Pim Fortuyn (1948-2002) led the most consequential effort so far to end Muslim emigration, in his case, to the Netherlands.
Posted on 08/29/2007 11:24:07 AM PDT by forty_years
Non-Muslims occasionally raise the idea of banning the Koran, Islam, and Muslims. Examples this month include calls by a political leader in the Netherlands, Geert Wilders, to ban the Koran — which he compares to Hitler's Mein Kampf — and two Australian politicians, Pauline Hanson and Paul Green, demanding a moratorium on Muslim immigration.
What is one to make of these initiatives? First, some history. Precedents exist from an earlier era, when intolerant Christian governments forced Muslims to convert, notably in 16th-century Spain, and others strongly encouraged conversions, especially of the elite, as in 16th- and 17th-century Russia. In modern times, however, with freedom of expression and religion established as basic human rights, efforts to protect against intolerance by banning the Koran, Islam, or Muslims have failed.
In perhaps the most serious contemporary attempt to ban the Koran, a Hindu group argued in 1984–85 that the Islamic scriptures contain "numerous sayings, repeated in the book over and over again, which on grounds of religion promote disharmony, feeling of enmity, hatred and ill-will between different religious communities and incite people to commit violence and disturb public tranquility."
The taking of this demand, known as "The Calcutta Quran Petition," to court prompted riots and deaths in Bangladesh. The case so alarmed New Delhi that the attorney general of India himself took part in the proceedings to oppose the petition, which, not surprisingly, was dismissed.
Pim Fortuyn (1948-2002) led the most consequential effort so far to end Muslim emigration, in his case, to the Netherlands. |
|
|
|
|
The coordinator of Italy's Northern League, Roberto Calderoli, wrote in 2005: "Islam has to be declared illegal until Islamists are prepared to renounce those parts of their pseudo political and religious doctrine glorifying violence and the oppression of other cultures and religions."
A British member of Parliament, Boris Johnson, pointed out in 2005 that passing a Racial and Religious Hatred Bill "must mean banning the reading — in public or private — of a great many passages of the Koran itself." His observation prompted a Muslim delegation to seek assurances, which it received, from the Home Office that no such ban would occur. Patrick Sookhdeo of the Institute for the Study of Islam and Christianity in 2006 called for prohibiting one translation of the Koran, The Noble Koran: A New Rendering of its Meaning in English, because "it sets out a strategy for killing the infidels and for warfare against them."
Other Western countries witnessed lesser efforts: Norway's Kristiansand Progress Party sought to ban Islam in 2004 and Germany's Bundesverband der Bürgerbewegungen sought to prohibit the Koran in 2006, arguing for its incompatibility with the German constitution. "Stop the Islamification of Denmark" demanded in early 2007 the prohibition of parts of the Koran and all mosques, calling them unconstitutional. Australia's Catch the Fire Ministries argued in 2004 that because "The Koran contradicts Christian doctrine in a number of places and, under the blasphemy law, [it] is therefore illegal."
Elsewhere, writers have made the same demands. Switzerland's Alain Jean-Mairet is the strategist of a two-part plan, popular and juridical, with the goal that "all the Islamic projects in Switzerland will prove impossible to fulfill." In France, an anonymous writer at the Liberty Vox Web site wishes to ban Islam, as does Warner Todd Huston in the United States.
The 2006 movie V for Vendetta portrays a future Britain in which the Koran is banned.
My take? I understand the security-based urge to exclude the Koran, Islam, and Muslims, but these efforts are too broad, sweeping up inspirational passages with objectionable ones, reformers with extremists, friends with foes. Also, they ignore the possibility of positive change.
More practical and focused would be to reduce the threats of jihad and Shariah by banning Islamist interpretations of the Koran, as well as Islamism and Islamists. Precedents exist. A Saudi-sponsored Koran was pulled from school libraries. Preachers have gone to jail for their interpretation of the Koran. Extreme versions of Islam are criminally prosecuted. Organizations are outlawed. Politicians have called for Islamists to leave their countries.
Islam is not the enemy, but Islamism is. Tolerate moderate Islam, but eradicate its radical variants.
http://netwmd.com/blog/2007/08/29/1910
Moderate Islam is OK? Can your body tolerate moderate amounts of cyanide?
How can a religion whose very scriptures demand deception and mass murder be considered "moderate"?
Kind of funny that we feel so superior to our middle-ages ancestors but on this on issue they are way, way ahead of us.
"We come in peace. We come in peace."
One thing is certain about Koran-reading muslims. If they aren't strapping plastics explosives around their or their young child's stomach they're contributing to those that do.
I might have listened to Mr. Pipe’s proposal on 9/10/2001.
This is war; there can be no “moderation”.
Imo if we can ban mormons from having multiple celestial wives, which was an integral part of their religion.. We can ban Islam if we want.
Also I’ve had this argument with head in sand libertarians; you can’t allow people to use freedoms, as part of a plan to take away freedoms. For example letting communists in the government agencies organize together because of ‘freedom of association’ is suicidal. I think you abdicate any freedom, when you are using that freedom as part of a plan to take away the freedom in the future.
Islam wants to spread, but we all know they will take away freedom of religion once they have enough strength. Thats a big difference between them and the other religions I have seen. Eg.. Hindhus I don’t get the feeling that if Hindhus became a majority they would take away freedom of religion.
This was written by Pipes?????
The point he's trying to make is rather fanciful considering "Islamist interpretations" are indistinquishable from a "normative reading."
Anyone picking up a Koran on a desert island two hundred years in the future could easily develop into an "Islamist" and start the whole conflict over again.
Yes, almonds are quite tasty.
The Muhammadan Death Cult has conquered much of the world, and continues to hack it’s way through the remaining parts.
Even now it has penetrated into the heart of the remaining fortresses of civilization.
At some level we need to start discussing the fact that Islam is not just another form of faith. It is like the Borg, there is no “peaceful coexistence”.
The Constitution is NOT a suicide pact.
Right. They were not neutered by the poison that is multiculturalism, tolerance, and political correctness.
The discussion has already been joined: it's just not acceptable...yet.
Charge them a Dhimmi tax.
Behead muslums for proselitizing.
Make Halel butchering practices illegal (because these practices are offensive to non muslums).
Make possession of the koran illegal, (as is possession of a Bible is in Saudi Arabia).
Death for any one who converts to islum.
Make beheading muslums a pay per view event.
Turn a blind eye to any kidnapping, rape, forced marriage, forced conversion, enslavement, and so on of any muslum woman that a non muslum can capture.
Allow non muslim men to have one non muslum wife, but any number of muslum concubines (slaves).
Forbid muslum women from driving or going out in public without wearing a burka and the accompaniment of a male muslim family member.
And so on.
Ban the Koran? That would just make more people read it. Refusing to capitulate to Islamists - yes. How weird this was championed by a gay right-winger Daddy Warbucks look-alike (who was killed not by wacko Islamists but by a wacko animal rights activists).
I don’t want our government in the business of banning religions. Strangely enough, the founding fathers agree with me.
...along with its radical varmints.
“Tolerate moderate Islam..”
Should we also tolerate moderate AIDS or cancer?
Reading some parts of the Bible aloud is now a hate crime in Canada. Does this apply to the Koran as well?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.