Posted on 05/30/2004 12:12:41 PM PDT by King Prout
I am an enemy of Islam.
I am an enemy of Islam, because Islam declared war upon me and all others like me.
Islam declared war on us about 1400 years ago.
I have read the Koran, and some of the Sunnah, and a decent sample of histories of the Caliphates and later islamic dominions, and from my reading I am convinced ever more concretely that Islam is implacably my enemy, intrinsically my enemy, at root and in all branches my enemy. Seeing my enemy, I am not ashamed to call it what it is: my enemy. Islam declared itself my enemy, has proven for 1400 years that it is my enemy, and the only rational response to this is to return the favor.
Thus, I am an enemy of Islam. Not of MUSLIMS, necessarily... but definitely of Islam itself.
As an American, one who strongly admires and supports the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights, this has long presented me with a quandary: How can I justify unending hostility towards a "religion" (in quotes, because I think of Mohammed as a successful version of Charles Manson, an elder and successful Hitler, rather than the founder of a valid creed) and ecourage my countrymen and my government to eject Islam and all its trappings from my country? How can one universally ban even an insane bloodyhanded death-cult-cum-mafia without traducing the First Amendment rights of religion, speech, and association?
Then, it occured to me: We already have laws on the books which, if enforced, are capable of dealing a deathblow to this cancer, do we not?
Are there not laws which penalize inciting-to-riot? Are there not laws which penalize inciting-to-murder?
Could we not, in enforcement of these laws, justify penetration and heavy surveillance of every single mosque and madrassa in this land? Could we not then arrest, try, and imprision each and every single mullah, sheik, and imam who dared recite any one of the thousands of passages in the Koran and Sunnah which bear no interpretation other than an incitement to riot and murder non-muslims? Could we not, in addition, prosecute their congregations as conspirators to riot and murder?
This bears looking into.
This bears serious inspection and discussion, and if it looks like it holds water legally, it needs to be rammed down the throats of our elected representatives.
ping for your input, ladies and gentlemen.
I hope you have your flame-suit on.
I have to agree with you about islam, however.
The Muslim culture and specifically the Arab cultures are based on a matriarchal structure. The strongest male female bond is the mother son relationship. Everything is done to prevent the interference of any other females in that relationship. Multiple wives and women and children sleeping separately from the men, from the dress codes to the harem young and desirable women are kept away from men and under the control of the elder women.
Change that relationship and you will change their whole culture.
We are having to deal with this now because of the failure of the 'Crusades'.
Especially in our prisons. Isn't Islam recruiting new members inside our prisons in order to train them for murder within our own country? Surely there are laws against this. Which laws?
bump !
Islam the religion is protected by the 1st amendment. Islam the political movement is forbidden by the 1st amendment.
I don't know if we can outlaw the entire religion because it would present serious constititional issues. Who knows, there may even be some benign forms that would compromise the attampt. However, any members of any organization that advocates the violent overthrow of the government can be charged with sedition. I can't explain why Ashcroft has not dusted off this option.
There is no distinction - in the Koran, the Hadiths of the Sunnah, in any Islamic jurisprudence in history, or in any significant islamic dominion in history - between "islam as religion" and "islam as political movement".
go here: http://www.prophetofdoom.net/ltr.html
read. digest. understand.
Then tell me whether you still believe Islam is a religion and protected as such under the First Amendment.
Sounds like a great place to test the constitutional laws of our nation before we have to personaly apply the god given right of self defense ourselves.
Stay Safe !
"The Muslim culture and specifically the Arab cultures are based on a matriarchal structure. The strongest male female bond is the mother son relationship. Everything is done to prevent the interference of any other females in that relationship."
So S. Hussein was actually being controlled by his mom? And those fun-loving sons of his were being directly influenced by their mom? For some reason, I thought all of the women were supposed to kept quiet and stay out of the way. The "boys'" mom should have told them it wasn't all that nice to rape underaged girls whenever they wanted.
In 1940, Congress passed the Alien Registration Act, or Smith Act, making it a crime for any person to knowingly advocate, or conspire to advocate, the overthrow of the United States government, or to organize any group which does so. The legislation was intended for use in suppressing Fascist and Communist organizations. Eight years later, authorities arrested Eugene Dennis and ten other leaders of the Communist Party of America and prosecuted them for violating the Smith Act. A federal district court convicted them.
On appeal, the Supreme Court addressed the question of whether or not the Smith Act inherently, or as applied in the Dennis case, violated the First Amendment. In a 6 to 2 decision, the Court upheld the Communists' conviction and declared the Smith Act constitutionally sound. In his plurality opinion, Chief Justice Vinson applied the "clear and present danger" standard established in Schenck v. United States, finding that the eleven leaders' "conspiracy to organize the Communist Party and to teach and advocate the overthrow of the Government of the United States by force and violence created a 'clear and present danger' of an attempt to overthrow the Government by force and violence." The fact that such an attempt would be highly unlikely to succeed did not, the Court found, have any bearing on the case.
Later, the Court modified its opinion in Dennis, upon consideration of Yates v. United States (1957). In this case, the Court found that an overly broad application of the Smith Act might violate the First Amendment. If a group engaged in "advocacy and teaching of forcible overthrow as an abstract principle," restriction of free speech was not in order. Only if a group engaged in "advocacy and teaching of concrete action for the forcible overthrow of the Government" could its speech justifiably be restricted under the Smith Act.
As much as I agree with your premises, beware of what you may wish for. How long would it be before Big Brother would go after "homo-bashing" and "anti-choice" Christians? (Some say they already have---even though I never hear them talk about Moslem's gay-bashing). That is the double-edge sword of the first amendment. It both protects and endangers the good people.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1144825/posts
related topic
Islam is monotheistic and so would have been declared legal in the Roman Empire along with Judaism and Christianity. You know Islam is nothing more than a lazy man's Judaism. It could be compared to the lazy man's Buddhism they are practicing in China: just get that whirligig spinning and it's autopilot the rest of the way.
good data, thanks.
so far as I can tell, the Koran and Sunnah are NOT speaking in the abstract, but it will give lawyers some wiggle-room.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.