I am not sure a ban will help. Prohibition has only resulted in negative and not intended consequences. That being said: there is much for which the Quran can be critiqued. I found one response from an Amsteram Muslim in the paper: Parool (= Parole = word) < Mohammed was ook geen pedofiel, zoals Geert Wilders altijd zegt? 'Ik begrijp dat Nederlanders denken dat de profeet een pedofiel was. Moslims moeten daar niet boos om zijn. Ze moeten zeggen: u heeft gelijk. Een van zijn vrouwen, Aisha, was minderjarig. Als hij nu zou leven, is dat gewoon pedofilie. De vraag is alleen of het ons verder helpt in de discussie als we het steeds blijven benoemen.'

Wasn't Mohammed a pedophile, as Geert Wilders always says? "I understand that the Dutch think that the Prophet was a pedophile. Muslims should not be angry about that. They must say: you are right. One of his wives, Aisha, was a minor. If he were to live now, it is just pedophilia. The only question is whether it will help us further in the discussion if we keep naming it. '

As towards his solution: it needs to be named because it is still practiced, and encouraged within that religion, and I have not seen any moves towards nailing to the cross by any muslim of muslims who engage in, and/ or condone this type of behaviour.

Unless I see some serious effort from within the muslim community to combat these radical and backward ideas, this point needs to be made time and again. And unless Islam goes through a refining process, that will allow it's shedding of the most egregious parts of it, it has no place in our western enlightened societies.

Certain things are criminal and not to be thought of as negotiable or culturally relative. It eats away at human dignity, human liberty.