• Why Jihad Watch?
  • About Robert Spencer and Staff Writers
  • FAQ
  • Books
  • Muhammad
  • Islam 101
  • Privacy

Jihad Watch

Exposing the role that Islamic jihad theology and ideology play in the modern global conflicts

Lawyer: Trump Executive Order on Immigration violates First Amendment because honor killings are Islamic

May 16, 2017 1:06 pm By Robert Spencer

Katyal is right. Honor killings are Islamic. But he is, to my knowledge, the first Western Leftist ever to admit that fact.

Muslims commit 91 percent of honor killings worldwide. A manual of Islamic law certified as a reliable guide to Sunni orthodoxy by Al-Azhar, the most respected authority in Sunni Islam, says that “retaliation is obligatory against anyone who kills a human being purely intentionally and without right.” However, “not subject to retaliation” is “a father or mother (or their fathers or mothers) for killing their offspring, or offspring’s offspring.” (‘Umdat al-Salik o1.1-2). In other words, someone who kills his child incurs no legal penalty under Islamic law. In this case the victim was the murderer’s sister, a victim to the culture of violence and intimidation that such laws help create.

The Palestinian Authority gives pardons or suspended sentences for honor murders. Iraqi women have asked for tougher sentences for Islamic honor murderers, who get off lightly now. Syria in 2009 scrapped a law limiting the length of sentences for honor killings, but “the new law says a man can still benefit from extenuating circumstances in crimes of passion or honour ‘provided he serves a prison term of no less than two years in the case of killing.’” And in 2003 the Jordanian Parliament voted down on Islamic grounds a provision designed to stiffen penalties for honor killings. Al-Jazeera reported that “Islamists and conservatives said the laws violated religious traditions and would destroy families and values.”

Until the encouragement Islamic law gives to honor killing is acknowledged and confronted, more women will suffer.

But Katyal is here arguing that honor killings cannot be opposed or restricted because to do so would restrict Muslims’ religious freedom. He apparently understands the First Amendment’s protection of religious freedom as a license to break other laws, including prohibitions on murder. This is a vital point that must be clarified: either the principle of religious freedom overrules everything, and even allows for murder, or it stops where other laws begin. This question is going to have to be answered sooner or later.

“Hawaii Lawyer: Trump Exec Order Violates 1st Amendment Because Honor Killings Are Islamic,” by Raheem Kassam, Breitbart, May 15, 2017:

The lawyer representing the State of Hawaii in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit today has stated the collection of data with regards honor killings should be removed from President Trump’s Executive Order in order to “pass constitutional muster”.

In his arguments, Neal Katyal stated today that the collection of such data as outlined by the Executive Order 13780 contravenes the Establishment Clause, in the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…”.

In doing so, Katyal appears to be making the case that honor killings — murder committed in the name of restoring a family’s dignity following discouraged behaviour within fundamentalist homes — is in itself Islamic.

It is an argument often made by anti-Islam campaigners, but to hear such arguments made by the political left might surprise some, especially when honor killings are also found — though to a lesser extent — in other religious groups like the Sikh community.

“What does [the President] have to do to issue an executive order that, in your view, might pass constitutional muster?” asked Judge Paez of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, this afternoon.

Katyal responded at length, stating: “I think there’s two paths that the President could take in order to pass constitutional muster.

“One is the way that our founders thought, Article 1 Section 8 which, as Congress in the driver’s seat with respect to immigration, passes a statute. as Justice Alito said, when Congress passes a statute it’s much less likely to discriminate. It is 535 people versus one, which is why his Mandel point is so problematic. That’s number one. 

“Second thing the president could do, or the kinds of things or some of the kinds, removing some of things that the district court found led an objective observer to say that this this discriminates. 

“One example would be, what Judge Hawkins said, disavowing formally all the stuff said before. But that’s not it. He could do a lot of things. For example, I’m going to throw out some examples. I‘m not trying to micro manage the President. He could say, like President Bush did, right after September 11th, the face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. that’s not what Islam is about. Islam is peace. Instead, we get, quote, Islam hates us. I think Islam hates us. 

“I think he could point to changed circumstances from December 2015, when Congress debated the exact same evidence that the President relies on in his executive order and say, you know, we actually need more than just denying people entry without a visa, which is what Congress required. You need to do more than that. 

“It could eliminate the text, which refers to honor killings. There’s a bunch of different things that could be done. And our fundamental point to you is that presidents don’t run into Establishment Clause problems and the reason for that is this is a very limited, you know, in a really unusual case in which you have these public statements by the President. if you affirm the district court there’s not a thing that any president has done in our lifetime that would be unconstitutional”.

For Katyal to advance such an argument may also be detrimental to the public understanding of honor killings in the United States….

Share this:

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • More
  • Click to share on Skype (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)

Follow me on Facebook

Filed Under: Donald Trump, Featured, honor killing, immigration Tagged With: Neal Katyal


Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Comments

  1. Mac-101 says

    May 16, 2017 at 1:19 pm

    So killing ALL infidels is called for too in the Koran, especially Jews. Is it legal in this dude’s perspective for Muslims to kill Jews since it part of their Freedom of Religion guarantied by the 1st Amendment?
    .
    Liberalism is MORE than a mental disease, it is a spell from Satan!

    • jeff edwards says

      May 18, 2017 at 12:46 am

      I wonder if I can start my own religion and say that my religion can kill rads.

  2. common sense says

    May 16, 2017 at 1:29 pm

    Oh look the 9th circuit produces another punchable face, it opened its mouth and a piece of poop dropped out. The worms in your garden have a higher purpose.

    ” it stops (shariah) where other laws (US) begin.”- encompassing the entire argument of Muslims assimilating to western culture.
    It’s not opinion they must follow our laws as we do or be prosecuted or hopefully stopped before they go Salidin on their own family members, usually females. God Muslim men are such wimps. They are.

    • PRCS says

      May 16, 2017 at 5:15 pm

      Go Saladin!

      Heh.

  3. Barry says

    May 16, 2017 at 1:30 pm

    the crux of all this, what it boils down to is simply this: total freedom of religion/ Islamic law/ sharia where murder is protected via freedom of religion/ sharia, OR the U.S. constitution protecting its citizens against murder and all the other ills that violate the constitution. Democracy, decency, moral correctness, or depravity, barbarism and 6th century paganism. The U.S. and the world cannot seriously allow this evil to eventually dominate. Life and Liberty are at stake….Patrick Henry said it best….

  4. Henrietta Y says

    May 16, 2017 at 1:37 pm

    If a religious practice violates someone’s human rights–and honor killings definitely violate a person’s rights, like the right to live!–it should not be protected under national law.

    This lawyer seems more concerned with silencing criticism than the ban itself. The 6-country temporary ban is, IMO, a needed step. A needed pause in immigration so we can review our vetting system and fix what’s broken.

    After all, are we supposed to wait UNTIL a terrorist from, say, Somalia blows up a mall and kills 500 people before we agree to the temporary ban? That’s insane! The travel ban is all about preventing such things in the first place. That’s why, even though I don’t like Trump, I’ll swallow my pride and support the travel-ban.

    • Kathy Brown, Esq. says

      May 18, 2017 at 12:14 am

      Oh c’mon Henrietta! Start liking Pres. Trump! How would that kill you? What’s not to like?

      And what are you-kidding? “I’ll swallow my pride and support the travel ban”? Newsflash Henrietta: To “swallow your pride”, you need a throat. Which the muslims will CUT unless they’re BANNED.

      Helpful?

  5. rubiconcrest says

    May 16, 2017 at 1:41 pm

    Of course while honor killing is predominantly an Islamic tradition it is not exclusively so. Therefore one cannot say the order is discriminating against Muslims. It will be interesting to see how the judges react to his argument. It is great in my opinion that the lawyer is connecting Islam with honor killing. The more judges understand that reality the better.

    • PRCS says

      May 16, 2017 at 5:17 pm

      Yes.

    • gravenimage says

      May 16, 2017 at 7:00 pm

      True.

    • Norger says

      May 16, 2017 at 11:24 pm

      It is nothing short of stunning that an attorney representing a US state is explicitly connecting Islam with honor killings. What’s even more stunning is that he’s essentially saying that the First Amendment prevents the US government from keeping out people who believe that it’s OK to sometimes murder female relatives, because such crimes are usually committed by Muslims.

      • Don Foss says

        May 17, 2017 at 9:54 am

        Honor killings also apply to children who leave Islam, male or female. In fact, as I have understood it, parents and grandparents are the moral authority on whatever offense to Allah they feel is so great as to warrant death. That can include an offense so simple as defying your parents, going out willfully without your hijab, dating a man/boy of another religion (Allah allows men to do that though, as Muhammad did), or drinking alcohol. If your parents or theirs thinks the offense warrants it….death.

      • gravenimage says

        May 17, 2017 at 2:42 pm

        Yes–this *is* stunning.

      • underbed cat says

        May 20, 2017 at 9:09 am

        Sharia law calls for honor killing, the only thing I find stunning is how this information is silenced and everyone considers Islam a peaceful religion. Sharia law also can bring death for people who decide to leave Islam and in sharia based Islamic countries any muslim can murder someone who leaves his faith….and it is perfectly legal….so why do we allow Islamic doctrine to enter this country? Apostasy laws that call for death sentences are also silenced…..in the U.S. by liberals and Imams. This lawyer with his truthful statement, if he is a muslim, has just slandered his own religion by stating facts according to Islam, which to me is stunning and shows how well the truth is hidden since the truth about the doctrine is considered slander for infidels to know and a crime. Not only stunning but the silencing that is written in the doctrine has a subversive influence to our laws.

  6. Diane Harvey says

    May 16, 2017 at 1:49 pm

    “This question is going to have to be answered sooner or later.”

    Indeed. Presently the can is being kicked down the road. But at one point the road’s gonna come to an end.

    Muslims may have a point in their protestations to these state proposals but their objections lie with Islam, their chosen religion, not our responses to it. If Muslims want to believe that Allah caused Gabriel to visit Mohammed and whisper into his ear that henceforth all Muslims should worship the historical Arabian moon god named Allah and a big black rock in Mecca among other things, who cares. That’s their choice. Believe what you want so long as you don’t bother the rest of us who want nothing to do with Islam.

    But what we non-Muslims object to is Political Islam, namely the outer manifestations of this self-inflated religion which requires both Muslim and non-Muslim to behave in certain ways.

    For example, during Ramadan, an Islamic ritual held cyclically based on the moon’s movements (explaining why this ritual is not held at the same time each “solar” year), Muslims fast during the day. All fine and good until Muslims start DEMANDING that others don’t eat in their presence or worse that they too must obey Muslim strictures and also fast during the day. Muslims have countless rules on how humans are to conduct their personal lives, covering all aspects. These are laid out pretty thoroughly in the old Islamic standby, The Reliance of the Traveler. Again, all well and good for Muslims. But Muslims in their always present sense of superiority believe it is their right to impose their own rules on others.

    But making demands of non-Islamic believers IS INHERENTLY part and parcel of Islam. To that extent these various state proposals banning Sharia law (or certain portions of it like honor killings) would deny Muslims the ability to be “fully Muslim” as that phrase is interpreted by Muslims. That is, being fully Muslim means imposing Islam on non-Muslims. This task is to be done until the whole world is submits. This instruction is expressly stated, more than once, by Mohammed himself in his Quran. The waging of holy war is affirmatively imposed on all Muslims. (In Islam there are two jihads: the greater struggle (or jihad) deals with personal spirituality; the lesser struggle deals with advancing Islam throughout the world by any means necessary (including force). Strangely Muslims confuse their priorities, choosing a pre-occupation with the physical, lesser jihad. Perhaps if they chose to focus on personal, spiritual self-improvement then the world might be a more peaceful place.)

    This then is the problem: separating Religious Islam from Political Islam. We in the West can easily do this as such separation is part of our culture. Muslims find such a separation incomprehensible, impossible. Without Sharia, Islam isn’t Islam will be the claim of Muslims.

    But that world view is not the world view of the West. Separating the political from the religious can be done. Snake handling, once an acceptable religious practice in some American circles, is now unlawful. A larger example can be found in the admittance of Utah as one of the United States. Its admittance was conditioned upon the then-allowed Mormon practice of polygamy being legislatively banned.

    We have precedent to divorce practices from belief. It can be done despite the shrieking banshee stage acts of the left and Muslims alike.

    • Michael Copeland says

      May 16, 2017 at 4:28 pm

      “impose their own rules on others”.
      Yes.
      Impose Sharia Law on All Mankind – I.S.L.A.M.

    • Tom W Harris says

      May 16, 2017 at 9:39 pm

      “Presently the can is being kicked down the road. ”

      And that’s what this lawyer needs – a good kick in the can.

      • PRCS says

        May 16, 2017 at 10:30 pm

        Very good.

  7. Zé says

    May 16, 2017 at 1:56 pm

    There are two possibilities:

    1) The guy wants to sabotage is own case. Good for him.

    2) He truly believes that preventing honor killing is anti-Islamic and unconstitutional. In that case he should have a very painful physical punishment.

  8. Tangata says

    May 16, 2017 at 2:03 pm

    This is typically critical legal theory at work… A wrapped philosophy that that infected the West by guilt ridden post-Nazi German political philosophers…
    https://youtu.be/c7as0pFxPYc

  9. Bill McKenzie says

    May 16, 2017 at 2:11 pm

    Honor killings are Islamic:

    http://www.searchtruth.com/searchHadith.php?keyword=blind+killed+child&translator=3&search=1&book=&start=0&records_display=10&search_word=all

  10. Santa Voorhees says

    May 16, 2017 at 2:26 pm

    “retaliation is obligatory against anyone who kills a human being purely intentionally and without right.”

    By that logic, muslims should retaliate against themselves.

    • gravenimage says

      May 16, 2017 at 7:29 pm

      I’m afraid not–first, there are exceptions for killing close female relatives, and secondly and most importantly, killing to protect their “honor” is considered a “right” for Muslims.

      • Santa Voorhees says

        May 16, 2017 at 8:07 pm

        I guess you’re right. I totally forgot that honor killings were one of the points of this article when I posted so pardon me.

        I am realizing only now that I went completely off topic.

        Anyway, I was referreing to the fact that the Quran calls for killing unbelievers, and therefore, by the logic of the statement above, they should retaliate against themselves.

        • PRCS says

          May 16, 2017 at 10:31 pm

          Funny.

        • gravenimage says

          May 16, 2017 at 11:07 pm

          No problem, Santa Voorhees.

          But of course they wouldn’t have to go after themselves for murdering Infidels, either, since Muslims believe they have that “right” as well.

  11. Cunamarra says

    May 16, 2017 at 2:29 pm

    They have become so bold and so successful in reversing the standard by which rational men once judged good form evil, that deception and taqiya is less and less necessary.

    • gravenimage says

      May 16, 2017 at 7:39 pm

      Grimly spot on.

      Muslims only use Taqiyya when they fear their victims will fight back if they know the truth. They fear this less and less now, and for–God help us–good reason in many cases.

  12. Benedict says

    May 16, 2017 at 2:44 pm

    What is worst: the honor killings of Muslims or the dishonor killings of Cecile Richards and Dr. Mary Gatter. These killings also cannot be opposed or restricted because to do so would restrict the (religious) freedom of feminists.

  13. Larry says

    May 16, 2017 at 3:27 pm

    Attorney’s Taqiyya – an attempt at legerdemain.

    • Frank Anderson says

      May 17, 2017 at 10:08 am

      Larry, in an earlier post on this article I suggested a reading of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Rules of Professional Conduct. I took a look and found these sections to be interesting:

      Code of Professional Responsibility
      DR 7-102 Representing a Client Within the Bounds of the Law.
      (A) In his representation of a client, a lawyer shall not:
      (1) File a suit, assert a position, conduct a defense, delay a trial, or take other action on behalf of his client when he knows or when it is obvious that such action would serve merely to harass or maliciously injure another.69
      (2) Knowingly advance a claim or defense that is unwarranted under existing law, except that he may advance such claim or defense if it can be supported by good faith argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law.

      Rules of Professional Conduct
      Advocate
      Rule 3.1 Meritorious Claims And Contentions
      A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous, which includes a good faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law. A lawyer for the defendant in a criminal proceeding, or the respondent in a proceeding that could result in incarceration, may nevertheless so defend the proceeding as to require that every element of the case be established.

      Advocate
      Rule 3.3 Candor Toward The Tribunal
      (a) A lawyer shall not knowingly:
      (1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer;
      (2) fail to disclose to the tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing counsel; or
      (3) offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. If a lawyer, the lawyer’s client, or a witness called by the lawyer, has offered material evidence and the lawyer comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal. A lawyer may refuse to offer evidence, other than the testimony of a defendant in a criminal matter, that the lawyer reasonably believes is false.
      (b) A lawyer who represents a client in an adjudicative proceeding and who knows that a person intends to engage, is engaging or has engaged in criminal or fraudulent conduct related to the proceeding shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal.
      (c) The duties stated in paragraphs (a) and (b) continue to the conclusion of the proceeding, and apply even if compliance requires disclosure of information otherwise protected by Rule 1.6.
      (d) In an ex parte proceeding, a lawyer shall inform the tribunal of all material facts known to the lawyer that will enable the tribunal to make an informed decision, whether or not the facts are adverse.

      I don’t care how hard I try there does not seem to be any way under US law to make honor killings lawful under present law or any extension of present law that I can see being acceptable..

  14. bobm says

    May 16, 2017 at 3:48 pm

    put this lying scumbag cult islam out of America once and for all ..they are deceitful snakes in the grass ..

  15. Irene Brekelmans says

    May 16, 2017 at 3:54 pm

    What a bunch of belony from mr. Katyal. Especially the part where he is arguing that honour killings can not be opposed or restricted, because to do so would restrict Muslims freedom. Are you kidding me, so muslims in fact can do anything and call it it muslim religion.

    And I have not heard once a leftist talk or write about our GOD and DEFEND HIM, not that He Needs it, but Our God has told us clearly when Mozes asked Him, what were the best ways to live by. And there was one command out of the 10 :Thou shalt not kill !!!, and for surely not out of honour killings or beheadings, for the leftists Our God or Christ does not seem to exist any more..
    But He gave us free will. It will all come out and transparant, but in the end…….. and it could have been
    different if the people and governments had not been this way.

    • Terry says

      May 16, 2017 at 5:55 pm

      Irene,

      Actually, THE COMMANDMENT IS NOT THOU SHALT NOT KILL.

      IT IS: THOU SHALT NOT MURDER.

      There is a difference. One example-if one’s life (or that of a close family member) and it is you or the opposition; or in a war- it is permissible to kill. To save your life; your family; defend your country, etc.

      Murder is not-murder is killing for the hell of it. That is forbidden.

  16. mortimer says

    May 16, 2017 at 4:14 pm

    Aztec priests offered human sacrifices to Acolnahuacatl (the god with war), Huitzilopochtli (the god of day) and Tezcatlipoca (the god of night), and in the modern world such barbaric savagery is not allowed. The Islamic savagery of sacrificing humans to the hoax-god Allah must also be outlawed.

    Much of Sharia law is CIVIL LAW and should be banned definitively in ALL states. Honor killings and political assassinations of non-Islamic leaders and murders of apostates and blasphemers are also Islamic, but they are as unconstitutional as Aztec human sacrifices.

    ALLAH WANTS BLOOD. He will have to drink it outside the US.

    • Benedict says

      May 17, 2017 at 4:38 am

      “in the modern world such barbaric savagery is not allowed” —
      See my comment above, mortimer. Do you condone this savagery?

  17. Robert says

    May 16, 2017 at 4:16 pm

    Katyal is not a moron; he wouldn’t be leading this particular legal charge if he was one. His problem isn’t intellectual, it’s moral. His mind works fine; it’s his conscience that’s malfunctioned. He’s a very intelligent man with a broken moral-compass. He thinks that honour-killing is a positive good which, when practiced in the proper circumstances, restores a family’s honour.

    In other words, he thinks it’s okay to kill women who are perceived to have damaged their family’s standing in society. This ruthless attitude lacks restraint, proportion, and mercy, but it certainly doesn’t lack smarts.

    Critics should be targeting the sociopathic nature of his line of reasoning.

    • PRCS says

      May 16, 2017 at 10:55 pm

      “it’s his conscience that’s malfunctioned”

      No sure about that.

      Is he, as a defense lawyer, merely doing the best he can to defend his client?

      It would seem–IMO–that he’s making the case that the practice of “honor killings” — which are legal “over there”– should not bar their U.S. entry.

      As you noted, he’s intelligent.

      • gravenimage says

        May 16, 2017 at 11:14 pm

        He isn’t a defense attorney. He is making the case that a ban on those from Muslim-majority countries violates the First Amendment because committing Honor Killings is a core part of the practice of Islam.

        • PRCS says

          May 17, 2017 at 12:46 am

          He’s representing–defending–the state’s position.

          His “client” is the state.

        • gravenimage says

          May 17, 2017 at 2:50 pm

          Well, that is true in the broad sense, PRCS.

  18. pennant8 says

    May 16, 2017 at 4:37 pm

    This is what happens when a Muslim attempts to show that sharia is compatible with the US Constitution. Plus it doesn’t help that Muslims have their own rules of logic which allows for two things in contradiction to both be true.

  19. Voytek Gagalka says

    May 16, 2017 at 4:40 pm

    This only shows the utter absurdity of anti-concept called “religious freedom.” There is no such a thing! “Freedom” violating individual rights of others is a contradiction in terms, i.e. it is not any “freedom” at all, rather distortion of the only real freedom there is: individual rights to life, liberty and the pursue of happiness. All the rest, ad hoc devised “rights,” are deliberately devised distortions, a smokescreen designed to VIOLATE real rights.

    • Vann Boseman says

      May 17, 2017 at 5:45 am

      Context is important. The natural rights philosophy that the founders of our country agreed on were used to inspire the Declaration and enabled the ratification of the Constitution. This philosophy was much discussed in the colonies starting around 1700. The American Revolution may have been fought with the Rights of Englishmen too, but the influence of natural rights were clear. Because this context is now largely lost, honor killings can be justified as falling under freedom of religion. If you don’t stand for something, then you will fall for anything: It is not necessary for natural rights to be seen as endowed upon mankind by a creator. This was firmly established before the Enlightenment even. But this stipulation was important for the founders of the US. Now, religious and natural rights traditions are both ignored. This makes for an ugly situation where spaces between words can take on meanings that they were never meant to have.

      • Robert says

        May 19, 2017 at 12:13 pm

        “It is not necessary for natural rights to be seen as endowed upon mankind by a creator. This was firmly established before the Enlightenment even.”

        Right; you don’t need to appeal to a deity in order to assert natural rights, but it certainly helps. Otherwise, the assertion has no universal, absolute, transcendent ground on which to base its claim. If you encounter an individual, group, or nation that rejects natural rights (or your particular brand of it), then you have nothing greater than yourself or nature to appeal to as authoratative over both parties.

        The stark differences between the revolutions in the British Colonies and the French nation in the 18th century is illustrative of what can go down, both good or bad, when there is no universal, absolute, transcendent ground to form the basis of morality. The American revolution was fairly orderly, all things considered; the French revolution was a slaughter from beginning to end. The former was prosecuted by armies on both sides who believed in a transcendent moral value; the latter not so much.

        • Schrödinger says

          May 20, 2017 at 2:08 pm

          Muslims, many of them, have wrist watches that not only tell the time but a compass that helps orientate themselves, wherever they may be, in the direction of (where else) Mecca. However they don’t have a moral compass.

          Or do they?

          They very much believe they have absolute, universal, transcendent grounds to form the basis of all morality and rights, not to mention law and obligations covering virtually every aspect of everyone’s lives. They call it Islam — given to them, to the whole world, courtesy of an intermediary, their prophet, by their God they know as Allah. Are you in agreement with the doctrine and tenets of Islam and all that entails? If so, you’ve submitted to Islam. But perhaps you believe differently.

          Which God/s will gift all humanity with such a system of manifest, indisputable, transcendent law, morality and natural rights? By what process will we all come to gladly accept these and comply with them? Or might we not instead conclude there isn’t, indeed that there cannot be any such “transcendent” universal system, courtesy of a Deity as you imply — and that we’ll just have to get on with it and do the best we can regardless?

          Like every other species, ours has struggled against one another, against nature and against an often pitiless and cruel fate in this universe into which we’re flung, without asking. However as a highly social species, with a large neocortex and an opposable finger and thumb, we constantly seek effective (and persuasive) means of structuring our ever more complex, expanding societies. This has necessitated means of successfully establishing and maintaining power and authority — shared or otherwise.

          Enter religion.

          Conceptually, there cannot be a more transcendent, ultimate and unassailable authority than that of an omnipotent and omniscient, “Divine” creator being. Not surprisingly, our species has long turned to that appealing, convenient solution, in multiple and creative ways. However there’s several problems. To start with, what if you were to disagree with it? And how can you ever really know if any such claims are God given or otherwise? Some religions encourage such belief by placing a knife at your throat. ALL have OUR fingerprints ALL over them. Your only guides and methods are faith (choosing to believe something despite the absence of sufficient evidence and complete proof) — or the resort to force. The fact is that we choose our laws and morality. We do so using our intelligence and imagination. We do so hopefully and earnestly but also selfishly and cynically. We do so adaptively, with respect to the prevailing contingencies of our changing environment, which, nevertheless, forever includes wrestling with the challenge of our mutual and competing wants and needs. Hopefully, we will also avail ourselves of all hard earned, previous accumulated human wisdom, acknowledging that there is no perfect or final or universally agreeable system, so necessitating humility, negotiation, compromise and ongoing effort.

          Many — including those dreadful secular humanists — believe we mustn’t denigrate human intelligence nor desperately seek to explain the world and our existence in supernatural terms, but instead apply reason and science to understand and help solve or ameliorate our problems. And that it’s not a bad idea to prioritise our existence in this world rather than endlessly speculate upon, obsess about, and overestimate our chances of salvation in the next. We and our evolutionary descendants must, as best we can, base and adapt our individual and collective understanding and beliefs, including morality and natural rights, upon the ever growing totality of our individual and collective experience and human endeavour.

          That, I believe anyway, is the way God planned it. And as the comedian Dave Allen used too say; Goodnight, and may your God go with you.

        • Terry says

          May 20, 2017 at 4:53 pm

          Robert-in almost all that I have read about the American Revolution, only about 30-40% of the people were for it- and most of them were of the upper class (economically and/or socially).

          When I was in Junior High School (now called middle school in most areas) I had a history teacher who said that most revolutions are started and supported by the wealthy/the educated/the aristocrats (IE Fidel Castro was a lawyer, and was supposed to have been a pretty good pitcher at The University of Havana, as an undergraduate).

          as for the British- the officers were English, most of the troops were German (hessian) mercenaries.

  20. Steve Klein says

    May 16, 2017 at 5:24 pm

    ‘Khizr Khan: Offer for Trump to read the Constitution still stands’

    BY PAULINA FIROZI – 05/16/17 05:09 PM EDT

    http://thehill.com/homenews/news/333697-khizr-khan-my-offer-to-donald-trump-to-read-the-constitution-remains-standing

    I am going to post this piece at The Hill.

  21. John A. Marre says

    May 16, 2017 at 6:00 pm

    Chopping heads off is Islamic too. That’s a reason to stop all of them from coming into this country.

  22. gravenimage says

    May 16, 2017 at 6:50 pm

    Lawyer: Trump Executive Order on Immigration violates First Amendment because honor killings are Islamic
    ………………………

    Well, this is just shocking. Judge Katyal is not even talking about–say–the “freedom” to preach Jihad or the imposition of Shari’ah (not to actually commit either), but to **kill** in the name of Islam.

    Now I have to ask–and not sarcastically, but literally–whether this judge understands that murder is *illegal* in the United States?

  23. ibrahim itace muhammed says

    May 16, 2017 at 7:58 pm

    Mr spencer,the merchant of lies and hatred,you have proven to be a stupid ignorant analyst.There is nothing like honor killing in Islam.The book umdatu salik you refered to contains nothing closer to that.I read the book thoroughly.The book is in Arabic.I know mr spencer cannot read and understand Arabic.He did not acknowledge the person who translated the book into English for us to verify whether or not the translation is correct.It shows academic dishonesty on the part of mr spencer. If that lawyer is learned on sharia law,he will not say that honour killing islamic.I even doubt much if the lawyer said so.It may be part of mr spencer’s fictitious stories.under sharia law before a person is punished for an offence,especially capital offences like adultery and armed robbery,he must be fairly tried before a sharia court.fair trial includes right of the accused to defend himself either directly or by legal representation(wakalatul khusumah).No individual muslim has the right to punish a person for violating sharia provision .It is the duty of the state to present the case before the sharia court for its determination. See Hashiyatu Dusuky(An analytical commentary on mukhtasar by syed khalil)volume 4 at page 245_247,published by Darul maarif ,Cairo_Egypt. Thus,father or brother has no right to kill his daughter or sister for adultery to save the honor of the family without taking her to sharia court for trial.if they do that they can be punished.The only exception is that the court cannot sentence a father to death for killing his son or daughter .He can be given a term of imprisonment.But brother can be sentenced to death for killing his sister.Note :this exception in the case of father has nothing to do with honor killing.killing can be for any reason.such concept of honour killing is foreign to Islamic literature.Even if it has been the customary practice of some communities,it cannot be justified under sharia.mr spencer,you are misleading vulnerable readers in this forum with your poor_researched analysis.

    • gravenimage says

      May 17, 2017 at 12:01 am

      Vile Taqiyya artist ibrahim itace muhammed wrote:

      Mr spencer,the (sic) merchant of lies and hatred,you (sic) have proven to be a stupid ignorant analyst.There is nothing like honor killing in Islam.
      …………………………………

      I doubt muhammed can explain why over 90% of the world’s “Honor Killings” are perpetrated by his own coreligionists, then–nor why most Muslim countries either do not prosecute such crimes at all, or else give laughably light sentences for such grievous crimes?

      More:

      The book umdatu salik you refered (sic) to contains nothing closer to that.I (sread the book thoroughly.The book is in Arabic.I know mr spencer cannot read and understand Arabic.He did not (sic) acknowledge the person who translated the book into English for us to verify whether or not the translation is correct.
      …………………………………

      Once again, we see a Muslim pretending that Arabic cannot be translated. Of course, this is absurd–any language can be translated.

      More:

      It shows academic dishonesty on the part of mr (sic) spencer (sic). If that lawyer is learned on sharia law,he (sic) will not say that honour killing islamic.I (sic) even doubt much if the lawyer said so.It (sic) may be part of mr (sic) spencer’s (sic) fictitious stories.
      …………………………………

      Why doesn’t muhammed take the issue up with pious coreligionists like this one?

      “Pakistan: Muslim leader says bill against honor killing is un-Islamic”

      https://www.jihadwatch.org/2016/10/pakistan-muslim-leader-says-bill-against-honor-killing-is-un-islamic

      This is rife in the Muslim world.

      More:

      under (sic) sharia law before a person is punished for an offence,especially (sic) capital offences like adultery and armed robbery,he (sic) must be fairly tried before a sharia court.fair (sic) trial includes right of the accused to defend himself either directly or by legal representation(wakalatul khusumah).
      …………………………………

      Is muhammed bragging–as he has before here–that it is civilized to amputate the hands of petty thieves and stone rape victims to death? Certainly, he has lauded such barbarism here before.

      More:

      No (sic) individual muslim (sic) has the right to punish a person for violating sharia provision (sic).It (sic) is the duty of the state to present the case before the sharia court for its determination. See Hashiyatu Dusuky(An (sic) analytical commentary on mukhtasar by syed khalil)volume (sic) 4 at page 245_247,published by Darul maarif ,Cairo_Egypt. Thus,father (sic) or brother has no right to kill his daughter or sister for adultery to save the honor of the family without taking her to sharia court for trial.if (sic) they do that they can be punished.
      …………………………………

      Of course, this is bs. “Honor” cases do not always come up before Shari’ah courts, since most families prefer to keep such “dishonor” in the family. Moreover, in many parts of Dar-al-Islam, the family can forgive “Honor Killings”. Here is one particularly egregious case:

      “Pakistan: Muslim murders daughter for ‘honor,’ goes free after pardoning himself”

      https://www.jihadwatch.org/2016/10/pakistan-muslim-murders-daughter-for-honor-goes-free-after-pardoning-himself

      This is not uncommon, though.

      More:

      The only exception is that the court cannot sentence a father to death for killing his son or daughter (sic).
      …………………………………

      As is all too common, muhammed exposes the savagery of Islam while thinking he is defending that foul creed. *Ugh*.

      Civilized people do not murder their children, and there is no get out of jail free card for murdering one’s children in the civilized world.

      In fact, civilized people consider murdering one’s children an especially heinous crime, since parents are supposed to protect and nurture their children.

      But then, muhammed would have no understanding of what I am talking about.

      More:

      He can be given a term of imprisonment.But (sic) brother can be sentenced to death for killing his sister.Note :this (sic) exception in the case of father has nothing to do with honor killing.killing (sic) can be for any reason.
      …………………………………

      In other words, a parent does not even have to give a reason for murdering his own children in Islam. And muhammed has *no concept* of how horrifying this is.

      More:

      such (sic) concept of honour killing is foreign to Islamic literature.Even (sic) if it has been the customary practice of some communities,it (sic) cannot be justified under sharia.mr (sic) spencer,you (sic) are misleading vulnerable readers in this forum with your poor_researched (sic) analysis.
      …………………………………

      If muhammed *really* believed this, he would, of course, be trying to tell his coreligionists how terribly, terribly, they misunderstanding Islam, and urging them to have their family members judicially murdered by Shari’ah judges instead.

      But instead he is here blowing smoke a the Infidels here at Jihad Watch…

      • David says

        May 17, 2017 at 6:17 am

        Gravenimage, I doubt many will read such a large post. I scrolled down to the next.

        • gravenimage says

          May 17, 2017 at 3:13 pm

          That is your prerogative, David. But I have had people reply that they do indeed read my dissections of Muslims’ Taqiyya.

        • Mark Swan says

          May 18, 2017 at 12:34 am

          Every darn one gravenimage, thank you for taking the time to dissect ibrahim itace muhammed’s nonsense. Immensely appreciated.

        • Sarah says

          May 18, 2017 at 8:48 am

          I took the time to read it. I found it informative and interesting. Which is the whole point of reading the comment’s of others on article’s on websites.

          I don’t know what you hope to achieve by being so pointlessly rude, David. Either read his comment or don’t – either agree with gravenimage’s views, or disagree with them, but being dismissive simply its a long comment is childish at best.

        • Schrödinger says

          May 18, 2017 at 9:33 am

          Thank you again gravenimage, and ditto with what Mark Swan said. Very few — if any — other commenters on JW take the considerable time and effort to so specifically, repeatedly, skilfully and comprehensively refute the sickening, specious arguments and repugnant moral claims of muslims and their innumerable apologists and, in doing so, help expose the dangerous, often surreptitious stratagems of jihadi polemicists (jihadis of the pen) in particular.

        • gravenimage says

          May 19, 2017 at 12:03 am

          Thank you so much, Mark, Sarah, and Schrödinger. Your words are much appreciated.

          And Sarah, I don’t mind David’s comments. He is entitled to his opinion. I know I do read most long posts myself, though–especially where I know and respect the commenter.

      • Bill Channon says

        May 17, 2017 at 10:14 pm

        Thank you. Very instructive and expresses the contradictions, dishonesty and/or ignorance found in application of Islamic law.

        My parents emigrated to Peru in 1947 from England. They certainly expected to follow Peruvian law not British law. Islam is the only religion/legal system on earth that requires its adherents to follow all aspects of Islam …as far as I know.

    • Vann Boseman says

      May 17, 2017 at 7:03 am

      It could happen that Spencer got it wrong in this instance. I doubt it, but people do make mistakes. There is plenty that he very clearly gets right however. Spencer is very prolific and so for you to refer to him as a “merchant of lies and hatred” requires that you can overall show this. Certainly you have failed to do this here. You fail to show Spencer as a “stupid ignorant analyst” because all you have is that you disagree on this one point. Still, it is important that you mention proof and proof is an important thing.

      I appreciate that culture that grew up around Islam might not be supported by some or most Islamic literature. In this case, you appear to be taking aim at the Islamic culture established in the traditions of Pakistan. That does not mean that the Arabian states are immune are different though. The racism and race based slavery of the Arabian states throughout history and coming up to the present is not firmly established in Islamic literature either. However, it is and was absolutely established in the Arabian states.

      So in order to establish that you have integrity to make grandiose denunciations of Robert Spencer, perhaps you could begin by producing proof that you have at your local mosque denounced Arabian culture’s negative effects on Islam publicly. This could be a good first step in establishing that you are not just using some sort of accepted method of lying so often talked about. If you want to try to prove something, then this would be a good first step.

      See. When you scratch the surface it is hard to imagine you having any integrity. The accusations you are making only make sense if I do not question. When you attack Robert Spencer so harshly, then it is proper to question why you are not just disputing a point. It is incumbent upon you to explain your overall harshness, but you have offered nothing.

      • gravenimage says

        May 17, 2017 at 3:16 pm

        ibrahim itace muhammed never offers any substantive points. As a pious Muslim, he seems to incapable of arguing rationally.

  24. Wellington says

    May 16, 2017 at 7:59 pm

    Yet another example by Muzzies of using the American Constitution in order to effectively destroy the American Constitution.

    Yes, this is what Islam is ultimately up to. Those averring otherwise are either demonstrating their ignorance or their mendacity.

    What a parasite Islam is. No greater parasite in all of history, I would contend.

    So sick of this belief system. It nauseatingly takes credit for others’ achievements. It regularly engages in deception. It is a mortal enemy of freedom. It goes into full stultifying mode after “using up” what non-Muslims have accomplished. It is a recipe for the closing of the mind. It is replete with control-freak elements. It has the stupidest and most desultory holy book of all time. It is, so obviously, ungracious in the extreme. It is a belief system which has never grown up (especially for its men——while its believing women are beyond pathetic). It is full of hatred for the “other.” It is arguably the single greatest error of man of all time———-I would put it first here.

    In short, it is the most abominable long-lived belief system ever. Here it “excels.” Yes indeed, in a class of its own. If truth prevails, which is certainly not a given and which the Islamic world will do all in its power to prevent, then Islam should go down as the single greatest mistake since the dawn of Homo sapiens sapiens (assuming here that Neanderthal Man was a Homo sapiens but “only” to the extent of a sub-species———Homo sapiens neanderthalensis) around 40,000 some years ago.

    Yeah, Islam is this awful. Quite the legacy to be sure. Indubitably.

    • PRCS says

      May 16, 2017 at 11:04 pm

      Wellington,

      Would you take a minute or two to let us know what you REALLY think, please.

      Thank you.

      • gravenimage says

        May 17, 2017 at 12:04 am

        🙂

      • Wellington says

        May 17, 2017 at 12:01 pm

        Next time I will, PRCS. Damn, I do have to stop being vague about where I stand on matters.

        • Bill Channon says

          May 17, 2017 at 10:22 pm

          Wellington. Please do. You really confused me. 🙂

  25. utis says

    May 16, 2017 at 8:22 pm

    I’m no law genius like Mr. Katyal, but isn’t allowing honor murder in the name of religion (and rape of kufr and beheading of heretics and apostates) actually establishing Islam? My understanding was that the anti-establishment clause was intended to prevent the U.S. government from making one religion the sole allowed religion, so that any deviant religions could be suppressed. The founders did not want America to wind up like Europe in the 30 Years’ War.
    Mr. Katyal seems to be arguing for establishment of Islam in this country. I’m sure the Islamists will like that, but they’ll still kill him for implying that Islam condones violence.

    • PRCS says

      May 16, 2017 at 11:09 pm

      IMO, he’s not advocating for “honor killing” (murder), here; arguing rather that such “religious” practices–which are legal in some Muslim countries–is not a reason to bar Muslims from U.S. entry.

      Will the judges buy it?

      • underbed cat says

        May 20, 2017 at 9:54 am

        I believe there is a way to bar the Islamic doctrine…legally restrict any doctrine that calls for murder to be classified as a religion. That should do it, the Quran, Haddiths, and Reliance of the Traveler which is sharia law openly state or command to kill apostates, kill for honor, kill for slander, slay infidels (non-believers) so this would not be allowed to be practiced in the U.S..nor would the mosques that instruct the doctrine.

  26. Kepha says

    May 16, 2017 at 8:39 pm

    I smell a very big rat in Katyal’s argument.

    Probably, it is a way to get judges to admit that the Free Exerciser Clause may be limited and pared away to accommodate the evolution of society; and what is used against an honor-killing Muslim today will be used against a Christian minister who refuses to perform a same-sex “wedding” tomorrow. Indeed, more recent jurisprudence seems to hold that in any conflict between the Free Exercise Clause and rights to sexual “liberation” discovered in the so-called “penumbrae” of our “living Constitution”, the Free Exercise Clause loses.

    And, you can be sure, should society evolve to rediscover the Gospel, the Left will abandon its “living Constitution” meme and be sure that its armies of whiners, rioters, and disrupters will be there to be sure that all those “rights” created out of thin air by activist Leftist judges in the late 20th century remain engraved on a diamond.

  27. ibrahim itace muhammed says

    May 16, 2017 at 8:56 pm

    Wellington,you are simply a vagabond possessed by the satan you call holy spirit(your mithraist god no.3).You mithraist pagan christians think bellow animals,walking nude and naked having indiscriminate sex like donkeys ,producing horrible bad smells like your god the satan.It is due to your stupidity that you accept to worship your fellow human being.You are worse than idol worshipers because you are wicked asking the people you colonised to close their eyes steal their wealths and later topling their good leaders to underdevelope them as Ngugi and walter Rodney exposed.you are specie of baboon,yet you despise the blacks.We the Muslim Arabs consider the blacks as equal human,all from Adam.Idiot!!

    • Wellington says

      May 16, 2017 at 11:06 pm

      First of all, ibrahim, I am not a Christian. I am not religious in the least so you got that wrong about me.

      Second, the track record by the Islamic world on the matter of black slavery is far worse than that of the Western world, and the Western world’s track record here is bad enough. To begin with, Islam started trading in black slaves as far back as the seventh century while the Western world did not engage in this iniquitous institution until the fifteenth century. Moreover, the Western world eventually realized the great wrong which slavery was and was the FIRST CIVILIZATION to take steps to end it. The Islamic world on its own has never acknowledged the wrong of slavery and was forced to terminate it to the extent it did only because the Western world made it do so. Also, the Western world has apologized for this blight on its record while the Islamic world, as I already mentioned, never has. Not be overlooked either is that Mohammed himself owned black slaves and referred to blacks derogatorily, for example calling them “raisinheads.” {Bukhari Hadith 1:662} All of which is why just about the last people on earth who should be Muslim are blacks.

      Third, what is with you and the olfactory sense? You seem obsessed with smells. But then being a Muslim means that anything looney is possible because there is nothing loonier than thinking that the psychopath, narcissist, pedophile, bandit, killer, i.e., the Profiteer Mohammed, is the last and greatest of the prophets and that the desultory, stupid, repetitive, disturbing and third-rate work known as the Koran is the word of some ubiquitous, sapient, omniscient and omnipotent deity. Believe rot like this and you can believe anything, which apparently you do and as you have demonstrated time and time again here at JW.

      Now, get lost, loser. My God, what an abomination you are but so very typical of the Mohammedan mindset——–which speaks volumes about you and other deluded followers of Mo’s creed. Done here.

      • Goddess says

        May 17, 2017 at 1:26 am

        Well said. The only thing I disagree with is ‘mohammedan mindset’. Followers of this degenerate deathcult have no minds.

      • gravenimage says

        May 17, 2017 at 4:22 pm

        Fine post, Wellington.

        • Mark Swan says

          May 18, 2017 at 1:07 am

          Absolutely Wellington

      • Bill Channon says

        May 17, 2017 at 10:26 pm

        Terrific.

    • PRCS says

      May 16, 2017 at 11:13 pm

      Yo, Ib, allow me to respond to your grammatically horrific, pathetically idiotic post,

      dljalfjiy0a45ajlajdly76^^^’a”dfajdjjf

      And, furthermore:

      aklkldfy77y832949599866667sdkdkfHUY&^^%%u8aide

      So, there!

    • gravenimage says

      May 17, 2017 at 4:22 pm

      More from the semi-literate ibrahim itace muhammed:

      Wellington,you (sic) are simply a vagabond possessed by the satan you call holy (sic) spirit(your (sic) mithraist (sic) god no.3).
      …………………………….

      Firstly, of course, Wellington has said many times that he is not Christian, nor in any way a religious person–he is a rational Agnostic. Of course, as is so common, Mohammedans assume that all Westerners are “Crusaders”, regardless of their personal beliefs.

      And then there is his usual absurdity about Mithraism, which I have debunked many times. Save for a small influence on imagery in the late Roman period, Mithraism had no effect on Christianity whatsoever.

      More:

      You mithraist (sic) pagan christians (sic) think bellow (sic) animals,walking (sic) nude and naked having indiscriminate sex like donkeys ,producing (sic) horrible bad smells like your god the satan.
      …………………………….

      Of course, Wellington criticized Islam’s hideous legacy of violence and oppression, which ibrahim itace muhammed appears incapable of addressing at all.

      instead, he equates women not being forced into marriage–often as children–as “having indiscriminate sex like donkeys”.

      Meanwhile, of course, it is fine for Muslims to rape as many sex slaves as they can get their hands on, and still be considered “chaste” under Islam.

      Interestingly, he has shown himself to be obsessed with bestiality. This should not surprise–the Muslim world has the highest rates of internet searches for topics like “donkey sex” and “sheep sex”, despite Dar-al-Islam having less web access than many more civilized parts of the world.

      And then Wellington is quite right about muhammed’s obsession with “horrible bad smells”. As is so common, he appears to confuse actual hygiene with Islamic ritual ‘purity’. As he would have it, a Muslim who never bathes except for his feet and whose left hand is smeared with feces is clean, and a Westerner who showers twice a day and uses deodorant and hand-sanitizer is “horrible bad smells”.

      More:

      It is due to your stupidity that you accept to worship your fellow human being.
      …………………………….

      Not only is this Mohammedan woefully ignorant about Christian doctrine, but–again–Wellington is not Christian in any case, so this is a moot point.

      More:

      You are worse than idol worshipers because you are wicked asking the people you colonised to close their eyes steal their wealths (sic) and later topling (sic) their good leaders to underdevelope (sic) them as Ngugi and walter Rodney exposed.you (sic) are specie of baboon,yet (sic) you despise the blacks.We (sic) the Muslim Arabs consider the blacks as equal human,all (sic) from Adam.Idiot!! (sic)
      …………………………….

      Of course, it is the West that abolished slavery, whereas Muslims continue to enslave Black Africans *to this day* in places like Mauritania and Sudan. The idea that enslaving Blacks is tantamount to regarding them as equals is just grotesque, but should not surprise.

      As for Ngugi–Ngugi wa Thiong’o, originally James Thiong’o Ngugi–he rejects capitalism. It is more the rejection of capitalism and free trade as proven wealth engines, along with corruption and the pernicious effects of Islam, which keeps so much of Africa so poor. In fact, Ngugi’s own Kenya is better off than many African nations largely because they have, at least to an extent, allowed for free trade.

      Of course, having Muslims launching attacks as they did on Westgate Mall where Al Shebaab slaughtered at least sixty-seven innocent people is not doing Kenya’s economy much good–not that muhammed has a problem with this savagery.

      Walter Rodney is probably best known for his screed, “How Europe Underdeveloped Africa”. This is another anti-capitalist polemic. He hated the very idea of a middle class, which is key to any functioning society. He was another Marxist.

      Both of the above writers muhammed cites were, of course, educated at good Western universities–not that they learned anything of substance there.

      muhammed would prefer to see Africa completely overrun with Islam, using horrors like Sudan, Mauritania–where an estimated 17% of the population is enslaved–and Somalia, one of the most hopeless countries on the face of the earth, and almost 100% Islamic, as models. *Ugh*.

      • Wellington says

        May 17, 2017 at 7:48 pm

        Excellent post as usual, gravenimage. Will of course be lost on a turd like ibrahim. I mean this person is almost certainly beyond repair. But enough of this lesser human being.

        Far more disturbing is that such an assessment as you provided will be lost on so many non-Muslims in the West, most of whom, but certainly not all, can be found on the stupid side of the political spectrum, i.e., the Left side, though there are many on the Right side of the political spectrum doing their “best” to demonstrate that they too can be just as clueless, just as ignorant, just as stupid as Leftists are———someone like John McCain comes to mind here.

        The West remains in deep trouble, profound trouble; courtesy, as I have asserted many times here at JW, not first and foremost due to the longest-lived ideological iniquity of all time, Islam, but courtesy first and foremost of absolutely indefensible continued willful ignorance of Mo’s creed by major Western figures in the political realm, the media and academia (that extra silly fool too in the religious realm——Pope Francis I).

        Not an easy “accomplishment” to be despised more than Islam. But the vast bulk of the movers and shakers in the West have “accomplished” exactly this for anyone who grasps the true “worth” of Islam, as I know you do. What an often stupid world we live in. And it need not be such if only truth can be seen with clarity. Alas, it is not. Right now, quite the opposite in fact.

        Still hopeful. Will never give up. But forces against liberty are everywhere—–with Islam certainly, with pathetically clueless dhimmis in the West who should know better by now, with authoritarian regimes like those of Russia and China. Ah yes, freedom is a fragile commodity. And it has enemies aplenty opposing it most everywhere.

        Time for a beer. Take care my wise and informed friend.

  28. Guest says

    May 16, 2017 at 9:26 pm

    The left made it clear a long time ago that they don’t give a damn about the constitution. And it doesn’t matter if it’s ‘religious’ honor killings is murder and murder is wrong and illegal.

  29. Ren says

    May 16, 2017 at 10:29 pm

    Killing as part of religion. That’s fucked up. Islam in many regards is SHIT.

  30. Karen says

    May 16, 2017 at 10:33 pm

    “He could say, like President Bush did, right after September 11th, the face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. that’s not what Islam is about. Islam is peace. Instead, we get, quote, Islam hates us. I think Islam hates us. ”

    I find this very concerning. The executive order must stand or fall on its own merits of lack of thereof. It cannot be judged in light of external comments made by the President.

    This is identical to the flawed line of reasoning used by an ACLU lawyer, who claimed that Trump’s campaign comments invalidated his travel ban, but that the same ban by Hillary could be constitutional. (See JW article of May 10, 2017.

    “Jadwat argued that Trump’s campaign animus motivated the order, making it illegitimate…”

  31. Isabellathecrusader says

    May 16, 2017 at 10:33 pm

    Thanks Katyal, ole’ buddy, for validating what Robert has been saying for years.

    • PRCS says

      May 16, 2017 at 11:17 pm

      My sentiments, too.

      And, haven’t seen many posts from you lately.

    • gravenimage says

      May 17, 2017 at 4:26 pm

      Isabella, I could not agree more.

      And let me second PRCS’s comments. Great to see you posting again!

  32. somehistory says

    May 16, 2017 at 11:43 pm

    The *right to pursue life, liberty and happiness…LIFE.
    Life tops *religious* practices. moslims religious sword to smite the necks of others has no right to touch the skin of another, much less to kill another.

    The ” non-establishment” of religion part of the Constitution.is being misapplied.

    Just as doctors *establish* a medical office, but are forced by the laws to treat people safely, etc. and sanctioned when they don’t, the same applies to a *religion* that has been *establish* by a group or people.

    Religious practice or belief, does not supersede the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
    One cannot be happy if one is being murdered for satan. One is not a liberty to pursue happiness if one is being killed for leaving the practice of worshipping satan. One is not being accorded the right to live if one is being murdered by father, mother, brother,sister, uncle, etc.

    It’s a stupid argument he made. It’s wrong. But with the way things are going, he might just succeed in convincing some foolish people.

  33. somehistory says

    May 16, 2017 at 11:47 pm

    *establish* dropped its “d.” “a’ dropped its “t”. My pc has been acting up since new updates were automatically added.

    • gravenimage says

      May 17, 2017 at 7:54 pm

      Somehistory, I am catching up on my posting after being sick for a few days.

      I just found and replied to two posts from you on this thread:

      https://www.jihadwatch.org/2017/05/mcmaster-trump-will-call-for-muslim-leaders-to-promote-a-peaceful-vision-of-islam/comment-page-1#comment-1670077

      Hope you are doing well.

  34. Goddess says

    May 17, 2017 at 1:22 am

    Abolish the joke called the 9th court. Under Article 3 Section 3 of the Constitution is all you need to indict and convict these criminals for treason. If that’s not enough, reference the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act. jizzlam will DIE.

  35. Goddess says

    May 17, 2017 at 1:33 am

    The only answer is the total and complete obliteration of this vile, diseased, death cult of inbred subhuman waste. It is only human to put them down like the rabid dogs they are.

  36. Frank Anderson says

    May 17, 2017 at 3:53 am

    I think a careful reading of bar rules (Code of Professional Responsibility/Rules of Professional Conduct) is in order regarding an advocacy of murder in a court argument. It seems to me advocating murder because it is permitted or required under Islamic “law” ignores that murder, the unlawful killing of a human being, with malice aforethought, without justification, mitigation or excuse, is a crime under US law and a deprivation of the rights of life, liberty and property under the US Constitution. I can see where a bar might have something to say to a licensed attorney who makes that argument; but then again, maybe not.

    This is an incredible argument. The judges I have stood before would have a hard time controlling their reaction to a lawyer making it. Sooner or later it was bound to be made in precisely this manner, and force the question whether the Constitution or Sharia will govern the US.

  37. Anne Smith says

    May 17, 2017 at 5:03 am

    Principles of the First Amendment giving religious freedom are enshrined because the whole being of America came about as religiously oppressed minorities in England, and parts of Europe, fled to re-settle and make a new home in America where they could practise their Christianity as they wished. Against huge difficulties they succeeded and created a wonderful country.

    Their creation, founded in Christianity, is now being challenged by another religion in many different ways. This lawyer has clearly demonstrated that Islam and the American constitution are incompatible.

    Time for Mr Trump and his team to grasp this nettle.

  38. patriotliz says

    May 17, 2017 at 7:49 am

    The biggest mistake of the Founding Fathers w/ the Bill of Rights is that they didn’t define “religion” or “religious” freedom. Not all ideologies that happen to be referred to as a “religion” qualify for freedom of expression. There should have been an asterisk* after religion* to qualify that any religious observances/practices cannot supersede Constitutional law or local law. That includes wearing a facial covering when getting an ID for a driver’s license.

  39. Valkyrie Ziege says

    May 17, 2017 at 12:31 pm

    ; The Qur’an, also, states that rape, child-brides, murdering homosexuals, murdering anyone who isn’t your religion, murdering anyone in your religion who isn’t worshiping the same as you, murdering anyone for apostasy, beating-up fill-in-the-blank, and slavery, are religious expressions. I’d guess that serial murders, serial rapists, pædophiles, and any other Jack-the-Ripper types, can convert to Muhammadanism, then throw themselves on the mercy of the court because arresting them is a violation of their First Amendment rights.

  40. Carolyne says

    May 17, 2017 at 12:32 pm

    Even the term “Honor Killings” is ridiculous. Muslims have no honor.

  41. Guest says

    May 17, 2017 at 2:04 pm

    1. The constitution also says the right to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed. But it’s infringed all the time.
    2. The constitution also say women have the fundamental right. And one of those rights is to say no and live.
    He’s trying to legalize murder.

    • Beyondculturewars says

      May 18, 2017 at 9:10 am

      It’s a win/win for him……..sharia law gets legitimated and becomes less of a political/social contract and more protection under religious clause.

      And, the rights of a muslim man over any woman is affirmed. Once again, sharia law gets supremacy over constitutional rights of all women.

  42. L geegee says

    May 17, 2017 at 11:49 pm

    They all need to get the hell out of our country!!!!! They do NOT belong here!!!!

  43. Schrödinger says

    May 18, 2017 at 9:13 am

    Impeach islam.

    Sharia, in the islamic scheme of things, does of course supersede all man made law — as muslims disparagingly refer to our legal systems. More and more OIC card carrying muslim nations slyly yet expressly state, in their Constitutions, that whenever there is any conflict between any temporal law and “allah’s” the latter must always prevail. Without qualification.

    The nonsense you often hear from muslims that the Maqasid allows for progress and evolution in islamic law is little other than Taquiya — and a subcategory thereof called Muruna. Beyond the inescapable necessity for muslim societies and Sharia judges to make some interim accomodation towards a world no longer as dark and primitive as that of the early seventh century in Arabia, the fact is that Sharia law is immutable. After all, does not the Sublime Koran, in Al Ahzab, verse 36, state perfectly clearly: “The believing man or woman must not feel free to decide upon a matter (or do something in their affairs) once it has already been decided for them by pbuh and his artificial prop and plot device nicknamed allah. One who disobeys the aforementioned duo in this case of risible fraud and possible schizophrenia or multiple personality disorder is in plain error” (Various translations of the Noble Koran do differ in their precise wording. Yet they occasionally have the uncanny knack of revealing even more about the truth of the matter than what was initially “revealed”).

    The United States, leader of the diminishing free world, has valiantly struggled for over a century to replace such antiquated and inhumane values and belief systems as those exemplified in the barbaric codes of islam and its Sharia with a Constitution, values and system of government similar to its own. The islamic world has no interest in the US Constitution. Their all consuming goal, AKA their jihad, is to replace it with the Koran. All the better to conquer and subjugate you.

  44. Salem says

    May 18, 2017 at 11:00 am

    So…based on his logic, the right to bear arms should give me also the right to kill/harm people and get away with it.

  45. Donald Howard says

    May 20, 2017 at 4:02 am

    If this bottom feeding lawyer’s argument were to be given judicial credence, then it would also go without saying that judicial credence would also have to be given to the Islamic practice of men marrying young girls as young as 6 yrs old since that to is a part of Islamic practice and tradition. One only has to look at the very things that are considered every day common and accepted practices in the Islamic world to realize that in the west or for that matter most of the non Islamic world, are considered warped and or out right criminal. The belief system and common practices of Islam and the Islamic dominated world are not compatible with western ideals and customs.

FacebookYoutubeTwitterLog in

Subscribe to the Jihad Watch Daily Digest

You will receive a daily mailing containing links to the stories posted at Jihad Watch in the last 24 hours.
Enter your email address to subscribe.

Please wait...

Thank you for signing up!
If you are forwarding to a friend, please remove the unsubscribe buttons first, as they my accidentally click it.

Subscribe to all Jihad Watch posts

You will receive immediate notification.
Enter your email address to subscribe.
Note: This may be up to 15 emails a day.

Donate to JihadWatch
FrontPage Mag

Search Site

Translate

The Team

Robert Spencer in FrontPageMag
Robert Spencer in PJ Media

Articles at Jihad Watch by
Robert Spencer
Hugh Fitzgerald
Christine Douglass-Williams
Andrew Harrod
Jamie Glazov
Daniel Greenfield

Contact Us

Terror Attacks Since 9/11

Archives

  • 2020
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2019
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2018
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2017
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2016
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2015
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2014
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2013
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2012
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2011
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2010
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2009
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2008
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2007
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2006
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2005
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2004
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2003
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • March

All Categories

You Might Like

Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Recent Comments

  • janicevanguilder on New study reveals that Muslim religiosity strongly linked to hatred towards the West
  • Boycott Turkey on Greece, Cyprus, Egypt, France and UAE conduct joint military exercises amid rising Turkish threat
  • Yogi on EU Parliament members call for firing of border agency director for preventing illegal migrants from entering Europe
  • Hoi Polloi on Why so many Muslims can’t wait for Biden to get inaugurated
  • Hoi Polloi on EU Parliament members call for firing of border agency director for preventing illegal migrants from entering Europe

Popular Categories

dhimmitude Sharia Jihad in the U.S ISIS / Islamic State / ISIL Iran Free Speech

Robert Spencer FaceBook Page

Robert Spencer Twitter

Robert Spencer twitter

Robert Spencer YouTube Channel

Books by Robert Spencer

Jihad Watch® is a registered trademark of Robert Spencer in the United States and/or other countries - Site Developed and Managed by Free Speech Defense

Content copyright Jihad Watch, Jihad Watch claims no credit for any images posted on this site unless otherwise noted. Images on this blog are copyright to their respective owners. If there is an image appearing on this blog that belongs to you and you do not wish for it appear on this site, please E-mail with a link to said image and it will be promptly removed.

Our mailing address is: David Horowitz Freedom Center, P.O. Box 55089, Sherman Oaks, CA 91499-1964

loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.