| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Paul Marshall in National Review yesterday fired off a stinging rebuke of Newsweek for its concocted Qur'an flushing story.
Equally disturbing is the fact that Newsweek reporters seemed to have little idea how explosive such a story would be. While noting that, to Muslims, desecrating the Koran “is especially heinous,” Thomas looks for explanations, including “extremist agitators,” of why protest and rioting spread throughout the world, and maintains that it was at Imram Khan’s press conference that “the spark was apparently lit.” He confesses that after “so many gruesome reports of torture and abuse at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere, the vehemence of feeling around this case came as something of a surprise.”What planet do these people live on that they are surprised by something so entirely predictable? Anybody with a little knowledge could have told them it was likely that people would die as a result of the article. Remember Salman Rushdie?
The spark was lit not by Imram Khan but by Newsweek itself on May 9 when apparently none of its reporters or editors was aware of the effect such a story would have. There seems to have been nobody there that knew that death is the penalty for desecrating a Koran in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. Egypt is milder, there one would be sentenced to several years in prison under Article 161 of the penal code for “publicly insulting Islam,” or perhaps Article 98, “inciting sectarian strife”; similar patterns are followed in more moderate Muslim countries.
In Pakistan, Article 295-B of the penal code calls for life imprisonment for desecrating the Koran or any extract from it. Last September, mentally handicapped Shahbaz Masih was sentenced to 25 years imprisonment, convicted of tearing up some leaflets that contained verses from the Koran. In 2003, the same judge sentenced Ranjha Masih (no relation) to life in prison for allegedly throwing a stone at a Muslim signboard with a Koranic verse on it during a bishop's funeral procession. Dozens of other Pakistanis have met similar fates.
In all of these countries, the greatest danger is not from the courts, but from vigilantes and mobs. In Pakistan in 1997, Shantinagar, a Christian town of some 10,000 people, was burned to the ground after a man there was accused of tearing pages from a Koran. In the Netherlands last fall, the documentary producer Theo Van Gogh was butchered after he produced a documentary Submission featuring Koranic verses on women’s bodies.
Even if Newsweek publishes a full retraction, the damage is done. Much of the Muslim world will regard it merely as a cover-up and feel reconfirmed in the view that America is at war with Islam. It will undercut the U.S., including in Afghanistan and Iraq, far more than Abu Ghraib did. “We can understand torturing prisoners, no matter how repulsive” Newsweek quotes one Pakistani saying, “But insulting the Qur’an is like torturing all Muslims.”
It would be charitable to think that if Newsweek had known how explosive the story was it may have held off until it had more confirmation. If this is true, it is an indication that the media’s widespread failure to pay careful attention to the complexities of religion not only misleads us about domestic and international affairs but also gets people killed.
There is no excusing Newsweek's irresponsibility in publishing an explosive story that was false. But establishment conservatives like Marshall are fighting the last war if they think this is a story that is solely about media bias. Of course the media is biased, and it's getting worse, but people are waking up to that.
The bigger story here, and the gorilla in the living room that no one wants to notice, is that flushing a Qur'an down the toilet should not be grounds to commit murder. Note the total absence of moral judgment in Marshall's piece, except that which he directs toward Newsweek. His argument is this: Newsweek should have known that this story would lead to deaths. Therefore, they shouldn't have printed it. But he says nothing whatsoever about a culture that condones -- celebrates -- wanton murder of innocent people, mayhem, and destruction in response to the alleged and unproven destruction of a book.
The question here is one of proportionate response. If a Qur'an had indeed been flushed, Muslims would have justifiably been offended. They may justifiably have considered the perpetrators boors, or barbarians, or hell-bound unbelievers. They may justifiably have issued denunciations accordingly. But that is all. To kill people thousands of miles away who had nothing to do with the act, and the fulminate with threats and murder against the entire Western world, all because of this alleged act, is not just disproportionate. It is not just excessive. It is mad. And every decent person in the world ought to have the courage to stand up and say that it is mad.
I suspect that even Paul Marshall, somewhere in the back of his mind, knows that it is mad too. But why doesn't he say so? Because Rule #1 in the establishment (left and right) view of this present conflict is that it has nothing to do with Islam. To bring a moral judgment to bear upon Muslim people, or to explore the ways in which Islam fuels the conflict, is therefore absolutely forbidden.
Marshall is doing the Western world an enormous disservice. The reaction to the Newsweek story in the Muslim world only shows how critical it is that the elements of Islam that give rise to fanaticism and violence be examined and confronted. Lives are at stake. But to Paul Marshall, it's all about media bias.
UPDATE: I have altered the headline and some of the material in this post in light of the excellent Andrew McCarthy piece at NR today, which makes some of the points I make here. There may be hope for NR yet.
Posted by Robert at May 17, 2005 7:47 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
Robert,
National Review long ago cast aside opposition to the multiculturalism/diversity agenda of the Left. They have been thoroughly co-opted on these critical principles which inform the the debate on Islam's threat to the West.
IN recent times, NR ceased criticism of the mass immigration policies put into place under liberal Democrats in 1965 (designed to increase the flow of Third World populations -- including muslims). NR now clearly adopts the stance of "see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil" on issues pertaining to the subversion of American and Western cultural and national identities.
NR was a part of the bitter neocon attacks on multiculturalism ("paleocon") critics such as Joseph Sobran, Pat Buchanan, and Samuel Francis (among others). This fratricide gives clues to the new accommodationist stance of NR toward Islam. Occasionally, NRO carries columns by CIS mass-immigration/multiculturalism critic Mark Krikorian but this is an exception to the overal NR viewpoint.
Posted by: info_tech_guy![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at May 17, 2005 8:40 AM
I can't speak to any validity on this, but check out what this apparent research is saying in regards to Quran desecration.
http://www.mediachannel.org/views/dissector/affalert376.shtml
Posted by: Mackie at May 17, 2005 9:59 AM
Early this morning on Fox and Friends, host Kiran Chentry was explaining the US Military's policy at Gitmo on handling the Koran. Only a Muslim chaplain may handle the Koran or hand it to a prisoner. If a prisoner wants to give his Koran to a Muslim chaplain, the book must be wrapped by the prisoner in a clean towel in his possession and then the prisoner hands the towel-wrapped Koran to the guard who then takes it to the Muslim chaplain. The joke is clearly on the hapless and politically correct US Military. The chaplains and prisoners are treating the guards as dirty infidels, and they don't even know it. And, just think of what kind of information can be passed from a prisoner to a chaplain in those towel-wrapped Korans. The foxes are clearly guarding the henhouse in Cuba. If the military just thought about for more than a minute, they might ask themselves how copies of the Koran are treated at Barnes and Noble Bookstores. As far as I know, no towels are needed to view a copy or buy a copy. Just think of all of the infidels who might handle those "holy books." It's enough to start another riot....
Posted by: maryrose at May 17, 2005 10:01 AM
My copy of the Quran sits right next to my copy of the Bible and the Torah and it doesn't bother me at all. Is there something wrong with my thinking? have I violated any Islamic laws? by having the Torah, and the Bible touch the Quran.
Posted by: Mackie at May 17, 2005 10:26 AM
This "regrettable" incident demonstrates once again the disdain of the Muslim world that finds all things Western contemptible. That the "alleged treatment" or a holy book given out in a rumor is sufficient to instigate a murderous rampage in which people were killed and wounded is surreal.
"Maryrose's" above comment is another example of the same. In order to prevent a problem with Muslim prisoners, military policy is reinforcing Muslim disdain and prejudice.
Months ago we read on this site of a street sweeper that inadvertently leaned some brush against the wall of mosque. He was beaten to death for "desecrating the mosque." Obviously life with and for Muslims is dangerous: the will kill you at the slightest provocation.
Some Christians and Jews have the feeling about their texts. However we never hear of them going on murderous rampages for the sake of the holy texts. Why is that? Hmmmmmmm.
Posted by: epg at May 17, 2005 12:02 PM
well said Robert.
It is totally outrageous how this is tolerated by the general public and much of the Mainstream Media. NR editorialist is just part of the MSM disease of not getting it when it comes to threats to the country on this subject.
The ridiculous treatment of this subject borders on the absurd. The article below proves how Dhimmi our society has become to point of ridiculousness. Never mind the Islamist Extremists sawing off peoples' heads - just make certain your hold the Qu'ran with the right gloves, etc., when you handle it.
======================================
U.S. Long Had Memo on Handling of Koran
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/16/AR2005051601320.html
By Robin Wright
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, May 17, 2005; A03
More than two years ago, the Pentagon issued detailed rules for handling the Koran at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, requiring U.S. personnel to ensure that the holy book is not placed in "offensive areas such as the floor, near the toilet or sink, near the feet, or dirty/wet areas."
The three-page memorandum, dated Jan. 19, 2003, says that only Muslim chaplains and Muslim interpreters can handle the holy book, and only after putting on clean gloves in full view of detainees.
The detailed rules require U.S. Muslim personnel to use both hands when touching the Koran to signal "respect and reverence," and specify that the right hand be the primary one used to manipulate any part of the book "due to cultural associations with the left hand." The Koran should be treated like a "fragile piece of delicate art," it says.
The memo, written a year after the first detainees were brought to Guantanamo from Afghanistan, reflects what U.S. officials said was a specific policy on handling the Koran, one of the most sensitive issues to Muslims. The Pentagon does not have a similar policy regarding any other major religious book and takes "extra precautions" on the Muslim holy book, officials said.
"They're not supposed to in any way disrespect or desecrate the Koran, and there are a very specific set of rules the military has on handling the Koran," State Department spokesman Richard A. Boucher said yesterday. "We made it clear that our practices and our policies are completely different" from allegations in a Newsweek article that the magazine formally retracted yesterday. The Newsweek report said that U.S. military investigators had confirmed that a U.S. interrogator at Guantanamo had flushed a copy of the Koran down a toilet.
The Pentagon memo, among other directives, barred military police from touching the Koran. If a copy of the book was to be moved from a cell, the memo said, it must be placed on a "clean, dry detainee towel" and then wrapped without turning it over at any time. Muslim chaplains must then ensure that it is not placed in any offensive area while transported.
In an effort at damage control, the State Department transmitted the Newsweek retraction to all U.S. embassies in Islamic countries yesterday along with statements by top Bush administration officials about U.S. respect for the Koran.
Posted by: jeffreyimm at May 17, 2005 1:27 PM
“so many gruesome reports of torture and abuse at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere, the vehemence of feeling around this case came as something of a surprise.”
Gruesome reports of torture and abuse at Abu Ghraib? Humiliation perhaps, but torture? Muslims are such thin skinned sissies aren't they.
Always skulking around with their bottom lips out pouting like little babies.
Oops, I hope this doesn't offend them, but it likely will, being the bunch of mama's boys they are.
Posted by: DCWatson at May 17, 2005 1:29 PM
Um, couple of things:
Last night on Nightline the Newsweek honcho kept using the term "Koran abuse" for what alledgedly happened at Gitmo.
So now in lieu of prisoner abuse we can worry about abused books.
Is there a similar term for Bibles, Baghavad Gitas, etc.? And would Christians riot over this?
Second, in all this insanity no one to my knowledge has asked the simple question: How the HELL do you flush a large-sized book down a toilet? Huh? I mean, unless they're using latrines at Gitmo, in which case there would be no flushing involved, it's going to get stuck. Right?
So the whole thing is an impossibility. Which means Newsweek caused murderous riots over something that, had they scratched their heads and thought about it for a minute, would have merited no more than a loud newsroom laugh.
Ask any plumber.
Posted by: Cato the Elder at May 17, 2005 1:30 PM
Why are you excoriating TNR? Today's column by Andrew McCarthy very clearly states: "The reason for the carnage here was, and is, militant Islam. Nothing more."
"Newsweek merely gave the crazies their excuse du jour. But they didn't need a report of Koran desecration to fly jumbo jets into skyscrapers, to blow up embassies, or to behead hostages taken for the great sin of being Americans or Jews. They didn't need a report of Koran desecration to take to the streets and blame the United States while enthusiastically taking innocent lives. This is what they do."
http://nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200505171307.asp
Could he be any clearer?
Posted by: kelley at May 17, 2005 1:44 PM
Kelley:
I'm glad to see that. Obviously I hadn't seen that when I wrote this. Marshall's piece is not so sensible.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at May 17, 2005 1:48 PM
As an update to Maryrose's post:
Until a few minutes ago, I had seen not even one television show on which anyone had stated the real cause of the 'Qur'anic Flush' riots.
Steve Emmerson, on Fox's Dayside, spilled the beans.
He made it very clear to the host, the guests, and anyone watching that Islamic leaders, clerics, and their media are at fault.
The host was speechless.
Posted by: PRCS at May 17, 2005 2:07 PM
Try to imagine the unimaginable: Americans en mass torching mosques, killing Muslims, issuing threats against Muslims around the world, because a Pakistani newspaper reported that an American flag had been urinated on while al Quaeda interrogated a captured airman.
And in the aftermath of these riots, try to imagine the debate in Muslim media on journalistic ethics...
And now picture reality: the airman would be tortured and then beheaded in a ritual inspired by the Qur'an; the beheading would be broadcast on the Internet, not to offend Americans, but to aid in recruitment for Jihad; the beheading would be viewed as a truimph worthy of bragging rights and have a tantalizing appeal to millions of Muslims worldwide.
We are well beyond talk of double standards in making these kinds of comparisons. The world has gone absolutely mad.
Posted by: JTF at May 17, 2005 2:22 PM
There is an dpa (Deutsche Presse Agentur = German Press Agency) article in most German dailies today. It was written by the dpa's Washington bureau chief, a guy called Laszlo Trankovits (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=lang_en&as_qdr=all&q=Laszlo+Trankovits&btnG=Search&lr=lang_en), and is extremely worrying once again. I'm not going to translate the piece but just one part:
"A lot of people are going to believe that the magazine has been forced to retract the article. The L.A. Times quoted the Islam Expert Ibrahim Hooper..."
I can't get hold of the email address of this Trankovits guy otherwise I would write him an email re. Mr. Hooper. Well, he probably knows what Hooper and CAIR are all about and still sides with them. Scumbags.
Posted by: disillusionised_german at May 17, 2005 2:43 PM
I think the West simply hasn't got a handle on how to 'properly' [read: Intellectually] grasp the Islamists' agenda & their societal reactions.
Calling it 'madness', while correct in its' essentials, doesn't wash. Its smacks of throwing up one's hands in the face of adversity - yet so does not naming what it is.
Interestingly, in my search for more commenters on the subject, I came across a french intellectual, the philosopher André Glucksmann.
In his view, the Islamists are not a reactionary throwback but a modern expression of Nihilism, the eternal enemy of civilisation.
Maybe so, maybe not. But he does make one view the enemy in different ways [and we need all of that we can get].
Posted by: urthshu at May 17, 2005 6:01 PM
"Calling it 'madness'. . .doesn't wash. It smacks of throwing up one's hands in the face of adversity - yet so does not naming what it is.
the Islamists are not a reactionary throwback but a modern expression of Nihilism, the eternal enemy of civilisation..."
Posted by: urthshu at May 17, 2005 06:01 PM
Urthshu,
Glucksmann is 100% correct here! There are many expressions of Nihilism, all falling under the umbrella of Postmodernism, the anti-Enlightenment thinking that arose with great force in Germany.
These people, thanks largely to Kant, Hegel, and Marx, oppose virtually everything, from individual rights to free enterprise, that was born of the Englightenment. They are deconstructionists. They are destroyers. That's what Nihilists DO.
Leftists. Socialists. Communists. Nazis. Fascists. Islam.
"Nihilism" is the common thread that joins all these collectivists. Ice cream comes in many flavors, but it is still ice cream.
Ours is, always has been, and always will be, the struggle of reason against those who reject it.
Posted by: Cubed at May 17, 2005 8:07 PM
All of the talk-shows also seemed to be completely missing the important issue. We already knew the MSM was willing to make up news, so the Newsweak concoction should not have been shocking, but the fact that a group of people was willing to kill 15 and injure many more because some pieces of paper got wet should be very shocking and very troubling.
Posted by: Dilophos at May 17, 2005 8:36 PM
Kant's little work "Was Ist Aufklarung?" is often used by historians to more or less define the primary characteristics of the enlightenment. In fact Kant's work is one reason the term 'enlightenment' (Aufklarung) came into currency in the first place. The philosophies of both Hegel and Marx have a Kantian lineage and, arguably, deserve some affiliation with 'enlightenment' thought. Communism and socialism, however we want to understand these 'isms', emerge from enlightenment principles and methodologies, like equality, empirical study of society and institutions, rational critique of religion, and such like.
Sweeping, uncritical generalizations are the death of reason and the birth of prejudice, very anti-enlightenment notions, by the way.
I don't see the common thread of nihilism, but a common thread of nonsense does come to mind. Philosophy deserves better.
Posted by: JTF at May 17, 2005 9:34 PM
I'd say that Islam is unique: it is an example of Theistic Nihilism, with an unhealthy dash of violent apocalypticism thrown in.
Posted by: metaxy at May 18, 2005 2:20 AM
I'd say that Islam is unique: it is an example of Theistic Nihilism, with an unhealthy dash of violent apocalypticism thrown in.
Posted by: metaxy at May 18, 2005 2:22 AM
**It would be charitable to think that if Newsweek had known how explosive the story was it may have held off until it had more confirmation. If this is true, it is an indication that the media’s widespread failure to pay careful attention to the complexities of religion not only misleads us about domestic and international affairs but also gets people killed.**
On this point, Paul Marshall does have a point. We speak of Islamic "fundamentalism" chiefly because, in 1979, the MSM couldn't turn donwn a chance to demonize Evangelical Christians by placing them under the same rhetorical rubric as the Khomeini-ites. It misleads all the way up to the halls of the State Department, if not farther.
Mackie, I don't know about your Bible, but the Torah is the first five books of mine.
Cubed, the post-modern nihilists aren't anti-enlightenment: they're enlightenment gone to seed.
Posted by: Kepha at May 18, 2005 6:09 AM
I will add as well that I agree 150% that damaging a book should not be grounds to commit murder, I'll add as well that Paul Marshall was simply assessing the facts about an Islamic world that is on the boil.
Posted by: Kepha at May 18, 2005 6:12 AM
Newsweek lied, people died.
Posted by: Kim Hartveld at May 18, 2005 7:07 AM
(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.)