| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
In FrontPage today I discuss the Qur'an-shooting incident and the abject and counterproductive apology that followed it. The subhead on FrontPage's front page reads: "Accidentally shooting a Qur'an was stupid; the way we apologized may have made matters worse." This line was apparently based on the Qur'an-shooter's denial that he knew the book he was shooting at was a Qur'an. I noted his denial in the article, but in fact I think it's much more likely that he did know what book he was shooting at, and that the shooting was in no way an accident.
Last Saturday, Major General Jeffery Hammond, commander of U.S. forces in Baghdad, issued a formal apology to leaders in Radhwaniya, in western Baghdad, after an American soldier used a Qur’an for target practice.The soldier said he didn’t know that the book he used was a Qur’an, but military brass rejected this and announced plans to reassign the soldier to duty within the United States.
During what CNN called the “apology ceremony,” Major General Hammond told the assembled Iraqis: “I come before you here seeking your forgiveness. In the most humble manner I look in your eyes today and I say please forgive me and my soldiers.” A member of Hammond’s staff kissed a Qur’an and presented it to the Iraqi leaders, calling it a “humble gift.”
Assuming that the soldier really did know that the book he was shooting at was the Qur’an, this story illustrates many things:
1. While the President and the military brass are anxious to deny that the War On Terror has anything to do with Islam, many rank-and-file soldiers can’t help but notice that the fiercest enemies they encounter are also the most devout in their Islam, and that the jihad terrorists quote the Qur’an copiously to justify their acts of violence.2. That noticing things like this may have led one soldier to use a Qur’an as target practice is unfortunate. If he knew what the book was, the soldier was stupid, because even if it is true that the Qur’an contains mandates for violence against unbelievers, and it is true, doing something like this will only turn into enemies some people who might otherwise not be your enemies. This is not the same thing as the Dinesh D’Souza argument that we must not speak about the elements of Islam that jihadists use to justify violence and supremacism, because doing so will turn “moderates” into “extremists” – D’Souza in that is asking us to ignore and deny the truth, which is never an effective strategy in wartime or peacetime. But that is not the same thing as avoiding unnecessary provocation that will require you to fight battles that you otherwise would not have to fight.
3. The reactions of Major General Hammond and his staff were understandable, but excessive. They don’t want to alienate people they believe they have won over, or whom they hope to win over, in Baghdad. They had to disavow this soldier’s action. However, kissing the Qur’an and begging for forgiveness – and holding an apology “ceremony” in the first place – are gestures that spring from a misunderstanding of how they are likely to be perceived by the “tribal leaders and others at the apology ceremony.”
Major General Hammond is anxious to show that the U.S. is not at war with Islam. Fine. But to kiss the Qur’an and to beg for forgiveness are signs that one accepts its authority and the authority of those before whom one is begging. Coming from non-Muslims, it is likely that they will be interpreted as gestures of submission, and the submission of non-Muslims to Muslims is a significant concept in Islamic law – although I am sure Major General Hammond and his staff are unaware of this. Given that, is it wise to be giving such impressions? Are such impressions not likely to create even more tension in the future?
4. “Sheikh Hamadi al-Qirtani, in a speech on behalf of all tribal sheiks of Radhwaniya, called the incident ‘aggression against the entire Islamic world.’” This is simply hysterical. It was a boorish, stupid act, but it was a boorish, stupid act by one individual soldier. If he has shot up a Bible, Christians who knew about the incident might have regarded him as something of an idiot, but that would have been the end of the story. No apology ceremony, no military brass kissing the book, nothing.
Of course, we are not engaged in a war in a country where the majority of people revere the Bible, but that doesn’t completely account for the difference. The possibility that Muslims worldwide might be incited to murderous rage because of an incident like this can never be discounted. Major General Hammond and his staff are trying to head that off. That’s fine, but it also just plays into the mentality that to riot and kill because of something like this is a perfectly natural and rational reaction to it. At a certain point, someone is going to have to have the guts to stand up and say, “Wait a minute. The incident that set you off may indeed have been offensive, but your reaction is insane. If someone insults you, that is no justification to kill him or anyone else, or to destroy anything.”
But we are a long, long way at this point from that kind of common sense.
Posted by Robert at May 20, 2008 2:50 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
Yea; what you said, Robert.
Posted by: undaunted![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at May 20, 2008 3:14 PM
I don't think they revere the Bible at all. Most believe that the Bible is corrupted, though they can't say where or how, exactly. Just that it is corrupted. If they respected the Bible, they would respect the Jews and Christians living in their country, and they don't.
Posted by: Jewel Atkins at May 20, 2008 3:17 PM
Kissing the quran. I wonder how many other books the general has ever kissed, I also wonder if he paid the jizya while he was at it?
As the Quran calls those who reject the truth (ie non Muslims) 'the worst of all creatures' (surah 98:6 Ali). The last thing I would do is actually kiss it
Posted by: James at May 20, 2008 3:23 PM
In the current war it is our goal to win the hearts and minds of the host nation's population, not theirs to win ours. It will take time to develop a properly nuanced response to mistakes and insults of this sort, but I feel that this response shows an encouraging growth from the days of "Bad people have parties, too."
Jewel, any differences between the Bible and Koran are immaterial in this context. This isn't a fistfight between Jesus and Muhammad, it's a counterinsurgency.
Posted by: Not Telling at May 20, 2008 3:31 PM
How about they apologize for not getting their govt up and running, so we can leave?
Posted by: Exposing Islam at May 20, 2008 3:43 PM
So this whole thing about the ground-pounder being reassigned to the States reminds me of M.A.S.H. (the movie, not the TV show) when one of the surgeons compares himself to Frank Burns and asks Col. Blake that..."If I screw Hot Lips and punch out Hawkeye can I have a transfer home too?"
What an easy way for everyone on the ground in Iraq to get themselves home w/o delay. Dems should be sending everyone in uniform a copy of the Quran with instructions on use - they wouldn't have to wait for the President to announce a withdraw.
Seriously, what a lost opportunity to show Iraq (and the rest of the world) that it's only a book, no big deal, get over yourselves. This "hearts and minds" B.S. is just that, B.S. shooting or apologizing won't change things a bit, and if it does, then those people who do flip like that have much bigger problems.
"Yes, it was a Quran, get over it, let's talk about things that matter"
Can you imagine the U.S. Military carrying on over ANY other book? For Shame!!
Posted by: RecycledCG at May 20, 2008 3:50 PM
The Koran is an issue because of the population's reverence for the Koran. Unless MNF-I is suddenly in the business of mass baptism, it makes more sense to do damage control on the incident than it does to engage in a lecture series on the theological and philosophic shortcomings of Islam.
And where is it written that the general, or any non-Muslim, kissed and handed over a Koran? All we know is that it was an officer in the general's staff. It may well have been a practicing Muslim. This narrative about MG Hammond kissing the book in question is about as real as the Arabian Phoenix.
Posted by: Not Telling at May 20, 2008 4:16 PM
Will the islamic world be apologising for the destruction of the Bamiyan Buddhas, the Church of the Nativity in Jerusalem, which was taken over by islamic terrorists ?
Will an apology be forthcoming for the destruction of the churches in Bosnia, Kosovo ?
In North Cyprus ?
For the destruction of Synagogues in the arab world ?
It is always one way.
Posted by: apostate_islam at May 20, 2008 4:29 PM
Perhaps the General needs to watch this -
Posted by: MusHuntCowboy at May 20, 2008 5:09 PM
That noticing things like this may have led one soldier to use a Qur’an as target practice is unfortunate.
The soldier used a book. The jihadists would have used a person.
I see no difference between Robert and Dinesh on this one. It's six of one and a half dozen of the other. Aren't we assuming the moderates are not our enemies?
"doing something like this will only turn into enemies some people who might otherwise not be your enemies."
Sounds like it makes an extremist out of someone who is otherwise "moderate".
"This is not the same thing as the Dinesh D’Souza argument that we must not speak about the elements of Islam that jihadists use to justify violence and supremacism, because doing so will turn “moderates” into “extremists” "
The jihadists don't see a difference between acts and words. So whether someone shoots a book or speaks of the book's contents, it's the same thing to them. Our not accepting the Koran as the word of god is offensive to them. If talking about Islam can turn moderates into extremists then how is telling the truth about Islam not "an unnecessary provocation"?
Bending over backwards and ignoring our own heritage in order to avoid giving offense to people who can find offense in which hand you hold something isn't helping us.
So maybe that soldier shouldn't have used that book to let off steam. It's a safe bet that the Muslims would have found something else to take offense at. What's the point?
at May 20, 2008 5:14 PM
The fact that shooting up the Bible would not stir hysterical animosity from Christians points out a major and ominous (for Christians) distinction between Christian and Islamic nations.
Why are Muslims outraged and why are Christians not? Two major reasons. The one most often provided is that Christians are tolerant. Muslims are not. (Of course, there are exceptions among both groups.) The other reason is somewhat ignored but is the ominous part. Muslims (for the most part) are much more devout about their religion. Christians less so. The more devout will overcome the less devout.
Barack Obama has the pulse of this nation down pretty well. Christians are so tolerant and maleable and non-devout about their religion that "change" will come easy. If "change" makes their lives easier, they will embrace change at the expense of their Christian religion they half-heartedly embrace. Barack is our bridge toward Dhimmitude.
Posted by: Moochie at May 20, 2008 5:29 PM
The more devout will overcome the less devout.
I call it a difference of love vs hate. Christians love others and are called to forgive those who have wronged them. That forgiveness might make them seem less devout but it also confers great strength on the individual. How else could Christianity have withstood the evils of fourteen centuries of Islam? With all their violent wars of conquest, Islam still accounts for barely twenty percent of the word's population. Compare that to Muslims whose faith is a house of cards and so they must block even the slightest breeze. Theirs is a brittle faith.
Violence and devotion aren't equivalent measures.
at May 20, 2008 5:44 PM
It was a boorish, stupid act, but it was a boorish, stupid act by one individual soldier.
What if the soldier shot up a copy of "Mein Kampf," would that have been a boorish and stupid act?
How about a copy of Mao's "Little Red Book," would that have been boorish and stupid?
How about a copy of the "Communist Manifesto," would shooting that book up be considered boorish and stupid?
Perhaps shooting up a Webster's dictionary is no more stupid and boorish than shooting up any other book, but because the book in question is the "quaran" we need to have a heightened sensitivity over the matter.
Why is that?
If people are forced to treat the quaran diffently, isn't that imposing shariah by default?
If people must now fear for their lives and the safety and well being of their families because of these "boorish and stupid" acts -- perhaps it is the underlying ideology that is the real threat at the most fundemental level.
If that is the case, how can it be argued that the West is not at war with islam and more to the point -- the West is a house divided on the issue while the house of dar al islam is united.
The more dangerous of threats are from those in the West who will eagerly cave to tyranny from any religious or ideological order outside of the one established by the Constitution of the United States.
Posted by: witness at May 20, 2008 6:50 PM
Koran kissing. Our State Department's basic foreign policy in a nutshell.
Posted by: poetcomic1 at May 20, 2008 7:06 PM
The possibility that Muslims worldwide might be incited to murderous rage because of an incident like this can never be discounted.
-by RS
The possibility that Muslims worldwide might be incited to murderous rage because of an incident like this...?
Why are we even brooking such an eventuality? Why aren't they being told to get a grip and learn to deal with the rest of the world or the rest of the world might deal with them the hard way? Why aren't we warning them that we CAN and WILL leave them to the vagaries of the Islamists? We CAN and we WILL bring our soldiers home. It's no more and no less than they deserve.
Muslims WORLDWIDE might be incited?
How about telling Muslims WORLDWIDE that the next time they leave a Western country they won't be allowed back in if something remotely like this comes to fruition? That means no more hajj, unless they're prepared to make a one-way trip. That means no more visiting family, wherever they are. That means not a one of them entering a Western country. Too bad we don't have the guts.
When did any of them worry that Christians might be incited to murderous rage by their acts of murder and barbarity? Probably not since the Crusades.
Even Thomas Jefferson didn't do what they did.
Where is Thomas Jefferson? We need him to fight these 21st century barbarians. Something tells me he didn't worry about offending a single one of them as long as American lives were at risk.
at May 20, 2008 7:23 PM
Sooner or later this constant appeasement of Islam is going to blow up in our faces. They see how easy they can manipulate us over anything defined as sacred, never mind the horrible mayhem that occurs daily in Iraq,or Afghanistan. They are playing us like a fiddle,stealing our human treasure, and billions of American dollars, while making deals with Iran,and Syria. Such fools we are because we still have failed to understand the Islamic Ideology even today.
How many conferences has the President held with experts who understand the trappings of Islam and I don't mean CAIR Representatives.
Of course President Bush is about to say good by to the White House and his Presidency, but what about these other three candidates? I would like to know who really understands Islam, the closest one of the last few candidates for me was Mitt Romney.
Posted by: Mackie at May 20, 2008 8:03 PM
The Soldier was to stupid as to not hall off the evidence.
Posted by: flowerknife_us at May 20, 2008 9:44 PM
It is bad form to leave punctured target material behind on the firing range.
Any soldier knows that.
Posted by: profitsbeard at May 20, 2008 10:06 PM
Touching on the Godwin reference: If we were trying to pacify and organize a population that revered the December 1965 issue of MAD magazine, a soldier who destroyed a copy of that magazine would find himself in the same position. The same goes for any of the mentioned books.
It's all well and good to posture about standing on the walls of western civilization, but there must be concessions to strategic and tactical needs.
"Sounds like it makes an extremist out of someone who is otherwise 'moderate'."
I think the fear here is that it will create shooters or bombers out of people who are usually content to riot.
Posted by: Not Telling at May 20, 2008 11:50 PM
Not telling, you are a dhimmi and don't know it. As for myself, I am as usual ashamed of Bush and very ashamed of the officer who kissed that book of hate and lust. He might just as well have asked the Iraqi to drop his pants so he could kiss his behind. Same thing. I feel sorry for his troops knowing this. God help us.
Posted by: protozoah at May 21, 2008 1:14 AM
> Accidentally shooting a Qur'an was stupid
ACCIDENTALLY!!??
What the...
I've been reading this site for some time now, but that sentence is just plain &$%#@'d
How exactly do you "accidentally" shoot the Qur'an in a shooting range?
Posted by: Tom at May 21, 2008 1:59 AM
How exactly do you "accidentally" shoot the Qur'an in a shooting range?
Posted by: Tom
I think 'accidentally' means that the soldier claimed he did not know the book he used was a Quran. That may or not be a fact. I don't care anyway...But I do care about the disgraceful 'apology ceremony', the bowing, and scraping (look deep into my eye's and you will see sincerity), and kissng the Quran by our military. Then Bush groveling before Maliki with more sympathetic gush...how disgusting can it get??? Bush keeps topping himself for disgust...
Posted by: duh_swami at May 21, 2008 2:26 AM
Islam is a political force. Shooting at their Koran is like shooting at their leader. So their response is normal.
We would not have the same response if someone shoots the bible because we do not hold any book as our leader. Our holy books are only guides. Yet we would be offended if anyone shoots at our leaders, especially at the commander in chief.
Therefore, one more reason to suspect Islam is not really a religion but a Koranic cult of total domination. Shooting the Koran is like shooting their top leadership, so their anger of this shooting is now understandable in that context. Islam is a war cult, and Koran is its war manual. Don't shoot it, or expect the consequences of shooting their 'commander in chief'.
Posted by: Battle_of_Tours at May 21, 2008 9:51 AM
"Not telling, you are a dhimmi and don't know it."
I will attempt to bear the burden of your disapproval with honor and grace.
We can posture all we want to, but the current goals of the military in Iraq are all centered on the Iraqi population. The apology had to be loud in order to drown out the enemy narrative that MNF-I is a force of crusaders. Population-centric warfare, don't you know. Maybe the Petraeuses and SWJs of the world are dead wrong, but right now their ideas are being tested; this has been one of those tests.
Now, if you wish MNF-I were a force of crusaders, I can see where this might disappoint.
Posted by: Not Telling at May 21, 2008 3:08 PM
Would it be to bold to suggest the Soldier read the Book and really didn't like it? He just exercised his right to destroy his own private property.
Posted by: flowerknife_us at May 21, 2008 8:46 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)