Ban the Qur'an, says Dutch MP
We now have a theme developing, what with bombing Mecca... Geert Wilders, leader of the far-right Freedom Party in the Netherlands, called for the ban of the Qur'an in a letter published in De Volkskrant newspaper. In his letter, Wilders compares the Muslim holy book to Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler's autobiography, and said the Qur'an has "no place in ourconstitutional state". He described the book as "fascist" adding that "there is no such thing as moderate Islam."
One has to wonder about the current state of the Netherlands. It prides itself on being a liberal democracy with relaxed laws, allowing for drugs, prostitution and pornography. And which also leads to the kind of ideas that allow Wilders to state: "I am fed up with Islam in the Netherlands: no more Muslim immigrants allowed. I am fed up with the worship of Allah and Muhammad in the Netherlands: no more mosques," his letter concluded. He admitted though that he thought his ideas would never make it through Parliament. However, his ideas will certainly foment further vilification of Muslims and Islam in a country where this seems to be turning into the national past time.
posted by Shelina Zahra Janmohamed at 11:43
22 Comments:
Hi Sister Shelina
This Wilders low-life seems to be nothing but a filthy and talentless political opportunist, the kind of person whose political fortune is based 100% on scapegoating the weakest, on kicking those who are lying on the ground.
Pretty much like Jean-Marie Le Pen of the French Front National, Nick Griffin of the British National Party, Enoch Powell of the "Rivers of Blood" infamous memory, etc.
Honestly I wouldn't be worried about him, and I wouldn't waste a single joule of my mental energy on him.
What worries me is the much wider picture of which Wilders is just one of the many insignificant details.
How come far-right extremists like Wilders on one side and the bigoted, "monochromatic",
hate-spewing Mullahs on the other are given way too much importance by the Press?
Why do people like Wilders, Griffin etc always allowed to get away scot-free?
Why people like Hamza have been allowed to rake in obscene amounts of benefits to which they were surely not entitled?
Why have they been allowed to spew their message of hatred for so many years virtually unchecked?
Why was the absurd Shabina Begum lawsuit taken up by none other than Cherie Blair?
Why do Western governments almost invariably do their best to undermine moderate Muslims around the world?
Peace
Sister Francesca
Dear Sister Shelina
Actually, there are extremists groups like Hizb-ut-Tahrir whose manifesto is not that far from the "Mein Kampf", just much more subtle.
The amazing thing is that
Hizb-ut-Tahrir is banned in a lot of Muslim countries (AND RIGHTLY SO !!!), while allowed to spew its filthy poison in the West.
No wonder that low-life like Wilders have plenty of sticks with which to beat Muslims, almost invariably MODERATE MUSLIMS.
So sad to see that the anti-Muslim bandwagon and the vicious circle of prejudice and ignorance on which parasites like Wilders make a fat living are allowed to go on and on, to the detriment of the rest of us!
Peace
Sister Francesca
Just out of curiousity, what does the Quran (and the Hadith) say about Jews and non-believers?
Thanks sister for bringing this to our notice, I found out about you in a recent Emel Magazine and indeed, you are doing a wonderful service to Islam. Your messages are indeed balanced and measured. Some may see it as weak and westernised, but in truth Islam is not like most would have us think. An Utopian, unrealistic and inpractical Islam only exist in their own head. If you advise them that even the Rasul (pbuh) did this or said that, because it doesn't align with their idealistic mentality they will automatically accuse you of fabricating hadith or misunderstanding Islam.
On this issue, there are people who hate Islam and would do everything to subjugate it or even annihilate it. However, we must give concise response to their claims in a subtle and ethical manner, to guide onlookers to reach their own reasonable decisions. Secondly, we must not fail to condemn extremists even within our midst, and fault thier extremist interpretations.
Thirdly, we should ensure that we are steadfast. Let us not be forced to be liberalists or abandonists. The US RAND Report published in April 2007, clearly stated the way for the West to engage with Muslims is to "support" the "liberalists" (the likes of whom have publicly condemn Islam, sought the review/editing of the Qur'an, would prefer his son study Music than study the Qur'an, etc). Any other person who holds Islam dear and divine is regarded as extremists.
We need to speak out more and not let those on both extremes to have the say on our behalf. Our silence will be our guilt. That will be the abdication of responsibilities for those who are underserving.
Peace.
skipper - the Qur'an says "The Jews and the Christians and the Sabians and those who believe and do good deeds... they will get their reward, they should not be worried" (i.e. they will receive goodness).
Also, "whoever does an atom of good, will see it", both quoted from the Qur'an.
Finally, an Islamic tradition "whoever saves a life is as though he/she has saved humanity, and whoever kills a life, is as though he/she has killed humanity"
skipper - the Qur'an says "The Jews and the Christians and the Sabians and those who believe and do good deeds...
So there is no truth to the rumor that the Quran / Hadith also insist Jews are the sons of pigs, monkeys and dogs?
Or that non-Muslim believers in The Book are entitled to constrained dhimmitude, while non-believers deserve no mercy whatsoever?
Someone running under the charming name of "Root of all evil" has posted a comment asking me to publish a link to a beheading, asking if I have the 'courage' to post it.
1. Any post that has the words or sentiment "Bet you don't have the courage to post this..." will from hereon not be published. How jumped up are you that you have to use playground tactics?
2. I would never, EVER, publish the video of a beheading. That is sick. As is what the perpetrators have done.
Root of all evil, if you which to publicise a beheading, feel free to go and do so.
To continue the conversation with Skipper...
Are you genuinely searching for an answer and willing to assess its truth value, or are you simply following neo-con rhetoric blindly and sticking to the script?
Are you genuinely searching for an answer and willing to assess its truth value, or are you simply following neo-con rhetoric blindly and sticking to the script?
The script I am interested in sticking to is the Quran and the Haddith.
Based upon what I have read, between them they contain vile statements that would rank with anything in Mein Kampf.
NB: all the Abrahamic texts contain divinely revealed calls to all manner of atrocities, so this is not something unique to Islam.
What is unique, however, again based upon what I have read, is Islam's continued doctrinal insistence upon literal reading. This stands in significant contrast to Christianity and Judaism, particularly since the Enlightenment.
While I don't share Wilder's enthusiasm for banning books, I do think it would be a singularly good idea to be perfectly clear about the contents of the Quran and Hadith with respect to other religions, and the non-religious.
Yes, I understand my questions are leading, but they are aimed at raising an issue that confronts all religions, and, possibly, Islam more than others: any set of beliefs containing contradictions may be used to prove any statement, no matter how seemingly bizarre, or awful. This is the problem of religious indeterminacy. When there are two mutually exclusive statements based upon divine imprimatur, there is no way to decide between them within the belief space containing those imprimaturs.
Hence, besides Wilders, the bigoted, "monochromatic",
hate-spewing Mullahs. Who, I suspect, base their spewing on every bit as much theological ground as "The Jews and the Christians and the Sabians and those who believe and do good deeds... they will get their reward, they should not be worried"
So long as Islam contains statements such as these, then questions about Islam are bound to arise.
Considering that I believe all religions are man-made concoctions from whole cloth -- in this regard, the distinction between Mormonism and Islam is without difference -- is it beyond understanding that I view such statements as Have no unbelieving friends. Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them. 4:89 as suggesting Wilder's characterization, if not his goal, as being not completely wide of the mark?
Assalamualaikum
Just a quick comment to say that I love your blog - more please!
It seems that this Dutch MP has been causing a bit of a stir amongst Muslim bloggers. Have you seen the post up on UmmahPulse?
http://ummahpulse.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=186&Itemid=35
Wassalam
Umm Musa
Posing leading questions can never lead to illumination of any kind, however well meaning it may be.
All ideologies and philosophies (even your own, Skipperism, which has a following of one) have overarching guiding principles and then more spcific rules which kick in in particular circumstances.
The guiding principles of Islam are those I have quoted above. The statements you quote and link to are specifics for very specific circumstances (i.e. when you are attacked by those who do not believe, for your beliefs, then you are permitted to defend yourself and also kill. Islam has never claimed to be a pacifist's faith).
As for literalism, Islam in itself is far from insistent. In fact, the Qur'an talks about how some verses are "apparent" and some are "metaphoric". Literalism is a huge challenge that the Muslim community is trying to deal with.
The problem is, if you've read my other posts, that it is ideologies like yours, as embodied by the neocons, US foreign policy etc, that has encouraged the proponents of literalism in such places as Saudi Arabia.
Posing leading questions can never lead to illumination of any kind, however well meaning it may be.
I trust you have never heard of Socrates.
The guiding principles of Islam are those I have quoted above. The statements you quote and link to are specifics for very specific circumstances (i.e. when you are attacked by those who do not believe, for your beliefs, then you are permitted to defend yourself and also kill.
I doubt you can sustain that position against a mere non-believer who has only history and the text of the Quran upon which to rely. The entire para I cited, never mind a host of its allies you neglected, simply does not support your conclusion, unless you willfully disregard word meaning and grammar. (In particular, it would be easy for me to find a verse that asserts resistance to Islamic supremacy is a form of attack.)
Certainly, you cannot sustain that position against the bigoted, hate spewing, Mullahs who take divine revelation at its word, and could quickly muster an encyclopedic list of verses to sustain whatever vile position they might choose.
In other words, within Islam it is impossible to prefer your anodyne version of Islam's principles against those Muslims who would argue precisely the opposite,
Further, you completely fail to address the nearly endless supply of vituperation contained within the Quran: unbelievers are hypocrites (who deserve to be killed) by definition, just as Jews are the sons of pigs, dogs, and monkeys. I could easily, and at great length, go on. This is what your book says; in any other context, say, Mein Kampf, such statements would be reviled out of hand. However, once such things are cloaked in the mantle of religion, whether Islam, Christianity, or Mormonism, such criticism suddenly becomes out of bounds.
What is worse, though, is your failure to address the problem of religious indeterminacy -- [literalism] is a huge challenge that the Muslim community is trying to deal with is no help, for within Islam (or any other religious belief) there is no means to discriminate between the literal and the metaphorical. By leaving unspecified which are one, and which are the rest, the Quran ensures that all verses will be taken as literal by at least some believers, and there is no possibility of contradiction by the rest, as all verses have equal provenance.
All ideologies and philosophies (even your own, Skipperism, which has a following of one)
...
The problem is, if you've read my other posts, that it is ideologies like yours, as embodied by the neocons, US foreign policy etc,
Those are classic examples of ad hominem attack.
NB: ad hominem attack is the first sign of an empty argument.
That doesn't mean your argument is empty -- I'm not sure whether you have started it -- but it is best to avoid giving that impression.
out of curiosity, one might ask what this politician would like to do to the millions of people worlwide who have committed the qu'ran to memory. His just seems a case of millitant atheism, where the very sight of some form of spirituality sickens, except it is a brand of millitant atheism that has a soft spot for Christianity and dares not offend Judaism.
the arcadian:
You have completely missed Wilder's point, which is this: Mein Kampf is banned in Holand, both for its contents and its consequences.
With regard to contents, on what basis can one justify the continued ban of Mein Kampf without also including the Quran?
There isn't any, as my link above clearly demonstrates.
Interestingly, regarding Islam's problems with religiously justified violence, in Holland some Muslims are trying to make it easier (translation: without death threats) to renounce Islam.
From the article:
Sharia schools say that they will kill the ones who leave Islam. In the West people get threatened, thrown out of their family, beaten up,” Mr Jami said. “In Islam you are born Muslim. You do not even choose to be Muslim. We want that to change, so that people are free to choose who they want to be and what they want to believe in.
Unfortunately, doing so involves contradicting the clear words of the Quran:
— According to Baidhawi’s commentary, Sura 4: 88-89 reads: “Whosoever turns back from his belief, openly or secretly, take him and kill him wheresoever ye find him, like any other infidel. Separate yourself from him altogether. Do not accept intercession in his regard.”
— The hadith, tradition and legend about Muhammad and his followers used as a basis of Sharia, tells of some atheists who were brought to “’Ali and he burnt them. The news of this reached Ibn Abbas who said: ‘If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah’s Apostate forbade it . . . I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah’s Apostate, ‘Whoever changed his [Islamic] religion, then kill him’.”
— According to hadith, a special reward in Paradise is reserved for the killer of apostates
(emphasis added)
Shelina, please note the highlighted passage directly contradicts your assertion the [the] statements you quote and link to are specifics for very specific circumstances (i.e. when you are attacked by those who do not believe, for your beliefs, then you are permitted to defend yourself and also kill.)
You have considerable work to do in refuting Wilder's central point.
Shelina:
I see you declined to display my latest post to this thread.
To which I can only conclude that you accede to the obvious: the Q'uran does, in fact, contain a great deal of what would be considered evil if it was uttered anywhere except in a religious text.
So the question to you is: why should the Quran get a bye?
If you are unwilling to deal with straightforward criticism, then perhaps you should stick to the anodyne, and avoid attacking those, like Wilders, who are inclined to take Islam at its word.
I didn't post your previous comment because I was researching some parts of your statements for accuracy and referencing.
its very tiresome to receive emails saying i don't publish comments because I "can't take the truth". Go write your version of the truth on your own website if you want to, I'm not stopping you, but I have no obligation to publish it on mine if I don't want to. I've said it before, if comments tell me that i'm not publishing because I don't agree, or i don't have the 'guts', then I simply won't publish. You've got away with it this time as I've posted your comment. 'Nuff said.
Perhaps you'd like to think about whether the American Bill of Rights and whether that should be banned as America has engaged in more wars than any other country in the world in the last 50 years?
Shelina:
There is a very specific point at hand here: in Holland, Mein Kampf is banned for content that is, by any standard, vile.
Wilder's is, pointedly, asking why the Quran should not be banned, considering no small amount of its content is -- apparently -- indistinguishable from that of Mein Kampf.
Your posting this story makes it clear you don't agree it is possible to compare the two books in that regard. Yet the text itself argues, in the absence of any defense, otherwise.
its very tiresome to receive emails saying i don't publish comments because I "can't take the truth". Go write your version of the truth on your own website if you want to, I'm not stopping you, but I have no obligation to publish it on mine if I don't want to.
If you re-read what I wrote, I never said anything of the kind. Raher, I asserted that the absence of a defense effectively acquiesces to the charge.
Of course you under no obligation to publish anything anyone says here. However, having raised the issue, it is disingenuous to delete a reasoned counterargument that in no possible way could be considered hysterical or insulting.
Perhaps you'd like to think about whether the American Bill of Rights and whether that should be banned as America has engaged in more wars than any other country in the world in the last 50 years?
Well, if you could make a case for how the Bill of Rights is related in any causal way to those wars, then I would certainly think about it.
While you were at it, it would also help to discuss which the US should not have fought, why the US should not have fought them, and what the consequences would have been had the US not done so.
That is the difference here.
I provided a refutable argument.
Shelina:
This article makes precisely the point I have been trying to get across:
The main reason why radicals have managed to increase their following is because most Muslim institutions in Britain just don't want to talk about theology. They refuse to broach the difficult and often complex truth that Islam can be interpreted as condoning violence against the unbeliever — and instead repeat the mantra that Islam is peace and hope that all of this debate will go away.
Do you wonder why we infidels are a little concerned?
islam sucks!! woooah!! yeah!!
Im just kidding, sorry, cheers!
viva mexico cabrones!!
Please don't think that the comments of Wilders represent the comment of the entire Dutch people. I would like the media to turn away and not give him the attention he craves. Without it, he would wither away. Very much the same I would like the media to ignore Paris Hilton and the like.
But I cannot speak for our media or the few people who do agree. Just realize that the masses do not agree. We just don't have a say in what is published and not.
Off course we realize that Islam is a peacefull religion. In fact his new movie "Fitna" just came out and he is taking all kinds of statements from the Koran that seem like hatefull teksts but in fact all refer to war like situations. I could take a line out of the old testament and show that God is vengefull and destroys a whole city of non-believers (Jericho I think).
So you could do the same for any religious book if you take anything out of context.
So please, it's just one guy and we can't control the actions of one guy. Just ignore him and he'll go away. There are some demonstrations against him already.
Thanks Nixxus. Your beautiful and eloquent words have captured the heartfelt cry of all those who find themselves tarnished by the despicable opinions of those who claim to represent them.
Thank you for sharing your horror and giving us an insight into the deeper heart of the Netherlands
Latest Offerings from the Religion of Peace
"He who fights that Islam should be superior fights in Allah's cause"
Muhammad, prophet of Islam
2009.06.24 (Baghdad, Iraq) - At least sixty people are blown to bits when Islamists bomb a packed outdoor pet market full of women and children.
2009.06.23 (Nouakchott, Mauritania) - An young American aid worker is murdered by al-Qaeda gunmen.
2009.06.23 (Quetta, Pakistan) - A college principal is gunned down in a sectarian drive-by attack as he is walking home.
2009.06.23 (Grozny, Chechnya) - Islamic insurgents kill two people with a roadside blast.
2009.06.23 (Khyber, Pakistan) - Sunni hardliners open fire on a pair of village guards, killing one.
2009.06.23 (Dera Ismail Khan, Pakistan) - A Taliban leader criticizes a recent attack on civilians and is quickly gunned down.
Post a Comment
<< Home