As a result of textual analysis it has been asserted that the Old and New Testaments are both more violent than the Koran. The latest video looks at this assertion. Can it really be true that Islam actually is the religion of peace?
Whenever there is a Muslim atrocity committed the automatic first response from Western politicians and media is to assure us that ‘Islam is a religion of peace’. No matter how horrendous, no matter how vehemently the perpetrators proclaim that they are doing this in the name of Islam, no matter how often we hear the cries of ‘Allah Akhbar’ as AK 47s rattle and bombs explode, we are sure to hear proclaimed the same message ‘This has nothing to do with Islam, Islam is a religion of peace’. To which most of us respond with our own version of the Scots ‘Aye – right’ one of the few instance in any language where two positives actually do make a negative. Continue reading “Is The Bible More Violent Than The Koran?”→
The one good thing with regard to the abject apology made by the president of the United States to Karzai is that it was, as usual with Obama, intensely personal. “I wish to express my deep regret for the reported incident. . . . I extend to you and the Afghani people my sincere apologies.” It is doubtful that the American people are quite so willing to make a wretched act of contrition over what was at most an administrative error.
What we in Britain do not get on the BBC is the story behind the burning. This was not the deliberate destruction by the US military of enemy religious artifacts.
The Korans in question were the property of the US military having been supplied by them to imprisoned jihaidis. The soldiers ordered to burn refuse from the jail were not the officials who had confiscated the books, they had no idea they were burning Korans, and tried desperately to retrieve them when the situation was brought to their attention.
The United States military is under no obligation to provide any reading material to its enemy prisoners, the people who are continually trying to murder them. It is difficult to imagine many armies supplying their violent prisoners with the very written material they employ as a pretext for murder and atrocity. Importantly the military exercised its right to remove the books from its library after finding that were being used as a means of passing messages between prisoners.
This of course is of no interest whatsoever to the BBC. On the Sunday programme yesterday Edward Stourton, during an interview on the subject, gave the impression that the riots and murders in Afghanistan were down to the fact that the American military were not given enough ‘sensitivity’ training. It would seem for some the lack of ‘sensitivity’ by the American military towards those trying to murder them is far more worthy of attention than a religion which sees nationwide riot and murder as a proper and proportionate response to an honest mistake.
We should remember that those rioting and killing because of the inadvertent burning of the books are not Taliban or Al Qaeda, rather they are what are termed ordinary ‘mainstream’ Muslims .The ‘religion of peace’ seems to operate on a system of proportionality which says, “You burn books, we kill people.”
If Afghan Muslims are unhappy with what happened maybe they should channel their anger toward the individual prisoners who “defiled” the Korans by writing in them. It is unreasonable to expect that the U.S. military should be compliant with sharia religious law when the most fundamentalist of Muslims are apparently exempt from it.
The unintentional burning would not have occurred if these “fiercely protective of their Islamic faith” Afghans had not defiled the Korans in the first place. But it seems that we are supposed to keep quiet about intentional Muslim defilement of the Koran but make grovelling apologies for unintentional Kafir defilement of the Koran.
So far more than thirty people have been killed in the riots and hundreds injured. This is a normal reaction from within the religion of peace. Most Muslim violence, however, is deployed against other Muslims. Sunnis and Shiites are constantly at loggerheads and no-one has any time for the Ahmadis. Often these Muslim on Muslim incidents are full blown atrocities involving not only murder but the deliberate torching of homes and ‘heretical’ mosques.
By necessity this means that Muslims are destroying Korans by burning. But this is OK for those who are “fiercely protective of their Islamic faith.”
We should also understand that it is all too common in Muslim countries for articles associated with other faiths to be burned, not in error but as a matter of deliberate policy. In our ally Saudi Arabia it is against the law for Jews and Christians to bring Bibles, crucifixes, or a Star of David into the country. If discovered such articles will be confiscated and destroyed. This is shameful and deliberate abuse of Non-Muslims and their religions.
Don’t hold your breath waiting for an apology, either from the sharia controlled governments responsible or their willing apologists in the West. According to the logic of Obama, apology is the acceptable reaction to this incident because we must accept that Muslims have such an extraordinary ardour for their religion that barbaric reactions to trivial slights are inevitable and wholly understandable.
Meanwhile, in Iran, a Christian pastor sits in the condemned cell awaiting death for the crime of questioning the “Muslim monopoly on the religious instruction of children in Iran.” Despite threats and treatment which is barely human Youcef Nadarkhani, arrested in 2009, continues to refuse to renounce Jesus Christ, repent, and embrace Islam. As a result his death by hanging appears imminent. The original charge of “protesting” was later changed to “apostasy” or abandoning Islam,- and “evangelising Muslims,” both of which carry the death sentence.
Obama should reflect that after his open profession of conversion to Christ, if he were in Iran in Nadarkhani’s place, he too would be facing the same fate for rejecting the faith of his Muslim ancestors.
Obama obviously cares deeply that some Korans were mistakenly incinerated. Perhaps he should also care deeply that Youcef Nadarkhani might hang.
Recently we were all condemning Terry Jones for burning a Koran. Politicians and religious leaders, especially in the USA, were lining up to agree with General David Petraeus who said the action was, “hateful, intolerant, extremely disrespectful.”
We even had the extraordinary spectacle of US Senator Lindsey Graham saying that “Free speech is a great idea,” except of course when you say something your enemy might disagree with.
Despite the First Amendment to the US Constitution concerning the separation of Church and state Barak Obama can say “I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.” What’s wrong with the Druids and the Jedi?
Even here across the Atlantic we are aware that Obama and the previous President George W Bush were not best chums. This makes us wonder why the contender Obama did not raise his voice in 2008 when the Bush government ordered the destruction of Bibles sent to US troops in Afghanistan? Perhaps Senator Graham thinks condemnation of burning holy books is a one way street? There seem to have been no voices raised amongst the senior ranks of the US military, the body ordered to burn the Bibles, saying how “extremely disrespectful” this was.
The US government of the day decided that the presence of Bibles in Afghanistan, a “devoutly Muslim country,” might upset the natives who would react in all too predictable ways. Instead of simply returning the Bibles to the USA it was decided that it would be easier, and more pleasing to the natives, to burn them in Afghanistan. In the military they burn trash.
The US Department of Defence is very specific, however, about how to handle the Koran. In instructions to guards at Guantanamo it says:
Clean gloves will be put on in full view of the detainees prior to handling.
Two hands will be used at all times when handling the Koran in manner signalling respect and reverence. Care should be used so that the right hand is the primary one used to manipulate any part of the Koran due to the cultural association with the left hand. Handle the Koran as if it were a fragile piece of delicate art.
These differing reactions to the Koran and the Bible emanating from the US government equate to:
Don’t burn the Koran otherwise Muslims might go on a killing spree.
Do burn the Bible otherwise Muslims might go on a killing spree.
What we see in the actions of two very different US governments is the entrenched progressive bigotry of soft expectations. By making allowances for predictable Muslim reaction they are saying effectually that Muslims are coffee coloured children with dangerous weapons who will throw a tantrum therefore we will appease them. Christians on the other hand can be expected to behave with restraint.
If members of the BNP came out with this we would rightly condemn it as odious bilge. Why is it not odious when it is the effect of what progressive Islamist apologists decide?