I think that you have to look at the motive of the one doing the burning PDM. If the motive is to stir up anger, then I agree with you 100%. If the motive is to protest violence and the threat of violence, I disagree with you 100%.

The fact is that those who preach Jihad preach hatred, intolerance and war. Jihad means "struggle." To struggle with one's own faith, to struggle with living Islam as a community and to struggle with the non-Muslim world through Holy War. These are the three meanings of the word.

Some Muslims say that only extremists are involved in the latter interpretation and that they are not true Muslims. They say that Al Queda and the Talaban are not Muslim at all.

This is just another fine example of the interpretation of holy books being twisted to mean what the reader wishes it to mean.

I heard today of a woman in Indonesia being publicly beaten with a cane because she sold goods on a Muslim holiday. This happened just the other day in Indonesia. This beating was ordered by the state. Is that extreme? I dunno. Is that single act of brutality in the name of Islam something that should be tolerated? Um...I dunno that either.

I know there are extremists in all religions. That kind of goes with the territory. Extremists do one thing really well. They provoke. And they impose their beliefs on others. And they do these things with a lot of passion.

It's one thing to listen to ideological differences on the personal level, but when religion and politics are combined...we have a very dangerous thing. That's what we have today. And that's what we are talking about here.

I would burn a book. I would burn a book as a sign of protest. I would never burn a book to purge information. Not ever. But...I would burn a book as a sign of protest. And protest inevitably offends someone. Namely, the ones you are protesting against.

Imagine back in the day that people dared to burn the Nazi flag. The SS would have been offended. Imagine when people, who being occupied by American or British forces, have burned flags. Those forces and empires would have been offended.

Burning is a sign of protest. It should always be okay to protest.

Jihad is what it is. If it's more than rhetoric, it's something that should be met head on and squashed.

But burning the Qu'ran is not protesting against extremists and extremism; it is condemning an entire religion and all of its members.

Islam has been involved in artistic, medical and academic advances.
Islamic people have suffered.

Most Muslims probably just want to get on with their lives.

Of course we should condemn extremism and terrorism, but not everyone who respects the Qu'ran is an extremist.

If it were the holy book of the extremists then I would still advise caution, because of the can of worms that might be opened, and because of the idea of 'let he who is without sin burn the first book', but I would understand it and say that people should be free to do it.

I still say that people should be able to do it without being in fear of their lives, but I also say that it is wrong to insult the multitude of law-abiding Muslims going about their business ~ especially when you consider what the West has done to Muslims.

Look at Guantanamo, Palestine, Iraq ~ the Crusades even. Muslims have suffered at the hands of 'the West'. The thing is, they wouldn't burn 'Western' Bibles because they respect them too much.

You cannot compare Islam with Nazism. Islam includes all Muslims. Nazism included only Nazis.

I will criticise certain aspects of Islam as much as anyone if I disapprove ~ and I have done so ~ but burning the Qu'ran does not show disapproval of extremism ~ indeed, I would say that it really shows ignorance of Islam in general.

round and round the mulberry tree....

first of all to get a few facts straight.

there are not two billion muslims in the world. 1.55 billion at the most. quite a big difference. also, the usa is not 30 odd percent muslim. estimates between 1 and 2 percent are more realistic. these misrepresentations are due in part to islamophobic paranoia on the part of america, and delusions of grandeur on the part of the muslim world. islam is not the force it is made out to be in the western world.

jihad, as explained to me by muslim friends is more about a personal journey of learning. like the old man in kim looking for his river. the connotations with holy war are largely a western superimposition and misinterpretation which has been adopted by muslim extremists.




this statement is a total crock. are you implying that westerners fight honourably whereas islamic fighters do not? it doesn't matter who you are or how you do it there is no honour in war. how exactly is firebombing retreating iraqi soldiers on the basra highway any more honourable than planting ied's?? this is a non argument, and if anything the west are the cowards for hiding behind all their military technology.if you don't think the mujahaddin are proper soldiers then read up on how they kicked the russians out of afghanistan.

furthermore, this seems to be getting discussed as though terry jones is making an intelligent and considered protest. he is not. his world view does not extend far beyond god, the devil and ugg. he is an ignorant bigoted idiot, who does not have the intelligence to realise just how foolish he is being. there is no reason to take him any more seriously that a bunch of hysterical syrians burning an american flag.

if you have something to protest about, then enter an intelligent debate. if all you can manage is to smear excrement in your opponents face then its probably best for everyone if you keep your mouth shut. don't forget, if you acknowledge his right to make this protest then in his mind you are probably in support of teaching creationism, bombing abortion clinics and hanging gays. i for one wouldn't want to give him that impression.

Nice discussion.

Can't support burning the religious holy book of any religion.

(Though, Jani - your muslim friends might not have been honest with you in relation to the meaning of 'Jihad')

hey som. long time no see...

i think someone above said that islam is as many faceted as chrtistianity with its thousands of subdenominations. among the christians there are many wildly differing interpretations of what constitutes a sin. i see no reason to disbelieve that definitions of jihad could vary just as widely.

But Helwa, the Muslim lady who used to post on the forum, said that 'Islam is really NOT up for negotiation or interpretation ... it is what it is ... its black and white.'

So I am a bit confused on that subject.

Hi Somsuj


No, it feels wrong to me, whatever the aim ~ though it's interesting to wonder why people feel like this, generally.

I don't think that it is particularly about respecting the religion, but more about treating others with respect ~ ie: do as you would be done by.

This minister does not respect Islam or Muslims ~ yet he expects other people to respect his beliefs. That's hardly fair.

Does he talk about '9/11' just to get people on board with him, or does he actually believe that this disaster was the work of Islam as a whole ~ rather than of extremists?

Muslims were killed there, too.
Plus - there is still much controversy about what actually happened.

Does he think that Islamic nations have done more harm than Christian nations ~ based on the Qu'ran?
That has got to be debatable.

Certainly I do not approve of terrorism carried out by anyone, and I am very much against other things that may be done in the name of Islam, like honour killing, etc, but not all Muslims carry this out this kind of thing, by a long way ~ and it is not only Muslims who carry this out, so, though religion is involved, so is culture. The two are very hard to separate.

I suppose that if it is decided that the Qu'ran cannot be burned, or those cartoons cannot be published ~ out of fear ~ then that could be considered giving in to terrorism. This has been suggested to me.

There was a programme on TV over here, recently, counting down the 100 most offensive media items. I wondered why on earth anything so horrible should be on. It reported on some really unpleasant items. And then it got to the 'number one' spot ~ it was the cartoon that had offended Islam. After all the disgusting things that they had been free to show, they were frightened to show these drawings ~ and they said as much.

Was this on a par with the Minister being warned off burning the Holy Book?

Is it the case that he should not have burned it, but out of respect for decent people ~ not out of fear of extremists?

PDM,

In my opinion, the cartoons should have been non-offensive to most. It showed a distinct lack of understanding of humour.

I do understand some people having problem with the cartoons - like people who had problem with 'Life of Brian' or 'Jesus Christ Superstar' etc . . But what we saw following the cartoons was different.

I think one needs to understand that -
1. Prophet was a man
2. To someone who is not a muslim, prophet is just any other (wise) man.
3. One can always make fun of another man.
_________________

Helwa's comment that you have mentioned is closer to reality.
_________________

Jani,

You may need to look into incidences of 'Jihad' from historical perspective - who declared Jihad, when, against whom, with what intent etc . . . and that might lead you to the true nature of Jihad.

It's sad that people cannot respect other people's beliefs ~ and, also, other people's opinions ~ even if individuals might be offended or upset by them.

You Janimal as I have seen Estimates of 2.3 billion all the way dow to 1.2 billion I was simply rounding in the round numbers. Much of what we see in "Facts" depends on where the numbers come from, how the calculus was hashed out, how old the census numbers were and so on.



Figured in the 100th percentile of real Religion numbers the numbers of Muslims is actually about 32%. I apologize if I did not make this distinction in my text earlier. Just like the percentage of real Christians is ~30% the percentage of real followers of Islam is ~32% when considering the whole of all the religious followers as one big number.

I really am not sure how many people in the USA are religious at this point. That is not a number of which I have ran across in recent times. Quite honestly I am just quoting numbers that I have recently experienced in class. I would be very leary of where I get my numbers especially if it is not from the latest census which I am not really sure if those numbers have even been tallied yet. If you find this out please let me know OK?