Quran Desecration

partyatmygaff

What is the difference however?

An electronic device stores the word of Allah. Paper and print stores the word of Allah.

What is the difference? A Muslim throws away a phone or similar device with the word of Allah going on to a landfill filled with rotting food and rats running around and Muslims do not seem to take any offense. Yet when someone burns the paper version of a Qur'an there are killings and protests.

The content is what is important, is it not? In both instances the medium on which the word of Allah is recorded is being destroyed. In fact, I am quite sure any sensible person would consider the dumping of the word of Allah as if it were common rubbish by a Muslim would be far more offensive than a non-Muslim simply burning the word of Allah.

partyatmygaff

himnextdoor wrote: »

Wrong. The burning of the book was a metaphor.

How artistic of him. By the way what exactly of what you quoted was "wrong"?

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.

Yeah. To a devout Christian, the simple burning of a Bible would be symbolic of Imam Jones spitting in the face of Jesus.

It doesn't matter if it's offensive to anyone. Civil rights marches of the 1960s by black activists may have been offensive to the beliefs of white supremacists. If the KKK had a book of some sort I am sure it would have been burnt in a similar manner in protest at its content.

There is no higher insult and if there was, Pastor Jones would have made it.

What are you harping on about? He is burning a book in protest. If he wanted to insult Mohammed or Allah he would draw caricatures like back in 2005 or stand in the middle of streets shouting out insults with a megaphone. You seemingly think he wishes to insult Muslims when it is more the fact that he wishes to protest against its content.

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?

Certainly an idiot but equally not to blame for the killings. I do not see how protesting at the content of a book makes you evil at heart.

irishconvert

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Certainly an idiot but equally not to blame for the killings. I do not see how protesting at the content of a book makes you evil at heart.

The president of the US personally asked him not to carry out the burning as it would certainly result in the death of US troops and innocent US citizens. He ignored this request and carried out the act regardless. That makes him an evil man in my book. How about yours?

partyatmygaff

irishconvert wrote: »

The president of the US personally asked him not to carry out the burning as it would certainly result in the death of US troops and innocent US citizens. He ignored this request and carried out the act regardless. That makes him an evil man in my book. How about yours?

Is the President of the USA God? Is not obeying his commands evil now?

If someone wants to have a protest then that is their prerogative. He believes the content of the Qur'an is evil and abhorrent as he has every right to and he wishes to express his severe distaste for its content in the personal hope that others too will share his view. It does not matter if he successfully convinced anyone or not, it matters only that he thought he could convince others to acknowledge what he believes is evil as being evil.

It does not matter if others view it as an insult. That is irrelevant. An extreme Irish nationalist might view unionists as being insulting to their beliefs. A unionist may decide to burn the Irish Constitution along with effigies of nationalist figures of importance such as Michael Collins in protest at what they view as unlikable. If someone goes on to kill the unionist protestor, under the eyes of the law they will be seen as murderers and premeditated at that.

irishconvert

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Is the President of the USA God? Is not obeying his commands evil now?

If someone wants to have a protest then that is their prerogative. He believes the content of the Qur'an is evil and abhorrent as he has every right to and he wishes to express his severe distaste for its content in the personal hope that others too will share his view. It does not matter if he successfully convinced anyone or not, it matters only that he thought he could convince others to acknowledge what he believes is evil as being evil.

It does not matter if others view it as an insult. That is irrelevant. An extreme Irish nationalist might view unionists as being insulting to their beliefs. A unionist may decide to burn the Irish Constitution along with effigies of nationalist figures of importance such as Michael Collins in protest at what they view as unlikable. If someone goes on to kill the unionist protestor, under the eyes of the law they will be seen as murderers and premeditated at that.

If I told you that such and such an action will 100% definitely result in deaths of innocent people, and you believed I was right in what I said, would you still carry out that action?

partyatmygaff

irishconvert wrote: »

If I told you that such and such an action will 100% definitely result in deaths of innocent people, and you believed I was right in what I said, would you still carry out that action?

So Obama was positively certain that burning a Qur'an would elicit killings?

Ignoring the impossibility of Obama predicting the future, why would Obama be certain that merely burning a book could have such bloody repercussions?

irishconvert

irishconvert wrote: »

If I told you that such and such an action will 100% definitely result in deaths of innocent people, and you believed I was right in what I said, would you still carry out that action?

partyatmygaff wrote: »

So Obama was positively certain that burning a Qur'an would elicit killings?

Ignoring the impossibility of Obama predicting the future, why would Obama be certain that merely burning a book could have such bloody repercussions?

Same question again, a yes or no answer will be fine, thanks :-)

oceanclub

irishconvert wrote: »

The president of the US personally asked him not to carry out the burning as it would certainly result in the death of US troops and innocent US citizens. He ignored this request and carried out the act regardless. That makes him an evil man in my book. How about yours?

But does that mean that any denied request leading to killing is also evil? I mean, say it wasn't the burning of a book, but the publication of a book?

P.

partyatmygaff

irishconvert wrote: »

If I told you that such and such an action will 100% definitely result in deaths of innocent people, and you believed I was right in what I said, would you still carry out that action?

This is an impossible scenario.

No one can predict with absolute certainty that any action will result in violent reactions. There may be a high probability of an action having a severe reaction but that does not make it certain.

himnextdoor

oceanclub wrote: »

But does that mean that any denied request leading to killing is also evil? I mean, say it wasn't the burning of a book, but the publication of a book?

P.

I remember a story about an ex-intelligence guy who published a book which identified someone who had been relocated for their protection. As a result, the relocated guy, his wife and children were all murdered. The question is, did the author expect or intend for that to happen. If he did, then yes, he has sinned by not loving his neighbour.

I think that there is evil where there is an intent or expectation to cause harm. Legal or not, what the pastor did raises questions about his morality.

himnextdoor

partyatmygaff wrote: »

This is an impossible scenario.

No one can predict with absolute certainty that any action will result in violent reactions. There may be a high probability of an action having a severe reaction but that does not make it certain.

Are you saying that Jones believed that Obama was wrong?

If the pastor was flagellating himself over this, mourning his decision not to heed the President of the United States then he would just be a fool; the jaw of an ass and all that.

Is he contrite?

Not according to:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2011/0406/1224294012085.html

Where he says:

Koran-burning “is provocative, yes”, he admits, “but it’s not an excuse to kill people.” He agrees that dialogue might be a better way to fight for the rights of Christians in Muslim countries, “but sometimes, somewhat radical methods, stirring the pot, sometimes that has to happen for change to take place”.

EVIL.

philologos

himnextdoor wrote: »

Koran-burning “is provocative, yes”, he admits, “but it’s not an excuse to kill people.” He agrees that dialogue might be a better way to fight for the rights of Christians in Muslim countries, “but sometimes, somewhat radical methods, stirring the pot, sometimes that has to happen for change to take place”.

Although I strongly disagree with Jones he's right in one respect that many posters here and on AH don't seem to realise.

dead one

Jakkass wrote: »

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.

Look Friend, Suppose i choose an action which encrouges people to blow themselves. Honestly you should blame me or bombers. The root cause of evil is me. I am not here to support bombers. Why someone choose an action which destroy peace of society. Now think about it.

Jakkass wrote: »

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

I also believe that but there is problem every man doesn't believe what you or i believe. There are some ignorant people. If you use ignorance to spread ignorance that isn't good thing. The pastor used greater source of ignorance and he wasn't ignorant about his tactic.

Jakkass wrote: »

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 agree what you said and i know it very well but problem arise when someone use this scheme (burning Quran) to propagate their hidden agendas. That isn't justice. It is illegal mean to stop campaign of Islam. Every man should be honest that's only way to create peace in the world.

Jakkass wrote: »

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.

There are three major countries in the world affected by suicide bomber. They are Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq. Usually suicide bomber are kids. Who brainwashed these kids? To answer this question you should remember story of 9-11 and this stage drama. They (Zionist Jews and Zionist Christian) could create a great play like 9-11. So what is problem they can't brain washed some people or kid in the name of Islam to spread hate against Islam.
Infact if you read quran, Quran says

According to the Qur’an, killing any person without a just cause is as big a sin as killing the whole humanity and saving the life of one person is as good deed as saving the whole humanity. (See al-Ma’idah 5:32)

JimiTime

himnextdoor wrote: »

Are you saying that Jones believed that Obama was wrong?

If the pastor was flagellating himself over this, mourning his decision not to heed the President of the United States then he would just be a fool; the jaw of an ass and all that.

Is he contrite?

Not according to:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2011/0406/1224294012085.html

Where he says:

Koran-burning “is provocative, yes”, he admits, “but it’s not an excuse to kill people.” He agrees that dialogue might be a better way to fight for the rights of Christians in Muslim countries, “but sometimes, somewhat radical methods, stirring the pot, sometimes that has to happen for change to take place”.

EVIL.

He may be evil, he may not be, I don't know. You are free to think so. One thing is for absolute certain though, it wasn't him that beheaded anyone.

BTW, If someone anywhere in the world burns an Ireland flag, I'm going to torch random babies in Tesco's. It'll be on their heads. How retarded does that sound! Its absolute idiocy. So if some muderers in other countries tell us not to eat rice crispies or they'll kill people, do we stop eating rice crispies too? Where do we stop?

This idiot pastor is an American living in America, and he did nothing illegal. That there are people in the world looking for excuses to kill random people is the problem, not that there are random fools. He is free to burn Bibles, Korans, whatever. It gives NO-ONE ANY EXCUSE to go murdering people, and making this about that pastor is a complete red herring which ignores the elephant in the room.

philologos

dead one wrote: »

Look Friend, Suppose i choose an action which encrouges people to blow themselves. Honestly you should blame me or bombers. The root cause of evil is me. I am not here to support bombers. Why someone choose an action which destroy peace of society. Now think about it.

Not at all. People have the responsibility to restrain their anger. I think the Qur'an burning is stupid, but I don't think it compares at all to suicide bombing. The responsibility as I see it is firmly on the suicide bomber.

What destroyed the peace of society was the stage when the suicide bomber decided to detonate.

dead one wrote: »

I also believe that but there is problem every man doesn't believe what you or i believe. There are some ignorant people. If you use ignorance to spread ignorance that isn't good thing. The pastor used greater source of ignorance and he wasn't ignorant about his tactic.

You're not getting the point though. Why should I be angry if paper and ink burns? I still have God's words to read. They are copied billions of times and are stored in numerous locations around the world.

dead one wrote: »

i agree what you said and i know it very well but problem arise when someone use this scheme (burning Quran) to propagate their hidden agendas. That isn't justice. It is illegal mean to stop campaign of Islam. Every man should be honest that's only way to create peace in the world.

It's illegal to stop the campaign of Islam? Interesting. I guess you mean illegal as in the sense that it is against what you believe God has revealed through the Qur'an. Does this mean that if Christians aim to share with Muslims about Jesus as the Messiah, and as the one who was crucified, and resurrected on the third day that they are "stopping the campaign of Islam"?

dead one wrote: »

There are three major countries in the world affected by suicide bomber. They are Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq. Usually suicide bomber are kids. Who brainwashed these kids? To answer this question you should remember story of 9-11 and this stage drama. They (Zionist Jews and Zionist Christian) could create a great play like 9-11. So what is problem they can't brain washed some people or kid in the name of Islam to spread hate against Islam.
Infact if you read quran, Quran says

You're being confusing here. Are you insinuating that Christians and Jews have brainwashed suicide bombers?

By the by, suicide bombing affects huge portions of the world. In the height of the Second Intifada in Israel / Palestine suicide bombings were a regular occurrence, and indeed one only has to look to Bali, Madrid, London, or indeed 9/11.

I hope one wouldn't argue that these deserved to happen much in the same way as I would hope that one would argue against the murderers in this case.

irishconvert

irishconvert wrote: »

If I told you that such and such an action will 100% definitely result in deaths of innocent people, and you believed I was right in what I said, would you still carry out that action?

partyatmygaff wrote: »

So Obama was positively certain that burning a Qur'an would elicit killings?

Ignoring the impossibility of Obama predicting the future, why would Obama be certain that merely burning a book could have such bloody repercussions?

irishconvert wrote: »

Same question again, a yes or no answer will be fine, thanks :-)

partyatmygaff wrote: »

This is an impossible scenario.

No one can predict with absolute certainty that any action will result in violent reactions. There may be a high probability of an action having a severe reaction but that does not make it certain.

It's just a hypotical question. Why won't you answer it?

himnextdoor

Jakkass wrote: »

Although I strongly disagree with Jones he's right in one respect that many posters here and on AH don't seem to realise.

Who?

irishconvert

oceanclub wrote: »

But does that mean that any denied request leading to killing is also evil? I mean, say it wasn't the burning of a book, but the publication of a book?

P.

That is an interesting question and I see what you are getting at. Where do we draw the line? It's a difficult situation and I am not sure where I stand on it to be honest.

himnextdoor

JimiTime wrote: »

This idiot pastor is an American living in America, and he did nothing illegal. That there are people in the world looking for excuses to kill random people is the problem, not that there are random fools. He is free to burn Bibles, Korans, whatever. It gives NO-ONE ANY EXCUSE to go murdering people, and making this about that pastor is a complete red herring which ignores the elephant in the room.

Why do you think he is an idiot?

JimiTime

himnextdoor wrote: »

Why do you think he is an idiot?

Because he's seeking attention by being provocative and also indulging in a completely unchristian act while at the same time being a 'Christian' pastor.h.

I think the media who gave the guy airtime, and turned an insignificant backwater pastor into world news are bigger idiots though.

Mark Hamill

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 hate against muslims and Islam.

But it is just a simple book, its just paper and cardboard and ink. The important stuff is the words, and they would presumably still keep their significance if every copy of the quran disappeared tomorrow. Even so, I still dont see whose rights he has violated.

dead one wrote: »

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

The only thing his actions destroyed was a book. The destroyers where the people who attacked the un compound. They didn't have to attack anyone after the book burning, they chose to.

Mark Hamill

partyatmygaff wrote: »

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.

It can be seen as a form of shirk, the sin of idolatry in islam.

irishconvert

JimiTime wrote: »

I think the media who gave the guy airtime, and turned an insignificant backwater pastor into world news are bigger idiots though.

They are far from idiots, lots of people watching their news channels, buying their newspapers, companies paying huge sums to advertise. This is the kind of stuff the media love, it sells. Same as the mosque contraversy in New York near the twin towers site.

Mark Hamill

himnextdoor wrote: »

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.

Why do you think these muslims felt the need to get angry on behalf of allah and mohammed? Why do you think they felt the need to punish people in their stead as well? Did they not believe that allah could sort Jones out themselves? Did they not realise that nothing they could do would match the punishment Jones will get in hell for what he did?

oceanclub

irishconvert wrote: »

That is an interesting question and I see what you are getting at. Where do we draw the line? It's a difficult situation and I am not sure where I stand on it to be honest.

On the one hand, it's good practise not to do something trivial if it ends up putting the lives of other people in danger. On the other hand, it's a slippery slope which leads to those using violence realising they can make any demand.

P.

dead one

Jakkass wrote: »

Not at all. People have the responsibility to restrain their anger. I think the Qur'an burning is stupid, but I don't think it compares at all to suicide bombing. The responsibility as I see it is firmly on the suicide bomber.

Burning Quran means burn lives of other. Whenever you wish to burn lives of others Just use this scheme. This is an honest advice. Suicide Bomber kills 6,7 or let say 1000 People. Burning Quran affect society of billions. Both are condemnable. But can i ask what is highly condemnable an event which effects lives of 100 people or and event which effects lives of billion.

Jakkass wrote: »

What destroyed the peace of society was the stage when the suicide bomber decided to detonate.

as i said suicide bomber kills 100 people while burning quran affects society of billion. Both are incomparable if you are honest with yourself.

Jakkass wrote: »

You're not getting the point though. Why should I be angry if paper and ink burns? I still have God's words to read. They are copied billions of times and are stored in numerous locations around the world.

I got your point and i agree with it but you aren't getting my point. Burning Quran is a scheme to spread hate against Islam and this scheme is used thousand of time as to play with emotions as muslim have great respect for quran.

Jakkass wrote: »

It's illegal to stop the campaign of Islam? Interesting. I guess you mean illegal as in the sense that it is against what you believe God has revealed through the Qur'an. Does this mean that if Christians aim to share with Muslims about Jesus as the Messiah, and as the one who was crucified, and resurrected on the third day that they are "stopping the campaign of Islam"?

illegal means unjust. When someone doesn't acquire his desired objectives through legal means than he uses illegal means. Pastor used an illegal / unjust mean because he was too confused what to do? Isn't it irony

Does this mean that if Christians aim to share with Muslims about Jesus as the Messiah, and as the one who was crucified, and resurrected on the third day that they are "stopping the campaign of Islam"

That is legal mean to stop campaign of Islam but this legal mean doesn't work against muslim. You can't convince me because i also have knoweldge of Bible. I can prove you wrong from Bible as well Quran? You can just take help of bible to prove me wrong and i can counter you from bible.

Jakkass wrote: »

You're being confusing here. Are you insinuating that Christians and Jews have brainwashed suicide bombers?
By the by, suicide bombing affects huge portions of the world. In the height of the Second Intifada in Israel / Palestine suicide bombings were a regular occurrence, and indeed one only has to look to Bali, Madrid, London, or indeed 9/11.

I hope one wouldn't argue that these deserved to happen much in the same way as I would hope that one would argue against the murderers in this case.

I used the world "Major countries" It means you can't compare suicide bombing in these countries with rest of world. There is conspiracy of suiding training camp in these countries.
please watch this documentary

Prisoner of Whilte God
According to the film, the good intentions of converting these indigenous people to the "true" religion hide the human rights violations of theft of land, forced relocation, cultural genocide and imposition of power with a racist view on their society. The crimes which the Christian missionaries are accused of include kidnapping of children from their villages to work in tea plantations and the selling of children into the sex trade. The documentary contrasts the apparent wealth and cleanliness of the missionary with the undercover child trafficking that they carry out. One missionary is seen expressing regret over the revelation of this reality to the outside world as a threat to the continuing work of their organizations among these people.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5151512921334112942#

philologos

dead one wrote: »

as i said suicide bomber kills 100 people while burning quran affects society of billion. Both are incomparable if you are honest with yourself.

If there was a building on fire with 100 people on the bottom floor, and a Qur'an in the top floor are you telling me you'd save the Qur'an before the people?

Burning a Qur'an goes unnoticed most of the time if you watch the hundreds of youtube videos. The offense of 1 billion people is not more important than the life of 100. God created life, and it is only for Him to take life away.

dead one wrote: »

I got your point and i agree with it but you aren't getting my point. Burning Quran is a scheme to spread hate against Islam and this scheme is used thousand of time as to play with emotions as muslim have great respect for quran.

The law doesn't have to make the rest of us respect Islam in the same way the law doesn't make people respect Christianity or any other religion.

dead one wrote: »

illegal means unjust. When someone doesn't acquire his desired objectives through legal means than he uses illegal means. Pastor used an illegal / unjust mean because he was too confused what to do? Isn't it irony

Illegal means against the law as I would see it.

dead one wrote: »

That is legal mean to stop campaign of Islam but this legal mean doesn't work against muslim. You can't convince me because i also have knoweldge of Bible. I can prove you wrong from Bible as well Quran? You can just take help of bible to prove me wrong and i can counter you from bible.

Many Muslims have converted to Christianity so it is clearly possible.

I find that much Islamic apologetics when using the Bible is dishonest. I once spent an hour talking to some people doing dawah on Henry St. I asked them questions about Islam, and then they asked me what religion I was. I told them that I was a Christian. They disingenuously cherrypicked verses to suit their arguments. When I told them of verses that disagreed with their view they say that the Bible is corrupted. I asked them, how do you know what is corrupted in the Bible and not corrupted.

They couldn't tell me. All I knew of their Biblical knowledge is that they were taught how to strawman the Bible.

Unless you are willing to forgo the belief that the Bible is corrupted any argument that is made by anyone doing dawah that the Bible backs up their argument can be disputed. It is only when you do this that we can have a proper discussion about it.

pts

Can I ask people on this forum who lay most/all of the blame for this event on the American pastor one question. Do you think that you have a right not to be offended? In other words, should people be able to criticizes your religious beliefs in whatever form they like (criticizing practices, satirisng, burning books, drawing cartoons etc)

I would also be interested to hear what you think about this very short video, where a Christian feels that a book is offensive.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQ3VcbAfd4w

himnextdoor

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Why do you think these muslims felt the need to get angry on behalf of allah and mohammed? Why do you think they felt the need to punish people in their stead as well? Did they not believe that allah could sort Jones out themselves? Did they not realise that nothing they could do would match the punishment Jones will get in hell for what he did?

Why do I think these muslims felt the need to get angry on behalf of allah and mohammed? Personally I think that extremists are always angry and we know that they are not reasonable. However, I don't think that they were really carrying out this atrocity in the name of Allah, it was more to do with the fact that they have been invaded by infidels and the protests provided cover for them to 'strike out at the enemy' so to speak.

I would concede that had the pastor not done what he had then the extremists would have still desired to kill the UN workers and would take advantage of any opportunity to do so. I just feel that the legitimate act of book-burning led to the legitimate protests of international Muslims which aided the illegitimate actions of the extremists. Take any one piece out of that chain of events and the UN workers live.

JimiTime

irishconvert wrote: »

They are far from idiots, lots of people watching their news channels, buying their newspapers, companies paying huge sums to advertise. This is the kind of stuff the media love, it sells. Same as the mosque contraversy in New York near the twin towers site.

Yeah, i fully agree. They are certainly not idiots when it comes to making a story and selling news. The Idiots comment is more directed and what they looked to cause. 'Lets blow this story up, and give it major coverage and see what happens'. Then bang, a group of murderers latch onto it and say, 'argh argh, lets go killing random people'. News folk say, 'Jackpot, we've got more news'. This makes them idiots and @rseholes in my book, but they are certainly not murderers.

partyatmygaff

himnextdoor wrote: »

Why do I think these muslims felt the need to get angry on behalf of allah and mohammed? Personally I think that extremists are always angry and we know that they are not reasonable. However, I don't think that they were really carrying out this atrocity in the name of Allah, it was more to do with the fact that they have been invaded by infidels and the protests provided cover for them to 'strike out at the enemy' so to speak.

People now need a cover for murder? There is no doubt in my mind that the motive behind the attack was striking back at infidels for burning a Qur'an. Killers do not need a cover story.

I just feel that the legitimate act of book-burning led to the legitimate protests of international Muslims which aided the illegitimate actions of the extremists. Take any one piece out of that chain of events and the UN workers live.

So the legitimate protests of international Muslims aided the murderers?

So using your logic of the provocateur being partly responsible does this not mean that the Muslims who protested legitimately are culpable and not the Pastor?

Also, you've contradicted yourself. You said that

I would concede that had the pastor not done what he had then the extremists would have still desired to kill the UN workers... Take any one piece out of that chain of events and the UN workers live.

Surely if I took any piece out of the chain of events they would still have been killed as you yourself said that they would have still desired to kill the UN workers.

Mark Hamill

himnextdoor wrote: »

I just feel that the legitimate act of book-burning led to the legitimate protests of international Muslims which aided the illegitimate actions of the extremists. Take any one piece out of that chain of events and the UN workers live.

Would they live though? If the extremists were just looking for a cover for their violence then something else could easily have been found to rile them up. I dont think it really aided them as such, as anything could be taken by an insult by an extremist looking for a reason for violence, and I think stopping legitimate acts out of fear of extremist responses is a bad habit as eventually you will have to stop doing anything out of fear of offending them.

himnextdoor

pts wrote: »

Can I ask people on this forum who lay most/all of the blame for this event on the American pastor one question.

I'm not sure there are any.

pts wrote: »

Do you think that you have a right not to be offended? In other words, should people be able to criticizes your religious beliefs in whatever form they like (criticizing practices, satirisng, burning books, drawing cartoons etc).

Hm, free speech versus the persuit of happiness...

Does being offended interfere with my persuit of happiness?

What does it say about a society when it legislates in favour of the offender? The right to own a gun is more valuable than the right not to get shot; the right to be offensive is more valuable than the right to not be insulted. It's the wrong way around.

To legislate for bullies is to legislate against victims. But we don't want society to be too peaceful do we? Would it be so terrible if society aspired to be free of insults and a little more sensitive to the circumstances of others? Isn't this just a matter of respect?

pts wrote: »

I would also be interested to hear what you think about this very short video, where a Christian feels that a book is offensive.

Freedom of expression is one thing but freedom to wilfully put other people's lives in danger is another thing entirely.

Like I said before; pastor Jones threw some Christians to the lions in order to prove that lions will kill Christians. But we already knew that; we also know that lions don't attack on the basis of religion.

The pastor called the extremist's bluff and now those UN workers are dead. He 'stirred the pot' alright.

partyatmygaff

himnextdoor wrote: »

To legislate for bullies is to legislate against victims. But we don't want society to be too peaceful do we? Would it be so terrible if society aspired to be free of insults and a little more sensitive to the circumstances of others? Isn't this just a matter of respect?

You still are not getting it. He did not burn a Qur'an to insult people. He burnt it because he finds its content disagreeable and in his eyes wholly evil. As far as he is concerned he was attempting to express his distaste at its content in the hope that others too will see eye to eye with him on the objectionable content of the Qur'an.

himnextdoor

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Would they live though? If the extremists were just looking for a cover for their violence then something else could easily have been found to rile them up. I dont think it really aided them as such, as anything could be taken by an insult by an extremist looking for a reason for violence, and I think stopping legitimate acts out of fear of extremist responses is a bad habit as eventually you will have to stop doing anything out of fear of offending them.

As I say, it is not excuses that the extremists require, it is opportunity.

Pastor Jones, however, precipitated events and I would compare his position to someone selling a gun to someone knowing it will be used to commit murder and justifying himself by saying, "If he hadn't bought a gun from me, he would have got one somewhere else." The seller of the gun has money in his pocket that in eternally connected to the spilling of another man's blood.

And pastor Jones has money in his pocket. He has actually profited from the deaths of those UN workers.

Am I wrong?

himnextdoor

partyatmygaff wrote: »

You still are not getting it. He did not burn a Qur'an to insult people. He burnt it because he finds its content disagreeable and in his eyes wholly evil. As far as he is concerned he was attempting to express his distaste at its content in the hope that others too will see eye to eye with him on the objectionable content of the Qur'an.

You obviously didn't follow the link I gave.

Do you think he thought that he wouldn't insult anyone by doing what he did?

Are you a pastor?

himnextdoor

partyatmygaff wrote: »

So the legitimate protests of international Muslims aided the murderers?

Both the pastor and the extremists took advantage of the protesters.

partyatmygaff

himnextdoor wrote: »

You obviously didn't follow the link I gave.

What link? I was replying to http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=71562319#post71562319

Do you think he thought that he wouldn't insult anyone by doing what he did?

I don't care what he did or did not think. I only care for his intentions.

Are you a pastor?

Mark Hamill

himnextdoor wrote: »

Hm, free speech versus the persuit of happiness...

Does being offended interfere with my persuit of happiness?

Only if you choose to let it. People dont have to get offended, they can choose how they react to a supposed offence.

himnextdoor wrote: »

What does it say about a society when it legislates in favour of the offender? The right to own a gun is more valuable than the right not to get shot; the right to be offensive is more valuable than the right to not be insulted. It's the wrong way around.

You have some misconceptions here. If society doesn't legislate that an act is illegal, then the person doing it isn't an offender. The right to own a gun doesn't mean you will shoot anyone with it. Freedom of speech is more valuable than freedom from criticism.

himnextdoor wrote: »

To legislate for bullies is to legislate against victims. But we don't want society to be too peaceful do we? Would it be so terrible if society aspired to be free of insults and a little more sensitive to the circumstances of others? Isn't this just a matter of respect?

Yes it is a matter of respect. You need to respect that people have a right to do things that offend you, once they dont physically hurt you. You cant legislate any other way, not fairly, for everything, in some way, offends somebody else, so who do we legislate for? What do we do if someone is "offended" that a foreigner gets a job instead of him? Make it illegal? What if someone is "offended" that a white man is dating a black woman? Legislate against that?
If you want society to be peaceful, then people need to get over themselves and allow for others to have the same freedoms that they themselves want.

himnextdoor wrote: »

Freedom of expression is one thing but freedom to wilfully put other people's lives in danger is another thing entirely.

Like I said before; pastor Jones threw some Christians to the lions in order to prove that lions will kill Christians. But we already knew that; we also know that lions don't attack on the basis of religion.

The pastor called the extremist's bluff and now those UN workers are dead. He 'stirred the pot' alright.

Eventually someone needs to stand up to extremists, or else this will never change. I dont agree with the way Jones did it (burning books is stupid and wasteful) or his motivations (media whore), but we cannot allow threats of violence stop us from expressing ourselves freely.

himnextdoor wrote:

As I say, it is not excuses that the extremists require, it is opportunity.

Pastor Jones, however, precipitated events and I would compare his position to someone selling a gun to someone knowing it will be used to commit murder and justifying himself by saying, "If he hadn't bought a gun from me, he would have got one somewhere else." The seller of the gun has money in his pocket that in eternally connected to the spilling of another man's blood.

And pastor Jones has money in his pocket. He has actually profited from the deaths of those UN workers.

Am I wrong?

Even if you are right in relation to his true motivations (I'm not denying his motivations, I just dont see it as relevant) it doesn't matter. The extremists had no religious or ethical justification for their actions. As bad as Jones is, nothing he did forced them into action. I'm not saying that if someone else gave them an excuse that this would make the extremists any more culpable, but I wouldn't see it as making them any less culpable.

AhSureTisGrand

himnextdoor wrote: »

Hm, free speech versus the persuit of happiness...

Does being offended interfere with my persuit of happiness?

What does it say about a society when it legislates in favour of the offender? The right to own a gun is more valuable than the right not to get shot; the right to be offensive is more valuable than the right to not be insulted. It's the wrong way around.

Whether something is an insult or not is entirely subjective. The same is not true for a physical attack. For example, I might interpret your comment a certain way and feel deeply insulted, and complain that my rights are being infringed upon. However, (outside of the Matrix), does my interpretation of a speeding bullet affect the damage it does to me?

Zombrex

dead one wrote: »

But can i ask what is highly condemnable an event which effects lives of 100 people or and event which effects lives of billion.

That logic ignores the amount of effect the event has. American Idol mildly annoys millions of people around the world, but only a crazy person would say that because of this it worse than say a child being raped. But that is the logic you are using.

Someone burning a Quaran may annoy people (people who are looking to be annoyed a lot of the time tbh), but the effect it has on them is all individually far less than the effect a suicide bomber has.

I would seriously doubt any of those people who were annoyed at the idea of a Quaran being burnt still think about it beyond mild rememberance, where as the families of victims of bombings can be emotionally and mentally scarred for years, possibly the rest of their lives.

himnextdoor

partyatmygaff wrote: »

I don't care what he did or did not think. I only care for his intentions.

Find out here.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2011/0406/1224294012085.html

himnextdoor

partyatmygaff wrote: »

You still are not getting it. He did not burn a Qur'an to insult people. He burnt it because he finds its content disagreeable and in his eyes wholly evil. As far as he is concerned he was attempting to express his distaste at its content in the hope that others too will see eye to eye with him on the objectionable content of the Qur'an.

If you had followed and read the link:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2011/0406/1224294012085.html

you would have learned this:

Jones hasn’t read the Koran, but says he has seen its fruits and relies on the judgment of “many experts around the world who have read, studied, grew up in Muslim countries, speak Arabic”.

How can you object to and protest against a book you haven't even read?

himnextdoor

partyatmygaff wrote:

As far as he is concerned he was attempting to express his distaste at its content in the hope that others too will see eye to eye with him on the objectionable content of the Qur'an.

There's a telling statement partyatmygaff. Two opinions for the price of one?

hinault

I am a RC.

The deliberate desecration of a religious text by so-called "christians" is abhorrent to me.
Anyone who claims to be a Christian knows that toleration is the message that Jesus asked us to adhere to.
So the mere fact that a "christian" who proclaims to be a man of God would deliberately and wilfully destroy the test of another faith is intolerable.

Separately, this entire matter reaffirms my view that the RCC needs to be put clear blue water between it and these so called evangelical christians.
These evangelical christians are charlatans and liars, and they're an abomination.

himnextdoor

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Only if you choose to let it. People dont have to get offended, they can choose how they react to a supposed offence.

True, to a point.

Some people get offended by a phrase such as 'Get back to your own country' or any one of an assortment of other racist jibes; should the legislation that makes such things an offence be removed?

Political Correctness curbs free-speech. As does being in a position of authority. We sometimes have to be careful about what we say. Try calling a member of the gardai a pig and see how free speech actually is. How many westernised countries would tolerate anti-semitism? All of these things are protection, for some people, of the right not to be offended.

It's not really 'free speech' dude.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You have some misconceptions here. If society doesn't legislate that an act is illegal, then the person doing it isn't an offender. The right to own a gun doesn't mean you will shoot anyone with it. Freedom of speech is more valuable than freedom from criticism.

Offender as in 'one who causes offence'.

We're not talking about freedom to criticise, we're talking about freedom to offend and as I have already pointed out, there are restrictions on who and in what way we can offend.

But why do we want the right to be able to cause offence? Why are we looking to legally enshrine the right to cause any degree of discomfort to those we disagree with?

It's not nice to call people stupid; even if they are. Do unto others and all that.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Yes it is a matter of respect. You need to respect that people have a right to do things that offend you, once they dont physically hurt you. You cant legislate any other way, not fairly, for everything, in some way, offends somebody else, so who do we legislate for? What do we do if someone is "offended" that a foreigner gets a job instead of him? Make it illegal? What if someone is "offended" that a white man is dating a black woman? Legislate against that?
If you want society to be peaceful, then people need to get over themselves and allow for others to have the same freedoms that they themselves want.

So it is okay to cause mental pain? Do you really want to have the right to hurt people just because you don't agree with them?

People who are being offended might not see society as being peaceful.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Eventually someone needs to stand up to extremists, or else this will never change. I dont agree with the way Jones did it (burning books is stupid and wasteful) or his motivations (media whore), but we cannot allow threats of violence stop us from expressing ourselves freely.

People are standing up to extremists; expert people and they specifically asked pastor Jones not to help.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Even if you are right in relation to his true motivations (I'm not denying his motivations, I just dont see it as relevant) it doesn't matter. The extremists had no religious or ethical justification for their actions. As bad as Jones is, nothing he did forced them into action. I'm not saying that if someone else gave them an excuse that this would make the extremists any more culpable, but I wouldn't see it as making them any less culpable.

Jones didn't force them, he unleashed them.

h2005

On one hand you have a religious possibly evil nut who burnt a book on the other hand you have religious definitely evil nuts that murdered innocent people over the burning of a bloody book. No justification in the world for that its just evil

dead one

Jakkass wrote: »

If there was a building on fire with 100 people on the bottom floor, and a Qur'an in the top floor are you telling me you'd save the Qur'an before the people?

sure, i would save people because quran told.

[On that account We ordained for the Children of Isra`il 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 humanity: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the whole humanity. Then although there came to them Our messengers with clear (guidance), yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land. (5:32)

also see in it in talmud which shows truthfulness of Quran.

Whoever destroys a soul, it is considered as if he destroyed an entire world. And whoever saves a life, it is considered as if he saved an entire world. - Mishnah Sanhedrin 4:5; Babylonian Talmud Tractate Sanhedrin 37a

But you aren't getting point, using scheme of burning quran to stop campaign of islam or spread hate against islam isn't good. That's what christian missionaries are doing.

Jakkass wrote: »

I find that much Islamic apologetics when using the Bible is dishonest. I once spent an hour talking to some people doing dawah on Henry St. I asked them questions about Islam, and then they asked me what religion I was. I told them that I was a Christian. They disingenuously cherrypicked verses to suit their arguments. When I told them of verses that disagreed with their view they say that the Bible is corrupted. I asked them, how do you know what is corrupted in the Bible and not corrupted.

You said muslim apologetic are dishonest. Let me tell you what is honesty
This following quote will show you honest views of an honest christian and also an honest muslim

PAUL THE FOUNDER OF CHRISTIANITY
According to Hart, the honor for founding Christianity is to be shared between Jesus (pbuh) and St. Paul. The latter
he believes to be the real founder of Christianity.
I cannot help agreeing with Hart. Out of the total of 27
Books of the New Testament, more than half is authored by
Paul. As opposed to Paul, the Master has not written a single
word of the twenty-seven books. If you can lay your hands
on what is called "'A Red Letter Bible," you will find every
word alleged to have been uttered by Jesus (pbuh) - in
red ink and the rest in normal black ink. Don't be shocked
to find that in this so called "Injeel," the Gospel of Jesus,
over ninety percent of the 27 Books of the New Testament
is printed in black ink!
This is the candid Christian confession on what they call
the "Injeel." In actual any confrontation with Christian
missionaries, you will find them quoting one hundred
percent from Paul.
NO ONE FOLLOWS JESUS (PBUH)
Jesus (pbuh) said,
"If you love me, keep my commandments." (John 14:15)
He said further, Whosoever therefore shall break one of
these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the
least in the kingdom of heaven . . ." (matthew 5:19)
Every Christian controversialist you question, "Do you
keep the laws and the commandments?" will answer, "No!"
If you ask further, "Why don't you?" He will if he is a Bible-
thumper, invariably reply, "The law is nailed to the cross!"
Meaning the law is done away with. "We are now living
under grace!"Every time you prod him with what his Lord and Master
(pbuh) had said, he will confront you with something from
Cornithians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, etc. If you ask,
"Who are they?" You will hear, 'Paul, Paul, Paul!" "Who is
your master?" you question, and he will say, "Jesus!" But he
will ever and anon contradict his own Jesus (pbuh) by his
Paul! No learned Christian will ever dispute the fact that the
real founder of Christianity is St. Paul. Therefore, Michael H.
Hart to be fair, .

We musilm are more christian than you are in following Jesus christ (pbuh) because we don't break his commandments. You are dishonest in following christ. Because it is written in Bible He said further, whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven . . ." (matthew 5:19).
I hope you will differentiate between honesty and dishonesty.

Jakkass wrote: »

the Bible is corrupted .

http://www.carm.org (The Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry) propagates the message of christianity at the same time maligns other religions like Islam. See how gently these people let the cat out of the bag and confirm the Quranic verse.)
The Glorious Quran says.
"That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah.;- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:-" (Quran 4:157)
Conjecture i.e Guesswork, fiction.
The above Quranic verse says that whoever differs in the matter of crucifixion and agrees that Christ (pbuh) was crucified are actually following conjecture(Guesswork,fiction).
See how Carm.org confirms the Quranic verse.
The Bible contains many different styles of writing such as poetry, narration, fiction, history, law, and prophecy and must be interpreted in context of those styles. It is the source of the Christian religion in that the Bible contains the words of God and how the Christian is to apply the words of God to his life."
Source : http://www.carm.org/seek/Bible.htm
So carm.org agrees that the bible contains fiction.

I hope jackass you will also agree with it

___________________________________________________________________________________________

FROM THE MODERATORS

Congratulations to dead one for posting the 10,000th post to the Islam Forum since the current records began.

dead one

Wicknight wrote: »

That logic ignores the amount of effect the event has. American Idol mildly annoys millions of people around the world, but only a crazy person would say that because of this it worse than say a child being raped. But that is the logic you are using.

Someone burning a Quaran may annoy people (people who are looking to be annoyed a lot of the time tbh), but the effect it has on them is all individually far less than the effect a suicide bomber has.

I would seriously doubt any of those people who were annoyed at the idea of a Quaran being burnt still think about it beyond mild remembrance, where as the families of victims of bombings can be emotionally and mentally scarred for years, possibly the rest of their lives.

Simply both are condemnable as i already said i am not supporting bombers but the point is burning quran is tactic to spread hate against islam.

dead one

Mark Hamill wrote: »

But it is just a simple book, its just paper and cardboard and ink. The important stuff is the words, and they would presumably still keep their significance if every copy of the quran disappeared tomorrow. Even so, I still dont see whose rights he has violated.

Burning quran is a scheme which doesn't violate rights of other but it is used to destroy peace in society. Meaning it is indirect source to spread hate and corruption in the society. It is indirect source for violation of rights.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

The only thing his actions destroyed was a book.

He chooses a wrong action. He choose a method of greater ignorance to finish his confusion. So when ever an action takes place there will always be after effect. The greater the action, the greater afters effect.