can't agree

Submitted by B.williame (Belgium), Jan 8, 2008 at 10:28

Banning the Qu'ran as it currently is because it is there to promote agressiveness by it's followers. As we can't tell people what to believe and as "mein Kampf" has been forbidden in the past, the same logic should be applicable to the Qu'ran.

Therefore, forbidding the book would not only make the book forbidden but would also give a signal, the signal itself is even more important then that the book is forbidden on it's own.

The signal that would be send out by forbidding the book at the same level as Hitlers would be a signal that we don't accept writings that incite in any manner to violence against people. The same signal that was given concerning "mein Kampf" would be more then also good though with a small alteration because of the difference in targets that the literature creates.

Forbidding the Qu'ran might even open some people eyes that it is a book of evil. that itself might be a nice accomplishment as well.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".