Jones burned the Koran, he says, because it inspires violence against non-Muslims. Muslim fanatics turned around and proved his point by committing koranically inspired violence against non-Muslims.
Sometimes the obvious needs to be stated, especially when there is so much at stake. In this case, what is at stake are not only human lives but also the very heart of individual freedom. Because of violent reactions from many in the Muslim world, American politicians are seriously considering enacting anti-Constitutional restrictions on free speech, a shocking treachery that plays right into the hands of fascists.
"Here's the obvious: Jones burned the Koran, he says, because it inspires violence against non-Muslims. Muslim fanatics turned around and proved his point by committing koranically inspired violence against non-Muslims."
I refer, of course, specifically to the fracas wherein Christian fundamentalist preacher Terry Jones "tried," "convicted" and then burned a copy of the Muslim holy book, the Koran, with the typical violent response from thousands of rabid Muslims rampaging and murdering. Here's the obvious: Jones burned the Koran, he says, because it inspires violence against non-Muslims. Muslim fanatics turned around and proved his point by committing koranically inspired violence against non-Muslims.
Naturally, instead of the blame for the murders and mayhem being laid at the feet of the killers, Jones is being assailed for the carnage, as if burning a book is comparable to murdering human beings!
"Saudi Arabia and other Muslim areas burn hundreds to thousands of Korans every year... Saudi forces are alleged to have burned a Koran in Bahrain just this past week."
It should be noted that Saudi Arabia and other Muslim areas burn hundreds to thousands of Korans every year, in order to dispose of them. Saudi forces are even alleged to have burned a Koran in Bahrain just this past week, while destroying a mosque there. Did Afghans and others go out and slaughter Saudis because of this act of desecration? No, because the Afghan president didn't get them all riled up, like he did with the infidel Terry Jones. Why not blame Hamid Karzai, then, for the savage behavior of his constituents?
It's obviously not the burning that's the problem but the criticism; it's the pointing out that the Koran and Islam are violent which sadly elicits this violence. The restrictions on our speech and expressions will not cease with a ban on burning the Koran; we will be further compelled not to "insult" Islam, Mohammed and the Koran in any way, shape or form, including telling the truth. We will then simply be dhimmis or second-class citizens in a global Islamic caliphate under sharia law. That's how it works.
"We simply cannot allow our freedom of speech and expression to be destroyed."
So what do our politicians do? They capitulate to this egregious assault on our freedoms, forcing us into cowed dhimmitude and proving that violence and terrorism pay, so long as they are part of a religion. We simply cannot allow our freedom of speech and expression to be destroyed - these civilized liberties and human rights are what distinguish us from savagery and tyranny.
Houston, we've got a problem - and it's been around a lot longer than Terry Jones. And it's going to get a whole lot worse if we keep appeasing and allowing that thin edge to wedge itself any further. Time for the world to wake up!
Who is to blame?
Someone once told me about another person burning my first book, The Christ Conspiracy. Although I take my work very seriously, I laughed when I heard that. I did not go on a violent rampage, slaughtering dozens of innocent people. If I had, would the person who burned my book be to blame in any way?
"Saudis and other Muslims regularly burn, spit on, urinate on or otherwise desecrate Bibles."
Moreover, the Saudis and other Muslims regularly burn, spit on, urinate on or otherwise desecrate Bibles - do these acts cause Christians to rampage through the streets and national governments to condemn the instigators? Are these desecrators of non-Muslim holy texts being hauled off, having their freedom of expression removed - a religious right, in their eyes?
We are constantly reminded not to blame Islam for the bad behavior of countless Muslims, so why are Muslims excused for murdering people whose only "crime" is being a non-Muslim in the wrong place at the wrong time?
Are Muslims being held to a different - lower - standard? To be coddled like violent sociopathic children or treated like subhuman animals who just can't control themselves? Isn't that a more derogatory perspective of Muslims than is criticizing their "holy text," full of hatred and calls to violence against non-Muslims?
In deflecting the blame off the killers and restricting non-Muslim freedoms, Islamist fanatics will simply learn that violence pays, like schoolyard bullies who are never dealt with. This sort of censorial cowardice could be considered negotiating with terrorists!
Muslim-on-Muslim crimes against humanity
And where is the outrage against "Islamically sanctioned" carnage perpetrated by Muslims against other Muslims? Like the victims of this latest uproar, are the Muslim Bengalis, as one infamous example, to blame somehow for provoking their own genocide, which has been forgotten by the world? Are hundreds of thousands of murders and rapes of Bengalis unworthy of outrage, while a book is to be protected by all means, including slaughter as well as tyrannical restrictions of freedom? The very book used to justify these atrocities?
Kasem: Born in Bangladesh, I attended the secular schools as well as underwent strict religious discipline, and digested religious preaching.... When I was nine, a typical Mulla taught me the Islamic rituals (like prayer, ablution, fasting), and how to recite the Qur’an correctly. He also taught us that Muslims are the only inheritors of the earth, that we must never mix with the non-Muslims, we must hate them, humiliate them verbally, and if possible, physically.
In high school, I discovered a world beyond Islam. I met a few Hindus and two Christians. I found them extremely polite, peace-loving, sincere, and affable. Unfortunately, communal riots broke out in India and Bangladesh (then known as East Pakistan ). One of my Hindu friends was brutally murdered by Islamist fanatics. This was a life-changing experience, as I witnessed the mutilated dead bodies of my friend, his parents, and siblings. When I discussed this with a few Muslim gentlemen (moderate Muslims) they told me that the Hindus deserved to be killed; there should not be any Hindus in our Muslim land. Further, I learned from them that in Islam, there is a great reward for killing the non-Muslims.
"A local Imam took out a Qur'an, read a few verses, and told me the genocide and mass-rape was a hundred percent Islamic-sanctioned."
In a few years our struggle for autonomy took the shape of a Liberation Movement, seeking freedom from economic and political domination of West Pakistan, which was a strict Islamic country. In 1971 the Islamic Army of Pakistan let loose a genocide, killing around 3 million Bengalis, and raping around 250,000 Bengali women. Local Islamists helped their barbarity in every way. They justified their actions by Qur’an, ahadith, and Sharia laws. After independence, I talked about it with a local Imam. He took out a Qur’an, read a few verses, and told me the genocide and mass-rape was a hundred percent Islamic-sanctioned. He said the Bengali Muslims have deviated widely from the real Islam, and as such, they deserve Allah’s punishment, and the Pakistani army did just that to purify us. Shocked, I decided to read the theological sources of Islam.
What I discovered horrified me. It was beyond my comprehension that a religion, touted to be the religion of peace could contain such blood-curdling, terrifying, barbaric verses, cultures, and laws to entice the entire Islamic community to slaughter the infidels and the not-so-good Muslims....
There is much, much more at that must-read article, including lists of the numerous koranic verses and hadiths used over the centuries to justify violence to the tune of some 270 million dead. Is it really difficult to understand why someone would object to such a book?