Roman Around

combating liberalism and other childish notions

THE QURAN ON TRIAL?

Posted by Andrew Roman on January 27, 2010

The subtitle to this unassuming little blog is “Combating Liberalism and Other Childish Notions.” I word it this way because I am of the mind that anything that is constituted to erode liberty, assail rugged individualism, increase government intrusion into the lives of its citizenry and attempt to legislate against the thoughts of its people must be fought. At the same time, any macro policy that is devised based on fanciful premises and emotion – the very foundation of modern liberalism – is, by definition, childish, and almost always ineffective. 

Hence, the subtitle. 

However, a more apropos subtitle might be “Exposing Liberalism For The Childish Notion It Is,” or “Dropping The Drawers Of Liberalism For The World To See” or “Aren’t Libs Dopey?” – although that last one might be a tad too Bill O’Riley. 

In yet another example of how lefties are loathe to progress past the initial “Don’t It Feel Good” stage of policy creation to what the great Thomas Sowell calls second-stage thinking (i.e., asking “what happens next”), the case against Geert Wilders in Holland exemplifies perfectly why modern liberalism doesn’t work when it comes to a very specific group of people – namely, those who are alive. 

Mr. Wilders is on trial in Amsterdam for offensive and prejudiced remarks against Islam. He is, in effect, on trial for Islamophobia. But the case, already absurd in that it is, on its surface, attempting to legislate what one man can legally hate, is evolving into a trial against the Quran itself – and that is not what the ever-tolerant, always open-minded, everyone-join-hands-and-say-howdy leftists had in mind. 

The never-ending lefty push for utopia looks to be backfiring in a profound way. 

Leon De Winter, in a Wall Street Journal article, writes: 

The Amsterdam court trying the controversial Dutch politician is now preoccupied with the question of whether this book (the Quran), 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.”  

What could possibly go wrong? 

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 Dutch politician, though, denies having insulted Muslims. He insists his focus is on radical Islam and the Quran, which he considers to be not only a religious text but also a political pamphlet encouraging Muslims to discriminate against and, if necessary, kill Jews, Christians, apostates and other unbelievers. That’s why Mr. Wilders claims the right to criticize and condemn Islam. 

Following complaints brought by mostly Muslim and radical leftist activists, Amsterdam’s district attorney in 2008 at first found no legal basis for prosecuting Mr. Wilders. Prosecutors were forced to change course only after an activist appeals court last year ordered Mr. Wilders’s prosecution—basically condemning the politician before any trial could even begin and before Mr. Wilders had a chance to defend himself. The court’s unusual intervention illustrates the Dutch confusion about the conflict between two essential rights: the right to free speech and the right to protection from discrimination. 

This is really quite a story – an important one. 

What looms on the horizon is a genuine, bona fide, first-class outbreak of hostilities between the nation of Holland and the Muslim world. 

Why? 

Because Wilders’ legal team is calling on an impressive slate of expert witnesses to testify in this witless trial – including openly anti-Semitic, radical Islamists. 

It’s a brilliant move by the defense. 

After all, if a man is being put on trial for comparing Adolf Hitler’s “Mein Kampf” to the Quran, it must now be determined whether or not there is any truth in what he is alleging. The question, therefore, is: Is it unreasonable to comment on and compare the anti-Semitism of the two books? 

That means, with the help of expert testimony from such radical Islamists as Mohammed Bouyeri (Theo van Gogh’s killer), and well-known anti-Semite Ayatollah Mesbah Yazdi, the Quran itself must take the stand. 

Is this really the type of thing that should be pursued in a court of law in a modern, civilized society? 

Mr. De Winter says that regardless of the trial’s outcome, Mr. Wilder’s will find himself in a good position: 

According to polls, Mr. Wilders’s Freedom Party, a libertarian-conservative movement with populist tendencies, is currently the most popular political party in the Netherlands. If elections were held today, Mr. Wilders would be a serious contender for the position of prime minister. Mr. Wilders’s detractors are mistaken if they think a conviction would hurt him politically.  

The trial is a win-win situation for him: If the court rules to restrict Mr. Wilders’s right to free speech, many Dutchmen will interpret this as an effort by the politically correct establishment to limit the growing strength of the Freedom Party, which would widen its appeal to many voters. If, on the other hand, the prosecution fails to prove that Mr. Wilders has purposely insulted Muslims because of their religion, Mr. Wilders’s views will be seen as vindicated. Again, he will gain politically. 

The irony is … Muslim groups were not among those who brought Wilders to trial. 

Wilders is being charged with Group Insult of Muslims, Fomenting to Hate and Discrimination Against Muslims Because of their Religion, Fomenting to Hate and Discrimination Against Non-Western Foreigners and/or Moroccans Because of their Race, and Incitement to Hatred Against Moroccans and Non-Western Immigrants

So, will radical Islamists in the Netherlands now be charged with similar charges when they spew anti-Semitic rhetoric? Or when the spout off with anti-Western sentiments? Or anti-Christian?

Why wasn’t Wilders also charged with Fomenting to Hate and Discrimination Against Haters of other Non-Aryan Races and Populations? (i.e., Naziphobia) 

The very notion that a man in a modern European country can be tried for his dislike, disapproval, or hatred of any given religion is downright frightening. 

wordpress statistics 

Advertisements

2 Responses to “THE QURAN ON TRIAL?”

  1. Ali Mallhi said

    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

  2. Ali Mallhi said

    AN OPEN LETTER
    (The Holy Quran In Trial) TO,
    COURT OF AMSTERDAM
    &
    Geert Wilders—Petitioner

    According to the Islamic belief the Holy Quran is a Divine Book. It contains the words of God Almighty revealede at His last Prophet Muhammad. The verses of the Holy Quran were revealed on the happiness of particular events and its each and every vers has a connention of its own and on different and seprate background.
    It is stated that that as the Holy Quran is the words of God and the Laws of God for humen-beings , no earthly power can sit upon judgment on it and no Court of Law has jurisdiction to adjudicate it.The Holy Books like the Quran, Bible, Torah, Psalm and even Geeta and Granth Sahib ete……., or their translations cannot be the subject-matters of adjudication in any Court of law. All Holy Scriptures are immune from Judicial Secrutiny.
    In accordance with the Encyclopedia Britannica at page 444 and 445, the Holy Quran is a basic text. This cannot be made justiciable in any Court of Law. The challenge of the Petitioner amounts to not only an insult to the Muslim Religion as such but against all other Religions also.
    The Holy Quran is the sacred scripture of religion of Islam. It is the book in the Arabic language containing about 80,000 words. It is coposed of 114 chapters (surahs) of varying size. The first chapter, entitled “The Opening” is the form of a short devotional prayer ; it is constantly so used,ceremonially and otherwise, and by copmarativists has been called “ The Lord’s Prayer of the Muslims”. It is addressed to God. The remainder of the Holy Quran is in the form of an address from God; He either speaking Himself, sometimes in the first person,or else through the imperative UL, “Say” which introduces many verses and passages and some surahs, ordering that the words that follow be proclaimed. The subject matter is varied; passages of one or several verses, or of an entire surah, deal in diverse ways with many topics. It speaks about Oneness and Omniscience and Supreme Majesty of God. The style at time fiery, is powerful, the general tone deeply moralist and theocentric; the whole reverberates with a passionate demand for obedience to the will of a transcendent but near and mightly active God.
    In the faith of Muslims, and according to the theory propounded in the book itself, the Holy Quran is revealed word of God. This postulates God, and indeeded the kind of God who has something to say to us and who takes the initiative in saying it.Religion in this view is not a human searching after God; it is God who acts, is known because and insofar as, and only as, He chooses to disclose Himself.
    In the Muslim view, God created the Universe; ordaining it’s processes and controlling them. He prescribed a pattern or order, which must obey. For man also, He obtained a pattern of behaviour, but unlike the rest of the Natural World, man was made conscious and free, to choose weather or not he will confirm to God’s decrees. There is for mankind a right way to live; these are the Holy Books that seek to make this know.
    For Muslims, the Holy Quran is the ‘ ipsissima verba’ of God himself. It is God speaking to man not merely in 7th century, Arabia to Muhammad but from all eternity to every man through-out the world including the individual Muslim as he reads it or devoutly holds it. It is eternal breaking through into time, the unknowable disclosed, the transcendent entering history and remaining here, available to mortals to handle and to appropriate, the divine become apparent. To memorise it, as many Muslims have ceremonially done, and perhaps even to quote from it, as every muslim does daily in his formal prayers and otherwise, is to enter into some sorts of communion with ultimate reality.
    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

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: