Book Rage

by Cliopatria

In Gitmo, reported Newsweek,"Interrogators, in an attempt to rattle suspects, flushed a Qur'an down a toilet". Since the publication of the report, 9 people have died in Afghanistan in widespread protests [in Jalalabad, they burned the Pakistani consulate]; the protests have spread to Pakistan; and to Indonesia; Shaukat Aziz is mad; the Saudi's are irked; US denies it ever happened but pledges some action nonetheless [I loved this bit:"we have heard from our Muslim friends around the world about their concerns on this matter"].

Why is the tearing or flushing of a copy of Qur'an such grievous offense? For Muslims, Qur'an is not a compilation of reports about God by prophets or disciples, but the exact, direct and inviolable speech of God. Singlevoiced and unidirectional, it is the suprahistorical word of God. The sanctity and sacredness of Qur'an transcends its physicality while at the same time is contained within it. A Muslim dare not even touch it without ritual purity.

But, there are still some differences that need elaborating. The Afghanis and Pakistanis are burning and dying in the streets while the Saudis are merely expressing their"ire". Explanation lies in the difference in the treatment of the"book" vs. the"text" between Arabia and South Asia. In South Asia, the physical Qur'an becomes a holy relic - to be placed in a scented and clean spot above head; to be handled with veneration and respect. In Wahhabi Saudi Arabia, such veneration is frowned upon and they are apt to treat it just as a special book.

Such gradation aside, the Qur'an cannot be surpassed in value as the locus of sacredness in Islam. In one of my favorite verses, Muhammad Iqbal writes ...

... and the Koran—
a hundred new worlds lie within its verses,
whole centuries are involved in its moments;
one world of it suffices for the present age—
seize it, if the heart in your breast grasps truth..
A believing servant himself is a sign of God,
every world to his breast is as a garment;
and when one world grows old upon his bosom,
The Koran gives him another world!
- Javed Nama [1932]. Translation by A. J. Arberry

Torture happened in Abu Gharib and we persecuted the odd grunt soldiers. Torture happens in Jordan, Pakistan, Egypt at the behest of CIA or FBI and nobody cares. Torture happened in Abu Gharib but it is all ok because Saddam did worse [btw, Hitch. If you have to moralize based on Saddam's level of morality, you have lost the battle, the war and your mind.]

The destruction of this Qur'an [s?] was psychological torture aimed at just the people to whom each printed dot is the word of God. They will break, I am sure it was argued, rather than face the annihilation of their sacred word. The French did the same in Algeria. The Israelis did the same to Hamas and Hizb prisoners. It makes sense to do it, doesn't it? Break what they hold dearest? Go Patai on them? Maybe the prisoners in Gitmo did break down and disclose secrets. Or maybe they didn't. But, if the age of Terrorism is an age of blowback, then the consequences of torture and the desecration of the Qur'an will remain hidden for a little while. _{x-posted at Chapati Mystery}

comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:

John H. Lederer - 5/16/2005

I think they had not sources, but one source, who now says he may have erred.

The "confirmation" is apparently because two other people in government did not comment on it to deny it -- I note that it is very difficult for a government official to deny anything occurring at a low level without first investigating. Government is just too big. If you alleged today to Defense Secretary Rumsfeld that there was a functioning brothel in the Pentagon , it would probably take a week before he could deny it (and everyone, including Rumsfeld, I am sure, would have a lingering suspicion...)

There is a peculiar irony here.

Newsweek missed the scoop of the decade because it sat on the Clinton-Lewinsky story while asserting it was doing extensive corroboration. On this item, which arguably had more severe consequences, certainly to the dead, it appears to have printed the story with no confirmation and little or no thought for the possible consequences.

Jonathan Dresner - 5/16/2005

If I were conspiracy-minded, I'd say that someone fed Newsweek bad info on purpose, because they did have sources for their original claims. And where DID the Rathergate memoes come from?

John H. Lederer - 5/16/2005

From today's Washington Post (which owns Newsweek):

================
"The fallout here is starting to build, and Dan Klaidman, Newsweek's Washington bureau chief, was doing cable news interviews yesterday, describing the story as "an honest mistake."

Said Whitaker: "I suppose you could say we should have foreseen the consequences of the report, but we didn't."

=============

They seem to assent to the Pentagon's protest that there is no such incident in the investigation or report of the investigation:

"On Saturday, when Isikoff reached his original source, the magazine said, the official "could no longer be sure" that the Koran allegation "had surfaced" in the SouthCom investigation."

Jonathan Dresner - 5/16/2005

No, they're not: they are standing by their sourcing, and the Pentagon report says what they say it does (and wouldn't be investigated further in any event. Someone's trying to "Dan Rather" Newsweek (bet you didn't know that was a verb); wonder who?

Diana Applebaum - 5/16/2005

John H. Lederer - 5/15/2005

perhaps the allegation was imprecise, but here was the original:
Among the previously unreported cases, sources tell NEWSWEEK: interrogators, in an attempt to rattle suspects, flushed a Qur'an down a toilet....

.
It seems to suggest the book not the pages.

Your teaching demonstration puts a whole new slant on "you are what you eat" <g>

Ralph E. Luker - 5/15/2005

Mr. Lederer, I once aroused a few of my biblical studies students at Virginia Tech by tearing a page or two from a testament, rolling them up, and swallowing them. If biblical texts can go down my throat, I assure you that Koranic texts can go down a toilet.

John H. Lederer - 5/15/2005

A technical detail is bothersome. How does one flush a book down the toilet? My environmentally approved 1.6 GPF would never handle it. I assume that the toilets at Gitmo might be the older ones..still...

Oscar Chamberlain - 5/15/2005

You are right, a very interesting story, not simply in the admission that they got the first story wrong, but in their discussion of how the story emerged.

I think the latter story illustrates the difficulties created by large-scale more-or-less covert incarceration and interrogation. Without independent verification of treatment, the denials have little worth, even if true.

John H. Lederer - 5/15/2005

I am not sure exactly what this story means, but it has the feel of "we did not get the story right, but there are other stories circulated by some people that are sort of like that one"

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7857407/site/newsweek/

Oscar Chamberlain - 5/15/2005

An addendum to my comment above.

One of the many reasons I feel strongly about this is that, in my US since 1877 class, I ave seen more students each year argue that torture was, is, and should be a standard part of military action. Most who hold this position want some care taken on who is tortured, but then, most anything goes.

I know that a class each year is not a scientific poll, but to the extent that such beliefs are spreading, I hold George Bush responsible.

Oscar Chamberlain - 5/15/2005

"15 dead seems an importaqnt and nasty result by itself."

True. I have no wish to diminish the loss or the violence. But when a closed system of interrogation is created within a nation that prides itself on human rights and, in particular, on judicial rights, what solution is there other than publicity?

Gitmo, renditions, and the other clear signals that torture should be a part of interrogation--A fair number of the "psychological" techniques openly approved are torture--these also lead to deaths. In the name of security, the administration has set up somethintg toxic, and there is no response now that does not lead to deaths, except perhaps for their truly changing policy.

John H. Lederer - 5/15/2005

"Does such dissemination harm US efforts? Perhaps."

Well I suppose you could see the effect on U.S. efforts as the most important result.

15 dead seems an important and nasty result by itself, regardless of the effect on U.S. efforts.

There are lots of things that set off religious riots -- India, for instance, has had a history of deadly riots over often absurd rumors.

I wonder if Newsweek accurately assessed the potential results of its story?

Oscar Chamberlain - 5/14/2005

John, You are correct on the specific point that the act of flushing the Koran has not been proven.

However, the Bush asministration has set up new standards of incarceration and questioning with no oversight and with a far greater emphasis on getting information as opposed to human treatment. When conventional forms of oversight do not exist it would be immoral and, I think, unAmerican not to bring charges to the widest possible audience.

Does such dissemination harm US efforts? Perhaps. But the cause of that harm is the secrecy with which the administration has wrapped its new order of imprisonment. It is Bush and his advisors who have created the situation in which even honest denials must be looked at with suspicion.

John H. Lederer - 5/14/2005

Mr. Luker,

I believe your logic a bit shaky. It runs something like:

1. There is sufficient "reason to investigate the matter"

2. Therefore we should not obfuscate the "reality" that I.. "live in a country under whose authority Abu Ghraib occurs and sacred texts get flushed down toilets?"

There is a leap in that reasoning.

So far as I know this is what the Pentagon has said:
============
"The Pentagon said Thursday there is no evidence to support an allegation that a copy of the Islamic text had been flushed down a toilet "in an attempt to rattle suspects" held at the Guantanamo Bay prison camp in Cuba. The brief item, citing an unnamed source, was published in Newsweek magazine.

General Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a briefing that a search of interrogation logs at Guantanamo had turned up no record of interrogators abusing the Koran.

There was one record - still to be confirmed - of a guard reporting that one of the detainees had been "ripping pages out of the Korean and putting them in the toilet to stop it up, as a protest," he said."
================

I am not sure that there would be an "official record" of such an interrogation, but I also am aware that this sort of thing, because so inflammtory, is something that many "sources" would have an interest in exaggerating or creating -- as well as minimizing or obscuring.

I await Newsweek providing substance about its story and the military's fuller response. At this point I just do not know, and I don't think most reasonable people would conclude that they know, what the facts are.

In the meantime, the loss of 15 lives over a single allegation seems something to be deeply regretted.

I am under the impression that the Periscope is a section in which Newseek puts miscellaneous news, often expressed as a question "Did ....." that may not meet the standards of the main news content on the magazine. I do not know that for a fact-- it is an impression as a long time reader.

Jonathan Dresner - 5/14/2005

I have no basis for judging the general journalistic standard represented by the NP, as I had never heard of it before today. The article cites leaked official memos of investigations and advance copies of a forthcoming book by a participant, both of which are substantially primary sources. Responsible parties were interviewed: the story might be flawed, but the journalistic practice is sound.

Ralph E. Luker - 5/14/2005

As you know, Mr. Lederer, there is an investigation going on. Neither the State nor the Defense departments was confident about being able to issue a denial. In other words, the Secretary of State believes there's sufficient reason to investigate the matter and all you want to do is impune the source. Do you really want to obfuscate the reality that you live in a country under whose authority Abu Ghraib occurs and sacred texts get flushed down toilets?

John H. Lederer - 5/14/2005

does not impress me as a very reliable source.

Jonathan Dresner - 5/13/2005

In the long run, there is a difference between opposing someone and disrespecting them, and that difference comes back to haunt, at least in the history books and the people who take those history books (sometimes too) seriously.

It makes me think of the Yom Kippur service which includes the martyrology: the burning of Torahs -- under Romans and Nazis, mostly -- features prominently, along with the actual martyrdoms, and is now part of a liturgical legacy which will reverberate for generations.