Terry Jones Does Something Good

Terry Jones has popped up again getting another hit of his addiction: media attention.

Jones, the controversial pastor from a small church in Florida who threatened to burn the Quran, then didn’t, and then did, is in the press again for a protest he planned for today — one of the holiest days in Christianity — in front of the largest mosque in the country in Dearborn, Mich., in what is a continuation of his fight against what he calls the evil that is Islam.

We’re no longer a stranger to Jones’ hateful screed. When he first threatened to burn the Quran last September, Jones got plenty of publicity and plenty of pleas not to through with it. He relented, but was at it again last month and this time he went through with it. The news of a kerosene-soaked Quran being lit aflame in Jones’ church caused a major uproar in Afghanistan, where more than a dozen people paid for Jones’ publicity stunt with their lives.

But in his latest bid for publicity, two pretty neat things happened. For one, it brought people of all faiths together to speak out against hate and against Jones. The Dearborn Press and Guide is reporting that last night hundreds of people of all faiths gathered at the Islamic Center of America, site of Jones’ planned protest.

By comparison, Jones’ Quran burning drew all of about 30 people, a number that’s below the total membership at his Florida church. This is your sign that tolerance and understanding will always be more popular than what Jones is peddling.

Here’s how the Press and Guide reported it:

The attendees were from different religions and ethnicities; among them were Dearborn Mayor John O’Reilly and Congressman John Dingell. Chairman of the InterFaith Leadership Council Bob Bruttell led the ceremony and introduced the speakers.

Archbishop Allen Vigneron of the Archdiocese of Detroit, the Rev. Charles Williams from King Solomon Baptist Church, the Rev. George Shalhoub of St. Mary Antiochan Orthodox Church, Imam Mustapha Elturk of the Imams Council of Michigan and Imam Sayed Hassan Al-Qazwini of the Islamic Center gave speeches denouncing Jones, who is known for burning the Quran.

The event, each speaker said, was an act of solidarity among the different religious and ethnic groups in Southeastern Michigan. Al-Qazwini said they must confront hatred with love and bigotry with understanding.

Whether you’re religious, spiritual, or none of the above, reading this should at least renew your faith in humanity.

The other neat thing is that Jones’ latest stunt shows us what Dearborn, Mich., isn’t.

Dearborn, a city of about 100,000 with a sizable Muslim community in the southeastern part of the state, has been much maligned by those on the far right who claim the city is the headquarters of an Islamic plot to take over the country. Its courts, they claim, have thrown out the U.S. Constitution and are now issuing rulings based only on Sharia law.

Texas’ own state Rep. Leo Berman, R-Tyler, has authored a bill that would ban the use of Sharia law in Texas courts (it’s already not allowed, so his bill is therefore nothing but a cheapshot at American Muslims) and has pointed to Dearborn as the reason why the legislation is needed.

Asked to back up his claim that Dearborn has been overrun by Sharia, Rep. Berman in the same breath admitted he doesn’t know much about Dearborn and that he “heard it on a radio station here on my way in to the Capitol one day.”

Now back to Jones, who yesterday and today has been in Dearborn courtrooms fighting for the right to hold his protest. City police have said they won’t allow it unless Jones pays a “peace bond” for the increased security they would have to provide. Jones is getting a fair chance to argue his case in those same courtrooms that Rep. Berman says are run by Sharia law.

Dear Rep. Berman, if your falsehoods about Dearborn were true, would Jones even be getting that chance? If Dearborn is such a hotbed of Muslim radicalism as you and your supporters claim it is, would Jones even be allowed to set one foot in town?

The answers are “No” and “No.”

So Terry Jones for once did something good. He didn’t intend to, but he did.

Sometimes the worst people bring out the best in people.

11 thoughts on “Terry Jones Does Something Good

  1. I was fascinated by the discovery that the Talmud was put on trial in Paris in 1240. To the surprise of all, it was convicted of heresy and blasphemy. Subsequently about 24 cartloads of Talmudic literature were put to the torch.

  2. Jones is an idiot, but he is joining a much bigger band wagon that is very very dangerous exemplified and explained in the Team B II Report and also by SANE’s Anti-Shaira Resolution (below):


    Anti-Shari’a Draft Act

    Whereas, Shari’a, as defined and understood by traditional and authoritative Shari’a scholars, is a legal-political-military doctrinal system combined with certain religious beliefs; further, Shari’a is based historically and traditionally on full corpus of law and jurisprudence termed fique and usul al-fique, respectively, dealing with all aspects of a Shari’a-adherent’s personal and social life and political society.

    Whereas, Shari’a as a political doctrine requires all its adherents to actively support the establishment of a political society based upon Shari’a as foundational or supreme law and the replacement of any political entity not governed and governing by Shari’a with a Shari’a political order.

    Whereas, Shari’a requires all its adherents to actively and passively support the replacement of America’s constitutional republic with a political system based upon Shari’a.

    Whereas, Shari’a in particular includes a war doctrine known as jihad, which is an organic, intrinsic and central feature of the laws and traditions of Shari’a due to a consensus among Shari’a authorities throughout the ages.

    Whereas, jihad and Shari’a are inextricably linked, with Shari’a formulating and commanding jihad, and jihad being waged for the purpose of imposing and instituting Shari’a.

    Whereas, the unchanging and ultimate aim of jihad is the imposition of Shari’a on all states and nations, including the United States; further, pursuant to its own dictates, Shari’a requires the abrogation, destruction, or violation of the US Constitution or the destruction of the national existence of the United States of America.

    Whereas, the imposition of Shari’a on non-Shari’a adherent states is to be brought about both by criminal and violent means, including terrorism, and by lawful and non-violent means, including immigration-fed population growth and the resulting increase of Shari’a-centric political influence and power.

    Whereas, adherence to Shari’a is adherence to the legal, political, and military doctrines and law of jihad.
    Whereas, adherence to and advocating of or for Shari’a poses an imminent likelihood of violent jihad and acts of terrorism. And,

    Whereas, adherence to Shari’a is prima facie evidence of an act in support of the overthrow of the US Government through the abrogation, destruction, or violation of the US Constitution by the use of imminent criminal and seditious violence with the aim of imposing Shari’a on the American People.


    [1] A “Shari’a-adherent” shall be defined as any person who adheres to Shari’a or acts in support of the adherence to Shari’a or who makes any written or oral declaration in support of the adherence to Shari’a.

    [2] “Adherence to Shari’a” shall be defined as any act, including any written or oral declaration, in support of Shari’a or in furtherance of the imposition of Shari’a within any territory of the United States of America. “Territory of the United States of America” shall be defined as any territory under the civilian or military control or governance of personnel acting for and on behalf of the US Government.

    [3] “Shari’a” shall be defined as the set of rules, precepts, instructions, or edicts which are said to emanate directly or indirectly from the god of Allah or the prophet Mohammed and which include directly or indirectly the encouragement of any person to support the abrogation, destruction, or violation of the US Constitution or the destruction of the national existence of the United States of America, and which includes among other methods to achieve these ends, the real possibility of imminent violence. Any rule, precept, instruction, or edict arising directly from the extant rulings of any of the five authoritative schools of Islamic jurisprudence (the Hanafi, the Maliki, the Shafi’i, the Hanbali, the Ja’afariya, or Salafi school or fiqh) is prima facie Shari’a without any further evidentiary showing.

    [4] It shall be a felony punishable by 20 years in prison to knowingly act in furtherance of, or to support the, adherence to Shari’a.

    [5] The President of the United States of America shall immediately declare that all non-US citizen Shari’a-adherents are Alien Enemies under Chapter 3 of Title 50 of the US Code and shall be subject to immediate deportation.

    [6] No Shari’a-adherent shall be granted an entry visa into the United States of America. Anyone seeking an entry visa into the United States of America from any country or regime which advocates or implements Shari’a bears the burden to establish evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that he/she is not a Shari’a-adherent.

    Team B Report pdf at:


  3. Wow, at least somebody Googled for the names of the major schools of Islamic legal thought, even though they obviously have not the slightest clue what the whole body of thought means. This “resolution” effectively declares all Muslims to be felons.

    Perhaps they should move further into the foundational declarations of Western Law and uphold the Decrees of Pope Innocent III, requiring that all Jews, Muslims, prostitutes and convicted heretics wear a particular distinctive badge on their clothing…

  4. (Quiz show buzzer) “Honnnkkk”.
    (Game show host voice) “I’m sorry, Team B, that is wronggg.”
    “I’m afraid that the Anti-Sharia Draft Act is unconstitutional. It does not comply with the 1st Amendment.”
    (Sad trombones.)

  5. This is a splendid case of the Law of Inverse Attribution. The Constitution must be saved from itself.

    What should scare one is to read the names of those who sponsored the Team B report including two three star generals.

  6. From Jihad Watch


    Missouri House votes to ban Sharia

    A vote for freedom. Nonetheless, watch for the utterly predictable cries of victimization, and misrepresentation of Sharia as private religious law that entails no conflict whatsoever with Constitutional principles. Yet Hamas-linked CAIR and others who claim this can point to no Sharia state in the history of the world that did not implement Islamic law as a political system that involved restrictions on the freedom of speech and the freedom of conscience and denial of basic rights to women and non-Muslims.

    “Missouri House votes to ban Sharia law,” by Jason Hancock for the Post-Dispatch, April 20:

    JEFFERSON CITY • A bill prohibiting state courts from using or recognizing Sharia law passed the Missouri House Wednesday on a 102-51 vote.
    The legislation, which was sponsored by state Rep. Paul Curtman, R-Pacific, bans Missouri courts from utilizing foreign law or legal code in any ruling. Although it never specifically mentions the words “Sharia” or “Islam,” Wednesday’s debate focused almost exclusively on Sharia law, which is the religious law of Islam.

    “This bill is not all about Sharia Law,” Curtman said. “It’s Sharia Law, French law, Dutch law or anything else.”

    Since the beginning of 2009, numerous states have considered proposals to ban Sharia. During last year’s elections, Oklahoma voters passed a referendum banning state courts from considering international or Islamic law. However, it was later blocked by a federal judge who said that the law was unconstitutional.

    Legislation similar to Curtman’s was introduced in the Missouri Senate by Republican Brian Nieves but has yet to gain traction. The House bill picked up momentum earlier this session when House Speaker Steve Tilley threw his support behind it, saying “the laws of this country should trump any other laws regarding the citizens of our country within our borders.”

    Speaking in opposition to the measure, State Rep. Jamilah Nasheed, D-St. Louis, said she’d like to help educate Curtman on Sharia law.

    “I truly believe you think you’re doing the right thing,” she said while talking to Curtman on the House floor, later adding: “I don’t think that you have ill intentions, so I would encourage you to become familiar with Sharia Law. I’d really like to sit down with you and we can study together and come to a better understanding of what Sharia Law is, how it works and what it does.”…

    I’m all for that.

  7. This is a letter to the editor I wrote last week:

    HB 911 by state Rep. Leo Berman, R-Tyler, and HB 3027 by state Rep. Randy Weber, R-Pearland, attempt to prevent the imposition of Islamic law in Texas. I would commend them for their concern for the sanctity of our laws except that we and the rest of the 50 states are already protected by a much more robust measure known as the Constitution. Yes, that marvelous document which was read in the U.S. House of Representatives at the opening of the current session already protects us from the imposition of Sharia Law or Jewish Law or rulings by the Catholic Pope.

    The First Amendment says in part “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. The Supreme Court has ruled on more than one occasion that this amounts to a separation of church and state. Unfortunately the very same people so concerned about imposition of Sharia Law seek to undermine the protections offered through separation of church and state by claiming that the United State is in fact a Christian nation and our laws are guided by the Bible.

    Once we open ourselves to this notion we’re just a step away from the very same type of theocracy that people like Leo Berman and Randy Weber claim they want to protect us from. If you really want to protect Texas and the United States then you must support the Constitution’s protections by supporting separation of church and state.

  8. “One could drive a prairie schooner through any part of his argument and never scrape against a fact.”

    David F. Houston
    (02/17/1866 – 09/02/1940)
    U.S. Secretary of the Treasury , on William Jennings Bryan