Burning the Qur’an

I am not in favour of book burning because I am aware of the underlying anti-knowledge motivations behind such activities. And it is this that Anshuman A Mondal refers to in his CiF article on the Qu’ran burning story that has been stirring up the media and politicos this past few days.

This is where it gets interesting, because it highlights the ways in which misinterpretation can complicate cultural relations, and burning books is now part of a globalised idiom of protest that has undergone several mis-translations.

In effect, it has moved from destroying learning that is deemed unacceptable, to a protest similar to the burning of effigies and flags – symbolism. It’s a very juvenile practice carried out by intellectual pygmies who have no other way of expressing their hatred for whatever it is they are irked about and is best ignored. Still, it works for the mad mullahs. After all, the managed to get a crowd of people who had probably never heard of David Cameron to come out on the streets and burn an effigy of him.

The obvious precedent is the burning of The Satanic Verses in Bradford, which precipitated Ayatollah Khomeini’s fatwa.

My point made, I think…

Anyway;

This was read by western commentators as a reprise of Nazi book-burnings, thereby indelibly associating in the liberal western imagination a relationship between Islam, fascism and totalitarianism.

A resonable association, frankly. Given who was doing the burning, it was a logical interpretation – although at the time, I took it to mean they didn’t like that particular book and the person who wrote it. They had a point – it was a badly written, dreadful book.

This was, however, a mistaken reading on at least two counts: firstly, there is no equivalence between mass book burnings organised by a powerful state and a street demonstration by marginalised working-class ethnic minority communities desperate to draw attention to their grievance when all previous attempts had failed (notwithstanding the role of Islamist organisations in stoking them up).

Ah, right, so it was a minority group desperate to draw attention to their grievances, eh? Well, in that case, surely a minority Christian church drawing attention to their grievances is no different? Sauce for the goose and all that.

Oh, no, it appears not.

I notice that there has been an outpouring of condemnation from politicians who talk of respect and similar drivel in the wake of Terry Jones’ announcement of his plans for a 9/11 celebration. If celebration is the right word.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the church’s plan was “disrespectful and disgraceful”.

And the US Attorney General, Eric Holder, called the idea “idiotic and dangerous”.

Today on the BBC news there was talk of disrespect and sacred texts as if this makes a difference, somehow. There is no obligation on any of us to respect someone else’s belief system. They can believe what they like, but to expect others to respect it is an ask too far. Although the idiotic and dangerous comment is probably not too far from the truth.

What we have here is one rather silly man about to poke a stick into a very large hornet’s nest full of very, very pissed off hornets with a massive inferiority complex and everyone else can see what he is about to do. The rank hypocrisy going on is that if someone was to burn a pile of bibles, there would be some tut-tutting in the half-empty pews, but no fatwas, no jihad, no beheadings, no suicide bombings; indeed no violent response, merely some pursed lips and frowns of disapproval. So let’s be open and honest about this; Terry Jones is going to deliberately provoke the religion of peace and the apologists are trying to distance themselves because they can see the shit-storm that will follow. If it was the other way around, I suspect we would hear nothing, not a peep.

A little bit of me almost admires this latest contender for the Darwin awards – although I suspect he wouldn’t approve…

————————————-

The Nameless Libertarian takes a slightly less facetious position.

17 Comments

  1. Book burning is a crime, regardless of how good or bad you think the book is. On these grounds I find myself as opposed to burning copies of Islamic texts as Christian or any other. Why? Because the written word provides the knowledge and continuity which underpins any civilisation. Therefore destruction of same is a high crime against humanity, even if it is a Jeffrey Archer. Without language and the means to pass it on we are little more than screaming apes.

    I say no book should burn because all should available for reading and critique for good or bad. No cow should be too sacred to take to the intellectual slaughterhouse. If books and the knowledge they contain are destroyed, then upon which giants shoulders should the next generation stand?

    BTW: As an illustration of my last point, there are stories of early Christians burning Roman libraries during the 5th and 6th centuries, and it took humanity over a thousand years to rediscover what was lost.

    (Sees soapbox under feet, steps down)

  2. Mark,

    nobody doubts his entitlement to destroy his own property, but how is this helping anything? He’s merely providing the democrats with a talking point, which will be used far and wide to smear the outsiders of the political mainstream, by which I mean the handful of decent, small government conservatives and libertarians who have come up through the Tea Party movement.

  3. James; all written words are communication, and add to the greater sum of human knowledge. They add context and highlight areas of ignorance. Therefore, either by omission or default in meaning or content, yes, the Qu’ran is knowledge.

    Didn’t say whether I thought it was good or bad though, did I?

  4. TT, he’s doing it to cheer himself up, the same way as some people burn fireworks or candles or whatever.

    BS, whether or not this book constitutes ‘knowledge’ is a moot point, but as he is destroying a printed copy (or copies) and not a priceless and irreplaceable original, he is actually only destroying paper.

  5. It is not the hipocrisy of it all, these are polititians and fanatical zealots screaming their usual diatribes; the thing I find almost intolerable is the way that the polititians in the west absolutely refuse to consider any other position or point of view if it contradicts theirs even to the smallest degree and refuse to instigate a proper debate about peoples concerns about Islam and how it completely opposes what came before it, despite its supporters claiming otherwise.

  6. JL,

    how is burning a koran going to instigate a proper debate? Is this a general principle? I have a copy of the communist manifesto somewhere on my bookshelf. If I burn it, will this help defeat communism once and for all?

  7. Presumably this Terry Jones (as opposed to the funny one) knows just how offensive this act will be to even the most mild-mannered, integrated follower of Islam? The Qu’an (for good or ill, right or wrong) is privileged with a sacred status even if it is the cheapest edition on the market, and must be stored as the highest object in any room. Burning it, therefore, carries a level of offence that would cause the jihadists to explode spontaneously, while creating an army of profoundly offended everyday ‘ordinary’ Muslims. It is not the equivalent (in theology) of burning a Bible or Talmud which are not in themselves sacred, only bearers of sacred knowledge. Allegedly.

  8. Where is he getting all these korans?

    His name seems fitting as I am reminded of the old Rutles spoof Beatle documentary that some of the Pythons were involved with.

    “They were buying Rutles records just so they could burn them”.

  9. TT, Burning the Qu’ran is a stunt and is NOT going to establish anything positive, the problem is that this is a faith based argument, in which the Qu’ran is not recognised outside of Islam as anything remotely holy, or set apart, it is considered a not very good ersatz down sizing of what came before, Christianity and Judaism. However there are intellectual dimensions to be debated in parallel to theological ones, but the various political and theological western establishments are too brow beaten and intellectually confused by the insidious infestation of the politically correct agenda as to say no to the blatant mis- representation of the word of God; whether you believe in it any form of God or not, some sort of dialogue has to be set up or there will be civil wars in which peoples will not accept the forced adoption of a faith based legal system and it’s laws which decimate their ideals of freedom established under Christianity, in some aspects it is a demographic problem but one that needs to be seriously addressed, not pandered to in the hope that the fanatics will see sense and go away.

  10. Perhaps we ought to consider public book-burning as the opportunity to “celebrate one of the great days in the history of Islam and Great Britain…” to quote our Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, who must by definition have a highly developed understanding of law and order. Imagine the disaster that would eventually unfold in Britain if he to be were to be an intrinsically poisonous oily crook.

    Setting light to books is comparable to building mosques near Ground Zero: you should have the right to do it, but it’s deeply offensive to a great many and it really would be better for everyone if it were a right you didn’t chose to exercise under the circumstances.

  11. Some great points raised in this thread, but my question still remains.
    Where is this plonker getting all those korans?
    Is he buying them?
    Is he having a whip round among local muslims and book shops?
    How many has he managed to get hold of so far?
    If he can’t get any (or only a few) what then?

  12. That’s just it you see.
    There could be (already is) some great comedy here.
    I have this picture in my mind of hundreds of old mills & boon books being hastily re-backed in brown paper with “Der Holey Koo-Ran” written on them all in readiness to be cast into the flames.
    Could this end up like the recent South Park episode where Mohamed in fancy dress turned out not to be Mohamed at all, but the episode was still pulled/edited anyway?

Comments are closed.