Quran Burning and Stabbing in London
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14394923/Man-holding-burning-book-Turkish-embassy-London-attacked-knife.html
Someone burned a Quran in London yesterday. Another man attacked him with a knife in retaliation.
I presume most of us here agree that burning a holy book shouldn't be met with that kind of violence period, right? That kind of goes without question for most thinking people.
What's perhaps a more divisive question is, are there good reasons to burn a Quran? If so, what are they? (This question is separate from if it should be allowed - you can say it should be allowed AND hold that there's no good reason to).
Someone burned a Quran in London yesterday. Another man attacked him with a knife in retaliation.
I presume most of us here agree that burning a holy book shouldn't be met with that kind of violence period, right? That kind of goes without question for most thinking people.
What's perhaps a more divisive question is, are there good reasons to burn a Quran? If so, what are they? (This question is separate from if it should be allowed - you can say it should be allowed AND hold that there's no good reason to).
Comments (199)
And yes, it's ok to burn any book if, for example, you're a homeless person living in the street, and you are about to experience a cold night if you don't keep your fire going with something to use as fuel.
And what I just said there is one hellfire ( :fire: ) of a .
What's the difference?
To wit, was it created or discovered?
If it was created, then there's no problem burning it, because it can be created again.
If it wasn't created, then it can't be destroyed, so there's no problem burning it.
is obvious.
There are plenty of "thinking people" who believe that violence is an appropriate response to desecrating the Quran. Not me, but millions of others.
Quoting flannel jesus
Quoting flannel jesus
Quoting flannel jesus
(Quran Burning) And / (Stabbing in London)
If And, then:
Stabbing in London: A Horror Story
-by Arcane Sandwich
Stabbing is unethical. Especially in London.
The end.
The first one that comes to mind is that the practice is a way of preserving/testing the outer limits of free speech and free expression in a society. It tests those enlightenment-era values against older religious values involving inviolable divine directives or the sanctity of the holy book.
A fuel.
Perfectly said.
Flawless.
Impeccable.
Is not the True Qur'an.
Just as the Tao that can be said
Is not the True Tao.
The Difference is
That Tao is an Open Book
The Qur'an
Is a Secret Book:
You Will Never Understand It.
Because it is the Book of God.
And What is God,
if not Secret?
No Artificial Intelligence
Will Ever Understand the True Meaning of the Qur'an
For the Qur'an Itself
Not the One That is Written
Is None Other than The Book of Nature Itself,
And What is a Machine,
if Not Artifice?
The Exact Opposite of Nature Itself?
I Fear Not the Machine
Nor do I Rage Against it
The Machine is Nothing to Me
For I am Human.
And as Such,
I am from Nature Itself.
Where is the Machine From?
If not from Nature's Creatures?
There is no such thing as the telos of a fuel.
:100:
There is only efficient causation.
There is no formal causation,
There is no material causation,
And there is no finalistic causation either.
The only type of causation that exists is efficient causation.
Well the burner is definitely seeking to offend and provoke a reaction. Sometimes you receive more than you're prepared for.
Well it's not the fault of the mugging victim who walks through a dangerous part of town at 3 in the morning, yet simultaneously it is a reckless thing to do.
The Universe.
Could you go into more detail on your reference?
The Universe has always existed. That is True.
Well, technically speaking, it is.
Quoting flannel jesus
And this is news to you, in some way?
ok that's dumb lmao.
But is it false?
I don't think that. Never have, never will.
Burning the Quran is a symbol.
A flag is a symbol.
Burning a flag is a symbol.
Burning a symbol does not harm the (alleged) reality which a symbol represents.
Substitute the crucifix in Andres Serrano's Piss Christ for the Quran. Numerous people were offended by the art work and its symbolic meaning, but Christ was not harmed in any way, shape, or manner. Presumably Christ is beyond the possibility of harm. Neither was the message of Christ harmed. The message in the Quran was likewise not harmed.
A Nazi-organized book burning in the city square in the 1930s was a symbolic act conducted on symbolic objects. In itself, a book burning does not harm the text represented in 'the book'. What IS a crime against humanity IS burning the reality represented by the symbol: a synagogue torched with its occupants inside; the expulsion of authors from their jobs, homes, communities and their eventual burning at death camps.
Casting doubt on the validity of a prophet, the prophet, or any prophet is symbolic.
Retaliation with violence against a symbolic act is not allowable in civil societies, whether it is knifing a Quoran burner in London or beating up a flag burner in Los Angeles, or a imprisoning peace demonstrators in Moscow.
I voted no.
About five years ago, there was a bitter debate on this Forum about a case in Indonesia where the Governor of Jakarta Indonesia was jailed for blasphemy for allegedly insulting the Koran. (He was released in 2019.) That debate can be reviewed here. It got to be a very heated argument about whether Islam recognises the separation of church and state. I got a lot of heat for saying anything whatever about 'Islam', which was said to be a social construct or a form of stereotyping. So in that view, saying anything whatever about Islam was like a form of racism (indeed that comparison was explicitly made.)
I think Islam sits awkwardly with liberal democracy, as it is basically theocratic in outlook. I don't think there's an easy way to reconcile them. But I also don't think making deliberately provocative statements or demonstrations like Quran burning does anything to help. It just incites further division, outrage and violence on both sides. It's important to try and find common ground rather than causes for further division.
There is a certain asymettry in the relationship between believers and secular culture. For the secular, religion is a personal matter. Liberal democracy will protect the right of the individual to freedom of religion as a matter of principle. But at the same time, as it is seen as a personal matter, it can't have any claim to be true in any sense other than the personal. Whereas for the believer, it's a matter of life and death and the fate of the soul. There's a very deep, if rather long, reflection on the 9/11 terrorist incidents which explores these tensions, Terror in the God-Shaped Hole: Confronting ModernityÂ’s Identity Crisis, David Loy, 2003. Worth the read.
Remember the 2015 attack on Charlie Hebdo, the French satirical magazine that republished the Danish cartoons of Mohammad? Twelve people were killed including eight journalists. For satire.
The question isn't about burning the Koran, it is about freedom of expression and to what extent any type of criticism of a religion might be taken as blasphemy punishable by death.
One of my favourite Muslim commentators, Irshad Manji thinks the West need to play a role in potential change:
I wonder if, in a sense, burning qurans is part of that challenge. I kind of see it that way. "I'm burning this quran, it's up to you and your community to deal with that in ways other than violence. Otherwise you'll never be recognized as the so called religion of peace that you think you are".
Ever noticed how the word "fool" looks and sounds oddly similar to the word "fuel"? You can burn the latter, and you can also burn the former. :naughty: :fire:
Do those values really need testing though? In the U.S. I know with certainty the government is not going to try and stop me from burning a holy book (unless I'm breaking some fire code).
To prove the exact same point.
Burn a bible, see if you get stabbed. You won't. Burn a printout of the declaration of independence or the american constitution, see if you get stabbed. You won't. Everyone else passes the challenge except muslims.
Thanks. That's in America though. Parts of Europe might need testing when it comes to freedom of speech.
I don't think that violence can resolve any problem, whether it is in the form of burning the Quran or stabbing the guy who burned the Quran since violence just invites more violence. It is only through discussion that we can agree on and know the Truth.
Because it offends the feelings of the believers in the Quran.
Quoting flannel jesus
In my opinion, they don't have such a right but they think otherwise!
Is this a general belief of yours? Offending feelings is violence in general?
No, it is not only a belief.
Quoting flannel jesus
Insulting is prohibited by laws in all well-developed countries. It is prohibited because it causes emotional distress.
and no, insulting isn't prohibited by laws in those countries. Insulting is actually pretty generally allowed.
Maybe he'll get sued, at worst, but it won't be treated like a violent crime. Because it's not violence.
Every violence is prohibited by the laws.
Quoting flannel jesus
Then please Google "insulting", "laws" and your preferred country. This is the result I found for Germany: "In Germany, "insulting" someone, legally defined as "Beleidigung," is considered a criminal offense under Section 185 of the German Criminal Code (StGB), meaning you can be punished by a fine or even imprisonment for up to one year, with the penalty potentially increasing to two years if the insult is committed publicly or through assault; essentially, the law protects a person's personal honor from verbal attacks."
Violence is a term used when you harm someone. This harm could be physical, such as murdering, or verbal, such as insult.
EDIT: Do you speak German, MoK?
Thanks, mate! :)
A violent criminal is someone who commits crimes that involve the use of force or weapons to injure or kill others. We are talking about insult here.
Is it?
Yes, but not without using Google! :razz:
It's not you? What do you mean? Be specific. Detailed, if you must.
Don't I have the right to do such a thing? It's a basic human right.
Quoting flannel jesus
I don't, really. It seems like a rather trivial point. It's beneath me, as an intellectual.
Quoting flannel jesus
Who else would read it, if not myself, if I'm welcome to read it?
Quoting flannel jesus
Oh, I've already started a very, very long time ago ;)
Quoting flannel jesus
So what's that? Some sort of "gang sign" that you're just throwing up at me? You might as well make funny gestures with your hands, for all I care.
Look, fool. You don't get it. I am interesting!
Violences also defined as actions that are intended or likely to hurt people or cause damage to them. I have no problem using offense instead of violence when it comes to insult. Anyhow, burning the Quaran is an offense in my opinion and it should be the subject of the punishment by the laws.
I am from Iran. Glad to meet you here!
I think so.
Quoting flannel jesus
I think so.
And if some homophobe says "homosexuality offends me", and that offends a homosexual, the homophobe should be punished?
Why Germany? Did you realize that from my accent? :razz:
Homosexuality does not offend me. Some people feel otherwise.
1) You have a dragon as a portrait, but in a European sytle : )
2) You mentioned Germany in this Thread, and a German word.
3) You like propositional logic and first-order predicate logic, and Hegelian dialectical logic.
4) You have several Threads about the nature of God, and if he changes or not, etc.
Sounds like German stuff to me. You like European culture, apparently. It's like Edward Said's concept of "Orientalism", but backwards: you like Occidentalism :D
Are you saying that you're a homosexual? It's Ok dude, you don't offend @MoK, and you don't offend me either.
Quoting MoK
I see!
According to Google: "An offense is a criminal act, while violence is the act of causing physical harm. Violent crimes are a type of offense.".
Let me summarize things, burning the Quran is an offense, and any offense is the subject of punishment.
You hurt people's feelings.
I haven't thought about Emerson recently (decades) but if Google's summary of transcendentalism is accurate, then:
So why do you ask? What is your question's connection to the topic of this thread?
No, I don't dance, in any way, shape, or form, with anyone, because I make the Ethical decision to not do such a thing, just as I make the Ethical decision to not do drugs.
Regrettably, philosophy is a mind drug.
I formally invite you (and informally request you) that we continue this conversation from the point of view of the Straight Edge ideology and lifestyle. Specifically, Vegan Straight Edge. Particularly, as preached by the Straight Edge / Heavy Metal Hardcore Vegan Punk Band "Earth Crisis".
[i]Street by street,
Block by block...[/i]
... the Youth's immersed in Poison. Let's Turn the Tide and counter-attack: violence against violence, let the roundups begin: a firestorm to purify the bane that society drowns in. No mercy, no exception, a declaration of total war: The Innocent's Defense: The Reason It's Waged For.
Born addicted,
beaten and neglected
Families torn apart
Destroyed and abandoned
Children sell their bodies
From their high they fall to drown
Demons crazed by greed
Cut bystanders down.
A chemically tainted
Welfare generation
Absolute complete
Moral degeneration
Corrupt politicians
Corrupt enforcement
Dealers, all must fall: The Helpless Are Crying Out: We Have Risen to Their Call:
A FIRESTORM TO PURIFY.
What do you think about Emerson's Transcendentalism? I don't care what robots think. Fuck them.
But it's like, don't you know them already? Everyone knows what those are.
Some criteria might be how high the offended person's blood pressure rises, how much their pulse increases, how much cortisol is excreted, how much their rate of breathing increases--when they are "offended". One might also measure the volume of yelling and screaming, and so on. When I get really offended, all those values rise quickly.
Maybe that's not what you are asking? Perhaps you are asking about the criteria for [i]offensiveness[/I] in an image, a statement, or an action. "Offensiveness" is an abstraction like "humor'; it may be quite difficult to specify particulars. Why is a particular joke funny? Why is a particular drawing offensive?
I prefer to live in a society where individuals are not protected from witnessing offensive material. As a gay socialist, I am offended fairly often, and that's fine. It's also fine if my sexuality and politics offends others. Don't like it? Not my problem. It's also not your problem if your sexuality or politics offends me.
What we can not do in a civil society is coerce someone to view offensive material. A swastika on a T-shirt is one thing; painting swastikas on a synagogue is altogether different. Charlie Hebdo didn't coerce anyone into looking at its cartoons. Viewing was optional. A school might coerce students into viewing offensive material, though. Attendance in school is required, and students do not choose instructional material. Presenting students with Charlie Hebdo cartoons as part of a required assignment could be seen as coercive, possibly.
There was a case at Hamline University in St. Paul, MN where an art professor presented a very old painting of Mohammed (from a Moslem country and artist) which offended a Moslem college student. There was an uproar. The professor was fired.
In the Hamline University case, the class had received prior notification that a 'sensitive' painting would be displayed. The student could have opted out, but she didn't. Instead, she remained and was duly offended and insisted on corrective action on behalf of her sensitivities. Who was more coerced? The student or the professor?
I'm asking how he decides which offensive things are worth punishing and which ones aren't. Anybody can feel hurt by anything, he almost certainly doesn't think we can just be putting people in legal trouble every time their feelings are hurt. So what are his boundaries? Why some things and not others?
Why punish someone for burning a quran but not punish someone for farting in public?
I agree, that's why I think his idea that offense should be treated as a criminal matter is so bizarre.
Or the offended person's educational level.
Not in a written text. There is no yelling and screaming in a written text. There is not even talking. You think we're all talking here? We're not talking about anything, at all. Instead, we are writing. I don't know whatever the Good Devil you Fine Folks are doing while we philosophically card-shark-it-up 'round these 'ere parts.
Oil slicks.
Some people are not even liberally educated. Some people are not even educated to begin with!
Quoting BC
Some people are not even educated to begin with!
This is the key to this entire discussion. For a devout believer, there is an enormous difference in magnitude between blasphemy and all other crimes or misdemeanours. The issue you are questioning is how can one particular brand of religion hold a book to be so sacred that its desecration would be punishable by death? The Quran is the literal, perfect, unchangeable and final revelation of God. It supersedes all other religious works and is more sacred than any human life. To burn it is to disrespect God himself. For those who don't have a notion of the sacred and the inviolable this can be hard to process.
Unless it's not.
Unless it's not.
I'll just quote it, so that I can remind everyone of it:
Quoting Tom Storm
EDIT: You know what, Tom? I'm quoting that on my Forum Profile now. It's one of my favorite quotes, now. Congratulations.
I'm a Smart Fox :)
I'm a Firefox! :D
:fire:
For the occasionalist,
God is the cause of both,
yet separately.
They simply occur next to each other,
the burning and the stabbing,
the former does not cause the latter
it merely coincides with it.
It's a coincidence.
The burning is an occasion,
and the stabbing is another occasion.
One occasion does not cause the other.
God causes them both, according to the occasionalist.
I'm not saying that it's right,
I'm just saying that's what occasionalists believe.
Wanna disrespect their beliefs?
Go ahead, no one's stopping you.
Of course we have to ask 'what do we mean by 'educated'. But however we define it, there will certainly be people who are not even educated to begin with. Some didn't have the opportunity; some resisted every inch of the way; some rejected what they had received. There's not a lot one can do for invincibly ignorant people.
That does not make them evil.
Because being an invincibly ignorant person is neither a sin nor a crime, that's why. It's not even a misdemeanor. It's not even comparable to reckless behavior. It is simply a fact.
This, is the really interest question.
The Devil is Evil, I would say. Just the Devil? No, not just the Devil.
Men and Women can be evil. They are not born that way. But they can become evil, by committing a sin, or a crime, or a misdemeanor, or by engaging in reckless behavior. There are degrees here. Yes, a misdemeanor is an act of Evil. But it is Trivial Evil, it doesn't really matter. Homicide, on the other hand, is a greater evil. Arguably, so is suicide.
Is it Evil to Burn the Qur'an?
Hmmm... What would I say?
I would say that it is not evil to burn a Qur'an.
Of that I am :100: % sure
Is it Evil to burn the Qur'an?
...
But how would that be possible, to begin with?
The Qur'an that can be burnt is not the True Qur'an.
So What Difference Would It Make?
What invincible ignorance makes them is very difficult to enlighten. Invincible ignorance is not a virtue of any sort and might be a sin IF it is deliberate and maintained over time, especially in the face of suspected evil which one doesn't want to admit.
I am invincibly ignorant.
I am not ashamed to admit that fact.
:frown:
Quoting BC
I maintain my invincible ignorance over time, because that is how I am.
:frown:
Quoting BC
I am the face of Suspected Evil Itself.
:frown:
Quoting BC
I admit it freely.
I fear nothing.
Death is Nothing to Me.
Why would it matter to me?
I am already obligated to Die just by being alive, ain't I?
Now whose fault is that? I certainly had no say, nor word, in that matter. So how is it somehow my fault that I simply exist?
Quoting Arcane Sandwich
Reminds me of a travesty on Psalm 23: Yea, though I walk through the valley of death I shall fear no evil, because I am the meanest son of a bitch in the valley.
[a 'travesty' here means crude satire]
You personally believe that?
No. I am not a theist.
The question "why punish?" isn't for muslims to answer, it's for *everyone else* to answer. In fact it was specifically asked to BC, who said that ANY offense should be punished, but then inexplicably decided that homophobia and homosexuality both don't count as 'offenses', despite people feeilng offended by them.
Do YOU believe people should be punished for burning holy books?
No. But my perspective is that of a privileged, secular, decadent Westerner - the product of his times.
How can we bridge the gap between Western and Islamic perspectives?
My view is that Muslims in the West should obey the laws. Killing people for apostasy or blasphemy is against our values and laws. We allow people to burn flags and holy books if that's their thing.
Are you a theist?
I think so.
Quoting flannel jesus
I think so but it is not considered as a crime.
Consider this: can't you hurt peoples feelings even by doing nothing wrong? I mean what if I want to break up with my girlfriend, if that hurts her feelings that makes me a criminal? This is such a wild idea to me, you're the only person I've ever heard take this extreme of a view that all hurt feelings and offense should be treated as criminal.
It could hurt a parents feelings to find out their child is gay, but it could hurt the child's feelings to find out their parents are homophobic. Are they both criminals?
And what kind of punishment matches a 'hurt feelings' crime? You dumped your girlfriend so now you have to pay a fine? Or you have to go to prison? 5 years hard labor?
What if the very idea of 'hurt feelings is a criminal matter' hurts MY feelings? Should YOU be considered a criminal? What kind of punishment do you deserve for having such an offensive idea?
Consider that you lost your feelings to your girlfriend but she still loves you. You should still care for her feelings. That does not mean you are forced to live with her forever but you need to stay with her, talk with her openly and gently, explaining your feelings to her, until she becomes ready for the separation. We cannot simply dump people and play with their feelings because we desire to do so.
Quoting flannel jesus
Sure not. We just need to become open-minded to accommodate people who feel, believe, and think differently from us.
Of course not. Do you agree with me in the girlfriend scenario?
A non vague answer from you would be something like "this behaviour IS violent / this behaviour should be illegal". Is it violent to break up with someone if it hurts their feelings? Should it be illegal?
I already answered that in the case of your girlfriend. Dumping people is not allowed and it is an offence.
No you didn't, you talked about what I should do. Saying what someone should do is different from explicitly saying it's violent or it's criminal.
Anyway, you seem kind of insane about all of this if I'm being honest. Criminalising ending a relationship is actually crazy. I have your take on it all now, thank you, your take is you want an extreme totalitarian government which punishes even the slightest "offenses" if they hurt someone's feelings. Thanks for sharing.
No, it is not different. Don't you agree that dumping your partner who is in love with you is not correct and that you should do everything you can to reach a situation in which your partner is ready for separation? Which kind of person you are? Do you dump your partner or stay with her until she is ready for separation? What do you think of dumping? Isn't it a wrong act?
Why don't you answer my questions?
What do you think we should do with people who dump their partners? What do you think of dumping?
I agree but I talk about people who just dump their partners. So again which type of guy you are? Do you dump your partner or try to explain the situation to her until she is ready for separation? What we should do with people who cheat their partner or dump them when they are pleased?
In the same manner, it is not the government's business when someone insults someone else. So who cares!?
That is just your opinion. People think differently, and that is why insult is considered an offense. So, you are subject to the laws whether you like them or not.
Regardless of the reason she will noy let you go, her need to have you remain with her does booty overrule your need to find happiness elsewhere. It is wrong to insist you stay with her.
Everyone knows it's a risk to love someone. Everyone knows you might be hurt. Few people go through life without having their heart broken.
I do, and by becoming ready, I don't mean that she no longer feels love for me.
Quoting Patterner
I think that should become a part of education for teenagers. Many teenagers are not aware that love is a temporary emotion. We should teach them this so they can manage the situation when there is a conflict in feelings.
For instance, causing offence =/= committing an offence. And what does and does not constitute committing an offence varies from place to place, just as what causes offence varies from person to person. I imagine in some countries it might well be an offence to burn a holy book. And there it might be a revolutionary act to do so, and a brave one.
But in London in front of a mosque? Actually it might be considered a hate crime and an incitement to violence. We're funny about stuff like that. And it did incite violence. What you burn in the privacy of your own incinerator is your own business except that London has strict anti pollution laws, so you would have to use smokeless Korans, Bibles, or Fifty Shades of Greys.
Christians are of course famous for turning the other cheek, and being tolerant of others with other faiths, as long as you totally ignore all of history completely. And the secular are even more tolerant because they have neither books to be burned nor axes to grind. That's right isn't it?
Quoting flannel jesus
How is it not obvious that both actions are violent and neither can be condoned?
Sure, the knife attack is more recognizable as violence, and a more objectively and directly harmful form.
But as for the burning of the Quran. Can the action be justified by the pretense of free speech, delivering, for example, a political anti-terrorism or anti-barbaric cultural practices message, when the message itself---patently offensive, and known to be offensive, or why do it?---is a barbaric practice, intended to terrorize an entire group of believers for the (admittedly contemptible) beliefs and activities of their most extreme few? [And if one believes that all Muslims are barbaric terrorists, that belief is at best naive, but more likely rooted in fear manifesting as hatred].
Can one justify burning the Gospels to protest Christian White Supremacy? Or the Torah to protest the actions of fanatical Zionists? Or the Vedas to protest Hindu Nationalists? (There are examples of violence perpetrated from all three of those groups) I say no, for the same obvious reasons. We cannot justify barbarism and terrorism if it's done by our team, while condemning it when it's done by a team we (even if justifiably) despise or fear.
Isn't this the kind of hypocrisy Jesus warned against?
One could find passages of both mercy and violence in most scriptures; just as you can find both violent and peaceful devotees in all religions.
The burning of the Quran is only an F you to muslims, hiding behind the pretense of political activism. The fact that we can openly entertain such a question without feeling dissonant reflects that islamaphobia has become our conventionally accepted response to the problem of terrorism in Islam. Islamophobia is not going to resolve that problem. If anything, it'll exasperate and perpetuate it. Jewish Holocaust survivors should hate Nazis, even if that meant the majority of early 20th C Germans, but not all Germanic people, most of them engaged in a war against the Nazis.
If the LBGT community called upon its members to burn copies of Paul's letter to the Roman's, I don't see how that could be seen as not offensive to the millions of Christians who might cherish that scripture, and have no ill regard for LGBT community; and I don't see how burning Romans would advance their cause.
Let me ask you something:
If a group of LGBT people did burn Paul's letters, and then a group of Christians arrived and began attempting to murder them by stabbing them which would be closer to your response?
a) How dare they burn that Scripture! They deserve what's coming to them for their transgression!
Or
b) These Christians is batshit insane and we must arrest these people and investigate what is being taught in their churches.
I'm thankful to live in a society where violence is not considered an acceptable response to provocative, non-violent behavior.
Maybe. But end of the day, the burning of Romans is still not a functional response to the hypothetical conflict between the hypothetical Christians and the hypothetical LGBT.
Definitely not (a); but just because these hypothetical Christians are insane, why is burning their literature the solution. Especially knowing they're insane enough to perceive it as a stabbing (which, it is not).
I hope you didn't read condonation of the stabbing in condemnation of the burning.
With respect, it's that kind of wilfull blindness (likely rooted in fear and hatred, even if justifiable) which makes peace so difficult. Isn't that the end goal?
Maybe for some, the burning is not intended as a step toward resolving the problem of jihadism; but rather, just a disguised, legal, form of stabbing Muslims. Getting revenge.
Maybe for some revenge is a good reason for burning books. I just don't think so.
Of course it's not obvious. Violence is about physical harm to a human. If I burn my own book that I bought, it's not the same as punching you. Me burning a book I own is the moral equivalent of my burning some kindling I bought.
It's not the same as punching me. No argument there. But I would speculate that the burning of the Quran was not done in the spirit of educating, but rather, violating. Violating does not have to include physical harm. And your question was whether there are "good reasons" to burn. So even in your last hypothetical about burning a book you bought; short of giving some cute response like, fuel or kindling, what would be a good reason. And to be clear, we dont even need to approach it as a moral question, but as a straight functional one. Assuming the underlying unwritten in your OP: Muslims are the kind of scary people who will stab you for burning the Quran, how can we stop this problem and livr in peace? I just don't think burning the Quran is going to stop it. If violating Muslims is a "good reason" (which perhaps for many it is) then yes, there is a good reason to burn through book. I just think the end goal is peace, and thus don't think violating Muslims is a good reason.
What did you think about it as a challenge?
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/969271
There would have been a time when burning a Bible would result in death or torture or imprisonment in the West. We now have a religion that has grown (predominantly) tolerant - modified by modernity and consistent exposure to secular ideas.
Some of my Islamic and apostate acquaintances argue that Muslims need to be exposed to as much book burning and blasphemous drawings and scantily clad women as possible in order to wear away the layers of antediluvian thinking. I guess they are taking the Quentin Crisp view of tolerance - that it comes out of exposure and boredom.
Irshad Manji, the Islamic commentator I quoted earlier puts it like this:
I don't know it this is the answer, but I understand the principle. Letting them remain murderous custodians of an ancient and unexamined faith is probably not going to end well either.
What I was most surprised by is, in the wake of all these killings of people showing drawings of muhammad, the US Supreme Court features a sculture of Muhammad. So why are these idiots killing people over it?
Quoting Tom Storm
That's a good point. If that was the spirit of the OP's consideration; I get it. Perhaps I was wrong to read it as latent bullying in response to (pathological) fanaticism.
Quoting flannel jesus
I'm sorry, I don't understand your question. Maybe I addressed it above?
Quoting Patterner
I was reading the book burning as having no positive value, but only as a gesture of offense. After reading Tom Storms above, I see that there could be value in reforming fanaticism.
So to refine my thought. If burning the Quran is intended only to offend, I see no good in that. If it is to demonstrate against, and reform fanaticism, yes.
Ironically, I see I was the one willfully blinded.
You did
Although I don't know if any of it matters to Muslims. [Url=https://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/news/video-2750537/Video-1989-Muslim-convert-Cat-Stevens-calls-death-Salman-Rushdie.html]If Cat Stevens can call for Salmon Rushdie's execution[/url], then I wouldn't be surprised if the religion has an All Or Nothing attitude. But I really don't know. If I know any Muslims personally, I'm not aware of it.
If Cat Stevens--Mr. Peace Train--can be so radicalized, then yes, maybe Tom Storm's reasoning is not just functional but necessary.
I agree.