It would be interesting to see if Islamic adherents can be sued under R.I.C.O. Racketeering & Corrupt Organization laws in the United States. Private lawsuits against countries (i.e. Saudi Arabia and its banks) have not been successful on the theory that States are immune from lawsuit. Individuals however, may not be immune from lawsuit if it has effect in the United States. This will not work in the United Kingdom.

Posted by: David England at March 11, 2006 6:55 AM

EXCELLENT!!!! It may not succeed but it is the FIRST step in the right direction at long last.

Posted by: Zathras at March 11, 2006 7:03 AM

Important first step in the culture war. The culture of death and hatred will not change until it is forced to change.

Posted by: moderationist at March 11, 2006 7:27 AM

Let's just get more and more and more of the non Muslim population on our side and wake then up to the threat that Islam faces to all creeds and people in Europe.

However, as many have pointed out, this will count for nothing until the demographic issue is addressed.

Posted by: Celsius at March 11, 2006 7:31 AM

Hope and pray for this law to be passed, before the whole of europe goes the way of Yugoslavia. The peak oil crisis and immigration policies can only lead to overpopulation and civil war. Governments must know this, so what is their agenda?

Posted by: dizzyfatplonka at March 11, 2006 7:35 AM

The koran is nothing more than a terrorist manifesto, and should be exposed for what it is.... or used for puppy potty training and as an emergency back up source in the event of a TP shortage.

Posted by: Just_Linda at March 11, 2006 8:14 AM

This is one of the extreme measures which is hard to justify and will probably backfire.

Perhaps this should be litigated, and I don't deny the use of the Qur'an in criminal and terrorist conspiracies all over, but the book itself isn't the problem.

Teaching violent passages must be done properly, if at all, without the intent to create little warriors against non-Muslims.

In nations like Germany, Britain, or Sweden, with more restrictive views of speech, this is probably overdue.

Posted by: Beagle at March 11, 2006 8:48 AM

I hope they've read the Calcutta Koran Petition to see how they can shore up their case and avoid any mistakes. Let's see what the MSM does about picking up this story.

Posted by: 3812Michelle at March 11, 2006 8:49 AM

Not sure that I agree Beagle. In theory of course, you are correct, as the OT has violence in it also. But when a "religious"text is used to condone violence which actually OCCURS then its religious status should be abrogated and the book judged purely by its contents.

If you removed the offending parts you could sanitise islam, but by Sharia law to ignore or remove even one word of the Koran is apostasy and to murder an apostate is not a sin by Sharia law.

It probably wont happen as every believer on the planet will feel threatened but it is a first step in the truly critical appraisal of islam.

Posted by: Zathras at March 11, 2006 8:58 AM

If I'm not mistaken, Hugh has on occassion referred to a legal case in India (?) of similar dimensions.
The case failed but was brilliantly argued.

It would be of interest to compare strategies.

Posted by: justamomof4 at March 11, 2006 9:04 AM

Zathras

You have points. Let's see how it goes.

Posted by: Beagle at March 11, 2006 9:04 AM

Hugh, was it the Calcutta Koran petition?
http://voiceofdharma.org/books/tcqp/

Posted by: justamomof4 at March 11, 2006 9:10 AM

Rebecca...thx for finding and posting this article. I posted your article (under your authorship) and link at Free Republic this morning.

Posted by: Dark Skies at March 11, 2006 9:47 AM

"She says it is a task of 'Sisyphean' dimensions to inform the media, politicians and churches of the true intentions of Islam in the enlightened world of the West."

Unveiling the Koran
9 times out of 10 they will not be able to outlaw the Koran. But if the case does make it to court; the Koran can then be examined under a legal framework and its ultimate message - exposed.

Posted by: Pass It On at March 11, 2006 9:53 AM

Deutschland uber Allah (as someone here once said).

Posted by: Bohemond_1069 at March 11, 2006 9:55 AM

In India with the explosive number of Muslims that they have, you could hardly expect otherwise. The law has always had a flexible arm when shaken by politicians(if no one else for free).

However in Germany it may be possible that a different judgment could arise upon the ashes of Islamic tolerance and nonviolence as so admirably demonstrated recently. The Germans have for too long been appeasing. Maybe they are ripe for a change.

We can but hope.

Posted by: Zathras at March 11, 2006 10:06 AM

Pass It On: "9 times out of 10 they will not be able to outlaw the Koran. But if the case does make it to court; the Koran can then be examined under a legal framework and its ultimate message - exposed."

Absolutely. What would be even better is if lawyers in a number of other countries tried to do the same thing simultaneously. That would make it harder for the MSM to ignore the story. And whatever the outcome of the trials themselves, the information revealed about Islam to the public would be invaluable towards waking people up to the threat of Islam. I think Ali Sina has been chomping at the bit for an opportunity to expose Islam in a court of law. Someone should call him as an expert witness.

Posted by: Caroline at March 11, 2006 10:14 AM

Anything that gets the kid gloves taken off when discussing the most vicious Koranic suras (at the very least... since "banning" the Qu'ran ain't likely, because then the Old Testament would have to go, as well) is for the public good.

Light disinfects.

Let's hear the defenses for Sura 9:29-30.

And many, many others.

And let's discuss Mohammad's wedding night with his 9 year old "bride".

Objection over-ruled.

Posted by: profitsbeard at March 11, 2006 10:20 AM

Here is a link to a discussion of this dhimmiwatch article at FreeRepublic (thx again to Rebecca).

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1594464/posts

Posted by: Dark Skies at March 11, 2006 11:27 AM

The Koran should be banned in all the west, it is an abomination.

Posted by: Unbridled at March 11, 2006 11:39 AM

The Bundesverband der Bürgerbewegungen group must guard against flanking attacks. This will occur by the media and politicians, both frightened of the consequences.

A measure they can take is to get as much of the MSM on their side, thus making it difficult for political pressure to be brought on the courts. Needless to say, this will go all the way to the EU court, where political pressure is readily applicable.

In a way I'm glad, but there is real danger here. If the EU court, due to political pressure or some other factor, gives the OK to the koran, it will have legitimised it. NOT good at all. The other disadvantage - there is no such thing as bad publicity. 9/11 and other mega-terror acts were good for the cause of islam as it brought it to the fore. This case could well do the same.

Posted by: DP111 at March 11, 2006 11:49 AM

DP111: "If the EU court, due to political pressure or some other factor, gives the OK to the koran, it will have legitimised it. NOT good at all."

Yea - I was wondering about that, about the legal precedent set by losing the case. I did follow Dark Skies link to the freerepublic discussion, which took me to a website where Jutta Starke herself left the following comment:

"this ligitation shall not censore the religion Islam at the whole!
The spiritual part of Islam shall not be censored! but the rechtlich-political part shall, because it is incompatible with the german constitution.This has been written very clearly!The main problem is,that the Koran is not a historical book but now and always the constitution of the Islam.
We must diskuss this!
Comment by jutta Starke — March 9, 2006 @ 1:47 pm"
http://agora.blogsome.com/2006/03/08/the-quran-reported-to-the-police/

Also, a link to the Calcutta Quran petition online:

http://voi.org/books/tcqp/

Posted by: Caroline at March 11, 2006 11:59 AM

Caroline

The spiritual part of Islam shall not be censored! but the rechtlich-political part shall, because it is incompatible with the german constitution.

re the above, the group that brought the action is clearly aware of the danger, and that is why it has taken the pains to delineate as much as possible.

The trouble is that muslims will claim that the koran is indivisible, and NO part can be changed, ignored or whatever. What then? A Gordian problem. The EU court of HR, made up of political appointees, are unlikely to make a clear case. They will prevaricate and fudge - thus allowing the islamists to claim victory.

Posted by: DP111 at March 11, 2006 12:07 PM

Nice one.

This entire thing will work along the lines that the German Grundgesetz must be honoured by everyone (people and institutions/organisations) at all times.

English translation: http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/eurodocs/germ/ggeng.html

The Grundgesetz fairly much trumps anything else, so, this will be a very interesting battle.

This kind of line of attack has been succesfully used so far with Nazis, Scientologists and Communists, and there is a special type of secret service which is called 'Verfassungsschutz' -- that translates as 'Constitutional Protection (force)' so you see, the Germans take their Constitution rather seriously (which is understandable, given the 1933 disaster...)

Posted by: Imli at March 11, 2006 12:25 PM

Am I right to assume that in dividing the world into muslims & infidels... they have actually brought every infidel together... though they might not have expected that to happen... ?!?!?!?!

In any case, the fact that Quran goes on trial is proof that all is not lost for Europe.

Posted by: csa bill at March 11, 2006 12:27 PM

The Calcutta Quran Petition link makes for some interesting and not very lengthy reading.

I was struck by this, from chapter 9: "That part of the “Muslim minority” which had voted for Pakistan but had chosen to stay in India, restarted the old game when India was proclaimed a secular state pledged to freedom of propagation for all religions. It revived its tried and tested trick of masquerading as a “poor and persecuted minority”.

I love that! So much for the cries of Islamophobia! It's nothing but a tried and tested trick that explains how Muslims have been so successful in converting their minority into a majority everywhere they go.

And from Chapter 3 - The Ideology of Islam:
"Taking into account the character of the basic text of Islam - the Quran - as a Manual on War, Islam cannot pass as a spiritual doctrine in any sense of the term. On the contrary, it stands exposed as a political ideology of predatory imperialism like Christianity, Communism and Nazism with all of which its shares its source, namely, the Bible, as well as many psychopathological traits. Professor K.S. Lal has studied and taught the history of Islam in India for the last more than fifty years. He has written a dozen books, starting with his famous History of the Khaljis (1950). In his latest book (1999), he has reviewed the history of Islam in India in the light of Islamic scriptures - the Quran, the Hadis, the Sunnah, and the Shariat. His characterization of Islam as an ideology is being presented below:

1. “Islam is understood more correctly when it is called Muhammadanism. Muhammad is the central figure in Islam. He controls the hearts and minds of all Muslims everywhere...”69

2. “Fundamentalism is not accidental but essential to Islam… It sees unchangeability as strength. That is why the word reform is so abhorrent to Muslim thinkers and religious leaders ...”70

3. “In Islam truth is established by the sword... dissent is hated as heresy and stamped out as infidelity ...71 early medieval Indian Muslim chronicles mention the sword as the greatest harvester of converts. Islam was made to spread, as the old saying goes, with Quran in one hand and sword in the other. Sword was freely used in forcing people to become Musalmans…”72

4. “There is a uniqueness about Islam. Non-Muslims are to be converted to Islam freely. But once a Kafir becomes a Musalman, he has to remain one for ever thereafter. He is not permitted to renounce Islam or revert to his original faith. Punishment for such apostasy is death...”73

5. “Islam lacks any doctrine of coexistence... Muslim madrasas cannot shed their Kafir complex... The present adjustment of coexistence is a temporary expediency in India...74 It is the teaching of Islam to shun contact with non-Muslims except with a view to converting them… Muslim separatism expresses itself in many ways…”75

6. “In Islam all human beings are not treated as equals. It makes a distinction between Muslims and non-Muslims. A non-Muslim is a Kafir, an inferior being. Non-Muslims do not enjoy any human right in this world; they cannot enter Paradise after death…76 Islam has two sets of principles of morality, ethics and justice: one is for Muslims and the other for non-Muslims. Sincerity, well-wishing and brotherhood are for the believers and faithful…77 Islamic scriptures recommend setting Muslims against non-Muslims, believers against infidels to defend Islam and destroy unbelief. Individual and group killings of Kafirs is encouraged…”78

7. “Islam recommends Jihad or permanent war on adherents of other religions… This makes Islam a totalitarian and terrorist cult which it has remained ever since its birth.79… There have been wars but wars fought by Muslims are in the service of Allah. This gives Islamic belligerency divine sanction and terrorism becomes a divine command…”80

8. “Like proselytization, desecrating and demolishing the temples of non-Muslims is also central to Islam. Iconoclasm derives its justification from the Quranic revelations and the Prophet’s Sunnah or practice ...81 non-Muslims cannot reclaim their desecrated temples. This is the law of Islam...”82

9. “Islam has all the ingredients of imperialism found anywhere in the world in any age... 83 By destroying the national spirit of non-Arab Muslims, Islam has demolished the Asian centres of civilization such as Egypt, Iran and India...”84

10. “The Islamic principles of denigrating the non-Muslims, of aggression and violence against them - principles that perpetually incite to riot and rapine - have boomeranged. However brave face the fundamentalists may try to put up, the victims of Islam today are by and large Muslims themselves. The Prophet must have known that violence begets violence and repeatedly exhorted Muslims not to kill one another after his death. He also had a premonition that violence of Islam against non-Muslims will be met with a backlash. There is a hadis in Sahih Muslim which says that once the Rasul opined that Islam which began in poverty in Medina would one day return to Medina in poverty. ‘Just as a snake crawls back and coils itself into a small hole, so will Islam be hunted out from everywhere and return to be confined to Mecca and Medina.’ The increasing power of the non-Muslim West and the disenchantment of Muslim dissidents point towards that possibility, howsoever remote.”85

Point number 10 is fascinating. : So Muhammad had a premonition that Islam would one day be rooted out and reconfined to Mecca and Medina? Well we might as well do our part to make sure that the so-called "prophet" had at least one bona fide prophecy that comes true!

Posted by: Caroline at March 11, 2006 3:26 PM

Caroline posted

Point number 10 is fascinating. : So Muhammad had a premonition that Islam would one day be rooted out and reconfined to Mecca and Medina? Well we might as well do our part to make sure that the so-called "prophet" had at least one bona fide prophecy that comes true!

Nice one. Why on earth, what with all this respect for the RoP, we are not actively doing so, seems a mystery to me.

Posted by: DP111 at March 11, 2006 4:14 PM

My hats off to Germany. The PC ideology is inconsistent in every other country. My big problem with hate laws are that they limit freedom of speech but more importantly they are applied inconsistently. At least in Germany they realize if they can outlaw Holocaust denial speech why can't they outlaw the hate that is preached in the Koran. It won't pass but its the thought that counts.

Posted by: pissedoffcanadian at March 11, 2006 4:32 PM

I appreciate the German concern for the Islamic teachings, and I hope that this brings some light on the subject otherwise unseen. However, I would not want that type of law passed here in the U.S.. I think if people want to read MeinKompf or Marx or the Koran than they should.
Free speech and freedom of association are critical components to our constitution. Sedition on the otherhand is not protected speech and should be prosecuted. Anyone or any group using the Koran to propagate such action should be prosecuted or deported.

This line from the Chap 3 of the previous post is an agregious example of Christian hating:
On the contrary, it stands exposed as a political ideology of predatory imperialism like Christianity, Communism and Nazism with all of which its shares its source, namely, the Bible, as..
I understand that this is probably written by a Hindu and such he may not have a clue to what the Bible teaches but to lump it in with Stalin and Hitler is a terrible error.
Neitsche was the prophet of Nazism and Marx of Communism, of course Mohammed of Islam. These men bear no resemblence to Jesus in accept that they were men. The Bible is no root to these philosophies as they teach radically different worldviews.
I didn't mean to take the thread off course but I also hope that most of our readers and responders to this site saw through that obvious shot at Christianity.

Posted by: disciple at March 11, 2006 5:43 PM

disciple: "I didn't mean to take the thread off course but I also hope that most of our readers and responders to this site saw through that obvious shot at Christianity."

Yes disciple. I did. Even though I posted it in full because it was part of the total context of an otherwise very truthful account about Islam. But that line came totally out of left field as far as I am concerned.

"On the contrary, it stands exposed as a political ideology of predatory imperialism like Christianity,"

There is obviously nothing about Christianity which instructs to spread the word with the sword as there is in Islam. Proselityzing? Yes. Obviously. Coercion and violence - no.

"but to lump it in with Stalin and Hitler is a terrible error."

I am in 100% agreement.

Posted by: Caroline at March 11, 2006 7:12 PM

Schließlich! Aber nicht die Bibel auch?

Posted by: Kafir Nonbeliever at March 11, 2006 7:24 PM

Caroline, thanks for your thoughtful response. I realize that the line was in a context and therefore had to be left intact. Good thing you and others are astute to see such things so clearly.

Posted by: disciple at March 11, 2006 7:25 PM

Go Germany! It's about time to grow some nards, or you'll be France. muhammad, may piss be upon him. (Just had to write that.)

Posted by: mustang65 at March 11, 2006 7:25 PM

Off Topic people but a response to Disciple's "cleansing".

Disciple, while there is nothing in the JC's teachings that justifies some of the behaviour of Organised Christianity over the last 2 millenia, I would look more carefully at the track record of these institutions before you make such comments. (did you ever see the movie"The Mission"?..that encapsulates aggressive christianity fairly well)

India has been exposed to the "virtues" of evangelical; christianity by the British and the Portugese both of whom used their church to discriminate against local people and to proselytise openly. Some of the behaviour of these churches in India was more in keeping with islam than Christianity and evangelism was allowed to fester there openly until the partition.

Please note that I am not condemning Christianity in the slightest but I am commenting upon the malicious action by churches who contend that that they represent it.

While at its worst, it was never as bad as Islam, and many of its actions were a direct function of Islamic pressure on the Mediterranean(it is my contention that the dark part of the middle ages were prolonged by wholesale islamic depradations all along the Mediterranean coastline for well over 500 years and thus only northern europe had the strength to resist them, putting off the renaissance for some 500 years and further destroying Europe's rapidly diminishing stores of Roman and Greek knowledge). But this does not justify these actions, however much it may explain them.

You are being quite unfair to the Indians by your comments and you should not dismiss these comments so easily as they have firm justification.

This behaviour should not be glossed over or ignored as it can be repeated unless you are aware. Christianity is threatened now and we should not hide the truth with respect to allies like the Hindus. I wont say any more.

Can anyone imagine such a fair hearing occurring in pakistan or iran, or even Egypt?

Posted by: Zathras at March 11, 2006 8:05 PM

I am a big believer of the "law of unintended consequences". There are many people posting here quite joyfully that the "Koran should be banned" and that this is a "step in the right direction". I fail to see it this way.

If the Koran was found in court to be a political book incompatible with the constitution... how soon do you think it will take them to determine that all religious books, such as the Bible, to be incompatible with the constitution. Just quote the verses of Exodus 21 and it is quite apparent, the Bible is out of tune to the German constitution as well, right?

And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.

A slave owner is to be punished if he strikes his slave and the slave dies shortly thereafter. If the slave lives a day or two and then dies, the slave owner is not to be punished. A slave is the same as money to his owner.

Posted by: cruelworld at March 11, 2006 8:27 PM

cruelworld , as i said above, it could create a precedent for this sort of thing and believers will start dropping out of the trees to defend it.

However, I fail to see the relevance of the OT (from which I feel sure that your quotes above come) and of JC's teachings. The Only relevance that the OT has is that it was JC's holy book and nothing else. Certainly it was the supposed foundation stone of Christianity but not its edifice. Christianity began its separation from judaism with the death of JC, and the OT and its common barbaric quotes play no part in it.

Your response is typical of the main reason as to why this attempt will fail as I see many christians uniting to misguidedly protect ths Koran fearing that their book may be under attack. Even if it were relevant almost NO ONE folows the OT's barbaric demands now (murders of abortionists aside) where as every day we see wholesale demonstrations of islamic implementation of the Koran's barbaric demands.

That is the main reason why it may succeed so have no real fear.

Posted by: Zathras at March 11, 2006 8:45 PM

Zathras, I never deny ever that people do repugnant things in the name of Christianity.
As you pointed out so well Jesus never taught the same things that those other ideaologies espouse. Empires and missions are another subject for some other thread.

As far as my thoughts on perhaps the writer being a Hindu and thus ignorant, I may be mistaken about the ignorance on Bible teachings. However, the words in the article reflected great ignorance and I felt needed to be pointed out.

For the record: people always and will always fail to live up to the teachings of their faith. No excuse just reality, another discussion could clarify this, but later. =)However, if a person lived up to the teachings of Jesus what a great person they would be. On the other hand if someone lives up to the teachings of Mohammed a very wicked person they could become.

Cruelworld: Christians do not live by the laws of exodus, but yes that would certainly be out of alignment with our constitution. However, the U.S. constitution was ammended to make slavery illegal. So, it must have been deemed to be okay at some point. By the way look at Exodus 21:2 all of that Law is intended for the Hebrews at that time. There was lawlessness within the tribes so a form of martial law was dictated. That is certainly not a complete discussion but I am going off topic somewhat.

Posted by: disciple at March 11, 2006 9:02 PM

Disciple....totally agree and I see your point...let us hope that this attempt to stigmatise the koran and Muhummad in particular works as it could see the creation of the great schism at last(between espoused barbarity and true peace). Unfortunately this will have major and painful side efects but it is better to be now than later.

Posted by: Zathras at March 11, 2006 9:44 PM

Zathras: "Please note that I am not condemning Christianity in the slightest but I am commenting upon the malicious action by churches who contend that that they represent it."

But therin lies all the difference between Islam and Christianity, does it not? The "contend that they represent it" part, that is.

Zathras: "while there is nothing in the JC's teachings that justifies some of the behaviour of Organised Christianity over the last 2 millenia, I would look more carefully at the track record of these institutions before you make such comments."

Well if there is "nothing in the JC's teachings that justifies some of the behaviour of Organised Christianity" then where is the possible parallel with the Koran? I mean, by all means, put the Bible on trial. And as disciple points out - for Christians, that would mean putting the New Testament on trial. Of course it's not as if the New Testament hasn't already been "put on trial" in the court of western opinion and survived quite well, thank you very much, but for those who are unconvinced, by all means - do it again! There's nothing to hide! But the same thing cannot possibly be said about the Koran.

Posted by: Caroline at March 11, 2006 9:44 PM

I should add that for Christians the New Testament "abrogates" the Old Testament. Along the same lines perhaps the simplest solution for the problem of Islam is to overturn the "abrogation" that makes the violent Medina verses of the Koran abrogate the more peaceful Meccan verses. Never mind the inconvenient fact that Muhammad became MORE violent as his power grew, which is evidence that he was a false prophet. Never mind that fact at all. Just reverse the abrogation and we'll take it. We'll still know Islam to be false but at least we'll be able to live in peace with its believers.

Maybe in the course of putting the Koran on trial, the lawyers can figure out a way to put the concept of "abrogation" on trial. Like some have said - if Muslims won't reform their religion from within, maybe the rest of us will need to do it from without. The concept of abrogation is surely a good place to start.

Posted by: Caroline at March 11, 2006 10:08 PM

Caroline and Zathrus, I appreciate the great civil discussion going on here.
May this type of discussion begin in the ME.

Posted by: disciple at March 11, 2006 10:52 PM

Caroline, while I do agree with most of what you are saying, I am not that certain of your point. I think that this could be me as I am having "one of those days". So I will explain my position and hence my direction here.

One of the standard retaliatory Islamic arguments about violence in the Koran is the violence in the OT. But if you are a true christian(ie one who both knows and follows JC's teachings) the OT has no relevance at all other than being the holy book of JC, a sort of seed from which a wonderful plant grew. JC by his teachings deviated largely from the OT, in many areas including his attitude towards nonjews and women and that simply verifies that it is irrelevant when looking at christianity. He by then had seen organised religion for the political and economic criminality that it was then and often has been since with its emphasis on ritual and hypocrisy.

ALL organised religions are NOT primarily religious, despite their facade.They may be conceived as such but once they have both power and wealth they become political and always attract the ethic-less carrion. The crimes of the christian churches are many(mind you they pall when compared to that of islam) but they are NOT the work of christianity but the work of man using JC's name in vain arrogance and gross stupidity. This separation of action from origin is very important in debate with islam, as NONE of the crimes of organised christian religion have any justification in JC's teachings. They are the work of political man. There are some deviant verses in the NT which superficially espouse violence if taken out of context but they are few.

With islam the violence is encodified within the Koran and inherent to the religion. It appears to be the life blood of islam, necessary and relevant and it has always been so. It is a religion of blood. Along with the blood comes the submission to the Mein Kampf of islam. this submission creates a power rod for whoever calls himself an Imam and thus the forced submission to his will and that of Muhammad is inherently political as always. There is NO book/action dichotomy here. Man is not to blame. Muhammad and his book are responsible for ALL acts committed in his name and in the name of his Satan.

The point here is that the whole act of SUBMISSION allows no questioning, accepted violence and total control of the both the individual and of the masses.

This is POLITICS in action not religion.

The Koran must be attacked as a handbook for political violence not as a holy book which I firmly doubt that it has ever been.(how many Gods conveniently change their mind to suit the problems of the day as happens often in the Koran?).

If it cannot be called illegal and banned then it must be sanitised by removal of the violence.
We cannot depend upon Muslims to say that they will ignore it as 1500 years shows that they do NOT. Or else we could just ONLY recognise the Ahmadiyya sect as being religious and refusing to accept that any other Islamic sect follows a religion but instead follows a violent political creed disguised as a religion.

Posted by: Zathras at March 11, 2006 11:26 PM

Caroline your point about "abrogation". I can accept that over millenia a God might change his mind to suit the times. So I could perceive that god could be influenced and civilised by man with time. So that the OT as the seed of the NT is perfectly possible and that they can represent the views of the same god.

But I cannot accept the way that the Koran changes its views several times within 30 years. This is NO god in action but a narcissistic megalomaniac who came to beleive in his own lies, which he adapted to suite the occasion.

Even if it were the work a god then I do suggest that he sees someone about his anger management, his vision(?60 foot camels) and his psychosis generally. In my view his violence and his vindictiveness prove that he is no god worthy of the name.

Posted by: Zathras at March 11, 2006 11:42 PM

The fact that only 47% of the american people consider islam a violent religion,shows us how uneducated people are about islam.
We should use every opportunity to educate our relatives,friends,neighbors,etc
We should use smart lawyers who could bring islam to court in as many states as possible,and expose the koran for the war instruction manual that it is.

Posted by: adela at March 12, 2006 1:11 AM

Disciple, Caroline & Zathras

By Christianity, SitaRam Goel was more likely talking about Christian imperialism, which in the case of India, was practiced mainly by the Portugese, who forcibly converted the populace of Goa to Catholicism, and damaged statues in the Elephanta Cave temples off Bombay. He was not talking about Jesus and the Bible.

I agree that he should have left out Christianity, particularly when comparing to Islam, Communism & Nazism. I won't excuse that, but note that towards the end of his life, he did cross swords (of the debating kind) with Pat Robertson, particularly in the context of several aspersions that the latter cast on Hindus. I don't know when this book was written, so whether this was one of the factors that weighed on him when he made this comparison, is something I can't say. However, disciple, I would say that your comment about the "writer being Hindu, and thus ignorant" was uncalled for. It's attitudes like that that keep some Hindus from joining such an alliance against Islam, since they suspect that people like you don't distinguish between Muslims and other non-Christians.

I agree with Zathras - while Christians, even the Portugese, didn't come close to what the Muslims did in India, their record wasn't exactly one to write home about. That said, it's unfortunate that in India, too many Christians think of themselves as being more aligned to Muslims than to Hindus (I don't know whether that's still true), while Hindus tend to see Christian missionaries out to bribe their adherants into switching.

On the original topic, I hope this petition succeeds. What's more, I hope that this case lands up in the World Court at the Hague. Reason it went nowhere in Calcutta is that judges there, while somewhat apolitical, do factor in potential social reactions while making their judgements. If the judges in this case had agreed with the petitioner that the Quran “incites violence, disturbs public tranquility, promotes, on ground of religion, feelings of enmity, hatred and ill-will between different religious communities, and insults other religions or religious beliefs of other communities in India", there would have been riots in India. That is something that no Indian judge would want to live with.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at March 12, 2006 1:39 AM

A broad alliance of grass-roots movements have gone to the prosecutors of several states to hinder the dissemination of the Quran. According to the indictment, the Quran is not just a religious and historic book, but also a political book, which is incompatible with the constiution.

--------------

This is what I have been trying to say all along...Islam is not a religion per se...it is a form of religious government...that in incompatible with the U.S. constitution..and it's believes are unable by their belief to be loyal to and citizens of the U.S.

Posted by: Abby at March 12, 2006 1:48 AM

Nee KafirNonbeliever - nicht die Bibel auch. Und du weisst doch warum: viele Mitglieder des Bundesverbandes der Buergerverbegungen sind christlich, und ausserdem ist die Bibel kaum so sehr ein Problem wie der Koran.

If anyone wants to read the English parts of the BDB site, here is the link: http://www.buergerbewegungen.de/gb/indexgb.html

Check out the 'information' link, they are asking for a lot more than action against the koran - they make some very strong demands for demographic control and integration.

I'll be watching their progress with great hope. It's very interesting that Germany seems so on target here - they really know how easily democracy can be lost and that tolerating intolerance is no good means of defence!

Posted by: Lili at March 12, 2006 2:20 AM

Banning the Koran might solve some of the demographic problems western countries are now facing. A practicing mohhamedian would no more wish to immigrate to a county that has outlawed their holy slaughter manual, than a christian would want to move to Saudi Arabia now. And of course many RoP'ers would simply leave western countries in disgust. A win win outcome.

Posted by: mistyhymen at March 12, 2006 2:45 AM

I can't imagine that Islam will ever be outlawed in Western nations.

And I'm quite opposed to prohibitions against, or censorship of, books.

Rather, it is public conversation and debate about Islam which needs to be undertaken. Imagine some future time when everyone, Muslims included, has been exposed to unarguable facts about Islam, the Qur'an, the hadiths, jizya, slavery, misogyny, polygamy, dar al harb, kafir, da'wa, caliphate, shari'a, etc.

And imagine then that further deceitful descriptions of Islam will be understood as exactly what they are.

And imagine, too, that as a result of those conversations and debates, those aspects of Islam which violate or collide with Western laws are finally, and offically, outlawed.

Posted by: PRCS at March 12, 2006 9:42 AM

Some of you want to outlaw the bible as well. Please remember that we have to be united in the struggle against islam and the quran. We should not divide ourselves by having other issues. If we divide ourselves, the muslims will be sure to win. We should all stand united in the struggle against this backward, primitive and violent religion...

Posted by: sandra at March 12, 2006 11:04 AM

PRCS I do not understand how you can eliminate something by simply "outlawing" it. Religious oppression over centuries showed that this does not work for any real believers. They still cling to it. You are simply pushing it under the rug.

I agree in theory about censorship and books and have never thrown one out or even sold one in my life. Even those I very much disagree with or disapprove of. But to NOT remove the violence from the Koran is simply to push it underground, illegal or not. To eliminate it you must censor it by removing it and destroying all copies.

This is a criminal act of the first degree in my view.BUT the future of western civilsation is at stake here and if we are to keep ANY non Sharia law freedoms we must be prepared to be flexible on this one and REMOVE the violent sura. Once these are eliminated perhaps the remnants might be then worth keeping, seeing as most of us here would destroy the whole book for survival reasons.

To totally destroy every copy of this book would be counterproductive as the resistance would be symbolically fanatical. But to leave them a censored remnant still containing all of those "good" things that I keep hearing about are in the Koran(but I can never find them) will leave them something to cling to. Otherwise,we may have to not just remove ALL of the books and I would like to read what you think of that.

Posted by: Zathras at March 12, 2006 11:16 AM

Sandra unless I am so tired that i mave missed it, I can see NO COMMENT which wishses the bible to be outlawed and the reason is simple: almost NO ONE implements the violence contained within the OT, which as I have said above is irrelevant to JC's teachings and therefore to most true christians.

The Koran on the other hand is responsible for most of the worlds violence committed by Muslims.

What I did say was that some very shortsighted christians might see the censorship of the Koran as the thin end of the wedge and actually defend Islam because of the fear that it will spread to the bible. However as there is very little violence atributable to the bible this is stupid.

Posted by: Zathras at March 12, 2006 11:23 AM

"Germany to outlaw Koran? Well,Muslims have already done it to the Bible,from the time of Mohammed itself.Failing in his venture to create a holy book,equal to that of the Bible's standard, he tried to elevate his status in Koran, far and above that of Jesus ,but in vain .Mohamed denounced Jesus as not a Son of God,who was not crucified on the cross , nor he died and rose again the third day.Accoring to Mohamed,Jesus is just an ordinary man,a Prophet ,inferior to Mohamed.SO MOHAMED OUTLAWED HOLY BIBLE,telling it is corrupted and it is altered by humans.This explains why Muslims hate the Cross to such an extent, that even the 'red cross' sign on the first aid service vehiles should not enter their country in case of any calamity. The sign should be changed to "Red Crescent" (but all the money should come from Red Cross)!!
Bible is outlawed even now in Islamic countries like Saudi Arabia.You will be arrested if you carry a bible with you in Arabia.
So if Germany outlaws Koran,Muslims have no right to argue that injustice has been done to them. But at anycost,they will use this opourtunity for their favorite game of" loot,kill,and burn churches",as they get a new chance of doing so- after the Mo''toon season fades away.

Posted by: rafia at March 12, 2006 12:08 PM

Zathras - just to clarify, I am not in any disagreement with your points. I totally agree that for Christians, the NT takes precedent over the OT so the violence in the latter could not be used to indict Christianity. As to Islam, there are the peaceful Mecca verses mixed with the violent medina verses. If Muhammad had started out as a violent warrior, first receiving the violent revelations but then "seen the light" and begun preaching peace, then I would have a totally different view of Islam altogether. Because yes I do believe that people have a great capacity to change. The Buddha underwent a complete transformation that testifies to that. But as we know the very opposite happened with Muhammad. As his earthly power grew, Muhammad received more and more violent revelations, which is evidence that Islam is clearly false and that Muhammad was merely seized by egomania and drunk on his own power. So Islam is obviously a lie.

BUT, Muslims are obviously not going to give it up so easily when their entire identities are wrapped into Islam. They will continue to quote the peaceful verses so they can cling to the delusion that Islam is true. And the fact is that those Muslims who very much wish to ignore the violent verses and believe in the "Meccan" version of Islam are probably no threat to us. The problem is that they have no theological grounds to stand on because of the doctrine of abrogation which makes the later violent verses take precedence (as for a Christian, the New Testament takes precedence over the Old). So I am wondering (musing aloud, as it were) whether a case could be mounted for overturning the principle of abrogation that makes the Medinan verses take precedence over the Meccan verses. Could a case be made that it is that doctrine of abrogation itself which is a huge source of the problem where Islam is concerned? Would doing so provide peaceful Muslims with the ammunition they need to shun and repudiate the extremists? I suppose it sounds absurd to suppose that infidels could force such a radical change in Islamic jurisprudence from the outside. But maybe it's no more crazy than trying to indict the Koran? What if someone mounted a case that the doctrine of abrogation is illegal in Germany and that any Muslims endorsing it will be expelled?

Yea. I know. Crazy. But this whole darned Islam thing is so crazy you almost got to think crazy to deal with it.

Posted by: Caroline at March 12, 2006 1:56 PM

InfidelPride: My comment about the ignorance of the writer perhaps because he was Hindu may have been incorrect on my part. I simply try to respond to what is written. The statements he made comparing Christianity to Nazism and Communism were way off the mark and REVEALED either ignorance or just plain animosity.
I think we are in agreement though on the substance of either the Koran or the Bible.
Rafia: Interesting comments, outlawing the Koran could certainly bring about some dialog on opening up Saudi Arabia and other Islamic countries to religious freedoms.
We shall see.

Posted by: disciple at March 12, 2006 3:58 PM

Caroline, if we undermine the principle of Abrogation, we could stir upn a hornet's nest then as every would-be lunatic christian fundamentalist would have his excuse to start stoning, scourging, decapitating a la OT.

When I have read the Koran in its several English translations that I have, I find it contradictory, very hard in places to understand and a mish-mash of confusion always in its organisation. If you attempt to arrange the sura into time order then it becomes a little more easy to follow. (I wish there was a site on the IT where you could do this under "edit" as it would make life so much easier). You see a distinct pattern of: the vision of possible power, the awareness of certain power, then the overwhelming expression of absolute power. This is no god talking but a man who believing in his own lies corrupts himself and his people. So to myself it is essentiually rubbish, and violent rubbish at that. But, Muslims think it something special, so that while we can ban it (and we should) worldwide we have to give them a bone, and that would be a censored version.

However to make this more credible it would have to be Muslims who do the editing. I thought of perhaps making any Muslims swear, on the Koran, to not abide by the violent sura ever, but this is useless as lying to a nonbeliever is perfectly acceptable.

But banning or censoring the Koran is only a first step.The only real solution is to outlaw Islam period and make it an illegal organisation and destroy ALL mosques and all copies of the Koran. This is radical but it is coming. The mood of Islam is starting to polarise the west and the confrontation will occur. The only difference is whether the west does it from a position of strength or one of weakness.

Posted by: Zathras at March 12, 2006 9:35 PM

This endeavor will probably fail due to the Constitutional provision of freedom of religion, despite the fact that the putative "religion" of Islam contradicts almost every principle of the Constitution. I don't know how Germany's constitution reads on religious freedom, but I imagine it is similar to that of most Western nations. When thoroughly dissected, Islam is antithetical to and incompatible with liberal democracy.

The judiciary, which tends to be of the secular persuasion, will seek the advice of experts, which in this case will be Islamic scholars. Who would know more about Islam and the Qur'an than those who teach its doctrine? When the "expert" witnesses are called to testify, they will vehemently deny that Islam is an imperialistic death cult intent on world domination, and the judge will conclude that the case was initiated by spiteful, bigoted Islamophobes. The scholars will feign deep sorrow and consternation at the unwarranted attack against Islam, and quote the usual beguiling and irrelevant snippets from the Qur'an to verify Islam's tolerance and peaceful nature. They might even parrot the hackneyed canards regarding transliteration; one cannot possibly understand the Qur'an unless one is fluent in Arabic.

Muslims say and do more than enough to verify assertions that Islam is a bellicose, predatory ideology, and the provocation and motivation for their attitudes and behavior are clearly spelled out in the Qur'an. Yet Tony Blair, George Bush, Bill Clinton, and many other influential Western leaders steadfastly ignore Islam's history of bloody conquest and insist that Islamic terrorism, imperialism, and bellicosity are new and aberrant phenomena. They think all that ails the Islamic world can be cured by democracy and muslim immigration to the West. The most obtuse observer of current events would be hard pressed to miss the correlation between muslims and fanatical violence. At what point do Islam's apologists acknowledge the blatant disparities between their defense of Islam and the words and deeds of muslims? How many more "hijackers of Islam" must be exposed before real Islam is revealed?

Few judges have the time or mental stamina to study Islamic canonical texts, although this should be compulsory for not only judges, but everyone at high levels of government in every country with muslim immigrants. The conciliatory nature of liberal intelligentsia, albeit unrealistic and naive, is the prevalent force in Western societies today. These people embrace multiculturalism, cultural Marxism, revisionist history, obscurantism, moral/cultural/religious relativity, principles that make it impossible to acknowledge, much less condemn, evil ideologies such as Islam. Their goal is to impose tolerance and peaceful coexistence between incompatible ethnic, religious, and cultural groups and the indigenous population, and they always favor the "persecuted" minorities over the native majority. I expect this trend to continue until homogenization is so complete that there are no minorities, and that's still a long way off.

Posted by: Susanp at March 13, 2006 12:13 AM

SusanP

Reality bites and cruelly.

You are almost certainly correct in your analysis as it is typifies the refusal of western politicians and judiciary to make a comprehensive stand against islam. No seems very willing to throw the first stone here, Maybe Van Gogh's Syndrome (sudden death) has everyone so terrified that they cling to diminishing unrealistic ethics for a decision.

However, so long as it does not backfire, it is a chink in the armour of dhimmitude and just maybe the islamophiles will start to retreat at last and islam can be recognised for the scourge that it is and treated as such.

Posted by: Zathras at March 13, 2006 1:38 AM

Huh, not so sure censorship is such a good idea. Could you imagine trying something like that with the Bible? There are years of examples of people getting wrapped up in the word of the Lord and then killing people as a result of that variation and distortion on faith which they upheld. The Crusades, the colonization of the United States serve as two reasonable examples of the word of God being twisted so that people kill the stubborn non-believers when they stand in the way of progress or refuse to change their ways. Witch hunts on up to doctor killing pro life nuts also might be of note. So the Bible stands fine grounds for being chucked to the bin as well for being potentially dangerous or subversive literature.
Let me catch my breath here as I put this next thought out.
We are considering banning a book.
That's interesting in and of itself and a rather clear sign that we are behaving like children who don't want to answer the tougher question and want to inevitably postpone it. Taking the book away will only further sever, exasperate and complicate the already spiny matter. It's a little bomb now. Take the book away and the bomb will be bigger when it goes off. That really smacks of a parent slapping the rebellious child's face when clearly the child needs to be listened to and told he's actually pretty smart and even given a hug of support like a brother in the struggle of life. We're actually, and not so secretly fighting the same enemy. Only no-ones pointed out that subtle yet BLATANT truth and our tongues are confused so that the words are twisted: misunderstood, and the dominant (capitalist) society wins yet again.
Why taking the book away won't work.
Duh! it only sweetens the pot.
You're only serving to hide the problem thus allowing it to take a new life on. An underground life which will be even harder to regulate or control.
Prohibition only helped the underworld who made untold millions and by tabooing alcohol, it only became more of a problem once it got let back out of the backroom of open denial.

Taboo never works. It only complicates the matter by openly hiding it. Marketing 101. It is not what is out and open which is most appealing. It is what is revealing and hidden. Taboo = must have and is therefore coveted by those who seek it out.
Look at what happens to any record that uppity folks call into question. 2 live crew went from being moderately successful to being on the tips of everyones tongues and in demand at that many more suburban malls where it took on its second and third life as a major influence on future generations of consumers and producers alike. Ice T's curious side project went on to be even a bigger seller than it's 2.5 to 3 star status could ever have done on its own without the free publicity the attention gave it. He wasn't treading new territory at all with his content except for how the content was delivered; via a black man in delicate times. The impact must have been similar to say, the Sex Pistols frontal assault on the establishment and the Queen only with the painful and gangrenous complications of American life and history making his delivery all the more painful real and direct.
We haven't had any abortion clinics going up stateside lately, but it seems that Christians of a particular variation proclaim they are doing the work of the Lord by taking out the clinic and the doctors who are there. Doctors: A people whose calling is to help and serve others much like a reverend, a preacher, a teacher is called to serve and help the people. We wouldn't dare ban the Bible. You could bet there would be fire and brimstone if that notion were even whispered in the halls of power.
We have recently had certain men who proclaim to be servants of God calling for many reprehensible acts to be committed against our fellow man who also happens to be on an opposing team of God or perhaps just not into the American notion of globalization, just as we've had numerous men of 'faith' screech and crow for death and violence while they are well out of of harms or even realities way.
We also fail to mention that the US led war on Terror has been called a battle of religious proportions and that we would avenge the lives lost that one day when those buildings came tumbling down. The language is the exact same on either side of the fence when it is set out like that. We both are fighting a 'jihad' then i.e. a religious war. Bush has said he is a 'born again' which generally means the faith is gung ho, supercharged and ultimately prone to whimsy, like a teenager.
Christ does speak of being born again yes but he also speaks turning the other cheek and of the plank in our eye which we should use as measure when speaking out against the sawdust in others.
I only thought believers in reincarnation could be born again.
In either, case the words which came from God have been hopelessly and painfully misused, distorted and selfishly applied to serve man and his own means to an end.

This cannot possibly have positive ramifications if we are looking to solve or better, balance the matter.

Posted by: mahotz at March 13, 2006 11:35 AM

Mahotz: Did you read ANY of the above postings concerning the bible and Christians?

John 3:3 (NIV)
In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again."

1 Peter 1:23 (NIV)
For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God.

Just to explain because I don't want to go off topic too much. Born again by the Holy Spirit when one accepts Christ.

The ones calling the war on terror, religious, are the Muslims. Jihad, holy war etc..

I agree with you that the Koran should not be banned all ideas need to be out in the open and the best ones win.

Have you ever considered that there have been over 35 million abortions in this country since Roe? Most of them were not because of medical neccesity. Doctors are supposed to preserve life right?
Sorry everyone for going off topic but I get tired of hearing about the cases of attacks on abortion clinics. The argument is made as some moral equivalency that christians are equally violent. Thousands killed by Jihadist around the world a handfull of abortion attacks by comparison.

Posted by: disciple at March 14, 2006 2:10 AM

It's not the book that shoud go to court but the imams and mullahs.

They are allowed to stand in their mosques and spout vile filth.

islam should be named as NOT a religion, lose all its tax breaks and the mosques should be forfeit and turned into useful things such as public toilets,army barracks,or bus stations.

Posted by: marilyn at March 14, 2006 4:56 AM