New Controversies around the Desecration of the Quran

[Anomalocaris]

So then it isn't about destroying the book.

Again spiritual perspective:
 
The only issue with the book is how much of it you are able to understand from that book. And that works for all religious scriptures. And there are stories in which the message is: “You can cast aside all religious practices if you want to, for only God knows who is able to understand spiritual realities and who is not”.
 
So this is just another act of provocation.
 
Another spiritual perspective:
 
This is the human ego to it’s extreme. In a country like Sweden you can really blame the lack of education or the dysfunctional family of this guy. This is just the limited sense of self. The failure of an individual to connect with something that is present in all human beings. Instead of being connected to our common denominator (B), he is connected to a fear-based sense of identity (A). And the issue of all true religion is to try to move from A to B.
 
This guy is very close to (A) but he has (as a human being) the ability to wake up to what he really is (See “American History X” – 1998). And that’s why we as spiritual people tend to focus on that rather to attack this guy.
 
Still: I am a believer in some legal consequences to actions like that in countries with important Muslim minorities

Spiritual perspective = made up perspective.

Why is some made up perspective to be allowed to trample on others but not allowed to be tramped upon by others?

[Anomalocaris]

I have a problem with people who complains about specific books being burned mainly because they like the fact that the book in question tells them to go burn other books, Or to desecrate other people’s cultural heritages.

Two wrongs don’t necessarily make a right,  but often the second wrong is very essential to preventing the first wrong from continuing to do ever more disastrously wrong.


The very reaction Muslims to the destruction of the Koran shows they do not admit other books to deserve the same protection.    Respecting their sensitivity in this respect is therefore to condone their trampling of less overbearing and more cosmopolitan sensitivities. 

When the same Muslims at least express regarded at the burning of other people’s holy books, then their sensitivity at the burning  of Koran may begin to be taken seriously.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Two wrongs don’t necessarily make a right,  but often the second wrong is very essential to preventing the first wrong from continuing to do ever more disastrously wrong.

Your preventing anything your just being an equally irrational dick. 

The very reaction Muslims to the destruction of the Koran shows they do not admit other books to deserve the same protection .

What they think is irrelevant  

    Respecting their sensitivity in this respect is therefore to condone their trampling of less overbearing and more cosmopolitan sensitivities. 

Not being a dick yourself is not endorsing being a dick

When the same Muslims at least express regarded at the burning of other people’s holy books, then their sensitivity at the burning  of Koran may begin to be taken seriously.

They don't need to care about other books for us not to burn theirs.

[Anomalocaris]

When their book preaches burning other books, their violent sensitivity about their book being burned implies they absolutely don’t mind burning other people’s books under the pretext of valuing their own book.

There is nothing intrinsically irrational about stopping force with force.   There is often a good deal of irrationality in the assessment that force never needs force to stop.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

This was a main event that was treated in the news today. A Neo-Nazi idiot called Rasmus Paludan burned the Quran in front of the Turkish Embassy in Sweden. Sweden seems to think it’s a liberty of expression, I rather think it’s a hate crime.

A waste of good toilet paper.

[The Architect Of Fate]

When their book preaches burning other books, their violent sensitivity about their book being burned implies they absolutely don’t mind burning other people’s books under the pretext of valuing their own book.

What their book does or doesn't say is irrelevant. We shouldn't be burning anybodys book period...

There is nothing intrinsically irrational about stopping force with force.   There is often a good deal of irrationality in the assessment that force never needs force to stop.

There is something fundamentally irrational about being as much of a jackass as the people you are resisting.

[Leonardo17]

When their book preaches burning other books, their violent sensitivity about their book being burned implies they absolutely don’t mind burning other people’s books under the pretext of valuing their own book.

There is nothing intrinsically irrational about stopping force with force.   There is often a good deal of irrationality in the assessment that force never needs force to stop.

That’s another issue I’m trying to solve here. Look at this guy for instance:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/anjem-choudar...08868.html
 
The name is Anjem Choudary. What I really don’t like about this guys is this: See A Neo-Nazi that burns holy scriptures to attack minorities does not claim to be a democrat / or a socialist for instance. At least you can thrust them to be completely disoriented folks who believe in a completely distorted ideology. (And that’s why Germany has banned the use of Nazi propaganda materials + the use of swastikas or other Nazi symbols in public areas).
 
The issue with political islamists, Islamism extremism or Wahabi / Salafist ideologies, Islamic republics or even İslamic Kingdoms is this:
 
They are not humble enough to accepts that their view about Islam is only their view about Islam. These guys are unable to do that. For these people their view about Islam is “The only true interpretation of Islam” (And this should remind you of other similar western institutions that existed before the reforms of Luther etc.). And this makes them quite dangerous. First they are a danger to themselves. Than they are a danger to everyone else.
 
Ex: In Turkey we have this very famous “Martyr of the Republic” called Mustafa Fehmi Kubilay (by the way I have the same second name with him). He was a 24 Year old army Officer who ended up being killed by political İslamists mobs. You may read more about him here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustafa_Fehmi_Kubilay
 
This was because those “Muslims” did not like the idea of becoming a free independent / secular republic. So in my culture this is described as pure evil. Why? Because, as a culture, we are not that secular. Meaning that most people are still very tied to their religious culture and traditions. I can comfortably say that many of us are not that related to atheism or agnosticism. A bit like Brazilians or Americans for instance. And again, another cultural phenomenon, we tend to value our military a lot. And if you add to that that this event happened just a few years after the end of the war of independence (another very important issue for the great majority of us) you can more easily see what I mean by that.
 
Some people call these folk “simply evil persons”. I like to call them “typical ego dominated personalities”. Because everything about them is so typical of the ego (as described by Greek philosophers or eastern religions like Buddhism etc.).
 
 
1) They are complete hypocrites: What they preach and what they do with themselves is so typically unrelated.
2) They pretend to know everything + they really think they know everything yet their behavior shows you that you would be able to trust any Haitian gang member more than any of those guys.
 
So I understand that I am among atheists and I respect that. But the issue here is cultural. I think that many western nations are being too ethnocentric toward these guys. The fact that they are not Christians or Atheist does not make them Muslims. They are just people with One interpretations of the Holy Book and they are claiming that they are the ones with the only possible / correct interpretation.
 
This last phrase alone is telling us everything we need to know. So I am bringing my own perspective here: - That’s not how we do it. In fact I don’t know if it’s possible to do it that way. As far as I know, If you are not Paramahansa Yogananda or Rumi or St Francis you are like the rest of us. Meaning, a student of the spiritual path. So that’s what I am trying to demonstrate here.
 
Other addition I could make: These guys would probably condemn all of our prophets to death by stoning for being disobedient heretics or something like that.
 
So maybe these guys + the Koran / Torah burners should go fishing together. That’s How I see it

[The Grand Nudger]

OFC the fact that theyre not christians or atheists doesn't make them muslim? Being a fucking muslim makes them muslims. You can't have islamists without islam.

You're not wrong about that ending though. Here in the us - which is mostly empty churches...so I don't know how tied we still are to our religions, even when we profess them.....in order to escape minority irrelevance, and secure perpetual minority rule, the religionists -did- decide to band together and stop publicly bickering with each other. They have their book burnings and their cd stompings and it's all so very holy...holy...holy. The xenophobes have gone through a similar process. You know, when it even makes sense to separate the two as distinct groups..... White nationalism is one of the places that actually brings atheists and theists together as a single moral community. They fish too.

We let them do it, we laugh at them for doing it. I see no reason to do to them what I would not do to you. This idea that you have that there should be legal consequences. We used to think that too, we had flag codes. Obviously, we've left that behind. If you really dove in, you'd probably find more actionable content in their actual speech then you would in their burning a magic book, or burning a flag. We're permissive here, too...notoriously permissive, with respect to western countries. Do you think the us government should change in that regard - and resume prosecuting people for bad speech...whether thats with their mouth or with a lighter?

[no one]

I wiped my ass with pages from the quran, and when I was done, there was more shit on the paper.

[arewethereyet]

I don't like the idea of banning books or burning books or even dog-earing the pages in a book and using fecking highlighters on the pages. But I certainly don't think there needs to be some holy sort of fit thrown over *special* books being burned, torn up, the spines broken, or whatever the hell people decide to do.

This topic has gone on too long and accomplished not a damn thing. Don't like a book...don't buy it, read it, look at it, think about it. But that doesn't mean you get to dictate what someone else does to their copy of the same book.

Cripes, the shit people get all in a tizzy about. smh