From PJ Media:
Agora translates a news report from the Jyllands-Posten (notorious for the publication of the Mohammed cartoons) about an alliance of grassroots movements who have gone to the German courts to stop the dissemination of the Koran; they claim the Koran is not only religious but also a political book, which is incompatible with the country’s Constitution.
Here’s the important bit from the translated article:
The author of the indictment in Hamburg, Jutta Starke, says that the Quran was reported to the police two or three years ago, but that the report was dismissed on the grounds that it was a book of only historical interest.
“The evenths of the last months have made clear that the Quran isn’t just a historical book, but very much a potent political book, a thing which we document extensively in the indictment,†Jutta Starke says.
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.
“We are grateful to Jyllands-Posten that discussions about Islam have now become possible,†says Jutta Starke.
“You suffer for all of Europe and that’s why we find it indecent that Europe hasn’t loudly, in unison, taken a stand for Freedom of Speech against the laws of the Quran.â€Â
The indictment consists of five pieces of paper and a number of appendices. The indictment says that it is not against Islam’s spiritual message, but against the judicial and political message.
The decisive count of the indictment “is in the Quran’s status vis a vis the Federal Republic of Germany’s constitutionâ€Â. In the appendices to the indictment, 200 points have been listed “where the Quran is against and claims itself above the constitution.â€Â
The Quran has an Answer to Everything
It is pointed out that the Quran to Moslems is the end all, be all in matters of faith, in matters of society and state and in the discourse with people of different views. The Quran says that it is the words of Allah. According to the views of several, including leading, Moslems in Germany, it is literally and absolutely true at all time and in all places, the indictment says.
The newly elected German-born chairman of the Moslem Central Council of German, Ayyub Axel Köhler, is quoted in the indictment:
“A constitution after the principle of the division of powers into the legislative, the executive and the judicial powers, is nowhere to be found in the Islamic theory of the State. From an Islamic viewpoint, this is obvious, since the laws – the laws of God – in the form of sharia, are already made and thus no legislative power is needed, in that sense of the word. Only Allah is the legislative power.â€Â
[My emphases]
Naturally, the implications here are staggering, should this indictment gain traction—and I need to give the claims and counterclaims some more thought—but theocratic documents that claim to override the social contract of the state, insofar as they agitate for the overthrow of existing government order and foundational principles of statehood, could, I suppose, come to be seen as documents that promote sedition and are therefore worthy of censure (the Bible, by way of constrast, has Jesus counseling his followers to render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s—a mandate to draw a distinction between government and religion, though it is not a distinction, as some would hold, that would keep religious people from agitating for change within the constructs of the political system).
As a borderline free-speech absolutist myself, I have obvious [really really really really really really really grave] misgivings about such an attempt to block the dissemination of Islam by banning the text (two things spring immediately to mind: Fahrenheit 451 and Jeff Goldblum’s soundbite chaos theory in Jurassic Park: “nature finds a way”)—not the least of which is that such attempts to suppress the book will only give it more power among true believers.
At the same time, though—and being honest here—it is unlikely that, in the hands of those who are gaining control of the official Islamic narrative (see, for instance, the Danish cartoon controversy and visible Muslim reaction), the book couldn’t have any more power than it already wields. Furthermore, it is less a text as it is a physical manifestation of the word of God. Which is to say, the ban wouldn’t be on speech (in the form of text) so much as it would be on a peculiar form of ontology that approaches the condition of talisman.
Some interesting questions raised here, and I welcome any discussion on the matter. And my only real preliminary thought on the matter is, in order to effect such a strategy, the first thing that has to happen is that the entirety of Islam as “religion” must be defined away, the argument being, as the indictment attempts to lay out, that the Koran is in fact a political manifesto that is actively at war with each non-Muslim state it enters into. And on that basis—because, as it currently interpreted by the most prominent Islamic thinkers, it is (literally) a call to arms against opposing beliefs and violates the pluralistic underpinnings of western liberalism—it can be legitimately censored, just as one is not violating the precepts of free speech by placing restrictions on those who, say, yell “fire” in a crowded movie theater.
I’m not saying I back such an argument. But as a strategic ploy against the spread of radical Islam, it is worth mulling over the pros and cons. And the fallout from such a indictment, shoud it pass, would once again redound to the public’s will to hold fast to the legal ruling.
Which, when we see Yale’s welcoming of a former Taliban official on grounds of multicultural understanding, doesn’t seem quite so promising.
But please. Do discuss…
****
See also, Six Days More.
Well, we are talking about Germany, after all. When’s the last time you saw those guys do something smart? Frederick the Great?
I really don’t think this path leads anywhere we want to go. Banning religous texts is just a bad idea, with large teeth.
I didn’t see this one coming and I have to admit the thought of Germany getting back into the game of choosing acceptable religions, is something that I had hoped to never see in my lifetime.
I don’t really care how they choose to dress it up.
Jeff, you wrote “Fahrenheit 411”. Did you mean 451, or 911?
“The Bible, by way of constrast, has Jesus counseling his followers to render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’sâ€â€a mandate to draw a distinction between governmentâ€Â
WRONG! Not “The Bibleâ€Â, but the (Hellenistic) “New Testament†which makes up less than 5% of the Bible…as for the bulk of Biblical writings = the remaining 95% a.k.a. the “Jewish Scriptures†or the Tanakh, well they’re very similar to the Koran or to the words of leading “mainline†Protestant theologians such as John Calvin in their “wholistic†theo-political approach to politics and society.
Salomon was BOTH King and Prophet, inspiring generations of Hebrew and Arab theocratic “holy warriorsâ€Â, and the 17th Protestant bigots of Switzerland and New England were literally obsessed by the imperatives “God’s Lawâ€Â- they even burned “witches†and other straying heretics!
So it’s not like OBL and his friends invented some kind of “new†religious paradigm…
Give it a rest, Dr. FindsomeblamefortheJooooos.
The vast majority of Jews these days view the old testament as parable. And the “American theocrats” that the left in America seem to worry about so much are those who adhere to the New Testament, and who aren’t in the habit of calling for the forced conversion of Muslims to Christianity by the sword. At least, not for the last 1000 years or so.
And, of course, Christianity has undergone a Reformation and has been folded into liberal democratic societies. So comparing the differing states of the religions is simply silly. Another AHA! moment that relies on strapping on your time machine helmet and traveling back to the Levant or Calvin.
We are talking about today. And we are talking about texts that are CURRENTLY being used as poltical documents that run states.
And no, I’m not discussing this with you any further.
Whether or not the stated goal of the indictmnet—to enjoin dissemination fo the Koran—is ultimately successful, the indictment can nonetheless provide a valuable service.
I do not believe that Islamism wll be defeated unless and until the West decides that the West is worth fighting for. In that regard, the indictment goes hand in hand with the Manifesto Against Islamism that was recently published by Salman Rushdie, Bernard Henri-Levy and other western intellectuals.
One can only hope that the indictment and the manifesto, together, signal a rising determination among the “liberals-as-lapsed-progressives” to teach the virtues of classic liberalism, laud martial virtues, shame apologists and appeasers, and *GASP* question people’s patriotism.
For some reason, my first thought was about when pro wrestling, back in 1989, declared that it was “entertainment”, not “sport”, to keep the New Jersey State Athletic Commission happy.
It just seems like you should be one or the other. Pick one side and run with it.
Anyone who merely has misgivings about the idea of banning the Koran is “a borderline free-speech absolutist” only in the sense that Michael Moore is “a borderline anorexic”.
Dr. VdlV wrote…
“…leading “mainline†Protestant theologians such as John Calvin…”
— Only a deeply confused or ignorant person would ever confuse John Calvin’s theology with that of “mainline” Protestantism.
Dr. VdlV wrote…
WRONG! Not “The Bibleâ€Â, but the (Hellenistic) “New Testamentâ€Â
— So, I guess that Freedom of Speech isn’t a Constitutional right, eh?
Dr. VdlV wrote…
“..as for the bulk of Biblical writings… well they’re very similar to the Koran.. in their ‘wholistic’ theo-political approach to politics and society.”
— Yes, and I’d wager that the “bulk” of U.S. case law concerning slaves acknowledged that people could be chattels. Does that mean that slavery is now legal, or did something happen later to change this?
I don’t expect everyone to be an expert on theology, but it takes some profound biblical illiteracy to fail to comprehend that the coming of Christ fundamentally changed the relationship between believers and the Law in Biblical teaching. See, e.g. John 8:5-7 (“He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.”); Matt 5:17 (“Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfil.”)
It’s appalling, frankly.
Banning a religious book? Yes, I would have to leap on the bandwagon of some who might ask about the Torah or Bible. It’s a ridiculous notion to say the only way to stomp out a idea (or, in this very particular example, an abuse of religious doctrine by a minority of Really Bad leaders) is to ban it from being discussed. I reject that notion entirely.
Jeff, you pointed out the fact that there aren’t many non-muslim theocratic nations jumbling about… and you’re right. I would suggest that there are people who do agitate for America to be a Godly Nation. It’s not just a fantasy of “the left.” They campaign incessantly for a return of Christianity as central tenant of American politics. Sometimes, they succeed in moving the ball a few yards, too. (My point would be to say it’s not lunacy for some people to keep a watchful eye out on the progess those folks make.)
FWIW, the time machine helmet bit was priceless.
One would think Europe would be used to the coming and going of peoples and cultures. After all that is how Europe adquired its caracteristics. Banning a book in and of itself is merely symbolic in its nature. Or the prelude to other more incisive intervention. 1529 was the last time the West (Austrian-Hungarian Empire)pushed back the forward march of Islam. One that was started by the not so peaceful Mahomed and his followers a little less than 1,000 years before. I guess they’re back, just by other means. Answers? Not easy or pretty ones. But it does make for great blogging!
Mojo – Adenauer? Bismarck?
If some mild Danish cartoons were used as an excuse for extremist crap – if this German action holds … the do-do would hit the whirling metal blades big time.
Nela – er…you mean 1688?
Of course, the Bible is banned in Saudi Arabia. They beheaded a guy once for having one, and confiscate them at the border.
Not saying Germany should ban the Koran. But it bears repeating how Medeival the Saudis are.
Hasn’t Germany already started deciding what is – and is not – a religion, when they proposed banning Scientology? The CoS has even failed to qualify as a religion by judicial decision, so Germany has the precedent to restrict official recognition of Islam as a religion, which would make the Qu’ran a political call-to-arms, rather than a religious book.
I’m not saying it’s a good thing, just a thing. I’m not saying I agree with the act, either (Beat, 2, 3, 4…) But I understand it.
TW: The Onanist’s Handbook – 50 ways to love your lever
Romerican wrote:
“I would suggest that there are people who do agitate for America to be a Godly Nation.”
— Sure… but would you care to make a wager on whether conservative Christians or secular liberals have made more headway in erecting legal restrictions on speech in the last 20 years? Campus speech codes? Sexual harassment law?
No one can point me to a country where there exists unfettered freedom of speech. So it seems to me that the question isn’t whether speech is sacrosanct—it isn’t. The question—the really interesting question, once all of the posing is out of the way—is whether the scriptures of Islam meet the qualifications of the type of speech that can/should be banned.
Answering that question will require people to take a look at what the Koran says. Answering that question in court will require someone to either (a) reject complaints about the Koran on grounds that it is divinely inspired and beyond critique; or (b) explain that the Koran really doesn’t say what it says.
That’s a valuable exercise in and of itself. Whether dissemination of the Koran is enjoined is far less important.
I just love the irony of Germans trying to use their courts to ban a book. It will become unbearably delicious when they actually pile them up in the public square and burn them. Especially if someone breakes out singing “Deutchland, Deutchland, Uber Alles.” When Germany reunited I gave them 30 years give or take to start another world war. I just had no idea how envious they were of George W. Bush until I read this story.
Don’t forget Ferdinand the Porsche.
Well, the misgivings are “obvious.” And I would have added grave, but what I’m saying here is that I think a case can be made that “speech” isn’t what is being banned here insofar as the Koran, under certain conditions, might be viewed as something more akin to a physical, living declaration of war against pluralist countries.
At any rate, I was reacting right away. So aim your snark at me if you must, but I’m more interested in discussing the validity of the idea or its potential effectiveness or ineffectiveness of such as a strategy.
Thank you for the correction. I was refering to another battle in which the Ottoman Empire was pushed back by the Austrio-Hungarians. But yes, verifying my sources your date is acurate for the efective defeat of the Ottoman Empire. My sources tell me that the Treaty of Karlowitz which was signed in 1699 was the definitive moment of the decline of the ottoman Empire in Eastern Europe. Western Europe’s “exchanges” with the Moors ended a lot earlier.
It is such a complex issue!
”So comparing the differing states of the religions is simply silly. Another AHA! moment that relies on strapping on your time machine helmet and traveling back to the Levant or Calvinâ€Â
Not bad, not bad monsieur Goldstein…
My point was that misgivings, however obvious, are what the likes of Sen. Feingold might have towards revolting ideas like this one. Real borderline free-speech absolutists react (depending on their level of complacency) with either incredulous laughter or incredulous dismay. When I started reading this post I was leaning towards laughter: what else can you expect from the Germans? The dismay came later.
I think the idea is not to ban the Koran but to limit it’s ability to be used as a basis of law. Which I think in the long run is a good thing. It neuters the imams and anybody trying to bring forth Sharia as law.
I have read the Qur’an and my view is 180 degrees from a ban. I think that everyone should have one and it should be on many required reading lists.
Once you read it, you know that this is a dangerous movement. Knowledge is power.
So is The Communist Manifesto.
Banning accomplishes nothing except to involve a liberal state in gross hypocrisy. Fight the wars–intellectual and military–defeat the enemy, and leave the book alone. It’s not the enemy. Books don’t kill people, people do.
TW: Second time today, but what should I play?
Ardsgaine —
I followed the bit you quoted up with this:
Now, for what it’s worth, I think you’re wrong comparing the Koran and the Communist Manifesto, which was one of the points of my post—and one in which those eager to show off their free speech bona fides seem eager to gloss over in order to preach about about the dangers of censorship. Which I’m perfectly aware of (and even articulate in the post).
Having said that, I am interested in the ontology of the Koran. The Communist Manifesto can be folded into origami, or flushed down a toilet – and its adherents don’t claim that the physical violation of the pages themselves is tantamount to blasphemy and punishable by death. Which suggested to me that we are potentially dealing with a different kind of animal here.
It was on that level I’d hoped to discuss this, but it looks instead like I’ll be peppered with a host of comments teaching me that “banning” of books is bad and hypocritical.
Sorry, but I hardly need that explained. The question was more about whether or not we should place the Koran in the category of “book” or “text” at all (a), and (b) if it is specifically intended to incite violence against non-Muslims, then how far should its protections extend?
But nevermind. Y’all get back to TESTIFYING!
To maximize persuasiveness, I’ve found it’s best to spew the same tendentious crap over and over. This is a technique which few have mastered, but the Ph.D. is purely optional.
Jeff,
I read your entire post. You said you were undecided either way, and invited comments. I made a comment. It wasn’t meant as a slam, or as an attempt to educate you. It was just me registering my position.
As far as your distinction between the Communist Manifesto vs. the Koran as holy icons, I don’t see where that matters. Communists slaughtered 100 million people in the 20th century. Would they have slaughtered more if they had been touchy about how people handled Das Kapital? I dunno. They would have really had to exert themselves to do it. (I’m thinking of an Eddie Izzard skit regarding Hitler’s day planner: “Death, death, death, death… lunch… death, death, death… afternoon tea…”)
More than pointing out that it would be hypocritical of the German state (not you) to ban the book, I was trying to make the point that it’s a waste of time. It’s a silly distraction from what we (the West) ought to be doing, which is waging total war against the Islamic dictatorships of the Middle East. If we were doing that, then banning a stupid book would be superfluous.
Just to be clear, I’m not saying that your post is a silly waste of time, just the campaign to ban the Koran.
To minimize heartburn, I’ve found the best was to deal with those who don’t particularly enjoy my site (but who rather visit to take swats at me) is to escort them out.
I don’t see how you don’t see how the distinction matters. Or how Communists slaughtering 100 million people without the aid of a talismanic holy book means that other cultures don’t rely explicitly on such a thing to justify their murders.
But so be it. I wasn’t responding only to you. And I’m tired of discussing this already. Time to excuse myself, drink some wine, watch a movie, and play with the kid.
Major John – Maybe Bismark, but he couldn’t make it stick against the tide of idiocy.
It’s the Wahhabi/Salafi interpretation of the Koran that’s problematic, isn’t it?. Gosh – if only the bloody-handed maniacs didn’t control Mecca/Medina/The Haj, eh? Duced bother, that.
Freakin’ Faisal screwed eveybody to become “Prince of the Desert Sands and Protector of the Nasty Black Stuff”, or whatever.
Ah, well. Hindsight, 20/20.
and it’s so hard to get a good escort in Denver these days. Freaks and Haries, as the man said.
SB: death
the oracle’s eternal answer
It’s the ideas within the book that justify the murders. The book’s iconic status is incidental, a by-product.
Giving the Koran the same intellectual treatment as Mein Kampf is fully justified. Treating certain Islamic organizations as criminal enterprises is also justified (i.e., the ones doing the inciting). Banning the book, though, is a waste of time. Is it going to keep the book out of Germany? Are they really going to invest time and money into trying to interdict copies of the Koran? Breaking into people’s homes to ransack their bookshelves?
What’s far more likely is that the campaign is going to be shouted down by the Left as being entirely too deja vu, and the anti-Islamist crowd will be tagged with the Nazi-book-burner label. The essential difference between the Islamists now and the Jews in the 1930s will be missed in the hysteria over book banning, and rather than strengthening Germany against the Islamists, it will be one more step on the road to dhimmitude.
Alright.
Sounds like fun. Enjoy.
Sinner said:
Going through my grandfather’s books, my dad found a copy of “Mein Kampf.” It had an interesting forward; the copy was from the late 1930s and claimed to be an unabridged translation (supposedly, German-distributed English versions were sanitized), distributed to show that Hitler was a dangerous nutcase.
There’s definite value in studying your opposition’s source materials for their warped conduct…….
German book banners versus Muslim fundamentalists…
I have no idea what I’m supposed to burn down in protest…
It’s amazing! These people are saying what Haman said, “There is a people in the country who have their own laws, and do not respect even the king’s laws”. If those who believe in the Koran obey the law and consider themselves Germans when they are permitted to be, those who would ban the Koran have very little to stand on.
Because one of the other themes of this holiday is achdus, happy Purim, Jeff.
Also consider that your argument might be extended to ban Torah scrolls, which are more sacred than Torahs in print. In that case the ideas are the same, but the forms are different.
Outlawing the Koran is not a good choice, but this is a remedial point: The same points of banning weapons apply to this potential ideological juggernaut. Or, to paraphrase second amendment aficionados, if you ban Korans, only Islamists will have Korans. And so they can quote whatever Sura they choose, or make them up, without contest.
On the other hand, outlawing the Hadith and Suras as being against the Constitution, a legal distinction and not a bibliographical one, that seems like a powerful case.
But to those whom contend that the War on Terror cannot be fought alone, and solely by military force, fighting the sharia in court and immunizing Western democracy from it, hey, it must start somewhere.
Germany is as good a place as any. I would support any party that preemptively introduced anti-sharia ban in the US. It would be a good thing, a necessary thing.
–“Solomon was both king and prophet”
But Solomon didn’t fight any wars. Solomon’s reign was one of peace. Also, ancient Israel had a strong distinction between kings and priests.
Because Islam has no formal clergy, it is much easier for a political figure and a religious figure to merge.
If that’s what the goal is, then sign me up.
I want to know what Merkel’s stance is on this – as someone who remembers all too well the DDR, she’s got a unique perspective here.
TW = History – Yeah, I hope so, but God knows the last thing Germany needs is encouragement……..
ummm….yah, by all means ban the Qu’ran. that policy worked so well for the Romans.
Because the Romans fought Islam when?
Jeff-
you’re a fair bit smarter than I, so I’m struggling to understand the nature of your question “about whether or not we should place the Koran in the category of “book†or “text†at all”
I mean, I don’t think you honestly believe that the Koran is merely a tool to incite violence against non-muslims (as you have quite throughly argued about the nature of identity politics to empower such perverse interpretations)…so I’m trying to see how you belive the above indictment could possibly be able to distinguish between the Koran as a weapon and the Koran as a religious text?
or is there another value you would like to assign to the Koran that I’m missing?
From approximately 660 to 1453. Just because we call the Eastern Roman Empire “Byzantium” or the “Byzantine Empire” doesn’t take away the fact that they genuinely were the Eastern Roman Empire
The Byzantine Empire fought Islam. They got creamed.
Perhaps the commenter means the Crusades?
Listen, ye. (That’s Biblical for “yo.”)
When I said “the things which are Caesar’s,” I meant no things.
They left my <sarcasm> tags at Nag Hammadi.
If by creamed you mean looted and razed by Crusaders, yeah, you’re right. Goes to show that the Crusades were disastrous to…the Christian world, for all of the muslim moaning to the contrary.
No, it is an interesting question to ask and develop considering Europe’s inconsistency on free-speech issues and freedom in general.
Consider that “Mein Kampf” is banned in Germany. (err, except for the Iranian delegation to the Frankfurt Bookfair.) Well, one could easily construct an argument to ban the Koran under the same flavor of argument.
I think many of the commenters have missed Jeff’s point; Germany may have caught itself in another of Europe’s socialist framework. If aggressive, overtly prejudiced texts that advocate genocide, can be banned under German law, where do they draw the boundaries. So it is a necessary excercise to test the Koran under such rubric, if only for the reductio ad absurdum outcome.
Of course, logic and ration have also been surreptitiously banned in Europe, so I guess they really are up Scheiss Kreek.
I think I see your distinction between the communist manifesto and the Koran. The Koran is not simply an explication of a political ideology or historiography, but an assertion of divine truth. Communists do not attribute their violent acts to Das Kapital but to the political reality as they see it. On the other hand, Muslims attribute their violence to a priori assumptions derived from the Koran which have no basis in material reality.
The blood many Muslims are willing to shed to protect the physical integrity of the Koran might be derived from the Koran itself, but a leap of faith must necessarily be involved in order to adopt the Koran as the word of god, and certain theological interpretations and assumptions are required to produce from this faith an imperative for killing those who desecrate the Koran.
I think this measure has good intentions, but the factors shaping these interpretations and assumptions, such as radical clerics exhortations for violence against the west and the indoctrination of children with anti-western/Semitic beliefs and the glorification of martyrdom, are to me much more dangerous, and if speech is going to be curtailed, this area should be the focus.
I’m reading it as since the religion itself sees it as the physical manifestation of God, and treats it as far more than a text, does it make sense that we continue to do so?
And I’m reading it as a Feingoldesque evasion: if we can find some alternative label for speech we’re interested in banning, we can pretend that the usual arguments against banning speech don’t apply. We’re all for free speech, but we’re merely restricting money|ontology.
Banning anything is such a dirty word for me that I cannot support it. Banning books of any kind would definately be a step backward, away from enlightenment and towards antiquity, for any society.
However, the underlying factor behind this idea needs to be addressed. What we are seeing throughout Europe are more and more (no, not all) Muslims openly rejecting state law. And further more, expecting the state to accept their law.
When you live in a country, you enter into a contract that while you are working, eating and benefitting from that country’s social structure, you agree to live by that country’s law. Muslims are openly saying that the law does not apply to them. And we have seen what this means. They want to beat and oppress women as freely in Denmark as they do in Iran, without reprisal. They want to kill their daughter for dishonoring herself and flirting with a boy. They want to burn down emabassies and openly call for assasinations over a cartoon.
This reaction of banning the Quran is not the right reaction. But some reaction is fair and necessary.
A-J:When I said “the things which are Caesar’s,†I meant no things.
Gee, what with the coins and all, I thought you meant “pay your taxes”! That was good advice in the Roman Empire, by the way. As long as you did that, you could worship whatever you wanted.
SB: but
uh-huh
Jeff,
I would say:
1. That the Koran ought not to be banned, as a matter of public policy…
2. …but that Muslims who accord to the Koran supreme secular authority, and who consider that the proper reaction to speech which they find offensive on religious grounds is violence, have no intrinsic right to print or own or read the book; insofar as we allow them to do so it is out of our own prudence rather than because they have any rights under the fundamental social contract they reject.
3. There is only one fundamental human right, and that is the right to not be the victim of violence or fraud unless you started it. All other rights are implementation details. And if you reject this fundamental human right then you have no claim to protection under the aegis of human rights.
4. The fact that this lawsuit seems to make a great deal of sense under German law shows not that the Koran should be banned, but that the law is bad. German law should be consistent; but that doesn’t mean that the Koran should be banned along with Mein Kampf. It means that neither the Koran nor Mein Kampf should be banned.
Consider the possibility that you were not the target of the aforementioned swats, Jeff.
I am not a lawyer—or play one on TV.
But, “something” has to occur to ensure that Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness aren’t trumped by sharia law.
Could Germany be taking the first step to establishing a legal precedent for the “secular” nature of their society?
I think that the reason something like this is even being posited in the first place has to do with, as you put it, how Islam is being defined and who is defining Islam currently. That being the Islamofascists who’ve grabbed the spotlight from the more peaceful majority of Muslims. These Islamist folks, through waging their war on the infidels, are carrying a literal belief in their written texts that calls for upheval of all societies who don’t obey sharia.
The difference here, is that the people who currently define most every other popular religion in the world have abandoned any similar belief. See, the Old Testament ‘eye for an eye’, etc. Let’s make no mistake that there are very vengeful, powerful, angry punishments in the Bible for any number of transgressions. However, these have been chiseled off of the mainstream belief structures of Judaism and Christianity as the years have gone by.
The danger that resides in the Koran now, is that this certainly militant, easily elitist and totalitarian group of people has gained force (some of it truly religious, some of it more political) in the community in the name of the Koran.
So for the Koran to survive an Farenheit 451-ish fate, it would behoove the Muslim masses to publicly denounce the violent strain of Islamofascism that is threatening to define the culture.
Just my .02
Some Guy —
Well, I tried to suggest that the Koran as it is currently being used by those who are claiming to speak for it is being used in such a way (note the quote from the German Muslim rep), and that such makes it more than simply a religious text.
Further, it’s physical being is not to be violated—which would place it in the category, almost, of a flag. We’ve sponsored flag-burning bans here in the States, so what I’m asking is not too far afield, I don’t think.
The question is, what would the effect be of a nation putting its foot down against those who would presume to introduce such a direct and outspoken threat to its sovereignty and law from within?
The way I see it, you withstand the initial outrage and rioting and insist—implicitly—that some reform is necessary, and that hopefully the moderate Muslims would insist upon such a change (after all, we’re constantly told that the radicals now in control of the Islamic identity don’t speak for the majority of Muslims anyway), or else you insist on the same kind of “prohibition” the Saudis place on the Bible.
This is (for me, at least), a thought exercise. As a strategy to defeat the pernicious strain of Islam, would it work or backfire as a gesture of provocation?
My guess is, multiculturalism as a social organizing force has sapped the west of its will to say that they will not allow current official (Wahabbist) Islamic teachings within their borders.
But is it a violation of free speech to deport imams preaching destruction of the west, and using the Koran to do so? Or to prohibit the use of Wahabbist sermons coming straight from Saudia Arabia in US mosques and Islamic cultural centers?
I don’t know. But it’s worth discussing.
In fact, I think I’ll use this as a post.
I think the thing with the original argument about banning isn’t just about banning a “book”. There are two things at work here. The idea of book as book, and the idea of book as physical manifestation of holiness. There are other more marginal things too, such as book as mode of group identification. As well as book as rationale for murder. And the question that arises in my mind is whether the idea of book as rationale for murder comes from book as book or book as talisman.
Banning book as book is a bad thing, but there are pragmatic reasons it can be stated banning a book is a bad thing. At the forefront of free speech is the idea that a bad idea can be beaten by a good idea. If you discuss an idea enough (think Hegelian dialectic) you will eventually wind up at the truth. This is why banning things the said by the KKK and other hate groups is pointless – when people hear what they have to say, and the arguments against hatred, the arguments against hatred win out. And by proxy, you should not ban a book that contains these words because the same truth finding process occurs when you read a book and mentally process the ideas contained therein.
Now, if you had “thing”, picture perhaps a type of rock, that a group of people were willing to kill people for defiling, dropping on the ground, or overall mistreating, a few options present themselves. You could grant legal protection to the rock and try to steal the thunder of people who would otherwise go vigilante on the rock defilers. You could also ban the rock, because you see no value in the rock, but much value in the human life that would otherwise be lost due to retribution upon rock defilers.
What we have here is something in the middle, or at least something that falls into both categories. You have a western world that understands the value of a book (holder of ideas) and understands that the truth and rationality are likely to win out if given the chance. You also have people valuing a “thing” not because it is a “book” but because it is an “other” that has extra-book value if you will. So the debate is not just about book burning, but whether it is justifiable to rid a society of a thing that causes harm based on people’s protective perception of that thing.
The latter part has been continually upheld by things as mundane as not allowing gang colors to be worn in schools. Blue or red are in no way negative in and of themselves. But when someone wears the color as an indicator that they are part of a group that would cause harm, the color takes on a meaning beyond reflection of light.
Of course the question becomes far thornier when the thing in question is indicative of a religion rather than a color, but no more thorny than the question of religion as a religion vs as a political device.
spartacus, don’t be dense.
you know i meant suppression of any reilgion only encourages it and spreads it.
My problem is not with a book, it is with the adherents of the “religion of peace” who think it is OK to lie to me and to enslave me because I am an infidel. I tend to take these people at their word. Since they were not sincere when they swore allegiance to this country, their citizenship is invalid and they should be deported from whence they came.
Any chance of changing the label on the submit button? It’s annoying me.
The closest to my view is this comment…
“I think that everyone should have one and it should be on many required reading lists. Once you read [the Koran], you know that [Islam] is a dangerous movement. Knowledge is power.”
To ban a book is to miss the target. The solution is to banish people that promote sedition. Once the various nations have cultures purified, for the lack of a better expression, competition between nations will determine the winners and losers. Personally, I think American diversity is a winner.
The bible predicts the overthrow of all goverments by the kingdom of god but doesn’t require it’s adherents to do the fighting. Therefore it doesn’t meet the definition of sedition. The Koran however, teaches it’s adherents to fight and lie in order to overthrow governments. Sounds pretty seditious to me.
I am alledgedly a “Christian”. I will not fight and kill someone to promote my “religion”.
I will, and have …fought and killed those
WHO WOULD ATTACK AND KILL ME! (Mid ‘50’s, does
that give you any clue as to where I may have
been 35 years ago??)
At some dim time, in a “galaxy far away”… I was fighting adherents of a RELIGION. It may have called itself “Communism”, but it was a RELIGION..make no doubt about it!
Now the problem with the SECULAR WORLD is that:
A. They cannot understand “religion”.
B. They cannot realize that they actually subscribe to a “religion”. (I.e., secular/humanism).
The big question is, those whose sight is so blinded by their own stupidity…will it take
the “Bright Light” of a nuclear explosion for them to “gain sight”???
I’m sure most people reading this blog are familiar with Rathshenjani’s statements regarding
“the Jew Disney” and his creating “Tom and Jerry” to elevate the image of Mice, because Jews were refered to as “dirty mice” by the Nazi’s.
Anyone, who actually CAN THINK..and is not a complete ignoramus, knows that Disney:
A. Was not Jewish.
B. Produced MICKEY MOUSE, not “Tom and Jerry” (Warner Brothers/Hana Barbara)
So…consider, this LOONEY TOON wants to have a NUCLEAR WEAPON.
What do you think he will do with one? And HOW LONG BEFORE THE BEFUDDLED of the WEST realize their stupidity???
Good bye California (New York? Washington??)
Joe Papp