In defence of burning books

So a gun-toting yeehah Southern-fried man of God in the good ole U S of A is going to hold a Koran-burning ceremony.

Not particularly respectful or in good taste, I'm sure you'd agree. Downright offensive to Muslims, one might think. Possibly inflammatory, in fact.

Lots of people are getting very upset about that prospect, and everyone from Hillary Clinton to newspapers in the Arab world have called for the event to be cancelled.

While some people have expressed their distaste for the offence offered to Islam, most are more concerned about the possible ramifications of this activity. They have raised the spectre of the riots across the Muslim world that followed the publication of the Danish Mohammed cartoons being repeated.

Amid all of this, almost no one has pointed out that burning books in itself is distasteful and ignorant and achieves nothing in real terms. The knowledge contained therein does not die, just the dignity of the arsonists.

But while Pastor Jones is undoubtedly a fool, he has one valid point to make. Why should the West continue to tiptoe around the psychosis of radical Islam for fear of offending people who are, at the very least, as idiotic and backward as the Pastor himself?

"Instead of us backing down, maybe it's time to stand up. Maybe it's time to send a message to radical Islam that we will not tolerate their behaviour," he told Associated Press.

It seems to me that the reason he shouldn't burn the Korans is because burning books is an act of profound ignorance. But he should not be prevented from doing so for fear of offending Medieval lunatics like the Taliban, the mass murderers of Al Qaeda or the Wahhabist psychotics running Saudi.

If Islam is truly a religion of tolerance, then its adherents will see this act for what it is - attention-seeking by a retard - and ignore it.

If however, Islam is dominated by those keen to seek out offence, quick to anger, ready to riot at the perception of a slight, and prepared to refute the pluralism and tolerance that permits their freedom of religion in the West, then they will indeed set fire to their own towns, protest at embassies and issue fatwahs demanding Pastor Jones' head on a spike.

And if that does occur, then Pastor Jones will have succeeded in a very real way in exposing the hypocrisy at the heart of Islam - a creed that demands to be tolerated where it has no rule but tolerates no plurality where it rules.

Let us not forget that a woman accused of adultery still faces death by stoning in Iran. Let us not forget the oppression offered by the Talibanin Afghanistan. Let us not forget that there is no freedom of religion in many Muslim-dominated countries.

It's time for Islam to grow up, and they can demonstrate that maturity by ignoring Pastor Jones' little stunt.

Is the Indo systemically anti-Muslim?

Certainly, some Muslims seem to think so.

As far as I'm aware, there have been at least two complaints to the Press Council and Ombudsman from Irish based Muslims about articles that appeared in the Irish Independent.

One was a somewhat inflammatory piece by commentator Kevin Myers, whose flights of fancy I've previously examined here.

The other complaint apparently relates to Ian O'Doherty (airbrushed above), whose otherwise interesting and light-hearted column I-Spy is regularly marred by his blinkered defence of all things Neo-Con or Israeli, and his blanket demonising of Islam.

After yet another crack about Shariah law in Ireland from Ian, a large number of Irish Muslims finally had enough and collectively wrote a letter to the editor, which was published in today's edition.

What I found intriguing, though, is that the grammar of the letter was sporadically abysmal. Not consistently so, just sporadically so, almost as if errors had been deliberately inserted to make the writers look stupid.

What errors JC, I hear you ask with my now well-known superpower of being able to hear your thoughts over the interweb?

Errors like: "Let us start with Saudi Arabia as an example quote by himcountry in the world named after a family..."

Or "We would also like to point out to yourMuslims were unmatched in the advances in the fields of mathematics..."

Or "It is similar to what the British didthe IRA was bombing Britain."

Now, some of the signatories included at least two consultant surgeons, not to mention other doctors, as well as 'students, shopkeepers and housewives.'

Either we are to believe that they took it in turns writing a line each, which might explain why a letter that is otherwise coherent and eloquent could include a series of incomprehensible grammar clangers.

Or we could assume that the Indo butchered the letter for their own impenetrable reasons.

I wonder which it is? Could the Indo be so systematically anti-Muslim as to deliberately make a community of Muslims out to be illiterate?

Fitna

There are fears of a major, violent reaction to the release on the internet of the short film, below, by bouffant blond Dutch right-wing politician Geert Wilders.

Nevertheless, it is always wrong to bow to threats of violence.

Therefore, with the aim of supporting freedom of speech, I am reproducing 'Fitna' below.

It's short, and it seeks to examine the influence of Quranic verses on contemporary Islamic terrorism.

In that way, it is simplistic. It is also provocative. But like Richard Dawkins, I believe that religions are not exempt from criticism, nor are religious faiths or teachings immune to critical appraisal.

This is what Wilders has sought to do. For that he can be commended, debated or condemned.

But it is wrong for anyone to be physically harmed or threatened because he has sought to do this, and I hope that does not arise.

I have loved every Arab nation I ever visited. I have spent contemplative time in many mosques. I have no less respect for Islam than any other religion, ie I have none for any of them.

I do feel that the grip of fundamentalist Islam on some people is the single worst aspect of Arab states, never mind places like Iran, Bangladesh, the 'stans.

Muslims need to accept, as increasingly Judaism and Christianity have done, that their religion is not impervious or immune to criticism.

If Muslims can respond to Geert Winders differently to how they responded to the Danish cartoonists and Salman Rushdie, by debating rather than destroying, that would be progress towards alleviating Western fears of Islam.

By their silence, their nonchalance, their refusal to be provoked by Winders, they can prove themselves better human beings.

I give you 'Fitna'.

Happy Hajj

Belated happy holidays to everyone. I had a suitably grumpy Christmas, and am now back online to rant again.

First up, though, let's move away from the Christian fairy tale for a moment to consider some other ones. Apparently six million people celebrate Kwanzaa in North America each year.

It's a week long celebration of pan-African culture that runs, conveniently for those seeking to extend their Christmas break into New Year, from the 26th of December to the 1st of January.

It's also totally made up. Some random Marxist invented it in the heady counterculture days of the late Sixties, because he reckoned that 'Jesus was a psychotic' that black people should distance themselves from.

Fast forward to today and George Bush is dishing out the patronising 'Happy Kwanzaa' wishes.

Maybe black citizens of the US and other places should pay more attention to their African origins (which are predominantly West African rather than the East African celebrations pastiched in Kwanzaa, incidentally). But spoof festivals made up by muppets who can't even spell in Swahili surely aren't the answer.

A much bigger party is set to kick off over at Mecca/Makkah though. The annual Hajj, wherein the world's Muslim population is encouraged to gather in a tent city in the Saudi desert and re-enact the trials of Abraham, is this coming week.

No doubt, the duty of a Muslim to pay this pilgrimage weighs heavily on many. And many save for years and dedicate their lives to the experience of doing their hajj. And equally no doubt, hundreds of those who attend this once-in-a-lifetime pilgrimage will die as a result.

Surely it is time for someone, either in Islamic religious authority or in the Saudi regime, to stand up and say that it is no longer practical for a community that now numbers over 1.2 billion people to converge on a desert for a week at a time this year, all circling the ka'aba at once, all stoning the pillars at once, all listening to the sermon in the desert at the same time.

Of course, the full 1.2 billion Muslims do not all attend the hajj at once. But at least 2.5 million do each year, plenty more than the authorities can cope with. And the annual mass deaths that occur as a result of stampeding and crushing are the evidence that no infrastructure exists to deal with the movement of so many people.

Let's review recent statistics, kindly gathered by the BBC:

2006: 345 die in a crush during a stone-throwing ritual

2004: 251 trampled to death in stampede

2003: 14 are crushed to death

2001: 35 die in stampede

1998: At least 118 trampled to death

1997: 343 pilgrims die and 1,500 injured in fire

1994: 270 killed in stampede

1990: 1,426 pilgrims killed in tunnel leading to holy sites

1987: 400 die as Saudi authorities confront pro-Iranian demonstration

That's a lot of deaths for what should be a celebratory religious festival. One wonders how come people consistently die in their hundreds at the Hajj when 70 million can gather in the one spot for the Hindu Kumbh Mela in 2003 with only 39 deaths due to stampeding.

Yet somehow, mass deaths and the Hajj seem to go hand in hand, more years than not. So to anyone heading for the Hajj, I wish you all the best. Keep those elbows out and don't fall over, whatever you do.

For some, the real problem with the Hajj is that the lack of a quota system means that some affluent Muslims can fly in for the pilgrimage annually, while others never get a hope of going throughout their lives.

For others, it's putting their safety in the hands of the Saudi authorities, the same guys who have overseen all the stampedes listed above. Already there has been one large fire in Mecca, injuring 16 people. How many more will die this year?

Fair Play, Red Ken

Fair play to London's mayor, 'Red' Ken Livingstone for being probably the only politician in this hemisphere to own up to the fact that Muslims are being vilified on an unprecedented scale.

According to Ken, nonsense 'debates' like that about the veil have been deliberately fomented in order to avert the public's eye away from real issues, such as the devastation of Muslim Iraq by the British and American militaries.

"Over recent weeks we have seen a demonisation of Muslims only comparable to the demonisation of Jews from the end of the 19th century," says Ken.

This is actually a very useful analogy. Will we ultimately involve ourselves in statebuilding for the Muslim peoples we are currently occupying and killing, or will we simply commit genocide upon them? Or will we do both, as we did with the Jews?

In today's world, old habits continue to die hard. While the US-led occupation has directly caused over 650,000 excess deaths in Iraq, we are still being told that Muslims are the 'terrorists' - a word which itself has become a grubby, meaningless mantra parrotted by those who invariably have the most blood on their hands.

Robert Fisk's superlative book 'The Great War for Civilisation', which is perhaps the only primer on the mess that is the Middle East any of us will ever need, makes this very point in such wonderful prose that it is worth quoting in full:

Terrorism is a word that has become a plague on our vocabulary, the excuse and reason and moral permit for state-sponsored violence - our violence - which is now used on the innocent of the Middle East ever more outrageously and promiscuously. Terrorism, terrorism, terrorism. It has become a full stop, a punctuation mark, a phrase, a speech, a sermon, the be-all and end-all of everything that we must hate in order to ignore injustice and occupation and murder on a mass scale.

Terror, terror, terror, terror. It is a sonata, a symphony, an orchestra tuned to every television and radio station and news agency report, the soap opera of the Devil, served up on prime time or distilled in wearyingly dull and mendacious form by the right-wing 'commentators' of the American east coast or the Jerusalem Post or the intellectuals of Europe.

Strike against terror. Victory over terror. War on terror. Everlasting war on terror. Rarely in history have soldiers and journalists and presidents and kings aligned themselves in such thoughtless, unquestioning ranks. In August 1914, the soldiers thought they would be home by Christmas. Today, we are fighting forever. The war is eternal. The enemy is eternal, his face changing on our screens.

Once he lived in Cairo and sported a moustache and nationalised the Suez canal. Then he lived in Tripoli and wore a ridiculous military uniform and helped the IRA and bombed American bars in Berlin. Then he wore a Muslim Imam's gown and ate yogurt in Tehran and planned Islamic revolution. Then he wore another white gown and lived in a cave in Afghanistan and then he wore another silly moustache and resided in a series of palaces around Baghdad. Terror, terror, terror, terror.

When you hear the word 'terror', now is the time to stop, think and listen. To what extent are those dispossessed of their land, homes and even lives 'terrorists' in Palestine, while those who committed those evils upon them are not?

If North Korea and Iran are 'terrorists' for seeking to develop a nuclear bomb, how is America, the only country to use one, not?

If Saddam Hussein was a terrorist for invading Kuwait, how come those who invaded Iraq repeatedly in the past century - ie Britain and America - are not terrorists?

Terrorism is the word used to stop people questioning the persecution of Muslims in Western interests. And this brings me back to Red Ken.

"The attack on Muslims in reality threatens freedoms for all of us, which took hundreds of years to win - freedom of conscience and freedom of cultural expression. Every person who values their right to follow the religion of their choice or none should stand with the Muslim communities today."

We are living in Orwell's world of perpetual war, shifting enemies and Newspeak news broadcasts. If you truly value your freedom, the freedoms that Ken refers to, then the rejection of the 'terror' terminology and the defence of Muslim freedom of cultural expression and self-determination are the only things standing between you and total acquiescence to the Big Brother state.