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.
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 7th
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
No comments:
Post a Comment