Merriam Webster defines “religion” as “a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices.” Islam certainly qualifies as a religion by that definition. Religions profess to connect human beings to the divine. Islam professes to do that. At the same time, however, it is also a political system that is authoritarian, supremacist, discriminatory, expansionist, violent, and aggressive. Asma T. Uddin must be aware of that fact but ignores it entirely, instead giving the impression that Sharia is simply religious law, and opposition to Sharia is simply motivated by religious bigotry and “Islamophobia.”
In reality, Islamic law’s political aspects contradict Constitutional principles and American freedoms in numerous particulars, including its denial of the freedom of speech, the institutionalized discrimination against women, non-Muslims, and other groups, its death penalty for apostasy from Islam and for homosexual activity, and more. At a certain point there is going to have to be a national discussion about whether religious freedom grants Muslims the right to break other laws, or whether the aspects of Sharia that contradict American law are unwelcome in the United States. Asma T. Uddin and the New York Times are trying to foreclose upon that discussion by muddling the issue.
Islam has always been political. Its political aspect has always been considered intrinsic to its nature. On this, the historical record is clear. See my new book The History of Jihad From Muhammad to ISIS: it shows definitively, from primary source material, that everywhere Islam has gone, it has gone as a political entity, and waged war against other political entities. Asma T. Uddin and the New York Times are relying upon your ignorance of Islamic law and Islamic history to manipulate you into thinking that Sharia is benign and completely compatible with the United States’ character as a free society, even though every society where Sharia has ever been implemented has not been free. Thwart this manipulation: order The History of Jihad From Muhammad to ISIS here.
“The Latest Attack on Islam: It’s Not a Religion,” by Asma T. Uddin, New York Times, September 26, 2018 (thanks to the Geller Report):
Religious liberty has become a particularly politicized topic in recent years, and recent months were no different. In a long-awaited June decision, the Supreme Court decided in favor of a Christian baker who refused to make a custom wedding cake for a gay couple. In July, Attorney General Jeff Sessions introduced a “religious liberty task force” that critics saw as a mere cover for anti-gay discrimination. And Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s record has been scoured for evidence of what his appointment to the Supreme Court would mean for future decisions in which Christian beliefs clash with law and policy.
But when it comes to religious liberty for Americans, there’s a disturbing trend that has drawn much less attention. In recent years, state lawmakers, lawyers and influential social commentators have been making the case that Muslims are not protected by the First Amendment.
Why? Because, they argue, Islam is not a religion.
This once seemed like an absurd fringe argument. But it has gained momentum. John Bennett, a Republican state legislator in Oklahoma, said in 2014, “Islam is not even a religion; it is a political system that uses a deity to advance its agenda of global conquest.” In 2015, a former assistant United States attorney, Andrew C. McCarthy, wrote in National Review that Islam “should be understood as conveying a belief system that is not merely, or even primarily, religious.” In 2016, Michael Flynn, who the next year was briefly President Trump’s national security adviser, told an ACT for America conference in Dallas that “Islam is a political ideology” that “hides behind the notion of it being a religion.” In a January 2018 news release, Neal Tapio of South Dakota, a Republican state senator who was planning to run for the United States House of Representatives, questioned whether the First Amendment applies to Muslims….
The fear is not limited to mosque cases. There have been legislative efforts in 43 states to ban the practice of Islamic religious law, or Shariah law; 24 bills were introduced in 2017 alone, according to the Haas Institute at the University of California, Berkeley. This year, Idaho introduced an anti-Shariah bill, bringing the number of measures introduced since 2010 to at least 217. Of those, 20 have been enacted.
The laws’ backers seem to see them as necessary stopgaps to protect against their imagined Muslim takeover of America. When an Idaho state representative, Eric Redman, a Republican, introduced his anti-Shariah bill in January, he said it was needed so that “foreign law” would not “defile our constitutional laws” and to “protect our state and our country.” That’s a similar sentiment to the one expressed by the conservative political activist Pamela Geller, who argued in a 2016 commentary published by Breitbart that Muslim women seeking accommodations to wear a head scarf in the workplace are part of a “Muslim effort to impose Islam on the secular marketplace.”…
Ole Pederson says
Of course Islam is not a religion, at least not in the first place. For the most part, it is a political ideology of totalitarian rule over any non-muslim society.
As such, it very much resembles National Socialism and other Fascist ideologies that can very well be made illegal, if the state and its majority population want.
Goutam says
It’s a war doctrine. Given a cloak of Godliness by the greatest conman who ever walked on Earth.
infidel numero uno says
Do you know for sure that the scumbag really walked the Earth?
Dipak says
What about Jesus Christ ?
Musalmaanmasala says
What about Ram, Krishna, Shiva, Parvati, Laxmi, Vishnu, Hanuman, Brahma and other 33000 crore gods
Musalmaanmasala says
As for Christ let me say
Peter W. Stoner and Robert C. Newman in “Science Speaks” VOUCHED FOR by the American Scientific Affiliation sets out THE ODDS of any one man IN ALL OF HISTORY fulfilling EVEN ONLY 8 of the 60 major prophecies (& 270 others) FULFILLED BY CHRIST.
The PROBABILITY that Jesus could have fulfilled even 8 SUCH prophecies would 1 in 1017. That’s 1 in 100, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000.
I cant see 33000 crore gods or Mohammed having done any of that
JESUS LIVED AND DIED FOR YOU DIPAK
Sherry says
It is perfect;y clear that you are correct, You and Oklahoma’s John Bennett couldn’t have explained it better. People need to open their eyes and ears regarding this radical and dangerous group of heathens who are a threat to all humanity. .
Charles Martel says
Yes, Islam has nothing to do with the word ‘religion’.
It never was and it will never will.Its the creation of Satan and his cohort.
Read the history of islam and what it did to humanity .
J D S says
Islam..a religion or not????I would prefer to call Islam a political religious activist CULT…..but who am I to say this about a murderous, enslsving mob of people who use women as sex slaves and confiscate property, and peoples as well, making slaves of them and considers rape of women and boys as the norm… and further seems to make heaven a whore house by awarding 72 virgins for murderous acts. What makes all this, for a better word, LEGAL? Comes from a book supposedly attributed to muhammad..(IF HE EVER ACTUALLY EXISTED. NO HISTOTICAL PROOF) But written long after his death by Only God knows who …Sickening!
Udo Walter says
Don’t forget the Catholic Church was the Government and the law for more than a 1000 years in Europe and only some land owners were semi free. Kings were only puppets and the rest of the European population were considered livestock.
gravenimage says
Not really, Udo. There was a constant push and pull between church and state for the whole of the Middle Ages in Europe.
StellaSaidSo says
Udo is right. The Church WAS the state. Kings paid homage to the Pope. ‘Push and pull’? Sure. And the Pope nearly always won.
Carol the 1st says
The “livestock” were of a different breed than those who’d follow and fulfill the openly stated and dark heart of Islam. Through struggle and the learning curve this “livestock” managed to provide the world with the model of SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. They wisely attempted to render unto God what is God’s and unto Caesar what is Caesar’s. They translated their holy book for the common man and helped eliminate too much authority lying with very torn “middle men”.
gravenimage says
StellaSaidSo, this is not always the case. At various times there were several popes backed by various secular powers, the century-long case of the “Babylonian captivity” where the papacy moved to Avignon, and cases where one pontiff or another was imprisoned. And it is not just the papacy–there were power struggles between bishops and kings and other figures, as well.
There are a lot of good books on this issue–a good place to start is Brian Tierney’s “The Crisis of Church and State: 1050-1300”.
Olufemi says
Islam is proto-Nazism.
mortimer says
Islam is the Platypus of Religions. Islam is DUALISTIC … both highly political and inseparable from the supremacist religious cult of Mohammed and Allah.
In “Allah Is Dead: Why Islam is not a Religion”, author Rebecca Bynum confronts the idea that Islam is ‘just’ a religion.
She shows that Islam is like a platypus which is dualistic: a platypus is both a mammal and a bird at the same time, having DNA from both sides.
The DUALISM of Islam has been noted by many scholars, such as Dutch Islamologist Dr. Hans Jansen (book: “The Dual Nature of Islamic Fundamentalism”.
Andrzej Klasén says
“Allah Is Dead: Why Islam Is Not a Religion” 1 Feb 2011 https://www.amazon.co.uk/Allah-Dead-Why-Islam-Religion/dp/0578073900
Carol the 1st says
Bynum (per above link summary) seems to believe it’s far more likely that Islam will overtake the secular world than vice versa – but she’s “overall hopeful and provides an important ideological tool for dealing with Islam which is to *reconsider its classification*” (just as we’ve often urged). She likens Islam to the “duck-billed platypus” – part mammal and part bird.
The summary concludes:
Bynum has given policy-makers a powerful tool for dealing with Islam. Let us hope they understand, and grasp, and choose to make use of it. (that is to RECONSIDER ITS CLASSIFICATION)
gravenimage says
She also does great work at the New English Review.
Lydia Church says
“In a long-awaited June decision, the Supreme Court decided in favor of a Christian baker who refused to make a custom wedding cake for a gay couple.”
And this was the right decision. I too, as a Christian, cannot condone any sort of sin, including that of homosexuality and/or gay ‘marriage.’ I have the right to say ‘no.’ And I will say no, no matter what the consequences are. If someone doesn’t like it, they are trying to infringe on my rights and not vice versa. That is the direction the discrimination is going in, and no other. No one can force me to say something that I disagree with, and baking a cake for a gay wedding would be saying ‘okay’ to that, but I won’t, and no one can force me, because I refuse. If people don’t see that the others are at fault here, and in violation of trespassing on the human rights of Christians and our religious freedom, then they are truly blind. And again, no one can force us to deny our faith, because we simply refuse.
“In July, Attorney General Jeff Sessions introduced a “religious liberty task force” that critics saw as a mere cover for anti-gay discrimination.”
No. It is a religious liberty task force that defends against anti-Christian discrimination coming from the gays. We are not discriminating, they are, hence the need for the task force to protect and defend our rights.
“And Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s record has been scoured for evidence of what his appointment to the Supreme Court would mean for future decisions in which Christian beliefs clash with law and policy.”
And yes, Christian beliefs DO trump all other laws, state or religious. The difference is that the Bible is actually the Word of God. We will live by it and die by it if need be. And, for those who don’t think there is basis for this in the Constitution, there actually is. That is how the lawyer won the case for Kim Davis in Kentucky.
: D
*Please note: All slurs and insults will be automatically bounced back to the insulters, along with their faulty ‘logic’ that is already refuted. Have a blessed day!
Indiana Tom says
And yes, Christian beliefs DO trump all other laws, state or religious. The difference is that the Bible is actually the Word of God.
Eh, not sure if a lot of people will really buy that. Not that I really disagree.
But one aspect that needs to be brought out is by what kind of moral values and standards does Christianity espouse and promote versus Islam.
Islam wins and the world will be filled with endless Jihad as Muslims have actually stated that they will make wars on kafirs, than they will make war on weak Muslims, then they will make war to determine the most islamic purity of the different groups of Muslims.
Christianity in theory is to promote fruits of the spirit.
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.
Newman says
Martyrdom for a Muslim is being killed while trying to kill an non-Muslim. Martyrdom for a Christian is allowing oneself to be killed by a non-Christian so that grace may enlighten him in the law of Love which he by his example typifies.
Carol the 1st says
You believe in pacifism? Would that cover one’s responsibilities to the vulnerable and innocent?
Z says
It’s not a crime to say no
FYI says
Here’s a pretty good definition of religion:-
“What God the Father considers to be pure and genuine religion is this:
to take care of orphans and widows in their suffering and to
keep oneself from being corrupted by the world”
James 1 v 27
Both Judaism and Christianity,while being different religions, have the SAME ultimate
moral code:the 10+2 commandment system.They are MORAL religions.
islam,which is really the cult of muhammed / allah the deceiver does NOT
conform to the same laws revealed in the Bible.There are NO two chief commandments
either,so important are they that,according to the NT{Matthew 22 v 40}
“The WHOLE law of Moses and the teachings of the prophets depend on these two commandments”.But not in islam!
Indiana Tom says
Still trying to figure out if Judaism and Christianity are that much of two different religions. Pastors at my churches have repeatedly stated that actually most of what Jesus and the Apostles said were not really new and were repeatedly stated in the Old Testament. The majority of scripture readings and sermon at our churches were actually out of the Old Testament. Same for the Catholic church my wife attended.
Christianity is a very Jewish based religion.
FYI says
True.
Christianity is Jewish in origin.ALL of the NT prophets like the Apostles and St John the Baptist,the mother of Christ were Jews.They were practising Jews and subscribed to the God of Israel.They would have known all God’s prophecies.
Judaism,is sort of like the elder brother of Christianity:islam,is like the black sheep of the family I’m afraid.Christians and Jews have an awful lot in common:it is significant that allah curses the Jews AND the Christians in koran 9:30.
“We Jews know whom we worship because It is from the Jews that salvation comes”
John 4 v 22
christians believe that the OT prophecies confirm Jesus Christ.
Interestingly enough,while allah claims to have written the Gospel{he didn’t..}and says
“WE bestowed on {Jesus} the Gospel wherein are guidance and a light,
confirming that which was revealed before it in the Torah”
koran 5 v 46
so allah does not dispute the fact that the Gospel confirms the Torah{True}but his claim the koran confirms the Bible{in k3:3} is FALSE.
The problem with allah’s claim that he gave the Gospel to Jesus is that the Gospel did not appear until many years later AFTER the death of Jesus:i.e it is impossible allah could have given the Gospel to Jesus when He was on earth because…. it didn’t exist at that time!
Frank Anderson says
Please consider reading Who Wrote the New Testament by Burton Mack.
Brian hoff says
Christian is also than political beliefs system. Evangelist christian false believe that AIDS was than homosexual illness that only homosexual got and spead
Some evangelist chistian pharmacy refuse to give people who have AIDS the antiaids medines. Some pharmacy Association are still lobberying to get states laws pass that allow then to not service certain type of people like homosexual and muslim.
gravenimage says
More bollocks from old “DefenderofIslam”. What Christian pharmacists are refusing to serve Muslims? Citations, please.
Indiana Tom says
Not by most Western standards and maybe a few Eastern ones.
Islamic Fundamentalism is not about making better people and a better society through religious belief.
Islam really is a totalitarian state in which what people believe is really not very important.
In Islam, you follow the rules of Mohammed and their interpretations by the religious courts.
Bev says
Islam controls the life of the adherents 24/7/365 from cradle to grave. It’s also a lot like Hotel California – where you can check out, but you can never leave.
Westman says
It’s the only reason Islam grows today – lots of children indoctrinated and saying the shahada before they can even solve a simple math problem; then discovering anything from shunning by their own families to death if they leave. No compulsion is the ultimate Islam joke.
Even the Amish allow the children to make up their minds as young ADULTS.
granddaddy says
“In reality, Islamic law’s political aspects contradict Constitutional principles and American freedoms in numerous particulars…”
Islam claims to be an extension of the Judaeo-Christian tradition, and yet in every country based upon Judaeo-Christian values, it contradicts basic principles of freedom, truth, and tolerance. Even Christians believe in this so-called Judaeo-Christian-Muslim “tradition”. Is slavery freedom? Is anti-Semitism tolerance? Is taqiyya truth? When are people going to wake up?
gravenimage says
+1
Norger says
I remember reading that a reputable opinion survey (maybe Pew) showed that something like 90% of Egyptians favored “freedom of religion” and about the same percentage supported the death penalty for apostasy from Islam. “Freedom of religion”= “freedom” to practice Islam upon penalty of death for leaving Islam. Devout Muslims have similarly inverted definitions of “peace,” “justice” and “human rights” generally. Islam is an alternative civilization and one that is diametrically opposed to “western” Judeo-Christian values.
gravenimage says
Yes–I remember those schizophrenic poll reasults.
When most Muslims talk about “freedom of religion”, they mean the “right” to impose Islam on everyone.
Charles says
Islam is both religion and Theocratic state wrapped up in one. It is not fair to say it is not a religion. It has a very strong religious component. Like any form of law system, communism, socialism, republicanism, Islamism etc…Islam is a theocratic system of belief and governance. Muhammad began as an insurgent, then became a warlord, then set up a rule of law to govern his military and followers. He made laws, enacted military engagement, punished crime, ordered executions, treated apostasy as treason, etc…Islam is a theocratic ideology with religion as a component.
Carol the 1st says
Graham…I think that “not” must have been a slip.
Carol the 1st says
Charles…how do you mix “a very strong religious component” with the demeaning or destroying of so-called kafirs (“us” BTW)? Should 21st century people just blinker ourselves from this kafirophobic peccadillo with genteel “respect” for a predator that leeches its facade from our very own Abrahamic religions? “Just where is the mutual respect here?” one might DARE consider asking (before it’s too late).
Alas, Islam can don the “religious” mantle and preen and glean to its “hearts” content but anyone with their head screwed on straight and their natural feelings intact immediately recognizes that it feeds on all that is poorly informed/selfish/weak/or cruel and is definitely NOT entitled to be classified as “one of the gang”. The last thing a cult deserves is a misleading and enabling “religious” mantle. Hocus pocus is more like it.
Carol the 1st says
…I should have added the obvious: /vain/venial or cruel.
Carol the 1st says
oops…that should be “venal”.
Carol the 1st says
oops…that should be “venal”.
Emilie Green says
Sadly for the NYT, Uddin, and Muslims, the case can easily be made that Islam is not a religion. That’s what troubles them. Articles like this are trying to head the posse off at the pass. But the cat’s out of the bag on this one, and more and more are learning about Islam from the ugly things that Muslims do. More and more are educating themselves on exactly what Islam is and how Muslims go about practicing it, practices which require us as non-Muslims to conform.
Voytek Gagalka says
Let look on it from Mohammedan (Muslim) perspective for a change. No Muslim (Mohammedan) says that Islam is a “religion,” albeit the Qur’an mentions something about “Allah perfecting your religion.” They call it “the way of life” (whatever they mean by “life.” Why the “way of life” should be protected by the Constitution, no one is willing to explain. Cannibalism could also be described as “a way of life” (for cannibals). Call a spade as the spade and get rid of their floating absurd abstractions once and for all: One time they assert that theirs is THE religion (only to obtain Constitutional protection and fool non-believers), another time (between themselves) calling it “the way of life.”
Indiana Tom says
Sharia actually means the way to the water.
NANCY A MOLINARI says
Z, What does “It’s not a crime to say no” mean?
Carol the 1st says
Didn’t Mortimer just describe (in his 12:29 post above) how Islam itself actually and historically defines itself?:
“Muslims say Islam is a DEEN, but that word is MISTRANSLATED into English as ‘religion’. DEEN MEANS a system of GOVERNANCE of ALL aspects of life.”
If Islam has thus admitted that its ‘religious’ practices take a *subsidiary* role then maybe a NEW term deserves to enter our vocabulary so that we can properly separate real religious wheat from Islamic chaff in our somewhat befuddled minds?
James Lincoln says
I am ashamed to admit it, but 4-5 years ago, I thought that the New York Times was a “trusted” news source.
Since that time, I have conducted extensive, independent research regarding the mainstream media.
I will never be fooled again.
nicholas tesdorf says
Islam has been around for 1400 years and yet people are still unable to judge its true nature. Islam is like a chameleon. Islam is not concerned with making people better or more moral or creating a better society through religious belief. One only has to examine Sharia compliant countries to realise that Islam is a mental disease, not a religion.
IanB says
ALL irrational, supernatural beliefs are forms of insanity, mild, as most are, or deadly as with Islam.
Frank Anderson says
IanB, analytically and from experience, sometime a little insanity can be very helpful in dealing with the huge amount of insanity and unreason we confront daily. I tried for 7 years to depend on reason and logic alone, and found the little insanity really helps, just like my patient uncle assured me it does. Having reason to hope can help one survive circumstances that would otherwise lead to death. Having tried death for about 2 hours during surgery, life is better. As he said to me for 7 years, “When you find YOUR answer it will be the right one for you.”
IanB says
Thank you for that interesting thought Frank. During a crisis in life many people gain strength from religious faith to help them through it. For them that has to be a good thing. It is of no use to me because it has no credibility. I have to have indisputable objective evidence to believe anything. This has served me well in a career in engineering, accident investigation and law – and in general life too. I agree that we each have to find our own answer that is right for us. I would add that this is an individual search independent of imposed dogma. I hope you’ve found your answer, Frank, the right one for you. Best wishes, Ian.
Frank Anderson says
IanB, I think you understand my suggestion, and my dear uncle’s 7 years of challenge. He was the only member of my adopted family that did not panic at my questions. All this was before I was 22. Then something happened that convinced me that God had been present even when I was denying that presence and was fighting on my own. As briefly as I can, let me tell you about MY encounter:
I had graduated from college and was working 60 or so hours per week on a salaried job. More work did not mean more money. I am an engineer of some merit who enjoys engineering problems, and was surrounded by them in the same proportions as Chesty Puller and Marines who were surrounded by Chinese at the Chosin Reservoir. In order to get away from work I registered at a local college to audit a music appreciation course in their night program. The registrar asked the traditional Baptist Church missionary question, “Do you have a church home?” My answer was, “No. I have never found a preacher that had read at least one book in addition to the Bible.” She said, “Well, I understand. If you ever take a notion, come to this church. This preacher has read a BUNCH of books in addition to the Bible.”
The course did not work out because I made a number of poor judgment calls that prevented getting home and cleaned up in time to make the classes. In the meantime, I was working under a psychotic supervisor who had made it through 1 semester of engineering, flunked out, and went to industrial management. I was as green as grass; and he got his thrills trying to kill me with his orders, for real.
About 2 months after registering for the course the notion struck me to go to church the next morning. NO human had any clue that I was going or what I needed to hear. The sermon that day was on The Parable of the TWO Sons, Matthew 21:28-32. In all the years of forced attendance I had never once heard that parable, and TO THIS DAY have not heard it since preached, except when I wrote and conducted my adopted mother’s funeral. I heard many times about the Prodigal Son, but never the Two. I swore he made it up.
Then I read the Bible cover to cover 3 times looking for it and finding much that continues to inspire me and raise more questions. I am still asking questions because I think that is why we are given minds. I was baptized later and continue my search to this day. Twenty years later I found great wisdom when I visited the Jewish community, but also found that after more than 20 years it was time to move on. I believe that God wants His Children to come to him willingly and knowingly, not through force, influence or compulsion. As a direct result of my 7 year search before that sermon I asked the same questions I think you are asking. I believe God never left my side through some really major trials even though I was denying Him and trying to run away. As my uncle, Grump, promised me, YOUR answer will be the one right for you. Keep asking!
Carol the 1st says
Having that big anthropomorphized Question Mark hanging up there in the sky (even as a form of ‘suspended disbelief’) may be a way of responding to and acknowledging the big mysteries we all face. That way real flesh and blood doesn’t presume itself as the only judge of what’s good and right.
It tends to leave things “open” which is a pretty wise approach. It’s our “graven images” that tend to make us too rigid and abrasive.
No Fear says
Look at the history of religion. You will see that “religion” does not mean “self improvement group”. Human sacrifice, cannibalism, murder, rape …. all part of various “religions” in the past.
gravenimage says
True, No Fear. Islam is a religion–it is just an *evil* religion.
NANCY MOLINARI says
Islam is NOT a religion! Islam is an aggressive, warring, political ideology that combines a belief system is a culture, religious and political beliefs of the governance of Muslim people.
It’s a combination of a religious, political and cultural belief system all rolled into one. Islam is a complete way of life, sent by Allah in the form of revelation by means of Prophet Muhammad. It covers the three essential needs of human life: physical, intellectual and spiritual. These three aspects of the faith are known individually as:
1 Islam – Divine law
2 Imān – Belief
3 Iħsān – Ethics and moral character.
The first aspect, Islam, deals primarily with the physical aspects of the faith, such as its obligations, prohibitions and recommended actions. This is the part of the faith governed by Shariah – Islamic law. This aspect cannot, be implemented by itself, but must complement the other two components. When the Prophet (s) taught Islam to his followers, he taught them all these three aspects at once, in a natural and holistic approach. So each of the three components of Islam cannot be separated.
NANCY A MOLINARI says
I should have said Islam is NOT just a religion, because it cannot be separated from their political and cultural beliefs – they are all intertwined. I stand firm on how I explained Islam Ideology.
Carol the 1st says
Oh, maybe it’s just ’cause I’m a Westerner, but I don’t think Divine Law/Shariah and ihsan (ethics and moral character) belong in even the same sentence.
Elisha says
I’m a bit disappointed, Robert, that you rely on that dictionary definition of religion, as I expect more from a learned scholar. The word “religion” comes from the Latin “religare” – [re:back, ligare:to bind] – expressing the idea that one is bound to one’s beliefs, which guide all of one’s actions. Atheism, by definition, is indeed a religious view and it is secular humanist atheism that has opened the door to islam, co-opting it to use as a weapon to destroy Christian based Western civilization. The belief that there is no supernatural realm is pure folly, obliterated by the fact that things like morality and reason (which are not matter) exist OUTSIDE of the natural realm (ie, matter). What hath the philosophical delusion of Darwinism wrought indeed!
For they sow the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind. – Hosea 8:7
Chand says
Wrong about the supernatural nature of morality and reason, Elisha. They do not have independent existence outside the human brain and thus have a material foundation. Concepts, thoughts, etc. are not material but are the outcome of material events, as in human consciousness, when the neurons get connected via chemical reactions in the brain. Molecules communicate signals in the synaptic gaps between two neurons, leading to conscious events.
Just like your ideas appearing magically as if thru thin air onto my laptop, which is an illusion, as they too have a material basis, in the battery, wi fi signals, words and letters as pixels on the screen, etc. They are not supernatural.
And just because some religious fundamentalists may ‘use’ secular humanist atheism as a ‘weapon’ in your opinion, to destroy Western civilization, it is not the latter’s fault as this humanist atheism is one of the pinnacles of Western thought and culture, arrived at through hard struggle and sacrifice and a lot of burning of the midnight lamps.
In fact secular humanist atheism is one of the strongest weapons against religious fundamentalism, including Islamic Jihadism.
IanB says
Well stated Chand.
StellaSaidSo says
Ditto.
gravenimage says
New York Times hits “disturbing trend” of seeing Islam as “not a religion”
……………………………
Yes, Islam is technically a religion. But to the extent that religions are perceived as morally good and decent or in any way spiritual, Islam is not. Also–as noted–that it is also a totalitarian creed that teaches absolute control over not just the believers, but over everyone in the world–and the use of violence to reach that position.
More:
The fear is not limited to mosque cases. There have been legislative efforts in 43 states to ban the practice of Islamic religious law, or Shariah law; 24 bills were introduced in 2017 alone, according to the Haas Institute at the University of California, Berkeley. This year, Idaho introduced an anti-Shariah bill, bringing the number of measures introduced since 2010 to at least 217. Of those, 20 have been enacted.
……………………………
So Asma T. Uddin is opposed to America protecting against the horrors of brutal Shari’ah law, including amputating the limbs of petty thieves, flogging “blasphemers”, and stoning rape victims to death–and further is claiming that the First Amendment protects such savagery? *Ugh*.
This should not surprise–Uddin is behind the Taqiyya-spewing site, altmuslim.com.
simpleton1 says
Islam is trying to be just a little bit “pregnant”.
IanB says
“gravenimage” – the voice of Reason, as ever. Thank you for this and all your clear-sighted intelligent comments GI.
gravenimage says
Thank you so much, Ian.
CogitoErgoSum says
I would have to say that Islam (Submission) is a religion. However, it does not make a distinction between the world of the physical and the world of the spiritual as most other religions do. In Christianity, Christ speaks of His kingdom as not being of this world but in Heaven or in the next age of another Earth yet to come. However, in the religion of Submission, Muhammad’s Allah speaks of making slaves of all human beings living in this world; the next world is merely a continuation of the physical pleasures of this world with some added physical pleasures thrown in for those who were good slaves the first time around.
For Christians, God respects the ability of man to rule himself in this world. For Muslims, Allah grants no such permission and expects the slaves of Allah to follow a strict set of rules. The Constitution of the United States provides a framework by which free men are able to govern themselves. It does grant the freedom of religion to all who agree to being governed under the Constitution. The members of most religions agree to abide by these rules and to accept that the government of the United States will not at any time favor one religion over another. Unlike other religions Muslims accept the rules of the Constitution only temporarily, i.e., until the point is reached when they can change the Constitution to make Islam the favored and supreme religion of the United States. The ultimate goal of the religion of Submission is the subversion and overthrow of the United States as we know it today. Any religion which has THAT as its goal should NOT be provided the protection of the very Constitution which the members of that religion (Submission) seeks to overthrow.
simpleton1 says
CES good points.
“Submission, Muhammad’s Allah speaks of making slaves of all human beings living in this world”
The ‘great commission’ / ‘the consummation’ of undertaking by muslims.
“Muslims accept the rules of the Constitution only temporarily,”
The little bit pregnant part.
“i.e., until the point is reached when they can change the Constitution to make Islam the favored and supreme religion”
Giving birth to he supreme baby of islam, a “control freak”
gravenimage says
Yes–there is nothing spiritual about Islam.
Renate says
Jesus said, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.” That distinction doesn’t exist in Islam. Everything is Allah’s. If the purpose of a religion is to connect people to the divine, Islam misses the mark because it gets caught up in the trivialities of every day life even to a point of telling followers how to go to the bathroom. If you notice, Jesus never gave his followers any directives on that and I’m kind of glad he didn’t. He was all about Eternal Life now and in Heaven. Islam is more of a political system than it is anything else. When so much of the writings were taken up by Mohammed telling everyone how much he hated kafirs, that’s not exactly a stunning endorsement for connecting followers to the divine.
Renate says
Just to add: If the highest station in Islamic heaven is the one where martyrs get 72 virgins, then it sounds like a big brothel in the sky where all your carnal desires are fulfilled. How would that ever connect you to the divine? Sex could get pretty boring if that’s all you’d be doing for eternity, unless you’re some kind of sexaholic. Quite the place!
Joe says
It really boils down to what the word “religion” is. The root word of religion is “relate”. Then the question is how. Are humans to relate to God by building a relationship with God (most religions), serve as God’s hit men (some religions) by killing others, or ignore God ( various atheistic belief systems) by redefining God as something that isn’t God?
Islam falls into the second category of “religion”. They are God’s hit men. They are not the first or the last “religion” to fall in that category. For example, the Aztecs were like that as well. There were many others. If you are only God’s servant who is sent to kill others, there is no chance for self improvement or eternal happiness. Besides that, “religion” only brings bloodshed.
People think that everyone thinks like they do. The religion in the first group (love) is the opposite and incompatible with the “religion” in the second group (hate). Jesus taught that we should love each other. Mohammed taught that we should kill those who don’t agree with us.
Islam and all other second group “religions” are incompatible with anyone who practices a religion from the first or a redefinition from the third group.
In a civilized country, no religion or redefinition can be accepted at face value. All religions and definitions should undergo scrutiny. Jesus ordered us to do that, but Mohammed ordered us to kill those who questioned his “religion”.
It is easy to see that any “religion” in the second group such as Islam, has to be banned by any civilized country.
rubiconcrest says
Well the NYT has an opinion piece stating that some people think there is more to Islam than just religion. At least they dropped a few quality names. Anyone who is curious enough will find that, McCarthy, Flynn or ACT among others, actually know what they are talking about unlike the author. This means the author is allied with Muslim Brotherhood or a useful idiot for them.
infidel says
Islam is so insidious and I’ve mentioned this in earlier posts on this forum about Islam’s uncertainty principle as to how this Virus flits between its actual Jehaadi nature and assumed moderate nature when it lives off as a parasite in infidel societies…A few days back in India, an animal Muslim preacher openly said that there are no innocent non-Muslims. If a person does not believe in Allah and Mohd, he is guilty and fit to be put to death!!!
infidel says
And to add: NOTHING HAPPENED TO THIS MAD PREACHER .. Not a single law enforcement agency has taken action against this animal.
Carol the 1st says
I think this is evidence we give fanatics a lot of leeway since we know they are “loony tunes”. Ignoring them seems less costly and injurious for now and we can continue just hoping they will come to their senses. We really don’t seem ready yet to stir up and blast that nest of cuckoo birds with a shotgun. Maybe India is there, but less victimized nations seem to be still wiping the sleep from their eyes and teetering on the brink of the chasm laid out before them.
Westman says
The NYT’s is a credible source, really? Pumping out unsubstantiated claims to destroy a Supreme Court nominee?
Who could possibly believe they aren’t political with every opportunity and this “trend” is just another hit job; this time on those who see Islam for what it is.
My fantasy dream is that Kavanaugh is confirmed and the breakup of the media giants becomes a constitutional issue at The Supreme Court. This vile NYT and democrats took an even-handed judge and polarized him with attacks on his character and family. Feinstein may have created a serious problem for the future economy of CA.
Frank Anderson says
To call a criminal conspiracy that has killed between 300,000,000 and 1,000,000,000 people in 1400 years a religion, and continues killing daily worldwide, and grant it the same legal protection as law-abiding, law-promoting religions is outrageous. A CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY is 1) an agreement between 2 or more persons 2) an unlawful purpose or to use unlawful means for a lawful purpose and 3) ANY overt act by ANY of its participants in furtherance. People choose to be muslim. Some honorable and brave people choose to leave islam. To be muslim is to knowingly participate in a criminal conspiracy to destroy law, including the Constitution, to enslave societies, to steal and plunder, and to kill all who do not believe in the goals of the conspiracy. Every day people are injured or killed in overt acts by participants of islam, muslims,, in furtherance of the conspiracy.
This agonizing over what Webster defines as a conspiracy is a waste and a total distraction of what the law of the United States and many other countries define, prosecute, convict and sentence as criminal conduct. Thank God we are not following the law according to Webster, and do have the clear statement of law as it appears in decisions and opinions written many times in courts all across the US. Webster is not a law book and would get one literally laughed out of court by a judge suffering its argument in the face of long established law. If there is any argument, search the word, and search the case United States v. Gary Greenough. Enough of this ignorance and misdirection.
IanB says
Islam is a supremacist totalitarian ideology with the thinnest veneer of religiosity.
IanB says
Headline: “NYT Pimps for Islam”.
duh swami says
Religion kills…’Religion’ is a curse on the human race… count the dead bodies for confirmation…All religions are man made and corrupt..
Islam is not exempt….
Chand says
+1
Chand says
Agreed
Chand says
Whatever may exist theoretically about Islam and the Koran, on paper and in finer details, most Muslims are blissfully ignorant of them or consider them to be fabrications of Islamophobes. For if most Muslims are considered as average homo sapiens sapiens, then they too have some natural ‘religious’ tendencies, beliefs and yearnings: such as belief in a creator supreme being, who could be pleaded to for fortune and protection. All they know is that Allah is God (as what God is to most non-Muslims), that Muhammad was his Prophet/Messenger who gave the Holy Book which has all truth and goodness in it. If one follows all the precepts, mainly the five: of prayers, fasting, alms giving, pilgrimage and faith in Allah, then one just might reach heaven post death and one’s family might prosper and be safe.
Most ordinary Muslims who do happen to read the Koran consider the war verses (and kill kafirs verses) as events in the past, not to be analysed and questioned, beyond the intellect of commoners.
Of course there is now a new phenomenon of political Islam, using the Koran for war, deliberately manipulating Muslim minds, as a rallying cry for their Arabo-Islamo-fascist struggle for power. Occurred at times in the past too but now they have all modern technologies at their disposal.
gravenimage says
I see that Chand is once again flogging the idea that most Muslims are completely ignorant of their faith. Were this true, more of them would oppose Jihad and Shari’ah.
StellaSaidSo says
@ gravenimage
Chand makes a valid point. Most Muslims are illiterate, in which case, all they know about their ‘faith’ is what their ‘leaders’ tell them. And we know which bits of the Koran these ‘leaders’ emphasise. It is the well-informed Muslim who is most likely to reject Islam, not the ignorant one.
gravenimage says
I’m afraid that if all Muslims were actually ignorant of Islam that we would not face the threat from Jihad and Shar’ah that we do.
Krishna says
The religious part of Islam is simply used to lure others to Join Islam but once an non muslim joins Islam then he /she will soon find out Islam is more like political system or cult
Carol the 1st says
Interesting speculation and not at all beyond calculated forethought and design. Since Islam lacks and does not serve garden variety compassion then the “religious” bait actually does serve as more of a hunter’s trap. Once you get house-trained and released into their pack you then ironically feel relieved and rewarded by a sense of safety, approval, and security (identification with the aggressor).
But unfortunately, now the world is watching, listening, discussing, and judging what they witness.
dan christensen says
It is the old question popping up.
Should it legally and morally right to allow undemocratic principles to gain influence in democratic societies?
It was in the German Weimar-republic; with the result of undemocratic nazi party taking absolute power.
Even moderate muslims and neutral islam experts agree that islam is undemocratic. Everywhere in so called democratic islamic countries, islam must always override democracy.
One can conclude that in democratic countries, where muslims become a dominant demographic factor, those countries will meet the same fate as democratic Germany in 1933.
WW3 is inevitable, should islam win absolute power in some major western countries – democracy as of today cannot prevent it. The New York Times is disturbingly blind, stupid or both.
UNCLE VLADDI says
It’s the world’s oldest and largest ongoing CRIME-GANG – one in which it’s holy mobster “muslim” gang members blame a “god” for their own criminal desires and actions:
“God told us to commit these crimes!”
(CAPISCE?)!
terry says
Satanism and Wicca are more honourable islam.
terry says
Satanism and Wicca are more honourable than islam.
StellaSaidSo says
Wicca is largely a harmless fad. Satanism is emphatically not harmless, and is far more widely practised than most people realise, especially amongst the Islam-enabling elites.
Kasey says
It’s a totalitarian lethal ideology with a religious appendix it uses as a shield to cover its real intentions of total domination. All free democratic nations need to not only recognize this as reality, but be prepared to say so openly irrespective of the consequences within their borders and with all commercial activities.
CogitoErgoSum says
Yes, the people of all free democratic countries need to realize that whether they speak openly against Islam (Submission) or not, the members of the religion of Submission will, either through stealth or open violence, always seek to make Submission the dominant religion and Sharia the dominant law of the land. Islam means submission (or death) for EVERYONE and no time limit has been placed upon it.
Aussie Infidel says
Clearly Islam is a religion because it embodies belief in the supernatural; and would normally be protected under the First Amendment. However, as Michael Flynn argued, “Islam is also a political ideology” that “hides behind the notion of it being a religion.” But Islam is not just some benign political ideology, it is a criminal ideology which incites its followers to murder non-Muslims – as these verses from the Quran clearly indicate.
“So let those fight in the cause of Allah (jihad) who sell the life of this world for the Hereafter. And he who fights in the cause of Allah and is killed or achieves victory – We will bestow upon him a great reward [Paradise – and all those virgins].” (Quran 4:74).
“They wish you would disbelieve as they disbelieved so you would be alike. So do not take from among them allies until they emigrate for the cause of Allah . But if they turn away, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them and take not from among them any ally or helper.” (Quran 4:89). This verse is cited in the Sharia as one of the justifications for Jihad or Holy War against unbelievers. (Reliance of the Traveller, o9.0).
“And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists (Pagans & Christians) wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.” (Quran 9:5). This is the infamous ‘Verse of the sword’. To Muslims, ‘Repent’ means to accept Islam; and then of course there is no need for further fighting.
Surely this would render Islam a threat to national security, and mandate that it be banned, despite it also being regarded as a religion. Consider this
Annotation 13 on the First Amendment.
https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment1/annotation13.html
Despite the legislative efforts in 43 states to ban the practice of Islamic religious law, or Shariah, this alone will not be sufficient to fully delegitimize Islam and ban Muslim immigration. Excluding Muslims from a country is the only way to prevent the ‘demographic jihad’ from eventually breeding out the non-Muslim population.
roberta says
Im happy to see that more people are opening their eyes to the danger of islam.
It is Robert Spencer and the Freedom Center’s endless work that is making much of
the difference.
I always use the latest (and there is always a latest) islamic attack or threat as a
talking point in order to guide people to Jihad Watch. Practically everyone has an
internet capable phone – so dont tell them to check out JW when they get home.
Manipulate them into pulling up JWorg right at that moment. Mention to them
that you have the site ”bookmarked”
dan christensen says
What about banning the warlike verses in islamic religious texts. Let all incoming muslims sign a statement accepting the ban on the specific texts alone – as a condition for entry. This could separate the moderates from the fanatics.
It is impossible both to accept the warlike texts and concurrently to pretend that they are just for fun.
Frank Anderson says
D.C. banning the verses is a total waste. They would still be taught and learned. They would still be practiced. Any statement signed by a muslim to comply with human law that is contrary to Islamic Law (Sharia) is totally delusional, futile and a waste, because of the doctrine of lying to infidels whenever advantage can be obtained, and the doctrine that any promise made to an infidel is meaningless.
Like gun control laws, the only people limited by such a ban would be the people who need to use those verses in fighting the illegal activities the verses promote. A person cannot be a muslim without supporting all its goals, even if someone else does the actual violence, all who are part of the criminal conspiracy support the overt acts of those who commit them. “The knowledge of one is the knowledge of all. The acts of one are the acts of all.” Settled, established and to my knowledge universal law in the United States. I welcome correction whenever I am in error. Please cite your sources and cases.
dan christensen says
The point is that you sign a legally binding declaration. It means that if you are caught transgressing the conditions in a ‘ban’ document signed by you, you may have to face the consequences of your violation in court.
A ban of the contents of criminal religious texts should of course describe the legal consequences of ignoring the ban. Islamic preachers then can never lecture on fighting the infidels by violent means. If they do, deport them. It is important to stop islamic hate preachers, because they sow discord and hate.
As in Sweden western countries could introduce “Aggressive hate to public group” executed by muslims as a felony.
Frank Anderson says
D.C. You are totally entitled to your opinion even if we disagree. I cannot give you the name of the Supreme Court case where it ruled that a coerced statement could not be used as a justification for a subsequent criminal prosecution. I think the case had to do with some kind of stamp required by law to be purchased for handling illegal drugs. When the elements of conspiracy are clearly and obviously present, as they have been for 1400 years and continuing, why start with a clean sheet of new law?
Bill Coleman says
Unless the U.S. has or can pass Constitutional law that requires any existence of the practice of Islam to be an act of intolerable non-violent or violent war, then the Constitution must be amended to require the Federal Government to provide sufficient penalty for the practice of Islam so as to stop or reverse the advance of Islam in the U.S. Because Islam is both deceptive and unreformable, any practice of any component of Islam, whether of faith or politics or both should also be considered to be the practice of Islam.
Any practice of Islam or existence of a pathway for the future practice of Islam is an act of war against our freedom, our lives and all we hold dear because the successful end result of the non-violent and/or violent advance of Islam gives the same end result that would be seen if the U.S. was defeated in violent war and then the victor eradicated all culture in the U.S. that does not please Allah.
Frank Anderson says
B.C. there is already ample law to handle the issue if it would only be enforced. Not one single person writing here considers the use of long established conspiracy law to get past the religious fraud. Islam has the Form of religion, but the Substance of a criminal conspiracy to overthrow the Constitution, kill most of the infidel population and enslave the rest, while stealing everything available and generally establishing their “caliphate” What you know about law from your question BEGS that you learn more. Please get off your couch and learn something rather than leaving the work of thinking to others. You obviously have the good sense to recognize a problem exists; please exercise that good sense by learning what you don’t know at the moment.
IRS has won many cases against “religious” groups with the Substance over Form Argument for decades. All kinds of frauds and shams have been defeated with existing law. Before stalling for some new law to be enacted when we all know nothing will in time to help, look at existing law to see what can be done. PLEASE.
Richard says
There is no single definition for religion and on that basis using the term with different meanings makes most conversations useless. The Supreme Court vacillates between two defintions; either substantive or functionalist. Secular Humanism and Marxism are both religions that address political systems. To say that ‘religion’ doesn’t contain political system is wrong….Judaism, Christianity and Islam contain or address political systems as well.
It would be much clearer to use the term ‘worldview’ as that eliminates the confusion of terminology and addresses each worldview on a level playing field as Christianity, Islam, Marxism, Secular Humanism are all competing for supremacy of a culture and the world.
gravenimage says
Neither secular humanism nor Marxism believe in supreme beings.
Kesselman says
At the instance, the civilization comes to senses and recognizes Islam’s true nature the better. If you are unable to identify your enemy you have already lost. – Islam is a vicious totalitarian ideology unparalleled in history except for the German edition of fascism, National Socialism.
Chatillon says
Looking at the etymology of the word “religion,” its root is in the Latin religare meaning to bind. This comes to mean an obligation that the adherents undertake to lead their lives in a prescribed manner. In this definition, Islam is a religion.
However, if as seems obvious a religion informs the way an individual views society or a society based upon a religion orders itself, I think it is clear that Islam is a truly unique religion. It is a religion that determines not only the behavior its adherents must bind themselves in their own faith practice, it binds or seeks to bind non-adherents as well as healots subservient to their Morlock masters. And further on that train of though, it is the only religion that I know of with its own built-in war doctrine. No other religion is so constructed. And lastly, it is a religion without the Golden Rule, The implications for the Islam-based society is obvious: Love or even meager live-and-let-live is replaced by suspicion, fear and naked power.
By all means call Islam a religion. Indeed call it a singular, unique religion. But by no means fail to explain what makes it the degrading spiritual pit that it is
Igor Slamoff says
Islam is a Social Order
Designed to make humans
Behave like chimpanzees
Wellington says
Islam is a religion, so is Satanism. The debate SHOULD NOT be about whether Islam is a religion for First Amendment purposes here in America. Arguing it is not a religion is a complete waste of time.
Rather, Islam should be fully acknowledged as a religion for First Amendment purposes but also cogently argued that it is wicked and destructive of such wonderful things as freedom and equality under the law. Just as Nazism and Marxism, two other giant enemies of liberty, are legal in the United States though castigated overwhelmingly (not Marxism, though, in academia which should tell you something about modern academia), so should it be the case with Islam. Proper identification, not the arid “Is Islam a religion or not?” is the key to it all. For God’s sake, I wish all who see Islam for the iniquity that it is would get on the same page here.
In short, Islam is a religion but it is an effing piss-poor and destructive excuse for a religion. Proceed from here. Wasting your time on debating whether Islam is a religion is just another fool’s errand; it detracts from what needs to be done, to wit, properly identifying Islam for the heinous religion which it is.
Frank Anderson says
Wellington how many “religions” have been criminally prosecuted in the United States for criminal activity? MANY, not none. We are both lawyers. We both are expected to know the difference between Form and Substance. We are also supposed to know the basic definition of a criminal conspiracy which also applies to conspiracies for which relief is sought under private party claims (Civil law under Common Law). So why do you make such an absolute pronouncement that islam is immune from all prosecution under the First Amendment. I will be happy to cite the cases I think apply if you need them.
Always with respect.
Wellington says
I would be interested, Frank, in what religions have been criminally prosecuted in this country, not individual people of a particular faith behaving badly or illegally trying to fulfill some specific tenet of their religion (e.g., the American Indian case whereby Indians were denied use of hallucinatory drugs because it was part of their religion), but the religion in its entirety and with First Amendment protection of it as a religion taken away by the courts. Hope you are doing well.
Frank Anderson says
IRS has used substance over form to take away charitable status from religious groups and put a number of people in jail for tax fraud. One that immediately comes to mind is out of jail and back on television daily, Peter Popoff. Probably the best place to read for yourself is either the short or long version of the CCH Tax Guide, Combining the substance over form argument with the criminal conspiracy argument could be used to put on brakes to the destruction of our country. The shame is that US law does not apply elsewhere. Now to find a prosecutor, and an Attorney General who will approve and handle the case.
Wellington says
Thanks for your reply, Frank. Well, taking away charitable status from a small religious group which is transparently a scam still doesn’t equate to denying such a group First Amendment protection. And even if it did, what we are dealing with here with Islam is one of the two or three largest religions on earth. Huge difference I believe. Oh, Islam is terrible as you and I know, and I can even see the IRS going after a handful of mos
Frank Anderson says
Wellington, if you don’t start somewhere, like just stepping to one side off the railroad tracks, the train is going to kill you and solve the entire problem, We, all the people writing here, have been looking for a solution as long as I have been here? I have thought about this at length. About 20 of the 88 Semester Hours in law school were tax related courses. I understand that I am qualified to teach tax at the undergraduate level. I checked with a friend/mentor/Brother by choice, who is both a tax professor (Ph.D, CPA) and lawyer (J.D. with license and litigation experience). I think we agree on this analysis.
Al Capone was brought down by tax fraud when all other approaches were not working. Church after church has lost tax exempt status for illegal conduct and person after person has gone to jail. What other options exist? Whatever options exist, handwringing and indecision only gives time to make it all moot, because we will be dead and our families, such as remain, reduced to slaves. “If not now, when? If not me, who?”
Solving the problem in the US is a place to start. The rest of the world may have other ways by choice or necessity. There is a lawful option in the US to end this conquest.
Wellington says
I’m continuing my previous comment, Frank, because I accidentally hit “Post Comment” in the middle of the last sentence. So, I’ll start with that one from the beginning.
Oh, Islam is terrible as you and I know, and I can even see the IRS going after a handful of mosques which are transparently a scam, but when you’re talking about the entire religion of Islam, such a path to denying all of it religious status and First Amendment protection would be about the steepest legal climb in American history. One thing is for certain, and I am sure you will agree with me here, if there is any hope in denying all of Islam in America First Amendment protection as a religion, with all kinds of consequences, financial, criminal, etc. that would stem from that, this cannot occur until a pre-condition is met and that is that Islam must first be seen in the negative, all of it, and by a very large percentage of Americans, including legislators and judges, and we are nowhere near such a perception of Islam by such a majority. Oh yeah, a mighty steep climb in front of us.
Always good to hear from you. Take care.
Wellington says
I’ve been looking for a solution too, Frank, to thwart Islam’s repressive and hideous designs, both in the US and in the West at large, but any approach, whether IRS related, First Amendment related, a new Amendment making Islam the exception to the First Amendment, Article III, Section 2 related (whereby Congress can remove from purview by the courts what it wants to remove) or whatever, must start with the comprehension, which needs to be widely held, that Islam is wicked. If this doesn’t happen then, at best, you’re just going to have a tactical victory here or there by closing this mosque or that one, prosecuting this or that particular Islamic terrorist group, and the religion as a whole will still go on being looked upon as a positive or at worst a neutral. But it is the entire religion which must be seen as the best designed criminal enterprise in human history and which hides behind its religious veil magnificently. Thereafter, all else will start to fall into place and one can then anticipate not just tactical victories but an overall strategic one.
This is where things must truly start if Islam is to finally be put on the trash heap of history. I try to drive home with so many I speak with, and often as diplomatically as I can because there are a still a hell of a lot of people that just cannot bring themselves to conclude that a major religion, all of it, can be malevolent, that Islam is antithetical to the finest traditions of Western Civilization, the very civilization that pioneered freedom like no other civilization in history, and that Islam, if given the chance, will destroy this freedom and so much else of value. All of Islam as iniquitous must be the starting point.
Frank Anderson says
Wellington, I don’t know how much time you have spent in courtrooms arguing and trying cases and then handling appeals. I have tried a number of small cases, yes, but cases. I have handled massive continuing litigation through multiple federal and state courts up to the United States Supreme Court. Many of these cases involved issues of “first impression” or less than clear authority. The only certain way to lose a case is never to try it. We cannot afford to lose this one.
Any case that results in a decision yields either a case to be cited in the next case as authority or a case which educates the preparation of the next case for a better chance of success. I think it is better to avoid the detailed description of my litigation experience. But starting with training and experience that was deliberately handicapped during my first employment, and learning from many weak presentations, I gained the ability to present cases that won enough of the time that other lawyers called me to help them with the difficult, novel cases they preferred not to handle alone. There are plenty of lawyers that know and have done a lot more than I have. But they accomplished what they have by taking the cases, plugging away and winning whenever the facts and the law in the face of a judicial system that is far from perfect will allow them.
What I propose cannot be guaranteed to win on the first try. But if it does not get the lawyer who presents the theory sanctioned or disbarred, it is a step. What others are realistically available?
Please consult a currently licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for any legal advice.
Richard says
For Frank and Wellington. I am involved with Truth In Textbooks, a national organization that reviews history and civics textbooks both for school boards as well as for publishers. One issue that is quite clear is that the publishers have an open door for Muslim authors to insert the Islamic ‘happy face’ into these texts as well as provide outside source material for teachers to indoctrinate their students. This is all part of multiculturalism that is designed to destroy Western Civilization because Western Civ is built upon Judeo/Christian principles and Greek/Roman experiences.
BTW….many Christian leaders are now engaging in ecumenical discussions with Muslims as though there is common ground.
Frank Anderson says
Richard, highest honor and respect for your work. I suggest, suggest, spending time looking at pre-WWII Germany for illustrations of the sorry state of thought that we are witnessing again today. Collaborators against liberty and in favor of totalitarianism were as common then as now. Please always keep in mind “substance over form”. I see no other clear way to define and oppose the criminal, treasonous intent and ongoing plan to destroy our Constitution and country. This is not a sterile academic argument. This is a war of life and death for liberty. I predict there are a number of people here who will support and assist you as WE can.
Wellington says
Thanks for your reply, Frank, and for yours too, Richard. Well, there is certainly nothing wrong with pursuing a two-track approach, one tactical on a case by case basis, the other with grand strategy in mind. The two eventually meshing could arguably be the ideal. You, Frank, are the tactician and I am the strategist on this issue of dealing with Islam and what it wants to do to all of us. Both are needed and thus I think we may be closer here than on first or even second appearance.
Thank you again for this give and take. It has been very informative, even productive. Thank you too, Richard, for your work in the area of textbooks. Over the years (29) as a history teacher at the college level, I most definitely noticed textbooks getting worse and worse. One reason is that many are now written by committees rather than just one or two people. Another is all the pc/mc rot that has been put in them. But even the overall quality of the writing has declined and just simple, sloppy mistakes of fact have become frequent and which rarely occurred in earlier textbooks on history. Towards the end of my teaching career I was doing my best to find out-of-print history textbooks (e.g., Ergang’s two volume work on European history) because the new ones were so awful.
Frank Anderson says
Wellington, it is always better to work together for a common goal of victory. I ask you please, in recognition of my own poor start with the practice of law to seek any and all experience you can with actual practice. What is taught in law school is aimed at passing a bar exam and getting through more or less the first year of licensed practice without getting disbarred.
In my case, my non-lawyer supervisor, who was participating in the theft of money from our corporate employer, prohibited me from taking any paying cases that were not company business. The cases I handled, or participated, were minor criminal matters, or small civil matters, or mass litigation where my function was to watch lead counsel and represent 12 of 1000 parties on “our” side. In 3 years of employment I would rate my legal experience at less than 3 months.
One company related civil case started in bankruptcy court, went to lower level state trial court and then to upper level trial court and was settled when the opponent realized I was not going to quit. My employer spent about as much as the settlement; but I started learning. The process of understanding and using what a lawyer does demands experience, which is something I did not understand before deciding to go to law school and learned the really hard way after. Now, almost 40 years after graduating, and cases before several federal courts, including a Court of Appeals and Supreme Court, and state courts including a state supreme court. I can do things I could not imagine doing when I was fired for refusing to assist the theft. And other lawyers can do a lot more than I can because they have done more.
Your thoughts and analysis will benefit greatly by all the experience in actual practice that you can gain. Please, whether observing in court trials and hearings, reading or drafting pleadings, doing research, do what you can to learn more. It will help make better and more successful decisions. We need to win.
gravenimage says
Thank you, Richard.
IanB says
For me, the proposition that Islam is a religion (or not) is a moot point. The supernatural has no place in the argument. The essential characteristic of Islam is that it is a deadly malevolent force on both the individual and society. History shows it is a negative, dehumanizing ideology with no compensatory benefit to mankind. It is a dire existential threat to civilisation and the futures of our children, grandchildren and future generations. Islam has to be destroyed. To ensure the survival of our values and way of life there is no alternative to its destruction. If that means reducing Mecca and it’s desert environs to radioactive glass then so be it. It worked in Japan in 1945 and it can work again. As then, we cannot afford to be squeamish.
gravenimage says
We were largely safe from Jihad for almost two hundred years when Islam was isolated. We need to do that again.
terry bare says
Totalitarian political ideology disguised as a sick religious cult.
Walter Sieruk says
Actually, Islam is very much a religion. To be even more clear and specific Islam is a false religion that is in contradiction to the Bible , Isaiah 8:20.. John 1:1-3. First John 5:20.
As false religion , Proverbs 14:12, John 14:6 . that founded and stared by a false Prophet Matthew 7:15 .First John 4:1. This false religion which will continue to grow and grow First Timothy 4:1
TKF says
Of course Islam is a real religion. It’s not like everyone says, that it’s a religion in name only. That it uses the trappings of religion as cover for a supremacist, totalitarian ideology masquerading as a religion. I mean really, what legit religion doesn’t instruct its followers to straight up kill unbelievers, murder apostates, stone adulterers, flog blasphemers, cut off the hands of thieves, exterminate Jews and impose the faith on everyone in the world by waging holy war in the name of an invisible super being in order to spend eternity in a male sex-fantasy afterlife? Oh, it’s a religion all right. A really, really messed up religion.
It’s rich that we should be lectured on religious liberty by someone who has got to be well aware that in societies where Islam calls the shots, religious liberty for non Muslims is NON-EXISTENT. She whines about communities objecting to more Mosque construction, but good luck trying to build a church or synagogue in a Muslim country. Hypocrisy doesn’t seem a strong enough word for this blatant double standard, but with Islam it’s ALWAYS a one way street.
Miss Uddin then cites Pamela Geller (one of the most courageous voices opposing Islamic Jihad in the world today), as an example of someone spreading irrational Islamophobia, but fails to mention that Miss Geller has to have round the clock bodyguard protection because of a death fatwa imposed on her head by Miss Uddin’s co-religionists, all for the crime of criticizing Islam and supporting free speech. Islamophobia indeed.