Burn a Quran day

[FireGarden]

Let me requote just in case the point is not clear:

3.002 Allah! There is no god but He,-the Living, the Self-Subsisting, Eternal.

3.003 It is He Who sent down to thee (step by step), in truth, the Book, confirming what went before it; and He sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus) before this, as a guide to mankind, and He sent down the criterion (of judgment between right and wrong).

Quran 3.002-3.003
​

I don't see how there could be any doubt about this.

I'm under the impression that Muslims believe the Gospel given to Jesus has been lost. ie: that the Gospels in the NT were not written/revealed by Jesus. Muslims accept that there is some truth in them, but not that they are the word of God.

As far as I know, anyway.
Here's wiki on the Injil:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Injil

 

[Zeuzzz]

Book buring is generaly viewed as being a bad thing.

To librarians maybe.

To someone dying of frostbite in alaska i'd wager he'd think its a good thing.

 

[westprog]

That EXACT statement could be made about the Motoons (especially the reprinting) which it seems the majority of secularists supported.

This is really the point that is bugging me. That so many atheists, secularists and 'free speech' advocates have jumped ship on this one.

Well, I didn't and don't support it, so I'll leave that one aside. The Satanic Verses is a different matter.

 

[westprog]

Or maybe he wanted to burn the koran because he sees it as an evil book that caused, amongst other atrocities, the destruction of the twin towers and its nearly 300 occupants.
The upsetting of muslims would then be a side effect, rather than the point, of the exercise.

So he wanted to suppress Islam altogether, rather than just upset the people who believe in it. How burning one book would achieve that I'm not sure.

Maybe the point was to demonstrate his support for free speech against those who would use their religion to curtail it.
Maybe he did want to upset them just as they upset him by curtailing his free speech.

Since he was able to carry out his action without consequence, it seems that his free speech was never threatened.

I really can't see the point of exercising free speech just in order to demonstrate free speech. It seems a foolish undertaking.

Maybe if everyday someone somewhere would burn a bible and a koran, the overreaction would have to stop for their being too many targets. Maybe eventually the message would get across: Get over it guys, we are talking about a book here. It can't be worth killing for. Please understand that different people have different views and that the name of the game is tolerance.

Yes, the best way to spread love and understanding is to keep telling the other people how stupid and misguided they are. Do it enough and everybody will love each other.

 

[Rrose Selavy]

Old news, Rose. See post 306.

Yeah but my link had more info including direct quotes & comments from his employers.So there.

 

[gph]

Yes, the best way to spread love and understanding is to keep telling the other people how stupid and misguided they are. Do it enough and everybody will love each other.

A short list:

Salman Rushdie
Claudia Schiffer
Nike
Nigeria's Miss World riots
Theo van Gogh and Ayaan Hirsi Ali
Gillian Gibbons
The U.N. blasphemy resolutions

For your spreading love to work either the west bends to the will of extremist Islam or extremist Islam becomes more tolerant. There's no chance the west will, as a whole, remove all signs of blasphemy in the eyes of the extremists so it is the extremists that must change.

Moderate reform within Islam would be welcome but there's very little signs of that taking hold. So the ball is in the west's court. I see desensitization through blasphemy as the best solution proposed to date. Do you have a better idea?

 

[westprog]

A short list:

Salman Rushdie
Claudia Schiffer
Nike
Nigeria's Miss World riots
Theo van Gogh and Ayaan Hirsi Ali
Gillian Gibbons
The U.N. blasphemy resolutions

For your spreading love to work either the west bends to the will of extremist Islam or extremist Islam becomes more tolerant. There's no chance the west will, as a whole, remove all signs of blasphemy in the eyes of the extremists so it is the extremists that must change.

Moderate reform within Islam would be welcome but there's very little signs of that taking hold. So the ball is in the west's court. I see desensitization through blasphemy as the best solution proposed to date. Do you have a better idea?

I assume this is long distance blasphemy that you're planning. Or are you planning to set up a koran-fueled brazier outside your nearest mosque to help knock 'em into shape?

 

[Dipayan]

The right to freedom of expression should not be curtailed, is not being curtailed, and in fact, cannot legally be curtailed.

Agreed.

However, when somebody is about to do something stupid, offensive and dangerous, it would be absurd not to point it out to him in the strongest possible terms.

Point what out though? That extremists might do what they do - react in an extreme manner? There might be many reasons why people should not burn a Qu'ran, but this is not one of them.

 

[westprog]

Agreed.



Point what out though? That extremists might do what they do - react in an extreme manner? There might be many reasons why people should not burn a Qu'ran, but this is not one of them.

Disagreed.

There seems to be consensus that the extremists are wrong to react by killing and rioting. However, it's also true that there is nothing that can be done about it, short term.

So given the choice of options, when deciding what to do, should we take the option which results in the death of innocent people, or the one that doesn't?

What cause some confusion is that the cause and effect isn't very clear, and in any case, it will happen to some person who lives a long way off and is probably very different to us. But put some gunman in the next room with the gun to the head of a child, and most people will go along with even quite unreasonable demands. We certainly wouldn't try to find out the one thing that would upset him most and do it.

 

[tsig]

Disagreed.

There seems to be consensus that the extremists are wrong to react by killing and rioting. However, it's also true that there is nothing that can be done about it, short term.

So given the choice of options, when deciding what to do, should we take the option which results in the death of innocent people, or the one that doesn't?

What cause some confusion is that the cause and effect isn't very clear, and in any case, it will happen to some person who lives a long way off and is probably very different to us. But put some gunman in the next room with the gun to the head of a child, and most people will go along with even quite unreasonable demands. We certainly wouldn't try to find out the one thing that would upset him most and do it.

So now Muslims are the equivalent of "some gunman in the next room with the gun to the head of a child"?

You may want to rethink that comparison.

 

[westprog]

So now Muslims are the equivalent of "some gunman in the next room with the gun to the head of a child"?

You may want to rethink that comparison.

You might want to rethink that statement. It's obviously not the analogy I was making.

I'm quite capable of distinguishing between the majority of muslims who will probably do nothing at all in response to a Koran-burning, the remainder who will peacefully protest, and the small number who will do something psychopathic. And the main difference between the psychopathic minority and a gunman holding a child hostage in the next room is that they aren't in the next room. Unless you live in Jeddah, or Islamabad, for example, and then they very well might be.

The people who will mostly suffer from the psychopaths acting up will be their neighbours, who are mostly other muslims.

 

[Madalch]

Burning the Q'uran makes the baby Mohammed cry.

So- would inscribing Koranic verses on public buildings prevent Islamic terrorists from blowing them up?

 

[BillyJoe]

So he wanted to suppress Islam altogether, rather than just upset the people who believe in it. How burning one book would achieve that I'm not sure.

Did I say that? I said he wanted to make the point that the koran is an evil book giving evil advice that resulted in the destruction of the twin towers along with their 300 occupants.
He wanted to symbolise that point by burning a koran.

Since he was able to carry out his action without consequence, it seems that his free speech was never threatened.

Actually he didn't carry out his symbolic act.
In fact, as it turned out, his free speech was curtailed by someone else's religious beliefs.

I really can't see the point of exercising free speech just in order to demonstrate free speech. It seems a foolish undertaking.

When free speech is threatened, as in this case, that is exactly what you should do.

Yes, the best way to spread love and understanding is to keep telling the other people how stupid and misguided they are. Do it enough and everybody will love each other.

I have had the misfortune to run into a psychopath. If you think love and understanding would have won him over you are living in faeryland. The idea that it is okay to kill those who don't have the same beliefs as you do is stupid and misguided and this needs to be metaphorically slapped in the face of those who think this way untill they understand that there are other points of view they need to respect.

 

[BillyJoe]

So- would inscribing Koranic verses on public buildings prevent Islamic terrorists from blowing them up?

You are assuming that religion is logical.
That is a bad assumption.
I am deadly certain they would be able to rationalise such an act.

 

[gph]

I assume this is long distance blasphemy that you're planning. Or are you planning to set up a koran-fueled brazier outside your nearest mosque to help knock 'em into shape?

What sort of unintelligible answer is that? No disagreement with my points? No answer to my question. Just a drive by meaningless comment? You do realize this site is centered on critical thinking don't you?

 

[Robin]

I have had the misfortune to run into a psychopath. If you think love and understanding would have won him over you are living in faeryland. The idea that it is okay to kill those who don't have the same beliefs as you do is stupid and misguided and this needs to be metaphorically slapped in the face of those who think this way untill they understand that there are other points of view they need to respect.

How exactly is burning Qurans going to do this? By what mechanism do you think that this would work?

To the Muslims who would agree with you, burning a Quran is a hurtful message of intolerance.

To the Muslims who embrace violence it is a godsend that drives a wedge between moderate Muslims and the rest of the community.

If you want to send a message about intimidation and free speech then there are much better ways of doing it, as I have already pointed out.

So where, exactly is the upside?

 

[westprog]

What sort of unintelligible answer is that? No disagreement with my points? No answer to my question. Just a drive by meaningless comment? You do realize this site is centered on critical thinking don't you?

Yeah, as I thought. This is a theoretical strategy and doesn't involve actual involvement.

 

[westprog]

So where, exactly is the upside?

The upside is feeling good about supporting free speech while someone a long way off suffers the consequences. Win-win!

 

[westprog]

You are assuming that religion is logical.
That is a bad assumption.
I am deadly certain they would be able to rationalise such an act.

Al Quaeda and the Taliban spend a large amount of time killing muslims and planting bombs around mosques. It's not a problem for them.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Since when does someone have the right to make a rule such as 'burning a certain book is bad' and then declare that you have done something bad and hurtful?

Why should it be my fault if someone decided to base their feelings on something as silly as a book?

What if I decided it is hurtful and offensive for someone to be offended by the burning of a book? Therefore the only reason someone could be offended by burning a book is to offend me and therefore they are a hurtful person.

I am sorry, but I have absolutely no sympathy for anyone claiming to have their feelings hurt because of a burned book that is in wide circulation and print. And I don't care what the book is about. If someone's feelings are hurt by a book being burned then I believe that person deserves to have their feelings hurt until they grow up.