Quran Desecration

PDN

OK, help me understand this. A pastor (albeit a dumb one) threatened to burn one Quran and Muslims all over the world demonstrate. Today a suicide bomber blew up 14 people in a mosque in Afghanistan - doubtlessly destroying a few copies of the Quran in the process. So presumably there will be 14 times as many Muslims out on the streets protesting this desecration? No?

Bottle_of_Smoke

PDN

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Ok, I'm willing to be educated.

So what is the difference?

Is it that desecration of the Quran is only offensive when done by infidels?

Or is that the pastor in Florida's sole objective was to destroy a Quran, whereas the desecration of the Qurans destroyed in Afghanistan was a by-product of a less offensive act (blowing up a fellow Muslim while he was praying)?

Please help me to understand. I'm genuinely perplexed here.

hivizman

Three points:

1. I would hope that protests focus on the loss of life and the large numbers of people injured as a consequence of this attack on an Afghan provincial governor, rather than on the "collateral damage" to books. I believe that there is a difference between intentional descration and destruction as a by-product of another, albeit dreadful, action.

2. I understand that Muslims don't normally consider it appropriate or necessary to use printed or manuscript copies of the Qur'an during prayer, since many Muslims remember by heart all or significant parts of the Qur'an. The emphasis in services is on the recitation (in Arabic) of verses or passages from the Qur'an rather than on reading. This is very different from Christian services that I am familiar with, where reading from printed copies of the Bible and the use of printed prayer books and hymnals is the norm. This means that there may have been very few Qur'ans actually in the mosque.

3. Putting on my moderator's hat, I'd just like to remind posters of the forum charter:

The forum is for the discussion of the islamic religon only. All topics off this should be in their respective forums (eg. Humanities/Politics/Languages). You are allowed questions which may be deemed off topic but only in relation to the religon.

Let me make something absolutly clear in this forum. It is for the open discussion of the religon for those who are following it or for those who may have honest questions about it. IT IS NOT FOR YOU TO VENT, OR FOR MUSLIMS TO HAVE TO DEFEND THEIR FAITH FROM ATTACK.

I am interpreting the original post as being an honest question relating to the religion of Islam, but if the thread degenerates into rants it will be locked.

Later addition: sorry, the second post from PDN came while I was writing this, so my first point was written in ignorance of that post.

Bottle_of_Smoke

PDN wrote: »

Ok, I'm willing to be educated.

So what is the difference?

Is it that desecration of the Quran is only offensive when done by infidels?

Or is that the pastor in Florida's sole objective was to destroy a Quran, whereas the desecration of the Qurans destroyed in Afghanistan was a by-product of a less offensive act (blowing up a fellow Muslim while he was praying)?

Please help me to understand. I'm genuinely perplexed here.

My responses would be political rather than Islamic. In light of hivizman's warning I'll only reply if he says that's ok.

hivizman

PDN wrote: »

Ok, I'm willing to be educated.

So what is the difference?

Is it that desecration of the Quran is only offensive when done by infidels?

Or is that the pastor in Florida's sole objective was to destroy a Quran, whereas the desecration of the Qurans destroyed in Afghanistan was a by-product of a less offensive act (blowing up a fellow Muslim while he was praying)?

Please help me to understand. I'm genuinely perplexed here.

I think (and remember, I'm not a Muslim) that the key lies in the word "desecrate". According to the dictionary that I keep at work (Chambers English Dictionary, 1990 edition), "to desecrate" means "to divert from a sacred purpose; to profane". The meaning of "to profane" is given as to treat with contempt or insult in spite of the holiness attributed; to desecrate; to violate; to put to an unworthy use."

In the context of the destruction of the Qur'an, the proposed action of burning undertaken by a Christian pastor was, I would suggest, intended to treat the Qur'an with contempt. Burning in itself is not significant (indeed, in some cases it may be appropriate to dispose of unusable copies of the Qur'an through burning), rather the intention behind the act. The proposed burning was intended to offend Muslims.

In the suicide attack, however, there was, I would expect, no thought given to the collateral impact. Although Qur'ans may have been destroyed in the attack, this was almost certainly an unintended consequence rather than an aim. The aim was to kill the provincial governor. I cannot see any grounds for anything but condemnation of this act, but I'm not sure that the term "offensive" really applies in the same sense as in the case of the intentional destruction of the Qur'an - can one really compare the feelings of offence arising from a Christian pastor burning (or threatening to burn) the Qur'an and the feelings of offence arising from murder and personal injury?

Of course, what I feel is irrelevant - what matters is how Muslims feel.

hivizman

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

My responses would be political rather than Islamic. In light of hivizman's warning I'll only reply if he says that's ok.

I think that there can be an interesting discussion around some of the verses of the Qur'an, for example Surat al-Maidah (5:32). This is often quoted only in part: "If any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people" (Yusuf Ali translation). I have seen this verse referred to many times as evidence of the underlying humanity of Islam, and I have no doubt that most Muslims would endorse it.

However, the full verse is: " On that account: We [i.e. Allah] ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our messengers with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land." The context of the verse is a narration of the story of Cain and Abel (by the way, this is told rather differently from the Genesis account, but that's for another discussion).

Even though the verse seems to suggest that this strong antipathy on the part of Allah to killing humans was ordained specifically for the Children of Israel, I don't know of any Muslim who would proclaim that it did not apply to humanity in general. However, the "escape clause" - "unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land" - could be used by some to try to defend actions such as killing a provincial governor who is considered (by the killers) to be the source of mischief in the land.

Given the Qur'an's strong condemnation of killing (with some exceptions), and the absence of specific statements in the Qur'an or from the time of Muhammad on how to treat the Qur'an in book form (because the Qur'an simply wasn't in book form during Muhammad's lifetime), killing should be regarded as more offensive than book-burning, but things may seem different to Muslims.

irishconvert

PDN wrote: »

OK, help me understand this. A pastor (albeit a dumb one) threatened to burn one Quran and Muslims all over the world demonstrate. Today a suicide bomber blew up 14 people in a mosque in Afghanistan - doubtlessly destroying a few copies of the Quran in the process. So presumably there will be 14 times as many Muslims out on the streets protesting this desecration? No?

I won't be out protesting for this just as I was not out protesting against the Qur'an burning. If I was to protest everytime there is a suicide bombing I may as well live in the streets.

wes

How many people actually protested btw? Can we actually get some numbers on that firstly?

Secondly, there have been campaigns against terrorism:

How a Pakistani protest song is redefining Islam as anti-terrorist


More than 60 million people have responded to an Islamic protest song. By Photini Philippidou


In a country where religion is capable of suspending war – Pakistan's security forces declared a ceasefire with the Taliban for the holy month of Ramadan – it might also have the power to stop it. That's what the stars behind the song "Ye Hum Naheen" were thinking in their quest to redefine Islam as anti-terrorist.

The song triggered a world-record-breaking petition in which 62.8 million Pakistanis united behind its title-message – Urdu for "This is Not Us". Over the course of five weeks this July and August they have by email, SMS, signature or thumbprint sent an impassioned missive declaring that true Muslims do not support terrorism.

Click here for full article

Took me a few seconds to find that on Google, and numbers involved are record breaking as well. 62.8 million from a country of 160 million (last I checked), so thats a 3rd of the country......

biko

PDN wrote: »

OK, help me understand this. A pastor (albeit a dumb one) threatened to burn one Quran and Muslims all over the world demonstrate. Today a suicide bomber blew up 14 people in a mosque in Afghanistan - doubtlessly destroying a few copies of the Quran in the process. So presumably there will be 14 times as many Muslims out on the streets protesting this desecration? No?

Sorry for the bump but Pastor Terry Jones actually went ahead with the burning March 21st this year.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110321/ts_alt_afp/usattackreligionislamkoran
There is a youtube clip but I won't link to it here.

hivizman

biko wrote: »

Sorry for the bump but Pastor Terry Jones actually went ahead with the burning March 21st this year.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110321/ts_alt_afp/usattackreligionislamkoran
There is a youtube clip but I won't link to it here.

A dubious and proscribed organisation called Jamaat ud-Dawah has apparently put a price (around US$2 million) on Terry Jones's head - see article in Times of India: "JuD announces Rs 10 crore for killing US pastor over Quran burning".

As someone commenting on the article notes:

A bunch of idiots from a lunatic organisation with no worthwhile work to do other than promoting jihad and killings, have garnered cheap limelight by issuing threats and announcing prize money (this I am sure is nothing but fake money printed at their insidious HQ of terror).

Other commentators take the view "any publicity is good publicity", suggesting that the burning of the Qur'an may actually lead people to read the Qur'an in order to find out what's so "bad" about it, and this may even give rise to conversions to Islam - presumably the opposite of what Pastor Jones wants to achieve.

Palmach

hivizman wrote: »

A dubious and proscribed organisation called Jamaat ud-Dawah has apparently put a price (around US$2 million) on Terry Jones's head - see article in Times of India: "JuD announces Rs 10 crore for killing US pastor over Quran burning".

The Pakistani Interior minister has got in on the act.
http://www.asianews.it/news-en/Pakistani-Minister-calls-on-Interpol-and-the-Pope-to-condemn-Florida-Koran-burning-21178.html

Ranting about it makes things worse.

oceanclub

Palmach wrote: »

The Pakistani Interior minister has got in on the act.
http://www.asianews.it/news-en/Pakistani-Minister-calls-on-Interpol-and-the-Pope-to-condemn-Florida-Koran-burning-21178.html

Ranting about it makes things worse.

Well, typical politicians getting in on the acts. Plus at least 2 Pakistan politicians have been assassinated for criticising blasphemy laws recently, without much support for them.

P.

Coriolanus

Seems the protests in Afghanistan spilled over into a UN compound and several civilians and guards were murdered. Shame. :mad:

As for the original question, I'd answer with a suggestion that for many Muslims, their religion appears to be quite a bit more visceral than Christianity is for many of it's supposed adherents.
I know you wouldn't see so large a ratio of protesters in Ireland for example if a Bible was burnt.
Does this mean that most Irish Christians don't care as much about their religion as do most Nation X Muslims? I'd argue yes, and empathically so. For a lot of Muslims, a majority in many countries probably, their religion is almost a physical presence in their day. Organised, multiple, communal prayer times. Proscribed ways of dressing and grooming.
The same cannot be said of Western Christians other than a small minority. Blessings onself and firing off a quick prayer before bed cannot compare.

biko

Initial reports said eight foreign UN workers had died.
Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt later confirmed that one of the dead was a Swede, 27-year-old UN worker Joakim Dungel.
The Norwegian defence ministry said another of those killed was Lt Col Siri Skare, a 53-year-old female pilot. The other foreign victims are believed to be a Romanian and four Nepalese guards.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12940014

Controversial US pastor Terry Jones has been barred from entering the UK for the public good, the Home Office says.
The pastor, who last year planned a Koran-burning protest in the US, had been invited to address right-wing group England Is Ours in Milton Keynes.
The Home Office said Mr Jones could not enter the UK as the government "opposes extremism in all its forms".
Mr Jones told BBC Radio 5 live he would challenge the "unfair" decision and his visit could have been "beneficial".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12231832

philologos

Just to cross post something I put in the thread on AH because I think I might get a better answer here:

Jakkass wrote: »

Personally, I obviously treat the Bible with a lot of respect because it is a book I revere, and if someone were to burn the Bible that would be a negative reflection on them. Ultimately however, the Bible isn't just paper and print, the words endure because they are God's words. This is why it is different to distinguish between the words on the page, and the page itself. The page itself isn't what is valuable, but it is the words that are valuable.

The question is why can't Muslims see the Qur'an in the same way?

hivizman

Jakkass wrote: »

Just to cross post something I put in the thread on AH because I think I might get a better answer here:

Personally, I obviously treat the Bible with a lot of respect because it is a book I revere, and if someone were to burn the Bible that would be a negative reflection on them. Ultimately however, the Bible isn't just paper and print, the words endure because they are God's words. This is why it is different to distinguish between the words on the page, and the page itself. The page itself isn't what is valuable, but it is the words that are valuable.

The question is why can't Muslims see the Qur'an in the same way?

I would not be surprised if the people responsible for the killings in Afghanistan were just looking for a pretext to attack the UN compound. I have every sympathy with Muslims who see the deliberate burning of the Qur'an as an act of desecration and are thereby offended, but I am not aware of any Qur'anic verse or Prophetic tradition that would give Muslims the right, or the duty, to kill completely unrelated people in response to such desecration.

Indeed, the Qur'an didn't even exist as a complete and unified written text (exccept possibly in heaven) until after the death of Muhammad. There are some verses in the Qur'an that talk about the Qur'an as a kitaab or book. First, Surat al-Waqi'ah ("The Event", 56:77-79 - in the Pickthall translation):

"This is indeed a noble Qur'an, in a Book I]kitaabin[/I kept hidden, which none shall touch except the purified."

Second, Surat al-Bayinah ("The Clear Evidence", 98:2-3 - again in the Pickthall translation):

" A messenger from Allah, reading purified pages I]suhufan[/I, containing correct scriptures I]kutubun[/I."

The word suhufan is from the same root as مصحف, that is, mushaf, the word used for a written copy of the Qur'an in arabic (translations are not considered to be the Qur'an, merely commentaries and interpretations).

These verses are a little strange given that the Qur'an is an oral revelation, and both Muslim and non-Muslim scholars have puzzled over them. For example, the Roman Catholic scholar Daniel Madigan has written a book called The Qur'an's Self-Image: Writing and Authority in Islam's Scripture (Princeton University Press, 2001), attempting to make sense of the references in the Qur'an to written manifestations of the Recitation.

Overall, though, this is yet another situation where I believe it is wrong to view "Muslims" as a homogeneous group all of whom will approve of the actions of extremists.

DorianGrayism

Regardless of our views of the Qu'ran, I believe that burning the book is an incredibly short sighted and selfish action.

It is easy for Pastor Jones to sit from the comfort of his Church and burn hundreds of Qu'rans if he wished to. Unfortunately, he hasn't had the foresight ( or just doesn't care), about the huge number of people he has put at risk and will unnecessarily die as a result.

I remember reading an interview with Antony White ( known as Vicar of Bagdad) in either The Independent or The Times and he was unequivocally against such an action. This was simply due to the huge amount of danger that it put the Church staff and the few Iraqi Christians left in Badgad as a result of reprisal attacks.

partyatmygaff

DorianGrayism wrote: »

Regardless of our views of the Qu'ran, I believe that burning the book is an incredibly short sighted and selfish action.

It is easy for Pastor Jones to sit from the comfort of his Church and burn hundreds of Qu'rans if he wished to. Unfortunately, he hasn't had the foresight ( or just doesn't care), about the huge number of people he has put at risk and will unnecessarily die as a result.

I remember reading an interview with Antony White ( known as Vicar of Bagdad) in either The Independent or The Times and he was unequivocally against such an action. This was simply due to the huge amount of danger that it put the Church staff and the few Iraqi Christians left in Badgad as a result of reprisal attacks.

Why should he be afraid of making a public protest? People across the world desecrate the symbols and books of other Religions on a daily basis yet we see no such violent reactions. If a Muslim burns a Bible, does anything happen? Do Christians rise in violence? The pastor burns a Qur'an and HE is condemned in lieu of the barbarians who indiscriminately killed innocent people.

This also raises a very important question. Why should someone think twice before criticising Islam? Why should someone think of the "consequences" of burning a Qur'an? Why do these "consequences" exist? Why is there a special case for Islam?

If there is to be a rule against burning Holy Books it should be applied to all Religions. Not just Islam.

DorianGrayism

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Why should he be afraid of making a public protest? People across the world desecrate the symbols and books of other Religions on a daily basis yet we see no such violent reactions. If a Muslim burns a Bible, does anything happen? Do Christians rise in violence? The pastor burns a Qur'an and HE is condemned in lieu of the barbarians who indiscriminately killed innocent people.

This also raises a very important question. Why should someone think twice before criticising Islam? Why should someone think of the "consequences" of burning a Qur'an? Why do these "consequences" exist? Why is there a special case for Islam?

If there is to be a rule against burning Holy Books it should be applied to all Religions. Not just Islam.

I don't think I need to openly write about my disgust at Bin Laden, the Taliban, Ted Bundy and etc for people to know that I condemn them for their actions. I would apply the same standard to the murders of the UN workers.

Unfortunately, we do not live in a world where my condemnation means a huge amount. The UN workers and Anthony White do not live in a world where religious freedom, freedom of speech and etc is tolerated. They live in a world where people are kidnapped and decapitated on video for what we perceive to be relatively trivial things. That was my point.

Though, I do understand where you are coming from with your points regarding Islam.

yammycat

It seems the protests were used as cover for an attack on the UN compound by the Taliban, as for the question by OP I have no doubt PDN understands the concept of intent and it's rather disappointing to find the mod of a religious forum which has it's own troubles with trolls trolling on another religious forum.

himnextdoor

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Why should he be afraid of making a public protest? People across the world desecrate the symbols and books of other Religions on a daily basis yet we see no such violent reactions. If a Muslim burns a Bible, does anything happen? Do Christians rise in violence? The pastor burns a Qur'an and HE is condemned in lieu of the barbarians who indiscriminately killed innocent people.

Religious extremists are like football hooligans in that they cast a dark shadows over an otherwise friendly atmosphere.

When Liverpool play Man U the fans are kept seperated by fences in order to avoid the predictable violence that would occur if the fans had access to each other. We shouldn't need the fences but without them there would be trouble. We don't have to remove the fences to know that.

By burning a copy of the Qu'ran in the manner he did, pastor Terry Jones effectively 'put a hole in the fence' through which violence could be conducted. Questions like 'why shouldn't he be allowed to burn a copy of the Qu'ran?' and 'why should exremists react so extremely?' are unhelpful; it is enough to know that one can lead to the other. It didn't require experimental proof to show that and Pastor Terry Jones knew that.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

This also raises a very important question. Why should someone think twice before criticising Islam? Why should someone think of the "consequences" of burning a Qur'an? Why do these "consequences" exist? Why is there a special case for Islam?

If there is to be a rule against burning Holy Books it should be applied to all Religions. Not just Islam.

Criticising Islam isn't the issue. What pastor Jones did was to provoke a predictably extreme reaction from a minority group of extremists in order to 'prove' generally that Islam as whole deserves to be designated as a synonym for terrorism. That does not make him a good man!

If those UN workers died as a result of what Terry Jones did then Terry Jones should have difficulty sleeping at night. If he doesn't... well, I would.

Book-burning comes from a desire to spread ignorance. And that is what pastor Terry Jones is hoping to acheive. That is his agenda and that is probably why those UN workers died.

TheUsual

Pastor Terry Jones should be flown over to Afghanistan and allowed to burn a Qur'an in a public square away from any UN or USA troops.

I will pay for his plane ticket myself. The guy is a coward.

FISMA

PDN wrote: »

OK, help me understand this... So presumably there will be 14 times as many Muslims out on the streets protesting this desecration? No?

PDN,
Once I heard someone comment on the situation in the North

"If You're Not Confused, you don't understand what's going on."

I think the same applies here.

There's a time and a place for everything. Unfortunately, it is not the time or place for logic.

JimiTime

himnextdoor wrote: »

If those UN workers died as a result of what Terry Jones did then Terry Jones should have difficulty sleeping at night. If he doesn't... well, I would.

Book-burning comes from a desire to spread ignorance. And that is what pastor Terry Jones is hoping to acheive. That is his agenda and that is probably why those UN workers died.

Those workers died because some ignorant murdering thugs killed them. Let no level of the blame be placed anywhere but on THEIR heads. Terry Jones is a backwater idiot, who would have remained so only for the media frenzy. However much of a retard he is, he burned a BOOK. He did NOT kill anyone. If you are looking to place blame due to irresponsibility etc, it should be at the door of the media who gave airtime to this backwater retard worldwide. Make no mistake though, neither he nor the media chopped off anyones head.

himnextdoor

JimiTime wrote: »

Those workers died because some ignorant murdering thugs killed them. Let no level of the blame be placed anywhere but on THEIR heads. Terry Jones is a backwater idiot, who would have remained so only for the media frenzy. However much of a retard he is, he burned a BOOK. He did NOT kill anyone. If you are looking to place blame due to irresponsibility etc, it should be at the door of the media who gave airtime to this backwater retard worldwide. Make no mistake though, neither he nor the media chopped off anyones head.

An act of the pastor's free-will led to the deaths of UN workers.

Defend him as much as you like; his hands are not clean.

JimiTime

himnextdoor wrote: »

An act of the pastor's free-will led to the deaths of UN workers.

Defend him as much as you like; his hands are not clean.

I question your literacy, if you think I'm defending that moron. At the end of the day though, theres always idiots looking to place blame everywhere else but on the people who actually go a murder others. 'It was because the Israeli army blew up such and such that we blew up a bus full of innocents'. 'It was because Britain are still occupying Ireland that we blew up that PSNI officer'. At the end of the day, there is NO detracting the blame from someone who goes out and commits the act of utmost evil that occurred in Afghanistan. Just like there was no excuse when that embassy was set alight because of some cartoonist. Or the abortion doctor being shot in America etc.

Racists exist! Morons Exist! Bigots Exist! One of these morons burning a book takes absolutely NO blame away from a wicked and murderous mob who decide to go kill a load of innocent people (Who most likely share their disdain for this idiot pastor) because that insignificant moron, done according to his stupidity.


Defending him?? Learn to read man!

Palmach

DorianGrayism wrote: »

I remember reading an interview with Antony White ( known as Vicar of Bagdad) in either The Independent or The Times and he was unequivocally against such an action. This was simply due to the huge amount of danger that it put the Church staff and the few Iraqi Christians left in Baghdad as a result of reprisal attacks.

So why are there so few Christians left? Why aren't the UN being asked to do something about it? Why aren't the OIC condemning this ethnic cleansing? I mean Islam is a Religion of Peace? Isn't it?

Palmach

himnextdoor wrote: »

Religious extremists are like football hooligans in that they cast a dark shadows over an otherwise friendly atmosphere.

You dodged the question. If Muslims burned a Bible would Christan mobs attack people?

Criticising Islam isn't the issue.

No it is the hair trigger reaction to any real or imagined sleight and gullible western politicians pandering to simple minded extremist currents within Islam.

irishconvert

This discussion is rapidly going off topic for the Islam forum. There is already a thread here where you can discuss this topic.

himnextdoor

Palmach wrote: »

You dodged the question. If Muslims burned a Bible would Christan mobs attack people?

In a Christian country illegally occupied by a Muslim army? Perhaps.

Palmach wrote: »

No it is the hair trigger reaction to any real or imagined sleight and gullible western politicians pandering to simple minded extremist currents within Islam.

And such situations need delicate handling. Pastor Jones can actually be said to have undermined America's 'war-effort' and as such he could be arrested for treason.

One more thing; if the Presidents and Prime-ministers of the Western world were to declare an open 'jihad' on Islam, then you can bet your bottom dollar that some Christian mobs would attack innocent people.

himnextdoor

JimiTime wrote: »

I question your literacy, if you think I'm defending that moron.

JimiTime wrote: »

Those workers died because some ignorant murdering thugs killed them. Let no level of the blame be placed anywhere but on THEIR heads.

JimiTime wrote: »

Defending him?? Learn to read man!

:cool:

philologos

himnextdoor wrote: »

In a Christian country illegally occupied by a Muslim army? Perhaps.

Completely irrelevant to how ethical it is to attack based on a threatened or actual Qur'an burning.

himnextdoor wrote: »

And such situations need delicate handling. Pastor Jones can actually be said to have undermined America's 'war-effort' and as such he could be arrested for treason.

He has the right to burn what he likes on his own property. It isn't a crime to burn a book. It's incredibly stupid. It is a crime to ruthlessly kill people.

himnextdoor wrote: »

One more thing; if the Presidents and Prime-ministers of the Western world were to declare an open 'jihad' on Islam, then you can bet your bottom dollar that some Christian mobs would attack innocent people.

dead one

Jakkass wrote: »

He has the right to burn what he likes on his own property.

No He hasn't right to violate the rights of other. That is injustice on his part.

Jakkass wrote: »

It isn't a crime to burn a book. It's incredibly stupid.

It isn't crime to burn a normal book, But it is greater crime to burn a book which is so dearest to billion. It is a crime to destroy peace of society.

Jakkass wrote: »

It is a crime to ruthlessly kill people.

Yess indeed it is greater crime. But have you ever thought what is base of this crime. What do you think about 9-11, How many people were ruthlessly killed to play a game. To whom you blame, Muslims or Zionist Jews. If zionist jews hire or brain washed some muslim kids to fullfill their goals. You can't associate these crime to muslims. Now see how US is being controlled to play a foreign war. The Zionist and US have come to the conclusion that the events of the last two decades – the Zionist experiment in the Middle East is living on borrowed time. The reconstruction of an Islamic anti-Zionist bloc is just begining to surface – and this haunt the Zionist thugs both in Tel Aviv and Washington.

Mark Hamill

dead one wrote: »

No He hasn't right to violate the rights of other. That is injustice on his part.

What right does he violate by burning a book?

dead one wrote: »

It isn't crime to burn a normal book, But it is greater crime to burn a book which is so dearest to billion. It is a crime to destroy peace of society.

He didn't destroy the peace of society, those who attacked the un compound destroyed the peace of society.

dead one

Mark Hamill wrote: »

What right does he violate by burning a book?

As i said, it isn't simple a book. It is book with compete code, Muslim holds great respect for Quran. Attack on quran means attack on society of muslim. It is old hyena tactic which is being used to spread hate against muslims and Islam.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

He didn't destroy the peace of society, those who attacked the un compound destroyed the peace of society.

His action is anti peace. The tactic which he used surely represents there was greater propaganda behind his actions. So he used a greater method to destroy peace of greater society as those who attacked the un compound. I condemn both

himnextdoor

Jakkass wrote: »

Completely irrelevant to how ethical it is to attack based on a threatened or actual Qur'an burning.

So, comparing apples and oranges is 'relevant'.

The reason that extremist Christian don't arbtrarily murder Muslims is entirely because it is prohibited by law.

Jakkass wrote: »

He has the right to burn what he likes on his own property. It isn't a crime to burn a book. It's incredibly stupid. It is a crime to ruthlessly kill people.

You don't get it; he didn't just 'burn a book', he insult the nation of Islam in the knowledge that there could be dire repercussions to humans other than himself.

Jakkass wrote: »

You seem to not understand human psychology.

Did you ever see that experiment where people in 'authority' got people to 'electrocute' other people and proved that people can be persuaded to do anything?

philologos

himnextdoor wrote: »

The reason that extremist Christian don't arbtrarily murder Muslims is entirely because it is prohibited by law.

You think that murder is legal in Afghanistan?

himnextdoor wrote: »

You don't get it; he didn't just 'burn a book', he insult the nation of Islam in the knowledge that there could be dire repercussions to humans other than himself.

There is no nation of Islam and there hasn't been since the Islamic Caliphate.

himnextdoor wrote: »

You seem to not understand human psychology.

I see through nonsense.

himnextdoor wrote: »

Did you ever see that experiment where people in 'authority' got people to 'electrocute' other people and proved that people can be persuaded to do anything?

The fact that you think this is somehow more applicable to Christians than any other demographic is disturbing.

himnextdoor

Jakkass wrote: »

You think that murder is legal in Afghanistan?

Is there not a jihad in force?

Jakkass wrote: »

There is no nation of Islam and there hasn't been since the Islamic Caliphate.

Don't be obtuse.

Jakkass wrote: »

I see through nonsense.

You see what makes you feel comfortable.

Jakkass wrote: »

The fact that you think this is somehow more applicable to Christians than any other demographic is disturbing.

Er...no.

What I'm saying is that beneath the thin veneer of democracy, 'white' folks ain't no more civilised than the not-so-white folks.

philologos

himnextdoor wrote: »

Is there not a jihad in force?

The Government have been trying to crack down on militants, indeed as has been the case for the overflow into Pakistan on the Pakistani side.

This would be getting into politics.

himnextdoor wrote: »

Don't be obtuse.

I don't see how it is obtuse, just a statement of reality.

himnextdoor wrote: »

What I'm saying is that beneath the thin veneer of democracy, 'white' folks ain't no more civilised than the not-so-white folks.

Race has nothing to do with this.

dead one wrote:

No He hasn't right to violate the rights of other. That is injustice on his part.

It isn't a right not to be offended. If someone burns the Bible, I don't go out and blow myself up. Indeed, they aren't going to achieve anything by burning a book.

dead one wrote:

It isn't crime to burn a normal book, But it is greater crime to burn a book which is so dearest to billion. It is a crime to destroy peace of society.

I believe that God's words are more important than the ink and paper they happen to be written on.

Think about how stupid the logic is: Someone goes out and buys a Qur'an to burn. Does this decrease the amount of Qur'ans that are currently being read in the world? No, of course not, it only burns the one that you have gone out and bought with your own money. Burning a Qur'an isn't going to stop Qur'ans continuing to exist in the world.

I think the peace of the society was destroyed by this suicide bomber personally.

dead one wrote:

Yess indeed it is greater crime. But have you ever thought what is base of this crime. What do you think about 9-11, How many people were ruthlessly killed to play a game. To whom you blame, Muslims or Zionist Jews. If zionist jews hire or brain washed some muslim kids to fullfill their goals. You can't associate these crime to muslims. Now see how US is being controlled to play a foreign war. The Zionist and US have come to the conclusion that the events of the last two decades – the Zionist experiment in the Middle East is living on borrowed time. The reconstruction of an Islamic anti-Zionist bloc is just begining to surface – and this haunt the Zionist thugs both in Tel Aviv and Washington.

This has nothing to do with either. All it has to do with is the Qur'an burning in this case. The burning of a book isn't a good enough reason to blow yourself up taking lives with you.

DorianGrayism

Palmach wrote: »

So why are there so few Christians left? Why aren't the UN being asked to do something about it? Why aren't the OIC condemning this ethnic cleansing? I mean Islam is a Religion of Peace? Isn't it?

Didn't claim that it was a "Religion of Peace" and etc. Though, I would say that the ethnic cleansing was something applied being applied to all ethnic groups in Bagdad.

DorianGrayism

dead one wrote: »

As i said, it isn't simple a book. It is book with compete code, Muslim holds great respect for Quran. Attack on quran means attack on society of muslim. It is old hyena tactic which is being used to spread against muslims and Islam.


His action is anti peace. The tactic which he used surely represents there was greater propaganda behind his actions. So he used a greater method to destroy peace of greater society as those who attacked the un compound. I condemn both

Not really. It is a book or a memory stick or a kindle.

You perceive it to be special. I don't care.

partyatmygaff

himnextdoor wrote: »

The reason that extremist Christian don't arbtrarily murder Muslims is entirely because it is prohibited by law.

A basis for this ludicrous opinion if you please (Other than an inexplicable bias against Christianity). Murder is illegal in Afghanistan as it is across the globe, it did not stop these barbarians from responding violently to someone burning their holy book.

partyatmygaff

DorianGrayism wrote: »

Not really. It is a book or a memory stick or a kindle.

You perceive it to be special. I don't care.

That raises an interesting point...

Many Muslims put a copy of the Qur'an on their phones and have verses e.t.c. stored as MP3s. Their phone contains the Qur'an. Yet they still treat the phone as if it were garbage. They throw it on tables and forget about it, they throw it in their pockets to be scratched, they throw it in the bin with rubbish and rotting food when it is too old yet they never think twice about it. Will Allah punish the people who treat digital copies of the Qur'an as if it were a piece of plastic to be thrown in bins and in landfills? Should these people be killed or punished is the main question however. Will the offended Afghani Muslims kill these people too?

hivizman

partyatmygaff wrote: »

That raises an interesting point...

Many Muslims put a copy of the Qur'an on their phones and have verses e.t.c. stored as MP3s. Their phone contains the Qur'an. Yet they still treat the phone as if it were garbage. They throw it on tables and forget about it, they throw it in their pockets to be scratched, they throw it in the bin with rubbish and rotting food when it is too old yet they never think twice about it. Will Allah punish the people who treat digital copies of the Qur'an as if it were a piece of plastic to be thrown in bins and in landfills? Should these people be killed or punished is the main question however. Will the offended Afghani Muslims kill these people too?

You're not wrong - this is indeed an interesting point.

I don't know definitely, but I suspect that the reasoning is similar to that applied to digital images - that they don't actually "exist" in the same way as paintings or even photographs, and hence the various bans on creating and displaying images of people and animals don't apply to digital images. It's certainly the case that people reading the Qur'an on a computer screen are not required to be in a state of ritual cleanliness, as they would be if they were reading a mushaf - a written text of the Qur'an.

partyatmygaff

hivizman wrote: »

You're not wrong - this is indeed an interesting point.

I don't know definitely, but I suspect that the reasoning is similar to that applied to digital images - that they don't actually "exist" in the same way as paintings or even photographs, and hence the various bans on creating and displaying images of people and animals don't apply to digital images. It's certainly the case that people reading the Qur'an on a computer screen are not required to be in a state of ritual cleanliness, as they would be if they were reading a mushaf - a written text of the Qur'an.

Why not? Are Allah's words worth something only if written on paper? Must it be tangible for a Muslim to treat it with respect? If that pastor had burnt an iPad with the Qur'an on it, would he still have been just as insulting do you think?

himnextdoor

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Why not? Are Allah's words worth something only if written on paper? Must it be tangible for a Muslim to treat it with respect? If that pastor had burnt an iPad with the Qur'an on it, would he still have been just as insulting do you think?

You raise an interesting point; why didn't the pastor burn an iPad?

I reckon he wanted to maximise the impact of his insult.

I wonder if he feels guilty about what happened and whether he's planning to do it again.

Would you do it again? If not. why not?

partyatmygaff

himnextdoor wrote: »

You raise an interesting point; why didn't the pastor burn an iPad?

Why would he buy an expensive electronic device just to make a protest? You took my question and stretched it to something completely different.

I reckon he wanted to maximise the impact of his insult.

This reeks of clutching at straws. Whether digital or on paper, to a Muslim, the Qur'an still ought to be the word of Allah. I must say however, it does appear that this respect is no longer respect for the word of Allah but more respect for the tangible book itself which is nonsensical.

himnextdoor

partyatmygaff wrote: »

A basis for this ludicrous opinion if you please (Other than an inexplicable bias against Christianity). Murder is illegal in Afghanistan as it is across the globe, it did not stop these barbarians from responding violently to someone burning their holy book.

This wasn't sanctioned by law and no book was burned and not a Muslim in sight.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0405/kerrr.html

Have you heard of White Supremacists? The BNP, National Front? Have you never met or listened to a racist? Dude, if they were given the nod, they would happily turn London, Manchester, Leeds, Liverpool, Glasgow, (any city with a Muslim population), into bloodbaths.

If I had bias against Christianity it wouldn't be inexplicable.

Which barbarians though? That's the point; did anyone get a number-plate, are there witnesses prepared to ID the culprits? Who exactly, apart from Muslims in general, are you talking about?

I don't understand your problem; why do you think it is acceptable for a pastor to antagonise a group of extremists and risk the lives of others just to prove that there are extremists in Afghanistan? Why?

What do you want; carpet bombing, a cruise-missile to deliver its payload to Kabul? Revenge?

I submit to you that those are the things that pastor Jones desires. In the end, there could be even more innocent casualties because of that evil little coward's need to exercise his constitutional rights.

hivizman

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Whether digital or on paper, to a Muslim, the Qur'an still ought to be the word of Allah. I must say however, it does appear that this respect is no longer respect for the word of Allah but more respect for the tangible book itself which is nonsensical.

There's an ambiguity that goes right back to the very first verse, indeed the very first word, of the Qur'an that tradition suggests was revealed: Surat al-'Alaq (96:1):



Transliterated, this is: iqra bismi rabbika alladhi khalaqa.

The first word iqra is from the same root as the word "Qur'an", but how should it be translated? Some translators (e.g. Pickthall, Shakir Mohsin Khan) go for "read", while others (e.g. Sahih International, Arberry) go for "recite". If Muslims regard the Qur'an as basically something that is read, then it's not surprising that they respect the tangible book. Muslims certainly respect the recited Qur'an as well - for example, it is considered inappropriate to use verses or chapters from the Qur'an as ringtones, and some Muslims would go so far as to condemn the broadcasting of a recitation in what they would consider to be unsuitable contexts. To give an extreme example, if someone prepared a pornographic movie and used a recitation of the Qur'an as background sound, I am sure that this would offend many Muslims.

But the physical recording or the device on which the recording of the Qur'an is stored are simply not seen as "The Qur'an" in anything like the sense in which a mushaf is regarded. But perhaps attitudes will change, and I'll keep my eye out for any discussion of the etiquette relating to recordings of Qur'an recitations.

himnextdoor

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Why would he buy an expensive electronic device just to make a protest? You took my question and stretched it to something completely different.


This reeks of clutching at straws. Whether digital or on paper, to a Muslim, the Qur'an still ought to be the word of Allah. I must say however, it does appear that this respect is no longer respect for the word of Allah but more respect for the tangible book itself which is nonsensical.

Wrong. The burning of the book was a metaphor. To a devout Islamist, the simple burning of the Qur'an was symbolic of pastor Jones spitting in the face of Allah and striking Mohammed with a shoe. There is no higher insult and if there was, Pastor Jones would have made it.

What are you saying anyway; we agree that the actual murderers committed a terrible act? You seem to agree that pastor Terry Jones is at least an idiot. Can't you imagine that he had evil in his heart when he burned that copy of the Qur'an?