Ink and Ash: The Paradox of Burning Holy Words and Hiding From the Ashes

Overview: Provocation or defiance— Quran-burning demonstrators claim their actions are protected as freedom of expression but coward away from the consequences. These actors are left unscathed while their country’s embassy staff and communities abroad pay the ultimate price.

Introduction: In Western democratic countries, where freedoms of speech and expression are fundamental rights, a paradox emerges – should provocative actions be protected? Demonstrators in Sweden and Denmark have once again ignited controversy by burning the Quran in front of the Turkish and Egyptian Embassies, raising questions about whether such acts should be seen as provocation or defiance. As pages of the Quran smolder and scatter throughout the streets of some of the most socially and economically privileged nations in the world, many in the West are left questioning their morality and newfound contradictions.

The Price of Desecration

In April 2011, protests erupted in Mazar-i-Sharif, Afghanistan after Florida-based pastor Terry Jones burned copies of the Quran. The protesters demanded punishment for the pastor and expressed anger over the incident. The situation turned violent, and a mob attacked the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA compound). Tragically, the attack resulted in the death of seven UN workers, including five Nepalese guards and two European staff members. Two of the UN staff members were beheaded during the violent raid, highlighting how severely people react to the desecration of their sacred beliefs and symbols.

Sovereignty vs. The Word of God

To help contextualize the gravity of the situation, less than a month after the attack on the UNAMA compound, President Barrack Obama violated the sovereignty of Pakistan and authorized the CIA operation that killed Osama bin Laden, effectively ending the 13-year manhunt for the ‘World’s Most Wanted Man.’ Despite the significant political and military implications of the operation, there was more immediate violence and response across the Arab World to the Terry Jones demonstration than the killing of Osama bin Laden. The outcry among Muslim nations and communities calling for the end of public Quran burnings reigned louder than the condemnation of violating Pakistani sovereignty.

Culture: The Word of God

Muslims believe that the Quran, as the literal word of God, should be treated with utmost respect and reverence. Followers handle scriptures with clean hands after performing Wudu (ritual purification) and place it in clean, elevated areas, preferably covered when not used. When reciting or listening to the Quran, they do so with sincerity and attentiveness. Disposing of worn copies is done with care and respect. Intentionally desecrating the Quran in Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan brings the punishment of life in prison or death. These guidelines reflect Muslims' deep devotion to the Quran, as they see it as a sacred and divine revelation, embodying the teachings that guide their lives, and an essential way to honor and preserve the word of God.

Culture: Freedom of Expression

In 2017 the government of Denmark declared that public desecration of holy texts (including the Quran) is legal and protected as a freedom of expression. Demonstrators in Denmark have been seen throwing the holy book, wrapping the pages in bacon, and even urinating on the cover. These self-proclaimed acts of defiance aren’t usually carried out at random. In June of this year, Swedish police issued an Iraqi immigrant a permit to burn a copy of the Quran outside Stockholm's central mosque. The action was once again legally justified as a freedom of expression.

The Fire Rises

The recent Quran-burning incidents in Denmark and Sweden had a significant fallout in Iraq, resulting in the expulsion of the Swedish ambassador and the recall of several other government officials. Protesters in Iraq stormed the Swedish embassy in Baghdad, setting it on fire and leading the embassy staff to flee in despair. The violence surrounding the most recent Quran burning has strained diplomatic relations and raised concerns about the safety and security of diplomats worldwide. Similar to the social mechanics of the UNANA attack, demonstrators are never at risk while the government and embassy staff abroad buffer retaliation. The actions of a few demonstrators can completely destabilize diplomatic relations between two countries.

The Defiant Defense

Quran burning is grounded on the principle that the action is a freedom of expression and a fundamental human right. Advocates argue that individuals should have the liberty to express their opinions and beliefs, even if they are considered controversial or offensive to others. They believe that restricting Quran burning or any form of expression, regardless of its nature, could set a dangerous precedent for suppressing dissenting views and limiting open dialogue.

In 2020, Belarus witnessed widespread pro-democracy protests following the presidential election, challenging allegations of electoral fraud and demanding political reform. The government, led by President Lukashenko, responded with harsh crackdowns, deploying security forces to disperse demonstrations using violence and excessive force. Protesters faced arrests, allegations of torture, and police brutality. The government also attempted to control information by blocking independent media outlets and restricting social media platforms. These type of crackdowns demonstrates the dangers of suppressing dissent and human rights, highlighting the importance of protecting freedom of expression, the right to assembly, and upholding democratic values.

From the Days of Duels to Keyboard Warriors

Freedom of expression is best understood in a historical context. These rights were originally earned by citizens through times of revolution to prevent future oppression. In the United States, many of the original freedoms were listed in the Bill of Rights as codified defense measures for its people to prevent tyranny. Citizens in free democratic countries can go about their day without being forced to salute a portrait of their leader or kneel before a God.

The concept of freedom of speech was developed at a time when people met face-to-face to resolve issues and host open dialog. Providing a platform for open dialogue and expression can help address societal grievances and tensions peacefully, but the intended outcome isn’t always met. In a pivotal moment in American history, political discourse magnified by a newspaper caused a duel between Alexander Hamilton, a Founding Father, and Aaron Burr, the sitting Vice President of the United States. Duels were seen as an act of honor to stand behind spoken values and beliefs. Hamilton ultimately lost the duel and passed away from his wounds. The publicity of the stunt ushered the U.S. away from direct provocation and closer to peaceful discourse.

Unveiling the Paradox

The Quran-burning demonstrators causing controversies today live with freedoms in democratic societies. They are not living under any sort of threat of tyranny or oppression. There is no government or individual leader to serve expressions of defiance against because the citizens are legally protected to conduct all forms of expression, even through grotesque treatment of the Quran. This is the paradox of the freedom of expression argument voiced by demonstrators: it is logically self-contradictory. You can’t be defiant against imposing authority that doesn't exist. In the case of these public demonstrations, Quran burnings are therefore logically an act of provocation and not an act of defiance. It would only be an act of defiance if Quran burning was made illegal and the validity of freedom of expression was in question.

Final Take and Analysis

Freedom of speech is a responsibility. Quran burning has historically caused violence and disrupted diplomatic ties between nations. There are limits to free speech when it poses a direct threat to public safety or incites violence. If a citizen in Denmark chooses to legally burn a Quran in front of the Iraqi Embassy (while not living under the threat of tyranny or oppression within their own country) the action is an unjustified provocation. The individual should be charged with the consequential fallout of inciting riots, arson, and death of their people abroad. A true freedom of speech activist wouldn’t burn scriptures in the first place: they’d welcome conversation for discourse, freely exchange knowledge and understanding, and be open to the expression of ideas to flourish cultural and intellectual progress.

If responsible free speech isn’t the solution, provocateurs may find resolve in taking some notes from Hamilton – they can go defend their own beliefs and honor instead of using their own country’s diplomats and embassies as pawns. If an individual is bold enough to burn a Quran in Copenhagen, they should be bold enough to burn the Quran in Kabul. These actors lack honor and standing; only a coward would burn holy words and hide from the ashes.