Ban Islam?

netWMD ^ | 8/29/2007 | by Daniel Pipes

[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 16^th-century Spain, and others strongly encouraged conversions, especially of the elite, as in 16^th- and 17^th-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.

This early petition set the standard in terms of collecting objectionable Koranic verses. Other efforts have been more rhetorical and less operational. The most consequential was by Pim Fortuyn in the Netherlands to end Muslim emigration. Had he not been assassinated in 2002, he might have ridden his issue to the prime ministry.

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

[weatherwax]

You are right, and I’m mc5cents, I’m glad someone has seen that Islamism is a military/political movement, using a religion as a cover. And the stupid leftie liberals of the West are falling for it, hook line and sinker.

[ElectricStrawberry]

Red herring alert.

Your pathetic attempts at insults aside, other countries being Islamic has nothing to do with the affect of banning Islam inside the United States. It’s 2 completely different situations....incomparable. Go ahead and ban Islam in Iraq and see what happens.

Talk about “rational arguments” or the lack thereof.

[ElectricStrawberry]

Gotta look 400+ years into the past.....where the current Islam is stuck and needs to reform its way out of.

Or should I just say “Wrong.”?

[ElectricStrawberry]

Wait....lemme run along to dig up some of the Christian faithful claiming to want Christian tenets put into the Constitution. I’m sure you’d agree with THOSE.

Hint: Anything having to do with marriage should never be put in the Constitution....not ever...not the purpose of the Constitution.

Expressing the desire and having even one-step towards that desire are obviously 2 different things......the expression part being Constitutionally protected.

You plan on banning all expression too?

[ElectricStrawberry]

Such small world thinking...

Problem: Specific muslims
Solution: Ban Islam.
Affect: Specific muslims no longer a problem.

Makes me wonder when the auto de fe is so I can stock up on weapons.

[EBH]

Christian tenets put into the Constitution. I’m sure you’d agree with THOSE.

Not quite either. Red Herring and bait. Hope you enjoyed your weekend.

[ElectricStrawberry]

I quite enjoyed my weekend of fishing and outright debauchery. Especially enjoyed my right to choose a religion as I see fit....that is, until domestic enemies of the Constitution decide my choice of a religion, or lack thereof, is a threat too and try to ban me.

[Little Ray]

Tell ya what.
When “Islam” starts toleratin’ conversions from Islam to other religions, allows Christian churches to be built in Islamic nations, allows non-Muslims to visit Mecca, acknowledges Israel’s right to exist, and stops tryin’ to destroy all evidence of Jewish presence on the Temple Mound,
MAYBE then we’ll tolerate Islam.
Until then, banning Islam, moderate or otherwise, is the way to go.

[papertyger]

Your pathetic attempts at insults aside, other countries being Islamic has nothing to do with the affect of banning Islam inside the United States.

What insult? I was being descriptive.

When I was a kid, before politcal correctness, we used to play "army." You know, a bunch of little boys running around with "gun fingers" pretending to shoot each other.

Well, there was always at least one little...fellow...that would scream "you missed," even if you had your finger in his ear when you said "bang."

You are what happens when that little...boy grows up.

You see you can't have it both ways. Either mohammedenism is fungible as far as religions go, or it is not. If it is, then according to your line of thinking, all the adherents of other religions would be raising terrorists to combat the mohammenden countries where other faiths are banned. If it is not like other religions, and raising terrorists is unique to islam, then they are more akin to yelling "fire" in a crowded theater and merit no First Ammendment protections.

Child analogies are appropriate for you. Your shallow knowledge of religions gives you the same confidence as a child who announces with self-satisfaction, "you can't do math with letters," because he has no clue about the concepts of Algebra.

No one is going to force you to learn that life is more subtle than you imagine, but they may force you to accept it.

[papertyger]

Gotta look 400+ years into the past.....where the current Islam is stuck and needs to reform its way out of.

Huh? It's a straightforward question.

You can't reform islam and have it be islam. Violence and chauvanism is codified into islam, not a deviation from it.

You keep trying to follow the "diversity" rational that "a bear is the same as a beaver" when anyone with a brain knows that is willful stupidity for the sake of a philosophy.

[GeronL]

Islam is a cult. If leaving it gets a death sentence, its a cult.

[justDave]

No banning religions would be against the founding fathers but, Islam is not a religion. It is for lack of a better word a cult which kills all that wish to leave. It is a way of life which has never known peace or love only hate and war. For this alone it should fall under the new hate crimes passed and be banned. It must be understood that although some Muslim's are peaceful they are Islam’s sheep and not, nor can they, be true believers of Islam and are to be killed as well, when the time comes.

[ElectricStrawberry]

Thanks for your opinion. Whatever religion YOU are in is a “cult” to me....yet I accept your right to worship your way.

Islam is a religion in the United States, protected in the United States by the United States Constitution....just like Satanism...just like Wicca...just like my choice to be a non-religious non-theistic heathen is protected.....until bigots Constitutionally ban my non-theism.

If a muslim in the United States quits his religion and converts to any other religion or none at all, he/she can do so freely....in the United States. If he/she is killed for it, the murderer is arrested, tried, and, if found guilty, put in jail.

What they do in the rest of the world concerning conversion is irrelevant to the protections of the Constitution.