![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Last week, an Iraqi militiaman training with U.S. forces found a bullet-riddled Qur'an on a shooting range in Baghdad. American soldiers had been using it for target practice.
I wonder how long that militia will stay allied with the U.S.
Yesterday, the army issued a formal apology, which it sounds like they handled reasonably well. Angry Iraqis were chanting the traditional "With our spirits and hearts we defend you, Qur'an." The commander of U.S. troops in Baghdad begged forgiveness. The commander of the brigade reported that the soldier responsible had been reprimanded and dismissed from the regiment, and then presented a new Qur'an to the village after kissing it and touching it to his forehead. (Of course it's questionable for a non-Muslim to touch the Qur'an in the first place; I wonder how the villagers felt about that.)
I've said before that it's easy for us to underestimate how Muslims feel about the Qur'an. Since it is believed to be the actual incarnation of the Word of God, its role in Islam is more comparable to Jesus' role in Christianity than to the Bible's. Desecrating the Qur'an is therefore much, much worse than desecrating the Bible. I would hazard that shooting the Qur'an in a Muslim community would have much the same impact as peeing on the Eucharist outside the Opus Dei headquarters in Vatican City.
It does seem slightly surreal to me that the shooting of an book would cause such a furor when people are being shot, which surely ought to be viewed as more blasphemous than harming an object. But come on, people. When the Muslim world increasingly feels that our military presence here represents a new crusade against Islam*, the least we can do is not freaking prove them right.
* At a 2005 Doha Debate on this topic, 49.6% of the audience voted that "the war on terror has become a war on Islam" -- and that's an audience made up almost entirely of people affiliated with American universities. In fact, in retrospect I suppose that means the motion would have passed if I hadn't voted against it.
I wonder how long that militia will stay allied with the U.S.
Yesterday, the army issued a formal apology, which it sounds like they handled reasonably well. Angry Iraqis were chanting the traditional "With our spirits and hearts we defend you, Qur'an." The commander of U.S. troops in Baghdad begged forgiveness. The commander of the brigade reported that the soldier responsible had been reprimanded and dismissed from the regiment, and then presented a new Qur'an to the village after kissing it and touching it to his forehead. (Of course it's questionable for a non-Muslim to touch the Qur'an in the first place; I wonder how the villagers felt about that.)
I've said before that it's easy for us to underestimate how Muslims feel about the Qur'an. Since it is believed to be the actual incarnation of the Word of God, its role in Islam is more comparable to Jesus' role in Christianity than to the Bible's. Desecrating the Qur'an is therefore much, much worse than desecrating the Bible. I would hazard that shooting the Qur'an in a Muslim community would have much the same impact as peeing on the Eucharist outside the Opus Dei headquarters in Vatican City.
It does seem slightly surreal to me that the shooting of an book would cause such a furor when people are being shot, which surely ought to be viewed as more blasphemous than harming an object. But come on, people. When the Muslim world increasingly feels that our military presence here represents a new crusade against Islam*, the least we can do is not freaking prove them right.
* At a 2005 Doha Debate on this topic, 49.6% of the audience voted that "the war on terror has become a war on Islam" -- and that's an audience made up almost entirely of people affiliated with American universities. In fact, in retrospect I suppose that means the motion would have passed if I hadn't voted against it.
