is almost palpable, as is the violence that such hatred can so easily invoke.

Fortunately, this time round, at least some of us seem to have learnt the lessons from 2007 and 2008. The Kenya National Human Rights Commission, our statutory human rights institution, has responded, as has the new National Cohesion and Integration Commission and the Communications Commission of Kenya. At least one has been traced, as was the case in 2007 and 2008, to a website run by a Kenyan organisation operating in the diaspora.

We can only hope that criminal charges will follow – and soon. Even given the dearth of adequate new provisions on hate speech, there are, in fact, still old provisions in our Penal Code relating to religious tolerance that could be applied.

But we must also all take responsibility for responding ourselves, individually to those who send us such missives with such apparent abandon, as well as more formally by reporting them to any and all complaints bodies that exist.

It is one thing to campaign against the proposed constitution on that particular basis. It is quite another to invoke and peddle not just lies in so doing, but also prejudice and stereotypes to bolster fear and hatred.

Fact: The existence of the Kadhi's courts dates back to treaty agreements reached with the then sultanate of Zanzibar regarding the inclusion of the 10-mile coastal strip in the territory of what would become independent Kenya.

Which does not imply that only Muslims within that 10-mile strip are entitled to access the Kadhi's courts; Muslims, like all Kenyans, enjoy freedom of movement within Kenyan territory.

And, just as we have tried to expand the reach of formal courts across the country to better enable access to justice (not terribly successfully yet), so have we tried to expand the reach of the Kadhi's courts for the same reason (also not terribly successfully yet).

Fact: Voting against the proposed constitution, if the 'no' vote succeeds, merely leaves us with the current constitution – in which the Kadhi's courts are entrenched.

Fact: The Kadhi's courts deal only with family and personal law, not criminal law (or sharia). That is to say, matters of marriage, divorce and inheritance – and only where both parties to the marriage or where all parties to the succession profess the Muslim faith.

Fact: The above being the case, those affected by the Kadhi's courts are, actually, Muslim women. And the Muslim women who have spoken out on and made submissions on the issue have made their needs clear.

To improve on the quality of judgments by the Kadhi's courts, they wanted criteria for the appointment of Kadhis that included Islamic legal scholarship.

They wanted a more transparent process of appointments for all Kadhis, including the chief Kadhi. They wanted more equitable representation of all of Kenya’s diverse Muslim community among the Kadhis.

But, sadly, given the heat generated on this issue by the sudden and surprising hue and cry by most of the Christian leadership, they have essentially been forced to drop all of those demands, the thinking being that if the Kadhi's courts were so apparently controversial, the best option is to simply retain the current provisions.

In short, those most affected by the Kadhi's courts are compromised on the possibility of improvements to advance their human rights. And for that compromise, they have merely seen the onslaught towards them grow.

Fact: The Kadhi's courts are actually under-resourced, as the demands made known by Muslim women have made clear. Yes, what resources exist to support them come from the public purse.

But to imply that this is somehow unequal treatment absolutely flies in the face of the history of public financing for the Christian churches in this country.

Just think of the landholdings of the mainstream and older Christian churches – most granted for free during and immediately post-independence – or the still retained tax incentives for Christian churches involved in educational and health service provision. Which, by the way, several Muslim foundations have always also been involved in (think, for example, of the social service provision of the Aga Khan Development Network).

When those mainstream and older Christians decide to pay the state back for those landholdings, at current market rates, and to ditch their tax incentives, then perhaps we could entertain that argument. But not now.

These are all facts. Facts are different from prejudice and stereotypes (generalisations ascribed to entire communities of people sharing one common characteristic – in this case, the Muslim faith).

It seems ridiculous to even have to say it – especially in our context, which is one in which we have grown up side by side, aware of each other’s religious particularities in a manner that has generally enhanced our lives and understandings – from the simple things (such as partaking in the feasting at the breaking of fasts) to the more complex things.

But, for the record, let me say it anyway: Muslims are as heterogeneous as any other community – even religiously, they range from the more fundamental to the more liberal (just as those of any other faith do). Politically, they range from the left to the right.

Not every Muslim is intolerant of those of other faiths. Not every Muslim seeks the establishment of Islamic republics all across the world (and every Islamic republic that does exist is home to spirited Muslim faithful who believe in the restoration of secular states).

Not every Somali is a pirate keeping our property prices unrealistically high. Not every Somali is a refugee running a small sub-state of business and political interests out of Eastleigh. Not every Muslim is a terrorist or a terrorist-in-waiting.

Like I said, it seems ridiculous to even have to say it. But say it we must. Because there are, so clearly, those among us saying exactly the opposite. It is a betrayal of the very way we have all grown up here. It is hateful. And, if not checked, it can only lead us down the path to violence.

BROUGHT TO YOU BY PAMBAZUKA NEWS

* This article was originally published by The East African.
* L. Muthoni Wanyeki is the executive director of the Kenya Human Rights Commission (KHRC).
* Please send comments to [email protected] or comment online at Pambazuka News.