A military investigation into allegations of the desecration of the Quran has found five such cases since 2002 at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. The Pentagon has not said how much longer the investigation into the claims will last.
Media reports of the desecration of the Muslim holy book led to riots and death in Afghanistan (SN reported), and caused an uproar globally. It was the story in Newsweek that sparked the Pentagon investigation.
The Newsweek story has since been retracted, following pressure from the Bush administration.
The story says confirms "mishandling", not desecration.
"Officials say they found 15 incidents in which detainees mishandled or inappropriately treated the Quran. That includes one case of a detainee ripping pages from his holy book."
I love that, they are up in arms about this, when they are doing it themselves.
i understand muslims are upset, a religious book being mishandled in a communist country, but when the american flag has been burned in nearly every country in the world including america, you dont see american causing riots do you? imagine a bunch of skin head white boys buring the saudi royal flag, or the indonesian flag, or any arab or muslim flag, what will happen then? an increase in nationalism on the part of the country bein victimized, if that took place in a western country the whole arab and muslim community would get pissed off but america hasnt commited that. make your enemy your friend, peace through power.
ootb: Mulims have very specific guidelines for the how Quran is to be handled. Thusly, "mishandling" is quite likely desecration to Muslims, and thusly, the term is accurate because it's their view that matters, not yours. Honestly, must you nitpick the title of every news story you don't like?
Drekk: The American flag is not a religious symbol, and certainly not on the same level as the Quran, for which the penalty for desecration is death. There is absolutely no likening the two, regardless of how nationalistic you may be.
Of course, the release of this story will not stop the blacklisting of Newsweek, and it'll likely be buried here. I also do not believe that the Pentagon just discovered this upon recent investigations. Reports of these activities were widely available to the general public well before this, and so I guess what we have here is another shameless, sloppy, and pathetic Bush administration coverup. I grow more disgusted with the state of our nation daily.
I see you never want to let the facts get in your way but where in the story does it say that the Bush Administration pressured Newsweek to retract the story? Oh yeah it doesn't.
Also I notice you left out the part that states... "But they say they have found no "credible evidence" that a holy book was flushed down a toilet." ...which is the part that was in question in the Newsweek article anyway.
There's a difference between the two situations. Desecration of a bible is purely a religious situation and burning a flag is being unpatriotic, etc. Also, I think that Muslims in general take it way more personally than any other religion when their bible is desecrated. So instead of desecration of the Qu'ran vs burning of a US flag it is more like desecration of the Qu'ran vs the trade towers (but without the religious aspect).
In the olden days it was disrespecful to set anything on top of a Bible. It was also disrespecful to write in a Bible, as well as many other things. If you somehow defaced a Bible you were to take it to your church so they could dispose of it in a respecful (and apparently secret way) I am wondering what is done with the Quran if it were to accidently defaced. I also thought that good Muslams were to memorize the Quran.
I guess the point I am making is, just as the rules of the Bible are long forgotten, and we have relized it is the content of the book, not the paper that is important, it has become another book. I am not saying defacing any book os right. We should respect the laws of others while in their backyard, but I have to wonder if this frame of mind might be behind the alleged 'flushing.'
Yes, it is a matter of perception of what is considered desecration or not, thus it was a pentagon report on it so their perception is the one that counts. What is your evidence that the Quran was desecrated? How was it descecrated? Don't bother answering I already know your answer. It was mishandled. Great answer, unfortunately it does not show how it was descecrated.
I will answer it for you. Any non-muslim that touches a quran.
"When one fears that a Qur'an may burn, get soaked, that a non-Muslim may touch it, or that it may come into contact with some filth, then one must pick it up if there is no safe place for it, even if one is not in the state of wudu or is in need of the obligatory bath, though performing the dry ablution (tayummum) is wajib if possible."
Most of the cases that have been dismissed already deal with accidental touching of the quran. Sorry we don't have enough muslims in the military to hand deliver a quran to each prisoner.
So, you admit that desecration occured, and now your defense is "well, the rules are stupid anyway." What an...interesting...change of argument. Your comment was that using desecration in the title is wrong, but your own definition shows that desecration of this book would be hard to avoid if US forces handled Qurans in any way (why are they doing so again?). I pointed out you were wrong, YOU proved it, and then you got all huffy about it - real mature. Maybe you'll choose your frivolous nitpicks a little more carefully the next time you don't like a story.
You have the cart before the horse - the article says that it is the DETAINEES that are damaging the books, NOT the interrogators, or guards.
If a muslim wants to destroy his Holy book, thats his business - I can't see how in any way this impugnes the guards and or interrogators or the Bush administration.
You seem to be blaming them for not stopping the detainees from destroying their own property?
Ahem: "Investigators have confirmed five cases since 2002 in which military personnel at the prison mishandled the Qurans of Muslim prisoners."
The rest is inconsequential...I doubt the clerics care about individual prisoners' actions. Their focus is on representatives of our nation desecrating their holy book.
This pandering to religious freaks is just so annoying. If we are going to lock them up without trial or charge and take away every basic human right, including the right not to be tortured, I don't see why we are even letting them have a Quran in the first place.
Americans running these prison camps are certainly not the best people in the world to be entrusted with what these people consider such a holy book. So let's make it real simple for them. Give them no books at all. That way we won't have to risk offending them or hurting their precious book. After all if we are torturing these innocent people in jail what difference is not giving them a book going to make? In fact if the book is that important to them maybe they will cooperate better so they can get released sooner and own a Quran again.
Any group of people that think mishandling a book should be punished by death are backwards sub humans that don't deserve to live. A book is a book; it is never more valuable than a human life.
When Muslim extremists in Afghanistan start killing people and rioting because they SUSPECT a book might have been damaged in some way, then it really takes away any sympathy I have for the innocent people we are holding and torturing in jail.
I don't see much difference between this and some of the stuff that has happened with christianity. For example, christians and protestants have been killing each other for decades even thought they believe in the same God. It just goes to prove that extremists of any stripe are pretty much the same.
I don't disagree. I dislike all hardcore religion equally. Any group of people that claim to be getting special messages from a god and then spend all their time hating and killing each other disgust me. Northern Ireland is a perfect example of two groups with almost identical religious beliefs hating each other.
I am an atheist, I live a good moral life not because I fear some eternal retribution but because I think it is right. I don't go around wanting to kill people that choose to believe differently than me. My distain for religion is largely based on the fact that in every religion there are extremists who want to impose their will on others and will go as far as killing other people in the name of their god.
"So, you admit that desecration occured, and now your defense is "well, the rules are stupid anyway." What an...interesting...change of argument." Nope, learn how to read and comprehend. I said since this was a Pentagon report, their view of of the term Mishandled is what counds not the muslim view. Additionally to mishandle something does not necessarily equate to descecration.
"Your comment was that using desecration in the title is wrong, but your own definition shows that desecration of this book would be hard to avoid if US forces handled Qurans in any way" Wrong, I was clarifying what a muslim would consider desecgration. But as I said before, we have to use the Pentagons use of the term Mishandled.
"I pointed out you were wrong, YOU proved it, and then you got all huffy about it - real mature." You pointed out nothing. And where did I get all huffy about it, nowhere.
"Maybe you'll choose your frivolous nitpicks a little more carefully the next time you don't like a story." It has nothing to do with if I like a story or not. It has to do with stories being reported properly baed on the source. And this story is not correctly written based on the source artice. And yes the title does count because it is part of the SN summary and also the first thing people read.
grasping at straws. The Pentagon's interpretation of 'mishandle' could refer to ranchers and sheep for all that it matters in this case. It's not the Pentagon that has been offended.
Far from grasping at straws, the report was written by the Pentagon, thus the terminology used and the context it is used in has to be read from their POV.
*Rollseyes* Are you going to accuse me of being "anti-American" next?
What do I care about this issue? I care that these actions have given fodder to those people recruiting the next generation of terrorists killing our servicemen. I care that this was likely sanctioned by the Bush administration and now only a few sacrificial-lamb soldiers are going to suffer for it. I care that our nation's reputation has just gone a little further down the crapper, because we've shown once again that we're such arrogant creeps that we can't respect traditions not our own. People like you, opfor1, seek to keep rationalizing things like this, to the point of saying "To hell with what the rest of the world thinks!" This is what got us to where we are today, and quite frankly, it's as stupid as the idea of total global isolationism. These things are going to come back to haunt us, no matter how tightly you've clapped your hands over your ears while singing "America the Beutiful." Right now, it's pretty f-cking ugly, and the only people helping are those calling for change. We do have to exist on this planet with those other nations, and attitudes like yours are what is causing the rest of the world to choke us out.
Yes, ootb, the Pentagon is the one rallying Muslims against us, so their definition is the one that counts. They hold the tradition and interpret Muslim law to the world, and they call the jihads, so all that matters is what the Pentagon thinks. Your argument here makes SO much sense that I can see why you don't think I pointed anything out. You yourself pointed out that even dirtying the Qur'an or a non-Muslim touching it amounts to desecration under Muslim law, and the report admits such desecration occured, but I can totally see why that doesn't defeat your claim that desecration didn't occur.
Or, perhaps, not. You've disproven your own point, showing just how shallow your thought on it has been. I'll not get into your motives, but let's just say I'm not the first person to point this nitpicking of yours out, I just waiting til I saw it for myself. I suppose you must have other reasons for posting shallow little comments almost as soon as articles on subjects like this are posted.
Now, I'm going to end this discussion now, because the dead horse has been beaten to my satisfaction. Anything more said on it would just be petty bickering, and I don't want to get any further into that.
You already started the bickering with your first post.
Sorry you are offended that I take exception to people misreporting news to sensationalize and interpret the real news so that they can forward there agenda. Unfortunately I feel that SN reporters do not have the right to interject their opinion of the news when they summarize.
Opfor1: There are shreds of truth in what ZCT said, but much of it is impractical. Ignoring or condemning people who think like this is not going to make the problem go away (especially since many command great power) unless you want to propose another Crusade. We are going to need to detain people of another faith, and our treatment of these people is going to determine how their breatheren react. That reaction may be more people turning to Al-Queda's side, killing our troops in suicide bombings, and generally getting us no closer to ending this conflict at all. There is a very simple solution - respect their traditions whenever possible. Is that really so hard? No, not unless you want to stick to the "We're America, and we bend for no one!" line, which got us here in the first place.
And what's wrong with a logical argument formatted in a rant? I find them quite suitable on occasion, and I saw this as one. I see you could do nothing to counter anything I said, so it must have been effective, yes?
@ootb: Bickering with my first post? Hardly. I made a valid observation that you were wrong (not yet refuted), and reviewing the argument which followed, I really have nothing new to say on the matter. There was no sensationalization here. Desecration is a term defined by the Muslim law and clerics who use it, the Pentagon confirms that actions which fit the criteria of "desecration" occured, and so, the title is accurate. What I object to is people who seek to have news tailored to their sensibilities, and cry bias when they don't get it. Now that we know where each of us stands, let's leave it at that.
Ill let ZCT sum up my thoughts : "Any group of people that claim to be getting special messages from a god and then spend all their time hating and killing each other disgust me."
Why do you condone violence as a reaction to 'desecration' (which is basically a non-muslim holding the Koran)? You have yet to denounce radical Islam's violent behavior; you have vehemently defended it, which is where my beef is with you.
Also, you believe the gitmo detainees are telling the whole truth in this matter? Is it not possible the story is fabricated to arouse even more hatred within the anti-western mindset?
"Ill let ZCT sum up my thoughts : 'Any group of people that claim to be getting special messages from a god and then spend all their time hating and killing each other disgust me.'"
Yeah, so what? Do you think that your disgust is going to simply make them go away? Yes, religious fanatics are dangerous parasites to the human race, but what are you actually going to DO to deprive them of the power they wield?
"Why do you condone violence as a reaction to 'desecration' (which is basically a non-muslim holding the Koran)? You have yet to denounce radical Islam's violent behavior; you have vehemently defended it, which is where my beef is with you."
Hmm, well then your beef is entirely unfounded, because I've not done that once. Rather, my argument is that these people are not going away, and so we'd do well to accept that and adapt to the current situation. One can denounce violence from radical Muslims until one is blue in the face, but that's not going to stop it. In order to do that, we must deal with it, and the best way to do that is to choke it off. If we do not give them fodder for new recruits, their supply of anti-US muslims will taper off.
All talk about how evil these religious fanatics are is pointless. Most of the world already knows this, and so it makes far more sense to move on to what to DO about it, because the problem isn't going away.
"Also, you believe the gitmo detainees are telling the whole truth in this matter? Is it not possible the story is fabricated to arouse even more hatred within the anti-western mindset?"
Well, the Pentagon has documented 5 cases of it, so I would assume that there's ample evidence there beyond what the detainees say. I'd think that many detainees would be going back to perpetuate exactly the lies you describe. And why not? After being detained by a seemingly bulletproof superpower with no representation, on secret charges, and by people who see you as more a dog than a man, wouldn't you seek to strike back in any way possible? Now, if we'd treated the detainees with the modicum of respect due someone convicted of no crime, would they have reason to go back and spread lies? No, so why condone such counterproductive actions?
Issuing blanket condemnations of such behavior as evil does nothing to solve the problem, understanding it and taking action to prevent it does. Force to counteract force has been a failed strategy in the Middle East for as long as history can recall, so one would think we could learn from this and adapt if we must be involved there. But, this is what happens when fundamentalists attack fundamentalists.
"Bickering with my first post? Hardly. I made a valid observation that you were wrong (not yet refuted), and reviewing the argument which followed, I really have nothing new to say on the matter." Call if valid if you want, but you have proven nothing other than the ability to change the meaning of someone elses report to "mean" what you want it to.
"There was no sensationalization here. Desecration is a term defined by the Muslim law and clerics who use it, the Pentagon confirms that actions which fit the criteria of "desecration" occured, and so, the title is accurate." Wrong again, it was not written from a muslim view point. It was written in the context of what the Pentagon defines as mishandled. Thus it must be read in that context.
"What I object to is people who seek to have news tailored to their sensibilities, and cry bias when they don't get it." Or when news does not fit your critia because it does not support you pov, you cry foul and change the original new to tailor your needs.
"Now that we know where each of us stands, let's leave it at that." Done
Our disagreement lies in the belief that catering to religious zealots will curb their violent tendencies. Name me an example in the history of man where this has been the case.
This war is a war of cultures, ultimately. Who would you prefer to come out victorious?
I think the only option for non-Muslim's following an al-Qaeda victory is submission to their tyranny. That is their end-state, believe it or not.
Personally I don't see what the big deal is. They kill innocent people that have nothing to do with this war and yet demand protection. True Islam in its purest form is exactly what those terrorists are doing. Beheading those who do not submit. I smiled at the fact that the acusation of the quaran being flushed down the toilet broke. Matter of fact I think I'm going to flush a quran down the toilet to. BRB
Ok I'm back, the quaran is nothing more than a book filled with pure hate to non-muslims. Where does it say that muslims should love non-muslism. It doesn't. Islam needs to be put on trial for hate crimes and its book needs to be banned. How dare a religion recruit kids to be suicide bombers.
Burn the Quran, Flush the Quran, and use the Qurans pages and toilet paper.
Islam is NOT a religion of suicide bombers. You are NEVER allowed to take your own life, so a "suicide bomber" who claims to be muslim, is disobeying the command of Allah(swt).
I see alot of people post that Muslims hate these people or those people. Look, i am a Muslim, i'm an american. I have Christian and Jewish friends. I participate in inter-faith dialogue(not to be confused with religious debate). You cannot take the views of the minority(suicide bombing, hate-preaching, non-sanctioned, Islamist Factions that don't even ADHERE to the five pillars) and set the standard for the community as a whole. That is NOT what Islam is about. Sorry i'm WAAY late on this thread. I need a news ticker, jeez.
"Our disagreement lies in the belief that catering to religious zealots will curb their violent tendencies. Name me an example in the history of man where this has been the case."
No need for an example - we're not catering to the fundamentalists, we're catering to another culture with which we must deal in order to stop the fundamentalists who lurk within.
I think our disagreement lies in whether you want to see an war of strategy or a war of ideology. I'd think an intelligent way to execute a war would be to assess one's enemy and their resources, then figure out a way to cut off the latter if possible. You seem to think that so long as we toe a hard line, apparently against humbling ourselves so much as to respect the traditions of other cultures, everything will be alright. The resources here are teh average Muslim who sees such unnecessary acts as we discuss here and think, "Hmm, maybe Al-Queda is right about them." We are not at war with Islam, we are at war with Islamic fundamentalists who draw upon Muslims angered with the US. The rules of Islam that we're flaunting, from which we gain no benefit and would not be disadvantaged to respect, are not only the rules of those fundamentalists, but of all Muslims. So, all we're doing is playing into the enemy's hands in being so stupid as to disrespect Islamic tradition for no good reason.
Or, perhaps you'd like to tell me why depriving our forces of the ability to disrespect the enemy's religious traditions is somehow going to lose us the current conflicts in the Middle East. Tell me, just what are you defending here, again?
