Comments on: Churchill, Mein Kampf and the Koran

By: Richard Langworth

Richard Langworth — Sat, 27 Apr 2019 13:41:36 +0000

In reply to Peter Trott. On reflection I think you are right, and have modified my post accordingly.

By: Peter Trott

Peter Trott — Fri, 26 Apr 2019 19:43:27 +0000

The reality is that Hitler wanted a much more aggressive model than Christianity to inspire his takeover agenda. This he found in the Koran. The similarities are obvious.

By: Richard Langworth

Richard Langworth — Fri, 13 Jul 2018 11:23:47 +0000

In reply to Daniel Swenson. I had not thought to point that out. Thanks.

By: Daniel Swenson

Daniel Swenson — Fri, 13 Jul 2018 08:19:26 +0000

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.

By: CoreySpenner

CoreySpenner — Tue, 04 Mar 2014 05:13:13 +0000

“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.”

By: Richard M. Langworth

Richard M. Langworth — Thu, 19 Jul 2012 13:39:06 +0000

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. And by the way, it’s LAngworth.

By: Perry Birman

Perry Birman — Thu, 19 Jul 2012 11:03:52 +0000

“…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?

By: Richard M. Langworth

Richard M. Langworth — Fri, 08 Jul 2011 21:33:48 +0000

In reply to Dave of Detroit. "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.

By: Dave of Detroit

Dave of Detroit — Fri, 08 Jul 2011 15:32:27 +0000

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.

By: Richard M. Langworth

Richard M. Langworth — Thu, 20 Jan 2011 14:39:30 +0000

In reply to Reader comment. 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 stated 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 right now. And I beg to register my disapproval.

By: Reader comment

Reader comment — Wed, 19 Jan 2011 22:20:46 +0000

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.