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?”
Umm, yes it can. It’s even used medically sometimes.
“Moderate Islam is OK? Can your body tolerate moderate amounts of cyanide?
LOL! One of the best descriptions I have ever read!”
I guess it would be except that your body can indeed tolerate moderate amounts of cyanide. It’s in some foods and is used medically on rare occasions.
Murder and suicide are illegal. Worshipping Allah or any other god is a Constitutionally protected right, no matter how you may want to twist it.
I propose banning ALL religions from the United States....immediately. Turn in your Bible and cross at the nearest government-run theology check-point.
How many other beliefs do you wanna ban? All but YOURs? Shall we persecute everyone that believes differently than you? Take away their citizenship too? Kill ‘em all? Ban the Qu’ran from the U.S. altogether or just the worshipping in the manner of the Qu’ran? (report to your nearest re-education camp for your new theology)
Gonna ban atheism too? Not believing in a god has gotta be some sort of a threat to you and this fine country....time to see the Secretary of Theology to receive the mandatory book of the current government-approved religion?
Hint: banning Islam from the United States is not now nor will ever be an acceptable “American” answer, nor will it help the United Statews in it’s struggle/fight/war against terrorism one whit.
The difference is they are demonstrably wrong. The ability to pull an opinion out of one's poop chute does not make that opinion worthy of consideration.
I will repeat, I don't want the government in the business of banning religions. That is not America.
Sure it is. We made emperor worship illegal in Japan.
No.
How many other beliefs do you wanna ban? All but YOURs?
How about just the ones that can't play well with others?
Honestly, one would think multi-culti enforced stupidity was a founding principal.
Hint: banning Islam from the United States is not now nor will ever be an acceptable “American†answer, nor will it help the United Statews in it’s struggle/fight/war against terrorism one whit.
Platitudes aside, I beg to differ. I don't think the Methodists are going to pick up where the mohammedens leave off.
And when islamic law is forced on you as the law of the land...will islam still not be banned even as it stands in direct conflict with the Constitution? Church, state, establishment...it is coming.
Yes.
How about just the ones that can't play well with others?
I know plenty of American muslims that play well with others...got one sitting next to me right now, following the American dream. How about Mormons? They need banning? Wiccans? Satanists? If you believe there is a Satan, then Satanists have GOT to be right up there on the ban list.
@$*@%^*&@% 'em all...ban 'em all, except YOURs.
Honestly, one would think multi-culti enforced stupidity was a founding principal
One wuld think RELIGIOUS FREEDOM was a founding principle. Oh....it IS.
I don't think the Methodists are going to pick up where the mohammedens leave off
Banning their religion will do NOTHING in the fight/stuggle/war against terrorism. It would drive their religion underground, nothing more. Actually, it would probably have a negative affect, if any, due to the overt attack on their religion making even the more moderate ones more accepting of the extreme position.
Unless you plan on kicking everyone out of the country that doesn't look like you and worhip just like you....
Hint: banning a belief doesn't ban the people who follow the belief.....muslim terrorists will come and go regardless of whether or not their religion is banned.
(Yes, I would gladly give my life protecting the Constitution that I swore to support and defend against all enemies, foreign and domestic)
I know plenty of American muslims that play well with others...
And what do you know about the tenents of their "religion?"
One wuld think RELIGIOUS FREEDOM was a founding principle. Oh....it IS.
And what part of Islam being antithetical to RELIGIOUS FREEDOM don't you get?
Banning their religion will do NOTHING in the fight/stuggle/war against terrorism.
That statement is as asinine as claiming guns won't help people defend themselves. If nothing else, it would make recruiting more difficult.
It would drive their religion underground, nothing more. Actually, it would probably have a negative affect, if any, due to the overt attack on their religion making even the more moderate ones more accepting of the extreme position.
You may be right, so I'd settle for giving them dhimmi status. That's certainly been effective for them over the centuries.
Hint: banning a belief doesn't ban the people who follow the belief.....muslim terrorists will come and go regardless of whether or not their religion is banned.
That's fine as long as they can't organize ;o)
Who said anything about “recognizing” it?
The issue raised was whether to “ban” it.
Somehow, I don't think you'd do anything "gladly" that would interupt your soliloquy.
I know plenty....read the Qu'ran multiple times since 1990....also read the Old Testament a few times and whatever Bible they passed out when entering the miitary a few times. Know thy enemy and all. I also know plenty about the Constitution....know what you're swearing to defend and all. I also know something about bigotry.
And what part of Islam being antithetical to RELIGIOUS FREEDOM don't you get?
You are free to practice whatever religion YOU choose in THIS country until enemies of the Constitution get ahold of power and decide to ban other religions. The Bill of Rights is there to protect you from the government, not from another religion.
That statement is as asinine as claiming guns won't help people defend themselves. If nothing else, it would make recruiting more difficult.
Gun ownership red herrings/poor analogies aside...What's asinine is the insane notion of banning a religion in this free country and thinking it would do something to fight terrorism, when all it would do is water down the very Constitutional freedoms the Founders came here for and drive that which you ban underground.
Keep bigotry out of my Constitution.
So you're saying it wouldn't make recruiting more difficult?
Banning Islam is fine. I've seen little in the other "religions" that threaten virtually every pillar our society stands upon.
When someone is pointing a gun at you, and you have the opportunity to disarm them, you had better do it. Both literally, and figuratively. If you're NOT willing to do it, you may suffer the consequences.
Islam has its gun pointed at the West, and all the West represents. They will USE that gun, when the time is opportune for them to do so.
One of Islam's MOST POWERFUL weapons against the West, is our (to this point) cherished (and naive) notion that "all people are equal", and that "all religions are equal" and deserving of the same respect and protections that are others. As of this moment, our Constitution provides them with the ammunition with which to eventually destroy us. Eventually, the Constitution will be changed to remove Islam from such protections, but I see that as years off, as yet.
Hint: banning Islam from the United States is not now nor will ever be an acceptable “American” answer, nor will it help the United Statews in it’s struggle/fight/war against terrorism one whit.
It WILL BECOME "the American answer" - actually, the "Western answer" - when (and hopefully, IF) the West recognizes Islam for what it is, and summons within the will to defeat it.
Will banning Islam "help" the West in "it's struggle/fight/war against terrorism"? That will be for others to decide. And, why do you still seem to believe this is a struggle against "terrorism"? It is not, anymore than World War II was a "struggle against sneak attacks".
- John
Is it a political system?
Is it a religion?
Is it both of these?
The answer to those questions determines if islam is an actual threat to the very Constitution you swore to protect and defend.
The Bill of Rights is there to protect you from the government, not from another religion .
You are correct in this statement in as far as religion is concerned. Reconsider your answers to my first 3 questions and does/is islam a religion?
Thatabsolutely makes no sense. There is no moderate islam any more than there was ever moderate naziism or moderate communism. The problem isn't "moderate" islam versus regular islam, the problem is islam itself. Just as the problem with naziism is nazziism.
We will in the end if we are to save humanity eradicate islam the same way we eradicated the naziis, bomb them out of existence and beyond the stone age.
I would not ban religions, but I would ban Saudi Arabia and other countries who are hostile towards Jews and Christians from importing their religion to the United States.
Remember the Ottoman Empire was a Religious State, the Emperor was Caliph and a Secular ruler.
Remember the Ottoman Empire was a Religious State, the Emperor was Caliph and a Secular ruler.
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.