Making Islam illegal -- is it the West's only choice?

When President Bush gave his "axis of evil" speech he went out of his way to make the world understand that it isn't a war with Islam itself that we were joining — and I say joining because the war had been started by the Jihadists decades before. And, in observance to our Western principles, that must be the correct way to view our conflagration with radical Islam.

Let's face facts, it certainly is uncomfortable to a Westerner who has been brought up on tolerance, freedom of religion, and liberty to contemplate a war against an entire religion. But are we approaching a time when Western nations won't have a choice but to target Islam itself in certain ways to keep their own people safe. The best course of action is to make public displays of Islam and certain of its practices illegal in Western nations.

So, the question becomes are we at that time now? Are we fast approaching a time when Mosques will be closed and banned? Have we come to a time when Islamic literature is turned away from our borders? Have the childish and dangerous reactions of Muslims to this cartoon in a Danish newspaper proven that Islam cannot be trusted to be a vital, peaceful, and law-abiding segment of society?

We are already approaching this today. In Ontario they have officially outlawed Muslim Sharia law, that law that uses religious precepts to enforce moral and society codes of conduct. And Muslim "family councils" have been stopped where local community groups may supplement Canadian law with their local custom.

Several members of the John Howard administration in Australia have spoken out against Islamic clashes with Western notions of law and societal comportment many times over the last few years.

Recently Howard himself said, "I do think there is this particular complication because there is a fragment which is utterly antagonistic to our kind of society, and that is a difficulty ... You can't find any equivalent in Italian, or Greek, or Lebanese, or Chinese or Baltic immigration to Australia. There is no equivalent of raving on about jihad, but that is the major problem."

Muslims routinely destroy property, threaten death and bodily harm to those who speak out against them, and they constantly fund terrorism throughout the world. In Syria they have burnt an embassy, in Europe Muslims have been responsible for murdering people who have written out against Islam or made movies, and other forms of art. These actions are also approved by Islamic teachers (Imams) and religious leaders, not just undertaken by warped loners claiming to represent Islam quite against the will of the majority or authority.

With this ridiculous cartoon issue, we have seen that Islam has no sense of perspective. In the west parody or satire is seen as not only common, but completely harmless for the most part. And religion is not immune to parody and satire, though even in the west most people are often uncomfortable with religious satire. Usually only people filled with hate attack religion in parody and most in the West instinctively know this. As a result, most people dismiss such parody as foolishness and bad taste.

But with Muslims overreacting — in western eyes at least — to this silly cartoon issue in the way they have, it becomes nearly impossible for Westerners to view Islam as a peaceful religion, but more as a vicious hate group itself. And that perception is justified with the actions that Muslims have increasingly perpetrated over the ensuing years. So, we find that Islam presents a danger to the safety of the populace all too often. It is violent, oppressive, and reactionary.

But, what is to be done about it? We have been raised to feel that religion should be left untouched by government. Freedom of religion is at the very core of our beliefs. And this concept is an important one to uphold. So, how can we honestly and without hypocrisy begin to look toward making Islam illegal?

There is a parallel of sorts in the USA that might be used as a template for action. The Ku klux Klan.

After the Civil War ended, the KKK arose from the ashes of war as an advocacy group for the disenfranchised white voter in the south. But it quickly became a terrorist organization bent on taking out revenge on the south's newly freed black population for having lost the war. It got so bad that even one of the original organizers, C.S. Cavalry General Nathan Bedford Forrest, denounced the organization and quit it in disgust.

But as the late 1800s rolled on and the south began to re-enter the Union as full partners in government, the KKK began to lose steam and prominence. For a time it subsided. But as the 20th century neared, it re-emerged and this time became a nationwide and powerful force taking on the flavor of religious, civic and racial duty. The KKK became invested in government and claimed millions of members nation wide.

In the 1920s, however, it became too much for a liberty loving country to allow the KKK to any longer exist. In Indiana, the entire state government was scandalized by their fealty to Indiana's Klan leader who had raped and beaten his secretary on a train trip. Violence against and frequent lynching of southern blacks became so pervasive that Congress finally acted and banned the Klan. The organization collapsed never again to reclaim the power and prominence it once had.

Now, the KKK has always based its precepts on Christianity, as well as racial identity. It also reacted with violence, rallies, death threats and killing when it was threatened. It careened far away from being a mere "idea" or religious theology and became a terrorist organization. And it became a terrorist organization even though literally millions of Americans that belonged to or identified with the Klan were not themselves violent, evil, or dangerous citizens.

The leadership of the Klan supported violence. The leadership preached violence. The leadership planned and fomented it. Therefore, it had to go because it became a danger to every law-abiding citizen, whether they agreed with the racial and religious concepts the Klan espoused or not.

Islam has become the KKK of the 21st century. The sooner we awake to this truth and take steps to ban the religion, or somehow curtail its pernicious influence the better. The west is going to have to put sever restrictions on Islamic Mosques and public display of Islam. Further, devout Muslims should not be allowed to hold public office (though it certainly should not become a racial issue — sins of the father should not be visited upon the sons).

This is no religious purge as in centuries past. In the past religions were banned to be replaced by the state sponsored sect and believers of the banned religion were mistreated, tortured, unduly taxed, and terrorized. This is absolutely not the model the west would follow by banning aspects of Islam today. No religion is replacing Islam and no one is suggesting that Muslims be mistreated. But the creed to which they hold is fast becoming the most dangerous one in the world today. It is a fine line that we walk to consider banning Islam, but the safety of society is at risk not to do so.

This is not an easy conclusion at which to arrive. But if we continue to turn a blind eye to the danger that Islam presents to the west, we are signing our own death warrants.

The KKK was put down in the USA and made powerless for the same reason. Communism was destroyed for the same reason, as well. Islam is a danger to the world.

Hey Jan,
Here's some cannon fodder for those who are apprehensive when confronting islamic attacks on our Freedom of Speech:

Fitzgerald: Freedom of speech: a teaching moment
Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald offers a cartoon controversy curriculum:

The cartoon controversy has created a teaching moment in American high schools and universities.
History teachers, civics teachers, government teachers, do the following:

Print out relevant sections from Milton's Areopagitica ("I cannot praise a fugitive and cloistered virtue" etc.), the trial of John Peter Zenger, the Virginia Remonstrances, and John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty."

Now print out the First Amendment of the Constitution (1791).

Now print out the French Declaration of the Rights of Man (1792).

Now print out the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Now print out the Muslim answer to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which is to say the "Cairo Declaration of Human Rights.”

Xerox enough copies for every member of every class you teach.

Collate, and collect. Staple.

Now distribute to classes.

Now begin the discussion of how Freedom of Speech developed, in opposition to both political and religious censorship.

Now devote all of your attention to helping the students spot the differences between the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the Muslim version, the so-called Cairo Declaration of Human Rights.

See if they can spot the differences and can understand why those differences exist. Tell them a little something about the Shari'a. Explain to them that Muslims are not allowed to leave Islam on pain of death -- and that even in those Muslim countries whose law codes do not yet fully match the Shari'a ideal, complete economic collapse and social ostracism are the fate of any Muslim who dares to convert to another religion, or to openly express his lack of belief in Islam.
See if they can detect differences in the rights of women.

See if they can detect differences in the right of the individual to freedom of conscience.

See if they can detect differences in the guarantees offered to minorities.

See what the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights says about the equal treatment of minorities in every respect -- and about pluralism.

Where reference is made in the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights to the principles of Islam, or Islamic law (the Shari'a), do some research on your own and find out what the applicable principles of Islam are in the particular case and share them with your class.

Where you may not know enough, find out about the concept of the "dhimmi" and what the "dhimmi" -- that is, the non-Muslim in a Muslim-ruled society -- had to endure.

Find out which Muslim countries have laws forbidding mockery of non-Muslim religions and peoples. See if you can find examples of how Christians and Jews, Christianity and Judaism, are discussed in the Muslim press, radio, television (hint: go to www.memri.org for straightforward translations without any comments added).

This should be a wonderful way to spend a week or two of the term. You are trying to teach students about the heroic development of free speech in the Western world. You are also trying to teach them about the importance of other rights, as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Stir and shake as you will.

Sweeten to taste.

Teach them that American constitutional law on limits to free speech are clear. Free speech can be limited only insofar as that speech is a "deliberate incitement to imminent lawless violence."

Who has been deliberately inciting imminent lawless violence in the world? The Danish imams have. The Saudi imams and the Saudi government has. The imams in Pakistan have. The government of Egypt and the government of Jordan have in the remarks of their own officials. The O.I.C. has. The government of Libya has. The Muslims who gathered and chanted and shouted and attacked embassies of what they saw as Christian, Infidel symbols, in a various countries, and killed helpless Christians in Nigeria and burned down churches in a half-dozen countries -- they were the ones inciting and being incited.

The Western world has to declare unambiguously that it will not tolerate attempts by Muslims to inflict their standards, their views of the universe, their careful refusal to allow others to examine, study, critically analyze, even make fun of if they so choose, any and all parts of all religions, including Islam. Those anodyne cartoons were nothing. It is clear that what will follow, if an inch is given now, is the attempt to suppress Infidel critical discussion of what is contained in Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira.

That's what is in the works. The world's Muslims do not wish any Infidel, anywhere, to discuss Islam critically. They want Infidels to exhibit the behavior dictated to them by Muslims. They want reverence. They want submission. They want, and will work to achieve, the suppression of the rights that took centuries to develop in the Western world, and that some, out of a craven and casual spirit of false accommodation, are willing to throw over.

This cannot be.

>>Pretty strong approach if you ask me.

"BS. You were talking about murdering Muslims on American soil, even children, not collateral damage in war. I guess there is a an upside to having your posts deleted. You can now deny it and the proof has been (justifiably) removed."

I'll make you happy. Let's deport them all, then kill them. Will that make it more politically correct for you?

Does the notion that the Muslim taxi driver taking you to the airport might be a member of a terror cell who will one day shoot down your airliner disquiet you?

My estimate is that there are still 50-100 cells in this country. Say ten people each; that could be 1000 active cell members. A minimum of ten people know about each cell and actively support it. That is 10,000. A minimum of ten more know about and remain silent; that is 100,000.

Wanna go out and pick all those needles from the haystack?

We don't have time. My proposal is to deport all the "visitors" from those nations and then do a deep background check on the "naturalized citizens" who come from those countries. That is an enormous job in itself.

Bottom line: Islam is (as I said) a toxic culture. It is and has been at war with Western Civilization for centuries. We can lose if we don't wake up and fight. Right now we are facing a guy with brass knucks and a broken bottle and trying to teach him the Marquis of Queensbury Rules.

--Boris

Mad mo' was both a liar and demon/satan possessed, IMHO.

His seizures/delusions were remarkably similar to those displayed by the man whom Christ cast demons out of in the New Testament, as well as the fellow who beat a few wanna-be apostles senseless, stripped them of their clothing, and sent them packing...

Regardless, being a deceiver/liar is an absolute classic keystone indicator of possession. alla/satan also speaks elliptically/evasively, often avoiding, obscuring or obfuscating the point or the question.

One of the sura's in the qur'an speaks about allah having his own plans that he does not divulge to men, and goes on to say that he practices deception upon men.

If there is any single damning passage in all the qur'ap in the qur'an - one which clearly and unequivocally identifies the fact that:
1)alla is not G_d,

2)alla is not just the arabic name/word for "G_d, and

3) alla is in the highest likelihood {oh, saaaay 99.999%}, in fact satan himself, then it is that passage!

That is my opening contribution of theological grist to our budding symposium.

A.A.C.

"The Final Crusade has commenced - squeezing the qur'ap out of the qur'an - one odious droplet of foul syrah at a time!"

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.