PDA

View Full Version : Desecration of the Quran: Your Views



CC1
23-05-05, 15:02
With the recent news story (or lack of) in Newsweek last week which suggested that American Forces desecrated the Quran, I am curious as to some of your opinions on this.

How do you view the desecration of such a book? Do you see it as an evil act that should be punished, or do you view it as no big deal? Please give a reason for your decision. Remember this is an opinion thread, no one should be judged on their OPINION. With that being said, I would like to welcome some open and honest debate on this subject.

CC1
24-05-05, 09:47
wow..No takers on this thread?

Mycernius
24-05-05, 18:18
Okay, I'll bite. For me the Quran is just a book, as is the Bible. I read a lot and have a tendency to look after the books I have. I wouldn't go out of my way to purposely damaged or ruin any book, but if one gets damaged over time I would eventually throw it out and buy a new one, regardless of what it contained. The problem with this is that religious texts have a tendency to inflame the extreme believer in any religion. They see it as a form of direct access to the word of God and must be treated with respect. Nothing you could do, say, prove that it is a collection of stories, myths and rules will not change their opinion.
From what I can gather from various news sources that the desecration of the Quran was done on purpose and with the intent to offend people. I wonder what these so called civilised people would have done if the situtation was reversed? We know that Christian Fundamentalists can be just as bad as Islamic fundamentalists when it come to defending their religion against percieved attacks to their way of life and on their beliefs and books.

No-name
24-05-05, 19:09
The story was a fake. Newsweek did not check its sources- they printed a retraction, then an applogy. It never happened. (Too bad for the 16 people that died in the rioting in Pakistan, for the people injured and the people that lost property.)

bossel
24-05-05, 21:31
The story was a fake. Newsweek did not check its sources- they printed a retraction, then an applogy. It never happened.
Well, at least something similar most probably happened. Only the Newsweek source & article may have been flawed (& even that is not sure, there seems to have been quite some pressure by the Bush government). That doesn't mean that nothing happened, though.

Reports of Quran desecration in Guantanamo are actually not new. Only this time it was a rather respected source as Newsweek reporting, hence the excitement. The other reports have been largely ignored in the US because they came from former inmates. US (Bushite) logic: former inmate = suspected of terrorism = terrorist = unreliable

Other reports came from the Red Cross, I think. But probably for the US administration there goes the same for the Red Cross as for the UN: not biased in our favour, hence irrelevant.

No-name
24-05-05, 21:53
I'm not certain that anything of that nature happened, but it seems irresponsible to speculate, if because of speculation people will riot and possibly be hurt or killed. I do not think the Islamic world needs one more reason to hate us.

bossel
25-05-05, 02:38
To simply say "it never happened", when quite obviously something happened, won't do the US any good either. The Red Cross is usually rather reliable & they are not the only source for such reports.

mad pierrot
25-05-05, 08:09
Quran = book loved by many.
Book loved by many + insulting actions to the book = angry people.


As far as everyone ganging up on Newsweek, I think it's unfair. Newsweek isn't repsonsible for the riots. The people who rioted are. The story was just an excuse for them.

CC1
25-05-05, 12:10
I think the whole idea is just silly. Hello people...Its a book! Letters printed on paper (or maybe symbols)...but the point is the copy the may (or may not) have been desecrated was not the version written, carved, blessed (whatever) by almighty Allah himself (IF he/she ever even existed!). The same goes for the Bible. Unless it is proven to be the very first one ever in existence, then it is a cheap copy. I mean that is my take on it. I felt the same whenever I witnessed people going crazy over book burning events because a group of people didn't approve of words that were used. Just buy more right? It is not like someone burned down their chapel or temple. I just can't understand why anyone would get so worked up over things like this! :p Of course that is just my opinion.

No-name
26-05-05, 21:10
The story won't die. The allegation that Newsweek printed is that an inmate at Guantanamo told an aid worker that he saw a US soldier flush the holy book, and that a US investigation would be confirming this. So the story was actually about an allegation, not an act. The US military investigation could not identify the Red Cross worker, and so the story died...or did it? The prisoner is still making the allegation which has not been independently investigated (by someone not beholden to the Sec'y of Defense).

I think there may be a problem with secret military prisons holding "terrorists" indefinitely without any type of protections.

bossel
27-05-05, 00:18
Just buy more right? It is not like someone burned down their chapel or temple.
Well, if they burnt your chapel or temple, just build a new one, right? :p

Principally, I agree with you. Others destroying stuff should be no reason to kill. The problem is that there are people who see stuff as sacred. & unless you are willing to cause some excitement, you should refrain from destroying (or otherwise desecrating) this stuff.


BTW, the NYT has an interesting take on the reasons for these violent demonstrations:
With a Little Help From Our Friends (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/26/opinion/26chayes.html)
"[...]it's a mistake to focus on the Newsweek article as the cause of the recent demonstrations in Afghanistan. Instead, the reason was President Hamid Karzai's May 8 announcement that Afghanistan would enter a long-term strategic partnership with the United States.

Such an alliance discomfits Afghanistan's neighbors. Pakistan, for one, is used to treating Afghanistan as an all but subject territory. The events of Sept. 11 and the sudden arrival of the United States changed all that, to the muted chagrin of Islamabad. Although Pakistani officials have mastered their role as allies in the "war on terrorism" and play it convincingly, they would like nothing better than to see the United States pull out of Afghanistan. What better, then, than to project Afghanistan as a volatile place, hostile to Americans?[...]"

jhough37
27-05-05, 21:15
I am curious as to what happened, the reports say the Koran was "mishandled" but what does that mean? Was it set down incorrectly? Was something spilled on it? The question arise as to what treatment this book recieves and do the guards at Gitmo have the training to know what would be considered "mishandling".

This is from the site Afgha.com

For most Muslims, their holy book represents more than a text of the words of God. The Koran not only represents the living message of God to humankind, but also it is believed to have powers that would render it as a living thing.

Surah 59, Verse 21 of the Koran states that "Had We sent down this Koran on a mountain, verily, you would have seen it humble itself and cleave asunder."

Muslims are instructed to handle the Koran only when clean. Surah 56, Verse 79 requires that "none shall touch [the Koran] but those who are clean."

Among Afghans and Pakistanis, the Koran itself is regarded as a holy relic and some regard it as having supernatural powers. The book is usually wrapped in expensive cloths and placed at the highest place in the room. Those who handle the Koran traditionally kiss it several times and rub it to their eyes, before reading it. The same ritual is repeated after the reading is done. If a copy of the Koran accidentally falls on the floor, Afghans usually give special offerings in God's name for forgiveness.


Now if you look at the response (http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/05/27/muslim.protests.ap/index.html) to the US stating that the book was "mishandled" there are some frightening things. The burning of the British and Israeli flag especially, along with beating and burning of effigies of Rabbi's and Bush. I know that there are tensions between the Islamic and Jewish community but where did the Jewish connection appear in this problem?

jhough37
28-05-05, 03:56
There is a very good article about this eventhere (http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2005-05-15-1.html)
Orson Scott Card is an author who has written a number of well known books such as the Ender's Game series and he always seems to construct very interesting arguments.

Tim33
28-05-05, 13:29
People have to let there anger out on things they dont like, its better this then taking it out on people.

I would treat this as a matter of more then just messing with a book though, there was more to it then that. It was not an attack at the book itself but more of an attack at the people.

CC1
28-05-05, 13:39
Tim I see what your saying, but it is just paper with printing...at least the way I see it. Which hurts more...the flushing of a book in a toilet, or your balls hooked to a battery via jumper cables? I'm not making light of the situation, but I think that people take some things way too seriously!

Tim33
28-05-05, 13:55
Yes many times they do but it all depends on why they did what they did.

If it was an attack directed at the people but not on them, maybe because they knew they would not get away with that then i feel that this is wrong. It shows that they do wish bad things upon this group of people.

However i do agree with your point about people taking things way to seriously. Damaging a book and having your balls hooked to a battery is a very differnt thing. Better then book then the people.

Mycernius
28-05-05, 14:16
or your balls hooked to a battery via jumper cables?
There are people that do this for fun. :souka:

Brooker
28-05-05, 22:22
I think the whole idea is just silly. Hello people...Its a book!

I think disrespecting the symbol of someone's beliefs IS a big deal. Symbols hold a lot of meaning and emotion for people. People would get pretty worked up if someone peed on the bible or when they burn your flag. Doing such a thing is a way of telling someone that you disrespect everything they believe in and stand for. People are willing to fight and die over things like that. And, if these events happened (and I really don't know either way), think of the intention behind it... They did it because they knew it would really anger the inmates. They're using the things that affect their psyche most, against them. That's why they piled naked men together, because such a thing is horrifying to them with their beliefs. It's important to respect other people's beliefs even if you don't understand them. Damaging a holy book might not be as bad as torturing someone, but it's extremely bad form and makes America seem incredibly insensitive, offensive, and disrespectful of other cultures.

(Once again, not saying whether or not I think such things happened, because I don't know, but, for the people who thought that it did, I'm not surprised that they were very angry.)

Sabro wrote...

I think there may be a problem with secret military prisons holding "terrorists" indefinitely without any type of protections.
I agree. America wouldn't stand for another country doing such a thing.

Pachipro
29-05-05, 00:01
I think disrespecting the symbol of someone's beliefs IS a big deal. Symbols hold a lot of meaning and emotion for people. People would get pretty worked up if someone peed on the bible or when they burn your flag. Doing such a thing is a way of telling someone that you disrespect everything they believe in and stand for.
Interesting point. I agree with CC1. It is just a book! On the other hand, what about the FACT that Saudi Arabia burns thousands of bibles on a yearly basis? All bilbles and other religious paraphinalia, like crosses and medals, are confiscated from westerners entering the country and burned. If you are found to have more than three bibles on your person you will be arrested and sent to prison. If a Saudi is found with a bible they also are sent to prison.

Why does no one riot over, or say anything, about that?
Check out this site (http://www.discardedlies.com/entries/2005/05/saudis_desecrating_hundreds_of_bibles_annually.php ) and make sure you read the last paragraph.

Also, read this (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1407099/posts) by a Saudi national himself.

Why do US newspapers and magazines, such as Newsweek say anything about this?


Although I do not adhere to ANY religion, everyone seems so damn upset over the desecrating of the Quran, but I see no one standing up for the desicration of the Bible. Seems a little hypocritical to me.

bossel
29-05-05, 01:24
Why do US newspapers and magazines, such as Newsweek say anything about this?
They don't? Maybe the Bush government sees the Saudis as too valuable an ally (& therefore perhaps put pressure on news media)?
But I think, there are so many Christian fundamentalist news sources in the US that these news should be available to the vast majority of US citizens. It's interesting, though, if major news media really do not report.

Another point of course is the fact that Saudi Arabia is not really known as a human rights heaven. That also could be the reason that it's not really newsworthy, when eg. some Christians get jailed for 6 months because they held a "private" church service in an apartment.
The US on the other hand wants to be seen as a fighter for freedom & human rights. Now, if there some serious human rights infringements happen...

Silverbackman
01-06-05, 08:43
Interesting point. I agree with CC1. It is just a book! On the other hand, what about the FACT that Saudi Arabia burns thousands of bibles on a yearly basis? All bilbles and other religious paraphinalia, like crosses and medals, are confiscated from westerners entering the country and burned. If you are found to have more than three bibles on your person you will be arrested and sent to prison. If a Saudi is found with a bible they also are sent to prison.

Why does no one riot over, or say anything, about that?
Check out this site (http://www.discardedlies.com/entries/2005/05/saudis_desecrating_hundreds_of_bibles_annually.php ) and make sure you read the last paragraph.

Also, read this (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1407099/posts) by a Saudi national himself.

Why do US newspapers and magazines, such as Newsweek say anything about this?


Although I do not adhere to ANY religion, everyone seems so damn upset over the desecrating of the Quran, but I see no one standing up for the desicration of the Bible. Seems a little hypocritical to me.


I agree 100%. And I am sure because of newsweek's apparent liberal bias, against christianity, being for radical extreme muslims that hate christianity, is the reason why they posted it in the first place. Does Newsweek ever post anything about the burning of Bibles and Churches? No it doesn't, but they are quick to make radical muslims happy by posting more anti-christian anti-american crud to reduce america's picture.

digicross
04-06-05, 22:01
Don't know, don't care.

This kind of news shouldn't have been publized in the first place, nor people should pay attention to this kind of news at all.

Personally, this sort of thing probably has one primary goal, to make people fight each other, what ever kind their groups are. That's the biggest thing that would make sense with the publication of this kind of story, and the support of the publication of this kind of story even if it's the truth.



As for the whole flush (holoflush?) thing.

Well... Can you flush down a whole book into a toilet?

Shouldn't Jamie and Adam from MythBusters try this sort of thing?

A Yellow Pages book would be the ideal candidate.



As for insulting someone.

It should be noted that there's no such thing as free speech. When you insult someone, just don't expect it to go on with consequences.

If he/she forgive you, that's good, as in good for him/her, but not might be so good for you. If he/she maul you, that's the consequences of your actions.

May I remind you that a slap in the face is much worst than killing a person. You kill a person, the person died, end of story, for him/her at least, unless he/she push the yes button in the 'do you want to continue after you died?' scene. You slap a person, the story still continues, it might even rise up into a war in a giant scale, or just a 'I don't care if you slap me, what kind of wrong did I do?' attitude.

In short, insulting someone, a definite no no, unless your intention is to start a conflict.

Advocating 'free speech' to insult someone inside a community is a very effective way to destroy a community.


And also, may I remind you what happened in 11th September 2001 is a slap face, an insult. Sure people are killed in the slapping process, but it doesn't change the fact that is a slap in the face to the rest of the U.S.A. . A few thousands died, but hundreds of millions are still alive. The slapping process are intended to insult people, but the damages are kept in the minimal (a few thousands instead a few tens of thousands, damages are localized just the superblock region, etc).

Your face hurted, but you didn't died, though it still doesn't change the fact it's an insult.

To damage a record that someone respected and the 11th September 2001 incident are pretty much the same, they're both insults. It doesn't matter the scale nor on whether it happened or not, it's still an insult. And I think that the people who're responsible for both them are the same group of people, it had the same M.O. that is used repeatedly all around the world for a few thousands years.


Now here's an example on how to make people fight each other by insulting them:

There's a group of people inside a room, then the light goes out, leaving the people in the dark and unable to see anything.

Then you came in and slapped every people in the room, and you leave the room before everybody managed to get a sense of what just happened.

What will happen? Will they get upset with each other, thinking that it's the other person that slapped them?

And if they don't go upset with each other, will they do so when you came in and acted as a honest person who wanted the whole truth (as in that 'everybody in the room slapped each other and it's not you who slapped them' all kind of truth) came out?

Or will they figured out that it's you who slapped all of them in the effort to make them fight each other?



As for physical torture is worse than mental torture.

In contrary, it's the opposite. Mental torture is worst than physical torture. A person can live 'normally' again even with all kind of physical tortures he received. But the reverse might not be so true, a person might not even be able to live a normal life, even if he wasn't hurted physically at all.

Humans are more than just their bodies.

Of course, humans also posses another thing other than their bodies and their minds.

For humans to able to survive either physical torture or mental torture or even both, they need to reach what they got that is beyond those thing.



As for the argument that if someone broke it, just buy a new one.

If someone destroyed your body, you could always can get a new body, right?

But that doesn't mean you will almost certainly let that person get away with it.

It's true that we shouldn't get so upset over this whole thing, but...

Well... God is all forgiving and all wise, humans are not.



As for the Whole Qur'an thing.

Mu'mins realized that what they had are only records. In the early days, people remember it in their heads and wrote in what ever materials they can get (including the kind of leaves that you would use to clean your butt), that's due the fact the Qur'an were transmitted to the people from the Nabi (or Navi if you choose the alternative Hebrew term) to verbal communication.

Of course, people might have claimed to be mu'mins, but that doesn't mean that they're mukhlis or even mu'mins at all.

Then also the fact that mu'mins might not also be muslims.

Of course, then there're munafiks, musyrik, and so on.


Okay people, quiz, what are muslims, mu'mins, mukhlis, and so on?

Here's a hint, they're NOT the same kind group of people! That's your hint, the rest, find out the information for yourself.

Silverbackman
04-06-05, 22:37
Yes it should have never been published. And even now they are trying hard to make sure that at least to the Quran, to promote their anti-americanism. There are so many Bible and Church burnings in the east, no one wants to report on that.

Such a double standard here.

Silverbackman
04-06-05, 22:39
If they are not going to report Church burnings or Bible burnings, they should never report Quran abuse or Mosque abuse, it is such a double standard if they do.

mad pierrot
05-06-05, 09:56
Yes it should have never been published. And even now they are trying hard to make sure that at least to the Quran, to promote their anti-americanism. There are so many Bible and Church burnings in the east, no one wants to report on that.

Such a double standard here.

I disagree. Anyone is free to publish whatever story they want. Right now, prison abuses are a big issue. If someone wants to publish something they think relevant, so be it. Don't confuse different issues as double standards.

Here's a great article on something relevant.

Why Muslims Distrust the West
by H.D.S. Greenway

"There appears to be a very unpleasant feeling existing among the native
soldiers, who are here for instruction, regarding the grease used in
preparing the cartridges," a young British officer in India, Captain
J.A. Wright, wrote to his general in the winter of 1857. ''Some evil
disposed persons have spread a report that it consists of a mixture of
the fat of pigs and cows," and the rumor ''has spread throughout
India."
The British had recently introduced a new rifle, the Enfield, that
required that the end of the cartridge be bitten off before it was
rammed down the rifle's muzzle. And since good Muslims cannot touch pig
grease, nor Hindus the fat of cows, the ''sepoys," as Indian soldiers in
the service of the British were called, perceived a Western assault on
their religions.
Wright tried to tell his men that ''the grease used is composed of
mutton fat and wax," but his denial was not enough. The first serious
unrest broke in Bengal. A sepoy named Mangal Pande of the 34th Native
Infantry incited his brothers to mutiny yelling, ''it's for our
religion," fired at an English officer, and struck him with a sword. By
spring the fire of the great Indian Mutiny had spread across north
India, spreading death and insurrection that rocked the British Empire
to its core.
I thought of Captain Wright's denial when I heard Mark Whitaker of
Newsweek retract his story of American interrogators flushing a Koran
down a toilet -- a story which helped fuel deadly riots across the
Muslim world. For it is unlikely that Whitaker's retraction will
convince Muslims that their religion is not under attack any more than
British denials about the cartridge grease stemmed the mutiny.
Reports of desecrating the Koran have been seeping out of Guantanamo,
Afghanistan, and Iraq for a couple of years now. In March of 2002,
prisoners in Guantanamo staged a hunger strike over mistreatment of the
Holy Book. Numerous former detainees have reported similar incidents.
Aryat Vahitov told Russian television in June 2004 that ''they tore the
Koran to pieces in front of us, threw it into the toilet." Abdallah
Tabarak told Moroccan newspaper in December that Americans had trampled
the Koran underfoot and ''throw it in the urine bucket."
Former detainees may not always be reliable sources, but then the
International Committee of the Red Cross also said it had ''multiple
reports" of Koran misuse in the early days of Guantanamo. And the
Pentagon itself has reprimanded two female guards for acts designed to
make prisoners feel unclean and thus unable to pray.
Clearly the Newsweek report was used by people trying to stir up trouble
and instigate riot. President Bush might even use Captain Wright's words
to describe them as ''evil disposed persons."
But the larger point is that neither the Newsweek article nor the
greased cartridges 148 years ago were the real reason that the two
rumors gained traction. Historians tell us that India was going through
a period of great change in the mid-19th century. In the 18th century
the British in India often adopted an Indian way of life and culture.
But the 19th century saw British customs and mores making themselves
felt across the subcontinent in what are now the nations of Pakistan,
India, and Bangladesh.
Reforms that looked quite sensible to British eyes were often
misunderstood and resented. Land reform had affected not only big land
owners but thousands of lesser landlords too, and many of them
relatively poor -- the classes among whom most sepoys were recruited.
They ''felt deeply aggrieved by the government's reforms, apprehensive
as to what further deprivations their British rulers might have in
mind," according to Christopher Hibbert, author of ''The Great Mutiny."
''Nor were the peasants as pleased with the reforms as the government
had expected," he writes. ''They preferred their own ways to the
strange ones being imposed upon them by foreigners." And they believed
their religion was in danger.
Today we are in another age of great change, and there are Muslims who
are suspicious of the reforms foreigners would impose. They fear what
America may have in mind for them. Today many perceive in rapid and
all-encompassing Westernization a threat to their religion, just as the
sepoys did a century and a half ago.

© 2005 Boston Globe

Tim33
06-06-05, 23:38
If they are not going to report Church burnings or Bible burnings, they should never report Quran abuse or Mosque abuse, it is such a double standard if they do.


Agreed, though i dont think they should publish either, religion has far to much power. People should be able to burn what ever book they wish to burn.

mad pierrot
07-06-05, 01:08
People should be able to burn what ever book they wish to burn.

I'll make a toast to that!

:-)

jarvis
07-06-05, 01:16
where they burn books, they will burn people

mad pierrot
07-06-05, 06:04
And if cows were carnivorous, they'd eat meat.

:p

They point I think Tim was trying to make (and the one I supported) was how ridiculously fanatical people get over somethings.
It might be my Libertarian bias, but as long as I'm not harming someone else I should be free to do whatever I like.


:sorry:

No-name
07-06-05, 08:40
where they burn books, they will burn people

So like in Guantanamo- does that mean that we will be soon inadvertantly urinating on people, kicking them and writing expletives on them? :souka:

CC1
07-06-05, 08:46
I totally agree. I just don't see how burning, peeing on, flushing a book does any harm to anyone? As for psychological damage? If a burning book causes this type of damage to you then you have serious problems! I just think that there are more serious things that should be worried about than this...I do however appreciate everyones comments in this thread!

toyomotor
17-05-13, 04:14
No-one should insult the belief of others, whether they agree or disagree with those beliefs. The US soldiers allegedly desecrated the Quran, and they probably would have desecrated the Christian Bible or the Jewish Torah as well. Some people simply have no respect. I don't believe that punishment, per se, is appropriate, but the individuals concerned should be made to publicly apologise, name and shame them.

Balder
19-05-13, 03:17
As a liberal and atheist, defender of freedom and freedom of expression and speech. I really don't care at all.

I consider Islamism a despicable culture and religion. While part of Middle Eastern and Africa do not get rid of it (I meant its radical far side), will live forever in the middle Ages. Being a burden for mankind.