Unbalanced
Tim Blair’s Continuing Crisis column is a little bit slow on the uptake. Not only does he castigate John Pilger for a comment made three years ago, he also recycles a couple of blog entries from over a fortnight ago, when the report on Koran desecration at Guantanamo Bay was released.
And, as we’ve come to expect from Blair, his argument is utter bollocks:
Inmates, however, defiled the Koran on 15 occasions (including three flushing attempts). These abuses, more substantial than anything committed by guards, were downplayed in many media accounts. … It seems concern for the Koran is only limited to treatment of it by Americans.
This is truly a bizarre proposition. Let’s take the Koran out of the equation, to see if that helps Blair understand the difference between the inmates’ and the guards’ behaviour.
-
A prisoner takes his meal and spills it on the floor, forcing himself to eat the dirty food or go hungry.
-
A guard takes a prisoner’s meal and spills it on the floor, forcing the prisoner to eat the dirty food or go hungry.
If he’s still challenged, let’s move away from jail.
-
Jimmy has a new toy. He flushes it down the toilet.
-
Jimmy has a new toy. Susie flushes it down the toilet.
Do you see the difference?
If a prisoner decides to damage their Koran, then that’s no big deal (assuming there was no coercion involved). But if a guard damages a prisoner’s Koran, that’s another matter entirely. The media coverage Blair describes was entirely appropriate.
Robert for once you have somewhat of a point. If a prisoner decides to descreate his Koran, or anything else of his for that matter, that’s his right. However assuming we take people’s outrage about alleged desecration by guards of the Koran as valid (i pass no opinion on this either way) then whether a person themselves would damage a Koran is critical as it goes straight to their credibility. Ie even if such criticisms are valid, a person cannot claim outrage at desecration of a Koran by guards if they would consider desecration of the Koran by any other person acceptable. Why? Because if we look at the religious context, it should be outrage of the destroying of what Muslims consider a holy book. If it’s about who desecrated it, not the fact that desecration of it full stop is wrong, then it’s obvious such people are only hiding behind a religious context to make anti-Western criticisms. And one would think that real Muslims who are truly outraged by such alleged incidents would abhor the political hijacking of the issue by SUPPOSED fellow Muslims. And to address another point, what about unreliable sensationalist journalism in printing the story when it was entirely unreliable, causing the riots and destruction that followed. If you ask me the newspaper should be made to pay reparations to all the people who were injured and had their homes and possessions wrecked why the riots. That would make them be more careful in future.
Wombat.
Just to be clear, there are lots of people in Guantanamo Bay. Some of the prisoners desecrated their own Koran. Others had theirs desecrated by guards. They are not the same people. So I’m not sure what your point is.
I would be outraged if someone took your Bible and desecrated it, because that would be an act of religious bigotry — even though I don’t share your religious beliefs. If you renounced Christianity and tore up the Bible, then I wouldn’t bat an eyelid.
I wasn’t making the point in relation to the prisoners themselves, like i said they do have the right to descrate their own possessions. I was referring to those outside captivity who have claimed outrage, and making the point that if (and i don’t know if they do) they considered alleged desecration by guards wrong but had no problem with alleged desecration by anyone else then not only does it shoot their credibility on the foot, but exposes that they are simply hiding behind religious outrage to make a political point, a hijacking of the issue that i would have thought muslims who are genuinely outraged on religious grounds would abhor.
But as I’ve pointed out, it’s entirely possible to be outraged by the guards but not by the prisoners (and no doubt many Muslims will be disappointed but not necessarily outraged). It doesn’t undermine their credibility at all — especially if they believe the prisoners only renounced Islam under the pressure of (what is it now?) 4 years’ detention without charge or trial, not to mention dubious interrogation techniques.
It may be possible to be outraged at the guards and not the prisoners (after all anything is possible) but that doesn’t mean its ethical. If someone states outrage at the Koran being desecrated, yet they are only outraged by one person committing the same act of desecration as another, purely because of that person’s nationality or perceived politiccal alingment, then of course that screws the credibility of people being supposedly outraged. Why? As if they were true Muslims who were offended on religious grounds, they would be offended regardless of who was committing the acts. Anyone who isn’t is simply using non existent (in their hearts anyway) religious outrage to justify a political attack. And that i can guarantee you would offend any true and genuine Muslim person.
Bollocks.
I am not Muslim, but I am outraged when guards mistreat a prisoner’s Koran. It is not “religious outrage,” just your garden variety outrage. If the prisoner mistreats their own Koran, then I don’t care.
How on earth is my position “unethical”?
(And it’s not the nationality or perceived political alignment that’s important, but the relationship of power between the guard and prisoner.)
It’s not your position that i was referring to as unethical (though it may or may not be), unless you are a Muslim which i am not aware of. What is unethical is for those who call themselves Muslims to be offended at one at of descration of their ‘Holy book’ and not another act of desecration of their ‘Holy book’ simply because of who committed it in each case. And is has nothing to do with power positions. It has to do with, if you’re truly a Muslim, then you take the book of your faith seriously, so you abhor desecration of it, regardless of circumstances. That’s called being consistent. Anything else is unethical as it’s only applying your faith when it suits your political objectives.
No, that’s simply wrong. I don’t see why a Muslim can’t differentiate between two different acts done within two different power relationships, with two different motives.
And I’m a bit disturbed that you’re dictating to Muslims how they need to act to be “truly a Muslim”. I would have thought it was up to them, no? Just as I don’t tell you how to be a true Christian…
I’m not dictating anything to Muslims, and yes it’s up to them. I just would have though t (and im prepared to stand corrected if a Muslim can demonstrate to me why this is wrong) that part of being a Muslim is that you must believe the Koran is Holy, and therefore that desecration of it under any circumstances is abhorrent and equally abhorrent regardless of the circumstances. In the same way i can assure you i would be horribly offended and disappointed if a fellow Christian of mine said that descration of the Bible by outside forces was wrong, but that descration of the Bible by Christians was ok or somehow less wrong. If you believe the book is Holy (just like if you believe the Koran is Holy) then you can’t possibly believe that.
Wombat.
Dude, you seem to be saying that a Muslim is incapable of treating the Koran as a simple item that one either does or does not possess. You seem to be saying that a Muslim, upon hearing of this, should only have one response—outrage at the desecration of something holy—which is obviously so overwhelming to the poor Muslim mind that it can’t handle more than one thought at a time. Obviously.
Dude, they can be disgusted with both the actions of the prisoners who destroyed their own Korans and the actions of the guards, but what makes the guards’ actions worse is that they didn’t own the Korans they destroyed.
If you just try expanding your mind to include the capacity for handling more than one thought at a time, you might understand that the situation presents one problem for people who don’t care about the Koran (such as Robert and myself), and two problems for those who consider it holy.
Most people can handle two problems like this simultaneously, Muslims included.
Firstly Ian i don’t take well to personal insults, you want to throw those go back to hormone obsessed high school. Secondly i’d like to know what these ‘two problems’ you refer to are. Now of course this is possible as people can have as many problems with something as they want, but what im saying is if you’re true in saying you see the Koran as holy then you are equally outraged by each instance of desecration of it that you hear about, regardless of the circumstances of that desecration. Anything else states you are not acting out of righteous anger and offence, but because your offence depends on the circumstance (ie politics) and not your faith. People of faith should always be consistent, so such a position by a true Muslim, or a true Christian, or true Hindu, or true Buddhist for that matter, is untenable. Of course for you and Robert this is different as you do not claim to follow Islam. So i was clearly referring to those who do, as anyone who claims to genuinely and truthfully follow any religion must accept this condition, otherwise there’s no truth to their claims of religious preference at all. Its quite simple.
Sigh.
The first problem for Muslims is the one that you’re harping on about, Wombat: the desecration of holy scripture.
The second problem for Muslims is the same one that non-Muslims share: the abuse of power by guards at Guantanamo Bay.
Note that the second problem does not apply when the prisoner has destroyed their own Koran. What makes it possible for Muslims to be more outraged by the guards’ actions than those of the Koran-destroying prisoners is the very simple fact that they present two problems compared to one.
I’d be worried if anyone could use up all their anger on the mere desecration of a book somewhere, regardless of its holiness. That seems to be what your argument rests upon, Wombat: the notion that once a Koran has been destroyed somewhere, anywhere, true followers of Islam should simply have no more anger to vent in their mortally outraged bodies. Either that or they’re prohibited from venting it on a political—albeit inherently related—issue.
Well, in Robert’s word, “bollocks”. It’s not quite as simple as you had hoped, Wombat, but it’s still not a hard concept to grasp.
Funny Ian, you just exposed the problem in your own position. Thanks. Yes there are two positions, but any true muslim (as anyone is who is true to whatever faith they hold) puts the first before the second. By people being more outraged when the second occurs than the first they are not being true to their faith. Simple.
There you go again, telling other people what their faith must be and how they must act to be true to their faith.
You don’t get to decide what Muslims should believe.