The Issue of Burning Korans

 Recent events in Sweden and to a lesser extent in Denmark have brought back the issue of Koran burnings to the world stage. Over the past few months, a Swedish-Danish activist, Rasmus Paludan, staged Koran-burning demonstrations in several Swedish cities with resultant riots. A Koran-burning demonstration near the Turkish embassy in Stockholm outraged Turklish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan, causing a diplomatic crisis and endangering efforts to get  Turkey to agree to Sweden's application to join NATO.

More recently, an Iraqi immigrant staged his own Koran  desecration event in front of the Iraqi embassy in Stockholm. That resulted in the Swedish embassy in Baghdad being attacked by a mob and Iraq breaking off diplomatic relations with Sweden.

In the midst of all this, people like Erdogan and the 56-member nation Organization of Islamic Cooperation have called for Sweden and other countries to outlaw the burning of Korans. Sweden thus far, is insisting that its laws do not permit them to interfere with freedom of expression. As an added twist, Sweden has granted demonstration permits to a couple of activists who wanted to burn Torahs, as if the Jews had anything to do with this.

So at least in Europe, the question of freedom of speech is back in play. when it comes to insulting religions.

My own opinion is that it is unwise to burn or otherwise desecrate the holy books of any religion, including Islam. It must be remembered that to desecrate a Koran is not only offensive to the terrorists, Islamists, groups like Al Qaeda and ISIS, as well as people like the dictator Erdogan, it is offensive to every Muslim in the world. Robert Spencer, the well-known Islamic scholar (and critic) of Islam, has said that we should not burn the Koran; rather we should read it. That also means knowing how to properly interpret it since it is full of verses that contradict each other when it comes to relations with non-Muslims. Further confusing the issue, the chapters, or suras, are not in chronological order as revealed to the Prophet Mohammed. They are ordered from longest suras to the shortest (exception Sura 1, which is part of the Muslims' daily prayers.) If one were to organize the suras chronologically,  it would be much clearer especially when compared alongside the life of Mohammed as he changed from being a street preacher in Mecca to a warlord in Medina. That is why the Medina chapters are more violent and intolerant. Islamic scholars, who are considered the utmost authority on questions of Islamic teaching, have put forth the principle of abrogation, in other words, in any conflicting verses in the Koran, those recorded later in time abrogate any earlier conflicting verses. Then it all makes sense.

But I digress.

While I oppose the desecration of Korans or the holy books of any other religion, I hope that Sweden-and other Western democracies- resist the efforts of the above persons or groups to change their laws and limit freedom of expression. We Christians in the US were outraged a few decades ago when some jerk put a  small crucifix in a bottle of his own urine and sold it off as a piece of art. But there was no violence. Nobody got killed and the man was never prosecuted.

Apparently, however, many Muslims are unable to show such restraint when the Koran is desecrated. Riots and destruction take place in many Muslim countries around the world. Property is destroyed, people are killed or have to go into hiding for the rest of their lives, policemen are injured quelling riots, and there are demands to pass laws and prosecute people in the West. Indeed, many of the Koran burners have as their goal the provoking of a violent reaction by Muslims as their proof that Islam is violent and intolerant.

Against all this, we must stand firm. Not because we necessarily approve of the burnings, but because as long as they are not accompanied by other illegal acts, we cannot prosecute people for what they say. Our own free speech in the US is limited to speech that directly calls for and  incites violence or threats against the President of the United States. We can criticize the president all we want, but we cannot threaten him. 

Europe has different standards when it comes to freedom of expression, and generally speaking, enjoys lesser protections than we Americans. So European critics of Islam have to tread carefully, not just to avoid retaliation from angry Muslims, but also possible prosecution by their own authorities as Dutch politician and Islam critic, Geert Wilders, can testify.

This seems like such an intractable problem. There are some 1.7 billion Muslims in the world, about 1/5th of the world's population. They are not going away, and our leaders obviously don't want some kind of worldwide campaign of war against the Islamic world. We need to find a way to co-exist and live in harmony, but at the same time, we cannot allow Islamic law to be forced upon us and thus, surrender our freedoms. Nor should we bow to outside demands that we strip away our freedoms. This should serve as a lesson to all the Western leaders who have opened the floodgates to Islamic immigration.