You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Europe
Dutch politician for ban on Holy Quran
2007-08-09
Dutch anti-immigration politician Geert Wilders has called for the Holy Quran to be banned in the Netherlands, branding it a "fascist book" in the vein of Adolf Hitler's 'Mein Kampf', which legitimises violence.
Master of the Obvious. But to say so publicly!
Sounds like a reasonable step to me. Makes a lot more sense than teaching it to impressionable non-Muslims...
Writing in Dutch daily De Volkskrant on Wednesday, Wilders said, "Ban this wretched book just like Mein Kampf is banned. Send a signal...to Islamists that the Quran can never, ever be used in our country as an excuse or inspiration for violence."
He meant "be used again," but we guessed that...
Mein Kampf, published in 1925, outlines Hitler's racist ideology. It has been banned from sale in the Netherlands since the end of World War II.
You can still buy a copy in many American bookstores, but then we were never occupied by Germany.
Ayhan Tonca, chairman of the CMO umbrella group of Dutch Muslim organisations said Wilders' comments were best ignored.
You do so at your own peril, Annie.
"This is typical Wilders. This is a ridiculous idea," he said. "There is not much news at the moment so he is trying to create some."
Tonca seems to realize that the part of the Dutch population that isn't too whacked out to care is to scared of the turbans to actually try to do anything substantive about them.
Wilders, whose new party won nine seats out of the 150 in parliament in last November's elections, is well known for his firebrand remarks on Islam.
From the little acorn the mighty oak grows.
He has warned of a "tsunami of Islamisation" in a country home to 1 million Muslims, and has lived under heavy protection since receiving death threats from Islamist militants in 2004.
Which kind of proves his point, if you're not into some heavy dope. Even if you're scared of the Islamists. You don't need protection from people who aren't a threat. Q.E.D.
Wilders said an attack over the weekend by two Moroccans and a Somali on a young Iranian-born politician who heads a Dutch group for "ex-Muslims" had spurred him to write.
Driving the point home, aren't they? That's because they don't expect anyone to do anything substantive.
The attack on Ehsan Jami, 22, caused an outcry in the Netherlands, where the November 2004 murder of Theo Van Gogh, a filmmaker critical of Islam, by a Dutch-Moroccan Muslim militant led to an anti-Muslim backlash and exposed social tensions.
That lasted all of about six months, at the outside, proving that you can always count on the European attention span to let you literally get away with murder.
"Allah sees the death penalty as fitting for those who no longer believe," Wilders wrote on Wednesday, adding this view had fuelled the attack on Jami, now under police protection. The Muslim holy book should be banned from sale, from use in mosques and private households, Wilders added.
Posted by:Fred & Nimble Spemble

#34  Good elements don't justify designing a cult around yourself and lying about the folks you swiped the ideas from? I'd have thought that pretty obvious.

No problem, James. The point I was making in post #14 is that whatever supposedly virtuous aspects there are to Islam become perverted by its less savory practices to a degree where there simply are not any redeeming aspects to it at all.
Posted by: Zenster   2007-08-09 23:54  

#33  Which claim, Zenster?
Good elements? I thought we already mentioned alms.
Good elements were borrowed? I thought that was pretty well established: there were lots of Jews and various flavors of Christian in the area to explain that God was righteous and was going to judge the world. A few of his variant tellings of biblical stories were traced to some Jewish folk-tales of the area.
Good elements don't justify designing a cult around yourself and lying about the folks you swiped the ideas from? I'd have thought that pretty obvious.

I wasn't trying to justify Nazarite-like abstaining from alcohol, just pointing out that it made the Muslims more reliable drivers.
Posted by: James   2007-08-09 23:08  

#32  Don't bet yerself up, Mike N. I adore the English language and always appreciate it if someone can set me straight on its proper use. No harm, no foul.
Posted by: Zenster   2007-08-09 22:05  

#31  Thank you, Zenster. It seems the English language has gone soft since I leaned that silly one.

http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/affect.html

Here I was trying to have a little fun by being being a pia, and it turns out I'm more than a pia, I'm a moron, too.
Posted by: Mike N.    2007-08-09 20:51  

#30  Dutch politician for ban on Holy Quran

Yea let's ban the
'nuther epithet
here too!
Posted by: Red Dawg   2007-08-09 19:30  

#29  That's all I can think of right now.
Posted by: Big Angusoting5988   2007-08-09 19:12  

#28  Does Islam have any redeeming features... Well some of the architecture is quite good.
Posted by: Big Angusoting5988   2007-08-09 19:11  

#27  Someone needs their mouth washed out with Fels Naptha.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2007-08-09 18:24  

#26  
imagine your favorite, less offensive epithet here
Posted by: Shipman   2007-08-09 18:23  

#25  Poor little East Coaster, no wait West Coaster.

BTW who won Florida? Bush or Gore?

Posted by: Shipman   2007-08-09 18:22  

#24  LOL!
Posted by: Shipman   2007-08-09 18:20  

#23  Unsolicited misdiagnosis is also a common behavioral trait in many idiots.
Posted by: Zenster   2007-08-09 18:07  

#22  Pedantry can also be an indication of certain developmental disorders. In particular those with Left Sided syndrome, or high-functioning autism, often have behavior characterized by pedantic speech.[1] Those with Asperger's tend to obsess over the minutiae of subjects, and are prone to giving long detailed expositions, and the related corrections, and may gravitate to careers in academia or science where such obsessive attention to detail is often rewarded.

WOOF!

Posted by: Rink A Dink Dink   2007-08-09 17:28  

#21  That don't look like no noun to me.

It's also a verb:

Definition of ef·fect (verb)
forms: effected; effecting; effects
to bring about; to cause; to influence someone or something
Posted by: Zenster   2007-08-09 16:42  

#20  That don't look like no noun to me.
Posted by: Mike N.   2007-08-09 15:59  

#19  This description also fits the left to a tee

If multiculturalism is substituted for for "Islam", you may well be right.
Posted by: Zenster   2007-08-09 14:42  

#18  Ahem, I believe that's affect, not effect

Nope.

ef·fect (noun)

1. Something brought about by a cause or agent; a result.
2. The power to produce an outcome or achieve a result; influence
Posted by: Zenster   2007-08-09 14:36  

#17  'moose, as usual, an excellent post. Permit me to suggest that another one of those incremental measures should be the banning of shari'a law.

It's enough to make a reasonable person assume they are afraid their ideas wouldn't hold up when confronted with concepts like Christianity or democracy.

Absolutely, Ebbang Uluque6305. This is the "strident, controlling and insecure nature" of Islam I mentioned previously that makes it so susceptible to humiliation and the consequent need for Dire Revenge™. The cycle of violence that this breeds up is both perpetual and equally senseless. Constant internecine murder amongst Islam's followers stands as glaring proof of this fact.

A little clarification. If by "redeeming" features you mean "good" features, then certainly Muhammadanism has some.

Hokay, James. Keeping my post #14 in mind, please expand on your claim.
Posted by: Zenster   2007-08-09 14:27  

#16  Ahem, I believe that's affect, not effect ;-)

Most importantly, that posts sums it up fairly well.
Posted by: Mike N.   2007-08-09 14:20  

#15  "a financially empowered controlling organization of insecure authoritarian zealots"

This description also fits the left to a tee, Zenster.

Confluence of purpose - as per Wretchard's article "The Ichneumon Wasp".
Posted by: no mo uro   2007-08-09 14:20  

#14  I think Islam has redeeming features. Abstaining from pork and alcohol may be good for some people. Praying five times a day can give one's life a sense of structure. Alms are nice if they actually help the needy.

Thank you for making a legitimate effort, Baba Tutu. While "Abstaining from pork and alcohol may be good for some people", where in hell does anyone get off on telling all people what they can or cannot eat and drink? Nobody, absolutely no-effing-body has the right to demand that I arbitrarily abstain from the abundance of this earth. It is a form of dietary censorship which Mark Twain summarized rather nicely when he said:

"Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak because a baby can't chew it."

If someone doesn't like the taste of pork or can't hold their liquor how does that suddenly give them the right to tell me I can't indulge in those items? As a culinary enthusiast, I find the banning of bacon, ham, sausage, pâté, salami, tamales, chile verde, char siu bao, BBQed ribs, Wienerschnitzel and a host of other gustatory delights an absolutely intolerable notion. The same goes for fine whisky, Champagne, Pilsner, Cognac and all the other imbibements that can give so much pleasure.

I also believe that any credo which mandates repeated daily observance to be of a strident, controlling and insecure nature. Such negative traits tend to breed up the very worst sort of zealotry and that is what you find in Islam.

Superficially, the giving of alms would appear to be a worthy form of conduct. However, to demand it in the form of personal tithing is robbery, pure and simple. It smacks of "it's for your own good" nannyism and is indicative of a contemptuous attitude towards the contributors as in, "we know better than you" regarding how to effect change in this world.

All of this points up the overarching issue of what results from a financially empowered controlling organization of insecure authoritarian zealots. The ban upon alcohol and pork represent only the camel's nose iceberg's tip of regulations that dictate what constitutes acceptable personal conduct in almost every aspect of waking daily life. The required observances then become opportunities for regular indoctrination and mind control instead of any celebration of faith. Finally, the huge mass of financial donations are disbursed in whatever way the controlling authorities see fit. Far too often it is for the purpose of forcibly imposing Islam upon others via militant expansionism and not for uplifting the downtrodden and deprived.

All of this, poetry or no, disfigures any beauty Islam might convey or possess and instead turns it into a death cult's military juggernaut.
Posted by: Zenster   2007-08-09 14:12  

#13  A little clarification. If by "redeeming" features you mean "good" features, then certainly Muhammadanism has some. If by "redeeming" you mean "justifying its existence," then I don't know of any. When you compare religions, you certainly find worse ones (the Aztecs leap immediately to mind), but that hardly justfies what Muhammad did. Whatever is true or good in Muhammadanism was borrowed.

As far as good features go:
No doubt the Salafis claim that West African Islam isn't pure, so my observations might not address Zen's question. But some Christian missions found that they had to hire Muslim drivers rather than fellow Christians (or animists), because the Muslims wouldn't drink. (Which meant they showed up to work more or less on time and didn't drive drunk.)
Posted by: James   2007-08-09 13:55  

#12  Ordinarily I wouldn't go along with book burning or banning any kind of book because I believe in a free and fair exchange of ideas in this world. But the problem is the unfortunate tendency of muslims to murder people who disagree with them which is obviously not fair. They can't even agree among themselves so they kill each other as often as they kill us. Jesus said that by their fruit we will know them. The fruit of Islam is violence, intolerance and barbarism so I don't feel any need to read their book. Their behavior shows me all I need to know. It's enough to make a reasonable person assume they are afraid their ideas wouldn't hold up when confronted with concepts like Christianity or democracy. If and when they ever get past that phase we can have that free and fair exchange of ideas and may the best ideas win in the end. But until then Western Civilization needs to wake up and defend itself.
Posted by: Ebbang Uluque6305   2007-08-09 12:58  

#11  DOES ISLAM HAVE ANY REDEEMING FEATURES?

Repeated kneeling and standing, banging your head on the floor at the end of the movement, and doing that numerous times five times a day probably works wonders for your intestinal motility.

Potentially it can at least partially compensate for a constipated brain.
Posted by: KBK   2007-08-09 10:34  

#10  This may be a brilliant idea. To implement it, I would suggest using some incrementalism.

To start with, begin with a requirement that all Korans have to be printed in, or at least with, the recognized major European languages beside the Arabic text, in accurate translations. It is a strong fundamental doctrine of Islam that Korans have to be in Arabic text, but only extremists insist that it can *only* be printed in Arabic.

Included in that would be a law making it a crime to "deface" a Koran by marking out the European language text, just leaving the Arabic, which is what they would do. By calling it "defacing", it would make them gnash their teeth, because "defacing" a Koran is a terrible offense in Islam.

Then, instead of banning the Koran proper, ban the *commentaries* on the Koran as hate speech. This is an important point, because of lot of the more graphic elements of Islam, like the hijab, are not based in the Koran itself, but in the commentaries. Then subsequently make it even illegal to possess the commentaries, not just import and sale.

Then insist that all Mosque sermons be given in Dutch or other major European language. This would be tricky in the Netherlands because they are so multi-lingual. But sermons are not Koranic, so there is no requirement that they be given in any particular language. This would break up the power of radical clerics, because they knew they could be monitored.

Then and only then, and probably after some nasty incident, could you ban the Koran outright, as hate speech. But by then, from most radical to less radical, Muslims would be leaving the country.
Posted by: Anonymoose   2007-08-09 10:28  

#9  Some of the language in the Koran is beautifully poetic.

An example, please.

I second that request. If it's poetry, it's some of the most convoluted, confused and gramatically nonsensical verse ever penned. Nice to say such a thing, having heard it repeated by the MSM and others ad nauseum, but I've yet to see an example where it even comes close to the Psalms, or Song of Solomon, or even good secular writings.
Posted by: mcsegeek1   2007-08-09 10:24  

#8  Some of the language in the Koran is beautifully poetic.

An example, please.
Posted by: Excalibur   2007-08-09 09:24  

#7  DOES ISLAM HAVE ANY REDEEMING FEATURES?

A bad example?
Posted by: CrazyFool   2007-08-09 08:29  

#6  The first step on a long journey. Banning the koran does little good unless followed by deportation.
Posted by: ed   2007-08-09 08:24  

#5  DOES ISLAM HAVE ANY REDEEMING FEATURES?


Already told you (hint: the current Muzzi onslaught is not the disease---it's the symptom of the disease)
Posted by: gromgoru   2007-08-09 08:19  

#4  > Abstaining from pork and alcohol may be good for some people.

BLASPHEMY! ;) Although I do have a minging hangover RIGHT NOW.
Posted by: Bright Pebbles   2007-08-09 06:38  

#3  I think Islam has redeeming features. Abstaining from pork and alcohol may be good for some people. Praying five times a day can give one's life a sense of structure. Alms are nice if they actually help the needy. Some of the language in the Koran is beautifully poetic.

That said, the mandate that Muslims must rule the world for Allah through unending violence and the oppressive, often nonsensical nature of shariah outweigh whatever Islam might offer to the world. They have to go, but they're also held to be eternal commands. Therein lies the great conundrum of any Islamic Reformation.
Posted by: Baba Tutu   2007-08-09 04:11  

#2  Once again I will ask: (With deep thanks to .com)

DOES ISLAM HAVE ANY REDEEMING FEATURES?

Moderators, posters, anybody, please feel free to reply.
Posted by: Zenster   2007-08-09 01:52  

#1  Geert Wilders

I knew it after reading the article's title.

Sounds like a reasonable step to me. Makes a lot more sense than teaching it to impressionable non-Muslims...
Looks like both of us are hoping that the Koran will be declared hate speech, but maybe that's just me ...

Even if you're scared of the Islamists. You don't need protection from people who aren't a threat. Q.E.D.

Another BGO (Blinding Glimpse of the Obvious).

The Muslim holy book should be banned from sale, from use in mosques and private households, Wilders added.

MY HERO! The Koran is hate speech. It must be declared as such at the soonest opportunity. No other screed poses the same large-scale threat to modern civilization. Period.

Posted by: Zenster   2007-08-09 01:47  

00:00