iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Quran Burning: Is It An Insult Or Intimidation?

Quran Burning

First Posted: 09/23/10 11:36 PM ET Updated: 05/25/11 06:50 PM ET

By Omar Sacirbey
Religion News Service

(RNS) A few bullet holes may be the difference between a burnt Quran left at a mosque in Knoxville, Tenn., and one left at a mosque in East Lansing, Mich.

On Tuesday (Sept. 21), Ingham County Prosecutor Stuart Dunnings said the man who allegedly left a burnt Quran outside the Islamic Center of Lansing on Sept. 11 would not face charges because the act doesn't fall under Michigan's criminal code.

In contrast, FBI agents in Knoxville are still determining whether whoever left a burnt and shot Quran at the entrance to the Annoor Mosque committed a hate crime, based on a 1968 law that makes it a federal offense to use force to prevent anyone from carrying out their religious beliefs.

"The fact that the burnt and shot Quran was placed on mosque property can be construed as a threat of force," said Knoxville FBI special agent Richard L. Lambert. "The issue comes down to determining what was the perpetrator's intent."

Lambert said that if the Annoor Mosque incident does not fall under federal hate crime, it could still be prosecuted under Tennessee's civil rights intimidation law, or other state misdemeanor laws, such as disorderly conduct.

Following a spate of Quran burnings this month, Muslim Americans and legal experts are wrangling over whether burning Islam's holy book is an exercise of free speech, or a hate crime, akin to burning a cross.

The answer depends on whether the intent is to insult or intimidate, and it most cases intimidation can be tough to prove, legal experts say.

"It's virtually out of the question," said Mark Potok, director of the Intelligence Project at the Southern Poverty Law Center in Montgomery, Ala., which monitors hate crimes.

"The government can punish speech only if it's a 'true threat,' which is to say speech expressly intended and likely to create an imminent fear of bodily injury," said Daniel Mach, a senior attorney with the ACLU's Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief.

U.S. Muslim groups also acknowledge that burning a Quran in many scenarios -- for example, when done on one's private property -- is constitutionally protected free speech. The threatened Quran burn by Florida pastor Terry Jones, or actual Quran burns by Kansas pastor Fred Phelps, are protected forms of speech.

But many also believe that in the cases of the burnt Qurans left anonymously at mosques -- especially books with bullet holes -- it's hard to construe any intent other than intimidation.

The Michigan chapter of the Council of American-Islamic Relations has called on federal law enforcement officials to consider bringing federal hate crime charges in the East Lansing case against the alleged perpetrator, who turned himself in on Sept. 15 after police announced a $10,000 reward for information leading to an arrest.

"If the KKK burns a cross on private property, that's legal. But if they burn a cross at an African-American church, that's a hate crime," said Ibrahim Hooper, a spokesman at CAIR's Washington headquarters.

"It's the same with a Quran. If you burn a Quran in your backyard or in your church, that's free speech. But if you leave a burnt Quran at the entrance of mosque, you're trying to scare people."

Intimidation became an important threshold in 2003, when the Supreme Court upheld a Virginia law against cross-burning where the intent is to intimidate, but also said cross-burning itself is not evidence of intimidation.

The 1968 Federal Hate Crimes Law made it a federal offense to attack or intimidate someone based on race, religion or national origin. The 2009 Matthew Shepard Act expanded federal hate crimes protections to include gender and sexual orientation.

Members of the Islamic Center of Greater Lansing said they forgave the individual who left the burnt Quran, and said they want to put the case behind them. But they also wouldn't discourage CAIR from pressing the FBI to pursue charges.

A spokeswoman in the FBI Detroit office said she could not confirm or deny whether they were investigating the case.

"We felt intimidated," said Thasin Sardar, a worshipper at the mosque, which requested police security for the week following the incident. Parents with children at the mosque's school were especially panicked, Sardar said. "They don't want to let people think its open season on Muslims."

FOLLOW HUFFPOST RELIGION

By Omar Sacirbey Religion News Service (RNS) A few bullet holes may be the difference between a burnt Quran left at a mosque in Knoxville, Tenn., and one left at a mosque in East Lansing, Mich. On T...
By Omar Sacirbey Religion News Service (RNS) A few bullet holes may be the difference between a burnt Quran left at a mosque in Knoxville, Tenn., and one left at a mosque in East Lansing, Mich. On T...
Filed by Clay Chiles  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 171
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
10:26 AM on 10/01/2010
Is attacking and sacking embassies intimidation as well?
photo
Gregor53
Remembering your past gives power to the present.
07:17 PM on 10/01/2010
Rather sterotyping there are you not.  Did you know that only 20% of the Muslims in the world are Arab.  You should study all the faiths more before you demonstrate what you are unaware of.
03:01 PM on 09/30/2010
It's a waste. Just like printing one or a bible or any of them
01:01 PM on 10/20/2010
good point
09:15 AM on 09/28/2010
"And 1700 years of Xtian history, gave us what ? Endless religious wars,Book burnings, the Inquisition, manifest destiny, the KKK ?"

In Christianity it is a one time event; for muslims it an interminable mega serial.
02:22 PM on 09/28/2010
Atheism and Darwinism have given us 40 million dead in the last century alone.

Thanks, atheists. Survival of the fittest?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
OneFish
Various and assorted mutualistic microbial buddies
03:34 PM on 09/28/2010
Nonsense. It is foolish to blame atheism and Darwinism for the atrocities of the last century. There is no legitimate connection.
photo
Gregor53
Remembering your past gives power to the present.
07:19 PM on 10/01/2010
And just how do you figure that?
09:12 AM on 09/28/2010
.".Muslims hunted the offenders down, arrested them, tried and convicted them, and put them in jail."

Demolishing temples and firebombing churches is not a cognisable offence under shariaa. No one was arrested as you claim. In Pakistan all temples have been pulled down and burning churches and Christians is an approved national sporting event.
10:42 AM on 09/27/2010
Burning the Koran is an act of defiance against a totalitarian ideology.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
07:00 PM on 09/27/2010
Yeah, so it is. And so was carrying an Anti Bush sign. But people were arrested and prosecuted for it.
02:22 PM on 09/28/2010
No they weren't.
photo
Gregor53
Remembering your past gives power to the present.
07:20 PM on 10/01/2010
Another know nothing of Islam has spoken. 
01:44 AM on 09/26/2010
Both.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Forester
Overeducated woods worker.
07:44 PM on 09/25/2010
It's sto op id, irreligious, provocative and self-aggrandizing.
But certainly not illegal.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
cabrobst
Return the top rate to 91%.
11:05 AM on 09/25/2010
Neither, it's adding to Global Warming, and that is far worse.
If you are thin skinned enough, anything can be an insult.
Or, when some oddball leading a handful in the back woods does something idiotic (or merely threatens to do it in order to garner national media attention) you will see it as the stupid stunt that it is and answer idiocy by calling it what it is, not with violence.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Zanubiyah
10:07 AM on 09/25/2010
Actually the question needs to be asked.

What is the point of burning the Qur'an? What statement does it make? When one speaks through his acts or words, there is a point.

Can the same point be made without burning the Qur'an?


Of course, some will turn this around and ask "Why behead...or stone...or burn American flags...or the like? Cant you make the same point without all of that?

Sure you can...but the point of all of this isnt to 'say something'...it is to incite the other to anger.

Seeing it from the Muslim side...it angers me to see people acting foolish. It would anger me just the same to see a cross burning on an African American churchground, or a swatstica painted on a Synagouge, or someone throwing petrol bombs into a church.

...but though I cant make people act the way I wish they would, I can choose how to react. Anger to me isnt a bad thing at all, but how we react is what makes it bad, or good. If I choose (for example) to hand out a free Qur'an to someone who honestly wants to read it for every one burnt...if we all did it, then the evil works for us.

After all, the goal of advertisers is not to really sell the product, but to get you to mention it to people who dont know about it. The Qur'an burners help us in that respect.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
thepoliticalcat
Eradicate your microbioflora
02:59 PM on 09/25/2010
My compliments on a fine and well-reasoned post. Truly, you are a poster child for Muslim-non-Muslim relations. Your idea of handing out a free copy of the Quran for every one burned is brilliant. It takes an act of h8 and transforms it into an openness and willingness to learn and share that is essential in maintaining reasoned human discourse.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Oblongato
My micro-bio defines me.
05:32 PM on 09/25/2010
Hello Zanubiyah,

I understand that from your peaceful perspective, offense is not necessary. In a secular society, however, it assumed that there can be disagreement on the answer to your question whether the same point can be made without the provocation.

And indeed there is no agreement. There are those who claim that the point can only be made in the most provocative (legal) manner. In the U.S., each citizen is granted the right to express his views in any way he sees fit *within the framework of the law*.

And of course this is the critical difference. For example: beheading: forbidden; stoning: forbidden; burning an American flag: permitted; burning a cross, painting a swastika or throwing a petrol bomb on private property: forbidden.

There is an absolutely clear, logical distinction between the things you mentioned. They all cause direct harm to individuals except the burning of the flag. Therefore, from your list, only the burning of the flag is permitted. Burning the Koran is also permitted, for a logical reason. It does not cause direct harm.

Offense is something subjective. We can never know whether our words or actions might cause offense to someone, somewhere. Offense is in the eye of the beholder. Direct harm is objective. In a secular society, the law protects the rights of individuals. Protection from offense, however, is not a right, since each individual decides for himself whether he is offended.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Zanubiyah
09:44 PM on 09/25/2010
Oblongato...

Notice I made my statement very clear. It is not the act of burning the Qur'an in it self that is the incitement, it is burning it, shooting it, and leaving it in front of a Masjid that is the incitement.

However...notice I didnt support, condone, or make equal 'stoning, or beheading or petrobombing churches'. I did however, menton burning a cross in an African American churchyard, and painting a swatstica on a Synogouge...if you notice, I said ALL OF THESE THINGS MAKE ME ANGRY EQUALLY.

Of course, burning a flag, or a cross, or the Qur'an in your backyard is lawful protest, but doing it in places where you know you are purposely targeting the sensitivitys of an ethnic group, or to remind people of a horrid time in thier lives is wrong. The question is what message are you trying to send.? Why do it? Because you can?

This really has nothing to do with religion. I want to make that perfectly clear.
photo
thereisonlyoneparty
more amazing than you
10:58 PM on 09/24/2010

"If the KKK burns a cross on private property, that's legal. But if they burn a cross at an African-American church, that's a hate crime," said Ibrahim Hooper, a spokesman at CAIR's Washington headquarters.
"It's the same with a Quran. If you burn a Quran in your backyard or in your church, that's free speech. But if you leave a burnt Quran at the entrance of mosque, you're trying to scare people."

I do not know about that.


I think that cross burnings are linked with specific horrific events in US history. A cross has really nothing to do with "African-Americans" (awful term) and it goes beyond just religious aspects of life.  The burning would be equally was illegal on someone's lawn.


I just am not seeing the similarity between burning a cross and burning a Qur'an.  The historical significance is not there.  It might be later.  The whole cross burning thing came out of an inaccurate representation of earlier Klanners doing it.


But now I do no think that the intimidation is really there.  Some people might be intimidated, but i think it really is mre a matter of trying to be offensive or insulting.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
thepoliticalcat
Eradicate your microbioflora
11:41 PM on 09/24/2010
I think actually putting bullet holes in the thing sort of crosses the line between "offensive or insulting" and "threatening and intimidating." But then, I'm not a religious person, so who knows? Maybe you religious types could address this issue?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
UnderTheHedgeWeGo
Show me some evidence.
02:50 PM on 09/26/2010
It seems to me we are on legal "thin ice" when we have to look at the "historical significance" of any event to determine if a crime has been committed. It isn't illegal to be rude. It isn't illegal to be really, really, really rude either. Some damage has to be done before a crime is committed. And that does not include making some one feel bad (even if they feel really, really, really bad).

You and I have the right to be offensive. It isn't "free speech" if you only allow people you like to speek (or act without doing physical harm).
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
UnderTheHedgeWeGo
Show me some evidence.
03:06 PM on 09/26/2010
"Speak"
10:38 PM on 09/24/2010
"cherry pick the horrors of religious history that best support your personal views."

> They are not my personal views. It is history.

> No need to cherry pick. 1400 years of history of Islam is nothing but this. The Pope confirmed this.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
thepoliticalcat
Eradicate your microbioflora
11:41 PM on 09/24/2010
Wut?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
07:27 PM on 09/27/2010
And 1700 years of Xtian history, gave us what ? Endless religious wars,Book burnings, the Inquisition, manifest destiny, the KKK ?
10:35 PM on 09/24/2010
"All your religions have a history of horror and oppression and violence. None of your gods are real. you are all equally mentally ill."

I never knew truth is so horrorendous. So muslims hold the copyright for burning the books, just as they hold the copyright for the word Allah. Some Christian monthly in Malaysia used the word Allah to refer to God. Muslims got offended, as usual, and then burnt some thirty churches. That is ok.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
thepoliticalcat
Eradicate your microbioflora
11:42 PM on 09/24/2010
Thirty churches? That's not what the Malaysian papers are reporting. Do you have a cite for that figure? TIA.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Zanubiyah
09:50 PM on 09/25/2010
Pranav1941...

The problem is, you are trying to say that 'Muslims' burned churches in Malaysia. Did Islam condone it? Justify it?

Of course you only see the part of the story you want to see. You forget the part where...in a majority Muslim nation...Muslims hunted the offenders down, arrested them, tried and convicted them, and put them in jail.

So...apperantly all Muslims...or Islam, as you so brightly point out...by the acts of Malaysians...you know...the Muslims didnt let these offenders go free.

Now...remember that next time you indite Islam by ancedote.
photo
Gregor53
Remembering your past gives power to the present.
07:34 PM on 10/01/2010
I would Fan you again if I could.  Just Faved this time.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dsw70
Nothing changes if nothing changes
05:41 PM on 09/24/2010
It's not cool. Just seems to be the only thing people feel safe doing in retaliation.
It's still a book of a religion. Whether you agree with the extreme actions of some or not. Plenty of Preachers, Bishops, Reverends and all church leaders doing the unspeakable to children, anyone burning the the Bible?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
LorenzoMN
05:27 PM on 09/24/2010
Burning a Q'uran is stupidity.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
07:30 PM on 09/27/2010
Burning any book, because you don't like it's content is stupidity.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
OneFish
Various and assorted mutualistic microbial buddies
03:41 PM on 09/28/2010
No, it's just another way of saying "I hate the thing this represents"

So? Not really a big deal at all.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Forester
Overeducated woods worker.
05:19 PM on 09/24/2010
Are those the only choices?