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
True, but those people aren't mohammeden.
It's rather simplistic, but think of the Koran like the Second Ammendment. Yes there are people who re-interpret it, but it becomes quickly obvious those who read it as anything other than a individual right are practicing eisegesis, not exegesis.
Other religions, if they seek to hold intellectually honest adherents, differ in interpretation because of ambiguity in the sacred texts, not because they don't like what the sacred texts say.
In fact the people that try to interpret literally never do it in an even handed fashion anyway. They always wind up emphasizing some parts more than others.
I've yet to see that assertion demonstrated in a way that doesn't ignore very good reasons adherents cling to one thing and reject another.
Context and translation also always leaves interpretation as to meaning when when trying to read literally.
You recognize I only have to show one occurance where this isn't so to invalidate this claim, right?
Add me to that list,my quote,
Islam is a threat to public order and safety
Yes. As with all substances, it is the dose that makes the poison. But cyanide is not an appropriate metaphor for this situation. Moderate Islam is moderate in quality, not quantity.
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.
Right. In the Middle Ages, we were all under the guidance and tutelage of the Mother Church. It all ended with the so-called "Reformation." I think the first thing we need to do, to recover the medieval mind-set that was way ahead of us, is to bring all people back under the Church. We can start by undoing the Reformation, disestablishing all Protestant ecclesiastical communities. There might be holdouts, but we can hunt them down using the traditional means. (Remember, blood cannot be drawn, but flesh can be burned and bones can be broken.) Once all peoples are brought under one religion, we can dismantle the Westphalian nation-state system and rule people temporally through a system of fiefdoms and inbred nobles. Then, we will be just like our ancestors from the middle-ages. Just like the Wahhabis, too, but I'm sure that's only a coincidence.
Not a problem. Mohammedenism can be defined as a political system, thus stripping it of First Ammendment protection.
Did you take a class in logical fallacies? You seem to be quite adept at them.
As I said earlier: I've yet to see that assertion demonstrated in a way that doesn't ignore very good reasons adherents cling to one thing and reject another.
It was a brilliant sarcasm.
I presume you mean opposing Islam in general, and not the attempts at forced "conversion" to Christianity (which is standard procedure for Islam, but is completely incompatible with the teachings of Christ).
Well, you have got a point. I mean if we want to respect their religion, that might just be the best way...
Yes.
Then you will have to wait for a SCOTUS decision and that is not a sure thing, either.
No one can force you to recognize the difference between a robin and a bluejay if you choose not to.
Neither Christians, nor Jews, "ignore" those Scriptures. They do not observe them for reasons that are internally consistent with their doctrines, not because you or they consider them "absurd." That's the point I'm trying to get across to you.
Your "selectivity" argument is very much the same as a Protestant trying to convince a Catholic he's "worshipping" Mary. That you can not recognize the distinction does not mean it does not exist.
When someone says they're "commanded to lie to the infidel or their not a good Muslim," they're being absurd.
Why?
I work with a number of Muslims...
And they couldn't possibly withhold anything from you?
Trying to paint them all as extreme fundamentalists is as bad as liberals trying to paint all Christians and Republicans as extreme fundamentalists.
This is a "straw man." the issue was understanding and interpreting the mohammeden scriptures, not some hyperbolic assertion of "extreme fundamentalism."
Are there mohammedens who are as observant as twice a year Catholics? Sure, but in neither case can they be called devout adherents.
Why?
I’ve said before:
RELIGION deals with a mans relationship to God
POLITICS deals with mans relation to other humans and government
ISLAM is a political system masquerading as a religion.
Sarcasm is never brilliant. Especially this piece.
the common denominator is i s l a m!
And... since the great purple finger iraqi constitution states “NO LAW SHALL CONTRADICT ISLAM”
THEN its time to stop being used by moslems and let them concentrate on killing each other.... and when they are finished or bored, then we give them the choice - join civilization or be destroyed.
We can’t continue to referee their internal squabbles without demanding that at the end of the day a real worthwhile change take place.
As long as they stay under islam, they will be under a koranic law that prohibits them from tolerating religious freedom, and any other freedom not blessed by mohamed.
We can stop the patient from bleeding ...but it is a waste of time money and LIVES ...if he continues stabbing himself with the law of the koran.
> “Enjoying moderate Islam is like enjoying the scenes in Mars Attacks where the friendly little critters fry everyone in sight.”
Nah, it’s more like the Borg. ‘Resistance if futile. You will be assimilated’
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.