New in PJ Media:
Book burning is an ugly business; in America is generally associated with Nazis standing gleefully before bonfires of forbidden books. Still, the freedom of expression is the freedom of expression, and if someone wants to burn a copy of Mein Kampf or The Catcher in the Rye or the Bible, that’s his business. When it comes to the Qur’an, however, suddenly the most stalwart exponents of the freedom of expression start talking about how much we need to curtail that freedom in order to respect the rights of others. It’s all happening again in connection with the burning of a Qur’an in Sweden on Friday.
Rasmus Paludan is a Danish politician to whom the establishment media universally refers as “far right,” which these days means little more than, “This is someone the elites don’t want you to like or support.” He obtained permission from the Swedish government to burn a Qur’an publicly; the permission was granted precisely in the interest of upholding the freedom of expression.
After the book was duly burned, the real firestorm began. Several countries summoned their Swedish ambassadors. Condemnations came in from all over the Islamic world. The Turkish Foreign Ministry declared that the act was “an outright hate crime” and added: “Permitting this anti-Islam act, which targets Muslims and insults our sacred values, under the guise of freedom of expression is completely unacceptable. This despicable act is yet another example of the alarming level that Islamophobia and, racist and discriminatory movements have reached in Europe.” The Foreign Ministry said nothing about the jihad violence or Sharia oppression that might lead someone to dislike the Qur’an in the first place.
Pakistan’s Foreign Ministry chimed in with, “This senseless and provocative Islamophobic act hurts the religious sensitivities of over 1.5 billion Muslims around the world.” It insisted that such acts were “not covered under any legitimate expression of the right to freedom of expression or opinion, which carries responsibilities under international human rights law, such as the obligation not to carry out hate speech and incite people to violence.”
Kuwaiti Foreign Minister Sheikh Salem Abdullah Al Jaber Al Sabah said the burning “hurts Muslims’ sentiments across the world and marks serious provocation.” He said that the world should “shoulder responsibility by stopping such unacceptable acts and denouncing all forms of hatred and extremism and bringing the perpetrators to accountability.”
Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson Nasser Kanaani said that Europe invokes the freedom of speech in order to “allow extremist and radical elements to spread hatred against Islamic sanctities and values.” He said that the burning was a “clear example of spreading hatred and fueling violence against Muslims” and had “nothing to do with freedom of speech and thought.”
There is more. Read the rest here.
࿗Infidel࿘ says
I am glad that Rasmus Paludan went ahead w/ his Quran burning, and that it wasn’t cancelled out of fear or threats. He should just give the UN the 🖕
A correction to something I previously wrote: I hoped for him to one day come to power in Sweden. Well, make that Denmark, if he happens to be a Danish politician
Walter Sieruk says
The United Nations should have condemned that idiot action of burning the Qu ‘ran , but not necessarily make it illegal.
What nations should condemn , at all, are the scholars who read and studly the Qu ‘ran and discover all the many contradiction and error that this “holy book” of Islam contains and the publish their finding in pubic information sources for all the people of the different countries of the world to see.
in other words, a much more intelligent way to handle the subject the Qu ran than to burn it is to read , study and research the Qu ‘ran to reveal and expose the many errors and contradictions that it contains.
Therefore it had been revealed on pages 145 through 157 in THE ISLAMIC INVASION by Robert Morey in which he wrote a section on the Qu‘ran with its self-contradictions. Just two of the many he cited are the following “The Qu’ran differs on whether a day is a thousand years or fifty thousand years in God’s sight’ and “Who was first to believe? Abraham or Moses [Sura 6:14 versus 7:143]? The above is inconsistent and illogical. Further, Morey wrote about “The fact that Judaism and Christianity broke up into different sects was used in the Qu ‘ran to prove that they are not of God [Suras 30:20-32. 42:13, 14]. Yet Islam has broken up into many warring sects and therefore cannot be true if the Qu ‘ran is right.”
Moreover, Morey in his book shows many more contradictions and absurdities in the Qu ‘ran, there are and how Muhammad incorporated extra Biblical and Jewish folklore along with pre-Islamic Arabian myth and parts of Zoroastrian and Hindu stories into the Qu ‘ran.
Furthermore, the Muslims claim that “the Qu ‘ran is the direct, literal word of God unmodified in any way by the Prophet who uttered them at the bidding of God.” In addition , in the book UNVEILING ISLAM by Ergun Mehmet Caner and Eethi Caner has shown that the Quran was modified in the following account on pages 45. “Muhammad felt the need to improve on the words of Allah, since he changed Allah’s wisdom for his own on several occasions. A hadith tells of the nonchalant emendations of Muhammad:’ On a number of occasions he [a scribe] had, with the Prophet’s consent changed the closing words of verses.
For example, when the prophet had said ‘God is mighty and wise ‘ Adbollah b. Abi Sarh suggested writing down ‘Knowing and wise’ and the Prophet answered that there was no objection. Having observed a succession of changes of this type, Adbollah renounced Islam on the grounds that revelations, if from God could not be changed at the prompting of a scribe such as himself. After his apostasy he went to Mecca and joined the Qorayshites.’ Other writers reveal that later Muhammad and his people did go war with the Qorayshites and he personally killed Abdollah. Obviously Abdollah knew too much and Muhammad wanted Abdollah’s knowledge to die with him.”
In conclusion, the Qu ‘ran is not only a fiction, it’s also a hoax.
࿗Infidel࿘ says
Why should any sane person/entity condemn burning the quran, unless they were hapless non-muslims in a muslim country confronted by a muslim mob? That idea is asinine
Keith O says
Personally Infidel, I don’t think we should burn the quran.
Doing so would be a waste of paper that could be well used for wiping my butt or recycled into cardboard boxes, things like that.
James Lincoln says
Spot on, Keith O.
It would also be useful for lining the cage of my daughter’s pet rabbit.
OLD GUY says
I suppose burning the Qur’an would be a good source of heat in those countries that did away with coal and oil for energy this winter. Makes a good starter for the fireplace also. But I prefer the NYT.
James Lincoln says
OLD GUY,
All good choices, but I prefer the WaPo…