Taken in context, of course, Mr. Wilders’ position is more nuanced. Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler’s diatribe and blueprint for Nazi ascendancy, is banned by law in the Netherlands. Geert Wilders maintains that the Koran is at least as vile and hateful as Mein Kampf, so that in the interests of consistency, it should be banned as well.
But what about arguments in favor of banning the Koran, regardless of whether any other books are banned? Can we justify banning it and still remain a society of fundamental liberties?
In the following essay our French correspondent Robert Marchenoir makes a reasoned case for banning the Koran under all circumstances.
I support banning the Koran
by Robert Marchenoir
Freedom of speech is all right in peaceful times. Not when there is a war going on.When a war is being waged against your country, propaganda for the enemy is forbidden. It is a condition of victory. We have to come to terms with the fact that war has been foisted upon us. The strategy to oppose it is entirely different from what would apply in normal times.
The first positive effect that would come from banning the Koran — even from campaigning for its banning — would be to force people to examine the motives; to make them realise that, yes, the situation is that threatening.
The other positive effect would be the disproportionate anger and violence that is certain to arise in Muslim circles, if such a possibility was seriously entertained.
Many people think the Koran is just another book, or just another religious text, or just another expression of one’s opinion. It is not. It is a casus belli from the Muslim standpoint, as are any goalposts that Muslims will gladly plant and move forward, in their strategy of conquest of kuffar territory.
- - - - - - - - -
It is essential that we, Westerners, understand that political trick. Many illusions would crumble if faced with the extreme character of the symbolic and actual violence that Muslims would try to inflict on us if we took such a step.
A comparison with Mein Kampf is largely irrelevant. Certainly, if Mein Kampf is banned, as it is in the Netherlands, then it is legitimate to ask, even in a rhetorical way like Geert Wilders, why the Koran is not.
However, Mein Kampf is not a present threat. The Koran is. Indeed, the rational thing for Western governments to do would be to lift the ban on Mein Kampf, for their citizens to see what sort of thinking has lead to a political regime most people now hate and despise, and ban the Koran, in order to prevent the enemy of today from wreaking havoc.
The only problem that would arise from such a situation is that there would be a good chance of Islamists switching to Mein Kampf to further their ideals, as “Heil Hitler!” cries have shown in the recent anti-Israel demonstrations in Europe.
I believe most Western governments have provisions in their laws which forbid propaganda by political movements whose aim is to subvert and overthrow, by violent means, the fundamental constitutional principles on which their countries are built.
The Koran is such a piece of propaganda. It is a political and military book, masquerading under the guise of a religious text. The Trojan Horse quality of such a ruse of war is potentially very effective, given the state of denial Europe is in regarding military conflict and the use of force. It is essential the West fight against it.
The former Swiss counterjihad blogger Alain-Jean Mairet has long argued powerfully for a campaign to ban the Koran, and even Islam. In many Western countries you would be arrested if you flaunted a flag with a swastika in the street. Similarly, there is no reason why you should be allowed to wear a Muslim veil in public, build mosques or disseminate the Koran.
Let’s ban the Koran while we still can.
28 comments:
Hear hear! I support a Koran ban as well.
i'm not so sure. banning it would create more intrigue and add to the mystique. i think banning anything just draws attention to it and creates hysteria. while i agree it is a hate fueled load of tripe, i think a better strategy would be to start talking about it in a way that european governments won't let us. i think it's vile message should be exposed and laid bare for all people to see. however the last few years has shown that people seem to be quite slow at understanding the threat they are faced with, so perhaps part of me thinks that banning it would not be such a bad idea.
interesting essay, i'd veer on no ban, but there's room to convince me.
Banning any written work in the age of the internet is impossible. I find this discussion to be useless.
I want freedom to rule, let us speak against such ignorant and denigrating works of Islam....the Koran is such a piece....let love thy neighbor rule!
I say ban the whole cult. We all know who the true Mesiah is.Mohummad is a fraud.Forcing people to follow him by intimidation & fear. The Qu'ran was written 100 years after his death. No resurrection. You know how the story changes by word of mouth.Especially 100 years. Facts are fabricated & exagerated. Some rooted rules written in the Qu'ran that is taught to them all their lives, (like the "Jesus Loves Me" song everyone knows), They can lie,cheat,steal,Kill,& don't have to keep their promises to any infedels. They kill their own families. Freedom to all religions except when they threaten terroristic acts to the innocent public and the world. Kill over cartoons & naming a teddy bear after a little boy's name, MOHUMMAD. They're like spoiled rotten goat herder children that didn't get their way & have violent tantrums out into the streets. The cult has misled their heritage for over 2000 years & they look like they crawled out from Iraq. Unkempt
I have read the Koran, the Hadith and the Sunnah. I think it is better to understand the enemy than ban his scripture. I think reading the Koran should be mandatory for all Americans. Read, then decide if Islam means "peace" as Bush said.
As for Mein Kampf, the copyright is about to expire, as the author died in 1945. Not that Turkish or Arabic publishers are respecting that, and they probably don't pay royalties, either, but it raises another point:
What to do when it becomes freely redistributable?
The Jewish organisations have pondered that to some extent (for obvious reasons) and came up with a Good solution: Republish it with detailed commentary.
A similar commentary exists already for the Quran and the Hadith. It's named Prophet of Doom and is well worth reading.
It's free, too. Please indulge...
babs said...
Banning any written work in the age of the internet is impossible. I find this discussion to be useless.
In an age where certain opinions/discussion of information can land you in the poor house or prison or send you into hiding under 24/7 security detail (Geert Wilders, Susanne Winters, or when respected scholars publish under a pseudonym to avoid Islamic rage like Christoph Luxemberg) the discussion is hardly 'useless'.
Free speech is not free under these circumstances. Either we fight for our freedom and demand followers of the RoP abide by our rules, or we loose that freedom - internet or not.
I believe most Western governments have provisions in their laws which forbid propaganda by political movements whose aim is to subvert and overthrow, by violent means, the fundamental constitutional principles on which their countries are built.
If Western nations cannot bring themselves to recognize that Islam is a political ideology and NOT a
"religion", then the seditious nature of this violent cult must be used as a lever to strip it of all legal protections.
I have already expressed my personal reservations about ANY ban on books. I have also noted that at least a temporary ban on the Qu'ran would be appropriate as a form of demand for reciprocity with respect to Saudi Arabia's legal prohibition on the importation of Bibles.
The Koran is such a piece of propaganda. It is a political and military book, masquerading under the guise of a religious text. The Trojan Horse quality of such a ruse of war is potentially very effective, given the state of denial Europe is in regarding military conflict and the use of force. It is essential the West fight against it.
Again, the war against Islam must start somewhere. If reverse immigration and a general ban upon Islam are not possible, then "baby steps" will be required. Banning the Qu'ran, even as a symbolic measure, is such a step.
This entire mess is going to get much worse before it gets any better. Some very distasteful and nasty measures are waiting just down the pike for all of us. Either we set about making life miserable for all Muslims or continue getting a taste of Islam's sword on a regular basis. Which shall it be?
heroyalwhyness: Free speech is not free under these circumstances.
It is not free now, nor has it ever been. Just as freedom is not free, neither are any of the other liberties we have come to take so for granted. MILLIONS fought and died for these selfsame liberties that we are suddenly learning to treasure.
Do not forget that Islam would cheerfully see MILLIONS MORE fight and die if that is what it took to deny us our precious freedoms.
Listen... for clarity's sake here is what Wilders was on about regarding the Koran. Wilders was not advocating the ban on the Koran as a punitive remedy.
He was arguing that in the light of existing Dutch law, the Koran would be banned.
In parliament he stated:
Madam Speaker, the Koran is a book that incites to violence. I remind the House that the distribution of such texts is unlawful according to Article 132 of our Penal Code. In addition, the Koran incites to hatred and calls for murder and mayhem. The distribution of such texts is made punishable by Article 137(e). The Koran is therefore a highly dangerous book; a book which is completely against our legal order and our democratic institutions. In this light, it is an absolute necessity that the Koran be banned for the defense and reinforcement of our civilization and our constitutional state. I shall propose a second-reading motion to that effect."
He has further stated that the remedy would be in removing those offending texts to make the Koran acceptable.
All this talk of banning! I believe Wilders was advocating the ban merely as an intellectual exercise. He knows the realities. Islam has us in a mess, so to fly a ban would scarcely get two inches off the ground.
How about banning public idiocy in the likes of David Miliban and Keith Vaz MP, Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee and now British Labour Party politician. Both totally vile public scolds who sheepishly admit to not having seen Fitna.
How about banning the liberal/left. That's as good a start as any.
How about instituting anti-dhimmi laws... so far we have come... we could start there... that's probably our best bet. Make dhimmitude illegal... then we can begin to educate our idiot political betters of their transgression against better sense.
Sorry... my language is a bit intemperate but I despair to see the gasping heaves of our civilization.
Absolutely agree Zenster . . .well said!
Oh yes... one more thing.
We don't have to ban the Koran.
The Muslims are doing that for us already. Kuffars who dare open the Koran and expose the verses therein will be banned from doing so under the Defamation of Religions from the UNHRC. In this surrealistic perverted altered state we now call "The West" it may even become possible for the Kuffar to be relieved of the burden of even owning a Koran.
Problem solved!
You fall all in a syllogical trap:
Banning or not banning.
We can split the question and say:
"UNTIL the muslims in our lands do not integrate, grow up, abandone their jihad and do not oppose 100% actively anything violent in their islamic habits - in word or act - they are not eligible to use one page of their quran.
The kids under 18 should never come in touch with this violent hateful book directly or indirectly.
The individuals teaching or reciting this book should FIRST learn, teach and RECITE PUBLICALLY all the known names of people killed, robbed, raped, mutilated, blackmailed or threatened in the name of this book.
This is much better, containing a little carrot - unobjectionable and sweet one.
You split them - they have to move their mental ass in response - and it does not unite them as a simple unconditional ban.
What is wrong about such conditions set? Security, understanding, control, removal of threat?
If you remove the "religious" rotten apple´s stalk hanging on the tree (quranic apple), you get something to discuss for few minutes to get it refuted and buried for ever.
I do not see any reason to be terrorized, blackmailed or silenced because someone learnt how to abuse such epithets as "religious", "god" or "messenger".
Gee, if you could ban the Koran, Muslims should leave the countries in droves. It isn't like the Bible isn't banned in Saudia Arabia, the biggest financial supporter of the building of mosques, etc. in western and european countries.
It is an outright lie when journalists etc. get on the airways and state that Wilders wants to ban the Koran, without stating the fact that Mein Kampf is banned, so why isn't another book of hate banned also. A half-truth is a lie and is totally out of context.
Just the fact that Muslim males are not only allowed to rape children, women, and the elderly female infidels without ramifications from their Koran, but they are actually committing rapes in huge proportion to the smaller numbers of Muslims in European countries.
The problem is is that Muslims follow the teachings of the Koran. If Muslims were told they could rape infidel women, but didn't, then you might hold out a little hope, but they do rape infidel women and in great numbers.
Why are European countries expected to allow Muslims into their countries when the Koran teaches that sex with children is sanctioned? So who exactly is protecting the women and children in European countries now? The most vunerable and cherished members of the men of Europe, their children and women, are being targeted, and where is the outcry?
Obama learned the Koran in school in Indonesia, and all he ever does is lie to the American people.....sound familiar.
Joanne: The problem is is that Muslims follow the teachings of the Koran. If Muslims were told they could rape infidel women, but didn't, then you might hold out a little hope, but they do rape infidel women and in great numbers.
While seemingly obvious, this is a crucial point. The thundering silence of Muslim regarding clearly objectionable points contained within the Qu'ran needs to be taken as tacit approval and not quiet protest.
So much that is objectionable about the Qu'ran is allowed to go by the boards without a peep from the Muslim community in any country. This is a surefire indicator of majority approval.
As a Spanish journalist once said:
After a while, to remain silent is no longer just consent. To remain silent is to lie!
The only "ban" of the Koran that is needed is to NOT hand it out to terrorist prisoners (at Gitmo, etc.) as has been blindly done by naive politicians and military leaders in the interest of p.c. ("looking nice" and of "seeming tolerant").
Since all that doling out this playbook of murderous intolerance does is to refresh and re-invigorate the dispirited jihadists and renew their hatred for their despised infidel enemies.
(Did we give free MEIN KAMPF's to Nazi's prisoners?)
No Korans should be allowed into the paws of those who have used it to wage war against all non-Muslims.
Everyone else ~ infidels dogs of all threatened nations~ should read the damned thing, because a basic knowledge of its dismal dogmas is the best defense against its infiltration and influence.
And a useful antidote to those Mohammedan b.s. artists who constantly lie (to anyone naive enough to listen) about the Koran's contents, deceiving them about its explicit order
that Muslims to conquer the world ... by the Sword if the tongue fails... and to establish a permanent global theocratic tyranny.
Know thy killer cult.
Or else.
1) "Freedom of speech is all right in peaceful times. Not when there is a war going on."
Technically, we are in peace. We're not in war. Some of us may have some troops in some strange areas but we are not really at war. We suffer no privations. Yet.
2)"Certainly, if Mein Kampf is banned, as it is in the Netherlands, then it is legitimate to ask, even in a rhetorical way like Geert Wilders, why the Koran is not."
Great point. But it would be better if it was a point for the liberalization of Mein Kempf than for the ban on the Koran.
----------------------------
In the end, I think we shall not ban things just because those things annoy us. We shall ban things that are dangerous to us, but that is only in extremis. But not the Koran, even because, like it or not, the Koran is an immortal piece of "Human Culture", the holly book of one of the World's Greatest (and longest living) Religions.
One of the worst things of the Inquisition was the Index, the prohibition and burning of books. And why? Because the Church did not bother to explain why those books were offensive - if they were so at all.
This is the same. To ban is the wrong easy path to travel. We ought to explain to "our people" why the book is offensive and should not be taken into account. Even better, JUST IGNORE IT! at least, let the masses ignore it.
But then arouses another problem: "Our People?".
There is where all the problems lie upon. It is not right to ban the Koran. What should be discussed is if it is legitimate to ban muslims! And third worlders in general preferabily.
BAN THEM, LET THE KORAN. A BOOK CAN'T HARM US.
FREEDOM => The Koran among us.
FREEDOM => Our people, Land, Culture, History and Religiosity free of other influences.*
--------------------------
*Recently in a documentary about Bolivia, there was a Native American who said very "racist" things about not wanting "Westernised" influences on his land. Any person of European descent speaking like that would probabily been poured to jail and it would open the World News as the ressurrection of the eviliest racist ever. However, it was presented as the most healty and dignifying thing the man could have said.
It is disturbing. Why can't we have what is our? Why can't we be free of Third World "influences"?
It makes no sense for us to be deprived of the Koran if it does not make "OUR" people act dangerously in the first place. The problem is not the Koran.
Muslim attitude towards infidel female: Does Global Warming cause rape waves?
Afonso,
"There is where all the problems lie upon. It is not right to ban the Koran. What should be discussed is if it is legitimate to ban muslims!"
I agree.
I remember reading that President Reagan was getting flack from farmers over prohibiting them from exporting grain to the Soviet Union.
He said "let's keep the grain and export the farmers". Too right. Let's keep the Koran and deport the Muslims.
"I think it is better to understand the enemy than ban his scripture. I think reading the Koran should be mandatory for all Americans."
Well, Americans have so much to worry! Let's however aloud any American who cares about to have the freedom to read the damned book.
Now, making it mandatory is useless to the bone.
"I have also noted that at least a temporary ban on the Qu'ran would be appropriate as a form of demand for reciprocity with respect to Saudi Arabia's legal prohibition on the importation of Bibles."
Zenster, that is the first strong argument I read here for the banning of the Koran. A good argument and since I cannot imagine another one, I'll call it The Good Argument for the ban of the Koran. Well thought!!
Tell me that if the Bible allowed Christians to rape all non-believers,; marry, sodomize, and have sexual relations with children; allow a man to have four wives and beat them; kill women who are raped because they dishonour the family, and on and on, would it not be banned? I'm not for banning books, but people are tolerating Muslims following the teachings in the Koran because they fear any violent reaction from them. No one feels any fear from the Christian body of people because the Bible teaches them to "LOVE THEIR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF" and laws are in place to challenge, arrest, and punish all the lawless. The Koran basically teaches Muslims that all non-believers are pigs and dogs and should be treated as such, and there is no penalty from Allah or their laws for doing so.
Why is Mein Kampf banned anyhow? Probably because people do not want Nazis to have a play by play book to lead them down that road again. What is the Koran, if not a play by play book instructing Muslims how to treat infidels now and in the future?
Of course, the proposition to ban the Koran may be considered so undoable as to be pure intellectual speculation.
But it helps us work on the problem, and, possibly, imagine strategies which are, politically, more realistic.
For instance, Czechmade is right to point out that the alternative might not be between an outright ban and doing nothing.
I like Profitsbeard suggestion that giving Korans to prisoners (and, one could add, access to imams) was probably a bad idea.
Zenster makes a strong point when he stresses the need for Westerners to understand that Islam is a political creed, and not just a religion.
This, I think, is one of the most promising avenues we have at our disposal in the coming battle "for hearts and minds". First, because it's true and central to the issue. But also because it allows us to avoid the "racism" and "religious intolerance" stigma.
It's a generally accepted principle, in Western countries, that one should be free to criticise and oppose political dogmas. If we can convince people that Islam is, first and foremost, an ideology for worldly government, we unmuzzle debate.
In that perspective, those who argue that Westerners should be encouraged to read the Koran in order to realise its nature and dangers have, naturally, a point.
One dangerous strategy that might backfire is the argument of reciprocity. On these grounds, Saudi Arabia might authorize a token church here and there, relax a bit its ban on Bibles for a handful of inocuous expatriates, and insist on Sharia for the millions of Western Muslims in exchange. We'd be the obvious losers then.
I rather go for banning islam and muslims than the quran. A book is a book is a book. It's the people that follows it that is the problem here. If we make it illegal we can bulldoze all the mosques and everyone that wears a towel on their skulls or a big tent could be rounded up and sent to camps. Then you could send them back to their countries of origin in whatever rate we find acceptable. Keep them contained in the MENA area. There they can practice their savage religion as much as they want for all I care.
Joanne wrote:So who exactly is protecting the women and children in European countries now?
Well it certainly aint men.
zenster wrote: So much that is objectionable about the Qu'ran is allowed to go by the boards without a peep from the Muslim community in any country.
Or there is always the reposte that Christainity is just as violent.
BBC type journalists forget, or do not know, that slavery, emanicipation, Red Cross, and so many of the most worthy of all causes that Liberals think is part of the secular humanist creed, came about because of devout Christians.
We do want the Koran to be read widely so people can see what a travesty of a religion Islam is. And yet we must do something other then actually banning the Koran.
Suggestion 1 - all Korans in Europe and America could carry a kind of "Health" warning, as well as a PG certificate. This defames the Koran, as well as people can the see why the PG certificate was necessary - to protect young minds.
Suggestion 2 - Continue discussing the banning of the Koran, using Mein kampf as the guide, but never actually banning it. Again sends the message that the Koran is a nasty piece of work.
Kill two birds with one stone so to speak.
Post a Comment