"According to Jansen, several sections in the Koran could be used as a 'a license to kill. Whether or not that actually happens depends on peoples' choices.'

.....and the Muslim peoples choices are made clear every day in many parts of the world...their choice is to follow the Qur'an and to deal in death as directed by the words of the Qur'an...

....perhaps Jansen has not seen enough blood and body parts yet.....

Ban the Qur'an....and Ban Muslim Immigration...

Posted by: exsgtbrown at August 11, 2007 9:30 AM

Burning books always turns out badly. In a democratic society, i.e., a society in which sovereignty is firmly vested in The People, it is a good idea to be frequently reminded of the facts that caused our ancestors to sacrifice their children and treasure to provide us with this future that they envisioned. It is good to collectively remember the horrors of war and the details of the failed ideologies that caused such horrors.

Tolerance for those who espouse those ideologies however, is another thing altogether. A civil society cannot long tolerate the presence of those who actively promulgate ideologies of hate and violence, no more than it can tolerate the presence of common murderers, thieves or cannibals. Like cancerous tumours such individuals must be isolated from the body politic and if rehabilitation is not possible, they must be permanently removed, preferably without violence but with violence if necessary.

Posted by: DrMack at August 11, 2007 10:10 AM

'We cannot predict the future, but there are only two options. Either Islam will conquer the West, or the more moderate Islamic forces will find their way into Western society and subdue radical Muslim undercurrents,' he adds.

There's a third option. Separate ourselves from Muslims except in arms-length business relationships involving oil. Outside of buying oil from them and selling them oil-related equipment, which they can't invent themselves, there is absolutely no reason to interact with Muslims at any level.

There's also a fourth option, but I just won't go there.

It just kills me that Europeans, who are so hell-bent on making sure that no other Europeans impose fascism on them, will let Muslims impose fascism on them. Nietzsche wrote in "Beyond Good and Evil" that "Democratic Europe" would be the precondition for the most ruthless tyranny the world had ever seen. He never went on to complete that thought by stating the tyranny would be an Islamic tyranny.

Posted by: venividivici at August 11, 2007 10:23 AM

I like the professor's final words:

"Perhaps we should expel ...those who incite people to violence... from the country. Imprisoning them definitely does not solve anything."

That would be all true believers in militant Islam.

I concur.

Posted by: profitsbeard at August 11, 2007 11:11 AM

"It just kills me that Europeans, who are so hell-bent on making sure that no other Europeans impose fascism on them, will let Muslims impose fascism on them. "

i also find it weird as well. even the european feminist movement and homosexual community are against anyone speaking out against islam. even though these people are the first to suffer under islamic sharia law.

but i've since convinced myself that the european leaders actually want islam to be the majority religion and so turn europe into an islamic superstate. hitler even stated that islam wouldve been a great religion for nazi-ism. muslims are easily led, and brainwashed, ideal citizens for europe.

Posted by: leonthepigfarmer at August 11, 2007 11:28 AM

Ironically, the shift of power and autonomy from the state to the individual, is exactly what characterizes modernity - the very thing that radical Islam so much appears to reject.

This captures the dilemma for the West in general. We believe in the power of the individual to make rational choices, but if those choices are predatory towards other members of society, they are judged criminal. The Koran incites individuals to 'conquer' other members of society with their predatory practice of jihad and da'wa, so it must be judged criminal if Moslems keep forcing their ideology on individuals of any society. To harbor such predatory behavior is to commit social suicide, so the Koran must be isolated from other world literature as a hate book, if it is interpreted by Moslems as a license to kill, or otherwise do harm, whether 'honor killing', or 'death to apostates', or 'fight them until they feel themselves subdued', bodily harm to anyone questioning Islam, or jihad until the whole world belongs to Allah. Such predatory practices cannot be tolerated in a free and egalitarian society of individuals in a modern world.

Jansen doesn't come out and say it, but he is implying that allowing the Koran equal status with the Bible or any other religious texts makes it impervious to criticism, even outright ban. Individuals may read whatever books or texts they wish in a free society, but they may not be allowed to act upon violence and hate contained in those books anymore than child molesters are allowed to practice their sick desires after reading porn. If the Koran cannot be contained within reason by Moslems and their religious authorities from spreading hate and violence it contains, then it must be banned in the same way child pornography is banned. Foremost should be the open criticism of such contents both in media and academia, so we the people can have a more informed understanding of what is contained in this book, especially as it applies to its political aspects of fighting and subduing free individuals, us, the so-called 'infidels'.

Posted by: Battle_of_Tours at August 11, 2007 11:44 AM

"Either Islam will conquer the West, or the more moderate Islamic forces will find their way into Western society and subdue radical Muslim undercurrents."

"More moderate Islamic forces." Thanks, but no thanks. Like asking "moderate Nazis" for help against the ordinary ones.

Imposing an unenforceable ban on this hideous book is not a good idea from either principal or pragmatic reasons. What I would much rather want to see would be court cases establishing that the Qur'an is hate speech, no ifs or buts. And that uttering its venomous language outside a liturgical context would be tantamount to making threats or encouraging violence against non-Muslims. This would send a powerful message that would reverberate across Europe and the US.

Ultimately, however, we will end up with an us-or-them scenario. There is just no other way of putting it. The time for mincing words is long past. Only one thing to do if we want to prevail:

Leave Islam, or leave our countries.

Posted by: anti-uffe at August 11, 2007 12:24 PM

The discussion here suggests that modern secular liberalism represents Western civilization's death wish. The fact that a rotten, pederastic, parasitical, slum-surrounded-by-desert Islamic culture can seriously challenge the West in these days shows that the West is destroying itself. Imagine! A guy representing a so-called "Freedom Party" calling for a ban on a book!

No, the answer is simply to get tough on the Salafists in our midst. Let's put teeth in our immigration laws, and use the death penalty a little more widely. After all, I feel utterly disgraced that my tax dollars go to support such scum as Ramzi Youssef and Charles Manson indefinitely. And, if we start executing Salafists, let's be sure we fill them with pork fat and smear pig fat on their genitalia and faces before we pull the lever. Make sure that their last thoughts are about facing Allah polluted.

Posted by: Kepha at August 11, 2007 12:57 PM

Some excellent comments in this thread by some people who really know something.

My wife and I feel that we, the West, are so far gone that only direct threats such as 9/11 serve to wake us up.

I think that the point of the article in the Daily News was exactly that. Yes, if you take the article at face value, the author is guilty of wishing for the deaths of thousands, but it should be obvious that that is not his point.

The point is that the next one, the next 9/11 is coming, and what invites it?

Our insanity invites it, and our insanity necessitates the sacrifice of thousands, if not more.

And that sacrifice will re-confirm the point of view of mine that resonates with Dhimmi Watch and Jihad Watch : that the West is in mortal danger of succumbing to an authoritarian solution to its drift into materialism and libertinism.

Islam's total (in their minds) subjugation to God is the opposite of our emerging atheism and materialism and its fascistic authoritarianism is the counter to our own left's (ironically authoritarian) anti-authoritarianism.

I maintain that the left is unconsciously attracted to Islam and that many won't wake up until they are imprisoned, in fact, or politically and culturally.

Posted by: ThreadKiller at August 11, 2007 1:57 PM

Thank you for posting this article.

Posted by: Josephine at August 11, 2007 2:17 PM

Hans Jensen believes that publication of the Qur'an should be protected in the West. It is not clear from his quoted remarks whether his position is based upon freedom of conscience as extended to Moslems or freedom of information as extended to non-Moslems.

Both categories are important. What goes on within one's own heart is one's own business. But since any individual's absolute rights end at the tip of his neighbor's nose, his neighbor has every right to know just what may be going through his mind. The Qur'an indeed speaks volumes and with increased exposure, discussion and study will do much to militate the sleeping West against the creeping tide of insinuation and subversion.

Those Moslems still in the West must be afforded the protection of Western laws including freedom of conscience. But threats and intimidation leveled by the Moslem community against the host countries or their citizens must be vigorously prosecuted. The aggressively even-handed enforcement of current laws will do as much as anything to ensure that 1) Sharia does not gain a foothold (e.g. prosecution of cases involving spousal abuse, prosecution of cases involving polygamy, prosecution of cases involving threats against cartoonists, authors, critics, etc.) and by extension 2) it is seen that there is one law serving all and that all are equal before the law.

So let the Qur'an be published. Let the Qur'an be its own spokesman. People are smart. They will get the idea, especially when connecting the dots of obnoxious Moslem behavior to the words written in this "glorious" book.

Slightly OT: this weekend in Mississauga, Ontario (near Toronto) is Muslimfest , a combination outreach da'wa and Moslem-oriented activities. One interesting thing is that activities are labeled as appropriate (or not) for various categories of individuals, e.g. male/female, children/adults, Moslem/non-Moslem. Kind of reminds me of the roadsigns to Mecca.

Posted by: Chatillon at August 11, 2007 2:18 PM

'Lack of knowledge about their own religion makes young muslims vulnernable in the West.'

The same could be said about young NON-muslims...any non-muslims for that matter.

When I went to high school in the 1970's, we learned about Mohammed's hejira, islamic conversion by the sword, works of art destroyed by muslims (St. Sophia in Turkey), the Ottoman Turks, the Crusades (a reaction to islam), the Inquisition (another reaction to islam), closed society of the Saudis, etc. But in those days CAIR was not there to stifle any educational freedom with lawsuits.

Today, it is impossible to discuss the actual basis of islam. Do you know what the quran is based on? The 'retelling" of a Gospel and the Torah to Mohammed by God...the ever-evolving permissable perversions and barbarities that God supposedly allowed his "prophet?"

If a person is indifferent to the religions of Judaism and Christianity, they should be even more so to islam, which is the perversion of Judeo-Christianity.

Posted by: CapitalistGig at August 11, 2007 2:20 PM

Apologies. I posted that comment here about the Daily News article instead of at Jihad Watch.

TK

Posted by: ThreadKiller at August 11, 2007 2:45 PM

Outlaw Islam--not the Kuran (it's Exhibit A as to why Islam SHOULD be banned from being practiced everywhere on earth).

Books (not even the so-called "Glorious Kuran") don't pick up lethal weapons and murder people for asinine 'religious' reasons. Muslims do.

Posted by: pythagoras at August 11, 2007 2:46 PM

I'm so fed up with these Jensen- halfwits throwing their superficial wisdom around like konfetti.

Jensen may know something, but what he says is merely based on wishful thinking. Thats not good enough.

He should shut up or immerse himself in the ideology to understand it fully.

Like Wilders did.

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at August 11, 2007 3:12 PM

"Jansen refers to Egyptian author and Islamist Sayyid Qutb (1906- 1966), whom he calls the 'father of modern Muslim radicalism.'"

Such a pity then that he died the year before the Six Day War.

Posted by: perpster at August 11, 2007 3:28 PM

"Jansen refers to Egyptian author and Islamist Sayyid Qutb (1906- 1966), whom he calls the 'father of modern Muslim radicalism.'"

And Mohammed was the father of ancient Muslim radicalism.

Posted by: Elric66 at August 11, 2007 3:39 PM

Greetings:

The "great scholar" needs to get out of the library and down to the newstand.

The Muslim states aren't leading the jihad because, in Islamic fashion, they can't run and hide and would be crushed.

Banning the Koran might not be effective, but dragging the imams in front of a legislative hearing for some public exposure of the contents of their book might be a worthwhile exercise.

Posted by: 11B40 at August 11, 2007 3:46 PM

I don't like Hans Janse's pessimistic attitude...either the West will be conquored or through massive muslim immigration to the West will somehow lead to a more tolerant Islam. I propose a third option: Europe and America wake up, take pride in our Judeo-Christian roots and actually confront our enemy and SAVE WESTERN CIVILIZATION!

Posted by: irish_infidel at August 11, 2007 3:56 PM

From a posting above:

"...even the european feminist movement and homosexual community are against anyone speaking out against islam. even though these people are the first to suffer under islamic sharia law."

The feminists are .........(fill in your favorite expletive)

The homosexuals find a lot of Muslim homosexuals quite to their liking. The percentage of ME-types with that propensity is somewhere around 35 %.

This is no secret as anyone ever been to the ME can attest.

Could that have something to do with it?

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at August 11, 2007 4:28 PM

Third way: deport all pro-Islamic Muslims, and allow only the Islam critics to remain.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at August 11, 2007 5:17 PM

OT:

Sheik, I hate to say that there may be something in what you say there.

A gay friend of mine recently visited Kuala Lumpur. When I asked him whether he wasn't worried about visiting a country where islam, with its homophobia, dominates, and where there are functioning anti-gay laws. He vaguely agreed but then waxed lyrical about all the admiring glances he got from(presumably gay) Malaysian men.

Naive. Like western women who visit islamic countries, ignoring the fact that women don't have equal rights and proper laws against rape there.

Just enjoy the pleasant locals, the nice climate, the grand architecture. Never mind the fact that you can be tossed in jail without trial for just about anything, including someone slipping drugs into your luggage on the way there...

Westerners need to become far more discerning in their choice of travel locations.

Posted by: Lili at August 11, 2007 6:27 PM

Notice, Jansen says the Koran contains phrases that can be a license to kill, and Jansen says maybe we should expel from the country those who incite people to violence.

What would I deduce from those two suggestions by Jansen? Those who promote the Koran and refuse to publicly disavow the verses of murder and Islamic supremacism should be expelled from the country.

Posted by: traeh at August 11, 2007 9:39 PM

From the "great scholar" Hans Jansen: We cannot predict the future, but there are only two options. Either Islam will conquer the West, or the more moderate Islamic forces will find their way into Western society and subdue radical Muslim undercurrents,' he adds.

Excuse me? There are only 2 options? Both options appear to presume that only Muslims can "conquer" or "subdue". Why is that? Why is this "great scholar" presuming to inform us that the only options are options which permit either Muslims to "conquer" the west or for moderate Muslims to "subdue" other Muslims in the west? How crazy is that? Who said that those are the only 2 options? Where are the options that permit 90% of the western non-Muslim population to "subdue" the Muslims in their midst? Whether by stopping and reversing Muslim immigration into Europe or, if that seems too difficult - then by banning the Koran in Europe?

Yes. Saudi Arabia bans the Bible. I don't see any great public outcry against that fact. So why shouldn't Europe ban the Koran? Because its "illiberal"? Well yes and duh! Of course it's illiberal.

But the fact is that Muslims cannot practice their religion in countries where the Koran is banned. That's simply a fact. And that fact means that Muslims will have to return back to where they can practice their religion. That little caveat is built into their religion. They have to stay in lands where they can freely practice their religion.

But won't that mean that if we prevent them from practicing their religion freely that they will declare jihad against us?

Uh - yes. But they've already done that anyway so someone is going to have to explain to me what we have to lose here, considering that they've already done precisely that!

But won't it threaten our liberal society if we ban the Koran? Won't we become "like them"?

No. The answer is no. Abraham Lincoln already suspended the writ of habeus corpus during the American civil war and the Japanese were rounded up into internment camps and neither move did one bit to make our society less liberal as a consequence. On the contrary - our society has become more and more liberal since both of those radical moves.

So what happens if we outlaw the Koran?

Zero. Nada. We can live without a book that calls for our conversion, subjugation , or death. We'll live fine without it. But Muslims cannot live without it. They cannot live in a society that denies them the Koran. Those are their terms - not ours.

Frankly, I resent this supposed "scholar" informing us that we have zero choices other than either extremist Muslims conquering the west or us relying on the good graces of supposedly "moderate" Muslims to subdue the extremists.

Why does he seem to grant rights to Muslims to conquer and subdue, while denying any options whatsoever to a native European population that still numbers about 90% of the population?

This is one intellectual we can live without. I don't care how much he understands about Islam. When it comes to what really counts - which is providing a moral foundation to resist Islam - he fails utterly. He's just another emasculated, European defeatist. No thanks.

Posted by: Caroline at August 11, 2007 10:19 PM

Caroline-

LOL!

Very good phrase! (And a handy acronym in it.)

EED- Emasculated Euopean Defeatist.

A debilitating condition that nothing Bob Dole promotes will cure.

Most of the men of the Continent seem to have EED.

(Caused by a fear of both EID and IED's?)

Posted by: profitsbeard at August 11, 2007 10:41 PM

profitsbeard - I like the "Euopean". Leaving out the "r" just somehow further drives home the point about emasculation. It's an intuitive thing. :-)

Posted by: Caroline at August 11, 2007 10:51 PM

Re your post, Caroline:

In the U.S., you'll probably agree, banning the Qur'an would likely be impossible unless there is another terror attack at least as bad as 9/11.

In Europe however, they ban speech much more readily, so if they are going to be consistent, they should either a) ban the Qur'an's violent, hateful, supremacist verses, or b) adopt a law like the First Amendment and ban no speech at all (except things like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater where there is no fire).

I agree that the professor is overly limiting European options. But he might reply to both of us that it is not he who is limiting the options, and that he was merely stating the boundaries that he thinks European public opinion and law are likely to remain within. But even then I think he's wrong. A third possibility he leaves out is not so unlikely:

If Islamic law continues to spread and intensify in Europe with the growth of the Islamic population, non-Muslim resistance to Islamic law may grow and become increasingly fierce over the next couple of decades. If European leaders sufficiently acknowledge the need for resistance against the increaingly deepening roots of Islamic law in Europe, then those roots might be pulled up without recourse to the rise of barbaric, extremist or fascist parties. But if European leaders continue in so many ways to block and outlaw the resistance to Islamic law's takeover of Europe, then you could easily see barbaric and extremist parties rising against Islam, and you could see civil wars.

So the professor, however much he has to teach us, perhaps has blinkers on about this particular issue.

Posted by: traeh at August 12, 2007 12:51 AM

traeh-

If the doctor does not control the infection, he or she may have to remove the limb.

The EU is pretending that the Sharia infection is just a scrape.

It is actually a flesh-eating virus. (Sura 9:5.)

How long the Europeans stay in denial will only result in more drastic measures to finally stop the invasion.

The fascism of Islam may invoke an equally brutal counter-fascism to perform the Reconquista of Europe.

It could have all been avoided if the people on the Continent and the U.K. had understood Islam and kept it out of their lands.

Ignorance isn't bliss, it's potentially fatal.

Posted by: profitsbeard at August 12, 2007 1:18 AM

Banning the Qur'an is a bad idea. It should be freely available just as Mein Kampf should be -- we must not be afraid to look on evil and understand that it is evil. That is what JihadWatch is all about. As Spencer says, censorship is no solution to hate speech. A better solution is more, and better, speech.

Our problem is not that the Qur'an, with it's hate-filled calls for violence and imperialism, is available in the west -- it is that it is not available enough: most people, including many "experts" who should know better, are unaware of its contents. My thinking is that some travelling folks of moderate means should take a leaf from the Gideons and start placing cheap English Qur'ans in hotels all over the West. Everytime you stay at a hotel, stick one in the drawer by the Gideon bible.

Don't deface or demean the Qur'an at all, but perhaps it would be wise to leave a one-page insert with it explaining that the "seeker" should consider the alternatives. Include a short guide to the Qur'an, listing some selected verses (Robert, Hugh or Greg would be able to come up with a lovely list) for the travelling reader to become familiar with what Islam teaches regarding the unbelievers. Or, if you are a missionary-minded christian, how about a short page that just sets verses side by side, comparing things like "Love your enemies, and do good to those who abuse you" (bible) and "Make war against the unbelievers until all the world is under Islam" (Qur'an). Just list the references and let the reader do the work, and figure out for themselves where their loyalties lie.

The "insert" idea is a good one if you start noticing Qur'ans placed by Islamists or well-meaning muslims in hotels as dawa, which I imagine is happening in some locations -- carry the insert with you and place it in them when you come across them. Another idea for an insert is a helpful guide for Westerners on what parts of the Qur'an are used by Terrorists to justify their actions. No further explanations, except perhaps a slogan like "forewarned is forearmed."

In any case, give Westerners the benefit of the doubt -- our problem is not that everyone knows what is in the Qur'an and needs to be told how to interpret it -- it is that the message of (hatred and violence in) the Qur'an is plain to all, and people just need to be made aware of what's there. Don't sermonize, just point to the Qur'an and let it speak for itself!

As an afterthought, however, you might add the URL to "Islam 101", "Blogging the Qur'an" or JihadWatch at the bottom with a note "to learn more about the relationship between Islam and terrorism/Islam and the West, see:"

There are some nice sources for cheap Qur'ans, for anyone inclined to take up this project. For example, here is an online Islamic bookstore where you can find a box of 67 paperback copies of Yusuf Ali's translation for $109, about $1.70 per copy. Hand them out to all your friends.

The plus-side to distributing these:
1. They are cheap, small and lightweight
2. Ali is recognized by all as a fairly decent, and historically respectable translation, though not necessarily the best.
3. Whatever you add to these or do with them you are not, strictly speaking, "defiling the Qur'an", for as any muslim worth anything will tell you, these are not the (true) Qur'an since they are not written in Arabic. Nevertheless I would encourage all to handle them with the same basic respect you would reserve for any valuable resource (and they are a valuable resource). Flushing people's holy texts (or "translations - meaning only") down toilets may be some kind of cathartic for those given to doing hateful things, but by doing so you would be (a) reducing yourself to the level of the jihadists you despise; and (b) reinforcing their pathetic insistence that they are being victimized. Don't give them this.
4. Since these Qur'ans are distributed by an Islamic bookstore they cannot be construed as a mischievious counterfeit whose purpose is to discredit Islam -- they are the real thing (albeit translated - meaning only).

On the minus side:
1. You might like another translation better. Or you might know a source from which these can be had cheaper than this.
2. You might not like putting $$$ in the pockets of a bookstore devoted to Islamic Da'wa. I figure, however, that they are likely selling these at a loss, probably underwritten by some Saudi billionaire. Still...
3. These also begin with a brief biography of Mohammed (I haven't seen it; I presume that it is hagiographical. This would argue for a second page of notes providing a few of the missing and more important details of the story. I think a Qur'an free of any embellishment would be a more elegant option.
4. Another option would be for a special edition of one of the classical translations (by a muslim, preferably) to be printed up for this purpose and distributed cheaply. Maybe a red-letter edition: no additions whatsoever except that noteworthy passages are printed in red so they are easier to find.

If people want a nice PDF Qur'an (useful because it is text-searchable) Middle East Web distributes a decent one. The translation seems good, though it appears not to be one of the classics. The additional "features" contain a lot of annoying Islamic spin, but it is useful for understanding their "canonical" take on history.

Posted by: Archimedes2 at August 12, 2007 1:41 AM

Archimedes-

Quicker and cheaper:

-print the most heinous suras only (9:5, 9:29-30; 5:51, 60:9, et al), and make a color paper folded 8 x 11 sheet into a small pamphlet, and distribuite as you suggest.

Entitled: THE KORAN'S DARK SECRETS.

People want to cut to the meat of the matter, and love "secrets".

I try to encourage everyone to read the damned book ("shorter than the New Testament"), but to spread the dread, unpleasant Koran excepts may be our only hope.

Posted by: profitsbeard at August 12, 2007 2:21 AM

profitsbeard:

would you be so kind as to make an emailable KORAN'S DARK SECRETS list for us novices?

i thank you in advance, kind sir.

Posted by: no-ilsam-in-ark at August 12, 2007 3:51 AM

Either Islam will conquer the West, or the more moderate Islamic forces will find their way into Western society and subdue radical Muslim undercurrents."

There is a third option very well known in the Balkans,the part of Europe that was conquered by the Muslims in the past.These days it is called ethnic cleansing but it is an old method.It happened in Spain too earlier.

Posted by: athenian at August 12, 2007 5:12 AM

Archimedes2:
Avoid paying for any Koran. There are free sources subsidized by Muslims, if I'm not mistaken. For example, didn't CAIR used to send out free Korans?

Koran's Dark Secrets sounds good. Or give out copies of The Truth about Muhammad, Founder of the World's Most Intolerant Religion, and copies of the Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam.

In fact maybe we Jihad Watchers should organize a purchase and mailing of copies of Spencer's books to everyone in the U.S. Congress. There must be people visiting this site from every state. Maybe we could keep track of which Congressmen have been sent which books and how many copies. Imagine for example if ten people each sent a copy of The Truth about Muhammad to a particular senator. Imagine what a powerful message that would be. The senator might even read the darn book, having received so many copies from different people. It would be like sending a book length petition.

It would be great if there were some way to organize such an effort so as to keep track of how many copies of what had been sent to whom. One imperfect way to keep track would be to make a website where people could leave a comment that they had sent a copy of such-and-such book to congressman so-and-so. Then someone could periodically report back here at Jihad Watch the totals and at the same time invite people here to mail still more books to more congresspersons. Huge numbers of people visit Jihad Watch.

Maybe I could set the site up...Of course, some people might go there and for whatever reason leave a comment saying they had sent a book when they had not really done so...but maybe people could be asked to leave a copy of the Amazon receipt for the book sent, but with the buyer's name and any other private info deleted...

Posted by: traeh at August 12, 2007 5:40 AM

I'd appreciate any comments to improve the idea I propose above in my post of 5:40 AM

Posted by: traeh at August 12, 2007 5:43 AM

Islam and the Qur'an teach absolute hostility to all the ideals of Western democracy.

Considering Islam and the Qur'an as threats to Western democracy even 20 years ago would have been laughable.
However, our leaders in their wisdom, have invited the advocates of Islam and the Qur'an into our societies.

We can no longer afford the luxury and self indulgence of assuming that all our fellows follow our own way of thinking.

Like it or not, we are at war and there is a very large fifth column living among us who use the teachings and texts of Islam for inspiration and guidance.

Think about that.

Truth might ultimately prevail, but why give the devil an even break?

Posted by: Mike_W at August 12, 2007 5:48 AM

First, I believe there are a number of issues that have not been debated with respect to the intersection of the Koran, Free Speech, and Freedom of Religion.

Kent Greenawalt in the text, "Speech, Crime and the Uses of Language" details the many, many ways in which speech can get you into trouble (that is, lead to a criminal charge). (Take a look at Amazon.com -- look inside the text, and there are 21 categories of speech/communications and crime.)

there have also been U.S. Supreme Court Decisions with respect to "free speech" and "murder manuals." (Check it out).

As a side note -- no one has mentioned this yet, but I do think it's important...i do not appreciate the use of the term "Salafist." The appropriate term is "Wahhabi" or "Wahhabism" -- not "Salafist."

Posted by: J.S. at August 12, 2007 2:40 PM

" Either Islam will conquer the West, or the more moderate Islamic forces will find their way into Western society and subdue radical Muslim undercurrents,"

Could someone, anyone, please provide me with an example of the "more moderate Islamic forces" making any headway whatsoever against "radical Muslim undercurrents."

Of the 1.3 billion Muslims in the world, the miniscule numbers of "moderates" have as much impact as a spit in the ocean.

M.O.T.

Posted by: M.O.T. at August 12, 2007 4:36 PM

The easiest way to measure the level of possibly 'moderate' Moslems, those who are not true believers in the Koranic sense, but merely born into the faith and only pay lip service, or only nominally attend mosque services, are those who willingly accept citizenship. Not knowing what those figures will be, but my guess is that of all elligible adults who qualify for citizenship, only some 30-40% will take it. The others remain loyal to their Ummah. Therefore, only about that percentage, whatever it is, may be considered nominally 'moderate' Moslems, while the rest are potential hostiles. See what is ratio of immigration to citizenship, and you get the idea.

Posted by: Battle_of_Tours at August 12, 2007 6:04 PM

"murder manuals."

Indeed.

I suggest that The Koran is a War Manual, and that Islam is a War Doctrine.

In this, and in other ways, Islam is little different in its supremacist genocidal goals from Nazism and Japanese Racial Imperialism.

Those heinous nightmares were identified, labelled, and called out for the horrors that they were -- and while Mein Kampf isn't banned in the U.S. as it is in many parts of Europe, anyone who wants to use it as a kind of guide is rightly marginalized in the United States. There's no reason the same association shouldn't apply the the vicious tract known as the "Koran".

Often I refer to the "War Doctrine of Islam" or the "War Manual, the Koran". Associating these notions in the minds of more Westerners is essential.

Posted by: jsla at August 12, 2007 8:01 PM

What to do about Islam and the destructive Islamification of your country?

“ The only way to avoid this looming danger is to help Muslims leave Islam. This exodus must begin in large numbers and soon….

Converting to Islam is very much an emotional rather than rational experience. Emotions act on the most primitive part of the brain. They are stronger and supersede the rational mind. …

The key to helping Muslims leave Islam is to deprive them of respect. For a narcissist, the most important thing is the image. Muslims depend on the image of Islam for their self esteem. Having lost their identity and being left with nothing but Islam, they feel respected when Islam is respected and insulted when Islam is insulted. As long as non-Muslims respect Islam, Muslims will continue clinging to it. They will abandon it once the entire humanity denounces Islam an regard it as something evil and dangerous...

In order to help them overcome their savagery, Muslims must be “exorcized” from Islam. To do so, it must be discredited so it loses it appeal. Shame makes them violent, but it eventually will set them free. Therefore the answer to their violence is not to respect their faith but to shame them more. Only intense shame can break their shell and set them free. …”

Read it all at

http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/sina70723.htm .

Posted by: FM at August 12, 2007 11:04 PM

It's been suggested before:

Create bookmarks that say: "Don't Believe the White Wash of Islam. Go to www.jihadwatch.com and learn the truth.

then print out on the bookmark some of the Koran's more odious and horrifying verses.

Go to your local bookstore and slide those anti-Jihadi bookmarks into books by Armstrong, Espositor, and other apologists for Islam. Most importantly, place the bookmarks in the Koran.

Simple, Easy, Cheap and Legal.

Posted by: Ynkedoodl at August 13, 2007 2:29 PM

Postscript to my earlier post: How many Arab-American Muslims are U.S. citizens?

This is an old article at UB, April 2003, http://www.buffalo.edu/reporter/vol34/vol34n20/articles/AbiNader.html , where the speaker, a Lebanese-American, Abi Nader, it says:

The irony, he said, is that more than 60 percent of Arab-Americans are Christian, and 80 percent of Arab-Americans are U.S. citizens.

A quick calculation shows that if 40% of Arab-Americans are Muslims, and 80% of these are U.S. citizens, then the level of U.S. citizenship for Muslim Arab-Americans is only about 32%. This percentage might potentially be your "moderate" Muslims. Where are the other 68%? Who are they loyal to? Their Ummah?

My guess is these numbers are dropping for all Muslims in the U.S.A., not just Arabs, and perhaps in Europe as well, especially for new citizenship as opposed to those born in state. Most in the E.U. may be citizens of their host nation by "colonial decree." The so called "moderates" are evaporating as we speak, as their call to Jihad is heard. Loyalty to whom?

Interesting article, four years later on it all still applies. Muslims are twisted liars now as then. Read it all.

Posted by: Battle_of_Tours at August 13, 2007 10:47 PM