In Defence of Koran-Burning

Pastor Terry Jones’ action of burning a copy of the Koran drew inflated condemnation from many people, Muslim and non-Muslim alike, and gave him undue publicity. His entry in Wikipedia does him no credit, so I’m not about to support his rather fundamentalist beliefs. On the other hand, what’s so wrong with burning the Koran?

After all, burning the Koran is not in any way forbidden. To dispose of a tatty copy one can, as The Islamic Party Of Great Britain’s Dr Sahib Bleher says, “. . . not in a ceremony, but we would burn it.” So it's not burning that is at issue, but the motivation.

Book-burning has a long history, much of it in a role of censorship but also as a form of protest. Both sides see the book as a symbol of threat, but the difference lies in the position of power held by the burner – is it dominant or is it in some way subjugated? Is the book to be permanently obliterated, or is it a mere icon, one of many? In the Pastor Jones case it was purely symbolic, and the only power he has is in making his own decision on the action. The consequences of his action then lie in the hands of others, and it was the excessive publicity that caused the greater harm.

In burning it as a form of protest, the Koran acts as a proxy for the sins carried out in its name. It is not an attack on the religion the Koran represents. In this manner, it carries the same value as an effigy, burnt or hanged, of which Pastor Jones has had such a distinction. For various reasons, mostly due to a ban on missionary work in Muslim countries, Bibles are routinely destroyed by authorities. This is, of course, book-burning of the censorship type. In general, the purpose of such protest is to diminish the values, and thus the perceived threat, of the antagonist.

Does a Koran-burner have just cause for criticising adherents of the religion the book represents?

Consider the fate of Christians in every Muslim-majority country. They are treated as second-class citizens, they are hounded out of their village or country, they are discriminated and killed, their churches and religious possessions are destroyed, and there is a deliberate policy to eliminate them and apostates from Muslim areas. While governmental policy is often contrary to these actions, no government has taken effective action to terminate this violence.

Consider also the actions of the Taliban in destroying the giant two thousand-year-old statues of Buddha in the Bamiyan province in Afghanistan.

Consider further the word ‘martyr’ – in Christianity it is a person who died at the hands of others for his or her beliefs. In Islam, it is a person who died while trying to kill as many innocent people as possible. Consider their fate – in Christianity they will spend eternity in paradise with a somewhat amorphous description. In Islam the martyr, often a young male starved of female company, feels a visceral thrill as he contemplates the services of 72 virgins.

Consider finally the absolute fanaticism, in some cases indistinguishable from insanity, exhibited by Muslim believers. They have a record of the use of unrestrained violence to obtain their goals, both in the East and in the West. It is this very fanaticism that creates the overwrought reverence Muslims have for the Koran, and their reactions to the merest slight. Burning the Koran is less a cause of violence in the Middle East than an excuse for it. Compare this to the protest in the West, which was limited to verbal criticism.

In the above, and indeed all, situations a devout Muslim’s actions are based either on the Koran or the Hadith. It is for this reason that the Koran is a suitable symbol for protest.

Amidst all the criticism of Koran-burning, few seem aware of the real issue here – the right of legitimate protest in the Western world. Depreciating any act of legitimate protest, whether it is marching, banner-waving, letter-writing, song-writing, flag-burning, cross-burning or book-burning, is not just an ad hominem attack on an individual’s or groups’ rights. It is an attack on the very liberties we take for granted in the West. This is a lesson that has to be learned in the Islamic world. Muslims’ extreme reaction, of murder and mayhem in response to an individual’s essentially legal, harmless and ineffective act, is totally unacceptable. At the same time, people in the West must realise that this is how Muslims will react when Islam is given a privileged status, and that this poses a real and present danger that must be addressed.

There is another factor, unacknowledged in the West but well-understood in the Islamic world, that of the fallacy argumentum ad baculum.  This is where violence is used in consequence to a stimulus and thereafter remains as a threat, inhibiting repeats of similar stimuli.  The utterly extraordinary level of reaction against the West on the basis of such a trivial cause was not criticised at all.  It remains as a restraining factor in allowing the Western world to criticise the 7^th Century precepts that underpin the Islam of today.  This process was vital to the Islamic conquest of Europe, and in the future, of the United States.  

 

The Americans were completely wrong in apologising, which was seen as an act of submission to Islamic definitions of grievance, and encouraging acts of punishment.   In doing so, they demonstrate their inability to understand the Muslim mind.  It’s a bit late, but the response should have been to point out that the Muslims having used the Korans that were burned had desecrated them and thus deconsecrated them.  The ultimate disposal would then have been no mistake, of no consequence, and will be repeated under similar circumstance.  The demented response in the Islamic world would have been the same, but the West will be living with that for centuries to come anyway.  But NATO and the West would have saved face instead of grovelling.

With freedom of speech already under severe attack from both the politically-correct and Islamic groups in the West, our standards of freedom are things we are going to have to fight very robustly for, now and in the future. If we don’t, the future will be Islamic.

Returning reluctantly to Pastor Jones, he is portrayed in Western media as an extremist, raising the idea that there is some sort of equivalence with other extremists. But Jones doesn’t advocate for a global organisation of the wholesale slaughter of people who offend him. Muslims, both radical and conservative, do just that. Pastor Jones is not an extremist.

Post script, 19 March 2013

Jihad Watch carried a video clip of a soldier disarming a bomb contained in a Koran with the caption, "Actually the perpetrators were Islamic jihadists who not only misunderstood the peaceful teachings of the Book of Peace, but actually cut them out to make room for their bomb."  There was no record of protests about this, demonstrating the duplicity of these devout Muslims and the contempt  have for the West.  Jihad Watch

On the Relationship Between Internecine Conflict and Belief

Russell Jacoby, a history professor at UCLA, writes in “Bloodlust – Why we should fear our neighbours more than strangers” regarding the actual threat from those we know being greater than the perceived threat of unknown and dangerous strangers.

In the article he mentions 18 conflicts. Analysing and simplifying the cause, we find that of these, the predominant cause of 11 relates unambiguously to religious differences (the Lebanese civil war, the World Trade Centre bombing, Southern Sudan, Israel/Lebanon 2006, Somalia, Iraq Sunni v Shi’ite, Bernard Lewis’ “Clash of Civilisations”, Huguenots v Catholics, Germans v Jews during WWII, and Cain v Abel), four to extreme political conflict (the Ghandi assassination, the Russian civil war, the Peloponnesian War, Bosnia-Herzegovina) and two to tribal or ethnic conflict (Tutsi vs. Hutu in Rwanda, Hema v Lendu in north-eastern Congo). Nine of the conflicts Dr Jacoby mentions involve Islam.

Looking at what motivates much of this extreme violence, it’s clear that it involves ‘belief’ which, for the purpose of this comment, I define as “an opinion held to be true on the basis of faith, in that it can be neither verified nor falsified.”

Belief as a motivating factor to quash dissenting opinion by means of killing is clear where religion is concerned. I would suggest that belief is also a common factor in political situations, where in extremis, a believer holds that the political view espoused is so true and so right, that any means to institute and maintain it are justified. In this respect it becomes tyrannical, and little different to religious tyranny.

And that covers pretty much everything! So watch out for extreme belief. Indeed, it could be living next door.