Part of the controversy surrounding Geert Wilders is his stated desire to ban the Koran. It seems ironic that a man who so passionately advocates freedom of speech wants to ban a book, even if the book in question is as violent and illiberal as the Koran.
Taken in context, of course, Mr. Wilders’ position is more nuanced. Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler’s diatribe and blueprint for Nazi ascendancy, is banned by law in the Netherlands. Geert Wilders maintains that the Koran is at least as vile and hateful as Mein Kampf, so that in the interests of consistency, it should be banned as well.
But what about arguments in favor of banning the Koran, regardless of whether any other books are banned? Can we justify banning it and still remain a society of fundamental liberties?
In the following essay our French correspondent Robert Marchenoir makes a reasoned case for banning the Koran under all circumstances.
I support banning the Koran
by Robert Marchenoir
Freedom of speech is all right in peaceful times. Not when there is a war going on.
When a war is being waged against your country, propaganda for the enemy is forbidden. It is a condition of victory. We have to come to terms with the fact that war has been foisted upon us. The strategy to oppose it is entirely different from what would apply in normal times.
The first positive effect that would come from banning the Koran — even from campaigning for its banning — would be to force people to examine the motives; to make them realise that, yes, the situation is that threatening.
The other positive effect would be the disproportionate anger and violence that is certain to arise in Muslim circles, if such a possibility was seriously entertained.
Many people think the Koran is just another book, or just another religious text, or just another expression of one’s opinion. It is not. It is a casus belli from the Muslim standpoint, as are any goalposts that Muslims will gladly plant and move forward, in their strategy of conquest of kuffar territory.
– – – – – – – – –
It is essential that we, Westerners, understand that political trick. Many illusions would crumble if faced with the extreme character of the symbolic and actual violence that Muslims would try to inflict on us if we took such a step.
A comparison with Mein Kampf is largely irrelevant. Certainly, if Mein Kampf is banned, as it is in the Netherlands, then it is legitimate to ask, even in a rhetorical way like Geert Wilders, why the Koran is not.
However, Mein Kampf is not a present threat. The Koran is. Indeed, the rational thing for Western governments to do would be to lift the ban on Mein Kampf, for their citizens to see what sort of thinking has lead to a political regime most people now hate and despise, and ban the Koran, in order to prevent the enemy of today from wreaking havoc.
The only problem that would arise from such a situation is that there would be a good chance of Islamists switching to Mein Kampf to further their ideals, as “Heil Hitler!” cries have shown in the recent anti-Israel demonstrations in Europe.
I believe most Western governments have provisions in their laws which forbid propaganda by political movements whose aim is to subvert and overthrow, by violent means, the fundamental constitutional principles on which their countries are built.
The Koran is such a piece of propaganda. It is a political and military book, masquerading under the guise of a religious text. The Trojan Horse quality of such a ruse of war is potentially very effective, given the state of denial Europe is in regarding military conflict and the use of force. It is essential the West fight against it.
The former Swiss counterjihad blogger Alain-Jean Mairet has long argued powerfully for a campaign to ban the Koran, and even Islam. In many Western countries you would be arrested if you flaunted a flag with a swastika in the street. Similarly, there is no reason why you should be allowed to wear a Muslim veil in public, build mosques or disseminate the Koran.
Let’s ban the Koran while we still can.