Mein Kampf and the Koran

Mein Kampf and the Koran

I watched a tele­vi­sion inter­view which men­tioned Churchill’s com­par­ing  Hitler’s Mein Kampf to the Koran. I have searched and searched. Was the reporter telling the truth? (Who  knows these days.) Thank-you for your time. —C.C.

You are refer­ring to  Fox News on Feb­ru­ary 24th, where­in Glenn Beck inter­viewed Geert Wilders, the Dutch law­mak­er fac­ing pos­si­ble jail for anti-Islam­ic remarks:

BECK: I just have to give you this quote and get your thoughts — oh, there are my glass­es. “The fact that in Mohammedan Law, every woman must belong to some man as his absolute prop­er­ty either as a child, a wife, or con­cu­bine, must delay the final extinc­tion of slav­ery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great pow­er among men.”

Pret­ty out­ra­geous stuff.


BECK: You didn’t say that, though.

WILDERS: I didn’t say that, no.

BECK: No. Win­ston Churchill said that.

WILDERS: Yes. And Win­ston Churchill, as a mat­ter of fact, in a book in the ’50s also made a com­par­i­son, like Ori­ana Fal­laci in Italy but also Win­ston Churchill, the com­par­i­son between Mein Kampf and the Koran. One of the rea­sons that I’m being pros­e­cut­ed, I don’t remem­ber Win­ston Churchill who got a Nobel Prize for this book and real­ly would have been pros­e­cut­ed.

Beck was accu­rate in his Churchill quo­ta­tion (“The fact that in Mohammedan law…”). This is from Churchill’s The Riv­er War (Lon­don: Long­mans Green, 2 vols., 1899), II: 248-50, which was delet­ed from the abridged edi­tion pub­lished in 1901 and in print ever since.

On Churchill’s com­par­i­son of Mein Kampf to the Koran, Wilders must have read last week in a review in The Wash­ing­ton Times of my new book, Churchill by Him­self. The review­er was quot­ing from page 55 of Churchill by Him­self, under “Mein Kampf and the Koran”:


All was there—the pro­gramme of Ger­man res­ur­rec­tion, the tech­nique of par­ty pro­pa­gan­da; the plan for com­bat­ing Marx­ism; the con­cept of a Nation­al-Social­ist State; the right­ful posi­tion of Ger­many at the sum­mit ofthe world. Here was the new Koran of faith and war: turgid, ver­bose, shape­less, but preg­nant with its mes­sage.

–Win­ston S. Churchill, The Sec­ond World War, vol. 1, The Gath­er­ing Storm (Lon­don: Cas­sell, 1948), 43.

Wilders had the date wrong (it was 1948, not the 50s), and of course the quote takes on added sig­nif­i­cance in the light of 9/11. How­ev­er, it is impor­tant to dis­tin­guish the con­text: Churchill was refer­ring to Mein Kampf as an arti­cle of faith, like the Koran, but he could as eas­i­ly have said the Bible. He was not say­ing the Koran is an ear­li­er ver­sion of Mein Kampf.

One oth­er point: Churchill received the Nobel Prize for Lit­er­a­ture in 1953 for the total­i­ty of his his­tor­i­cal and bio­graph­i­cal writ­ings, and not for The Sec­ond World War, which was not com­plete­ly pub­lished at the time.

9 thoughts on “Mein Kampf and the Koran

  1. In reply to first reader’s com­ment, 19 Jan­u­ary 2011, “your women” implies own­er­ship and adding “com­mit­ted helpers” implies sub­mis­sive servi­tude. So, the writer’s own “defense of Islam” shows that Islam encour­ages own­er­ship of women, slav­ery and sub­mis­sion.

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

    He seems to be imply­ing that MK is a text of faith and war, which is how he seems to per­ceive the Koran. Remem­ber he also said “Far from being mori­bund, Mohammedanism is a mil­i­tant and pros­e­ly­tiz­ing faith. It has already spread through­out Cen­tral Africa, rais­ing fear­less war­riors at every step.”

  3. Speak­ing of obfus­ca­tion, it’s not clear what your point is. Per­haps you should re-read what I wrote.

    Geert Wilders was using Churchill to equate the Koran with Mein Kampf. Whether Wilders was right is irrel­e­vant. Churchill nev­er said that. He did not equate Mus­lims with Nazis. He said M.K. was a book of faith. The Koran, Bible and Torah are all books of faith. And by the way, it’s LAng­worth.

  4. “…but he could as eas­ily have said the Bible.”

    But Churchill did not say Bible or Torah and he DID say the Koran. Per­haps he meant to be a lit­tle bit “polit­i­cal­ly cor­rect”, less direct. Churchill was a jour­nal­ist and a mas­ter com­mu­ni­ca­tor. He knew exact­ly what he was say­ing.

    The ques­tion is: Why are you, Mr. Long­worth, try­ing to obfus­cate? Are you per­haps a bit uncom­fort­able with the truth?

  5. “Arti­cles of faith” have been used to sup­port vio­lence since there were Arti­cles. Vio­lence in the name of Chris­tian­i­ty peaked 1300-1400 years after the found­ing of the reli­gion, iron­i­cal­ly the same age as Islam is today. It’s not what is writ­ten, it’s the use peo­ple make of it. In this respect Churchill’s com­par­i­son was apt.

  6. Mein Kampf pas­sages sup­port world con­quest through vio­lence — the Nazi mas­ter race will con­trol all, one way or anoth­er. Koran pas­sages sup­port world con­quest through vio­lence. Bible pas­sages do not sup­port world con­quest through vio­lence. The ancient Jew­ish nation had a nation­al bor­der and lived with­in it — no one was forced to live there. So-called Chris­tians in the past have used vio­lence, but they could not find Bible pas­sages that would sup­port that vio­lence.

  7. Hold on there. The pur­pose of my post is to cor­rect var­i­ous mis­state­ments made about Churchill by Glenn Beck and Geert Wilders, not to state my opin­ion. (It was Wilders who mis­rep­re­sent­ed Churchill’s com­par­i­son with Mein Kampf.) But if you’re ask­ing my opin­ion, it is that by “Mohammedan law” Churchill was refer­ring to what he saw among Mohammedans where he was at the time, and remem­ber, he was writ­ing in 1898. How­ev­er, I also have eyes to observe, for exam­ple, how woman are treat­ed in cer­tain places in 2011. And I beg to reg­is­ter my dis­ap­proval.

  8. Hel­lo. First of all, there is noth­ing like “Mohammedan Law” in the uni­verse. The laws that are giv­en in Koran are the laws of the cre­ator, Allah.

    Sec­ond­ly, Win­ston Churchill’s say­ing is absolute­ly wrong. There is noth­ing like “every woman must belong to some man as his absolute prop­er­ty either as a child, a wife, or con­cu­bine” in the Koran. The truth is Islam has always encour­aged the extinc­tion of slav­ery and pro­tect­ed to laws of women. Let me give you an exam­ple.

    In his final ser­mon, the last prophet said, “Do treat your women well and be kind to them for they are your part­ners and com­mit­ted helpers.”

    Please do more research on Islam if you want to learn its immense vision of life.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

RML Books

Richard Langworth’s Most Popular Books & eBooks