I like that you are inclusive of all Abrahamic religions, but could we just agree to not burn any books at all? It’s just a stupid act of violence and I don’t know what good it has ever achieved throughout history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_burning
If you look at my other comment, I’m not interested in destroying information, or preventing people from reading it. It’s specifically doing something that other people think they have the right to stop me from doing. And as such it serves to highlight those who are hiding the fact that they have a fascist mindset towards me and others.
To make this clearer, maybe the day after “burn a Qur’an day” should be “read the Qur’an day”.
I get your point and while we don’t know anything yet about the murder it’s likely linked to the guy‘s actions.
Let’s just go ahead and assume the people arrested killed him for real and they killed him for what he did. Then I think there really are no heroes in that story.
The guy was inciting hatred for which there was even a trial and it was a pointless act in the sense that I don’t see what good could potentially come from it.
Did he deserve to die for that? I’m against the capital punishment, so I think no one deserves to die for anything and I agree that the killers are fascists.
I’m just saying that burning books and executing people isn’t the kind of world I want to live in in general.
If you look at my other comment, I’m not interested in destroying information, or preventing people from reading it.
IDK. This has big MAGA “own the libs” vibes. Not in the sense that it’s a politically conservative act, but in the sense that it’s a reactionary act of pointless antagonism.
There are a great many films, songs, theatre productions and works of art over the decades that one could call “pointless antagonism”. Especially against religion and claims of power.
I’m not saying burning a Qur’an is “art”. I’m saying doing it is a health check on liberalism vs insipid religious privilege.
I don’t think antagonism is useful for its own sake in general, but specifically in the face of an ideology that would seek totalitarian control? Yes very much so.
We routinely enjoy productions from Hollywood and the like where the megalomaniac bad guy’s organisation is blown up and burned up the ground. Though no-one would ever get specifically offended by this. But it is what we like to do as a liberal society (the West as a whole). We burn and destroy pretenders to the throne and systems that want to enslave us. (Even capitalism see Fight Club etc etc)
That’s why I didn’t mean to single out Islam. I think religious fascism (or totalitarianism) in all its forms should be lampooned and figuratively (or literally) burned on a regular basis. I think being offensive to fascism is a vital part of speaking freely.
My caveat is that it should be easily avoidable by those who don’t want to see it. Staging a blasphemous Christian play at an art festival? Go for it. Projecting it on the wall of a church? No thanks. Burning a Qur’an in your own yard with friends and videoing it? Go for it. Outside a mosque? No thanks.
In Islamic law, believers must not damage the Quran and must perform a ritual washing before touching it.[1] Conversely, intentionally damaging copies is considered blasphemous in Islam. It is a point of controversy whether non-Muslims should be made to follow Islamic law,[2] and a sensitive topic in international relations how it should be handled when Muslims demand adherence to Islamic Quranic practices by nonbelievers.[3][4][5]
It is a point of controversy whether non-Muslims should be made to follow Islamic law
No controversy about it at all. The more that religious fascists insist on controlling others, the more it’s essential that people are free to express ridicule towards them.
I suppose the equivalent might be performing a play in which Christ is a child abuser or some musical parody of Auschwitz?
Those expressions should be avoidable though. So that if someone didn’t want to see it they are free to find something else to do. Harassing people (burning a Qur’an outside their home) would be wrong.
But saying I can’t do something just because that’s a rule for you? Fuck that. Get the matches.
I think that the article is saying that it’s a point of theological controversy. I.e. not all Muslims have an interpretation that non-Muslims are obliged to follow this rule.
I‘m Muslim and I have a huge mostly Muslim family and a large friend circle and I consume mostly Arabic media. We honestly don’t know who you are, we don’t care about you and we have better things to do than trying to enforce any laws on you.
Fun fact I have some atheists in my family and we did not behead or stone them. This might surprise you, but we have better things to do.
Sounds like it’s time to institute international Bible, Qur’an, Torah burning day…
I like that you are inclusive of all Abrahamic religions, but could we just agree to not burn any books at all? It’s just a stupid act of violence and I don’t know what good it has ever achieved throughout history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_burning
If you look at my other comment, I’m not interested in destroying information, or preventing people from reading it. It’s specifically doing something that other people think they have the right to stop me from doing. And as such it serves to highlight those who are hiding the fact that they have a fascist mindset towards me and others.
To make this clearer, maybe the day after “burn a Qur’an day” should be “read the Qur’an day”.
I wouldn’t see any contradiction in that
I get your point and while we don’t know anything yet about the murder it’s likely linked to the guy‘s actions.
Let’s just go ahead and assume the people arrested killed him for real and they killed him for what he did. Then I think there really are no heroes in that story.
The guy was inciting hatred for which there was even a trial and it was a pointless act in the sense that I don’t see what good could potentially come from it.
Did he deserve to die for that? I’m against the capital punishment, so I think no one deserves to die for anything and I agree that the killers are fascists.
I’m just saying that burning books and executing people isn’t the kind of world I want to live in in general.
IDK. This has big MAGA “own the libs” vibes. Not in the sense that it’s a politically conservative act, but in the sense that it’s a reactionary act of pointless antagonism.
There are a great many films, songs, theatre productions and works of art over the decades that one could call “pointless antagonism”. Especially against religion and claims of power.
I’m not saying burning a Qur’an is “art”. I’m saying doing it is a health check on liberalism vs insipid religious privilege.
I don’t think antagonism is useful for its own sake in general, but specifically in the face of an ideology that would seek totalitarian control? Yes very much so.
We routinely enjoy productions from Hollywood and the like where the megalomaniac bad guy’s organisation is blown up and burned up the ground. Though no-one would ever get specifically offended by this. But it is what we like to do as a liberal society (the West as a whole). We burn and destroy pretenders to the throne and systems that want to enslave us. (Even capitalism see Fight Club etc etc)
That’s why I didn’t mean to single out Islam. I think religious fascism (or totalitarianism) in all its forms should be lampooned and figuratively (or literally) burned on a regular basis. I think being offensive to fascism is a vital part of speaking freely.
My caveat is that it should be easily avoidable by those who don’t want to see it. Staging a blasphemous Christian play at an art festival? Go for it. Projecting it on the wall of a church? No thanks. Burning a Qur’an in your own yard with friends and videoing it? Go for it. Outside a mosque? No thanks.
I don’t think that Christians or Jews have an injunction against burning their scriptures; they won’t care. This is a quirk of Islam.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quran_desecration
No controversy about it at all. The more that religious fascists insist on controlling others, the more it’s essential that people are free to express ridicule towards them.
I suppose the equivalent might be performing a play in which Christ is a child abuser or some musical parody of Auschwitz?
Those expressions should be avoidable though. So that if someone didn’t want to see it they are free to find something else to do. Harassing people (burning a Qur’an outside their home) would be wrong.
But saying I can’t do something just because that’s a rule for you? Fuck that. Get the matches.
I think that the article is saying that it’s a point of theological controversy. I.e. not all Muslims have an interpretation that non-Muslims are obliged to follow this rule.
So only some Muslims want to enforce their law on us. Great. By what means?
I‘m Muslim and I have a huge mostly Muslim family and a large friend circle and I consume mostly Arabic media. We honestly don’t know who you are, we don’t care about you and we have better things to do than trying to enforce any laws on you.
Fun fact I have some atheists in my family and we did not behead or stone them. This might surprise you, but we have better things to do.