..the FBI "squandered an opportunity" to build trust with the Muslim...

Does that mean they will refuse to help?

Posted by: Elric66 at September 19, 2007 10:22 AM

"We hope that CAIR has not been under surveillance, because every thing it's engaged in fits within the 1st Amendment," Ayloush said. "We have views that aren't popular around certain circles of government, but they are legal."
-- from a statement above by Hassam Ayloush

Really? Is it legal, or should it be legal, to advocate, eseentially, the overthrow of the government of the Infidel nation-state, the United States of America, and the removal of all obstacles to the spread and then dominance of Islam, which includes all of the political and legal institutions constructed, over time, by the Infidels who wrote the Constitution, and over time built and elaborated upon those legal and political institutions, and enshrined at the center a recognition of, and solicitude for, the rights of the individual to free expression and freedom of conscience, which rights are not recognized in Islam, but in some instances -- the perceived mockery of Muhammad, or the attempt by someone born into Islam to leave it -- are actually punished by threats of death and, not only in Dar al-Islam, by those threats being carried out.

It should not be beyond the wit of lawmakers to draft and pass legislation making it illegal to inculcate in others the necessity of subverting and overthrowing and replacing with something else, some Total System, the legal and political institutions of this country. Such legislation can be drafted intelligently, so that it can withstand Constitutional scrutiny. The Court can revisit Brandenburg and the cases following. The test that limits on speech can only withstand constitutional challenge when there is a threat of "imminent violence" may be only a few decades old, but it seems antediluvian at this point, where a sustained, systematic, permanent campaign by what is truly a permanently alien and menacing element -- alien to what makes any Infidel nation-state today what it is, and what its Infidels would dearly like it to continue to be, but have to recognize the unprecedented threat that the "doubly-totalitarian" -- in G. H. Bousquet's phrase -- Total System of Islam presents, for never before in history have Muslims, without possessing the military means of conquest, nonetheless been allowed to settle by the millions and millions behind what they, those Mulsims, have been taught to regard as enemy lines. And behind those lines, a great many -- too many -- are not sloughing off that belief, but acting according to it, and according as well -- see Ayloush above and passim -- Muhammad's guiding principle that "war is deception."

And below I re-post something that makes clear that no one need find some "smoking gun" of a statement. The smoking gun of CAIR and other Muslim groups is the Qur'an, the Hadith, and the Sira. No other "smoking gun" need be found, if those are read, studied, and rightly comprehended.

December 11, 2006
Fitzgerald: All right, let's assume he didn't say it

"Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth." -- Omar Ahmad, founder of CAIR, quoted in this article in a statement he insists he did not say

No one needs to consider who heard what or when here, though it is good that the reporter, unintimidated, sticks by her guns.

One only needs a brain and a knowledge, just a bit, of Islam. Is there anything in that remark that would not be said by any Believer in the world who took his Islam seriously? Are not Muslims taught that Islam is superior to all other faiths, and that Islam must dominate, and Muslims rule? Are Muslims not taught that the Shari'a, the Holy Law of Islam, is the only law that matters, and that the assorted laws of the assorted Infidel countries within which they have been allowed to settle need be obeyed only if they do not contradict the Shari'a, or Holy Law of Islam? And are not all too many Muslims taught to believe, by Qur'an and Sunnah, that they have a duty to participate, actively or passively, collectively or individually, in Jihad, the Jihad to spread Islam, to remove barriers of any kind to its spread and eventual dominance, and to work for the day when everywhere in the world, Islam dominates and Muslims rule? Is there a single thing in the quote from Ahmad that is not perfectly orthodox Islamic doctrine?

Maybe he didn’t say it, as he insists –- but his not saying it is more amazing than if he had said it. The only really amazing thing would be if he were not to deny having said it, given the new awareness and the growing understanding of Islam among the Infidels.

Would he think it? Why not? Would say it, to certain audiences? Why not? Would he, then, deny to Infidels that he had said it? Why not?

How could it be otherwise? How could any True Believer in Islam think that Islam could conceivably accept another faith as "equal" to it? How could any True Believer in Islam in this country conceivably not wish to make the Qur'an, the uncreated and immutable work of God, the highest authority in the land, instead of some text written by mere mortals -- that so-called Constitution that the local Infidels make such a fuss about? How could any True Believer in Islam think that the product of mere men, and what's more mere non-Muslim men, could conceivably ever be an authority superior to the Qur'an?

That would not make sense. That would not be right. So what would be so surprising about the possibility that these are indeed the views of Mr. Ahmad? What would be so surprising about the possibility that these are the views of Douglas Ibrahim Hooper, and of every single member of CAIR? What, in those stated views, is not central to Islam, not taught by Islam, not naturally a result of the tenets of Islam?

Why, nothing at all. It's standard Islam.

The question is this: why would Ahmad and CAIR continue to deny his making a statement that merely repeats orthodox Muslim beliefs? For remember: the reporter heard him and wrote about it at the time, and her story stood unrefuted at the time, and she stands by it today. Why does he, and CAIR, insist that he did not make such a statement? What do they find so dangerous about our realizing that there are traditional, orthodox, true-believing Muslims in the United States?

That is the question. It's a question for the government. For the FBI and the CIA. And for all of us, who do not think we should enlarge the presence or power of those who would undo the Constitution and replace it, if they could, with the Shari'a. We can compare the American Constitution, and the more than 200 years of the American republic's existence under that Constitution, with the Shari'a, and the 1350 years of Muslims (and non-Muslims too) under it. And in particular, we can compare the guarantees for individual rights that are to be found in the Constitution, and the limits put on the exercise of power, with the observable effects of the Shari'a in those places where, in recent times, it has been most closely adhered to -- as in Saudi Arabia, the Sudan, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Afghanistan under the Taliban, and Pakistan. Take a look. Compare. Contrast. Would you like to invite into this country more people who certainly do believe what Mr. Ahmad insists he does not believe -- that they are not here to permanently endure our Constitution, our political and legal institutions, but will work in every way to ensure that eventually Islam dominates (for Islam is "not here to be the equal of any other religion") and Muslims rule, and the Holy Law of Islam prevails?

And working in every way toward this goal includes, of course, denying that one is in every way working toward that goal, or that such a goal even exists. That's okay. That sort of lying is religiously sanctioned, because it is being done to promote Islam.

[Posted by Hugh at December 11, 2006]

Posted by: Hugh at September 19, 2007 10:26 AM

"We're baffled why this information is not being released. The onus is on them to show our community is not under surveillance,..."

lol-(crickets)

I hope the FBI is keeping a close eye on all muslims. I don't like how the muslims are trying to get the FBI to release classified information. The FBI has every right to do all the surveillance they need to if there is a threat and that isn't going to hinder anybodies freedom of religion.

"They said mosquegoers reported being questioned by the FBI about their religious practices and the sermons given during prayer services."

I'm glad to see that the FBI is doing their job (hopfully they have the mosques bugged).

Posted by: mrockroll1969 at September 19, 2007 10:31 AM

I am not sure the Freedom of Information Act covers ongoing covert FBI surveillance of a person or group.

Anyway, another example of CAIR shooting themselves in the foot here. If they have nothing to hide, then what is the concern?

Posted by: awake at September 19, 2007 10:33 AM

Ruebacca:

You beat me to it! I was thinking the exact same thing. What the Muslim community doesnt truly understand in this, is, it's NOT the childish FBI they need to be concerned about. The FBI and the MSM are keeping a low profile in all of this to protect the Muslims.

Posted by: Steve at September 19, 2007 10:33 AM

Even with the first amendment there is still such a thing as... traitor.

well, one thing for sure - when a 'religion' follows this sort of a creep - they do indeed need watching:

'...their ‘prophet’ Muhammad, a 7th century caravan raider, slave trader, torturer, genocidal mass-murderer, a misogynistic polygamist, child molester, arsonist and megalomanic warlord who invented ‘Allah’- his alter ego, in order to deceive his followers.
* Once again: The AQ-boyz are good Muslims, they follow the Koran and the sunnah, wherein it is written:
Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into the hearts of the enemies of Allah and your enemies…” (Qur’an 8:60)' an excerpt from sheikyermami's website.

The AQ means Al Qaeda - it is an excerpt from an article referring to Al Qaeda - but I thought it appropriate to show what sort of ilk the FBI are keeping an eye on.

Posted by: R_not at September 19, 2007 10:37 AM

The suit says there is concern that FBI investigations "threaten to erode the constitutionally protected freedom of religion that Muslim Americans enjoy."

A part of the problem that needs to be rectified.
Reclassify Islam as a hostile political entity, revoke it's status as a tax exempt religion.
Then they can have the same constitutional protections that the Branch Davidians received years ago. As far as I can see, they deserve nothing better...

Posted by: duh_swami at September 19, 2007 10:46 AM

"We hope that CAIR has not been under surveillance, because every thing it's engaged in fits within the 1st Amendment," Ayloush said.

We take your word for it, Ayloush. NOT! That
s what the FBI is for.. to check these things out for us. You moslems perpetrated 9/11, NOT anyone else.

You're lucky to even be here.

But don't worry, Ayloush.. when Hitlery gets back in they will dismantle the FBI.. or use it to spy on real patriotic AMERICANS.

Two words: Jamie Gorelick. Joseph Goebbels.

Posted by: Allahfanculo at September 19, 2007 11:03 AM

It is obvious that any amount of reaching out to non violent islamists is never enough. I am anxiously looking forward to the day we toss all these rats out. I want to see them squirm. I want to see the terror in their eyes when they call help, help, help, and we all turn the other way and ignore them. They asked for it they should get it. These unamericans want to destroy our civilization and the aclu is on board with them. What should be the penalty for attempted destruction of a civilization?

It seems the aclu got a copy of the mb take over America plan. Find out who these aclu rats are, hound them with insults in their neighborhoods, at work and any where you find them. Put signs around their areas such as, warning terrorist lawyer lives/works here. Caution, death cult lawyer in area. Terror supporting lawyers get out go home to the ME paradise they support, nice stuff like that. A lawyer that assists these rats is part of the greater jihad and should be treated no different than your below average traitor/jihadist/school bomber etc. Maybe when their co-conspirators see them being fed to wild animals they will shape up but maybe not, no matter.

I put the survival of my civilization before modern bastardized law/lawyers. The courts have allowed themselves to be aligned with every lowlife that ever came down the pike and they will eventually reap rewards fit for lowlifes. Who do you think is destroying this country? Look at congress, a bunch of lawyers selling us out, they are literally crawling all over us like maggots. I have my doubts that there are any honorable men in the legal field these days, ok 10% a tiny minority of extremists if you will. I’m not impressed but I am getting fed up with all of it.

Posted by: tgusa at September 19, 2007 11:15 AM

"Southland Muslim groups sue FBI over surveillance,"

If they get away with this, the Mafia should be able to demand surveillance information on their members.

This couldn't happen if the United States government stopped calling Islam a religion, and started calling it a criminal organization.

Posted by: rational at September 19, 2007 11:20 AM

Really? Is it legal, or should it be legal, to advocate, eseentially, the overthrow of the government of the Infidel nation-state, the United States of America, and the removal of all obstacles to the spread and then dominance of Islam,

Hugh,

This is a crime, it's called "sedition". Sedition is a speech crime punishable by life in prison or even death. Sedition is also the crime the "blind shiek" was convicted of, he was sentenced to life in prison.This article at the American Thinker makes the case that the Muslim Brotherhood and its front groups like the unindited co-conspirator CAIR are insurgency groups involved in sedition and fair game for the US government.

Muslim Brotherhood and Sedition

Posted by: Roxane at September 19, 2007 11:24 AM

OT: How long until OJ Simpson converts to.. pigslam?!

Posted by: Allahfanculo at September 19, 2007 11:36 AM

Perhaps all that has been written here about CAIR's predicament can be summed up in two words.

Shit sticks! Crude I admit but it seems to fit the bill.

Posted by: Jihadtobejoking at September 19, 2007 11:42 AM

In case you missed it, the ACLU of course has joined forces with CAIR.

Posted by: Elric66 at September 19, 2007 11:49 AM

Poor poor pahblum puking mOslems...

I mean, they can't carry out one single "internal spiritual struggle" without the Feds breathing down their neck at every turn...can't they see these poor mOslem souls have freedom of...ummm, errrr...expression. Yeah, that's the ticket! Freedom of expression! And... ummm...freedom of uhhhh...religion, too!
Yeah, that's it!
(/sarc)

Now let's see what the horse says, so we get straight from his mouth...
18 USC 2384. Seditious conspiracy "If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

OOOoooohhh, that could apply to even the American Communist Leftists United (aclu) and everyone in their camp...lol.

It should prove very interesting...

Posted by: jcom972 at September 19, 2007 12:44 PM

'This group and the ACLU claim that the FBI is withholding information'.

That is one of those 'pot meet kettle' stories.

Posted by: alaskan1000 at September 19, 2007 12:49 PM

...do the Muslims have something to hide?.....what do they not want to be unveiled?....Secret Islamic plans for America?...Discovery of Terrorists on the watchlist in their mosques....discovery of arms and explosives?...discovery of documentation and/or plots that aim at civil disobedience or terror?....Proof that they are Muslims in the truest sense>? (following the war plan as directed by the Qur'an)....

Posted by: exsgtbrown at September 19, 2007 12:51 PM

From the article:

"The ACLU, which filed the request and lawsuit..."

Posted by: Zeno at September 19, 2007 12:54 PM

Zeno,

The sad part is that true liberals defend free speech for all, support human rights for all, support democracy etc. The ACLU is more a communist/socialist organization than a liberal one.

Posted by: Elric66 at September 19, 2007 12:57 PM

Allahfanculo -- LOL! OJ certainly fits the profile: murderer, psychopath/sociopath, pathological liar. All he needs now is a nappy beard.

Posted by: champ at September 19, 2007 1:16 PM

Ya nailed it exsgtbrown...
as we've experienced, the more they piss, moan, bitch, complain, and especially raise holy hell about something we infidels are doing, the closer we KNOW we're on to target.

lol

Posted by: jcom972 at September 19, 2007 1:19 PM

The ACLU is quite selective in its defense of the Bill of Rights. It takes a very expansive view of First Amendment freedoms, to the point that they become a suicide pact for the nation at large. But when it comes to the Second Amendment, well, here the ACLU takes an extremely narrow view of what rights this amendment guarantees to American citizens. Ditto for rights Christians have in comparison to those Muslims are entitled to. Want to have public school third graders dress up as seventh-century Mohammedans and recreate the first years of expansionist Islam? Hey, that's just history. But should those same third graders dress up as first-century Christians traveling throughout the ancient Mediterranean world and avoiding Roman authorities, then we have a major violation of the separation of church and state. The ACLU is a giant hypocrite and should always be regarded as such. It is inimical to the survival of America as we know it and so it comes as no surprise that the ACLU is an ally of CAIR, whose ultimate purpose is to have Islam dominant in this nation.

Posted by: Wellington at September 19, 2007 1:23 PM

....Muslims treat Non Muslim religious facilities very harshly in Muslim controlled lands....so harshly that the Non Muslim populations have dwindled to historic lows....Muslim treatment of Non MUslims include but certainly not limited to : torture, rape, intimidation, execution, destruction of property, geneocide, extortion, and severe discrimination....

....The Western World has not stooped this low....

Are these American Muslims condeming the Muslim treatment of Non Muslims?....hmmmmm....nope...

Posted by: exsgtbrown at September 19, 2007 1:23 PM

Got that right Wellington...
Defending pedophiles as "civil rights" & "freedom of expression" (not to mention NAMBLA sickos) is also one of their finest forte`s.
Here in the US, the Virginia state chapter of ACLU got convicted of accessing kiddie porn (his harddrive told the tale)...forget conflict of interest, it just goes to show one is judged by the company, corporate or personal, they keep.

Such a fine outfit to have defending them...
birds of a feather, ya know.
LOL

Posted by: jcom972 at September 19, 2007 1:33 PM

Darn the FBI is actually doing something right! When
sCAIR reacts like this, you know the FBI is stumbling upon Jihadist activities...in the U.S. mosques.

*OHH THE SHOCK AND SURPRISE*

Posted by: SoteriA at September 19, 2007 1:39 PM

They can request all they want, but if the information is classified the FBI doesn't have to release it.

Posted by: Mr Ape Pig at September 19, 2007 1:40 PM

Not so much O.T., but related.

CBN'S 700 Club broadcast today has an excellent and extensive piece on the Muslims In America group. It talks about its several Waco like compounds in the U.S. and its prison recruited adherents and the secret travels of Americans to Pak. with cash for the Taliban.

Posted by: guide inside at September 19, 2007 1:55 PM

We hope that CAIR has not been under surveillance, because every thing it's engaged in fits within the 1st Amendment.

The distinction being that extorting self-censorship" does not violate the 1st Amendment.

* 2:61 * 2:64 * 2:96 * 4:41 * 4:47 * 4:55 * 4:160 * 5:13 * 5:41 * 5:59 * 17:7 * 59:2 * 88:1 *

The distinction here being that the Founding Fathers, hardy men all, never anticipated that such cowardice could exist.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at September 19, 2007 2:04 PM

Oh, the humanity!...ooops, I meant...
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/2/1362599_02bcdea730.jpg

Legally, the FBI can tell them all to F.O.A.D.
If they were smart, they would counter with charges of Obstruction of Justice...
...because they CAN...

Posted by: jcom972 at September 19, 2007 2:07 PM

To access the video piece on Muslims in America go to cbn.com and in the blue box on the left click on 'Terrorists training in rural America'.

Posted by: guide inside at September 19, 2007 2:12 PM

"The ACLU is a giant hypocrite and should always be regarded as such. It is inimical to the survival of America as we know it and so it comes as no surprise that the ACLU is an ally of CAIR, whose ultimate purpose is to have Islam dominant in this nation."
--posted by Wellington

Here! Here! Second that!

Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at September 19, 2007 2:18 PM

Hussam Ayloush is one of the most personally repellent employees of an organization that routinely employs nasty characters.

Interesting FP link. Yes Hussam Ayloush does seem repellent. I was thinking Abu Khalil was even more so. They both know full well that you are right. Keep plugging. So why do they continue? I can only dogged determination on their part to deceive, deceive, deceive so Islam is advanced. Any chance to falsely persuade others that Islam is much maligned, it is peaceful they will take.

Posted by: UK Infidel Lover at September 19, 2007 2:45 PM

To all who have not read the American Thinker brief that is linked above, you owe it to yourself to do so. I have long argued that the way to get these Mullahs is by letting their own words bring them up on charges of sedition. This piece also illustrates how the entire MB and its addendum institutions (CAIR, etc.) can be viewed together as an insurgency--a criminal entity that implicates all of its members as a part of the whole, and not just as individuals, similar to U.S. versus the Mafia--with a self-proclaimed goal of overthrowing the Constitution. Which as well know, is exactly their dream and aim.
Proving it legally is the trick, but it is good to know that the Feds are on this track, and the evidence uncovered at the Holy Land Foundation trial may be of enormous aid in making this stand up.
This case may end up going all the way to the Supreme Court, and won't the stakes be high then?
Despite your thoughts on Republican v. Democrat, I think we can all agree that a conservative SC bench might be very useful in the years to come. And yet another reason why we CANNOT have a Dhimmicrat as President, particularly not a certain woman Dhimmicrat.
We are just getting the dogs (won't the Mullahs love THAT analogy) on the scent of this seditious insurgency hiding behind the veil of a religious faith. The Dhimmicrats will call off the dogs.

Posted by: JohnAdams at September 19, 2007 3:12 PM

@Wellington

Your thoughts would be welcome regarding this link:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/09/homeland_security_implications_1.html

You've said getting Islam banned would be next to impossible. But here's evidence (in the link above) that shows the Muslim Brotherhood (of thugs) is clearly a seditious and treasonous organization. Not, as I can see, becasue it espouses violence, but because of its aims. For saying the same things that put the blind sheikh away. And for saying the same things that the Islamic Thinkers Society (thinkers?) and CAIR espouse. And every goddamned immam when the infidel isn't around.

Adams has a good post. This could be HUGE!

Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at September 19, 2007 3:26 PM

Dude said, "We hope that CAIR has not been under surveillance, because every thing it's engaged in fits within the 1st Amendment."

Ha. Ha. Hey, we may have the anchor of pitiful liberals tied to our ankles, but we AIN'T STUPID.

Posted by: angryeagle at September 19, 2007 3:31 PM

Man, these islamo nazis are getting bolder and bolder, aren't they? I guess their sucess in Europe is giving them more and more courage to attack civilized nations from within.

Posted by: Crusader at September 19, 2007 3:43 PM

They haven't crossed that last trip wire...yet.
They know better, too...

Posted by: jcom972 at September 19, 2007 4:26 PM

"Hussam Ayloush is one of the most personally repellent employees of an organization that routinely employs nasty characters. Here is a long-ago FrontPage Symposium in which he and I, along with several others, participated, and in which, true to form, he traffics in smears and contempt but offers little in the way of substantive argument. I have had the pleasure of dealing with him, or with his smoothly deceptive presentations, in other contexts also".

Hussam Ayloush is part of the sales force of Islam. Imagine if a business sold a product in this manner. Would there be consumer concerns? Maybe Islam and Hussam Ayloush should be looked at by the FTC. In Islam there is no mandate to the Universal practice of the Golden Rule and no non-Muslim should ever forget that. "Islam must dominate" and "war is deception" are Islam's "golden fool" mandate.

Posted by: Frank at September 19, 2007 4:37 PM

I can't imagine a worse community than muslims. Total disrespect for the safty and well being others.
Posted by: Ruebacca at September 19, 2007 10:20 AM

Na. Muslims are peaceful people. It is only a tiny minority (10**-20) thats giving bad name to Islam. Remember our President said RoP, about Islam?

LOL - these people are a bunch of clowns. Every move they make is deceitful and so anti-American, and for that matter we are so dumb that we let'em get away with absolute murder. When are we going to stop the PC crap, after another 9/11? Why not before? Whats wrong with us? Why can't we close CAIR's offices? We have a bag load of evidence that CAIR is so anti-American. I am lost for words.

Posted by: MusHuntCowboy at September 19, 2007 4:51 PM

Ynkedoodl2: Thanks for the link and your comments. I read the American Thinker article and as I was making my way through it, I kept reflecting that the Muslim Brotherhood and its, and I quote, "affiliated and derivative organizations" are quite vulnerable to charges of sedition, treason, criminal conspiracy, etc., but until the jump is made to the entire Islamic religion, then Muslims, their attorneys and Western apologists for Islam will simply claim that an organization like the Muslim Brotherhood (and let's assume it's taken down) doesn't represent the real Islam, which is a religion of peace and tolerance, blah, blah, blah, and we're back to sqaure one again, which is to say Islam remains protected by the First Amendment.

Proving that an organization within a religion is a lawbreaker is difficult enough, but establishing that the entire religion is felonious in its make-up and has to be disallowed First Amendment protections is going to be an almost insuperable obstacle to overcome. I share your great distaste for Islam, as I'm sure you know by now, and I find its existence here in America truly a repellent and dangerous presence, but the Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliates, it will be argued, do not equal Islam in its entirety and therein lies the problem (though in reality they really do but proving that is something else). As I've posted before, either we need a specific amendment making Islam the exception to the religious protection provided by the First Amendment or a Congressional bill signed into law by a President which makes Islam illegal AND disallows any federal review of such a law (pursuant to Article III, Section 2). This is all part of the reason why I call Islam the "perfect storm" of totalitarian ideologies. It's truly magnificent in all of its malevolent and parasitical aspects.

I welcome here any further reflections you may have or that others may proffer on this specific matter of making the practice of Islam in America disallowable. Good communicating with you.

Posted by: Wellington at September 19, 2007 5:05 PM

Who has defined "religion" for First Amendment purposes? What are the main features that distinguish a "religion" from a "cult"? Does a cult but not a religion insist on Total Control of the individual member? Does a cult but not a religion inveigle new members in by means of getting them to do or say something absurdly simple, say reciting a single phrase, and then tells them that they are now "in" and from now on they can't get out, because the consequences would be dire? Does a cult but not a religion demand the complete and sole allegiance of its members? Does a cult but not a religion have dreams of spreading everywhere, with its members coming to dominate over non-members, everywhere the two may meet, all over the world? Does a cult, but not a religion, do far more than describe or regulate the individual worshipper's relation to a Supreme Being, but also offer a geopolitics of its own, to be applied here below? Is it a cult, or is it a religion, that offers a codification of the principal that all those whio do not belong to that cult or religion must be kept in a permanent state of humiliation, degradation, and physical insecurity?

Posted by: Hugh at September 19, 2007 6:11 PM

Hugh: I'm very sympathetic to what you wrote above, but keep in mind that if Scientology, a cult if ever there were one, can remain legal in the United States (again, under First Amendment protection), then Islam, with what will be ad nauseam maintained are all those glorious achievements from the medieval era onwards (way over praised, of course), should have little problem, as things stand now, resisting any attempt to ban it here in America. Actually, I take a slightly different view of Islam than you do. I acknowledge it's a religion, not just some cult; I don't dispute its claim to be a religion. BUT, it is the one major religion on earth which is totalitarian and evil in its make-up. AND the First Amendment protects it. And don't think cleverer Muslims don't know this. They know this quite well. That's why we've got Constitutional and legal work to do as I see it. There's probably not a single judge in this country who would be prepared to hand down a decision that the entire Islamic religion is not entitled to First Amendment protection (and even if you could find one or two, it would still prove my point here). Yes, indeed, a lot of work to do.

Posted by: Wellington at September 19, 2007 6:36 PM

RICO Statutes:

‘Racketeering Activity' is the act or threat of felonious behavior. Murder and extortion are both felonies. Genocide counts too.

‘Pattern of Racketeering Activity’ as in, like, 1400 years.

Anyone ‘Associated’ with a pattern of racketeering activity is subject to prosecution.

Just add courage and stir.

http://graham.main.nc.us/~bhammel/INS/RICO.html

Posted by: pez at September 19, 2007 7:09 PM

RICO Statutes:

‘Racketeering Activity” is the act or threat of felonious behavior. Murder and extortion are both felonies. Genocide counts too.

‘Pattern of Racketeering Activity’ as in, like, 1400 years.

Anyone ‘Associated’ with a pattern of racketeering activity is subject to prosecution.

Just add courage and stir.

http://graham.main.nc.us/~bhammel/INS/RICO.html

Posted by: pez at September 19, 2007 7:14 PM

RICO Statutes:

‘Racketeering Activity” is the act or threat of felonious behavior. Murder and extortion are both felonies. Genocide counts too.

‘Pattern of Racketeering Activity’ as in, like, 1400 years.

Anyone ‘Associated’ with a pattern of racketeering activity is subject to prosecution.

Just add courage and stir.

http://graham.main.nc.us/~bhammel/INS/RICO.html

Posted by: pez at September 19, 2007 7:14 PM

Wellington, or anyone else that may have access to Sup. Ct. case law.

I've wanted to research the same question Hugh poses for some time: What is a "Religion" under the constitution? Isn't there a Supreme Court case that defines "religion"?

Is there a Scientology case that you are aware that defined it as a religion? Can I access it online without Lexis/Nexis? If so surely there was a complete discussion of existing pertinent case law defining Religion. I know there is case law because I recall from law school, but that was 20+ years ago.

I don't have access to the popular legal databases. If anyone can find a Supreme Court definition of religion, posting it here might generate a little more worthwhile discussion, and would go far towards answering Hugh's question on legal difference between religion and cult.

I have tried searching for a definition in places other than the case law, such as The Thomas More Legal Center. They are involved in many many first amendment cases on religious issues. No definition found there, or any other location.

Posted by: USorThem at September 19, 2007 7:41 PM

UsorThem: Excellent questions. My compliments. As far as I know, the controlling case here remains United States v. Seeger (380 U.S. 163 {1965}). This interpreted "religion" in an extremely broad sense for purposes of First Amendment protections. I have no doubt whatsoever that Islam would fall under the definition of "religion" a la Seeger. Also, it should be observed that one man's cult could be another man's religion and the United States Supreme Court would do everything in its power not to take sides in a dispute of this nature, which means that the people calling their belief system a religion would surely prevail. I would also note that trying to distinguish between a "cult" and a "religion" is probably a wasted effort since "cults" would almost certainly be protected by the First Amendment as well.

American democracy is an ongoing experiment whereby human beings are given maximum personal freedom (including religious or cult freedom) with the expectation that such freedom will be exercised responsibly. Well, totalitarian systems which would end this experiment, should they prevail in becoming dominant in America, have traditionally been allowed the freedom to continue their propaganda, even though the success of a system of this kind would result in the end of America as we know it. Three such totalitarian systems are Marxism, fascism and Islam. I see no present constitutional or legal way to exclude these reprehensible and American-ending forms of thought under present case law. After all, the Communist Party and any Neo-Nazi type political organization are perfectly free to exist openly in this country. Therefore, why not Islam? Totalitarian ideologies are parasites that prey upon the goodwill and principles of democratic societies. The trick is to keep freedom alive while at the same time thwarting those who would end such freedom. Once again, the only ways I see of doing this (short of education by osmosis which discredits Islam as Marxism and fascism have been discredited----something I have certainly not given up on) is through a constitutional amendment or a law that is not subject to Supreme Court review.

Posted by: Wellington at September 19, 2007 9:15 PM

Wellington,

It was not too long after my education on Islam began that I realized part of a solution towards protecting ourselves in the U.S. might have to mean be Constitutional Amendment. No small task there.

Blogger/writer Lawrence Auster offers the following language as a proposed amendment:

Section 1. The religion taught by the Prophet Muhammad in the Koran and in the Islamic Traditions or Hadiths, and formalized in the Islamic schools of jurisprudence, also known as the Sharia Law, shall not be practiced within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. This article supersedes any contrary provision of this Constitution and of the laws of the United States, and of the constitutions and laws of the several states.

Section 3. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. The constitutionality of any laws passed by Congress pursuant to this article shall not be subject to the jurisdiction of the federal judiciary.

I don't agree with this 100%, but it is a start. I have seen other's drafts and they are quite lengthly. Constitutional amendments cannot read like statutes with sections/paragraphs/subsections. They need to be as brief as possible. One reason I like the above. Limiting judicial review is dangerous. I would also add something more specific about Islam not being considered a religion.

More from Auster on the HLF case at:

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/008745.html

Posted by: USorThem at September 19, 2007 9:52 PM

A highly trained and skilled master of deception, this Hussam Aylush. A dangerous agent of Islam. America's Tariq Ramadan.

Mr. Spencer:
These discussions with yourself and Ibn Waraq should be essential reading and studying in the universities today, for young people to understand the abyss of Islam.

Unfortunatley we still seem to be lightyears away from it...

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at September 19, 2007 10:20 PM

UsorThem: We're on the same page here. Auster's proposal is a good first effort (although the ideological pugilist in me would prefer the "Fraud Muhammad" rather than the "Prophet Muhammad"----why extend to this seventh-century psychopath such deference?-------excuse the levity here, it helps me keep my poise whenever Islam is the subject at hand). Brevity is the soul of sound legalism (hope you don't mind a variation on a Shakespearean assessment) and thus I'm in accord with you that constitutional amendments are best kept short. And I too some time ago came to the same conclusion you did. To wit, that altering the Constitution might be required to exclude a most meancing threat to the American Republic and prevent it from ever becoming a mortal wound. But much remains to be done and I sometimes think time is not on our side, though man's eternal quest to be free is certainly a factor which encourages me to think that the good guys will prevail after all, for Islam has nothing about it which those who love true freedom could ever admire.

Posted by: Wellington at September 19, 2007 11:06 PM

The ACLU will champion any enemy of God and/or America.

It's getting as if one knows one is right or on the right track, if the ACLU is against you.

For those of you needing affirmation, get the ACLU to sue you.

When the first liberal lawyuh goes to jail, the tide will turn, big time (lol) - (for what mother can stand to see her little boy going to jail ?) - the ACLU will turn tail.

(yes they are a bunch of little mommie's boys)

Posted by: dgene at September 19, 2007 11:45 PM

Wellington:

Imperial Japan, under the divine Emporer Hirohito, used religion to wage war in order to achieve global domination. Can our actions during WWII (internment, particularly) justify similar actions against Islam and potentially dangerous Muslims in our midst?

Posted by: atheling at September 19, 2007 11:49 PM

Wellington:

Imperial Japan, under the divine Emperor Hirohito, used religion to wage war in order to achieve global domination. Can our actions during WWII (internment, particularly) justify similar actions against Islam and potentially dangerous Muslims in our midst?

Posted by: atheling at September 19, 2007 11:50 PM

You folks realize that you have a better chance of banning Christianity than Islam in this country thanks to main stream media,ACLU and the Democratic party. All of these groups are arrayed against those who would expose Islam for what it is and law enforcement as well.

If you want to see the sheer hatred the Democrats have towards those who see Islam as a threat go to DailyKos and check out the diary on Peter King.

To those Democrats, American Christians are the real enemy.

Posted by: waltc at September 20, 2007 1:23 AM

What did you expect from the DailyKook?
Common sense? lol

Posted by: jcom972 at September 20, 2007 2:30 AM

atheling: Shintoism temporarily became a by-product of extreme Japanese nationalism and was unique to that country and even in this case we never declared war on Shintoism but rather on Japan. The trans-national character of Islam is something entirely different I'm afraid.

waltc: You make a very good point about Christianity being more likely banned than Islam in this country thanks entirely to the idiocy of modern liberalism.

Posted by: Wellington at September 20, 2007 6:51 AM

As JohnAdams and wellington and many others have stated already, if CAIR has nothing to hide then they shouldn't care if the FBI Is watching them...Although we all know they are not to be trusted anymore than Hitler....We may be kindhearted, we may be somewhat naive, but we are NOT stupid...Liberals like the ACLU (anti christian liberal union) who like to pocket from cases they can get to undermine this country and it's true american patriots should be executed...
((Hey JohnAdams)) :)

Posted by: MissDebbie at September 20, 2007 9:47 AM