Wednesday, July 20, 2011

Has the time come to ban Islam in America?

2012 US presidential candidate Herman Cain made quite a splash over this past weekend, when he asserted that a community in Tennessee, and by extension, any community in the US, has the right to ban mosques. From "Herman Cain Says U.S. Communities 'Have the Right' to Ban Mosques" at, 17 July 2011:

Speaking on "Fox News Sunday," Cain said he came out against the Tennessee mosque after talking to members of that community. He said the site is "hallowed ground" to Murfreesboro residents and that they're concerned about "the intentions of trying to get Shariah law" -- the code governing conduct in Islamic societies. 

"It's not just a mosque for religious purposes. This is what the people are objecting to," he said. 

Asked whether any community should be able to prohibit a mosque, Cain said they should. 

"They have the right to do that. That's not discriminating ... against that particular religion. That is an aspect of them building that mosque that doesn't get talked about," he said. 

Cain again argued that residents were objecting to "the fact that Islam is both a religion and a set of laws, Shariah law. That's the difference between any one of our other traditional religions." 

"A set of laws, Shariah law." By that, Mr. Cain means that Islam is a political system, and not just a religion. It seems that such an idea, long considered heresy in the mainstream political establishment, is at last percolating up from the grassroots. This is probably in no small part due to the efforts of many indefatigable activists and advocates of freedom like Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller, both of whom have been arguing for many years that Islam is more akin to a political ideology, with a clear and present political agenda, than anything resembling a purely spiritual belief system.

Judging by the amount of hot air that was instantly created in the 24 hour news cycle, and the amount of faux outrage generated in the professional blathering classes and by the usual suspects, Cain must have really touched a nerve:

Cain is taking heat for his comments about Muslims. The Council on American-Islamic Relations, which accused him of using "bigoted" language with his Cabinet comments, said Sunday that he should "apologize" for his latest remarks.

If the professional Hamas-linked taqiyya masters at CAIR have gotten their hackles up in such a hurry, then you know that Cain's on to something. But why stop with blocking construction of a single mosque in Murfreesboro, Tennessee?  Or with a mosque, I mean 'community center" in lower Manhattan, for that matter?

Should Cain's assertions be taken to heart and acted upon by any community in America, the defenders of Islam in CAIR and their progressive friends are likely to reach for the First Amendment in their defense quicker than you can say 'Jihad'. And to that end, these defenders would have a point. Islam has traditionally been accepted as a religion with First Amendment protections.

Is there a response? If the idea that Islam -- not 'extreme' or 'radical' or 'militant' Islam, but Islam as its founder created and intended it -- is a dangerous, totalitarian political ideology of conquest, then we as a country must be prepared to go beyond individual communities banning a mosque here or there. We must be prepared for a comprehensive national response that deals with Islam and its pernicious and inseparable counterpart, Shariah law. A patchwork system as proposed by Herman Cain, with individual communities acting on their own, while well intended, would surely fail. A national response is not only practical, but vitally necessary.

To that end, a proposed constitutional amendment has already been proposed, an amendment that would acknowledge and identify Islam not as merely a 'religion', but as an enemy ideology, an amendment that strips away Islam's heretofore First Amendment protections. Imagine the following change to the US Constitution:

Be it resolved that the following Amendment to the Constitution be adopted:

Article I

The social/political/ideological system known around the world as Islam is not recognized in the United States as a religion.

The practice of Islam is therefore not protected under the 1st Amendment as to freedom of religion and speech.

Article II

As representatives of Islam around the world have declared war, and committed acts of war, against the United States and its democratic allies around the world, Islam is hereby declared an enemy of the United States and its practice within the United States is now prohibited.

Article III

Immediately upon passage of this Amendment all Mosques, schools and Muslim places of worship and religious training are to be closed, converted to other uses, or destroyed. Proceeds from sales of such properties may be distributed to congregations of said places but full disclosure of all proceeds shall be made to an appropriate agency as determined by Congress. No compensation is to be offered by Federal or State agencies for losses on such properties however Federal funding is to be available for the demolishing of said structures if other disposition cannot be made.

The preaching of Islam in Mosques, Schools, and other venues is prohibited. The subject of Islam may be taught in a post high school academic environment provided that instruction include discussion of Islam's history of violence, conquest, and its ongoing war on democratic and other non-Islamic values.

The preaching or advocating of Islamic ideals of world domination, destruction of America and democratic institutions, jihad against Judaism, Christianity and other religions, and advocating the implementation of Sharia law shall in all cases be punishable by fines, imprisonment, deportation, and death as prescribed by Congress. Violent expressions of these and other Muslim goals, or the material support of those both in the United States and around the world who seek to advance these Islamic goals shall be punishable by death.

Muslims will be denied the opportunity to immigrate to the United States.

Article IV

Nothing in this amendment shall be construed as authorizing the discrimination against, of violence upon, nor repudiation of the individual rights of those Americans professing to be Muslim. The individual right of conscience is sacrosanct and the practice of Islam within the privacy of home and self is strictly protected to the extent that such individuals do not violate the prohibitions described in Article III.

Like it or not, this would certainly address any Muslim appeal to the First Amendment. But while admittedly imperfect, and probably politically impossible at the present time, Amendment 28 does give us an idea of how far Americans will probably have to go to protect their freedom. Of course the leftists and Muslims will cry foul, and more. But what if we don't act and Islam is allowed to continue its ascendancy in America?  What if there's 10,000 mosques, 20 million Muslims and enclaves of shariah law slash 'no go areas' in most major U.S. cities, as is now the case in Europe?  Would it then be easier or more difficult to act in our self defense? What are the costs if we fail to act now, or soon?    

Herman Cain merely said what a whole lot of smart people have been thinking (and saying) for a very long time. Amendment 28 is an idea whose time has come.


Ben said...

There is no such thing as personal, private & peaceful practice of Islam. Muslims are commanded to wage war, while jihad is fard al- kifaya, not fard ayn, obtaining shehade status as a result of jihad is a Muslim's only assurance of avoiding eternal damnation.

Let doubters & dissenters read the following ayat: 9:29, 38, 39, 111 & 61:10-13.

If doubt remains after that, read Reliance of the Traveller, Book O, Chapter 9, paragraphs 0, 1, 8 & 9.

33:21 declares Moe to be the Muslim's role model. Moe waged an average of one war every six weeks in his last decade of life. Muslims are peaceful; yeah, right.

2:85 & 16:36 inform us that Islam is inseverable, Muslims can not pick and choose what parts to obey.

Please search for, sign and share the No2Islam petition and the International Qur'an Petition.

Investments said...

what is the solution ?

Ρωμανός ~ Romanós said...

I agree with everything in this proposed amendment. It seems reasonable to me. I am an Eastern Orthodox Christian by religious affiliation. We have already learned what Islam is in the countries of our origin.

mutteater said...

The US line on muhammadanism remains: "islam is peace." The enemy has no real power, other than that used by Gulf oil-patch entities like Aramco, through the Clinton and Bush crime-families. Under the League of Nations/UN idiocracies, true Anglo-American ownership of Middle East oil perverted to local savages. Before we ban mohammadanism, first we restore ownership over our properties, and then confiscate all the foreign holdings of those scumbags.

The second the Oslo-Massacre occurred, I knew that it would put new scrutiny on eurabian scum like Norway's foreign minister, Jonas Gahr Store. The wave of harsh and deserving criticism has now reached the New York Times. The Incident gave the marginalized anti-shariatis a window of opportunity, and we are taking it.

Ben said...

It is my great pleasure to inform you that your excellent post has stung the enemy of all mankind and stimulated a reaction, which you can find here:

When you are quoted on The American Muslim, you know that you are effective

OPT said...

Yeah, I agree, but it's so not going to come to pass in this universe that it seems like a very empty exercise. The Supreme Court has completely turned the First Amendment on its head. We need to focus on court cases where Christians take back their rights.

Jibreel said...


What rights? Christian people don't have the same rights as everyone else?