Saturday, January 31, 2009

The Koran and Mein Kampf: From Winston Churchill, to Geert Wilders


Public Hero Geert Wilders knows what he is talking about, he is a true Churchill of our day, and the truly brilliant Andrew Bostom is in the same league. Andrew Bostom wrote the following on March 4, 2008

...it is worth recalling (hat tip Daniel Pipes) that Winston Churchill on p. 50 of From War to War, the first part of the first volume of his 6-part Second World War, proclaimed Hitler’s Mein Kampf to be,

“…the new Koran of faith and war: turgid, verbose, shapeless, but pregnant with its message.”

Here is a Parliamentary speech Wilders gave on the subject of the Koran, Islam, and violence this past September (on his birthday), which appears to anticipate the contents of his documentary:

Madam Speaker, allow me, first, to express my sincere thanks to you personally for having planned a debate on Islam on the very day of my birthday [September 6]. I could not have wished for a nicer present!

Madam Speaker, approximately 1400 years ago war was declared on us by an ideology of hate and violence which arose at the time and was proclaimed by a barbarian who called himself the Prophet Mohammed. I am referring to Islam.

Madam Speaker, let me start with the foundation of the Islamic faith, the Koran. The Koran’s core theme is about the duty of all Muslims to fight non-Muslims; an Islamic Mein Kampf, in which fight means war, jihad. The Koran is above all a book of war – a call to butcher non-Muslims (2:191, 3:141, 4:91, 5:3), to roast them (4:56, 69:30-69:32), and to cause bloodbaths amongst them (47:4). Jews are compared to monkeys and pigs (2:65, 5:60, 7:166), while people who believe in Jesus Christ as the Son of God must according to the Koran be fought (9:30 [9:29]). Madam Speaker, the West has no problems with Jews or Christians, but it does have problems with Islam. It is still possible, even today, for Muslims to view the Koran, which they regard as valid for all time, as a licence to kill. And that is exactly what happens. The Koran is worded in such a way that its instructions are addressed to Muslims for eternity, which includes today’s Muslims.This in contrast to texts in the Bible, which is formulated as a number of historical narratives, placing events in a distant past. Let us remind ourselves that it was Muslims, not Jews or Christians, who committed the catastrophic terrorist attacks in New York, Madrid and London; and that it was no coincidence that Theo van Gogh was brutally murdered by a Muslim, Mohammed Bouyeri.Madam Speaker, I acknowledge that there are people who call themselves Muslims and who respect our laws. My party, the Freedom Party, has nothing against such people, of course.However, the Koran does have something against them. For it is stated in the Koran in Sura 2, verse 85, that those believers who do not believe in everything the Koran states will be humiliated and receive the severest punishment; which means that they will roast in Hell. In other words, people who call themselves Muslims but who do not believe, for example, in Sura 9, verse 30 [9:30], which states that Jews and Christians must be fought, or, for example, in Sura 5, verse 38, which states that the hand of a thief must be cut off, such people will be humiliated and roast in Hell.Note that it is not me who is making this up. All this can be found in the Koran. The Koran also states that Muslims who believe in only part of the Koran are in fact apostates, and we know what has to happen to apostates. They have to be killed.

Madam Speaker, the Koran is a book that incites to violence. I remind the House that the distribution of such texts is unlawful according to Article 132 of our Penal Code. In addition, the Koran incites to hatred and calls for murder and mayhem. The distribution of such texts is made punishable by Article 137(e). The Koran is therefore a highly dangerous book; a book which is completely against our legal order and our democratic institutions. In this light, it is an absolute necessity that the Koran be banned for the defence and reinforcement of our civilisation and our constitutional state. I shall propose a second-reading motion to that effect.

Madam Speaker, there is no such thing as “moderate Islam”. As Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan said the other day, and I quote, “There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam and that’s it”. Islam is in pursuit of dominance. It wishes to exact its imperialist agenda by force on a worldwide scale (8:39). This is clear from European history. Fortunately, the first Islamic invasion of Europe was stopped at Poitiers in 732; the second in Vienna in 1683. Madam Speaker, let us ensure that the third Islamic invasion, which is currently in full spate, will be stopped too in spite of its insidious nature and notwithstanding the fact that, in contrast to the 8th and 17th centuries, it has no need for an Islamic army because the scared “dhimmis” in the West, also those in Dutch politics, have left their doors wide open to Islam and Muslims.

Apart from conquest, Madam Speaker, Islam is also bent on installing a totally different form of law and order, namely Sharia law. This makes Islam, apart from a religion for hundreds of millions of Muslims also, and in particular, a political ideology (with political/constitutional/Islamic basic values, etc). Islam is an ideology without any respect for others; not for Christians, not for Jews, not for non‑believers and not for apostates. Islam aims to dominate, subject, kill and wage war.

Madam Speaker, the Islamic incursion must be stopped. Islam is the Trojan Horse in Europe. If we do not stop Islamification now, Eurabia and Netherabia will just be a matter of time. One century ago, there were approximately 50 Muslims in the Netherlands. Today, there are about 1 million Muslims in this country. Where will it end? We are heading for the end of European and Dutch civilisation as we know it.

Where is our Prime Minister in all this? In reply to my questions in the House he said, without batting an eyelid, that there is no question of our country being Islamified. Now, this reply constituted a historical error as soon as it was uttered. Very many Dutch citizens, Madam Speaker, experience the presence of Islam around them. And I can report that they have had enough of burkas, headscarves, the ritual slaughter of animals, so‑called honour revenge, blaring minarets, female circumcision, hymen restoration operations, abuse of homosexuals, Turkish and Arabic on the buses and trains as well as on town hall leaflets, halal meat at grocery shops and department stores, Sharia exams, the Finance Minister’s Sharia mortgages, and the enormous overrepresentation of Muslims in the area of crime, including Moroccan street terrorists.

In spite of all this, Madam Speaker, there is hope. Fortunately. The majority of Dutch citizens have become fully aware of the danger, and regard Islam as a threat to our culture. My party, the Freedom Party, takes those citizens seriously and comes to their defence. Many Dutch citizens are fed up to the back teeth and yearn for action. However, their representatives in The Hague are doing precisely nothing. They are held back by fear, political correctness or simply electoral motives. This is particularly clear in the case of PvdA, the Dutch Labour Party, which is afraid of losing Muslim voters.

The Prime Minister said in Indonesia the other day that Islam does not pose any danger. Minister Donner believes that Sharia law should be capable of being introduced in the Netherlands if the majority want it. Minister Vogelaar babbles about the future Netherlands as a country with a Judeo‑Christian‑Islamic tradition, and that she aims to help Islam take root in Dutch society. In saying this, the Minister shows that she has obviously gone stark raving mad. She is betraying Dutch culture and insulting Dutch citizens. Madam Speaker, my party, the Freedom Party, demands that Minister Vogelaar retract her statement. If the Minister fails to do so, the Freedom Party parliamentary group will withdraw its support for her.

No Islamic tradition must ever be established in the Netherlands: not now and also not in a few centuries’ time.Madam Speaker, let me briefly touch on the government’s response to the WRR [Netherlands Scientific Council for Government Policy] report. On page 12 of its response, the government states that Islam is not contrary to democracy or human rights. All I can say to that is that things can’t get much more idiotic than this.

Madam Speaker, it is a few minutes to twelve. If we go on like this, Islam will herald the end of our Western civilisation as well as Dutch culture.

I would like to round off my first-reading contribution with a personal appeal to the Prime Minister on behalf of a great many Dutch citizens: stop the Islamification of the Netherlands! Mr Balkenende, a historic task rests on your shoulders. Be courageous. Do what many Dutch citizens are screaming out for. Do what the country needs. Stop all immigration from Muslim countries, ban all building of new mosques, close all Islamic schools, ban burkas and the Koran. Expel all criminal Muslims from the country, including those Moroccan street terrorists that drive people mad.

Accept your responsibility! Stop Islamification! Enough is enough, Mr Balkenende. Enough is enough.

9 comments:

WomanHonorThyself said...

hi there..added u to my blogroll..Keep up the good fight!:)

akhter said...

Western civilization and culture and their lies, and misquotes!!!


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.

God does not forbid you, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for God loves those who are just."

Rolf Krake said...

What a primitive barbarism.

Murder, slaying the infidels, barbarism, rape, plunder etc, etc, etc...

The koran is worse than Mein Kampf, and the Mein Kampf is the second most popular book among muslims in the middle east.

Mohamed said...

What does the Koran say about the Torah and Gospel

http://www.conflictingviews.com/religion/all-religions/koran-says-torah-gospel-not-corrupted-3324.html

Rolf Krake said...

Who cares what the quran says about the torah or gospels, it does not proof anything, nor does it change the fact it is a lousy violent book of hatred.

Churchill called Hitlers mein kampf for the new quran - Wilders calls the quran mein kampf.

Both are right about both books - They are inherently EVIL.

Mohamed said...

Why Judaism and Christianity reject Koran

What Koran says about freedom of religion

What Koran says about war and fighting

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message732096/pg1

Coexist said...

After several hours of research on this subject, I can finally be proud of seeing a knowledgeable comment!

I am European and Catholic. I am very interested in religions, all of them. When I saw this documentary, I just could not believe the level of propaganda. Everything was taken out of context and people encouraging this documentary or his author demonstrates a serious lack of knowledge.

Geert Wilders is an ignorant of Islam; he is confusing Islam and extremists. In every single religion you will find extremists, not only in Islam. All those extremists are dangerous may they be Catholics or Jews (to stick to the religions from the Book)...

Robert Lee said...

Read the Torah

Read the old testiment.

Hitler was an amateur compared to King David who systematically exterminated many population groups. It is written in black and white.

Jesus is the ONLY real truth !
Not the blood thirsty torah or koran.

Anonymous said...

Oh please please, none of this out of context nonsense. The Quran, Sunnah and Sirahs of ishaq, Tabari and Kathir claerly reveal that Muhammad killed or mutilated all who spoke out against him and with his deluded booty and sex motivated followers he lied, plotted, tortured, killed, robbed, ransomed and raped his way to total political and religious power. He was no Jesus, Buddha, Confucius or Gandhi.... HE WAS A BARBARIAN. Stuart Parsons