Top College News Subscribe to the Newsletter

Soapbox: Reactions to Quran burning in Afghanistan

Ending the West's culturally relativist exception to Muslim extremism

Columnist

Published: Sunday, March 11, 2012

Updated: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 15:03

Afghanistan Koran

image coutesy of marsmet521

Afghanis protest outside of a NATO base after U.S. troops burned the Quaran


Editor's Note: This piece was written before the shooting outside of Camp Belambay on March 10, 2012, it is not intended as an indictment of all or the majority of Muslims.

If the West should remain culturally sensitive in its endeavors abroad, it needs to stop tolerating the barbaric reactions of a minority of Muslims to slights against Islam.  We should not make a culturally relativist exception for extremist Muslims to murder in the name of their religion. 

The burning of Qurans at a U.S. military base in Afghanistan was a terrible mistake that merited President Barack Obama’s letter of apology to President Hamid Karzai. The Quran, like most other religious texts, must be disposed of in a particular manner as prescribed by religious law.

The failure of U.S. military personnel to recognize this was insensitive and counterproductive to America’s stated goal of fostering stability in Afghanistan. Such mistakes undermine our credibility and deserve to be condemned without reservation. Whoever was responsible for the blunder deserves to be punished accordingly. The U.S. would be well served to provide its soldiers with the military equivalent of “sensitivity training” to prevent similar instances in the future. However, none of this excuses the disproportionate and, frankly, childish reaction of some Muslims to what was clearly an accident. 

That being said, the actions of some Afghan citizens in response to the Quran burning is far more appalling than the incident that inspired them. This should not be considered a controversial statement; there is simply no non-theological way to justify murder on the grounds of book burning. If this were the case, the entire world would fall into chaos. It is one thing to accept the sanctity of a holy text; it is quite another to accept the notion that those offended by an act of desecration have the right to exact a blood toll.

The fact that a book burning is held by a significant number of Afghanis as cause for massive protests, much less murder, speaks to a serious lack of priorities in that country and much of the Muslim world. In light of the horrific acts of violence inflicted on Muslim Arabs every day (some of them perpetrated by the “Christian” U.S., many more by other Muslims), the capacity of a book burning to provoke such a violent reaction speaks to a serious confusion of priorities in the Middle East.

Unsurprisingly, many progressives have justifiably condemned the Quran burning while unjustifiably sparing Afghanis criticism for their barbaric response. Cultural relativism should never be construed to justify murder. It is long past time that we stop indulging the Muslim world’s widespread extremism out of some misguided attempt to feel less guilty about imperialism.

Adherence to an antiquated version of Islam (just like strict adherence to any religion) is a big, if not the biggest, problem in the Middle East right now, and the West does not do Arab Muslims any service by catering to their fanaticism. For years, the West has tacitly accepted violent reprisals by Muslims in response to all manner of slights both real and imagined. The West acts as if years of oppression somehow absolve all Muslims of responsibility for the crimes perpetrated in the name of their faith.  

These same progressives defend Muslims’ penchant for violent reprisals by posing the question: would members of any religion respond differently to the debasement of their religious texts in a similar manner? Indeed, no one who has seriously studied Judaism, Christian or any Eastern religion can seriously claim that violence and intolerance are unique to Islam. That being said, in recent years, a sizeable minority of Muslims have demonstrated a disturbing unwillingness to tolerate the inevitable criticism and disrespect that comes with being a major world religion. Worse, moderate Muslims have not adequately condemned the extremists perpetrating violence in the name of their religion — perhaps out of fear for their own safety or perhaps out of a misguided attempt to safeguard Islam’s reputation. In many cases, mainstream Islamic authorities have tacitly accepted fatwas on individuals with the audacity to, for example, draw a picture of the prophet Muhammad.     

For all their bellicose rhetoric about waging a religious war against Islam, it is not common for evangelical Christians (or Jews, or Hindus, or Buddhists…) in the West to go on killing sprees when Muslims disrespect their holy texts. Hamas and Hezbollah launch rockets at Israeli cities with the express purpose of killing Jews, who they consider the equivalent of pigs and dogs, and Israel is condemned for a “disproportionate response.” But burn one Quran, or display one picture of Mohammad, and we tacitly accept that extremist Muslims will take to the streets in protest, issue Fatwas against journalists, and decapitate film directors in the street. Worse, it is politically incorrect to point out that this kind of reaction is incompatible with contemporary Western values. Comparatively little sympathy is spared for the countless Christians and Jews with the audacity to practice their religion in so-called “Muslim countries.”

Recommended: Articles that may interest you

3 comments

Anonymous
Wed Mar 14 2012 22:08
I fully respect your right to your own views, and agree with the initial response comment that the article is well written. However, I find that I must respond to and disagree with your blanket statements and rash judgments of a culture external to yours. First of all, you state in your article that the Qur'an burnings were a mistake. However, in the reading that I have done on the incident, I have seen no indication that the burnings were not fully intentional. Kirby, a spokesman for the Pentagon, said in an interview that fact-finding missions found that those who burned the texts do not appear to have intended to insult Muslims but that the act was simply a consequence of said soldiers' ignorance. However, to say that something was done in ignorance or done without the intention of insulting someone is not to say that the act was not committed fully intentionally. Therefore, I would like to see where you found proof of your claim that the burning was a "mistake". Furthermore, you claim in your article that the explosive reaction to the Qur'an burnings was "childish" and that the severity of the reactions indicates a lack of priorities in those individuals' country. I ask you then, what do you think would happen if someone burned the American flag? Though it is legally considered a constitutional right but the degree of outrage which has come up in the past in this country because of flag burning has been explosive in its own right. I find it incredibly insulting that you view the widespread protests to the Qur'an burnings "childish" and signals of a lack of priorities in Afghanistan. To suggest that one people lacks something that others do not because of their reactions to an event that desecrates a symbol of great cultural significance is ethnocentric and rude. Were you to suggest that the flag is more important to the US than the Qur'an is to Afghanistan, I question your receptivity to the fact that you do not know everything there is to know about Afghanistan. Unless you have grown up there, I think you are unqualified to make such blanket statements about how people in that country should react to something that is clearly not culturally significant to you. What is important to you in your culture, including the importance of certain "priorities", is in no way absolutely important to those in other cultures, and to assume so is, again, a symptom of ethnocentrism. You also write that "The West acts as if years of oppression somehow absolve all Muslims of responsibility for the crimes perpetrated in the name of their faith." Do you see Bush's reactions to the September 11th attacks, crimes committed in the name of Islamic jihad, acts that indicate his decision to absolve the Muslims that committed those actions of their responsibility. I find this a remarkable statement, considering the response to those actions led to years and years of war. Finally, I take offense at your statement about the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. To write "disproportionate response" is to trivialize the type of actions that Israel frequently takes against Palestinians, many of which are not responses, but provocations and initiating actions. For example, what many in the West refer to as the Security Fence and what others, including those whose lives are actually impacted by it, call the Separation Wall, is a very disproportionate action -- quotation marks not included. This is not a trivial response to Palestinians and certain factions of Palestinians. I personally have two friends who are Palestinian and who went to my high school. They lived in the occupied territories for many years. The Separation Wall goes directly through their friend's neighborhood, cutting her family off from their neighbors and entire relationships and aspects of their former lives. In addition, media in the US adheres to government policy, which has supported Israel with military aid for decades, and neglects to provide the public in this particular country, including yourself, with statistics indicating the degree to which Israel violates the Palestinian people. Currently, while 1,084 Israelis have been killed since 2000, Israel has murdered 6,430 Palestinians in the same amount of time. What does this say to the idea that the term - disproportional response - should be trivialized by quotation marks which cloud the truth behind Israel's true actions. Furthermore, to suggest that the West pays a great deal of attention to instances in which Hamas and Hezbollah commit acts of terrorism against Israelis but ignores situations such as the response of some citizens in Afghanistan to soldiers' burning of the Qur'an is an inflation of the truth. The West is remarkably void of discussion of many circumstances related to the Israel/Palestine conflict that do not reflect well on its general economic and political policies towards Israel. For example, during mass Jewish immigration into Palestine soon before the 1948 War after Israel's...
Anonymous
Wed Mar 14 2012 10:15
Eric,

This article is well written, and I think you raise some good points in it. There are, however, a few oversights. As for the first comment (below), its first of all not very nice (which is fine), but it seems to me that if your going to call something "drivel" or a mere extension of imperialism, you better back it up. But hey, not all comments have to be essays (by the way, I'm sorry that mine is).

Now, Eric, let me see if I can grasp the gist of your article. Please correct me if I'm wrong; it's one with which I think I agree. It's true that other cultures or religions justify killing or murder in certain situations. Instead of passively accepting this as "just another part of their culture," however, the US (and the West) should make a moral stand for the intrinsic value of human life and, therefore, against the evil of murder--in every case, no cultural exceptions.

Good point! Just because we've been imperialists in the past doesn't mean that our notion of universal human dignity has to condemnable. But here's the thing, and I'll try to be brief.

You call the reactions of some Muslims "disproportionate" and "childish." Without justifying their behavior, we should try to take seriously religious conviction. I mean, actually having your worldview and all sense of value informed by religion (in this case, Islam, embodied in the Quran). We should be scorning the US's stupidity here. Could you imagine if bibles were burnt in Alabama in the 1950s, for example (before we became so relativist and secular)? There would be moral outrage! Chaos! The murders were wrong--no question. So were the responses disproportionate? Yes. Childish? Not quite a fair word to use.

You also say that there is no "non-theological way to justify murder on the grounds of book burning." Again, your right! But they're not interested in non-theological justifications, so why demand them? Also, what do you mean when you say that moderate Muslims have not adequately condemned the extremists? Do you think every moderate Christian feels responsible for the crap that the Westboro Baptist Church puts out there? Of course not, and they shouldn't have to.

You also say, "the West does not do Arab Muslims any service by catering to their fanaticism." Is unailing support of Israel catering to that fanaticism? How about the war in Iraq? Or the war in Afghanistan? Harsh economic sanctions and threats of starting yet ANOTHER war in Iran? In no way shape or form has the US catered to fanaticism. What would a satisfactory response to murder due to Quran burning look like to you? Of course we stand against killing; why exacerbate things by reprimanding them when WE were the idiots in the first place.

But don't get me wrong. Your point is good. Nobody should be brushing these murders aside as excusable aspects of a culture that we don't understand. And yes, these extremists are giving the rest of the Muslim world a bad image. But there are many Muslims who would agree with us that murder is always wrong. I apologize this post is so long. I don't mean to be pretentious or anything. You wrote a very informed and thought-provoking article is all. I'd like to write more, but I'll save you the anguish. Would love to discuss though! Thanks for writing!

Anonymous
Mon Mar 12 2012 18:42
Why are you so bent on calling Muslim's extremists? The real extremists are the American government and the military's colonization of Middle Eastern land, killing 100,000's of people so the U.S. can control the region's oil and resources. That's imperialism. That is real extremism. This article-well it is drivel and it just demonizes colonized people from an imperialist perspective.




log out