Germany to outlaw the Qur'an? (interesting development)

Jihadwatch.org (Dhimmiwatch) ^ | 3/11/2006 | Rebecca Bynum

[Dark Skies]

A translation of this Jyllands Posten article, "The Quran reported to the Police" is here, with thanks to all who sent this in.

A broad alliance of grass-roots movements have gone to the prosecutors of several states to hinder the dissemination of the Quran. According to the indictment, the Quran is not just a religious and historic book, but also a political book, which is incompatible with the constiution.

At the prosecutor’s office at Gorch-Forck-Wall 15 in Hamburg, an unusual letter was received Monday morning, containing an indictment filed this weekend. The indictment targeted the Quran, charging that the holy book of the Moslems, according to the accuser, is incompatible with the German constitution.

The accuser is “Bundesverband der Bürgerbewegungen (BVB)”, which concerns itself with, in its own words, “defending basic rights and freedoms” against Islam. The extensive international furore, allegedly caused by the Muhammed cartoons, has made clear the relevancy of the alliance. Its homepage is decorated with a Danish flag with the words “Support Denmark! Defend the Free World.” superimposed on it.

The indictment has been filed in several states, including Hamburg, Niedersachsen, Nordrhein-Westfalen, Bayern and probably more.

In several talkshows on German TV, conservative politicians have pointed out that the Quran is incompatible with the German constitution. The Turkish-born writer Serap Cileli said on January 29 this year that “the Quran must be considered a historic document. It is not compatible with our constitution and Human Rights.”

Now the alliance wants the matter tried at the courts.

Potent Political Book

The author of the indictment in Hamburg, Jutta Starke, says that the Quran was reported to the police two or three years ago, but that the report was dismissed on the grounds that it was a book of only historical interest.

“The events of the last months have made clear that the Quran isn’t just a historical book, but very much a potent political book, a thing which we document extensively in the indictment,” Jutta Starke says.

She says it is a task of sisyphean dimensions to inform the media, politicians and churches of the true intentions of Islam in the enlightened world of the West.

“We are grateful to Jyllands-Posten that discussions about Islam have now become possible,” says Jutta Starke....

[beezdotcom]

There is nothing misdirected about converting killing or subjugating non- believers in Islam. The religion hasn't changed fror day one in that regard. - tom

I agree it hasn't changed in that regard - except for the priority or intensity with which those bent on power focus on that particular doctrine. Perhaps "misprioritized" was a better word - but the fact remains that since the first, Islam has been a useful geopolitical tool for the few to channel the conflagration of the many to suit their own ends.

[EBH]

Well, I humbly disagree with you.

People don't blow tghemselves up for politics. They do it because they believe they will be rewarded in the after life. Sure that's is what they sucker these guys with but when they blow themselves up it is over a political reason, occupation, militancy ultimately. It is being done, 'to sacrafice for the establishment of the islamic theocracy.'

Multi millionaire Osama bin Laden didn't risk his life and fortune for politics. Sure he did. First to get rid of the Russian occupation, then the supposed American infidel on Saudi land, and on and on...Just because he wraps himself up in religious rhetoric doesn't make it non-political.

The 19 hijackers who were educated, and well off financially, and had plenty of time to back out of the attack didn't kill themselves for politics. Really, according to OBL, "Admitting for the first time that he ordered the Sept. 11 attacks, bin Laden said he did so because of injustices against the Lebanese and Palestinians by Israel and the United States." (http://www.kbtx.com/home/headlines/1144711.html) That sounds pretty darn political to me.

When they die they die saying Allah Akbar. God is great. And again, there in is the rub for the western world. It is not so much that they say it as the meaning behind it, which is the establishment of an islamic world ruled politically by islamic law.

And thereby it demonstrates the issue at hand with the western world. We have been so indoctrinated with the idea of seperation of church & state, we don't have the ability to comprehend a theocracy. In our own way we keep desperately trying to seperate islam religion from islam gov't. when the reality is they(muslims) themselves don't want them seperated.

[dennisw]

July, 1925 - Hitler's Book Mein Kampf Published

His Nazi publisher knew better and shortened it to Mein Kampf, simply My Struggle, or My Battle. In his book, Hitler divides humans into categories based on ... www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/timeline/kampf2.htm - 9k - Cached - Similar pages

Mein Kampf

Hitler's publisher reduced it to My Struggle (Mein Kampf). The book is a mixture of autobiography, political ideas and an explanation of the techniques of ... www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERmein.htm - 59k - Cached - Similar pages

 

Thanks much. Jihad also means struggle and battle. So Mein Kampf translates to "My Struggle"

[observer5]

"This is ridiculous. And remember there was also a movement recently in Germany to ban the Bible. Obviously those of you who support this foolishness don't believe in freedom of speech or religion."

Islam is not a religion. It's a political system that exploits religion to control people.

[takenoprisoner]

"Islam has not in all places and at all times been violent."

Sure, but most places and most times they are violent. Herein lies the dilemma. What do a peaceful and tolerant people do with them as they reap chaos and havoc at ports around the world?

[Poincare]

In the Bible, "Caesar" is given authority in the affairs of men.

An alternative and more apropos reading is that He says that if everyone were to render back to Caesar the all the slugs of metal with Caesar's graven image upon, the slugs and the State behind them would be powerless over the Jews. Seditious speech indeed!

[tpaine]

-- What Should We Do About Fundamentalism? --

In terms of what we can do about fundamentalism, there are three choices. 

(a) We can ignore them and do nothing.

(b) We can attempt to dialogue with them.

(c) We can be more aggressive and iconoclastic.

Both church and society have tended to take the first option. Should they not be left free to hold the beliefs and live the life-styles they choose?

There is much to be said for this, provided their fundamentalism does not bring harm to others. Only in very extreme cases, as in the Jonestown phenomenon, can we be sure they are also harming themselves and even then it may be too late to intervene.

When fundamentalists themselves become aggressive, either on a personal level or on a question of social policy, this first option may have to be abandoned. Then we turn to the second option of attempting to convince them of a more fruitful path. But how successful can one be in genuine open dialogue? Fundamentalism by its very nature tends to build up an invisible wall of protection against all external threat and gives fundamentalists a kind of immunity to all thoughts which are in conflict with their beliefs.
The certainty they hold of their position tends to make them dogmatic and even arrogant.

The third option - the aggressive and iconoclastic attack - is certainly better avoided when one is dealing with people on a one-to-one basis but it may have to be employed when fundamentalists are collectively promoting a cause which is dangerous to society or detrimental to the religious tradition it claims to be preserving.
Jewish fundamentalists, Christian fundamentalists, and Muslim fundamentalists all do their own respective causes great harm, and their fellow-religionists should perhaps be spelling this out more clearly, even though they are often reluctant to do so.

It is ironical that fundamentalism emerged as a counter to modernism, which it saw as its chief enemy; yet fundamentalists have failed to realize that what they embrace is itself a modern phenomenon and one which may be called a religious aberration.

However, as James Barr has said, "Fundamentalism as a movement will last a long time and will constitute a powerful influence upon religion and society for many decades to come.


http://www.snowstarinstitute.org/why_fundamentalism_can_be_harmfu.htm

[Capt. Tom]

Well, I humbly disagree with you.

Do you think Muslims pray 5 times a day to Allah for their entire lifetime because of politics?- tom

[dfwgator]

Will never happen.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Unam Sanctam wrote: "This is ridiculous. And remember there was also a movement recently in Germany to ban the Bible. Obviously those of you who support this foolishness don't believe in freedom of speech or religion."

I think you're right. We don't want to be banning books (in the sense of forcibly preventing their publication.) We can limit them in the sense of not subsidizing them, e.g. not using public funds to purchase them for schools, libraries, people in jails and prisons, etc.

Certainly there are "powers that be" who would like to ban the Bible as well as the Quran, and who would use the German proposal as an obvious and almost irresistable pretext.

In fact, in Canada teachers have been fired from their jobs, and people have been investigated and punished for "human rights violations," merely for quoting from the Bible--- in speech or in print --- on the subject of homosexuality.

Book-banning can't work in a society that has hundreds of millions of books in print, and well-nigh universal Internet. The Qu'ran doesn't need to be banned. It needs to be openly refuted, repudiated, and de-legitimized.

[Dark Skies]

It needs to be openly refuted, repudiated, and de-legitimized.

I completely agree. Unfortunately, it looks as if the press and academia will not delve into the koran willingly so I suspect the Bundesverband der Bürgerbewegungen is taking it to the courts as a means of forcing the discussion into the public arena.

[hinckley buzzard]

People don't blow tghemselves up for politics.

People give their lives for all kinds of reasons, including politics ("I regret I have but one life to give for my country..."). Not to mention kamikazes. The fact is that power-seekers have used religious zeal as a figleaf for their murderous agendas throughout history. Nazi ideology had a strong mystical bent which leaned toward pagan religiosity. Hitler had a project ongoing which was to revise the Bible to make him the messiah.

It is a good and legitimate response to the Islamic threat to call into question its religious credentials, in principle, for Islam has nothing in common with any other religion in the world today. It is engaged in wars for territory and power, and unconcerned with the soul. This is a reasonable cause for asking whether it is a religion at all.

[tpaine]

lemura wrote:

It doesn't take much imagination to see future Hitlers/Tojos (a) form (or take over) a small religious organization, (b) cast themselves as 'victims' of larger societal mores, and (c) work towards corrupting the very constition that provides them said protections.
How will any society deal with such organizations?

I see a solution in our Constitution, -- in the way we can limit the franchise to vote.
-- There is absolutely no reason to allow citizens who do not agree with our Constitutional principles to vote for legislators or officials sworn to uphold those principles.

We can amend the Constitution to require the same oath from all citizens who choose to vote, and restrict the right to vote of all who demonstrate that they will not honor that oath.

[Mrs. Don-o]

I don't think "fundamentalism" is a useful term, because like a smallish sweater on a broad-beamed babe, it has been stretched too often to cover too much.

It once had a far more useful, because of far more specific, meaning. From 1910 to 1915 a group of Protestant scholars published ninety articles, which were eventually compiled into twelve books, defending such things as the inspiration of Scripture, the virgin birth, the deity of Christ, and a host of others.

People who affirmed these doctrines were properly termed "fundamentalists."

Now "fundamentalist" is used to designate anybody of any group who sincerely believes the published doctrines of the group (fundamentalist Democrat, fundamentalist Druid, even fundamentalist Darwinist) --- but with the pejorative connotation that the individual is also

• self-righteous and up-tighteous,
  
• scorns rational discussion,
  
• lusts for the coercive power of the State to advance his cause,
  
• wears unusual underwear, and
  
• starches his pajamas.

  Let's retire "fundamentalist" and find a more acccurate terms, shall we?

[Dark Skies]

I don't think "fundamentalism" is a useful term, because like a smallish sweater on a broad-beamed babe, it has been stretched too often to cover too much.

lol...brilliant!

[Capt. Tom]

People give their lives for all kinds of reasons, including politics ("I regret I have but one life to give for my country..."). Not to mention kamikazes.

People will die for their family and country.

We are talking about Islam being a political movement and not a religion. It most definitely a religion and is the motivation for killing infidels. They don't kill us for family or country. They do it because God(Allah) requires it to be done.-Tom

[tpaine]

Now "fundamentalist" is used to designate anybody of any group who sincerely believes the published doctrines of the group (fundamentalist Democrat, fundamentalist Druid, even fundamentalist Darwinist)
--- but with the pejorative connotation that the individual is also
self-righteous and up-tighteous, scorns rational discussion,
lusts for the coercive power of the State to advance his cause

Let's retire "fundamentalist" and find a more acccurate terms, shall we?

Fine with me. How does 'fanatic' -- or 'zealot' sound to you?

[Mrs. Don-o]

"How does 'fanatic' -- or 'zealot' sound to you?"

Yeah. That's the ticket.

[Dark Skies]

I suggest somewhere among terms like "militant," "lethal," "pathogenic," "antagonistic" lies the most accurate term.

The problem in identifying a good descriptive term underscores that fact that non-muslims really don't know exactly where the dividing line is between so-called "good" muslims and "bad" muslims.

[tpaine]

Well, when 'whatever you call them' are collectively promoting a cause which is dangerous to Constitutional society or detrimental to the religious traditions they claim to be preserving, -- it's hard to find a non-pejorative term for them, imo.