My latest in PJ Media:
The real pandemic today is not the coronavirus, but cowardice. Nonetheless, even in these days of political correctness, wokeness, the cancel culture, and “hate speech,” there are a few public figures with courage. One of them is Rick Phillips, a Republican Congressional candidate from Iowa, who has dared to grasp the third rail of American public life and state that Islam is not actually the cuddly religion of peace that every enlightened American assumes it to be at this point.
The Des Moines Register reported Monday that Phillips’ “platform calls for redefining Islam as ‘militant cultural imperialism seeking world domination,’” and that he “drew fire Monday for saying he doesn’t believe Islam is protected under the First Amendment.
Phillips stated on Quad Cities TV station WHBF that the Founding Fathers had only Christianity in mind when they wrote the First Amendment. “They were not talking about anti-Christian beliefs,” he explained. “Now, if a person doesn’t want to believe in Christ, that’s their business. But to say that this First Amendment right includes all religions in the world, I think, is erroneous.”
The usual reaction ensued, Robert McCaw of the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), demanded that both the Iowa Republican Party and the national Republican Party “repudiate these Islamophobic, unconstitutional views.” McCaw thundered: “The Constitution must protect Americans of all faiths. The kind of hatred and anti-American views promoted by Mr. Phillips places in danger both constitutional protections of religious freedoms and the safety of ordinary American Muslims.”
Responding like the good invertebrate that most Republican Party leaders are, Iowa party spokesman Aaron Britt said that Phillips’ statements “are not reflective of the views of the Republican Party of Iowa.”
Lost in all this predictable intimidation on the one hand and equally predictable pusillanimity on the other was the question of whether or not Phillips was right. Surely everyone can agree, or should agree, that the First Amendment is not and was never intended to be a license to commit all manner of crimes if such activity is mandated by one’s religion. No one, Muslim or non-Muslim, should be considered anything but innocent until proven guilty, but sooner or later the United States and all non-Muslim countries is going to have to have a public conversation about how much to tolerate a belief system that is itself radically intolerant, authoritarian, supremacist, and violent.
Can Muslims in the U.S. repudiate those aspects of Islam? Should they? This discussion needs to take place, but right now it is covered over by claims of “Islamophobia.” In the same way, lost in the shuffle also was the question of whether or not Islam really is “militant cultural imperialism seeking world domination.”
Inconveniently for Robert McCaw and his ilk, there are certainly some Muslims who think it is. I could quote violent passages of the Qur’an, but those might be waved away with the dismissive and erroneous claim that the Bible contains similar exhortations to violence. Let’s focus instead on what Islamic authorities say. One might get the impression that Islam is not a religion of peace from the authoritative sources in Sunni Islam, the schools of Sunni jurisprudence (madhahib):
Shafi’i school: A Shafi’i manual of Islamic law that was certified in 1991 by the clerics at Al-Azhar University, one of the leading authorities in the Islamic world, as a reliable guide to Sunni orthodoxy, stipulates about jihad that “the caliph makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians…until they become Muslim or pay the non-Muslim poll tax.” It adds a comment by Sheikh Nuh Ali Salman, a Jordanian expert on Islamic jurisprudence: the caliph wages this war only “provided that he has first invited [Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians] to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya)…while remaining in their ancestral religions.” (‘Umdat al-Salik, o9.8).
There is much more. Read the rest here.
katherine says
Force an open public discussion now. RIGHT NOW – on ALL media channels across the Nation.
YYCAlberta says
We need to support this man. He is a breath of fresh air.
DLW says
AMEN! Finally the truth is being stated OUT LOUD !!
Bill Zieser says
I will vote for him.
Bill Burnett says
I agree
Giacomo Latta says
You can be sure that the MSM would love to mock Phillips to the max by showing how far his opinion is from political correctness but they are also afraid that his opinion might make sense to people that had never given two seconds of thought about the subject at hand.
David says
The general public needs an education into the threat posed by plain old islam, not just ‘radical’ islam. Let’s hope this doesn’t get supressed and ignored.The impteus must be kept up. The flood gates must open.
Gordon Miller says
Rick sounds spot on to me.
mortimer says
Rick Philips’ claim is 100% confirmed by leading Islamic scholars:
-definition of jihad from the Shorter Encyclopaedia of Islam, page 89, [7]: DJIHAD, holy war. The spread of Islam by arms is a religious duty upon Muslims in general…it must continue to be done until the whole world is under the rule of Islam.”
-The Caliph fights all other peoples until they become Muslim …”(The “Reliance of the Traveler,the Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law, p.599)
-“You infidels and despots, we will continue our jihad and never stop until God avails us to chop your necks and raise the fluttering banner of monotheism, when God’s rule is established GOVERNING ALL PEOPLE AND NATIONS.” (Mujahedeen Shura Council, 2006)
–Ibn Khaldun (d. 1406), jurist, renowned philosopher, historian, and sociologist, summarized these consensus opinions from five centuries of prior Muslim jurisprudence with regard to the uniquely Islamic institution of jihad:
“In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the [Muslim] mission and [the obligation to] convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force… The other religious groups did not have a universal mission, and the holy war was not a religious duty for them, save only for purposes of defense… Islam is under obligation to gain power over other nations.”
• “It must now be obvious that the objective of the Islamic jihad is to eliminate the rule of an un-Islamic system, and establish in its place an Islamic system of state rule. Islam does not intend to confine his rule to a single state or a hand full of countries. The aim of Islam is to bring about a UNIVERSAL REVOLUTION. Although in the initial stages, it is incumbent upon members of the party of Islam to carry out a revolution in the state system of the countries to which they belong; their ULTIMATE OBJECTIVE IS none other than WORLD REVOLUTION.”
o 1970, Jihad in Islam’ (Jihad Fi Sabillilah), Transl. Abdul Waheed Khan, page 20, Islamic Publications Ltd, Pakistan
-“…[W]e will stand against the whole world and will not cease until the ANNIHILATION of all [infidels]…Either we shake one another’s hands in joy at the victory of Islam in the world, or all of us will turn to eternal life and martyrdom.” (Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini)
-“We will control the land of the Vatican; we will control Rome and introduce Islam in it. Yes, the Christians … will yet pay us the Jiziya, in humiliation, or they will convert to Islam…” (Saudi Sheikh Muhammad bin Abd Al-Rahman Al-’Arifi, Imam of the mosque of King Fahd Defense Academy, April 2005)
-“Islam is in fundamental, even mortal, conflict with the rest of the world.” (Iran President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, 5/25/05)
-Mashriqi founded the Khaksar Movement, an Indian Muslim separatist (i.e., promoting the Pakistan “idea”) and a global jihad supremacist organization. Its ethos is revealed in Mashriqi’s writings (i.e. in his Qaul-i-Faysel): “…we {Muslims] have again to dominate the whole world. We have to become its conqueror and its rulers.”
-“This is my advice to you. If you hold to it you will conquer Rome and own the world, if Allah wills.” – Caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi
gravenimage says
+1
toomanyhobbies says
not are they that but they are a CULT of terrorism, racism, murder, and rape!
Gray says
Of course anyone daring to suggest that the Islamic Death Cult is not a religion will always attract the ire of the voluble cognoscenti. But let’s at least be consistent, and also confer First Amendment protection on the followers of Thugee, and of the Kali Death Cult. Compassion and Diversity demand nothing less, and the Kali worshippers are people too, you know.
gravenimage says
Islam is indeed a religion–Phillips is off a bit here, although he is certainly correct that Islam is also militant cultural imperialism.
And First Amendment protections do extend to the Kali Death Cult. People have the right to worship Kali (a part of Hinduism), but they do *not* have the right to oppress or murder people in the name of their faith. It is just the same with Islam.
Wellington says
Eminently on point as usual, gravenimage. It’s the EVIL in Islam (it’s totalitarianism too) that is of paramount importance and not whether it is a religion.
My God, what a monumental waste of time to go after Islam (and all what’s left of free societies need to “go after” Islam) by way of the argument that it is not a religion. Nothing could be more foolish and such an argument insupportably assumes that religions cannot be evil.
Oh yes they can and Western societies founded upon two very decent religions, Judaism and Christianity, have to, it is imperative to do so, take cognizance of this and adjust accordingly per Western constitutions and statutory law.
Wellington says
“…its…” and not “it’s.”
Of course, I would not have made this grammatical mistake had I had a beer in hand. Surely, and so time for a beer.
Hope you are doing well, gravenimage, in an exceedingly unwell time.
BTW, heard Senator Tom Cotton and Gordon Chang yesterday opine to the effect that while the coronavirus escaping from the Wuhan lab was due to typical Chinese sloppiness, once the Chinese Communist Party authorities found out this had happened they decided to “level the playing field” by disallowing flights as of January 23rd from Wuhan to other locations in China but allowed flights to all other cities in the world for this very purpose. If so (and I put NOTHING past the Chinese), XI and his minions need to be tried as war criminals.
You know, I hate Islam as you do, but I also hate totalitarianism in general, whether Islam, Nazism, Marxism, whatever, because it has no regard for human life all the while pretending that it does.
Terry Gain says
Not only is Islam not a religion. It is the inversion of religion. It is an attack on all religions.
It is a totalitarian political ideology which uses a faux religion to immunize it from being treated for what it is.
Wellington says
“It (Islam) is an attack on all religions.”
Would that include, Terry, Satanism, or how about the Aztec and Carthaginian religions of old which required human sacrifice as many other religions have? And do you really want to argue that Islam is an attack on Scientology, another religion protected by America’s First Amendment?
You still don’t grasp that a religion can be evil (or at least completely phony or wacky). You posit a hypothesis (i.e., that a religion must be good) and then treat it as an axiom. What a monumental mistake you make and you actually impede, not facilitate, optimally treating with the iniquity which is Islam by continuing to function in Fairy Tale Land.
You should re-consider things here—but you won’t.
CogitoErgoSum says
Wellington, I agree with you that Islam is a religion but I also agree with Terry when he says that Islam is an attack against all other religions. It is specifically stated within the pages of the Koran that Muslims are to fight until all other religions submit to Islam and Islam rules as the supreme religion favored above all others. It makes no sense to me for a country to establish itself as a refuge for those seeking freedom from religious persecution and then at the same time to welcome into its midst all those who feel it is their religious duty to persecute, subdue and eventually wipe out all other religions. It makes no sense to me at all. Seems as if some additional laws are needed that would prevent any religion dedicated to enslaving people from being recognized as a religion protected by our Constitution.
Anjuli Pandavar says
CES, ” It makes no sense to me for a country to establish itself as a refuge for those seeking freedom from religious persecution and then at the same time to welcome into its midst all those who feel it is their religious duty to persecute, subdue and eventually wipe out all other religions. It makes no sense to me at all. Seems as if some additional laws are needed that would prevent any religion dedicated to enslaving people from being recognized as a religion protected by our Constitution.”
—
This is really succinctly pulled together. And for such a religion to reach the point where it can, “persecute, subdue and eventually wipe out all other religions,” it must first destroy, or at least seriously incapacitate, the Constitution that protects it as a religion. This it can pursue unhindered while people are trying to deny that it is a religion. But when there is no such distraction, it is then possible to get to the real question of how to protect the Constitution against religion.
Just because the only religions conceivably part of American life at the time of the writing of the US Constitution were religions *not* intent on destroying all other religions, and along with them the Constitution itself, there was no perceived need to build into the Constitution a mechanism to protect it against such a religion. But not having studied US Constitutional history, I stand to be corrected here. It is possible there is a mechanism in the Constitution that can be applied to this end. Constitutional lawyers tend to be very clever people. This question must be publicly put to them before Islam’s creeping ideological takeover makes the putting of such a question impossible.
The alarm bell lies in the rapidity of CAIR’s response to Phillips’ initiative. They know what they’re up to and Phillips’ gun turret just swung over their position. They know that Phillips doesn’t yet see his target, but they also know that he’s pointing in the right general direction. Others, starting from where Phillips got to, will figure out exactly where to point that gun. CAIR knows that the time to nip this thing in the bud is now. Expect them to be vicious. They’ve invested too much to lose it all now.
I’m really glad to see this debate finally taking off.
Karen says
Wellington & gravenimage –
Islam calls itself “a way of life not a religion” – this is found in Reliance of the Traveller and in the US in Islamic grade 7 textbooks. I say, based on this, Islam ought not be recognized as a religion and have the concessions accorded a religion. It is a more odious & dangerous ideology than socialism, communism, fascism, etc. Just sayin’.
gravenimage says
Karen–with all respect–nowhere does Islam deny that it is a religion.
PRCS says
That’s correct: not JUST a religion, but an all-encompassng, totalitarian theocracy. Islamic law (the sharia) is Islam’s Yellow Brick Road’.
IMO, a better answer to that interviewer’s ridiculous queries could have been:
Theocracy is the opposite of democracy and is incompatible with our secular form of governance. And Islam is a theocracy.
Until our friends and neighbors are told–in no uncertain terms–of the horrible totality of the governance Muslims would impose upon the rest of us, too many of them–just enough of them–will continue to vote dear Ilhan’s pals into offices which require the commitment to ‘support and defend’ a system–our system–with hands on a book which prohibits them from doing so.
Lilith Wept says
Islam is a religiopolitical ideology. Mostly political with a slight amount of religion , to be used as a stick to threaten any disobedient followers with more than earthly punishment , so Mohammed’s followers would fear what would happen if they didn’t obey and as a carrot at the end of the stick to be able to offer the otherworldly reward of a heaven filled with what his primitive followers would value and probably not see in this world beautiful women with soft skin , unlimited alcohol , streams of fresh water, fresh fruits and meats ,requiring no effort , and all in the setting of a lush garden. For desert tribesmen this was indeed paradise!
The religion in islam was a means to give Mohammed the control, power and recognition that he craved. And instead of dying when Mohammed did, it became frozen, the ideology has persisted because it closed all avenues of escape:
death for leaving Islam,
many wives insuring that moslems would be have a high birthrate ,
requiring the belief that the text was the work of the deity and couldn’t be be altered, so no possibility of any changes or reform happening,
and that the founder, the person who invented this ideology was given extreme reverence, a semi divine status , so that a “good Moslem” would copy the violent barbaric deeds of the founder ,
the idea of “ doing good, and preventing evil” which ensures islam is self policing so the most fanatical will rigorously enforce the strict interpretation of Islamic laws, keeping the least religious in line by forcing them to obey Islamic laws, threatening them with those same laws and so they would be afraid and not attempt any “ reform” , changes or relaxing of the strict tenants of the religion,
and expanding Islam by the concept of “ us verses them” , the idea that their deity wants the world to be islamic so it’s an obligation for moslems to fight against “them” until they become “us” , and using never ending war, deception,and terror in their attempt to make the world Islamic.
PRCS says
+1, with a caveat:
Ther’s a simple term for your definition:
Theocracy.
Which is both antithetical and a polar opposite of our man-made, secular laws.
Giacomo Latta says
Phillips is bang on to say that the authors of the First Amendment were nowhere close to falling over each other to make sure Islam, human sacrifice, mass suicide cults, with Christian overtones or otherwise, were represented. It was created by politicians who were as normal as anyone else, unlike the current crop.
PRCS says
There were so few-if any–Muslims here at the time the First Amendment was ratified that few of its authors had the slightest idea what Islam really is.
gravenimage says
The Founding Fathers *did* understand that not all religions are good. The First Amendment dos not legalize what is illegal if it is done in the name of religion.
Gray says
Yes, yes, yes. The comments (abuse?) directed at me for presuming to suggest that the great and mighty Islam is not a religion were entirely expected. I actually have a life, and so don’t intend to waste a lot of time justifying my position, but it’s heartening that more and more people are starting to say the same thing as me, and also doing it openly. Most people on this blog seem to be very vocal in their desire to be rid of Islam. Very laudable, but how can that ever happen in any Western country, when Islam has the prestige, authority and protection of a recognised religion? This acknowledgement by the State often carries so many benefits, including taxpayer funding of schools propagating the Islamic faith, easy approval of mosques (i.e military command posts) and the sympathetic ear of the political Left and a pro-Islamic and anti-Christian media. Muslims ‘do not have the right to oppress or murder people in the name of their faith.’ Really? Well, tell that to the parents of the little girl who was sexually assaulted by a Muslim, who then seriously argued in Court that he should not be held criminally responsible, because he was raised in a Muslim majority country where he was taught that infidel females are war booty, to be used at will by the warriors of Allah. Muslims aren’t allowed to murder? Really? Aren’t we being told, on an almost daily basis, that a Muslim who kills infidels must be suffering from a mental illness (and therefore not responsible for his actions) because everyone knows that Islam is a religion of peace? This issue is not an irritating diversion from the main issue. This is the main issue. Rebecca Bynum has started the process. We in the West must think outside the square, we must be imaginative, creative and courageous in tackling the issue, as well as being intellectual rigorous and honest. We can never rid the West of Islam, while we continue to afford it the protection of a recognised religion. And that is it from me, today. I end as I began. I quite realize there is no way I can ever persuade some people of the correctness of my position, and I have no intention of wasting further time trying.
Wellington says
Just start with Islam being an EVIL religion. Were this widely done, this would be more than enough. Going on and on about how Islam is not a religion at all is a waste of time—actually thwarts matters as I have tried to convey to Terry Gain and others here at JW. And at least, if you would, distinguish between belief and action upon belief. Or don’t you get even this?
P.S. Robert Spencer himself has many times acknowledged that Islam is a religion. So, take it up with him and not just with me.
Terry Gain says
Wellington
Your claims that Islam is a religion entitled to first amendment protections have been heard. And are rejected. They make no sense. There is no legal authority for your assertions.
They make no sense. There is nothing to be gained by conceding that Islam is a religion and much to lose. Why would you give such a status to a totalitarian political ideology. Do you want America to become Islamic? You are not thinking tactically or logically.
Ultimately, the common sense of the people will prevail over the views of the ivory tower.
Wellington says
Rejected, Terry? By whom? Can you name a single US federal judge who has rejected my argument?
As for no legal authority for my assertion, sorry but this is an asinine and completely insupportable statement. It is beyond ridiculous.
And you will please at least tell me where it is written, including for First Amendment purposes, that a religion cannot be evil? You keep dodging this and it is shameful that you do (I predict you will dodge again).
And just imagine, as I have written to you many times before, and even assuming you are correct that Islam is not a religion, all the good that would flow legally and otherwise if Islam were acknowledged a religion but an evil one? Even this you do not respond to, so forever are you incapable of conceding anything on this matter even for argument’s sake.
Terry Gain says
Wellington
What case law do you rely upon for your assertion that Islam is a religion protected by the First Amendment? Are you now prepared to concede that Islam was not even mentioned by the founders when they discussed freedom of religion.
Why do you accuse the founders of being so short-sighted that they would give First Amendment protection to an evil conquest ideology which is opposed to freedom of speech and has been at war with every religion It has encountered since it was invented?
Do you imagine a founder who said “ A Republic if you can keep it notwithstanding the poison pill we have embedded?
What you don’t understand Wellington is that your argument consists of nothing more than illogical assertions.
Wellington says
No, Terry, the proof is upon you when you state that Islam is not a religion. You are the one who needs to cite constitutional and statutory law, as well as judicial decisions, that state that Islam is not a religion. I would also ask you at what point in Islam’s history was its religious status ever denied? The approach of those who fought it (e.g., Charles Martel) was that it was a religion of the devil or some such thing.
And even if Islam is not a religion, it would still be a protected belief system as Nazism and Marxism are. Whether a religion or not (it is), it is wicked and since the Constitution is not a suicide pact it would be perfectly constitutional to deny entry to America to Muslims just as it is to hard-core Marxists and Neo-Nazis. Those in America who wish to believe in Islam, to be Muslims, confused as they all are, should have the right to BELIEVING in Islam but not necessarily ACTING upon all of Islam’s dictates (e.g., death for apostasy), just as one can be a Marxist in America and think that capitalism should be violently overthrown (which is in pure Marxist theory, both in the class struggle argument and the alienation argument) or a Neo-Nazi who can believe what he wants about Jews, or if a KKK member about blacks (Jews too, even traditionally with the KKK Catholics as well), etc., but action upon this stupidity and hate is not an option.
You and others who keep going on about how Islam is not a religion actually, though well intentioned, delay dealing with Islam optimally and that is as a religion but a malevolent religion which has many features in it that are antithetical to basic, fundamental Constitutional and human rights.
gravenimage says
Terry Gain wrote:
Wellington
Your claims that Islam is a religion entitled to first amendment protections have been heard. And are rejected.
………………………
Well, its certainly been rejected by Terry Gain. The implication that it has been rejected by some judicial authorities is not the case, though.
More:
They make no sense. There is no legal authority for your assertions.
………………………
I have noted that Islam is a religion by every definition. That you–and I–rightly hate Islam doesn’t mean that this is not a religion.
And what legal authority can you point to? (Please recall that Wellington has taught both law and history at the university level for decades).
More:
They make no sense. There is nothing to be gained by conceding that Islam is a religion and much to lose. Why would you give such a status to a totalitarian political ideology. Do you want America to become Islamic? You are not thinking tactically or logically.
………………………
I actually think that we would very much lose if we changed the meaning of our words for Muslims. And how would this even be accomplished? By fiat? That has never worked to change the language. Demanding that we ignore logic and claim that Islam is not a religion would not help, either. In fact, ignoring reason and reality has *never* helped when facing a threat in a clear-eyed manner.
More:
Ultimately, the common sense of the people will prevail over the views of the ivory tower.
………………………
Why would you consider reason and logic to be solely the province of the “ivory tower”? Actually, this is often anything but the case.
More:
What case law do you rely upon for your assertion that Islam is a religion protected by the First Amendment? Are you now prepared to concede that Islam was not even mentioned by the founders when they discussed freedom of religion.
………………………
Terry, you have claimed many times that the Founders knew nothing about Islam when the First Amendment was written, and I have debunked this many times. Moreover, they would have to be ignorant of the fact that *any* religion can have negative aspects, and this clearly was not the case. There is mention of evil religions in the Bible, and most of the Founders–certainly Thomas Jefferson–also knew his history, including such religions as that of the Aztecs, which included human sacrifice.
That is the very reason that the First Amendment *does not* protect people committing crimes in the name of their faith.
More:
Why do you accuse the founders of being so short-sighted that they would give First Amendment protection to an evil conquest ideology which is opposed to freedom of speech and has been at war with every religion It has encountered since it was invented?
………………………
See above.
More:
Do you imagine a founder who said “ A Republic if you can keep it notwithstanding the poison pill we have embedded?
………………………
No, Benjamin Franklin was not ignorant of the existence of evil religions. In fact, the very year after the First Amendment was written, he published a salvo against slavery, prominently featuring the Islamic aspect of that atrocity. So the idea that he knew nothing about that creed just a year earlier makes no sense.
More:
What you don’t understand Wellington is that your argument consists of nothing more than illogical assertions.
………………………
Terry, you have *never* said in what what acknowledging that Islam is a religion–and that it is evil–is anything less than completely logical.
Karen says
Gray, as I mentioned above, Islam says about itself that it is “a way of life not a religion”. See Islamic grade 7 textbooks in the US(I have a pic of the page) and if I wasn’t so lazy at the moment I’m sure I’ve read the same in Reliance of the Traveller. So it ought not be accorded religious rights IMHO.
Wellington says
Could you cite the specific passages from the Reliance of the Traveler and the text book you mentioned. Are you certain that these texts don’t say Islam is not only a religion but also a way of life or something like this?
gravenimage says
Yes–citations, please.
Gray says
Karen, thank you. I have noted your comments, and agree with you.
David says
Gray, you clearly have a lot to say. Have you really given up? That is a shame. What you have written contains lots of pertinent points. You might well be able to persuade some people somewhere. We all need to spread the word. We must not give in.
Gray says
David, thank you for your kind words. I haven’t taken a life long vow of silence, and promise I will re-join the fray at some stage. God bless, and thanks again.
Lilith Wept says
I would love to see islam eradicated from the West. And in fact, Islam has very little religiosity .
And I believe That one way of eliminating Islam from our country is to deny its the status of a religion.
But I just don’t think the moslems in our country and their allies, the liberal left , will allow Islam’ religious status to be revoked.
Maybe the way forward is to declare that Islam is not reconized by America as a religion, and therefor Islam does not have the protection of the law that a religion would have,
But , I don’t see anything major like this happening anytime soon….. I haven’t heard of any political candidates ( except for Rick Phillips of Iowa) who will,stand up and speak the truth about Islam, that it’s Islamic doctrine that’s responsible for Islamic Terrorism, that we should be criticizing and questioning the Islamic ideology .
Politicians still spout the Islamic propaganda that Islam mean peace and that Islamic Terrorism isn’t really “Islamic” at all, it’s just a few crazies on the fringes, extremists that have hijacked a basically peaceful religion for nefarious purposes. Unless I see who’s saying this I don’t know if it’s a Moslem or one of our own elected representatives spouting these lies!
We just don’t have enough politicians who will stand up to Islam and lush back against the Islamification of America.
We the people can write articles and post comments , and educate others about islam , this is all good, but we need to elect people who can influence the way Islam is treated .
I’m not sure why politicians wonts stand up,to Islam, …they believe the Islamic propaganda of the religion of peace , they are afraid of Islamic violence , they are bribed, they have the mental, illness called “ Liberalism” , afraid for their “political careers” if they come out against islam , or maybe they believe they will be called racist and Islamophobe….
It’s just shocking that seeing the violence of,Islam is so evident around the world, that we don’t have more politiicans speaking against it.
I think one of the first stapes in eliminating or controlling islam in the West is for our politicians to acknowledge that the core, mainstream doctrine of Islam is violent towards all non moslems , that it is expansionist , and Islam supremist .
And because the basic doctrine teaches these things , we have a problem with all moslems.
And I’m seeing more moslems run for political office and frankly , that really scares me. The moslems that get elected to positions of power and influence will encourage other moslems to do the same,, they will also be in the position to have influence on our laws and the way Islam is treated in the US, and they will favor the spread of islam . So the Islamification will expand and accelerate.
Moslems are using our political,system, out laws, freedoms and rights against us .
And we are allowing moslems to infiltrate our political system despite their belief in an ideology that isn’t just the opposite of our ultire and laws, it commands them to actively work to destroy it and replace it with their ideology.
So we have to address the Islamic ideology. We have to acknowledge that it’s not simply a religion but it’s dangerous political system that’s entangled with religion.. And it will not stop until it is dominate.
gravenimage says
Yes–Islam is not simply a religion–it is an entire totalitarian way of life. That doesn’t mean it is not also a religion, though.
elee says
The leading Supreme Court case on this, sorry I can’t recall names of parties, involved the Caribbean Santeria cult; the Court held that the cult’s right to practise animal sacrifice in its religious rites was protected against local regulations on the killing of animals. So does this mean that we have to let Muslims kill kafirs because that’s commanded in their scripture? Sometime the Court will have to face this question……..I’m not giving legal advice to anyone here, all I can say is they could rule either way.
gravenimage says
I think this ruling was very much mistaken. It is one thing to allow belief; it is something *very different* to allow humane laws to be flouted.
keith says
WOW, this guy is getting shat on for telling the truth about Islam?
Grunt, groan, strain,,,trying hard, just not surprised!
gravenimage says
Iowa Candidate Under Fire for Call to Define Islam as “Militant Cultural Imperialism Seeking World Domination”
……………………
Does it matter that Rick Phillips is broadly correct about Islam? Of course not.
End PC says
The Constitution is not a suicide pact. It’s illogical for it to protect an antithetical ideology that calls for its destruction. Hence it is absurd to hold that it does.
IMO Rick Philips ought to sue the US in Federal Court for maintaining that Islam is protected under the 1st Amendment. Take it to SCOTUS.
PRCS says
As the First Amendment does NOT green-light religious practices which violate our Constitution and laws….listing those of slam’s teachings which do so is a must.
Right off the bat: all other aspects of Islam aside–the good, the bad and the ugly, slam’s most noteworthy incompatibility with our Bill of Rights are its *divine* punishments: death for apostasy as the most obvious, IMO.
Terry Gain says
Given that iIslam is opposed to freedom of speech and freedom of and from religion it is absurd to think that the Founders. intended to include Islam as a religion entitled to First Amendment protection.
I challenge those who the claim that Islam was within the contemplation of the Founders to produce any reference to Islam in the Federalist Papers.
Wellington says
Your contention is, Terry, quite simply, a stupid legal argument. Here’s why: The First Amendment protects belief in Nazism and Marxism and it was impossible for the Founders to have known about these two belief systems, and yet Islam was around when the Founders wrote the Constitution (including the Bill of Rights).
So, belief systems not even existent when the Founders lived are protected by the First Amendment but a belief system that DID exist when the Founders lived is not. You really want to go here? Really? And how much of a difference is there between a malevolent SECULAR belief system protected by the First Amendment v. a malevolent RELIGIOUS belief system protected by the First Amendment? I suggest little to no difference and key again, as I have been tying to convey to you is NOT status but proper characterization.
Brian Hoff says
It the freedom of religion only Aly only to Christian they would have written it that way.
gravenimage says
True, Wellington.
gravenimage says
What is “Brian Hoff”–really, “DefenderofIslam”–babbling about here? He has said before that when he and his vicious coreligionists gain enough power that they intend to destroy the Constitution and impose bloody Shari’ah law on us.
Terry Gain says
End PC says
Given that the elites are for the most part politically correct, such a challenge would likely fail. This is a battle which should be fought in the court of public opinion not in a court of law. This is why I say it is the public not the politicians who will carry this fight.
All that needs to be done to the peacefully defeat Islam’s ambitions in America is to elect a majority of politicians who are opposed to Muslim immigration.
David says
Or educate and inform Republican congressmen and women about the self stated aims of islam. Just lay out the facts in black and white, and invite discussion.
Wellington says
“It is illogical for it to protect an antithetical ideology that calls for its {the Constitution’s} destruction.”
Marxism, Nazism and anarchism call for this too. Should they also not be protected belief systems?
End PC says
There’s more than one kind of protection going on. Let’s not confuse free speech protection by the 1st Amendment with protection against discrimination on the basis of religion, which is the protection I’m referring to. Thus, by the 1st Amendment one is free to espouse Islam & praise it, but one should be able to discriminate against it while you can’t against most other religions, like Catholicism, Judaism – for the reason I gave above. For instance, a law should be able to be passed that prevents the election to office of a avowed Muslim (or an anti-constitution Nazi, Marxist, etc).
Terry Gain says
This is a beginning. This enlightenment will come from the people, not the politicians.
gravenimage says
Terry, Phillips is hoping to be a politician. He is, in fact, running for office.
Terry Gain says
Duh
gravenimage says
Terry, if he wins he *will* indeed be a politician. One can argue, in fact, that his just running for office, win or lose, in itself makes him a politician.
rubiconcrest says
Entering this arena requires great eloquence. Of course Islam is practiced all over the world by individuals who would not harm a fly. But also in Islamic countries a person can be put to death for video taping someone stepping on a Koran.
He should have said in his platform:
“Basic freedoms we enjoy are banned in Islam. I want to be sure that Muslims in the USA know their rights. I want to be sure that they know they are protected by the constitution and our laws if they want to leave Islam, criticize their religious books or teachings, marry outside their faith, or in divorce. Islamic culture is very different from ours and we want to protect Muslims who live here from the religious bigotry of those who would deny their basic rights.”
And then all he has to do is defend with facts how these problems exist for Muslims in the USA.
PRCS says
+1
Eloquently stated.
CogitoErgoSum says
Koran 9:29 explains it. Muslims are to fight until all the people of the world have also become Muslims or else are paying the Jizya to the Muslims. This verse 9:29 was never abrogated by another later verse in the Koran and has never reached its expiration date (which will come when the Muslim version of Jesus returns to abolish the Jizya and then kills all those who still refuse to become Muslims). So, yes, Islam is a militant religion seeking world domination. The idea that most Muslims don’t want to join the fight is irrelevant. It’s still what their religion demands of them. I suggest that those who don’t like it should leave Islam. But, oh yeah, then they become subject to being among those who must be fought and killed by those who are Muslims (and the apostates don’t qualify for paying the Jizya either). Sorry, Muslims, that’s your religion.
The man speaks the truth … but the world rejects the truth.
Wellington says
Seconded, CES. Sura 9:29 “encapsulates” Islam—as does your implicit reference to Sura 4:89, which requires death for Muslims who leave their decrepit faith.
There is no defense for Islam. None. And your point that it is irrelevant that most Muslims don’t want to enforce all of Islams heinous, freedom-crushing directives is notable above all other points.
Ideology is key and not its implementation by all believers. I always start from this premise and I have never had it demonstrated to me why I shouldn’t conclude what I have.
rubiconcrest says
I don’t agree that talking about banning a religion is an intelligent starting point. It is a waste of time. We have to think more tactically. We might believe in theory that it should be banned but where does that get you, nowhere. I believe that there are perhaps half a million Muslims in the USA who would like to be done with Islam but have no protection. No one defends them. No one talks about their rights. Such a discussion is, as I mention above, beyond reproach. Anyone, even an atheist would agree and Islamic apologist’s have nothing to attack.
CogitoErgoSum says
Perhaps it’s not so much the U.S. banning Islam but rather Islam excluding itself from being part of the social compact and legal agreement that we have in this country – which is that everyone should be free to practice his/her own set of beliefs and that no particular religion is to be favored by our government above all others. Islam is not in agreement with this and, therefore, by its very nature excludes itself from protection under the U.S. Constitution.
The urgent need today is to properly define just what Islam is and what the goals of its followers are. The failure to do this in the West is the great shame of our religious and political leadership – and, yes, including the Pope..
Terry Gain says
People do not leave Islam because of family pressure. Muslims in America are very well aware of the fact that I live in a free country. They also know that they live in an ideology of compulsion.
If there was more widespread public sentiment that Islam is a totalitarian ideology rather than a religion perhaps that might give the Muslim community less willingness to constrain and restrict.
There is nothing whatsoever to be gained by conceding that Islam is a religion protected by the First Amendment. In fact it is a very dangerous concept as it makes it less likely that Islam will face the resistance necessary to defend against its conquest ambitions.
Wellington says
For the record, ruiconcrest, I have NEVER, read that NEVER, called for banning any religion in America. My point all along is that some religions can be evil, and just as Nazism and Marxism (both evil) are protected belief systems, so is it the case with malevolent religions.
The characterization, not the status, is key. Then there is the HUGE difference, for First Amendment purposes, between belief and many actions upon belief. God, how many times to I have to state this?
gravenimage says
More people *do* need to learn that Islam is a threat to us all.
Michael Copeland says
“Militant Cultural Imperialism Seeking World Domination”…………….
“Yes, we will be masters of the world!” – Safwat al Hegazy
“Mastership of the world!” – Mohammad Badie
“Islam will dominate the world” – placard
“The Koran grants Muslims dominion over the world …. Islam must dominate, not be dominated” – Hassan al Banna, co-founder of Muslim Brotherhood
“My religion doesn’t tolerate other religion. It does not tolerate.” – Abu Bakr, Australia
“The Islamic State bears a kind of resemblance to the Fascist and Communist states” – Maududi
“Non-Muslims have absolutely no right to seize the reins of power …Islam requires the earth,
not just a part, but the whole planet.” – Maududi
See https://gatesofvienna.net/2020/02/islams-agenda-muslims-speak/
Michael Copeland says
“…unspiritual, concerned to win the empire of the world” — Bertrand Russell
Rob says
Here are some assessments of Islam I recently came across:
• “totalitarian,” “barbaric”
• “Islamo-fascism”
• “fascist ideology”
• “obsessional dream of conquering the world”
• “supreme brothel” (in reference to the Islamic description of paradise)
Christian fundamentalists? Militant counter-jihadists? White supremacist Islamophobes? What’s your guess?
Actually, these statements are taken from a book of essays by former Muslims. L’Islam mis à nu par les siens: Anthologie d’auteurs arabophones post 2001 is edited by Maurice Saliba with a preface by Fr. Henri Boulad, an Egyptian Jesuit. Anne Barbeau Gardiner, who reviewed the book for the New Oxford Review says the title can be translated as Islam Laid Bare by Its Own. Professor Gardiner notes that “a number of the authors were members of the Muslim Brotherhood or were graduates of, and even teachers at, Al-Azhar University in Egypt.”
The 46 essays in the book present a picture of Islam that’s difficult to find elsewhere. Much of the online information about Islam is provided by Muslim apologists—some of whom belong to groups that are well funded by Arab states. And much of the rest is provided by non-Muslims whose first priority is not to offend Islam. Critics of Islam, on the other hand, are few and far between, and possibly getting fewer. Their sites are regularly attacked as “hate groups” by leftists. And they stand in constant danger of being de-monetized or de-platformed.
Catholics are especially likely to be exposed to the airbrushed version of Islam. Almost the whole effort of Catholic clergy and educators who deal with the subject is to find common ground between the two faiths. In recent years, some Catholic leaders have appeared to be far more worried about the dangers of “Islamophobia” than about the relentless persecution of fellow Christians by Muslims in various parts of the Middle East, Asia and Africa.
At the same time, Catholic leaders have shown little concern over the importation into Europe of the very same ideology that was being used to justify the persecution of Christians in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Egypt, Somalia, Nigeria, Pakistan, and numerous other countries. In fact, some of the loudest voices in favor of mass migration into Europe were those of Catholic clergy. And very few spoke out against it.
One who did was Emil Nona, the exiled Chaldean Archbishop of Mosul. Archbishop Nona warned his fellow bishops in Europe about the dangers of “welcoming in your countries an ever-growing number of Muslims.” “Islam does not say that all men are equal,” he reminded them: “Your values are not their values. If you do not understand this soon enough, you will become the victims of the enemy you have welcomed in your home.”
…
Michael Copeland says
“…then we fight them, and we abduct their women, and destroy their churches —
This is Islam!… Come on! Learn what Islam is!”
Grand Ayatollah Ahmad Al Baghdadi
to interviewer on Iraq television.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/260452/iraqi-ayatollah-abducting-women-and-destroying-raymond-ibrahim
revereridesagain says
ISLAM IS A CULT. People trapped in a cult who wish to escape, who would rather live as free individuals without having to be afraid of harassment, threats and violence by the cult’s enforcers should be encouraged and supported. But because Islam is a “great world religion” it is given respect is does not deserve, and the threats and violent actions of its members get a pass. Regardless of the objective validity of their beliefs, the major religions which DO NOT engage in violence and threats and which respect the right of every person to decide what to believe should stand together against this violent, conquest-obsessed, supremacist CULT and bring it to heel.
But they won’t.
gravenimage says
There is no definition of a cult that does not also apply to religion.
OREN WYSOCKI says
More muslims support islamic supremacy than germans who supported the nazis. Recognize their majority beliefs even if it doesn’t fit your narrative, chosen in fear. The threat is real. In G-d I trust.
The threat is greater than the nazis, because leftists are more comfortable standing up to white tyrants and white bigots, than they are brown tyrants and bigots. The left is even willing to arrest right wing and religious whites who speak out against brown peoples hatred and racism.
tim gallagher says
All I can say is, Bravo Rick Phillips. We need more gutsy truth tellers like him. His telling the truth might even cause a few of the leftie, PC brigade’s (and Muslims’) heads to explode, which would be a good thing. Why more people can’t see what an evil force Islam is, and has been for 1400 years now, is completely beyond me. I suppose that some can see it, but it is cowardice that stops them telling the truth.
Peter Clemerson says
Can anyone (Robert?) tell me how I can get an English translation of the Hanafi manual of shariah Al-Hidayah?
gravenimage says
Here’s one source, Peter:
https://kitaabun.com/shopping3/hidayah-classical-manual-hanafi-trans-p-1411.html
Peter Clemerson says
660 pages. It’s going to be tough but thanks. Probably the only one in existence.
Peter Clemerson says
Actually, I was wrong to label the reading of Shariah as being tough.
If anyone is interested, reading Shariah as exemplified by reading The Reliance of the Traveller by Ahmad Ibn Naqib Al-Misri, translated by Keller (btw, this contains errors and omits sections regarded by Keller, a convert, as embarrassing) alternates between the tedious and the amazing, but it is not hard work.
gravenimage says
Thanks, Peter.
Aussie Infidel says
With people like Aaron Britt in the Republican party, it looks as if they still have a few RINOs in their ranks – the same politically ineffective idiots who opposed Trump’s candidature for President. And they play right into the hands of the Muslims and other subversives.
Americans go to the polls to elect a President, not a Sunday school teacher. They tried that once and got Jimmy Carter, whose leftist, appeasing attitudes put the US at a considerable disadvantage in dealing with people like the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran.
Is Robert Mc Caw of CAIR arguing that the First Amendment gives Muslims the right to “Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them”? (Quran 9:5). Islam is a criminal theocratic ideology invented by a seventh century Arab camel jockey, who was also a psychopath, a narcissist, a misogynist and a war-lord. Mc Caw accuses Phillips of “hatred and anti-American views”; but as usual he fails to mention that Islam is predicated on hatred of all other faiths and seeks to destroy them all.
The medieval historian al-Tabari understood what Islam was all about:
“Arabs [Muslims] are the most noble people in lineage, the most prominent, and the best in deeds. We were the first to respond to the call of the Prophet. We are Allah’s helpers and the viziers of His Messenger. We fight people until they believe in Allah. He who believes in Allah and His Messenger has protected his life and possessions from us. As for one who disbelieves, we will fight him forever in Allah’s Cause. Killing him is a small matter to us.” (History of Al-Tabari 9, p69).
That’s why Americans would be committing cultural and religious suicide if they ever repeal the First Amendment.
tgusa says
Under fire = Over the target
Would the republican party of Iowa please clarify their views regarding islamic doctrine because I really want to know if for nothing else but to have them on record.
Donovan Nuera says
We don’t allow devotees of Quetzalcoatl to sacrifice innocent victims with obsidian blades to extract their beating hearts or allow virgin gang-rape/throat-slitting to Odin anymore, do we?? Not all religions are alike. Which one still sanctifies and commands the murder of those smart and brave enough to leave??? Hmmm…that will be their downfall if we only point that out to the mollified PC wussy public with as much attention as the Civil Rights activists and Abolitionists did for slavery/discrimination/lynching.
PRCS says
For those who think Islam–or any other religion–will or can be banned here:
What’s the plan? Lobotomy’s or other procedures to erase a lifetime of inculcated memories? Wipe the entire WWW and block further related info and posts there? Send Storm Troopers into libraries, homes, etc. to forcibly seize every ‘holy’ book deemed ‘inappropriate’? Send ’em back where they came from? And when American born Muslims refuse to go? What then?
Howze ’bout a real plan?
tgusa says
Predominantly, America was founded by Christians who did not wish to impose their beliefs or religious values on the general public by force of the sword, islam is not the same. There is not and cannot be any sort of plan at this time. The future conflagration has already been set in motion. Most of us may already be dead by the time that comes to fruition but future generations will probably look back and hate us for what we allowed because they will be the ones who have to deal with it.
CogitoErgoSum says
To start perhaps we should define the meaning of “religion” so as to include that it is a belief system. Then make illegal any religion or belief system which exhorts its followers to take certain prohibited actions – such as acts of violence against others or the persecution of those who hold beliefs that differ from the ones taught by that particular religion or belief system.
And in case you are wondering, yes, I would consider atheism to be a type of religion or belief system of its own (the belief there are no gods) — but an allowable belief system because persecution of others is not necessarily part of being an atheist. On the other hand, I don’t believe those who hold to the Quran as being sacred and the unalterable word of thier god can honestly claim they do not agree with the words of their god and, therefore, if their scriptures encourage them to do something, they will likely to do it. Once a set of standards have been set, all religions would have to meet those standards to be allowable in the country.
tgusa says
Unfortunately and to the detriment of all in the future you make too much sense for the times that we currently live in.
Terry Gain says
CES
I have argued on these pages that Islam is so lacking in what is good and holy that it does not come close to being a religion. I would suggest that command is a better word than encourage to describe what Islam requires of its adherents. Before conceding that Islam is a religion we ought to have a thorough discussion as to the minimum requirements of a religion in terms of beliefs that it must not hold and beliefs it must not hold.
A country founded on the ethic of freedom should not countenance an ideology that denies freedom of speech and freedom of and from religion.
Barack Obama didn’t say much that I agree with but he did say that “no religion condones killing”. Sense is lame not only condones calendar but commands killing then a fortiori Islam is not a religion according to the great constitutional scholar.
I am glad to see so many other contributors to this site recognize that Islam should be stripped in the public square of the protection which immunizes is it from the scrutiny required.
Those who concede that Islam is a religion but argue that it is an evil religion score an own goal. There is no rational reason to make that concession and it belies any understanding of America’s founding principles. Religion has a special place in the American psyche and describing Islam as an evil religion is an ill-advised position which is guaranteed to fail to convince anyone that Islam’s doctrine and history need to be scrutinized for the good of all, including Muslims
Terry Gain says
Good grief Gainer. Proof read.
gravenimage says
Terry, Obama was *using Taqiyya* to whitewash Islam, not stating some sort of great truth.
Aussie Infidel says
CES, I agree with your argument that all religions should have to meet certain standards of conduct. Australia faced the problem of what was meant by the word ‘religion’ back in 1983, in the Scientology case.
http://www.scientologyreligion.org/landmark-decisions/1983-australian-high-court-decision-church-of-scientology.html
At the time, there was no legal definition of religion in law; and the Court ruled that a religion was, “Belief in a supernatural being, thing or principle; and acceptance and observance of canons of conduct in order to give effect to that belief”. However, the Court didn’t define what conduct was acceptable. Would “kill the unbelievers wherever you find them” (Q9:5), be acceptable behaviour. While we have laws against criminal behavior, that should also have been incorporated into the definition, otherwise it tends to give belligerent, supremacist religions like Islam a free pass.
Despite the HC’s decision, it’s about time we had further debate on this issue and introduced legislation in the House, instead of just relying on the Court’s decision. And part of that legislation must be to state what is acceptable conduct – eg “conduct in accord with the principles in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the Constitution”. Otherwise, it will still allow Islam to quite literally get away with murder!
Also, I’m an atheist, and as a young man I was persecuted by Christians of all stripes. Strictly speaking, I’m an agnostic, since no one can know that “there is no God”, but most people are ignorant of such issues. That’s simply a negative premise which cannot be proved – a logical fallacy and equally erroneous as asserting that “there is a God”. You might believe in a god, but until you can ‘take me to meet your leader’, you can’t prove it. That’s why religions are referred to as faiths, or beliefs without proof. For me, it’s not a matter of believing that there is no God, but simply not believing in a God, because there is no concrete evidence for one – and that’s not a religion or belief, but an absence of belief.
Thankfully, most religions are relatively benign, and I couldn’t care less what other people believe. That’s their business, providing it does not harm me or others. But Islam is the major exception to the norm. Islam is a theocratic, totalitarian, criminal ideology, which seeks to subjugate all other religions and cultures – with violence if necessary – and as such, it has no place in any civilized society.
Until we address this issue, the Islamization of the West will continue, and we will continue to fight a rearguard action.
PRCS says
“I would consider atheism to be a type of religion or belief system of its own (the belief there are no gods) — but an allowable belief system because persecution of others is not necessarily part of being an atheist.”
You have that backwards.
“Atheism is one thing: A lack of belief in gods.”
Not “the belief that there are no gods”
As atheism is NOT a religion, attempting to include it in a necessary definition of religion–in order to identify and weed out the fakes and, especially, those which command its followers to comply with *divine* laws,which would be criminal acts if carried out here (Islam being at the top of that list) is nonsensical, at least.
And that is should be ‘allowable’…
CogitoErgoSum says
PRCS, you may be right and I may be wrong — or we both may be right concerning what constitutes a “religion.” It all depends on your definition of religion, doesn’t it? THAT was my point. There is no definition of religion provided within the U.S. Constitution. A person has to look elsewhere for a definition and those definitions may vary.
Why couldn’t some forms of atheism be just like a religion with certain clothing to wear and rituals to perform, mandatory indoctrination meetings to attend, with punishments being handed for not complying with the rules? A group of atheists could profess that there are no gods and still teach its members to persecute and kill those who, unlike them, believe in a god or gods. You may call that a political party but why could I not call it a form of religion also?
P. S: I hope I didn’t hurt your feelings again.
PRCS says
Religion: the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
You really are clueless.
CogitoErgoSum says
Some would consider the state to a superhuman controlling power.
CogitoErgoSum says
Others might consider a computer to a superhuman controlling power — which causes humans to make typographical errors.
CogitoErgoSum says
to be …. to be …. to be or not to be.
Kesselman says
I’m all in for Ricky Phillips. Says the more evidently. And let’s get back to where we stopped in 1972.
James Mide says
I support you, as I am republican from Cook County and I served in the military of this great nation. If anyone has a question about the violence of Islam, direct them to read chapter 9 in the Quran. You’ll quickly realize that while Islam is in charge, their is no place for Jews, Christians or any faith. We are filthy and we would all be paying jizya/tax while in submission and humiliation according to Quran chapter 9 verses 28-29
Claudius says
Is Islam not a system of racketeering? Imams, ayatollahs and mullahs regularlyly exhort their followers to violence, using the Islamic texts as justification. I thought racketeering is illegal in the United States.
Michael Copeland says
Contact details for Rick Phillips:
rphillips2017@gmaill.com
website. https://theswampfox.net/contact
Terry Gain says
Thank you.
andrew mckendrick says
When I worked in the middle east it used to amuse me how their newspapers would never use the word Israel ,always referred to it as The Zionist Entity…..maybe instead of calling Islam a religion it should also be referred to as The Islamic Entity.
Michael Copeland says
“The reason I am against Islam is not because it is a religion, but because it is a political ideology of imperialism and domination in the guise of religion. Because Islam does not follow the Golden Rule, it attracts violent people.”
Amil Imani,
quoted by Geert Wilders, Berlin, Oct 2010, http://www.AtlasShrugs2000.com
Michael Copeland says
Correction: Ali Sina, not Amil Imani.
H. Al. says
Islam is trully a medieval militant religion. It has numerous narratives about killing infidels or non-islamic people.
Michael Copeland says
And not just narratives, but instructions, current for all time until Islam is the only governance.
TimothyS says
The response from the GOP head is precisely why “conservatives” lose. They conserve an ideology that explicitly presents itself as a complete way of life – one completely antithetical to liberal democracy. They will conserve every gains made by our enemies, and be too timid to alienate people who won’t vote for them anyway. I hardly need enumerate all the folly and atrocities they have been conserving.
What was that line in American’s oath of office, “enemies, foreign and domestic”?
PRCS says
Muslims elected to U.S. offices which required a oath ‘to support and defend’ with one hand on a book which prohibits them from doing so goes right over many a politician’s head.
OLD GUY says
I try to judge each individual on their actions not on race , religion or political following, the exception being muslims/islamic people. There is no such thing as a moderate islamic follower, there are only those who actively attempt to force islam on the rest of us or those who are waiting quietly to do so. If we the people want to keep our freedoms of speech, religion, and life style we must stop the migration of the islamic followers into our countries. Islam is a fake religion, it is an Ideology of world domination with a dictatorship style of government using a cult type religious domination to control and justify its murder, rape and enslavement of non followers or its enemies.
Mr. Phillips I believe recognizes the danger of the islamic ideology and I would vote for him if I lived in Iowa. We need more candidates who recognize Islam’s danger to our American way of life, I’am waiting to see if any candidates in my state are bold enough to take on this issue.
Jared James Bristol says
The problem not mentioned is the fact that Islam is not a religion, but a vile social, cultural, legal, military, family, et al system of total control. And it espouses violence and supremacy etc. Until, and only if, America and the entire west sees this, the Mohammadan Muscle Men will get away with their infiltration and growth toward dominance. I salute this guy running for Congress. We need many more like him.
JB
CTTV15@Hotmail.com says
When you’re right, you’re right.. Problem?
Pal says
It started in 1520s.
First country (government) to enter a serious, political alliance with Islam was France. King François I (1515-1547) initiated exchange of letters and contacts between their representatives with the Ottoman caliphate & empire’s boss Suleiman I (1520-1566). François needed more strength against Austrian and Spanish Hapsburg dynasties and their hindrance for his country’s ambitions in Europe. Alliance with the muslim turks happened to be also an ideological one, and it was regarded by many Christians in Europe as making a sacrilegiously huge mistake with the crescent. François gained only some military, tactical and strategic advantages. Islam side gained much more, especially in long term. François also asked for churches converted to mosques to be de-converted and reinstated as churches, Suleiman declined citing “his religion wouldn’t allow him” and only allowed some factious French “protection” over Christians in the Levant and also French capitulations for the Ottoman that was deemed to help its economy, i.e. in favor of the umma (maslaha), i.e., of Islam at the ends of all.
It lasted for more that 250 years, until Napoleon I.
Christianity in the Middle East is nearly no more.
Islam penetrated and penetrates Europe’s every corner.
Islam is nearing 10% in France, highest level in Europe. Will be more than 10%, most probably more than 25%, one day.
“Alliance” with Islam is already obvious, not like François’, but worse, a common preparedness to retreat, already constructed in mind.
Islam is already penetrating America. Its penetration here is and will be most probably more silent, more subtle, more slow. But it will be more, not less.
https://www.theblaze.com/news/2020/04/25/muslim-call-to-prayer-will-be-blasted-over-this-major-us-city-five-times-per-day-during-ramadan/amp
PRCS says
“Islam is already penetrating America. Its penetration here is and will be most probably more silent, more subtle, more slow. But it will be more, not less.”
And methodical:
Note the intersectional co-opt:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMEBWPiAGE8
gravenimage says
There were foolish and traitorous dhimmis who allied with Muslims before 1520. Reading Robert Spencer’s History of Jihad gives a good overview of this sad history.
don vito says
So, is halal and haram political or religious? Perplexing, no?
PRCS says
No, not perplexing.
It is both, as Islam–that ‘complete way of life–is a theocracy.
gravenimage says
+1
don vito says
Image result for theocracy countrieswww.governmentvs.com
Theocracy Countries 2020
Vatican City.
Yemen.
Saudi Arabia.
Sudan.
Iran.
Mauritania.
Afghanistan.
Apr 6, 2020
Theocracy Countries 2020 – World Population
PCRS, thanks for your reply, but I’m not sure you answered the question I ask. You see, you answered a question about islam. Which I don’t have a disagreement with, however, the list I found and posted just now doesn’t list islam as a nation. How does saracen and kufr decide if haram and halal is religious or political when islam is not in power, as in the USA or other Western nations? As an example, if a street is full of saracens praying in Paris, although illegal, it is halal. What is the objective, religious or political? I would argue the objective is political, because saracens can pray in their mosk.
gravenimage says
don vito, generally, Vatican City has adopted modern Italian laws. The claim that it is a theocracy does *not* hold water.
PRCS says
“How does saracen and kufr decide if haram and halal is religious or political when islam is not in power, as in the USA or other Western nations?”
No, Islam is not a ‘nation’–despite their belief otherwise.
Whether in power or not, Islamic law (the sharia) applies to every Muslim, everywhere. While the punitive amputation of thieves’ hands (halal as it is, per that theocratic, complete way of life) remains forever one of ‘Allah’s’ commands, our man-made laws criminalize that.here. Islam/Muslims determine what’s halal/haram, not us. We, however, determine what’s legally permissible.
The Paris gang should be told, in no uncertain terms, that practice is illegal and will not be tolerated.
Islam IS a theocracy: the secular and the sacred being inseparable.
don vito says
PRCS, again thanks for your reply, every definition I have found is similar to this: How is theocracy different from other forms of government?
A theocracy is a government run by religious leaders. Like monarchy, theocracy is an old form of government. In a theocracy, the government claims to be directed by God, or divinely blessed. There is no legal separation between church and state, and citizens of other faiths are often excluded or expelled. You too write: “No, Islam is not a ‘nation’–despite their belief otherwise. Whether in power or not, Islamic law (the sharia) applies to every Muslim, everywhere.” And further down you write: ” We, however, determine what’s legally permissible.” All I quote from what you write I agree with. Including: “. Islam/Muslims determine what’s halal/haram, not us.” Since kufr is sovereign in the West, kufr determine what is legally permissible-through political and legal systems. When saracens use halal/haram to gain political or legal concessions from kufr, saracens are using their religion for political gain. Using a religious belief for political advantage is political Kufr be aware, and determine if a demand/act is religious or political. I argue it is political.
Ren says
Iowa Candidate is absolutely right. Islam is a “bunch of idiots seeking world domination”.
E T says
Saudi Qutb, the revered, Islamic scholar said:
A Muslim cannot go to any source other than God for guidance in matters of faith, in the concept of life, acts of worship, morals and human affairs, values and standards, principles of economics and POLITICAL AFFAIRS and interpretation of historical processes. It is therefore, his duty that he should learn all these from a mile whose piety and character, belief and action, are beyond reproach.
Islam came to establish only one relationship which binds men together in the sight of God, and if this relationship is firmly established, then all other relationships based on blood or other considerations become eliminated.
There is only one law that ought to be followed, and that is the Shari’ah from God, anything else is mere emotion ism and impulsiveness.
The foremost duty of Islam in this world is to depose Jahiliyyah from the leadership of man, and to TAKE the leadership into its own hands and enforce a particular way of life which is a permanent feature.
Islam cannot accept any mixing with Jahiliyyah, either in its concept or in the modes of living which are derived from this concept.
NO POLITICAL SYSTEM or material power should put hindrances in the way of preaching ISLAM. It should leave every individual free to accept or reject it, and if someone wants to accept it, it should not prevent him or fight against him. If someone does this, then it is the duty of Islam to FIGHT him until either he is killed or declares submission.”
Khomeini said ” I spit on the soul of anyone who says ISLAM is a religion of peace”.
The Muslim Brotherhood hoods seek to implement its vision in stages:
Gradual construction of Muslim individual
Muslim family
Muslim community
And finally Muslim government or Islamic state.
Mr. Phillips knows what all the Muslim groups have been saying within the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA for a very long time. It takes a man of courage to stand up to Muslim Public Affairs Council, CAIR / Muslim Brotherhood, MUSLIM STUDENT assoc., FCNA, MFLA, ICNA, AMJA, NAIF, IIIT ……..
sidney penny says
“Lost in all this predictable intimidation on the one hand and equally predictable pusillanimity on the other was the question of whether or not Phillips was right.”
The best sentence of the article.