Wednesday, January 28, 2009

Can the Koran be compared to Mein Kampf?

Yes, of course it can.

"The Nazi ideology is fully compatible with Islam" Ibn Saud, 1932.

Another interesting historical piece is Simon Wiesenthal's book "Grossmufti, Grossagent der Achse"

By Manfred Gerstenfeld in The Jerusalem Post.

Last week the Amsterdam Court of Appeal ruled that the attorney-general should bring a case against Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders. This leader of the right-wing Freedom Party has made a number of extreme remarks about Islam and Muslims, such as calling the Koran the "Islamic Mein Kampf" and referring to "fascist Islam." The Amsterdam court contends that these and other such statements "affect the dignity of Muslims." The attorney-general's office had previously concluded that these and similar remarks were not punishable.

Wilders was initially shocked by the court's decision, but he may well turn the case into a show trial outlining the threat to Western society from violent and hate-inciting forces in the Muslim world. His lawyers only have to go through websites such as FrontpageMagazine, Jihad Watch and MEMRI to bring overwhelming proof for two central claims.

The first is that there are many radical Muslim authorities, Sunni and Shi'ite, whose incitement to murder and other crimes is similar to that of the Nazis. The same goes for Muslim lay leaders such as Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

The second claim is that these inciters are rarely expelled from Muslim communities, or even strongly contradicted.

Wilders' lawyers may bring evidence of multiple calls for genocide intended to encourage the establishment of Islamic rule over the world as well as fatwas and statements by Muslim religious authorities supporting suicide attacks, or comparing non-believers to animals. All these are usually based on the Koran and hadiths (Islamic religious traditions).

The lawyers could quote Sheikh Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi of Al-Azhar University in Cairo, the highest-ranking cleric in the Sunni world, who has come out in favor of suicide bombings. Tantawi has also called Jews the descendants of apes and pigs. Only the choice of animals differs from Nazi language; they preferred rats and vermin

Sheikh Yousef Al-Qaradhawi, living in Qatar, is a spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood who has approved suicide bombings against Israeli women and children. Despite this, Ahmed Marcouch, a prominent Amsterdam member of the Labor Party, in 2005 asked the municipality for a subsidy to bring Al-Qaradawi to the Netherlands. Leaders of several Dutch Muslim religious bodies did the same. The Amsterdam municipality refused.

DUTCH PUBLIC opinion is divided on the court decision. Fifty percent oppose the trial of the parliamentarian, while 43% are in favor. A similar percentage expects that relations with Muslims will worsen as a result of the case. Theodor Holman, a columnist with the Amsterdam daily Het Parool, writes that he also thinks the Koran is as bad as Mein Kampf.

The court decision has further increased Wilders' popularity. A new poll gives the Freedom Party 20 seats in parliament, as against the nine it currently holds.

Wilders is the only internationally known Dutch politician, and has gained much publicity with his 2008 documentary Fitna, which highlights Islam's radical aspects. Over the past several years, hundreds of death threats have been made against the heavily guarded politician. This is the likely reason for the statement by his lawyer that in the meantime he wants to remain anonymous.

The trial is likely to draw major international attention. The Wall Street Journal wrote that the Dutch are importing Saudi rules, as the court seems to be suggesting that people who blaspheme God can be punished. An international campaign to finance Wilders' defense has already started.

There are Jewish aspects to this case as well. In the past few weeks participants in various anti-Israeli demonstrations in the Netherlands have been shouting anti-Semitic slogans, including "Hamas! Hamas! Jews to the gas!" Several of these demonstrations were organized by major Dutch Muslim organizations, yet the police took little action. Even more important is that Wilders' lawyers are likely to bring at least some proof for his positions from the huge collection of Muslim calls for the extermination of Jews and Israelis. Yet other aspects are what the trial's verdict will mean for speaking about the Bible.

Whatever the outcome, Wilders' notoriety is likely to increase. If he is convicted, many will view him as a martyr, in light of increasing evidence that the greatest threat to humanity - including to moderate and dissident Muslims - indeed comes from the world of Islam. If Wilders is acquitted, many will begin to repeat his statements.

In either case the Amsterdam court may have opened a Pandora's box of a yet-unknown size.

The author has written 14 books, several of which deal with anti-Semitism.

6 comments:

Ted said...

Obama says his "recovery plan will include UNPRECEDENTED measures that will allow the American people to hold [his] administration ACCOUNTABLE" yet Obama refuses to be held ACCOUNTABLE to the same American people for his UNPRECEDENTED refusal to show his actual birth certificate.

. L. Kiner said...

"The Hong Kong Connection" is a legal thriller about a gutsy female attorney who takes on high ranking International officials. It's a taut, rollercoaster of a ride from New York to Palm Beach to Washington D.C. to Hong Kong. The plot is expertly woven, the characters persuasive, and the dialogue snappy and spot on.
www.StrategicBookPublishing.com/TheHongKongConnection.html

akhter said...

Question: Aren't there some verses of the Qur'an that condone "killing the infidel"?

Answer: The Qur'an commands Muslims to stick up for themselves in a defensive battle -- i.e. if an enemy army attacks, then Muslims are to fight against that army until they stop their aggression. All of the verses that speak about fighting/war in the Qur'an are in this context.

There are some specific verses that are very often "snipped" out of context, either by those trying to malign the faith, or by misguided Muslims themselves who wish to justify their aggressive tactics.

For example, one verse (in its snipped version) reads: "slay them wherever you catch them" (Qur'an 2:191). But who is this referring to? Who are "they" that this verse discusses? The preceding and following verses give the correct context:

"Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God loves not transgressors. And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith. But if they cease, God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevails justice and faith in God; but if they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression" (2:190-193).

It is clear from the context that these verses are discussing a defensive war, when a Muslim community is attacked without reason, oppressed and prevented from practicing their faith. In these circumstances, permission is given to fight back -- but even then Muslims are instructed not to transgress limits, and to cease fighting as soon as the attacker gives up. Even in these circumstances, Muslim are only to fight directly against those who are attacking them, not innocent bystanders or non-combatants.

Another similar verse can be found in chapter 9, verse 5 -- which in its snipped, out of context version could read: "fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)." Again, the preceding and following verses give the context.

This verse was revealed during a historical period when the small Muslim community had entered into treaties with neighboring tribes (Jewish, Christian, and pagan). Several of the pagan tribes had violated the terms of their treaty, secretly aiding an enemy attack against the Muslim community. The verse directly before this one instructs the Muslims to continue to honor treaties with anyone who has not since betrayed them, because fulfilling agreements is considered a righteous action. Then the verse continues, that those who have violated the terms of the treaty have declared war, so fight them... (as quoted above).

Directly after this permission to fight, the same verse continues, "but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them... for God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful." The subsequent verses instruct the Muslims to grant asylum to any member of the pagan tribe/army who asks for it, and again reminds that "as long as these stand true to you, stand ye true to them: for God loves the righteous."

Any verse that is quoted out of context misses the whole point of the message of the Qur'an. Nowhere in the Qur'an can be found support for indiscriminate slaughter, the killing of non-combatants, or murder of innocent persons in 'payback' for another people's alleged crimes.

The Islamic teachings on this subject can be summed up in the following verses (Qur'an 60:7-8):

"It may be that God will grant love (and friendship) between you and those whom ye (now) hold as enemies. For God has power (over all things), and God is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

Rolf Krake said...

Akhter, your prozelyting dawa lies have got no place here.

Go tell that to the muslims, make them understand.

We, the none muslims are civilized people and need no such crap as the koran or Mein Kampf.

Islam is evil, murderous, primitive and barbaric, far worse than Nazism.

Anonymous said...

Akhter, there are so many contradictory statements and instructions in the Qur'an. Explicit directives about beheading the enemy, and cutting off opposite hands and feet. Don't tell me thses are just 'snippets'. Defensive or not. The very passages you quote yourself are wide open to interpretation. And neither interpretation is WRONG - Who arbitrates in the end? How are we allowed to construe the term 'oppressors of faith'? All we can go on are the 'excellent model of behaviour' Muhammad, and the ahadith are very clear that he was a merciless warrior. In the market place of Medina, he systematically beheaded the males 'in batches' [sic] of an entire Jewish tribe (the last significant 'opposition' in Medina) after they had SURRENDERED. How can this be construed as anything but a WAR CRIME??
Peace.

akhter said...

Well if there are statements in the Quran of that nature , then let us see them, point them out , lets have them!