Koran burnings

(Note: see my below exchange with Daniel H. who points out the difference between burning a Koran and burning a Koran with bacon fat. His point, which I agree with, is that the first expresses defiance of Islam, the second gratuitously insults Muslims.)

Here’s a web page with a collection of Koran burning videos. The first one is of a man at the 9/11 rally in New York City yesterday tearing pages from a Koran and setting them afire with his cigarette lighter until police led him away. While I didn’t see the whole video because of technical problems, in the part that I did see, the man handled himself with dignity and made a good impression. I praise and honor this man.

What is the message of the Koran burners? It is, very simply: “We reject the vicious and evil ideology of Islam.” This is a very positive development. Once people recognize that the Koran is the problem, they have gone beyond the “moderate Islam” / “radical Islam” distinction which paralyzes true thought on the subject. They are recognizing that Islam itself is the problem.

Which brings us to the question: has a single establishment conservative supported the Koran burnings? Not that I know of. It seems to me that this is a defining issue. A person who supports Koran burnings is declaring that Islam is the problem, that Islam is our enemy, and that we owe that murderous and anti-human ideology no respect. A person who opposes Koran burnings is still saying, whether he realizes it or not, that we should respect Islam and not oppose it.

Take Michelle Malkin for example. Her lead story yesterday was entitled, “9/11 remembrance: Set your alarms and steel your resolve.” After invoking a series of heroes and victims and calling on us to remember each one, she concludes:

Remembrance is worthless without resolve.

Resolve is useless without action.

Start with a renewed pledge:

“I will not submit/surrender.”

It’s all very stirring. But—sorry to bring critical thought into the middle of this patriotic effusion—what is Malkin telling us to be resolved about? What is she telling us that we must do? Well, nothing in particular. So it’s resolve without an object. It’s an emotion of resolve without content, or at least without relevant and sufficient content. And this has been the deadly, paralyzing flaw in “anti-jihad” conservatism ever since the 9/11 attack. So long as our resolve is only to oppose “terrorists,” or “extremists,” or “radical Muslims,” we are continuing to legitimize Islam itself, to allow it to enter our country and expand its influence and power over us, with the inevitable result that we are, more and more, submitting and accommodating ourselves to it.

- end of initial entry -

Paul Nachman forwards this e-mail he sent to Samuel Goldsmith of the New York Daily News:

Mr. Goldsmith,

Your article “Man ignites Koran near Ground Zero,” (with Henrick Karoliszyn and Matthew Lysiak) starts out:

A hate-filled fanatic ripped pages out of a Koran and lit them aflame Saturday amid the chaos outside the planned community center and mosque near Ground Zero.

From your article, we learn no more about the man other than that he’s an “unidentified zealot.” An accompanying photo shows him with a mild (perhaps bemused) smile, not obviously consistent with the man being “hate-filled” or a “zealot.”

So, question: This is a news story?

Paul Nachman
Bozeman, Montana

Mr. Nachman is exactly right. The man who burned several pages from a Koran in downtown Manhattan on Saturday was mild mannered and dignified. He did nothing that expressed “hate” or that showed him to be a “fanatic.”

* * *

Daniel H. writes from Seattle:

I am glad to read about people burning copies of the Koran, and I wish to express my admiration for their courage. I agree with your assertion, which no one else seems to be capable of understanding, that this is not an act of censorship or anti-intellectuality, but an act of defiance. But separating this particular instance (or Jones’s non-instance) of burning a book, from all the pre-determined associations people have with the term “book burning” is surely far too much to ask from modern people, who have trouble with even the most basic intellectual concepts.

However, I do wonder about the inclusion of bacon fat and other “icing on the cake” touches. What purpose does this serve? To me, it takes a message that should be “I defy your philosophy; I defy your doctrines,” and turns it into “I spit on your culture; I mock your ancient ways.” I know I’m splitting hairs here, but that extra relish of desecration seems to rob this act of its simple dignity and turn it into one of gratuitous hate. It’s reminiscent of the sexual humiliation and use of dogs in Abu Ghraib (a radically different case, of course, but I say “reminiscent,” not “analogous”).

I know of course that the taboo against pork products is part of Islam, and in that sense could be considered coterminous with jihad, and I am also aware of Islamic efforts to spread halal food in the west. But really—and forgive me if I sound a bit like a multi-culti here—I have no problems with the dietary restrictions of the various faiths; these things are really just harmless color. Perhaps I’m being a killjoy by picking apart what is meant to be more of a joyous ejaculation than a considered argument, but I assert that as a considered argument, it would a stronger one without the hint of juvenile gloating that the bacon grease suggests. What do you think?

I hope you had a safe day, and please know that those of us around the country still pray for New York when we get these reminders of your loss and of the continuing threat you face.

LA replies:

You are making an excellent point that had been barely at the edge of my consciousness.

For example, late Saturday a reader sent me a series of seven photos consisting of cooking bacon, pouring bacon fat on a Koran, setting it afire, and so on. It was all done very well, and I prepared it for posting. Yet even as I was doing so, I felt uncomfortable about it. It was so “in your face” that, even though I had earlier posted a three photo series of a Koran burning, I felt that this series of photos was much more provocative and could get me killed. So I held off posting it.

And now, thanks to you, I understand at least part of what was making me uncomfortable. It’s one thing to say, “I express my total rejection of your evil belief system by burning your sacred book.” It’s another to say, “I insult and degrade you by burning your sacred book in pork fat.”

LA continues:

I would add that this does not mean that I have definitely decided that Koran burnings using pork fat should not be done; we are all thinking our way through this new territory for the first time. But at least now we have articulated the difference between a dignified, “mild” Koran burning and an insulting, “in your face” Koran burning.

September 12

Anne writes:

Many thanks. This has helped me, and I am sure many others, to clarify and thus strengthen our position on this issue. You are right about the emptiness of an “I will not submit” pledge. I think that is part of the frustration so many of us feel, that submission is being done for us, daily, and that there is scant little action we as individuals can take to stop it.

Charles T. writes:

You wrote:

I would add that this does not mean that I have definitely decided that Koran burnings using pork fat should not be done; we are all thinking our way through this new territory for the first time. But at least now we have articulated the difference between a dignified, “mild” Koran burning and an insulting, “in your face” Koran burning.

Perhaps regular, daily “in your face” defiance is exactly what the West needs to practice in order to turn back Islam and encourage Muslims to leave our lands.

I am not sure we will survive as the West, if we do not get “in your face” with Islam and reject it with many acts of insulting defiance both individuallly and collectively.

One thing we know for sure, Islam will never apologize for being Islam and for the great cruelties they have visited on other cultures and peoples. Since this is the case, should we have any respect for their culture at all?

Lydia McGrew writes:

Let’s not forget that Muslims have gratuitously made their “dietary restrictions” an instrument of subjugation for us here in the West. Some Muslim employees at ordinary stores refuse even to ring up pork-containing items (such as pizza), even when the items are covered with plastic wrap. Muslims in England want all-halal restaurants, where pork-containing items are entirely taken off the menu and not even available to other customers. Muslim children in one European country (Sweden, if I recall correctly) have actually started tearing up their classrooms when the teachers discussed topics like raising pigs.

Muslims are far more aggressive and ridiculous in the accommodations they demand to their aversion to pigs than, say, Jews. (You never hear of Jewish children rioting over discussions of pigs in the classroom.) This goes well beyond their merely choosing to observe dietary restrictions for themselves. Hence, defiance involving pigs and pork products does not seem gratuitous to me. There was, for example, a suggestion discussed earlier that the Ground Zero area be turned into a pig farm.

LA replies:

You wrote:

“Muslims are far more aggressive and ridiculous in the accommodations they demand to their aversion to pigs than, say, Jews…. This goes well beyond their merely choosing to observe dietary restrictions for themselves. Hence, defiance involving pigs and pork products does not seem gratuitous to me.”

Very interesting point. At the same time, Burning their holy book in pig fat is a deliberate insult that goes well beyond both their aggression involving the prohibition of pork, and well beyond our idea of rejecting the Koran and Islam. It muddies our message.

Charles T. writes:

Further thoughts on this. You wrote:

It was so “in your face” that, even though I had earlier posted a three photo series of a Koran burning, I felt that this series of photos was much more provocative and could get me killed. So I held off posting it.

Yes, discretion is many times the better part of valor. There are times to hold off and times to roar forward. When I saw photos of the Koran burning yesterday, I thought about your safety and the safety of other bloggers as well. The threat is real.

Daniel H. wrote:

I hope you had a safe day, and please know that those of us around the country still pray for New York when we get these reminders of your loss and of the continuing threat you face.

These are my thoughts as well. The content of your work and the discretion of your presentation is much appreciated.

Bartholemew writes:

I concur with the reader who wrote, “that extra relish of desecration seems to rob this act of its simple dignity and turn it into one of gratuitous hate.”

This is precisely the correct choice of words: hatred. Christ called us to love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us. When do we ever delight in desecrating something sacred to one whom we love? That sounds like mere Schadenfreude and, as far as I understand, it’s never been shown to be consistent with Christian virtue, in whose defense of course we fight.

Make no mistake: I completely support burning the Koran and would have burned my own copy, except I do not want to pay for a replacement and thereby financially aid our enemies (I received my own copy for free from CAIR a few years ago).

The act isn’t the issue; it’s the spirit in which it is done. It’s not the feelings of the Muslims I’m concerned about; let them burn their own cities down and show thereby the futility of their heathen rage. The issue is the damage our countrymen do to their own souls when they reject the Christian duty to love one’s enemies.

Those men who resolutely, calmly and without flinching burn the Koran have done well, as far as I can see. I don’t mean either to imply support for cowardly, unmanly or slinking hesitance. Burn it with confidence!

September 23

Robert B. writes:

Here was the meaning behind my symbolism with the burning of the Koran

Pork fat—a substance known to be anathema to Moslems, but a staple of Western food supplies. Europeans did not have the climate restrictions (constant heat) that lead desert dwellers to ban pork due to its possible poisoning effect. Pork is much cheaper than lamb or beef. Its also a good fuel for hastening the burning.

The dog; Moslems consider dogs dirty and are also anathema. Dogs are part of the very fabric of Western society. Nothing could be more Western than an English Springer Spaniel. The dog is seen sniffing the book—the dog itself disdains the Koran—it would not lick it. in point of fact, my dog and I have had encounters with Somali Moslems, they do not like one another and its quite obvious. The dog (and its owner) does not back down—the Somalis do.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at September 12, 2010 02:04 AM | Send