Is the Quran Similar to Mein Kampf?
Friday
BIG THINGS are brewing in the Geert Wilders trial. And it may become a catalyst to a breakthrough in public awareness of the doctrines of Islam. In a recent Wall Street Journal article, Stop The Trial Of Geert Wilders, Leon de Winter wrote:
The Amsterdam court trying the controversial Dutch politician is now preoccupied with the question of whether this book (the Qur'an), sacred to more than a billion believers, can be compared to one of the most vile publications in the history of Western civilization — Hitler's "Mein Kampf."
In his writing and speeches, Mr. Wilders has found these two works to be similar in terms of their anti-Semitism and incitement to hatred, and has thus called for a publishing ban on the Quran similar to the one in place for "Mein Kampf." This is what triggered Mr. Wilders's prosecution for discriminatory and insulting remarks against Muslims and Islam.
The court will have to determine just how similar the two books are! And they will do it on camera.
This trial may be the best thing that has ever happened to the citizen warriors of the world who have been trying to educate our fellow non-Muslims about Islam's relentless encroachment. Geert's trial is going to help bring to light the content of Islamic doctrine to an audience who would normally avoid the knowledge.
Thank you, Pastorius, for bringing this article to my attention.
8 comments:
This is all good, but I lack your confidence. Muslim taqiyya artists will get on the stand, repeat the lie that only properly trained specialists can understand the Quran, and then proceed to lie about everything in the Quran that might make unbelievers suspicious of Muslims and their motives. The court will choose to believe them over Wilders, because "Muslims must know better than anyone what the Quran says and means". The court will then find Wilders guilty.
The End.
That's certainly a possibility, Randian. But I lack your confidence in a dismal outcome because a) the evidence against the Qur'an is strong and b) defeatism and pessimism are damaging to the cause.
Citizen Warrior,
I agree with your outlook on this. Although we must be realists and prepare for the worst case scenerio that he will be convicted regardless of what he, his lawyer or any of us has done, Until the trial is over, its reasonable to hold out hope that, that doesn't happen, plus even if it does, I know the Netherlands is not part of the United States, but can't court cases be appealed there as well?
Besides people are already protesting on behalf of Wilders, and they are already doing so in his home country!
Check this out! They are speaking in Dutch, there are English subtitles.
Dutch protest for Wilders
And here's part 2
Crowd protesting the trial of Geert Wilders 2
Now I wasn't able watch all of either of the videos, but you'll get the idea if you watch just part of either of them.
Well what do you think of it?
I think it's great when people protest because it gets people talking about the issues. And Geert's protest was no exception. Excellent.
Citizen Warrior,
Also it might make the authorities feel a bit uneasy about prosecuting someone like Wilders in the future. The Netherlands is a republic and all those protesters (assuming they are citizens) will be able to vote. The next time that someone like Wilders comes along, maybe some of the his fellow Dutch politicians who wanted to prosecute him, for whatever reason will think twice. If Wilders is convicted, many of the Dutch citizens who were protesting on his behalf will become very angry, especially if he is not given a retrial or immediately pardoned, and the law that called for his prosecution repealed. Now think about what that might mean for the politicians who supported prosecuting Wilders or sat back and did nothing on to stop it. What might the future of their political careers be, if the people who voted for them (directly or indirectly) are really angry at them?
Absolutely, Damien. Those protesters are voters.
And with regard to your comment, "we must be realists," I wanted to add a quote by General Eisenhower — something he said during World War II. Someone asked him what effect it would have had on the Allied cause if the Normandy invasion had failed.
Eisenhower answered, "It would have been very bad, but I never allow my mind to think in that way."
As pointed out in Hallsbury 4th Ed. Vol 18 on “ Foreign Relations Law,” right of freedom of thought, conscience and religion includes freedom, alone or with or in community with others, and in public and private, to manifest religion or belief in worship, teaching, ptactice and observance. In my opinion, the action proposed will deprive a class of persons of their humen rights.
There is an other aspect of the matter. The sacred book of the Holy Quran has been in existence for a number of years with it’s different interpretations and translations. Up to now no one has choosen to challenge the same.
There is no question of forfeiture or banning of the said book on the grounds of disharmony or feelings of enmity or hatred or ill-will different religions and communities. This book is not prejudicial to the maintenance of hormony between different religions, nations and states because of the Holy Quran no bublic tranquility has been disturbed up to now and there is no reason apprehend any likehood of such disturbance in future.
Similarly, in my opinion, it may be said by that petition, the petitioner insult or attempt to insult the Religion of Islam and the religious belief of the Muslims on the Holy Book Quran.
So, I named, Ali MALLHI submit and publish this OPEN LETTER that this Hon’able Court of Amsterdam has no power trail the Holy Quran, nor jurisdiction to pronounce a Judgment on the Holy Quran, the Holy Scripture of the Muslims all over the world, each and every world of which, according to the Islamic belief, is unalterable. Court of mankind cannot sit in judgment on The Quran, The Bible, The Torah, The Pslam, The Geeta, The Granth Sahib, etc……..
From:
Ali MALLHI
Belgium
E-Mail: mallhi12@gmail.com
Ali, the Koran itself deprives people of their human rights. Muhammad deprived people of human rights. But you are using western democratic values - the 'human rights' card - to further prevent Freedom of Speech. You cannot have both human rights and lack of freedom of speech, which includes the criticism of all religious and ideological texts. I am half way through reading the Koran - it is an immature and hateful book from what I have read so far. God gave us all a brain and he expects us to use it. If anyone has a "veil over their hearts", as the Koran purports unbelievers to have, it is the muslims who have the veil, not the non muslims. You read the Koran yet you cannot see the hate, the calls for violence, the anti human rights, and intolerance. It is a text that BADLY needs open criticism and debate.
Post a Comment