Florida Pastor Terry Jones Burns Quran After Mock Trial (w/ video)

No one is debating that.

The question is this. Would you exercise your freedom of speech not only knowing that people would die from it, but that you were only exercising such freedom to gain from the violence it incited?

No it does not give you the right to murder. But if I call your mama all sorts of terrible things to your face I bet I could use words to get you angry and to start fighting. I bet I could get any one of you angry to the point of violence through the use of words.

Does that make the violence right? Not at all.

Does that make the speaker of the speech not innocent? You betcha!

 

You are hilarious. D&D is trashy and a place for fools. Why, you are the king of all the trash and fools in here!

I suggest you run to Clutch and tell him all of this - he loves cowards from what I hear.

 

going up to someone and getting in their face or their mothers face and hurling insults is alot different than someone burning a koran on their private property.

and unless you were hurling insults directly at my mother i am pretty confident that there is nothing you could say to my face that would make me strike you. if anything, i would antagonize you back and try to make you hit me first and then it will be hammer time.

 

To you and me maybe...but I don't think we can assume what is an insult to us or not an insult is universal.

 

Say anything about MY mom, NYer and I'm storming right over to jo mama's house and kicking ass. And if his gardener dies...well...that would be on you...

 

i do my own gardening so if you kill my gardener you are killing me...

did i just blow your miiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiind?

and ny'er - if you say anything about my mom i will burn a koran.

 

In both cases, it is not ok. And obviously even more so, it is not ok to kill people who weren't even involved at all.

 

because unless the media and a bunch of imams tell me about it i will never know. why cant you people see the difference b/t verbally/physically assaulting someone in public and burning a book on your private property?

one thing is a tangible act of harassing people in public and the other is an empty symbolic gesture done on private property.

and im not so brainwashed as to want to go out and murder innocent people when someone on the other side of the world does something that does not affect me in any way whatsover.

 

Does Islam permit violence when the Qur'an is burned?

 

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/NhvhNZC51gY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

There is no way to answer this question.

Each sect will have a slightly different view.

Islam does not speak for itself.

But if you are asking for the norm across all Muslims, then you have to look at the central document that Muslims use: Quran.

If we assumed that the Quran is the representative of Islam (technically it is not, but for the purposes of this question..) then you can say the only time retaliation or taking of human life permitted is in self-defense when another party declares their intention to kill you without justifiable cause.

The rule does not apply to a situation where war is declared on Islam or the Quran.

After that, the situation varies widely. Sunnis will go by what the caliphs said, shiites by the imams, islamilis by the Aga khan, and so on. They will all claim that they are fulfilling the requests of Muhammad PBUH through these mediums, despite the insance difference in beliefs. In many cases, they will not even consider each other Muslim - such as in the case of extremist shiites and extremist sunnis. All those groups have a radically different "Shariah". I say radical, because you can say that the difference in their beliefs is equivalent to the difference between their beliefs and Judaism or Christianity. That's how much it varies.

I'm just clarifying the structure to highlight that the only way to possibly answer your question is to say: only in self defense. But that doesn't cover all the rules that all the different sects have.

 

IF what you say is true, then Islam has a problem. There should be an easy answer for everyone: No. End of story.

 

Can you answer my easy question then: Will you defend and support Mr. Jones burning a koran AGAIN knowing it might result in what happened the first time?

 

Seriously can't believe you're a lawyer.

The reason the question can't be answered is because Islam is not an entity, it can't represent itself continuously in the way that you and bigtexxx are expecting it to. IF the Quran has not been edited or gone through its own corruption, then hypothetically it can be a one time statement of Islamic ideals/standards. If that is the case, then the answer is simple: never any violence except in proportional defense of self or ethically acquired property.

But there are groups that claim or attempt to represent Islam in the form of sects, branches, etc. Each of these will answer differently and claim to to be the central source - because each of these groups have their own additional gurus, texts, shariah (law) and aqidah (core philosophical beliefs).

The problem is, therefore, not with Islam - the Quran has made its statement and that remains stable for as long as we have known it. The problem is with people who claim to have the inside track on what Islam/God/Quran is continuing to say on a daily basis - such as the the imam who preached hatred and incited violence in the name of a book burning.

If he was worth his beard, he would know that Quran is not a book, rather it is the message - and the book is just a medium for transporting that message.

In fact, majority of Muslims say that the recommended way to get rid of any text that has Quran or the word Allah written on it is to burn it. (Regarding this, I find it hilarious that they are not so careful with the hoards of books that have the word God written on them)

If he wasn't such an ass-backward coward, he would be on the front line himself rather than sending other people to do his evil dirty work.

If anyone has a one-on-one conversation with this guy, there would be no other rational conclusion other than: "wow, I can't even be critical of his religious beliefs, I can't even figure how this guy has avoided getting hit by a bus for so long."

 

Why would I have to defend and support it? It's his right.

The people who commit atrocities like they did the last time are responsible for their own actions, which are in no way caused by whatever Mr. Jones does in his backyard. They are only caused by their own hatred and ignorance.

 

The easy answer should be: No violence in reaction to a book-burning. Everything else is not acceptable.

 

You are just being dense.

My answer includes your answer and goes way beyond to include everything other than self defense.

There are many other acceptable answers, because while the question includes a minimum requirement (murder for book burning) it doesn't have a maximum.