Is Islamic violence the real winner in the Koran-burning incident?

Great Debates
1

Now that the dust has settled on Terry Jones’ planned but cancelled Koran cook-out, it is interesting to analyse who really came out best in this ridiculous incident.

What I noticed the most, in studying the reactions and editorials, is the extent to which we in the West have internalized, normalized and pretty much accepted the power of Muslim thugs and fanatics to circumscribe and limit our rights and freedoms with violence or threats of violence.

I admit that Terry Jones is a crazy old fuck-head (and since my many fans SDMB will say it anyhow, let me admit that it takes one to know one.:D) On the other hand, he is a pastor with a congregatiion of maybe 30 who managed to catch the attention of the world media (I read about him in while I was in Germany, in the newspapers there), the Pope, and the President of the US for the price of a book of matches, so maybe he is crazy like a fox! But I digress. . . . . .

Is it not precisely this kind of crazy,hated old fart whose freedom of expression and freedom of religion must be protected? Is freedom of speech only for the cute and lovable in our society? Or does it apply to Fred Phelps, the American Nazi Party and Terry Jones?

What truly shocked me is the extent to which we have changed since our introduction to Islamic violence and world-wide censorship through terror in the Salman Rushdie affair some 22 years ago. Then we were clearly outraged that, in the late 20th century, theocratic fanatics could claim to control OUR rights and freedoms through a fatwah applicable in the entire world.

Later, it became politically correct to decry Islamic violence against the Danish cartoonists, but also to point out that the cartoonists had “provoked” the violence, as if Muslims could not really help but be violent.

Comments about the veiled death threats against South Park were also liberally (pardon the pun) peppered with “blame” for Parker and Stone, the creators of the cartoon series.

But this last incident has really highlighted how much we have come to accept Islamic violence, and how little outrage it provokes.

Take for example this commenton the CNN site.

“As news spread, worldwide condemnation and anxiety mounted… . . . It seemed this obscure self-proclaimed pastor in Gainesville, Florida, was determined to carry out an action of catastrophic global consequences.”

WTF??? “. . . . . an action of catastrophic global consequences. . . . . .”???

What are we talking about here, some force of nature? Global warming because of carbon dioxide emissions?

If someone sets fire to someone, you don’t blame the combustion phenomenon, you blame the person who set the fire.

We don’t blame the sun’s energy for causing hurricanes. If someone pushes you off a building you don’t blame gravity for your injuries.

Islamic violence has, somewhere in the back of ouyr minds, become a morally neutral force of nature that we must reckon with but cannot blame.

The fact is, Terry Jones, no matter what you may think of him, was proposing to do something perfectly legal, which he has every right to do. And once again, Islamic fanatics were determined that their Islamic laws and values must apply worldwide, and were ready to back their demands with violence.

Yet all of the outrage was directed at Terry Jones. Did anyone think of asking Muslims to grow up and learn to live in a pluralistic world where you can and will be offended by the free speech of others?

The thing I am really angry at Jones for is that, having said he would burn the Koran, he later gave in and cancelled. And once again, the message goes out to Islamic fanatics everywhere. Violence works like a charm!

What do you suppose would happen if a group of US atheists announced they would burn a bible? Do you suppose Obama and the Pope and the world media would be involved? Not likely.

Because violence makes all the difference. And every time we send out this message to the Islamic world, we are sowing the wind and we will reap the whirlwind.

2

So if I’m parsing this correctly, when people shout down vigilianteism, the criminals win?

Not that the publicity stunt in question ranks as high as vigilanteism - Batman actually does hamper criminals (until the next comic), and this would merely incite more Muslim violence. But I gather your point is that we should not refrain from stupid and counter-effective methods of ‘combating’ violent subsects of religions?

3

It’s worth noting that in officially Muslim states, the citizens almost certainly won’t be getting an accurate account of the whole business, given state control of the media.

4

I agree with the OP that the mere threat of violence from Islamic thugs now makes us quiver with fear. It appears that the good pastor was right on when he labeled Islam as a “violent” religion. I think he should have burned a stack of the books and then set back and enjoyed the show.

5

I stand to be corrected, since most of what I got that week was out of German newspapers who did not cover the story as much as US media, but did ANYONE even SUGGEST in an indirect way, just maybe hint that um. . . . .maybe Muslims might consider getting used to living in a global village where other expressions of opinion are possible, some of which might offend them? Did anyone from Obama to the Pope to the editorialists do that?

6

Yes, indeed. What, to us, is some piddling little preacher with a small congregation in one part of the US will become a significant figure in the religion, with a widespread national following demanding that he be allowed to burn the Koran, to those who would use such events to support their ideas.

Honestly I would say that Islamic violence is not a neutral, but rather it’s pretty much just expected that people are going to be against it. I mean, it’s not exactly a controversial opinion to say “Hey, you know, i’m actually against people attacking others”. Do we really need to take time out in every discussion of the issue to make sure we all agree that killing or attacking is a bad thing? Whereas, there is an actual debate about whether the burning of a Koran is a good or bad thing, hence people tending to focus on it and question it.

It’s like saying that the Holocaust is being forgot about or accepted because we don’t talk about whether it was a good idea or not in every thread about World War II. It’s pretty much accepted that it was a horrific thing. We don’t really need to convince each other of that.

7

I haven’t really noticed much outrage in the muslim world. All the outrage seems to have been in the christian world. There was one incident in Pakistan where some protestors got shot and some national leaders (like Karzai) made some critical remarks after it became world news but that was about it.

Meanwhile, in other news, the WBC burned a quran and no one noticed.

8

I fail to understand your analogy. To what extent would Terry Jones have been a vigilante? The word is defined as
(–noun)

  1. a member of a vigilance committee.
    **2. any person who takes the law into his or her own hands, as by avenging a crime. **

I assume you are relating Jones’ proposed actions to definition 2? But in fact, Jones would have been doing nothing more than burning some material items that he owned. His action would not have been in good taste, I admit, but unless I missed a memo, there is no law against tastelessness, is there?

9

The point I am getting at is: Is it not an option to tell Muslims to take a valium and learn to live in our global village of ideas? Must we always accept Islamic rage as part of the landscape? Did the Pope or Obama or any of the commentators make that remark in passing?

10

Well, given that telling Muslims to take a valium would be a spectacularly terrible idea, i’d rather hope not.

Really, I would tend to say it’s good to keep such things seperate. If we castigate violence at the same time as decrying the actions of Koran burners, it’ll make it seem like one is conditional on the other. Certainly, failing to go out of your way to castigate such violence at each and every oppportunity doesn’t mean we’re therefore never doing it. And, in general, I think i’d tend to say that we’d prefer no violence is pretty much implicit. It would be silly of me, for example, to say you have accepted Christian-based violence because you didn’t mention it in your OP. I am sure that you do; it isn’t required that you, or anyone really, take time out in every discussion they have on a subject to make sure that all negatives have been properly addressed. It doesn’t mean we’ve accepted those negatives if we don’t.

11

The argument in the OP seemed to be that if we decry the actions of people who ‘oppose’ the muslims in ways that are overtly stupid and pointless, then the terrorists win. I didn’t get the impression that they terrorists would win any less if the decried actions had been illegal; the problem seemed to simply be that by opposing the idea of recklessly insulting a religion (of whom only a small faction are violent anyway), that we are somehow conceding ground to them. In that regard vigilantes seemed to share a commonality - people doing specific actions we disapprove of in princible, even if we share a goal.
Also, I think it’s pretty closeted to assume that “muslims” are a unified group that needs to be shouted down. It’s not like they’re Christians - that lot all think they’re cannibals, with their transubstantiation and all.

12

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold;12919774 Well, given that telling Muslims to take a valium would be a spectacularly terrible idea, i’d rather hope not.

[/QUOTE]

I take it we both understand that I was speaking metaphorically about the valium, but frankly: Muslims have killed people and burned embassies over cartoons, imprisoned a woman over a teddy bear named Mohammed, issued a fatwah against Salman Rushdie over a novel, murdered a couple of translators of the novel, threatened the lives of the South Park creators, killed Theo van Gogh for making a movie they did not like, and so on. Would it be sooooo bad if some world leader or person in the public eye told them to ratchet down a peg and learn to live in a world where other people will not always say what you like?

13

Is the premise that no person in the public eye has ever expressed disapproval for these specific events?

14

Metaphors can still be bad; they appear flippant, as if you don’t really care about the issue, but rather, making a witty retort. Saying you weren’t being serious begs the question of why you weren’t being serious in a debate in which you yourself have demanded other people treat a serious subject with serious criticism.

Anyway; I was under the impression that such things do happen. World leaders do condemn violence. I have no problem with that; I applaud it, in fact, so long as it’s well presented. I too condemn it. It is bad.

15

I am asking rather than telling you. Has anyone ever said the equivalent of: “Oh, calm down and get off the rage-go-round. Every religion, every political party, every country, everybody period can and will be satirized, criticized and offended by the actions of others. Grow up and learn to live with it.”

I mean, have you not noticed that Islam has sensitivity/intensity-violence response syndrome far more pronounced in other religions? I am not saying it is absent in other religions. But Islam is like the Nelson Muntz of the schoolyard. Jimbo, Bart and even Millhouse may sometimes be violent, but Nelson has bullying developed to an art form.

Read about Islam’s “bloody borders”. From the Philippines to Kashmir to southern Russia to the Middle East, to India-Pakistan, to Sudan (where the Muslim north has been enslaving the kaffir south) it is very common for Muslims who border other religions to be at constant war with their neighbours. Have you ever considered that Israel is only one theatre in a global conflict?

16

Christians don’t seem able to do that; I don’t see why we should expect their Islamic mirror images to be able to. Jones wasn’t planning to burn those Korans because of his deep respect for people with different beliefs, you know. A hatred for pluralism is intrinsic to both Christianity and Islam; both are built on the claim that they alone know the Truth and anyone who disagrees is damned. I see little to choose between them.

What makes you think that? Atheists are hated more than Islamic people here in America. If it caught their eye I have no problem imagining those people blowing up some atheists burning the bible into a major incident, and using it to demonize atheists further than they already are. I’m sure we’d be hearing about it for years on the SDMB, dragged out over and over to “prove” the evils of atheism.

17

I would love to hear some insightful analysis from a moderate muslim on this issue. What’s with the anger management problems from so many muslims? Can’t they just trust Allah to dish out punishment in the afterlife? For a religion that believes that the omnipotent creator of the universe is on their side, you’d think they’d be a bit more laid back.

Failing that, they can just make something offensive up out of whole cloth. Like the so called “War On Christmas”. :rolleyes:

18

I don’t think that Muslims are innately angrier than other religious groups; they are just portrayed that way in the press. They get more attention when some act up, and when Islamic people are angry for any reason it gets spun as a matter of religious outrage rather than, say, a bunch of jobless young men rioting in France. When, for example, the Tea Party types run around threatening and assaulting people, the media and politicians don’t go out of their way to point out the Tea Partiers are a bunch of Christians. If they were Muslims instead I’m sure you’d hear a lot of talk about how the Tea Party demonstrates the violent and intolerant nature of Islam.

19

Didn’t PZ Myers get death threats and international condemnation for taking communion wafers?

20

The Sepoys in India didn’t really revolt and massacre British colonists because they were forced to lick cartridges covered in pork fat. There were some larger issues going on.