Moral outrage: Burning of the Quran versus free speech
by Salman Hameed
The US presence in Afghanistan is becoming an embarrassment with every passing day. I was already planning on writing about the outrage over the burning of the Quran when we heard about the massacre of 16 people, including 9 children, by a US soldier. The reaction to Qur'an burning was much more severe than the latter incident. How do we make sense of that?
I think a perfect starting point is something that biologist Jerry Coyne wrote last month. He had a post about the Qur'an burning incident, titled Eight dead because four Qur'ans burned. He ended his post by stating "It's just pieces of paper". This is an interesting comment and it got me thinking about how a society attributes value to things or actions. I actually agree that human lives should be paramount and not be wasted for any such offense (and that is why it was and still is lunacy when people threaten Salman Rushdie). But that doesn't mean that "it's just pieces of paper". It might be for Coyne - but Afghans (and other Muslims) value the Qur'an differently. If the US forces are in Afghanistan - then they should respect the culture they are in. Such a respect for other cultures is also part of liberal thinking. However, this appreciation of "value"becomes even more important when there is an asymmetric power relation, and it is the powerful that is accused of violating the local customs. The US forces are inAfghanistan - and they have to learn and respect the local culture.
But let me bring up two other cases:
1) Freedom of speech and the Danish cartoon controversy: Here, I the Muslims over-reached and showed insensitivity to the local customs. The issue of freedom of expression is not without problems, but it is an important one. Muslims threatening cartoonists for drawing pictures of prophet Muhammad (PBUH) is equally insensitive to the local values. If one doesn't want to see the pictures and is offended by them - don't see them. But one cannot enforce his/her values on to the local Europeans (or on to the South Park creators in the US) simply because one is offended by them.
We are seeing more and more of these clashes because different value systems are colliding due to global connectivity - and we have to understand and appreciate the different viewpoints.
2) The destruction of Bamiyan Buddhas: Talking about values, how do we think about the Bamiyan statues statues destroyed by the Taliban? Of course, the destruction of the 2000 year old statues by the Taliban was insane. But then the Taliban almost used the same logic as Coyne's: These are just pieces of rock, they are located in their territory, and they didn't like them. What is the big deal? But of course, this is a big deal. We associate value to them and deem them important for historical and cultural perspectives. Similarly, we can argue for the immense value of Mona Lisa or the pyramids of Giza, etc.
But of course, there is a balancing part. I don't think any of this is meant to be a defense of any loss of lives or any form of cultural practice. I do think that some of the cultural customs of Taliban related to women are deeply problematic (the same is true for Saudi Arabia). These are not easy issues and require some nuance. Calling Qur'an "It is just pieces of paper"misses the point.
Similarly, here is an article from NYT that talks about the reaction over Qur'an burning versus the massacre. It at least makes an effort to understand cultural values:
The US presence in Afghanistan is becoming an embarrassment with every passing day. I was already planning on writing about the outrage over the burning of the Quran when we heard about the massacre of 16 people, including 9 children, by a US soldier. The reaction to Qur'an burning was much more severe than the latter incident. How do we make sense of that?
I think a perfect starting point is something that biologist Jerry Coyne wrote last month. He had a post about the Qur'an burning incident, titled Eight dead because four Qur'ans burned. He ended his post by stating "It's just pieces of paper". This is an interesting comment and it got me thinking about how a society attributes value to things or actions. I actually agree that human lives should be paramount and not be wasted for any such offense (and that is why it was and still is lunacy when people threaten Salman Rushdie). But that doesn't mean that "it's just pieces of paper". It might be for Coyne - but Afghans (and other Muslims) value the Qur'an differently. If the US forces are in Afghanistan - then they should respect the culture they are in. Such a respect for other cultures is also part of liberal thinking. However, this appreciation of "value"becomes even more important when there is an asymmetric power relation, and it is the powerful that is accused of violating the local customs. The US forces are inAfghanistan - and they have to learn and respect the local culture.
But let me bring up two other cases:
1) Freedom of speech and the Danish cartoon controversy: Here, I the Muslims over-reached and showed insensitivity to the local customs. The issue of freedom of expression is not without problems, but it is an important one. Muslims threatening cartoonists for drawing pictures of prophet Muhammad (PBUH) is equally insensitive to the local values. If one doesn't want to see the pictures and is offended by them - don't see them. But one cannot enforce his/her values on to the local Europeans (or on to the South Park creators in the US) simply because one is offended by them.
We are seeing more and more of these clashes because different value systems are colliding due to global connectivity - and we have to understand and appreciate the different viewpoints.
2) The destruction of Bamiyan Buddhas: Talking about values, how do we think about the Bamiyan statues statues destroyed by the Taliban? Of course, the destruction of the 2000 year old statues by the Taliban was insane. But then the Taliban almost used the same logic as Coyne's: These are just pieces of rock, they are located in their territory, and they didn't like them. What is the big deal? But of course, this is a big deal. We associate value to them and deem them important for historical and cultural perspectives. Similarly, we can argue for the immense value of Mona Lisa or the pyramids of Giza, etc.
But of course, there is a balancing part. I don't think any of this is meant to be a defense of any loss of lives or any form of cultural practice. I do think that some of the cultural customs of Taliban related to women are deeply problematic (the same is true for Saudi Arabia). These are not easy issues and require some nuance. Calling Qur'an "It is just pieces of paper"misses the point.
Similarly, here is an article from NYT that talks about the reaction over Qur'an burning versus the massacre. It at least makes an effort to understand cultural values:
The mullah was astounded and a little angered to be asked why the accidental burning of Korans last month could provoke violence nationwide, while an intentional mass murder that included nine children last Sunday did not.
“How can you compare the dishonoring of the Holy Koran with the martyrdom of innocent civilians?” said an incredulous Mullah Khaliq Dad, a member of the council of religious leaders who investigated the Koran burnings. “The whole goal of our life is religion.”
That many Americans are just as surprised that what appears to be the massacre of 16 people at the hands of an American soldier has not led to mass protests or revenge killings speaks volumes about a fundamental disconnect with their Afghan partners, one that has undermined a longstanding objective to win the hearts and minds of the population. After more than 10 years, many deaths and billions of dollars invested, Americans still fail to grasp the Afghans’ basic values. Faith is paramount and a death can be compensated with blood money.
“To Muslims, and especially to Afghans, religion is much higher a concern than civilian or human casualties,” said Hafez Abdul Qayoom, a member of Afghanistan’s highest clerical body, the Ulema Council. “When something happens to their religion, they are much more sensitive and have much stronger reaction to it.”
...
Mullah Qayoom is surprised that anyone is surprised.
“Humans were sent here to worship and protect religion,” he said. “That is what the purpose of a Muslim’s life is.”
Also, Afghans were very much aware that burning a Koran under American law normally would not be a crime, any more than burning a Bible would be — so those responsible were not going to suffer anything that Afghans would view as appropriate punishment.
In the case of murder, the military does have capital punishment, at least in theory — though no American soldier has ever been sentenced to death for acts committed in Afghanistan, including murders.
“In your laws there is the death penalty, so we are hopeful,” Mullah Qayoom said. “With the Koran burning, your people do not even respect your own books, so in the end they will say ‘sorry’ and the person will be released.”
That Afghans find Koran desecration more distressing does not mean they have been indifferent to the murders, particularly of the children. By now, any Afghan with a computer has seen the victims’ cherubic but lifeless visages on Facebook, and the images have been passed around on cellphones. Wrapped in blankets, some look as if they had just fallen asleep — the coverings hide gaping forehead wounds. A toddler in a blood-stained pinafore looks alive at first glance.
Read the full article here.
0 comments:
welcome to my blog. please write some comment about this article ^_^