By Rabbi Michael Leo Samuel
CHULA VISTA, California — National Public Radio commentators recently discussed a very interesting question: Should President Obama have “apologized” for the accidental burning of the Qur’an? Some argue that the President should have expressed “regret” over the incident, which acknowledges some degree of culpability. Regret does not contain any element of obeisance that an apology would convey. When I listened to the apologies, it sounded as if the President, the Secretary of State, and the Brigadier General offered obeisance to an implacable foe. One can apologize without compromising one’s dignity. That did not seem to happen here. One can offer an apology without groveling. There seemed to be plenty of groveling. Tonality sometimes conveys meaning that goes beyond the words. The tonality was decidedly humble. In a macho part of the world like the Middle East, a show of strength makes a greater impression. Dignity means everything to a society that respects honor.
Some Republican politicians used this incident to score some political points in the upcoming primaries. Of all the candidates who have taken issue with President Obama, Newt Gingrich seems to make the most persuasive point that many pundits seem to ignore or discount. According to Gingrich, the President neglected to insist that the Afghan government ought to issue an apology for the deaths of four NATO soldiers who were killed by a man wearing an Afghan army uniform during increasingly violent protests of the desecration of the Muslim holy book.
President Obama’s apology is ironically reminiscent to the one that President Bush gave to the Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki, back in 2008, not long after a soldier shot several bullets into a Qur’an. The difference between the two desecrations ought to be obvious. In 2008, the act was deliberate, whereas in 2012, burning the Qur’an was accidental. The person burning the Qur’an did not realize this was considered a breach of religious etiquette because the Qur’an already had secret messages scribbled on its pages.
So, who’s right?
Whereas in the past, I have taken issue with President Obama on many issues, despite his tonality, I believe that he did the right thing by apologizing. Whether a person expresses “regret,” or “apologizes,” the difference between these two terms seems minor; taking the moral high road is not a bad course of action. Therefore, given the religious fanaticism of our times, apologizing seems to be the best approach in de-hostilizing an already tense environment. Obviously, the apology won’t convince the Muslim radicals, but it could detoxify the Muslim moderates. As a chess move, Obama’s apology could tactically change the direction of the political game.
While Newt did not discount the importance of Obama’s apology, he insisted upon reciprocity. Newt felt that the Afghani government also should have apologized, “If Hamid Karzai, the president of Afghanistan, doesn’t feel like apologizing, then we should say, ‘Goodbye and good luck, we don’t need to be here risking our lives and wasting our money on somebody who doesn’t care.’”
Newt makes a good point.
What are some of the lessons we might learn from this experience?
Well, for one thing, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have caused more economic damage to our own country, as well as the other countries that have participated. The mighty Roman Empire disappeared as a super-power once it overextended itself and spent considerable monies on wars it could not afford. The United States would be wise to apply this knowledge of ancient history and apply its lessons to our current war with the Taliban. It is time to bring the troops home.
As mentioned in an earlier posting, some Muslim scholars have argued in past centuries that burning a Qur’an ought to be performed reverently and preferably on sacred ground, like a the outside of a mosque. Accidental burning of a disposable holy text, while it is a monumental testament to human thoughtlessness, certainly should not be viewed as an act of blasphemy. Once again, if rational Muslim leaders spoke out and condemned the violence, maybe somebody would listen. No religion can afford to tacitly approve psychotic behavior in the name of God. Now that’s true blasphemy—the willful misuse of God’s Name to perpetuate violence toward others. I am curious why scribbling terrorist messages in the pages of the Qur’an is not condemned as a sacrilege by Muslim scholars or leaders? Not even the Haredi would dare disrespect a Torah scroll or a Pentateuch with scribbling thoughts about the sinfulness of the non-Haredi! 
In the final analysis, the accidental desecration of a holy book should not be greater or considered more important than the deliberate murder of four soldiers. From this perspective, Gingrich makes a valid point. According to Jewish tradition, one is not obligated to risk life and limb to save a Torah scroll (which we Jews have long regarded as the “word of God”) even from a raging fire. Ultimately, the sacredness of human life transcends the physical or even spiritual value of a holy text—even if it is the Torah, Qur’an, or Bible. Blaise Pascal’s wisdom guide us through these dangerous and insane times, “Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.”
*
Rabbi Samuel is spiritual leader of Temple Beth Sholom in Chula Vista. He may be contacted at michael.samuel@sdjewishworld.com