Only two ways to stop islamaphobia:

1.: hide the truth (Armaggeddon)

2.: reveal the truth (and islam will change or disappear)

Posted by: dgene at May 25, 2007 11:20 AM

Excellent Article! It should be run on the front page of every newspaper in America.

Posted by: alexon at May 25, 2007 11:24 AM

Actually, I rescind my earlier comment. This is not America's dialogue. This is what needs to be going on inside Islam, inside the mosques, among Muslims. All well and good to read it in the Wall Street Journal, but is that really the best place for Muslims to engage with this urgently necessary viewpoint? Probably not.

Posted by: alexon at May 25, 2007 11:28 AM

Islam will never change....

Posted by: exsgtbrown at May 25, 2007 11:35 AM

Tawfik Hamid speaks truth to power , good points with a well written article. This man will probalby need protection or at least be careful as the islamist will wish to sience him, and killing would be their choice. l wish good luck to this Esmid, but be careful.

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at May 25, 2007 11:36 AM

It is one thing for Mr. Spencer to expose, educate and correctly call into debate the necessary issues of jihad, Islam and those hiding in it, but Mr. Hamid is and the Journal are pure stupidity in equating this as some disease and holistic medicine will cure it.

Mr. Hamid is calling for a complete change in what Islam is. That means the weaklings who cling to it will not have their protective invectives to hide in to look down on others and give them self esteem.

That in turn means they will turn to other things to hide in like Nazism which slaughters people in the millions or Communism which slaughters people in the tens of millions to find a home for their long lost souls.

Mr. Hamid might as well tell Robert Spencer he has to stop being who he is as it bothers Muslims and then that would cure all. Mr. Spencer is not going to stop bringing Truth out as it drives his core principles and no Muslim is going to stop being a Muslim as it drives their core being of fear.

There is no such thing as islamophobia. There is only fearful people hiding in Islam terrified they are being exposed and will have to stand on their hind legs and make adults of themselves. The phobia is in Muslims and not in those who practice their lives as individuals in the epic struggle of life and enjoying the success and failure as they grow as humans.

Posted by: Lame Cherry at May 25, 2007 11:37 AM

i hope this guy has a nice 'safe house' to hide out in for... ever.

i'm sure some concerned members of CAIR are issuing a fatwa against him, as we speak.

Posted by: SueNC at May 25, 2007 11:43 AM

Islam is either in its birthpangs or death throes.

Moving toward a rational re-interpretation of a "peaceful" Koran (An Enlightenment) or toward an openly homicidal and genocidal Death Cult (traditional Islam).

Either way, its wild thrashings are killing us infidels.

Let Muslims return home to Islamic lands and sort out their murderous schisms on their own.

The infidel world was doing just fine without them.

We can get back to curing diseases, exploring the solar system, and inventing new technologies and artforms.

While they cut one another's heads off over maniacal arguments about the exact meanings of a 7th century pedophile's claims to prophethood.

That way, we can watch from a safe distance, and wish their more reasonable members well.

Having them fight it out among us clearly isn't working.

Posted by: profitsbeard at May 25, 2007 11:46 AM

Great article. The truth is that Muslims would be about as feared as Mormons if they would stop the deception, the intimidation, the violence to people who don't believe what they believe. Right now, Islam is what it is and anyone who sees reality is an "Islamaphobe".

Posted by: Frank at May 25, 2007 11:49 AM

Noble points but how is he going to do that?

Muslims would argue from their texts that

1. Islam supports Polygamy (Muhammad was Polygamous)
2. The Hadith supports the killing of Apostates
3. The Quran supports the beating of women (that is the traditional interpretation)
4. Islam condones slavery of non-Muslims
5. That womens testimony is 1/2 that of a mans

I agree with this mans aims but I dont see how they can be achieved. To do so means opposing the Quran, Hadth and Sira. And no Muslim cleric is ever going to agree to that.

Posted by: UK Infidel Lover at May 25, 2007 11:49 AM

Every such comment, by someone who continues to call himself a Muslim, makes it that much more dififuclt, not only for the usual suspects at CAIR and their many admirers and supporters, but for the mustafa-akyols, khaled-abou-el-fadls, and all the others who merely pretend, as they pocket the Carnegie Foundation and U.S. government grants, to be "reforming" Islam but without clearly stating the case that the Infidels of this world have, justifiably, against Islam.

Tawfuk Hamid, even though he cannot go all the way, the way of Wafa Sultan and Ibn Warraq and Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Ali Sina, nonetheless ratchets up the level of what will now be demanded, at a minimum, from those who claim to be "moderates" and "reformers." And that from the viewpoint of alarmed Infidels, is a good thing.

Posted by: Hugh at May 25, 2007 11:50 AM

Bravo Mr. Hamid. Like others I worry for his safety, but if there is to ever be any reformation of Islam it has to come from within. Excellent article

Posted by: kelisw at May 25, 2007 11:59 AM

Bravo, Tawfik Hamid, Bravo.

You are a brave individual who is not afraid to embrace the truth.

"Actually, I rescind my earlier comment. This is not America's dialogue. This is what needs to be going on inside Islam, inside the mosques, among Muslims. All well and good to read it in the Wall Street Journal, but is that really the best place for Muslims to engage with this urgently necessary viewpoint? Probably not." -alexon

I agree to a certain point, but I also have no problem with America serving as a springboard forum for this sort of discussion. I would take it a step further and say that, yes, this sort of article should get more attention from every newspaper in the country, if for no other reason to heighten the attention of the average American to what we are up against...

"Mr. Hamid is calling for a complete change in what Islam is. "- posted by Lame Cherry...

Which is exactly what Martin Luther did, no? Ok, so it is not the greatest comparison...the differences in the scriptures driving the ideology, and whatnot... I get that... but in essence, Luther sparked a change in what Christianity was, based upon what was being practiced at the time, regardless of what the scriptures said.... but people like this, calling for a complete change for what Islam is, like this individual, give a platform to those Muslims who might feel this way, and otherwise have no organizing principal to act upon it.

More of this, and less of blowing up music shoppes in Pakistan, please!

Posted by: ThinkForYourself at May 25, 2007 12:03 PM

Another excercise in futility.

The radicals have the scriptures on their side and the Koran is 'immutable'- We have to separate from our illusions. But yes, of course, Tawfuk Hamid makes it all that much more difficult for us because he makes believe there is hope for change, for 'reform'...

We, on the other hand, have our own wakademics, surrender monkeys, Al Reuters and guys like Clive Church:

“Swiss reputation for tolerance under threat”“There’s no doubt that the attack on the minarets is part of a larger picture of Islamophobia,” said Church, who said the backlash — if the ban became law — could be comparable to a storm of protest last year caused by cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad first published in Denmark.”

There you have it again:

“Islamophobia”- that thrumped up BS word that Wackademics and Islamo-fascist propagandists just love to death. “Backlash, neo-nazi’s, racism, Islamophobia”- its all there. Church is your arch-typical, defeatist surrender monkey.

Al Reuters makes sure your news is well cooked.

http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSL2513935820070525?feedType=RSS&rpc=22

http://sheikyermami.com/2007/05/25/great-synagogue-in-geneva-destroyed-by-fire/

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at May 25, 2007 12:08 PM

I would love to see this man have a larger forum to promote reform. Perhaps a website where donations can be made. He needs to be heard, somehow!

Posted by: smalltalk at May 25, 2007 12:19 PM

For years now, I have listened to the same things being said. (Immediately after 9/11 this began -- I recall one Californian "imam" -- a convert -- make very similar proposals.) The irony, of course, is that these views are always eagerly adopted by the Infidels, and met with mute (or "let us ignore him") attitudes in the Muslim community. Once again -- tell these Muslims who want to "reform" Islam to speak to CAIR people, not Infidels. (sorry if I sound so sceptical -- but, really, I have heard this over and over and over again -- yet, the killing in the name of Islam continues, unabated.)

Posted by: J.S. at May 25, 2007 12:19 PM

Bravo Mr. Tamid. But as we are all ‘Abrahamists’ and all theoretically follow the same God, wouldn’t it just be easier to reject a belief system whose core consists of the following ‘tone’:

2:10 Disbelievers are diseased.
2:99 Disbelievers are evil people.
2:104 For disbelievers is a painful doom.
2:171 Disbelievers are deaf, dumb, and blind.
3:28 Let not the believers take disbelievers for their friends in preference of believers.
3:73 Don't believe anyone who is not a Muslim.
3:48 Don't be friends with non-Muslims. They all hate you and want to ruin you.
4:89 Have no unbelieving friends. Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them.
4:63 Oppose those who refuse to follow Muhammad.
4:101The disbelievers are an open enemy to you.
4:144 Do not choose disbelievers as friends.
5:51 Don't take Jews or Christians for friends. If you do, then Allah will consider you to be one of them.
5:51 Jews and Christians are losers.
5:60 Allah turned unbelievers into apes and swine.
5:59 Jews and Christians are evil people.
5:57 Don't choose Jews, Christians, or disbelievers as guardians.
6:106 Stay away from disbelievers.
8:55 The worst beasts in Allah's sight are the disbelievers.
9:5 Slay the disbelievers wherever you find them.
9:28 Disbelievers are unclean.
9:30 Christians and Jews are perverts. Allah himself fights against them.

I wish Mr. Tamid luck and am glad that his insights showed up in the Wall Street Journal. But his life insurance premiums just jumped.

Islam is a brilliant system, which self-purifies in the absence of a crushing dictator. The real answer is to recognize that Islam is a pattern of racketeering activity, and deal with those who choose to retain their allegiance through the RICO statutes.

Posted by: pez at May 25, 2007 12:19 PM

Of course doesn't doing this pretty much abrogate most of the Koran?

Might as well ask Muslims to give up their religion (which of course would be a good thing).

I don't think thats going to happen. So my proposal is this - ban Islam in the US.

See my proposal posted on-line here: http://pedestrianinfidel.blogspot.com/2007/02/proposed-constitutional-amendment.html

Here is the text:

A Proposed Constitutional Amendment
Background and justification to Amendment 28

Whereas Religion is defined as an institution dedicated to improving social conscience and promoting individual and societal spiritual growth in a way that is harmless to others not participating in or practicing the same;

Whereas the United States of America was founded on the ideals of individual rights, including the individual right to practice one’s religion of choice, or no religion, and that there would be no compulsion of religion, nor state sanctioned religion, nor a “religious test” for participation in the body politic;

Whereas Islam includes a complete political and social structure, encompassed by its religious law, Sharia, that supersedes any civil law and that Islam mandates that no secular or democratic institutions are to be superior to Islamic law;

Whereas Islam preaches that it and it alone is the true religion and that Islam will dominate the world and supplant all other religions and democratic institutions;

Whereas Saudi Arabia, the spiritual home of Islam does not permit the practice of any other religion on its soil and even “moderate” Muslims states such as Turkey and Malaysia actively suppress other religions;

Whereas Islam includes as its basic tenet the spread of the faith by any and all means necessary, including violent conquest of non-believers, and demands of its followers that they implement violent jihad (holy war) against those un-willing to convert or submit to Islam, including by deception and subversion of existing institutions;

Whereas on 9/11/2001 19 Muslim hijackers acting in the name of Islam killed 3,000 Americans, and numerous other acts of terrorism have been directed at the American people around the world;

Whereas representatives of Islam around the world including Osama Bin Laden (architect of 9/11), the government of Iran including Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, HAMAS, Hezbollah, and other Islamic groups have declared jihad (war) on America, and regularly declare that America should cease to exist;

Whereas there is no organized Islamic opposition to violent proponents of Islam;

Therefore: Islam is not a religion, but a political ideology more akin to Fascism and totally in opposition to the ideals of freedom as described in the United States Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights.

Be it resolved that the following Amendment to the Constitution be adopted:

Article I

The social/political/ideological system known around the world as Islam is not recognized in the United States as a religion.

The practice of Islam is therefore not protected under the 1st Amendment as to freedom of religion and speech.

Article II

As representatives of Islam around the world have declared war, and committed acts of war, against the United States and its democratic allies around the world, Islam is hereby declared an enemy of the United States and its practice within the United States is now prohibited.

Article III

Immediately upon passage of this Amendment all Mosques, schools and Muslim places of worship and religious training are to be closed, converted to other uses, or destroyed. Proceeds from sales of such properties may be distributed to congregations of said places but full disclosure of all proceeds shall be made to an appropriate agency as determined by Congress. No compensation is to be offered by Federal or State agencies for losses on such properties however Federal funding is to be available for the demolishing of said structures if other disposition cannot be made.

The preaching of Islam in Mosques, Schools, and other venues is prohibited. The subject of Islam may be taught in a post high school academic environment provided that instruction include discussion of Islam’s history of violence, conquest, and its ongoing war on democratic and other non-Islamic values.

The preaching or advocating of Islamic ideals of world domination, destruction of America and democratic institutions, jihad against Judaism, Christianity and other religions, and advocating the implementation of Sharia law shall in all cases be punishable by fines, imprisonment, deportation, and death as prescribed by Congress. Violent expressions of these and other Muslim goals, or the material support of those both in the United States and around the world who seek to advance these Islamic goals shall be punishable by death.

Muslims will be denied the opportunity to immigrate to the United States.

Article IV

Nothing in this amendment shall be construed as authorizing the discrimination against, of violence upon, nor repudiation of the individual rights of those Americans professing to be Muslim. The individual right of conscience is sacrosanct and the practice of Islam within the privacy of home and self is strictly protected to the extent that such individuals do not violate the prohibitions described in Article III.

Posted by: robscottw at May 25, 2007 12:33 PM

It won't work, but it might be worth trying, it could very well attract some sensible Muslims to it. You might even have a branch of Islam called "reformed Islam", as with "reformed Judiasm"

I think Mr. Hamid should add one more thing to his list which might go further than any of the others in reforming Islam:

Islam should drop the teaching that the Jewish and Christian scriptures are corrupted versions of God's revelations. A Muslim should be told that it is okay to view the new and old testaments as God's words and should be revered, read and studied along with their own scriptures.

Muslims desperately need an alternative to what they are reading today. Without it, there's little hope Islam will ever change.

Posted by: rational at May 25, 2007 12:53 PM

"Muslims should--must--develop strategies to rescue our religion by combating the tyranny of Salafi Islam and its dreadful consequences."
-Hamid, from the article

So Hamid, still a card-carrying member of the Islamic party, is suggesting that the Salafi Islam movement is the problem? He suggests that the Salafi push to return to the practice of ancient Islam during Muhammad's time is a bad thing, but still maintains his Islamic identity?

There was truth to nearly every thing he has said, but to suggest that Islam is under seige from a new threat, one that is simply the original threat as intended by Muhammad, is peculiar.

Posted by: awake at May 25, 2007 12:53 PM

With regards to Islam: "if you fix it, you break it-" Wafa Sultan.

The biggest problem I see with Mr. Hamid's very strong essy is that the Kuran is officially held by Islamic institutions worldwide to be the direct pipeline from al-lah (and always has been). Supposedly, nothing written in the Kuran is negotiable. Either the Kuran is obeyed or the person is automatically an "unbeliever."

And by such line of reasoning (by Islamic standards) this would imply that well-intentioned persons are forced to accept Islamic doctrine from the Kuran such as it is (if one is to accept it at all) anyway-- despite their perception of shortcomings contained in it.

If the Kuran isn't a direct pipeline from al-lah, then I would like to submit the question what IS it??? And why are billions of human beings enslaved to its teachings if it turns out not to be 'al-lah's' teachings to humanity verbatim?

Islam can't have it both ways. Either the Kuran is al-lah's commands to mankind as it claims, or else it is just a book, and if it really s merely a book (of which the chances are astronomically high that this is in fact the case), then it is IMPERATIVE Muslims cease their reign of terror immediately. If they do not (and won't, we can be certain of that), then the remainder of the world has a moral imperative to put a stop to this homicidal nightmare known as Islam(by whatever amount of force is necessary to do the job).

I doubt that even people of Mr. Hamid's intelletual calibre can overcome this inherent problem with the Kuran. Wafa Sultan saw this problem and I agree with her.

Muslims truthfully (as we all know) have absolutely no right at all to be committing homicides of persons they consider "unbelievers" because they cannot verify any of the claims by which they use to justify committing these homicides. Muslims do not even know if the people they are killing are "unbelievers" because they cannot verify their source (the Kuran). Believing something to be the case does NOT actually mean that it is so all it really means is that they believe it.

I concluded years ago the Kuran is window dressing-- what it looks like to me in fact is pseudo-religious scriptures designed to both conceal Islam's true identity as well as provide the basis for militarization and geographic expansion of the much older blood rites from the Mesopotamian region from which Islam originates. (Islam's moon-god is the same one worshiped by the Mesopotamians over three thousand years ago).

Posted by: pythagoras at May 25, 2007 1:18 PM

How to stop islamiphobia, okay. Here's another recipe from Canada, called "unite with terrorists":

Dhimmitude from Ottawa Citizen

Some quotes:

Canada’s antiwar movement has recently been the subject of much discussion in the national press. At issue is the participation of Canadian delegates in an international peace conference in Cairo, and the relationship between progressives and Muslims in Canada.
[...]
Some commentators have condemned the conference because groups such as Hezbollah, Hamas and Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood sent representatives.
[...]
Whether we like it or not, these groups are legitimate forces in the Middle East with millions of supporters.
[...]
It’s because of Islamophobia. Sadly, this has been an effective tool for both the right and the left to create divisions within the movement. That’s why antiwar activists have worked to build bridges between Muslims and non-Muslims in Canada, and between activists in the West and ordinary people in the Arab world. This is the true spirit of the Cairo Conference and what motivates the international antiwar movement: the faith that, when people of different backgrounds and experiences seek common ground, we can lay the groundwork for a world of peace and justice for everyone.

Posted by: vn at May 25, 2007 1:22 PM

I'm sorry, but with all due respect, you can't turn a sow's ear into a silk purse.

200 years of Jewish reformation have left the Umma ("Am-Yisrael") intact. The reformists and conservatives scurry around holding on to their culture's apron strings, while the Orthodox true believers change NOT ONE WHIT.

We're talking about "good Jews" and "bad Jews." How many times have I heard Orthodox Rabbis tell me that the secular Jews are WORSE, FAR WORSE, than the Goyim! At least the Goyim have an excuse: They were not born Jews! But a Jew eating a cheeseburger at McDonalds! It's an outrage.

And what the hell can the cultural Jew, the Jew for identification purposes only say?

He can't say squat. Why?

Because if the Orthodox are wrong, then he is wrong too. You can't have it both ways.

Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at May 25, 2007 1:23 PM

robscottw:

Excellent work! Getting Islam out of the USA will save millions of innocent lives, I have no doubts whatever! Our prayers may have been answered!

There is to my mind an even easier way still to outlaw Islam. Call on Islam's teaching of first degree murder to outlaw it under US law.

Take, for example this Kuranic passage: "And when the forbidden months have ended slay the infidels everywhera they are found; besiege them, capture them, torture them, prepare every stratagem of warfare against them; levy the tax upon their conversion to the ways of al-lah."
This Kuranic teaching includes: sedition, first degree murder, conspiracy to commit murder -- cart blanche.

Under US law ALL of the crimes I mentioned in this passage in the Kuran are serious; two are capital crimes! Since theyse comprise integral parts of the Islamic 'religion', Islam can NOT be practiced in America legally (but mysteriously somehow is).

One has to wonder, how and why was Islam EVER permitted to be practiced in America? Why didn't someone try to stop it before this?

The legal case to outlaw Islam in America in my estimate is overwhelming.

I am not Islamopphobic. I abhor violent crime and Islam is at its core (under US statutes) violent crime!

ps- the other part of the battle will be deporting the millions of practitioners of Islam from US soil which is another sticking point we will have to deal with. (Maybe you can post on that problem later).

Posted by: pythagoras at May 25, 2007 1:35 PM

okay -

Apart from the jihad,
the subjugation of the infidels,
the subordination of women,
polygamy,
concubinage,
slavery,
stoning,
flogging,
the suppression of free speech and free enquiry,
the absence of art, sculpture, literature and music,
the prohibition on wine,
the poverty,
stagnation and cruelty, what is wrong with Islam?

Posted by: Interested at March 1, 2006 11:07 AM

Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at May 25, 2007 1:40 PM

..this will not reduce your islamophobia..
"Breaching America: War refugees or threats?

Web Posted: 05/20/2007 12:51 AM CDT

Todd Bensman
San Antonio Express-News

First part of a four-part series
..excerpt:
"U.S.-bound illicit travel from Islamic countries, which started long before 9-11 and includes some reputed terrorists, has gained momentum and worried counterterrorism officials as smugglers exploit 2 million Iraq war refugees. The irony is that the war America started to make itself safer has forced more people regarded as security threats toward its borders."

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/metro/stories/MYSA052007.01A.SIA_Main_PartOne.359e190.html

..meanwhile U.s. senate voted down proposal to "allow government authorities to question someone about immigration status if they had probable cause to suspect the person was in the U.S. illegally.."..(associated press)

Posted by: Madduck at May 25, 2007 1:40 PM

To Pythagorus,

You can't outlaw Islmas violent teachings because it is the exercise of "religious freedom".

Ergo, you have to declare Islam to not be a religion. It pretty obviously is not. It is a thinly disguised excuse for the violent subjugation of women, the violent conquest of other peoples, and the brutal implementation of tyrannical rule.

As long as Islam is protected in the US as a "religion" we can never criminalize the actions of its "relgious scholars", imams, or individuals who preach violent jihad. Can't do it until we pass this amendment.

Posted by: robscottw at May 25, 2007 1:52 PM

robscottw:

Brilliant.

Pythagoras, commenting on robscottw's posting:

Ditto.

Posted by: commonsense at May 25, 2007 1:52 PM

Ynkedoodle2 says "200 years of Jewish reformation have left the Umma ("Am-Yisrael") intact. The reformists and conservatives scurry around holding on to their culture's apron strings, while the Orthodox true believers change NOT ONE WHIT.

We're talking about "good Jews" and "bad Jews." How many times have I heard Orthodox Rabbis tell me that the secular Jews are WORSE, FAR WORSE, than the Goyim! At least the Goyim have an excuse: They were not born Jews! But a Jew eating a cheeseburger at McDonalds! It's an outrage.

And what the hell can the cultural Jew, the Jew for identification purposes only say?

He can't say squat. Why?

Because if the Orthodox are wrong, then he is wrong too. You can't have it both ways."

Let me try to explain things very simply for the simpleton. Jews, including "Orthodox true believers", do not believe that the rest of the world must follow Judaism even in the Messianic era; do not wage wars of conquest against other religions; do not perform clitorectomies; do not keep women imprisoned in their homes; do invent clever agricultural, medical and computer technology; do advocate the need for one day of rest per week; do oppose human sacrifice; do support an end to slavery; do accept the establishment of another religion's headquarters (Baha'i) within the Jewish holy land, as well as the pilgrimage of non-Jews to Judaism's holiest city - and don't fly hijacked commercial airliners into office buildings or commit suicide bombings! Do you get it now?

Posted by: Surak at May 25, 2007 2:08 PM

Tawfik Hamid said

Muslims [must] cease using the charge of "Islamophobia" as a tool to intimidate and blackmail those who ... rightly criticize current Islamic practices and preachings. Instead, Muslims must engage in honest and humble introspection.

Okay, a Muslim is telling the infidels that Islamic violence is wrong. That's something. He is telling us that it is okay for us to criticise Islamic violence.

But it's not a Muslim telling the jihadists that Islamic violence is wrong.

We need to hear this message, but not nearly as much as Muslims do.

Muslims should--must--develop strategies to rescue our religion by combating the tyranny of Salafi Islam and its dreadful consequences.

Inter-Islamic squabbling alert! Not all jihadists are part of the small minority of Salafists. Anyone know Hamid's denomination? Is this a Shi'ia complaining about "radical" Sunnis, when in fact they both share the same core Islamic values and goals?

Posted by: special_guest at May 25, 2007 2:09 PM

As we are all (well, except a few posters) engaged in a mostly intellectual conflict with Islam, it suits best to boil things down to the essentials on which we can all agree. I find this statement from Pez to be very concise:

...recognize that Islam is a pattern of racketeering activity...

There is really no need to pass laws against Islam. They won't work. The days of squelching ideas with force are long over in the west, and hopefully fading everywhere else. Merely criticizing Islam openly and persistently, and convincing as many people as possible of the merits of such criticism, is worth its weight in gold. This is why I disagree with attacking anyone who is willing to question Islam's vulgar aspects. Just because someone is not totally correct about their criticism does not mean it is not of use.

I learned something about becoming Orthodox (Jewish) from an ex-girlfriend. Apparently the Rabbis do not get all enthusiastic and encourage people to become highly observant all at once, but rather slow them down as much as possible. That way, the reason, the change will "take" as opposed to being just a fad. The newly observant will have time to question, doubt and decide for themselves.

So must it be with Muslims, but in the other direction. If a Muslim wants to begin the long and painful process of deprogramming, it seems to me best to let them come at it at their own speed. Many Muslims who see the negative aspects of Islam and Muhammad cannot be expected to drop the whole thing at once, or maybe even ever. Let them have their five pillars, their monotheism. Just make sure the most glaringly evil parts get exposed and criticized and things will get better, slowly. Islam will be with us for a long, long time. The damage has been done over 1350 years but the healing has only begun and will take generations.

Posted by: Quijybo at May 25, 2007 2:09 PM

Robscott, Pythagoras... sorry, it won't work. It does not matter if Islam is a religion or not.

You cannot arrest or expel someone who is a Muslim just because the ideology may incite to first degree murder. Millions upon millions of Muslims live their live never having murdered anyone. It just doesn't work that way... unless you want to start indicting the innocent.

Furthermore, this is America. We have Communists, we have Nazis. NeoNazis, we have KKK, we have Black Panthers, and many other extremist groups here, who politically are on the fringe, and in some cases down right despicable.

Please tell me how Islam is any different, and why we should make an attempt to get rid of the followers of Islam and not all these other groups.

It just doesn't add up...

Posted by: ThinkForYourself at May 25, 2007 2:10 PM

The very first sentence of the article begins with:

To bring an end to Islamophobia...

Sorry. Busted. As a phobia is an irrational fear, Islamophobia is a bogus concept and the article, well-intentioned though it may be, is flawed from the start.

Let's be honest. What 'mainstream' books could Islamic authorities possibly provide that would refute both Qur'an/Sunnah and the opininons of the traditional schools of Islamic jurisprudence?

And who, in authentic Muslim nations, would not believe the introduction of such books to be absolute blasphemy?

Our 'good friends' in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan?

A pipedream, I'm afraid.

Posted by: PRCS at May 25, 2007 2:13 PM

robscottw said

I don't think thats going to happen. So my proposal is this - ban Islam in the US.

That is the best posting I've read in a long while. You take a "radical" position, and then take the time to explain it's necessity.

Remove all the solutions that will not work, and what are we left with? The correct one, that will work.

Posted by: special_guest at May 25, 2007 2:17 PM

o/t.. San Antonio express article states that it is easy($$$)
to aquire visas from consulates of countries such as guatemala, venezuela, equador, Peru and Columbia located in mideast countries such as Jordan..

Posted by: Madduck at May 25, 2007 2:18 PM

ThinkForYourself said

We have Communists, we have Nazis. NeoNazis, we have KKK, we have Black Panthers

One difference is that our government and media did not actively try to convince us that the NeoNazis or KKK or Communists were peaceful and noble, and that if we criticise KKK violence, we are KKKophobes. Our President didn't invite the leader of the Nazis into the Rose Garden and kiss him on the cheek.

At least they need to stop trying to convince us that 2 + 2 = 5.

Posted by: special_guest at May 25, 2007 2:26 PM

memo to Thinkforyourself:

How much of my post DID you actually read?

My argument is not at all the same as Robscott's.

First degree murder is a capital crime in the US. Conspiracy to commit first degree murder is also a capital crime in the US. And so is being an accessory to committing murder. Teaching either constitutes the crime of sedition and is punishable with jail time in the US. Islam perpetrates all of these crimes which comprise integral "religious" doctrine in Islam. (They come WITH this 'religion'). Therefore, Islam under US law constitutes criminal activity. The US government itself is acting criminally by allowing it to stay here and endanger millions of citizens' lives.

Religious rights in the USA are NOT absolute and never have been. Many religions ARE outlawed here. Do you think for instance the law here would permit satanists to chop a human sacrificial victim in half? Peyote ceremonies are against the law. And do you suppose Aztec heart-excising would meet with legal approval?

You think I am naive no doubt. But in fact your self-aowed savinness has blinded you to the reality here that there are strong legal and Constitutional grounds (as in Islam's "cruel and unusual punishments" including beheadings, amputations, stonings, whippings and beatings) for outlawing Islam.

If you maintain Islam can't be outlawed in America, remember what doubting observers derisively told the Wright Brothers: "If man were meant to fly, he'd have wings."

Posted by: pythagoras at May 25, 2007 2:33 PM

Thinkforyourself,

Sorry, yours doesn't "add-up".

Under current law we can prosecute people for incitement to violence or murder.

Guess what? Can't do that to Imams preaching in the Mosques now can we? Oh no, can't interfere with "religious freedom"!

But we do that to the black panthers, Nazis', or anyone else that incites people to violence, just not Muslims.

My proposal doesn't allow for the arrest, deportation, OR ANY THING ELSE, to any American Muslim as long as they don't incite others to violence, support violent jihad, or attempt to destroy American democratic institutions.

I don't have to live with an intolerant "religion" just because THEY claim it is their religion. Allowing "religious" freedom for any dangerous cult that wants to kill me is not a good way for a free society to stay alive very long.

Posted by: robscottw at May 25, 2007 2:33 PM

@Surak the Simpleton

Ani kvar qrati et kol zeh b'ivrit.

atah schmuck!

Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at May 25, 2007 3:06 PM

I will believe it when I see it. I only bet on things I know that I will win - and I bet that nothing changes. Maybe a few people might change - but overall, nothing will change what is going on around this world with muslims murdering non-muslims, and with them lying about what islam is all about. And those few who might change - they will have to have guards, or go into hiding, because for them - nothing will change either - they will be 'dead apostate walking'.

Posted by: R_not at May 25, 2007 3:06 PM

memoto robscottw:

I maintain not only that Islam CAN be outlawed but Muslims can be (and actually absolutely MUST be ) deported. We are not dealing with dolphin-safe tuna mislabeling practices or faulty vacuum cleaners being sold here.

Islam teaches (by dint of Kuranic verse) that Muslims possess the right to attack and kill "unbelievers" (which many, many Muslims genuinely believe). No limits are set on this and no weapons are prohibited. And that of course means that nuclear weapons are permissible. And wouldn't you just know that Ousamah bin Looney Tunes has called for a Hiroshima in America. We could witness the end of our civilization in front of our eyes. Forever.

It is clear, that Islam poses a "clear and present danger" to the American people. That is probably enough to successfully pull off the extraordinary legal wrangling that would be needed to get Muslims out of here after we succeed in outlawing Islam.

The US Constitution is NOT a suicude pact. We are NOT bound in any way to leave ideological enemies at large on our soil determined to wipe us out, as some folks apparently think we are.

Posted by: pythagoras at May 25, 2007 3:07 PM

translation for the non-Hebrew readers

Surak's a schmuck. My post went right over his head!

Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at May 25, 2007 3:07 PM

"You cannot arrest or expel someone who is a Muslim just because the ideology may incite to first degree murder..."
-- from a posting above

Don't be idiotic. Countries, and citizens of free countries, are quite capable of deciding to do whatever in their own judgment will rid them of an intolerable security threat. Wars in the modern world cannot always finely distinguish the real enemy from those who may be part of the support system of that enemy. Look at the firebombings of Tokyo and Dresden.

And it is far more tolerable to simply reduce the presence of Muslims in the lands of the Infidels, a presence that was negligently permitted in the first place because of an unawareness of the tenets and immutable texts of Islam. Now many more people are becoming aware of those texts and the tenets they naturally inculcate, the attitudes that naturally arise among those who grow up in societies, or even just families, suffused with Islam, or who may, simply by dint of considering themselves "Muslim," at some point come to believe in -- and come to act on.

The posteer quoted above appears not to know that the expulsion of large numbers of people deemed dangerous, as a whole (not every single person must meet that test) has been a standard act of self-defense, not only through recorded historoy, but right up until the present day. And no one practices it more frequently than the Arabs and Muslims. Look at how Morocco expelled Algerians and Algeria Moroccans, how Libya routinely expels Egyptians and "Palestinians"; how Egypt expels Sudanese refugees; how Saudi Arabia expellled overnight a million Yemenis, and keeps on rounding up and expelling those it deems not a threat but merely an annoyance.

Have you never heard of Czechoslovakia and the Benes Decree of 1946? The Decree led the tolerant, advanced state of Czechoslovakia, led by the tolerant, advanced, thoroughly decent Tomas Masaryk (son of the founder of modern Czechoslovakia) and Eduard Benes, to overnight expel 3 million Sudeten Germans, in some cases descendants of those who had lived in the Sudetenland for hundreds of years. The history leading up to World War II, the role played by the Sudeten Germans before and during that war, made Masaryk and Benes determined to ensure that the permanent security threat that those ethnic Germans presented would never again present itself.

Are you suggesting that given all that we now about the doctrine, and the practice, of Islam, adherents of such a doctrine, whether they participate, or support, or defend from attack, or otherwise, sometimes by their mere swelling of perceived Muslim power, the Jihad to remove all obstacles to Islam until it everywhere dominates, and Muslims rule, everywhere, we are not entitled to take the measures we may deem necessary?

On what theory?

Posted by: Hugh at May 25, 2007 3:10 PM

Hey Surak

Did I say: Orthodox Jews believe that the rest of the world must follow Judaism even in the Messianic era?

Did I say: Orthodox Jews perform clitorectomies?

Did I say: Orthodox Jews wage wars of conquest against other religions?

Did I say: Orthodox Jews keep women imprisoned in their homes?

Why don't you try understanding the point I was making instead of being so defensive and calling me a simpleton? You sound like a thug.

Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at May 25, 2007 3:11 PM

@RobScott:

"Guess what? Can't do that to Imams preaching in the Mosques now can we? "

Actually, yes we can, and we have. Cleveland Imam ring a bell? Already been deported for involvement with terrorist groups. That is one example.

Now, if we have an epidemic of Imams preaching violence on our soil, or even one, I am all for it deporting them. Absolutely. There is no room for that in this country...

but you says this, wiht your proposal: "Islam is hereby declared an enemy of the United States and its practice within the United States is now prohibited."

and then you say this:

"My proposal doesn't allow for the arrest, deportation, OR ANY THING ELSE, to any American Muslim as long as they don't incite others to violence, support violent jihad, or attempt to destroy American democratic institutions."

So which is it?

If Muslims are not inciting other to violence, violent Jihad and other destructions of America, but are practicing "Islam", which you have prohibited we have a conundrum now don't we?

========================

@Pythagoras:

"You think I am naive no doubt. But in fact your self-aowed savinness has blinded you to the reality here that there are strong legal and Constitutional grounds (as in Islam's "cruel and unusual punishments" including beheadings, amputations, stonings, whippings and beatings) for outlawing Islam."

I do not think you are naive, although when you say Barack Obama and Keith Richards are Muslim Senators it makes me wonder... but these are not personal attacks, so let us refrain from these sort of things...

But since you mention Islam's cruel and unusual practices, I have to ask you, are such practices happening in this country? Is this happening on a systemic level, or a domestic one? If domestic violence, then prosecute them on the level of domestic violence. It happens. If systemic, then there is grounds for action, but I've never heard of Islamic beheadings, amputations, stonings happening in this country... How can we press on constitutional grounds for things that are not happening here...

"Religious rights in the USA are NOT absolute and never have been. Many religions ARE outlawed here. Do you think for instance the law here would permit satanists to chop a human sacrificial victim in half? Peyote ceremonies are against the law. And do you suppose Aztec heart-excising would meet with legal approval?"

Right. I agree. You talk about inciting murder, and no doubt I hear these sorts of comments all the time, from guys like Nasrallah, and Al-Sadr, and these other goons and thugs in Great Britain and on other continents, but I don't know how often these things are happening here in America??? If they are, they need to be dealt with, regardless of if it is a religious group, or not. As I said, there is no room for these sorts of things in this country...

Posted by: ThinkForYourself at May 25, 2007 3:14 PM

"Furthermore, this is America. We have Communists, we have Nazis. NeoNazis, we have KKK, we have Black Panthers, and many other extremist groups here, who politically are on the fringe, and in some cases down right despicable.
Please tell me how Islam is any different, and why we should make an attempt to get rid of the followers of Islam and not all these other groups."

It just doesn't add up...

ThinkForYourself,

We shouldn't try to get rid of any of those groups. This is America.

But you ask how Islam is different from the others? simple, Unlike the others, Islam is recognized as a religion, which entitles it to all the rights, privileges, and protections of a religion.

Islam shouldn't be treated any worse or any better than the other groups you mentioned -- but it certainly shouldn't be recognized as a religion.

Claims that a 7th century Arab screwball was a Prophet is no more legitimate than if the Mafia claimed that Al Capone was a Prophet.

Both should be judged by their deeds, not their claims.

Posted by: rational at May 25, 2007 3:28 PM

"But it's not a Muslim telling the jihadists that Islamic violence is wrong."
from a posting by special_guest

I agree. The calls for moderation need to be heard in the ISLAMIC community.

Does it matter that the author was a "one-time" member of Jemaah Islamiya?

Now he lives in the West. Did this message go out to Indonesia? Why was there no mention of Indonesian terrorist groups other than to say "let us not even dwell on 9/11, London, Madrid, BALI....", even as he cites specific attacks in other parts of the world.

Posted by: PMK at May 25, 2007 3:59 PM

Thinkforyourself,

Uh, even CAIR agrees that the MAJORITY of Mosques in this country are preaching VIOLENT Wahabbi Islam. But like the PEW results its POSITIVE as long as not 100% of Mulsims support violent jihad.

I see no contradiction in my proposal.

You want to be a Muslim in your own house, fine. You want to wear Mulsim dress, knock yourself out.

You want to preach, or listen to, Islamic teachings in a Mosque. Forget it. Sedition is not allowed.

Maybe thats too complicated for you.

Posted by: robscottw at May 25, 2007 4:01 PM

Religious rights in the USA are NOT absolute and never have been. Many religions ARE outlawed here.

Pythagoras,

Are the religions outlawed or merely certain practices? For instance, Mormonism isn't outlawed but polygamy is. Upon joining the union, Mormons had to give up multiple spouses even though their religion allowed them.

Posted by: PMK at May 25, 2007 4:03 PM

"Maybe thats too complicated for you."

Spare me. The contradiction wasn't in the proposal itself, but in the proposal, and the comments that came after the proposal, after my initial comments. Anyways, to you and your proposal, I say good luck!
Pipedreams sometimes do become reality. Especially in America...

"Uh, even CAIR agrees that the MAJORITY of Mosques in this country are preaching VIOLENT Wahabbi Islam."

I don't claim to know everything, and when I say that I've never heard preaching of violent Islam in American mosques, it means just that. I've never heard of it. Doesn't mean it's not happening. And as I said, if it is happening, it needs to go. We are in agreement here. Europe is taking steps to monitor the mosques, maybe someday in the future, we will do a better job of this as well...

You say CAIR agrees with this statement about the majority of mosques. I'd like a link, or reference otherwise please, if you could be so bothered.

Posted by: ThinkForYourself at May 25, 2007 4:08 PM

Are you suggesting that given all that we now about the doctrine, and the practice, of Islam, ....... we are not entitled to take the measures we may deem necessary?
from a post by Hugh

Are there any Islamic "charities" still raising money in the US? Are groups like HAMAS, which keeps its "humanitarian" and politcal operations separate (on the surface, anyway) given any chance to raise money in the US? What about the Red Crescent? It may be totally pure, but should even the best Islamic charity be allowed to operate in the US?

Posted by: PMK at May 25, 2007 4:18 PM

1) Quijybo, an excellent post as usual. You are wise.

2) Re: my earier post on where Hamid's essay would most effectively be printed. It would be of course on the front pages of all the newspapers across the world of Islam! Let them read it every day. Then read it leading into every broadcast of al-jazeera too. Ouch, how it would sting. Pain is not a bad thing though if it leads to fixing what ails you.

3) Love the quote by Wafa Sultan with regards to Islam: "if you fix it, you break it-" thx. pythag.

4) ThinkForYourself said

"We have Communists, we have Nazis. NeoNazis, we have KKK, we have Black Panthers"

To which special_guest replied: "One difference is that our government and media did not actively try to convince us that the NeoNazis or KKK or Communists were peaceful and noble, and that if we criticise KKK violence, we are KKKophobes. Our President didn't invite the leader of the Nazis into the Rose Garden and kiss him on the cheek."

Good Point s_p. Nor do we have KKKair making excuses for KKKrimes, being honored and praised by our national media and branches of government.

Posted by: alexon at May 25, 2007 4:25 PM

"For instance, Mormonism isn't outlawed but polygamy is. Upon joining the union, Mormons had to give up multiple spouses even though their religion allowed them." -- PMK

Yes, if the Mormons can give up polygamy then Muslims can give up killing apostates and infidels, no? Is that really so much to ask? Well, how about we stop asking and start demanding.

Posted by: alexon at May 25, 2007 4:31 PM

How about this piece of logic:

We are under NO obligation to recognize as protected an ideology that calls itself a religion regardless of how old it is or how many believers it has.

We are also free to deem that any given ideology is incompatible with our law and thus ban it. Freedom of religion does not mean that one is free to practice the killing of green-eyed redheads no matter how loud the protests are that say that god tells them to do it.

An ideology that does not meet the standards we are totally entitled to set SHALL BE BANNED, and all places of so-called places of worship closed.

Believers in said ideology now have a choice: leave the ideology or leave the US.

Posted by: Ethelred at May 25, 2007 4:38 PM

When I read articles such as the one on dhimmiwatch.org about the Homeland security giving mosques money to defend against terrorists - then I know that all the hubbub on this board isn't going to happen. Muslims are not going to leave, change, or do anything other than what they always do.

If Homeland Security doesn't have a clue, if our politicians don't have a clue, if our churches don't have a clue, if our cities and Universities don't have a clue, then the muslims are winning this one folks.

Oh, and there is a good clip on dhimmiwatch.org today - you can't miss this one!

Posted by: R_not at May 25, 2007 4:40 PM

I believe it would be impossible to outright ban Islam -- but, what could be banned (perhaps) is adherents for the implementation of Sharia law. As noted by another poster, it is not a religion (say Aztec "religion") which gets banned, but particular practices (those which violate the laws - and I believe any claimed follower of Sharia law, as say, as it's implemented in Iran, Pakistan, northern Nigeria, etc., needs to be prohibited and cannot be tolerated.)

Posted by: J.S. at May 25, 2007 4:59 PM

@Alexon

"2) Re: my earier post on where Hamid's essay would most effectively be printed. It would be of course on the front pages of all the newspapers across the world of Islam! Let them read it every day. Then read it leading into every broadcast of al-jazeera too. Ouch, how it would sting. Pain is not a bad thing though if it leads to fixing what ails you."
**********************************************

Absolutely, absolutely!!!

====================================================

Somehow I overlooked Hugh's response to some of my comments, so I will address some of the points he made now. Thanks for calling me idiotic by the way. It is an honor! :)

"Now many more people are becoming aware of those texts and the tenets they naturally inculcate, the attitudes that naturally arise among those who grow up in societies, or even just families,"
************************************************

Yes, the more the better. I agree
-------------------------------------
"The posteer quoted above appears not to know that the expulsion of large numbers of people deemed dangerous, as a whole (not every single person must meet that test) has been a standard act of self-defense, not only through recorded historoy, but right up until the present day. "

"Have you never heard of Czechoslovakia and the Benes Decree of 1946?"
*********************************************

No, sorry. Not entirely, I am not a historian. I have seen the Benes Decree mentioned here on this site before, but all of these expulsions in Arab and Muslim lands, that is news too me. And it is fascinating!
---------------------------------------------

"Are you suggesting that given all that we now about the doctrine, and the practice, of Islam, adherents of such a doctrine, whether they participate, or support, or defend from attack, or otherwise, sometimes by their mere swelling of perceived Muslim power, the Jihad to remove all obstacles to Islam until it everywhere dominates, and Muslims rule, everywhere, we are not entitled to take the measures we may deem necessary?"
***********************************************

Absolutely not, Hugh. We are entitled to take whatever measures we may deem necessary. I have already suggested we should follow Europe's lead in monitoring the mosques, that there is no room in this country for those who use their religious platform to preach violence against the Infidels and America, th country they call "home" . What I would like to know is who "we" are? Are we this nation that has a festering problem of Illegal Immigration? I wonder, if there is no political will to expel illegal immigrants, how much will there will be to expel the Muslims.
To that end, I believe measures ARE being taken to combat these problems, it just ain't going to happen overnight, and in today's climate, such drastic measures as banning Islam are not likely at all... Our President refers to the "Religion of Peace" after all, "being hijacked by the extremists."

Posted by: ThinkForYourself at May 25, 2007 5:02 PM

As long as there is dualism
in mohammedanism,
with two sets of ethics,
one for the kufar
and one for the believers,
as long as there is a koran
that is unchangeable, eternal
and for all humanity,
that urges the believers
to follow the example of mohammed
as the perfect pattern for behavior,
as long as there exists
the multitude of hadiths,
and the sirah of mohammed,
there can be no 'moderate islam.'

I pray that God will watch over
Mr. Hamid and keep him safe.

Posted by: the poetess at May 25, 2007 5:29 PM

I love the invented term "islamophobia" a distractor to the term "enlightenment".

Islamophibia will always exist in the eyes of the muslims and their accomplices as long as we infidels exist. If not, then I guess the problem goes away, the muslim way.

Posted by: sounder at May 25, 2007 5:38 PM

Thinkforyourself,

Didn't mean to be flip, but I do think my proposal is pretty clear. One may may disagree with it for various reasons but certainly not because it advocates violence against American Muslims or internments (vis a vis the Japanese in WWII).

Per your request I have found one ref for you:http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/homeland.php?id=516072

To be fair I mis-represented it. CAIR has not offered any evidence to challange a MUSLIM claim that 80% of Mosques in America are preaching violent Islam. To mean that means they believe it, they just don't want to admit it to us infidels.

My proposal is a "pipedream". There is no doubt, it will probalby not be enacted, unless it is in response some horrific, as in nuclear, attack on the US by radical Muslims. Of course if that happens Muslims in America will probably count themselves lucky if thats ALL that would happen.

No, my proposal is to get people to think about it. Everyone talks about getting Islam to reform itself, get the "moderate" Muslims to run out the "radicals".

NOBODY talks about what happens IF Islam DOESN'T reform itself. Are we prepared to live with 3-4-5-10 million Mulsims, 40% of whom don't believe Muslims caused 9/11, of whom a LARGE percentage of males between 18-30 think "suicide bombing" to "defend islam" is ok (at least some times), this same group thinks Sharia law should prevail.

What then? My proposal would go a LOOOONG way to preventing that AWEFULL future.

Posted by: robscottw at May 25, 2007 5:45 PM

Only two ways to stop "islamophobia"...

1) surrender
2) die
Pretty clear on that one.

Posted by: jcom972 at May 25, 2007 5:53 PM

Quijybo:
As we are all (well, except a few posters) engaged in a mostly intellectual conflict with Islam...

That is correct but that is insufficient.
Muslims will murder non-Muslims even fellow Muslims if they get in the way.
So it is not just an intellectual exercise, I wish it was.

There is really no need to pass laws against Islam. They won't work. The days of squelching ideas with force are long over in the west, and hopefully fading everywhere else. Merely criticizing Islam openly and persistently, and convincing as many people as possible of the merits of such criticism, is worth its weight in gold.

People have done that. And they have been killed for their efforts by Muslims. Consequently stronger measures are required when dealing with Muslims.

So must it be with Muslims, but in the other direction. If a Muslim wants to begin the long and painful process of deprogramming, it seems to me best to let them come at it at their own speed.

Yes, fine, fine. They are not the Muslims I have a problem with. It is the others. What about those who do not see any problem with their Islamic faith and wish to enforceably spread it by any means possible? Nothing in what you say addresses that. Since I am not a pacifist, and I see no reason not to protect the West from Jihadist tendencies in Islam. And if that means

- passing laws
- debates on Islam by kinds of media
- economic sanctions
- deportation
- educating our non-Muslims as to what Islam
really teaches.
- restrictions on technology sales
- war if necessary

then we should do it.

Posted by: UK Infidel Lover at May 25, 2007 6:12 PM

If Hamid renounced Allah and apostated himself, I might take him seriously. I dont think its possible to reform Islam because no one, including Hamid, is big enough to rewrite, or ignore, Allah. Trying to be clever and make end runs around Allah, really pzzes him off, he see's everything, He knows everything. A muslims greatest personal concern is getting into Allah's heaven.
I dont believe any muslim who 'pretends' to challange Allahs's word , or to ignore it, or change it, is sincere. Unless he cares little about heaven, he cannot be serious, no matter how good he sounds.

At any rate I dont think it will work...I like Robscotts proposal much better.
In the past I have advocated that Islam be legally declared a non religion, that its tax exempt status be revoked, mosques torn down, and no building permits for new ones.
So we are on the same page with that one.
I do think it will cause uproar in certain quarters, too bad, how sad...

Posted by: duh_swami at May 25, 2007 6:33 PM

with regard to: "...Islam be legally declared a non religion, that its tax exempt status be revoked, mosques torn down, and no building permits for new ones..."

I would say, "Definitely, for any mosque which preaches for the overthrow of the U.S. government, or preaches for the forming of a cadre of revolutionaries who believe in the violent/and/or Sharia law implementations of Islam which implicitly involves a takeover of the U.S. or violates the U.S. Constitution" -- that which is contrary to the U.S. constitution -- get rid of them -- jail/deportation for these people. (Let alone no more immigration.)

Posted by: J.S. at May 25, 2007 7:01 PM

When I read articles such as the one on dhimmiwatch.org about the Homeland security giving mosques money to defend against terrorists - then I know that all the hubbub on this board isn't going to happen. Muslims are not going to leave, change, or do anything other than what they always do.

r-not is right.

With the PC attitude (which I doubt will ever go away), there is no way we can ban muslims or islam from America.

and

I believe it would be impossible to outright ban Islam -- but, what could be banned (perhaps) is adherents for the implementation of Sharia law. As noted by another poster, it is not a religion (say Aztec "religion") which gets banned, but particular practices (those which violate the laws - and I believe any claimed follower of Sharia law, as say, as it's implemented in Iran, Pakistan, northern Nigeria, etc., needs to be prohibited and cannot be tolerated.)

J.S

I dont agree with this J.S. We might as well get set for that civil war. When the muslims get to be about 10 percent of the population, we will be fighting that civil war. When the muslims become the majority, (which they will within a few generations, with there 4 wives and 30 kids), then anything we do to the constitution to outlaw sharia or parts of it, will simply be removed when the muslims become the majority. I think we are in for one hell of a bumpy ride.

Posted by: mrockroll1969 at May 25, 2007 7:17 PM

JS...I would advocate the removal of all mosques regardless if the Imam was preaching hate or not.
There may be more than two reasons for this, but my two main ones are these.
Mosque building is how Islam spreads. If there were only one mosque in the US, and it was in the middle of the Borrego Desert, 98%, or there abouts, would move to the Borrego desert. Mosques are like apartment buidings in LA, as soon as it is finished, it is filled.

No mosque will stay within the rules for very long.
Islam will be Islam.

Posted by: duh_swami at May 25, 2007 8:11 PM

I don't rule out the possibility of violent strife -- "We might as well get set for that civil war."

but, I guess, it's "hope for the best, prepare for the worst..."(There have been some strange reports about California air traffic controllers -- a "computer glitch" -- which blanked-out radar screens for an hour or so...what's that all about??) I actually think that "islam (the violent variety) will be islam"...(I've suspected that Ariel Sharon withdrew from Gaza for one reason/purpose -- to convince the world that Islam does NOT mean "peace" -- the term "peace" is simply not in the vocabulary of many, many Muslims...far too many aren't interested in "peace". anyway, I'm not optimsitic that even a legal solution would achieve a pacification of Islam...but, then with all of Islam's hot-heads, we probably won't have to wait all that long to discover that, indeed, "islam does not mean peace." It's just unfortunate that it'll probably take some major catastrophe to do it.

Posted by: J.S. at May 25, 2007 8:57 PM

One more, brief comment...I've often suspected that those who really, really despise Islam..(now I'm talking the *real* haters of Islam) have been the ones who smile and smile and say "Islam means PEACE!!" As I laugh..well, ok, it's horribly malicious...but, I think those who say that -- I mean, really, what are they doing?? other than leading the blind astray? do they want a final catastrophic confrontation?...then, Islam will be "kaput." (and when Islam is wiped out, it's legacy or "infamy" will be right up there with that other "eugenics project" of the 1930s...called "national socialism." and who will be tainted, no, it won't be the "Islamists", it will be Islam, pure and simple...this is what people will remember...not the nicety of "Islamism" or "hijackers" of the "RoP" b.s...they'll associate Islam with horror, violence, torture, and death.)

Posted by: J.S. at May 25, 2007 9:08 PM

Hey ynkedoodl2:

Don't go insulting Surak. If he misunderstood your point, its because what you wrote was easily misunderstood. And very simplistic as well.
Many Jews would not agree with your simplistic views of Reform vs. Conservative vs. Orthodox. And it certainly sounded like you were drawing moral equivalence between Orthodox Judaism and Islamic Radicalism. Surak's points were relevant.

Posted by: usapatriot at May 25, 2007 9:26 PM

Thanks to all on this thread for an interesting discussion. I regret that I only had time or energy to read about half of the posts. Hopefully will have more of an opening tomorrow, or after the Memorial Day weekend. Thanks also to the brave Men and Women of our Armed Forces to whom we owe a great debt.

Posted by: alexon at May 25, 2007 10:36 PM

Hugh,

Yes, there are historical precedents showing other countries or cultures deporting certain classes en masse.

In the U.S., under current law, and under the current consitution, no such plan could be adopted.

In memory serves correctly, the Supreme Court did uphold the internment of Japanese during WWII, but both liberal and conservative legal scholars cite that decision as aberrant, an example of even how the Supreme Court can get it wrong. It is not a precedent that can be relied upon for a mass deportation of an race or certain class of citizens.

Don't get me wrong. I'm all for such a plan and other measures ( like "control orders" used by Brits to restain activities of "suspected" jihadist, monitoring of mosques, disallowing use of Koran in taking oaths, et al). Before we could ever adopt any of these measures we would have to amend our consitution to allow same and that is no small task. These measures infringe on the rights of members of a particular religion, as Islam is now widely believed to be. There is also precedent for retricting some religous practices and there is planty of case law on that topic. But there is no case law to support whole segration of adherents of a "religion" for special treatment such as mass deportation.

You, Robert and other writers are struggling at this point just to get enough people to recognize who the real enemy is and what methods are used. That would be Phase I. Part of that education will enable others to ultimately conclude that Islam is not a Religion in the same way that Judism and Christianity are treated under the law. That is a herculean chore in and of itself, that may, or may not succeed. If that education effort does not succeed. The Constitution won't matter to us anyway.

Phase II would be, among other things, laws to protect us and restrict growth of the muslim population. Before laws can be passed a constitutional amendment would be needed. Constitutional amendments are rare and difficult to achieve. Ratification of the states is required. Picture the verbiage for such an amendment whittled down to about 1/10 of the draft from poster above.

Here's my draft and even this is probably too long:

The belief system commonly known as Islam shall not be deemed a Religion for purposes of this Constitution; Islam shall not be accorded any special rights or protections under this Constitution in the way that other Religions are afforded. Any state may, or federal government may, adopt any law it deems appropriate to maintain the safety and security of its citizens, even if said law amends, alter, or reduces the rights of that certain class of adherents to the belief system know as Islam.

Posted by: Leave Iraq Now at May 25, 2007 11:27 PM

@ Leave Iraq Now:

"The belief system commonly known as Islam shall not be deemed a Religion for purposes of this Constitution; Islam shall not be accorded any special rights or protections under this Constitution in the way that other Religions are afforded."
**************************************************

Could you imagine the PR hit that would come with an official declaration from the government that Islam is not a religion. It almost makes one silly just thinking about it....
=========================================

@robscott

"Didn't mean to be flip, but I do think my proposal is pretty clear. One may may disagree with it for various reasons but certainly not because it advocates violence against American Muslims or internments (vis a vis the Japanese in WWII)."
****************************

Let me now apologize for hammering your proposal without really giving it a chance. Sometimes stress in the daily life gets the best of us...errr...whatever....I think it is safe to say that probably 95 percent of us here are all on the same page. Sure, we may all have different ideas of how to deal with things, but at a most basal level, and a bit above that, I'd imagine, we all get it. The grim reality is that in order for your "pipe dream" to become close to being realized, it will take another 9/11. And even then...anything short of a nuclear attack on American soil will elict a response much less than that, for sure.... it boggles the mind how after Pearl Harbor how united "the Amerike" became with regard to the global state of affairs. 9/11, which hit much, much closer to home, sure it stirred up a fair amount of Patriotism for awhile...sure it lasted for a time, but then what.... failed to awaken the collective consciousness of America to the true nature of the beast...and then back to politics as usual.

Good Grief, George Washington, where are you now?

Posted by: ThinkForYourself at May 26, 2007 12:49 AM

I submitted the following comment on this article to WSJ, however it was a bit stronger than the dhimmi WSJ editor could stand and he/she buried it.

"...

The Pew Report lists a total US Muslim population of 2.35 million, with 30 percent in the male 18-29 age group. 41 percent of this age group condoned suicide bombing of civilians under various headings ranging from rarely to often. The data multiplies out to a total of 259,000 in this age group. To put this in perspective, that is about 100,000 more than the US troop deployment we have in Iraq.

This demographic represents an important target group for terrorist recruiting efforts, as they are already primed. The widespread availability of Islamic propaganda on Islamic TV, foreign Salafi imans preaching jihad at many of the mosques, and bloody propaganda tapes and DVDs by Al Qaeda undoubtedly brought this demographic to its current view of the world. CAIR's insipid promotion of victim mentality has undoubtedly further alienated this group, which represents a potential army of Trojan horses within our borders.

If the Muslim community would vigorously go about cleaning up the brainwashing this group has experienced, it might help reduced CAIR's so-called "islamophobia".

Posted by: Jimmy Bones at May 26, 2007 12:52 AM

Deportation of Muslims as a group:
This would only become politically and legally possible, if ever, under extreme circumstances -- a single Islam-inspired nuclear detonation in an American city (or perhaps in Europe, Israel, or elsewhere); or other serious terror attacks in the U.S.

Legal ruling that Islam is not a religion:
This seems even more unlikely than deportation of Muslims as a group. Unless something changes drastically, courts in the U.S. are not going to make it their business to pronounce on what is and what is not a religion.

Prosecution of imams and of other Muslims verbally supporting violence:
Here free speech approaches legal boundaries. The permissiveness of U.S. law depends on the social climate at the time. If the population feels under siege, at war, etc., then permissiveness of free-speech law tends to contract.

Law-enforcement against Quranic verses advocating violence:
Except in extreme circumstances (nuclear detonation, other extreme terror), and perhaps not even then, U.S. law won't seek to censor the Quran.

Prosecution of Muslims who refuse to disavow violent Quranic verses:
Except in extreme circumstances (nuclear detonation, etc.), U.S. law will be unlikely to act against Muslims merely for refusing to disavow Quran verses.

Prosecution of Muslims who actively promote violent verses in the Quran.
Free speech here approaches or crosses legal boundaries. However, for several reasons, prosecution often will not happen. The U.S. legal system often will not restrain speech, even violent speech, especially if that speech is at all ambiguous, claims to be religiously founded, and cannot be very directly tied to a specific act of violence.

Requiring those seeking to become citizens to sign a statement disavowing religious violence, supremacism, Sharia law, etc.:
I gather Robert Spencer has in the past discussed with some senators or representatives the possibility of creating an immigration form along these lines. Maybe the government could impose this sort of statement on non-citizens, at any rate much more easily than on Muslim citizens. If would-be immigrants signed the statement, became citizens, and were later found to be violating the signed statement, perhaps citizenship could legally be revoked.

Posted by: traeh at May 26, 2007 1:55 AM

robscottw:
I like your amendment, at least as a starting point for reflection. In that spirit, let me point out that you haven't quite correctly defined the distinction between outlawing Islam as a political doctrine and permitting it as a private doctrine (what happened to Shinto after World War II).

Specifically, you allow for practice of Islam in the home, but not communally. But that is not the correct boundary between private and political. The Japanese, for example, were not forbidden after World War II to go to communal Shinto gatherings, nor required to restrict Shinto to the home. The point, rather, was to destroy every political element of Shinto; that is very different from outlawing communal worship. To prohibit communal worship, as your amendment does, is to infringe on the "individual rights" your amendment claims to protect. Individual rights include the right to assemble with others for all kinds of purposes. If you want to restrict the right to gather for religious purposes, that's one thing, but you shouldn't be under the illusion that you thus respect individual rights.

Posted by: traeh at May 26, 2007 2:24 AM

robscottw:
The fact that your amendment includes a statement about what is and is not a religion will needlessly put your amendment at odds with too much of the culture and legal history of the United States. Your amendment shouldn't and needn't seek to enshrine in U.S. law a definition of religion. Even if some other parts of your amendment could survive scrutiny and criticism, that part would not.

A better-founded attempt at creating an amendment might be based on looking at how the U.S.-created Japanese constitution treats Shinto. The Japanese constitution does not attempt to define what is and is not a religion. Yet Shinto's political dimension has been outlawed.

(Last year, or the year before, Robert Spencer linked to a professor's extremely hard hitting piece comparing World War II Shinto with Islam. The professor wanted us to be as ruthless with Islam as we were with the Japanese, and to go after Iran in particular, and aggressively snuff out any political aspect of Islam.)

Posted by: traeh at May 26, 2007 2:55 AM

ALLAH – A PERFECT GOD – A GOD OF REASON
THE CREATION OF A NEW MODERN ISLAM

There needs to be a Reformation of Islam. All peace loving Muslims who believe in the teachings of an ALLAH of PEACE AND LOVE must stand up and demand the reform of Islam. If Islam is not reformed then it is no longer a religion but a totalarian system on a par with Nazism, Communism and Fascism. The creation of a totalarian system by bastardizing the teachings of ALLAH is one of the greatest sins that can be committed against ALLAH. If Islam cannot be reformed (which I do not believe) then it must be abandoned. It would no longer be a religion of worthy of ALLAH

In order to reform Islam we must start with the following declaration:

ALLAH AS THE CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE - THE CREATOR OF ALL LIVING THINGS IS PERFECT.

ALLAH AS A PERFECT GOD - IS A GOD OF REASON

AS A PERFECT GOD - A GOD OF REASON - ALLAH IS ALL PEACE AND LOVE

ALL MANKIND ARE THE CHILDREN OF ALLAH

ALL CHILDREN OF ALLAH ARE CREATED EQUAL AND THEIR LIVES ARE SACRED TO ALLAH

ALLAH IS NOT AN IRRATIONAL BEING. IF ALLAH IS IRRATIONAL THEN ALLAH IS NOT PERFECT AND THEREFORE SINCE ALLAH CANNOT BE IMPERFECT AN IRRATIONAL ALLAH IS NOT GOD

The above lays the intellectual framework for an Islamic Reformation.

All teachings in the Koran and all Islamic texts (written or verbal ) that are not the teachings of ALLAH - A PERFECT GOD - A GOD OF REASON are the teachings of man. This means that all teachings recorded in the Koran and all other Islamic texts, revelations, writings, sayings, fatwas of murder, killing, death and destruction, violence, hate, suicide bombers, violent jihad, terrorism, torture, maiming, wife beating, inferiority of woman, women as instruments of sexual pleasure in paradise, honor killings, stoning, cutting off limbs, child sex, bigotry, intolerance, slavery, inequality of infidels, inequality of any human being, that infidels can be murdered as a holy duty, that Muslims who renounce Islam can be killed, that Muslims (or anyone) who challenge the teachings of Islam can be murdered, etc are irrational AND NOT THE PERFECT TEACHINGS OF ALLAH – A PERFECT GOD - A GOD OF REASON – A GOD OF ALL LOVE AND PEACE.

All Imams/ Fundamentalists who quote these phrases from the Koran are blaspheming against Allah.

Osma bin laden and all other terrorists who issue Fatwas calling for death and destruction are blaspheming Allah - A PERFECT GOD - A GOD OF REASON.

By teaching young Muslims that ALLAH IS A PERFECT GOD - A GOD OF REASON - that all the teachings of ALLAH - A PERFECT GOD MUST BE PERFECT we will occupy the moral and intellectual unassailable high ground. All the above mentioned teachings of Jihad, killing of infidels, terrorism etc are sins against ALLAH - A PERFECT GOD - A GOD OF LOVE AND PEACE. No ALLAH who is ALLAH would ever preach that killing and murdering of any human being in his name will be rewarded by accession to paradise. You cannot climb to heaven on the corpses of the murdered. All such teachings are the commands of evil men and false prophets. If ALLAH commanded that infidels (or any other human being) be killed then he would be irrational and evil and no longer perfect - no longer GOD.

This is the only way to rescue Islam from these brutal killers

Any Muslim who refuses to accept that Allah is A PERFECT GOD – A GOD OF REASON – and refuses to follow the teachings of Allah – A GOD OF REASON are no longer Muslims. This means that those who support suicide bombers - if they continue to support this evil - are not Muslims - they are blaspheming against the very essence of ALLAH – A GOD OF PEACE AND LOVE – A GOD OF REASON. Any Muslim who commits acts of violence, acts of terrorism, acts of violent jihad in the name of Allah are not Muslims - they're just MURDERERS. All teachings in the Koran that are not of ALLAH - A GOD OF REASON - blaspheme ALLAH and are evil. They must be renounced and denounced totally and completely WITHOUT EQUIVATION. These teachings must be removed from the Koran and a NEW MODERN KORAN published.

In this way we can start to drive a stake through the heart of the evil irrational Islamic teachings.

Sincerely,

Larry Houle
www.godofreason.com
E-mail: intermedusa@yahoo.com

Posted by: Larry at May 26, 2007 8:28 AM

Treah suggests potential course of actions to stem the growth of Islam in the U.S.

"Deportation of Muslims as a group:
This would only become politically and legally possible, if ever, under extreme circumstances -- a single Islam-inspired nuclear detonation in an American city (or perhaps in Europe, Israel, or elsewhere); or other serious terror attacks in the U.S."

I believe we will observe a civil war in Europe within the next 10-30 years. That, in my opinion, will be, unfortunately, part of, the culmination of, the education process for Americans. That type event would also be sufficient impetus to support a consitutional amendment.

"Legal ruling that Islam is not a religion:
This seems even more unlikely than deportation of Muslims as a group. Unless something changes drastically, courts in the U.S. are not going to make it their business to pronounce on what is and what is not a religion."

I agree and it is why I believe if we are to ever use the legal system for real, meaningful change in existing policies towards halting the spread of Islam in the U.S. a consitutional amendment will be needed.

If a statute was passed by Congress declaring Islam NOT to be a Religion that statute would not survive judicial review without a consitutional amendment. It is unlikely the the Supreme Court would ever enter a ruling that declared Islam a non-religion- possible- but unlikely. Thus, a need for an amendment.

"Prosecution of imams and of other Muslims verbally supporting violence:
Here free speech approaches legal boundaries. The permissiveness of U.S. law depends on the social climate at the time. If the population feels under siege, at war, etc., then permissiveness of free-speech law tends to contract."

I agree. There is no unlimited right to free speech. In some circumstances, there can be restrictions place on speech inciting others to violence. But once again, how do you craft such restrictions with segragating the target of these restrictions without identifying Islam and the clerics/imans who preach the violence? Only a consitutional amendment permitting discrimination against a particular segment would support such laws.

"Prosecution of Muslims who refuse to disavow violent Quranic verses:
Except in extreme circumstances (nuclear detonation, etc.), U.S. law will be unlikely to act against Muslims merely for refusing to disavow Quran verses."

I agree. This would be example of proposing "thought crimes".

"Prosecution of Muslims who actively promote violent verses in the Quran.
Free speech here approaches or crosses legal boundaries. However, for several reasons, prosecution often will not happen. The U.S. legal system often will not restrain speech, even violent speech, especially if that speech is at all ambiguous, claims to be religiously founded, and cannot be very directly tied to a specific act of violence."

Agreed, under current law. Laws can change to address this but, once again, without support of a consitutional amendment (see mine above) permitting states to draft laws to protect against Islam, such laws are unlikely.

"Requiring those seeking to become citizens to sign a statement disavowing religious violence, supremacism, Sharia law, etc.:
I gather Robert Spencer has in the past discussed with some senators or representatives the possibility of creating an immigration form along these lines. Maybe the government could impose this sort of statement on non-citizens, at any rate much more easily than on Muslim citizens. If would-be immigrants signed the statement, became citizens, and were later found to be violating the signed statement, perhaps citizenship could legally be revoked."

I agree. But that only addresses future immigrants, not citizen muslims.

Posted by: Leave Iraq Now at May 26, 2007 9:43 AM

thinkforyourself,

the Cleveland Iman you mentioned (though I've never heard of him) was almost assuradly NOT deported for preaching jihad in the Mosque.

if you can show me that he was deported for that then great, then the only hard part would be to video surveil ALL the Mosques in America.

Wonder how the ACLU would react to that.

Posted by: robscottw at May 29, 2007 12:23 PM

thinkforyourself,

the Cleveland Iman you mentioned (though I've never heard of him) was almost assuradly NOT deported for preaching jihad in the Mosque.

if you can show me that he was deported for that then great, then the only hard part would be to video surveil ALL the Mosques in America.

Wonder how the ACLU would react to that.

Posted by: robscottw at May 29, 2007 12:24 PM