The Burning of Quran – A Modern Act of Barbarism

[beenie]

There are a lot of things that are distasteful or repugnant, but not illegal. Since they are not illegal, you really can't stop people from doing it. Burning books falls under that category. I would be all for the stopping of burning books and holy books of any faith, but at the same time, I don't really want to give up my freedom of speech.

I was in total agreement with you until this:

Unfortunately, it is not against the law in the USA to hurt someone's feelings.

Why is it unfortunate? Freedom of speech includes speaking and communicating ideas that others won't agree with...along with all the other good stuff.

Errr...
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you meant "fortunately". :sarcastic

Interesting, because I was going to post the very same thing.

Can you imagine regulating "hurt feelings"?

 

[Father Heathen]

There's nothing in the world that isn't offensive to someone.

 

[Badran]

That is true. I wonder where the cutoff point should be? A few people clearly is not enough; several thousand people, though? How many thousands are needed for a good sample?

Well we're not talking about something that we can't know. We can know how all people deal with this, or mostly how they deal with this. So we don't need a sample to look at to determine. When and if such violent reactions are made, i'm pretty sure they'll make the news. Now, several thousands of Muslims doing such actions doesn't really say anything about Muslims in general, considering the number of Muslims around the world.

I'm not sure what the cuttoff point should be, however to speak in regards of Muslims in general without exception you need all Muslims to actually meat that specific description you're talking about, otherwise you would be unfairly generalizing, even if in some cases the people you're lumping in are a minority, thats still unfair in my opinion. If you want to talk about Muslims 'for the most part', indicating that whatever it is you're talking about is what most Muslims do, you'll need it to be a majority.

I admit I am not sure if there was violent reaction in places other than Afghanistan. Do you know?

Not really, thats not to say there were none, just that i don't know or heard of any.

 

[ChristineES]

I was in total agreement with you until this:



Why is it unfortunate? Freedom of speech includes speaking and communicating ideas that others won't agree with...along with all the other good stuff.



Interesting, because I was going to post the very same thing.

Can you imagine regulating "hurt feelings"?

I already said I mistyped or just wasn't thinking straight. We all, including me, make dumb mistakes when we write. But as I said earlier, we'd all be in trouble if hurt feelings were illegal.

 

[Looncall]

Well we're not talking about something that we can't know. We can know how all people deal with this, or mostly how they deal with this. So we don't need a sample to look at to determine. When and if such violent reactions are made, i'm pretty sure they'll make the news. Now, several thousands of Muslims doing such actions doesn't really say anything about Muslims in general, considering the number of Muslims around the world.

I'm not sure what the cuttoff point should be, however to speak in regards of Muslims in general without exception you need all Muslims to actually meat that specific description you're talking about, otherwise you would be unfairly generalizing, even if in some cases the people you're lumping in are a minority, thats still unfair in my opinion. If you want to talk about Muslims 'for the most part', indicating that whatever it is you're talking about is what most Muslims d o, you'll need it to be a majority.



Not really, thats not to say there were none, just that i don't know or heard of any.

I see your point but I was thinking "the other way around".

If it is claimed that a religion instills a certain virtue, such as peacefulness, tolerance or campassion, yet one sees that many (even if not nearly most) of its followers act contrary to that virtue, what is one to conclude? Why should one not conclude that the religion is at best ineffective or at worst pernicious, especially when experts in the religion (clerics) foment that contrary behaviour?

It makes sense to me to think that most muslims are good, since most people are anyway, but their religion is not.

 

[ChristineES]

I don't think it is a good idea to call anyone's religion "bad", mostly because religion doesn't exist on its own. A person can follow a religion, but a religion can't follow a person.

 

[idav]

I don't think it is a good idea to call anyone's religion "bad", mostly because religion doesn't exist on its own. A person can follow a religion, but a religion can't follow a person.

A lot of the religions I think are good if the people actually went by all the beliefs. However some texts have questionable things that draw lines further out than I would. Like the quran allowing beating within limits. Just the fact that it brings it up means someone will be getting away with such an act.

 

[ChristineES]

A lot of the religions I think are good if the people actually went by all the beliefs. However some texts have questionable things that draw lines further out than I would. Like the quran allowing beating within limits. Just the fact that it brings it up means someone will be getting away with such an act.

It would be up to each individual to actually follow such a command. I can't say that every single Muslim male would beat his wife, because I am sure that there are probably a lot of them who would not.
But you do have a point.

 

[Badran]

I see your point but I was thinking "the other way around".

If it is claimed that a religion instills a certain virtue, such as peacefulness, tolerance or campassion, yet one sees that many (even if not nearly most) of its followers act contrary to that virtue, what is one to conclude? Why should one not conclude that the religion is at best ineffective or at worst pernicious, especially when experts in the religion (clerics) foment that contrary behaviour?

It makes sense to me to think that most muslims are good, since most people are anyway, but their religion is not.

I didn't mean that you should view Islam in a positive manner as long as only a few of its followers do bad things, thats not my point at all, you should remain neutral if you have not studied the religion in my opinion. However, my point was that you can't make a judgement on the community, or the religion, based on the actions of a few.

In other words, in response to the bolded part by me, based on what did you come to that judgement?

If its your own impression of the teachings of the religion based on your study of it, then fine, thats a different matter. However, if its based on the assumption that the bad actions by the few you have in mind are incited or asked for by their religion, that to me is incredibly illogical and bias. Merely finding an excuse to conform what you already decided before ever knowing anything about Islam. To conform that religion is bad, that is.

 

[YmirGF]

If its your own impression of the teachings of the religion based on your study of it, then fine, thats a different matter. However, if its based on the assumption that the bad actions by the few you have in mind are incited or asked for by their religion, that to me is incredibly illogical and bias. Merely finding an excuse to conform what you already decided before ever knowing anything about Islam. To conform that religion is bad, that is.

Indeed. Unfortunately for those who find appeal in simplistic arguments, Islam is far too complex to so easily pin down. For all the packs of raging, fanatical Muslims, endlessly played on our TV screens there are thousands of times more Muslims who are not behaving badly. It's like looking at the crime reports every morning. You don't hear the simple fact that 99.99% of the population spent the previous evening in crime free, murder free, endeavors. If you listen to the news, one would think that the streets are controlled by the bad guys for the emphasis they are given. I don't know about you, but the streets aren't filled with blood where I am... in fact... it's pretty peaceful overall. Well, that squirrel is making a lot of noise and those deer over by the fence DO look a bit menacing.

 

[Looncall]

I didn't mean that you should view Islam in a positive manner as long as only a few of its followers do bad things, thats not my point at all, you should remain neutral if you have not studied the religion in my opinion. However, my point was that you can't make a judgement on the community, or the religion, based on the actions of a few.

In other words, in response to the bolded part by me, based on what did you come to that judgement?

If its your own impression of the teachings of the religion based on your study of it, then fine, thats a different matter. However, if its based on the assumption that the bad actions by the few you have in mind are incited or asked for by their religion, that to me is incredibly illogical and bias. Merely finding an excuse to conform what you already decided before ever knowing anything about Islam. To conform that religion is bad, that is.

Something that really grabs my attention is that in many of the reported incidents, the mobs have been egged on by clerics who presumably understand their religion very well. It isn't just ignorant masses who are causing the trouble, it's the experts.

The same goes for social oppression and corruption, as in Iran, for example.

What am I to make of that?

 

[Copernicus]

Something that really grabs my attention is that in many of the reported incidents, the mobs have been egged on by clerics who presumably understand their religion very well. It isn't just ignorant masses who are causing the trouble, it's the experts.

The same goes for social oppression and corruption, as in Iran, for example.

What am I to make of that?

What I make of it is that there is far more diversity of interpretation among "experts" in a religion than adherents of the religion are willing to admit. I have seen people use the Bible to support diametrically-opposed ideas about how we should all behave. They just pick different verses in it to emphasize, and they choose to treat some language as literal that others treat as metaphorical. What drives us to behave the way we do and how we rationalize our behavior come from two different places. In scientific debates, there is usually a way of resolving the debate through observation and experimentation. In religious debates, there seems to be no objective method of proving or disproving anything--just competing authorities on how to interpret scripture or doctrine.

 

[Badran]

Something that really grabs my attention is that in many of the reported incidents, the mobs have been egged on by clerics who presumably understand their religion very well. It isn't just ignorant masses who are causing the trouble, it's the experts.

The same goes for social oppression and corruption, as in Iran, for example.

What am I to make of that?

For starters, as Copernicus said, people and experts get different things from the same religion, there is more than one interpretation. Then, you have the fact that religious positions of all sorts are just as corrupt-able as any other position, and the people holding those positions are no different than anybody else.

Finally, again, while you have those, you have many others advocating the exact opposite, so there's no reason to base your judgments on the negative alone. Just like you have bad examples, you have other good examples, which most of the time far outnumber the bad ones.

And, of course, like i said earlier, you always have the source from which those people are supposedly extracting their teachings to examine and judge for yourself, which in my view is the best thing to do. Or at least, an essential thing to do if you're seeking making an honest and accurate judgement as much as possible.

 

[idav]

What I make of it is that there is far more diversity of interpretation among "experts" in a religion than adherents of the religion are willing to admit. I have seen people use the Bible to support diametrically-opposed ideas about how we should all behave. They just pick different verses in it to emphasize, and they choose to treat some language as literal that others treat as metaphorical. What drives us to behave the way we do and how we rationalize our behavior come from two different places. In scientific debates, there is usually a way of resolving the debate through observation and experimentation. In religious debates, there seems to be no objective method of proving or disproving anything--just competing authorities on how to interpret scripture or doctrine.

In some cases there are objective methods of proving or disproving texts but it requires going outside of the texts which many religious zealous are not willing to do. Even in science people can read the texts and interpret different ways but then you go outside of the texts to prove what is being said in case there were any questions.

For example the quran allows marraige of girls. Now we are not really willing to do experiments to find out if that is right or not but we can see through observing history and behaviors that subjecting a young girl to that is unhealthy. Which is why we made different laws over the years protecting young children without really needing the backing of scientific experimentation. IMO sociology is a science and a valid way to obtain information about how to treat the human condition where right and wrong answers do exist.

 

[Looncall]

For starters, as Copernicus said, people and experts get different things from the same religion, there is more than one interpretation. Then, you have the fact that religious positions of all sorts are just as corrupt-able as any other position, and the people holding those positions are no different than anybody else.

Finally, again, while you have those, you have many others advocating the exact opposite, so there's no reason to base your judgments on the negative alone. Just like you have bad examples, you have other good examples, which most of the time far outnumber the bad ones.

And, of course, like i said earlier, you always have the source from which those people are supposedly extracting their teachings to examine and judge for yourself, which in my view is the best thing to do. Or at least, an essential thing to do if you're seeking making an honest and accurate judgement as much as possible.

These observations are partly reasonable. However, how is it that what is supposed to be the words of a god is so ambiguous that such violently and tragically differing interpretations are possible? I would expect that the words of a god, especially one said (with annoying repitition) to be compassionate, would be more effective.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

The burning of religious books has been documented in history many times before. Such heinous acts are a proof of the hatred of people towards a certain concept or teaching. However, contrary to the popular belief, the burning of religious books in not only limited to Quran. Many other religions have been a victim of such atrocious activities to subdue the person or religion behind a teaching or concept.
read more from http://www.quranreading.com/blog/islam-and-muslims/the-burning-of-quran-a-modern-act-of-barbarism/)(

They're just books. There are plenty of others on the shelf.

They're only as valuable as the price one puts upon them.

 

[idav]

I think that banning books is about as bad as burning them. Either way it is retarded. Catholic church has a slew of books that are banned and they have long history of burning books as well.

 

[Looncall]

For starters, as Copernicus said, people and experts get different things from the same religion, there is more than one interpretation. Then, you have the fact that religious positions of all sorts are just as corrupt-able as any other position, and the people holding those positions are no different than anybody else.

Finally, again, while you have those, you have many others advocating the exact opposite, so there's no reason to base your judgments on the negative alone. Just like you have bad examples, you have other good examples, which most of the time far outnumber the bad ones.

And, of course, like i said earlier, you always have the source from which those people are supposedly extracting their teachings to examine and judge for yourself, which in my view is the best thing to do. Or at least, an essential thing to do if you're seeking making an honest and accurate judgement as much as possible.

Why should I bother to study the quran when even those who specialize in it do not agree about what it says? If even the experts can come up with arbitrary interpretations, it would be a waste of my time to do so since it seems that anything at all can be justified using the quran.

 

[Badran]

These observations are partly reasonable. However, how is it that what is supposed to be the words of a god is so ambiguous that such violently and tragically differing interpretations are possible? I would expect that the words of a god, especially one said (with annoying repitition) to be compassionate, would be more effective.

Thats a topic for another thread. As this is purely addressing how god supposedly didn't make such texts simpler if he was compassionate etc...

Why should I bother to study the quran when even those who specialize in it do not agree about what it says? If even the experts can come up with arbitrary interpretations, it would be a waste of my time to do so since it seems that anything at all can be justified using the quran.

Just because there are differing opinions about some parts doesn't mean there is no meaning that can be reached, or that "anything" can be justified using the Quran, thats just a silly conclusion to put it lightly.

In the case of some verses there is indeed no definitive meaning, however that doesn't mean that there aren't interpretations that are more reasonable than others, or that in general such texts are ambiguous writings that one can't get any clear message from. Or that each different interpretation is actually a result of an honest attempt to understand whats being said. Obviously in many cases certain interpretations serve some people's purposes better than others.

In any case, we're going completely off topic. If you don't want to study the religions in question and judge for yourself, fine. However, what you also shouldn't do like i said, is conveniently pick the few bad examples of people and judge the religion based on them.

 

[Jacksnyte]

The burning of religious books has been documented in history many times before. Such heinous acts are a proof of the hatred of people towards a certain concept or teaching. However, contrary to the popular belief, the burning of religious books in not only limited to Quran. Many other religions have been a victim of such atrocious activities to subdue the person or religion behind a teaching or concept.
read more from http://www.quranreading.com/blog/islam-and-muslims/the-burning-of-quran-a-modern-act-of-barbarism/)(

As a bibliophile, I find the burning of ANY books reprehensible regardless of whether or not i like what is in them!