Koran desecration

[jmercer]

One final word, Claus, if you'll permit me... religion (and patriotism, and nationalism) is all about symbology. Each of these stands for specific ideals and/or intangibles that are admired and loved by segments of the population.

If a Koran were accidently destroyed during renovation of a house by a bulldozer, no-one would raise an eyebrow (except perhaps to comment on the laxness of the homeowner for not removing it prior to demolition). No-one would become irate, or vengeful, and you wouldn't see mobs forming.

However, destroying the Koran for the specific purpose of insulting Muslim beliefs is going to get them angry. Additionally, destroying the Koran casually is also disrespectful, because it doesn't consider the value placed on the book by others.

That's why these destructive actions are so powerful. It's because symbols are powerful representations of beliefs, and symbolic acts using those icons are even more powerful - regardless of whether the act is positive or negative. It's the intention of the act that defines which way it's viewed.

What do you think the reaction of people would be if a copy of the Koran were put on display in a permanent, protected place of honor right next to the US Constitution? What if the Torah, Bible and other religious documents were also placed there as well?

It works both ways.

 

[CFLarsen]

What do you think the reaction of people would be if a copy of the Koran were put on display in a permanent, protected place of honor right next to the US Constitution? What if the Torah, Bible and other religious documents were also placed there as well?

(psssst.....you just equated the US Constitution with a religious document...)

It works both ways.

Only if you are religious about the US Constitution.

 

[jmercer]

(psssst.....you just equated the US Constitution with a religious document...)

Why, so I did! Gee... Wubya would be proud of me...

(
Only if you are religious about the US Constitution.

(chuckle)

True... but the feelings are very, very close to worship for a lot of folks. Have you ever been to the Alamo in San Antonio, Texas? I expected it to be a historical site, like many others I've visited. Instead, I encountered something which I can only compare to a shrine, almost cult-like in atmosphere. Very weird.

Seriously, nationalism and religion have a lot in common - too much so for my comfort, in fact.

 

[P.S.A.]

He explained to me that Muslims are enjoined not to burn or dispose of old Korans, not to treat them as household rubbish.

Oops.

Same with Muslims. Muslims don't like icons. They don't worship images of God, they worship the word of God. You won't find paintings of religious events in mosques, like you do in Christian churches or Hindu temples.

Oops indeed.

I could go even further, and ask you to say, from that article just for now, who it was who is enjoining them to not destroy the Quran. Which sect of Muslim faith that enjoining is part of. How large that sect is in the Islamic world. It will lead to endless more oops from you, I am sure.

But I have no need to do that. Don't try and play word games with me Claus, you are more intelligent than that. You wanted to argue about why the Quran being treated with disrespect is offensive to Muslins, and insinuated that it was aberrant from their own faith's teachings. And then, when someone points out that it doesn't have to have anything to do with their faith at all, you make a link to an article disproving your own insinuation as if it was one of my own ooops. It's not, it's yours: If we believe the article you quoted, your original claim was untrue, and your original argument now has no point. You wanted to argue for religious hypocrisy, and then defined that Religion two entirely contrasting ways, in order to make the wished for hypocrisy fit somewhere. And maybe it does. But you've not argued that honestly. Nor have you addressed my point yet at all. Or any of those who have made the point in a different way. Do you intend to do so?

 

[CFLarsen]

P.S.A.,

I'm afraid I don't understand.

How am I wrong for pointing out that Muslims don't have icons and images of God in their mosques?

You, OTOH, are wrong, because it does matter what Muslims can do with the Koran.

Not "word games". You were wrong, plain and simple.

 

[P.S.A.]

P.S.A.,

I'm afraid I don't understand.

How am I wrong for pointing out that Muslims don't have icons and images of God in their mosques?

You, OTOH, are wrong, because it does matter what Muslims can do with the Koran.

Not "word games". You were wrong, plain and simple.

Then there is your answer as to why abusing the Quran is offensive to Muslims. Because, according to you, it's part of their faith that the Word should be treated with respect, but Iconography is not.

And if you don't understand that, let me rephrase your original question in a different way.

"Joe Bloggs' Doctor has told him that whilst eating low fat meals is acceptable, full fat ones are not beneficial to his own (physical) health. Joe comes home from work to find that his dinner is extremely fatty indeed, and doesn't eat it. Does this mean that Joe Bloggs is not following his Doctor's advice because he's refusing to eat a "Meal"? "

What you have done is either try and set up an example of hypocrisy which doesn't work, because Muslim's are, according to you now, following a tradition which is actually part of their culture. Or you were simply indulging a tautology, which is thus pointless.

 

[CFLarsen]

Then there is your answer as to why abusing the Quran is offensive to Muslims. Because, according to you, it's part of their faith that the Word should be treated with respect, but Iconography is not.

And if you don't understand that, let me rephrase your original question in a different way.

"Joe Bloggs' Doctor has told him that whilst eating low fat meals is acceptable, full fat ones are not beneficial to his own (physical) health. Joe comes home from work to find that his dinner is extremely fatty indeed, and doesn't eat it. Does this mean that Joe Bloggs is not following his Doctor's advice because he's refusing to eat a "Meal"? "

What you have done is either try and set up an example of hypocrisy which doesn't work, because Muslim's are, according to you now, following a tradition which is actually part of their culture. Or you were simply indulging a tautology, which is thus pointless.

If you want to rephrase anything, do it with your own posts. Don't rephrase on my behalf.

Now, how am I wrong for pointing out that Muslims don't have icons and images of God in their mosques?

 

[P.S.A.]

If you want to rephrase anything, do it with your own posts. Don't rephrase on my behalf.

Now, how am I wrong for pointing out that Muslims don't have icons and images of God in their mosques?

Your phrasing? Well literally it's this:

WHAT IS THE TITLE OF THIS THREAD CLAUS?

It's "Koran Desecration".

WHAT IS THE QUESTION YOU ASK IN THIS THREAD?

"So, why would Muslims be upset that the Koran is destroyed?"

WHAT IS THE ANSWER I GAVE TO YOU WITH REGARDS TO THAT?

That it doesn't have to be to do with their religion at all.

WHAT DID YOU ANSWER TO THAT?

"He explained to me that Muslims are enjoined not to burn or dispose of old Korans, not to treat them as household rubbish. "

SO WHY ARE YOU ASKING YOUR QUESTION IN THE FIRST PLACE IF YOU ALREADY KNOW THE ANSWER?

I'm still waiting to hear that one.

Of course, if you meant to argue something else, something connected with the issue you are trying to play Gotcha on, please state so. For instance, you could tell us why you think that Muslim's not having a tradition on iconography means they shouldn't care what someone does to copies of their religious teaching. Especially as you yourself stated that it's apparently part of their Faith that the Quran should be respected. And then I'll consider answering your question about whether Muslims do or don't have such icons in their Mosques and homes. If it's relevant, that is.

 

[swstephe]

is there a suffix which means "worship"? i was looking for a word for the idea of worshipping of words as logo- ... something to describe the phenomenon of special reverence for words beyond their symantic meaning.

i'm a muslim (convert) living in a muslim country, so let me point some things out:
- muslims believe that the koran is the direct word of god to man, (it is written in the first person, unlike the bible, torah, etc). most muslims believe that the koran existed before the creation and it is given the respect of something directly connected to the divine. due to this, there is a culture of giving the koran a great deal of respect. muslims are told to wash themselves in a specific way before touching it. women who are having their periods, (a state of impurity according to most muslims), are not allowed to touch it or carry it at all. in many muslim homes, there is a special niche to store the quran that is higher than any other shelf in the room. traditionally a quran that was no longer usable was supposed to be buried in a specific way, (not burned). these practices are not consistent at all and vary by how strict the culture is.
- there is a practice of burning pages from the quran and mixing the ashes in water to make a drink to cure illness and "possession" in my area, (it is apparently approved, but not recommended, by most muslim schools-of-thought).
- the "logo-worship" exists such that there is some reverence for the word "allah", (which means simply "god", and is not necissarily a proper noun -- unless you use the correct marks, remember the "99 names of allah"? that is just a list of the words used to describe god, "the beneficit", "the merciful", "the light", "the one", are all names of god, but don't seem to get the same amount of respect as "allah", "the god"). there are some extreme countries which outlaw desecration of anything with "allah" printed on it. since most things printed in muslim countries, in arabic, usually start with the phrase "in the name of allah, the merciful, the beneficit" that includes just about everything. i've seen calls for people to not burn newspapers because that phrase is printed on them. arabic bibles, (even the ones printed in the USA), have "allah" printed throughout them. most muslims will get upset seeing that word touch the ground or put in an "unclean" place like on the rear end or the feet. remember the big problem Nike went through when one of the shoes they produced had a flame that looked similar, (but you really have to squint), to "allah".
- i've noticed there are a lot of people who seem to believe, (although they would never admit to it out loud), that the words in the quran themselves have some kind of "magic powers", meaning that if you hang the words up in your house or place of worship, it will give protection. i've seen people wear amulets with verses of the quran printed on them, or hung up in their homes.

many progressive muslims have pointed out that, in the beginning, the quran was not meant to be written. it was originally only memorized. the first writing came about as a memorization aid. the arabic writing system was extended quite a bit to indicate vowels changes and tempo in the quran with special markings that don't exist elsewhere. the whole point was to understand the message, (such as not killing people except in self-defence and in carrying out justice). these days there are many people in afghanistan, pakistan and indonesia who can recite the quran from end-to-end and don't understand a single word of what they are saying, (because their native language is not arabic and they are taught to memorize the pronunciation without being told what it means). most of their knowledge is based on common practices in their own culture without asking questions.

so, while worship of images is prohibited, the deep reverence for the words and caligraphy has been around for centuries and is very much part of the religion. there have been critics who have pointed out that desecation of innocent people, (muslim or otherwise), doesn't get any outcry, where desecration of a quran does.

 

[Harvestmoon]

I'm reminded of Judgy Roy Moore's 5 ton rock of the Big 10. On every news channel, I saw some guy crying and loudly wailing "Don't take away my God", or something to that effect. Seems to me that in the Big 10 is a commandment about not worshipping false idols, etc. Well, what the hell was Roy Moore's 5 ton graven image rock with the Big 10 on it? Seems like a graven image to me. But then I'm not Christian and I have no problem with graven images as they are a means to focus.

The Koran and the Big Ten and the Bible, the Torah, etc., are tools meant for use for prayer, knowledge and yes "focusing". I personally have no use for the Bible other than a point of reference, sometimes for amusement, sometimes for understanding the Jewish culture of that time, and sometimes for the words of wisdom from Jesus of Nazareth, (and not necessarily in that order). But for 1/3 of the inhabitants of this Planet, the Bible is a Holy Book. I would never dream of flushing it down a toilet, burning it, etc., even though I don't subscribe to the Abrahamic faiths. It would be rude and disrespectful to do so. And believe me...I've had thoughts of doing that very thing in order to be rude to the fundies who have been more than rude to me. But that would be inconsiderate to the wonderful Christians who I know and they are far more legion than the zealots.

My point being that we live in a country which supposedly guarantees freedom of/from religion. Therefore, if I expect my freedom of religion to be respected, I MUST respect others freedom of/from religion...unless they are breaking the law as in pedophilia, harming others, etc.

The USA does have a Holy Book...it is our Constitution, and that is our only Holy Book. And we would be wise to honor that Holy Book and realize that it applies to all US Citizens, regardless of faith or lack of faith.

 

[CFLarsen]

Your phrasing? Well literally it's this:

WHAT IS THE TITLE OF THIS THREAD CLAUS?

It's "Koran Desecration".

WHAT IS THE QUESTION YOU ASK IN THIS THREAD?

"So, why would Muslims be upset that the Koran is destroyed?"

WHAT IS THE ANSWER I GAVE TO YOU WITH REGARDS TO THAT?

That it doesn't have to be to do with their religion at all.

WHAT DID YOU ANSWER TO THAT?

I told you, I am not interested in your "rephrasings" of my posts. Especially not when you scream them back at me.

"He explained to me that Muslims are enjoined not to burn or dispose of old Korans, not to treat them as household rubbish. "

SO WHY ARE YOU ASKING YOUR QUESTION IN THE FIRST PLACE IF YOU ALREADY KNOW THE ANSWER?

I'm still waiting to hear that one.

I didn't know the answer. I found the link (that proved you wrong) later.

Of course, if you meant to argue something else, something connected with the issue you are trying to play Gotcha on, please state so. For instance, you could tell us why you think that Muslim's not having a tradition on iconography means they shouldn't care what someone does to copies of their religious teaching. Especially as you yourself stated that it's apparently part of their Faith that the Quran should be respected. And then I'll consider answering your question about whether Muslims do or don't have such icons in their Mosques and homes. If it's relevant, that is.

I have explained it. I have even showed evidence. You, OTOH, have shown nothing but your opinion and your insistence on "rephrasing" my posts, so they fit your ideas of what I said.

I really don't think that I'm the one falling behind here.

 

[P.S.A.]

I told you, I am not interested in your "rephrasings" of my posts. Especially not when you scream them back at me.

If you don't like your own words screamed back at you, ensure your own words are not so embarrasing to you in the first place.

I didn't know the answer. I found the link (that proved you wrong) later.

Then you won't mind saying the following, will you?

"I, Claus, hereby state that the answer to my question is nothing to do with Muslim attitudes to Graven images at all, and hereby revoke the original association with that in my initial post."

Incidentally, once you've done that, you can then try and throw my own words back at me to prove how I've been proven wrong. I'll even help you out; these are the words.

You can try and turn it into a debate about how silly religious people are for holding the Quran in high esteem... but out in the real world, it's not about the Book at all. The people abusing the Quran do not do so because they believe it's the Word of Allah... they do it because they know you believe that, and they hate you. And the people who are getting outraged don't think the people doing the abuse believe it's the word of Allah either: They are angry because they understand you are trampling it because you know they value it. Take away the Quran, and you'd just shift the abuse and perception of why the abuse is occuring, to another symbol... such as using female underwear to humiliate someone culturally. Or decapititation of non combatants.

.

And for those of you who haven't been following it; the original story which is almost certainly the inspiration for Claus' question was a Newsweek article on the Quran being flushed down a toilet... at Guantanamo Bay, and at other locations associated with "The War On Terror"; which is increasingly seen as a "War Against Islam" by many in the Islamic world. That was later questioned, but the Pentagon has admitted that the Quran was abused in other ways (but not in a toilet). Which gives the relevant background which would suggest that Muslims would be offended by this particular desecration anyway, irrespective of what they think about the Book or not: The context here is why this particular Quran story is causing so much outrage.

Claus can, I am sure, prove I stated an opinion either way on whether Muslims think the Quran in general should be treated with respect or not, yes? Such a claim certainly would be disproven by Claus' quote. Had I made it. And had I defined which particular Muslim sect, geographical area, local customs which matched the one the BBC article mentioned were the particular ones who did not believe what the article stated they did. Had I done that, my argument would be in tatters.

I have explained it. I have even showed evidence. You, OTOH, have shown nothing but your opinion and your insistence on "rephrasing" my posts, so they fit your ideas of what I said.

Then why don't YOU tell US what the connection between this:

Doesn't that mean they are worshipping not the word of God, but the image of the word of God?

And this, is?

"He explained to me that Muslims are enjoined not to burn or dispose of old Korans, not to treat them as household rubbish. "

It's your own question. And your own answer. We can ignore all the background I was talking of for now: Just tell us, does it mean that Muslims are "worshipping" the image of God in the form of the Quran? Or just that they are expected to "not to treat them as household rubbish"? Tell us Claus, if they don't have images in the Mosques, but do respect the Quran, does that mean they believe the Quran is an image which is used in a Mosque? Or is it seen as something else?

I really don't think that I'm the one falling behind here. [/B]

No, you don't think that, unsurprisingly. But if I decided that according to my logic, that means that you are falling behind, does that mean that you objectively are? Or, let's say I imagine that you are a graven image, and that talking to you means "worshipping" one, does that mean that you not only are such an image, but that you think of yourself in that way too...?

Think about that carefully, Mr Larsen. That's what my argument with you is. And you won't have answered it by retreating into "No, you have to prove X first" either. Your own question was:

"So, why would Muslims be upset that the Koran is destroyed? Doesn't that mean they are worshipping not the word of God, but the image of the word of God?"

And you've already answered that in the negative. If you ever feel like getting around to addressing what that means the Quran actually []is[/i] seen as, and why it's seen that way, feel free... It'll sound remarkably like my own opinions too, I expect. Ones I've already stated, in fact, and others have also mentioned. So off you go then. Make the more informed, nuanced and accurate argument your original post should have been.