To ban Islam is the most natural way to go

Submitted by Alain Jean-Mairet (Switzerland), Jul 19, 2006 at 06:17

As soon as you clearly see what Islamic laws do mean – wars against all people who refuse to bow to Islam, religious hatred and segregation, mutilations and collective murder in public places, systematic slavery – you understand that the thing must be banned. This simple fact is confirmed even by a fully politically correct institution like the European Court of Human Rights (this judgment is also presented and explained, in French, on precaution.ch).

The problem is just political.

For most people, and for many Muslims, too, Islam is a normal religion, that is, a good thing, a guide in life, a way to live according to the will of a good and merciful god. And that is not supposed to be questioned. And if it is questioned nevertheless, most people think that you can interpret the sacred texts at will, and find there the best just as well as the worst.

But the latter isn't true. The best effort ever to interpret Islam's sacred texts was that of jurists, elaborating the Islamic laws (Sharia). They formed several colleges (madhahib) where all members had to know the Koran and most hadiths by heart for discussing them. They debated for a long time, of all possible matters treated in the Islamic scriptures.

They did disagree on many details. But they fully agreed on jihad being a war of conquest, waged against all infidels until Islam reigns supreme. They did agree too on dhimma, being an inferior, humiliating statute for "people of the book", as they wanted to label believers of other monotheist faiths. They did agree on most hudud, punishments for violations of the claims of God (huquq Allah) which is why adultery still can be punished by stoning (collective murder with the help of the public) in Islam. They did agree on slavery being a totally normal statute for servants, concubines, workers of all kinds.

One really can doubt whether it is possible to conclude anything else than what those men agreed upon, in separate colleges, soaked in different basic cultures, without consultation nor hardly any political affinities beyond the belonging to Islam.

But fact is, those laws didn't, don't and won't do. They have to be changed or abandoned. So the question is just how?

Obviously, only Muslims can gather and decide that their sacred laws have changed. They have to be encouraged to do so. That means encouraging the learning and questioning of those laws and their basis, and debating some ways to reform them. Within Islam, it is a religious procedure, as those laws are supposed to be divine. I guess it must be done in Mecca or so. But without Islam, the most natural form of encouraging that process is to forbid Islam as long as its laws will stay "incompatible with the democratic regime" (point 25 of the ECHR judgement).

The mere effort, successful or not, towards the banning of Islam based on those reflections will foster the reconsidering of Islamic laws, will awake Westerners to the danger of Islam at large and will strengthen the position of Muslims reformers, within and without Islam.

That's why, in a nutshell, banning Islam is the way to go. Until it will be reformed.

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".