FDR and the Case of the Captured Enemy Combatants

From World Net Daily
Opinion by Ellis Washington.

FDR and the Nazi saboteur case
"I only wish President Bush and now President Obama would have taken the approach FDR took in the Nazi saboteur case, Ex Parte Quirin (1942), where in the midst of World War II eight Nazi terrorists were captured on the coasts of New York and Florida. After a summary trial in July 1942, six were summarily executed one month later after the Supreme Court upheld the jurisdiction of a U.S. military tribunal. FDR, though a liberal socialist, was decisive in quickly and summarily punishing Nazi spies. Hitler did not try that stunt again".

-------------------------------------------------------------
Here, courtesy of The History Channel are the basic facts of the case.
In June 1942, eight German saboteurs were delivered to the east coast of the United States via U-boats, with the intent to attack, destroy and terrorise. But they were apprehended almost immediately, and six of the eight were executed... From their training to the aftermath of their botched mission... [these]trained saboteurs doomed themselves through mistrust, conflicting allegiances, and betrayal.

The first group of four saboteurs left by submarine in May 1942 from the German base at Lorient, France, and on May 28, the next group of four departed the same base. Each was destined to land at points on the Atlantic Coast of the United States familiar to the leader of that group. Four men, led by George John Dasch, age 39, landed on a beach near Long Island, New York on 13 June, 1942. Accompanying Dasch were Ernest Peter Burger, Heinrich Harm Heinck, and Richard Quirin. On 17 June, 1942, the other group landed at Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida. The leader was Edward John Kerling, with Werner Thiel, Herman Otto Neubauer, and Herbert Hans Haupt. Both groups landed wearing complete or partial German uniforms to ensure treatment as prisoners of war rather than as spies if they were caught.

The Trial
The eight were tried before a Military Commission, appointed by President Roosevelt. They were all found guilty and sentenced to death. Appeals were made to President Roosevelt to commute the sentences of Dasch and Burger. As a result, Dasch received a 30-year sentence, while Burger received a life sentence. The remaining six were executed by electric chair on 8 August, 1942. The eight men had been born in Germany and each had lived in the United States for substantial periods. Burger had become a naturalised American in 1933. Haupt had entered the United States as a child, gaining citizenship when his father was naturalised in 1930. Dasch had joined the Germany army at the age of 14 and served about 11 months as a clerk during the conclusion of World War I. He had enlisted in the U.S. Army in 1927, and received an honourable discharge after a little more than a year of service. Quirin and Heinck had returned to Germany prior to the outbreak of World War II in Europe, and the six others subsequent to September 11, 1939, and before December 7, 1941, apparently feeling their first loyalty was to the country of their birth. In April, 1948, President Truman granted executive clemency to Dasch and Burger on condition of deportation. They were transported to the American Zone of Germany, where they were freed.
-----------------------------------------------------
A note from Radarsite: If ours is a nation founded on laws, and if these laws are founded on precedents, I offer the above article to acknowledge an important precedent in American jurisprudence. The very first objection raised by our pacifist/liberal Dems will most likely be that this was in a different time, under different circumstances. Obviously, this took place in a different -- and some would say, more exemplary -- time in our nation's history. But were the circumstances really all that different? Or, as I suspect, is it America that is different? In both cases we were viciously attacked, without warning, on our own soil by a ruthless alien power determined to defeat us. If anything, today's enemy poses an even greater existential threat to our nation.
How then do we explain the startling contrast between our ambivalent reactions to the horrors of 9/11 and the almost immediate display of visceral anger in response to the Japanese attacks on Pearl Harbor in December of 1941; even though it could be argued that, though admittedly dishonorable and treacherous, the Japanese attacks were in fact a military attack against a military target, that actually resulted in less fatalities (2,403 compared to 2,986) than were incurred on 9/11—while virtually all of the 2,749 victims in New York City were innocent civilians. Where, we implore our leftist friends, is that righteous anger? What has happened to that steely resolve which we so courageously sustained throughout those terrible war years? How did we lose our way? And, most importantly, are we capable of regaining that 'steely resolve'? The travesty of the current trial of the captured Somali pirate in a NYC courtroom -- complete with ambitious defense attorneys, the impending release of enemy combatants from Gitmo, the Congressional investigations into allegations of torture of captured jihadis -- and a thousand more miserable examples answers the question, doesn't it?

Like it or not, we are at war, a war that our inexperienced and morally-conflicted new president and his leftist cabinet refuse to name or acknowledge.

But, today's Friday, and it's a beautiful day, and tomorrow's going to be even more beautiful. And I'm alive and breathing in the cool fresh air, and these days that's a major victory.
God bless America - rg

Sphere: Related Content

Algiers Accords: Submission to Injustice

An article posted at Islam In Action cited an Associated Press article: US wants Iran hostage suit tossed out which alerted me to the existence of the Algiers Accords, which President Carter 'ratified' by executive order. Examine the provisions made in general principle B of the Algiers Accords.
[Emphasis added.]

It is the purpose of both parties, within the framework of and pursuant to the provisions of the two Declarations of the Government of the Democratic and Popular Republic of Algeria, to terminate all litigation as between the Government of each party and the nationals of the other, and to bring about the settlement and termination of all such claims through binding arbitration. Through the procedures provided in the Declaration, relating to the Claims Settlement Agreement, the United States agrees to terminate all legal proceedings in United States courts involving claims of United States persons and institutions against Iran and its state enterprises, to nullify all attachments and judgments obtained therein, to prohibit all further litigation based on such claims, and to bring about the termination of such claims through binding arbitration.

President Carter agreed to:

• terminate lawsuits
• nullify judgments
• prohibit litigation
• end claims by binding arbitration.

That is cemented in Point 10.

Upon the making by the Government of Algeria of the certification described in Paragraph 3 above, the United States will promptly withdraw all claims now pending against Iran before the International Court of Justice and will thereafter bar and preclude the prosecution against Iran of any pending or future claim of the United States or a United States national arising out of events occurring before the date of this declaration related to (A) the seizure of the 52 United States nationals on November 4, 1979, (B) their subsequent detention,

The accord clearly bars suits against Iran arising from the hostage taking. Next we discover that the parties to the accord are not on equal terms: Iran is guaranteed the right to recover assets from the Shah and his family.

Upon the making by the Government of Algeria of the certification described in Paragraph 3 above, the United States will freeze, and prohibit any transfer of, property and assets in the United States within the control of the estate of the former Shah or of any close relative of the former Shah served as a defendant in U.S. litigation brought by Iran to recover such property and assets as belonging to Iran. As to any such defendant, including the estate of the former Shah, the freeze order will remain in effect until such litigation is finally terminated. Violation of the freeze order shall be subject to the civil and criminal penalties prescribed by U.S. law.

Further details are provided by a CNS article: Carter Era Agreement Again Cited in Bid to Block Iran Hostage Lawsuit That article quotes Senator Tom Harkin on this issue.

“The Algiers Accord is not a treaty and was never submitted to the Congress for ratification,” Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) said in a late 2001 statement. “It is a kidnapping and ransom agreement that was entered into under duress while the Ayatollah was threatening to put the Americans on trial as ‘spies’ and execute them.”

Summary of the House version of P.L. 110-181, The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008

[..].or (4) the claim is related to a specified case concerning the taking of American hostages by Iran in 1979. [...]

Sec 1083 specifically denies immunity to Iran for causes arising from the seizure of hostages.

According to CNS, the litigants cited P.L. 110-181, Sec. 1083, to which the Department of Justice countered with a statement that the act did not repeal the accord.

In this writer's opinion, the hostages, injured previously by the Ayatollah's gang, are suffering at the hands of their own government, which is denying their right to seek indemnification.

Sphere: Related Content

Do the Palestinians Really Want a State?

By Findalis



I am positive that the average Palestinian man or woman would take any decent agreement giving them their own nation and working in peaceful cooperation with their Israeli neighbors, create a Paradise on Earth. Most Palestinians work or have worked in Israel, many would be friendly with Israelis if they could (the extremists in Gaza and the West Bank kill such people, calling them traitors and collaborators.). There is a deep desire for peace among them.

The Palestinian Authority on the other hand may have no desire for a settlement to the stalemate that has boxed both sides into positions they cannot retreat from.

This is the premise that Robert D. Kaplan puts forward in this month's Atlantic Monthly.

The statelessness of Palestinian Arabs has been a principal feature of world politics for more than half a century. It is the signature issue of our time. The inability of Israelis and Palestinians to reach an accord of mutual recognition and land-for-peace has helped infect the globe with violence and radicalism—and has long been a bane of American foreign policy. While the problems of the Middle East cannot be substantially blamed on the injustice done to Palestinians, that injustice has nonetheless played a role in weakening America’s position in the region.

Obviously, part of the problem has been Israeli intransigence. Despite seeming to submit to territorial concessions, one Israeli government after another has quietly continued to bolster illegal settlements in the occupied territories.

With Fatah and Hamas facing off against each other, the Palestinians are simply too divided to plausibly meet Israel across the table. And because the Palestinians are unable to cut a deal, a majority of Israelis, as shown by the recent election results, have apparently given up any hope for peace.

But there is a deeper structural and philosophical reason why the Palestinians remain stateless—a reason more profound than the political narrative would indicate. It is best explained by associate Johns Hopkins professor Jakub Grygiel, in his brilliant essay, “The Power of Statelessness: the Withering Appeal of Governing” (Policy Review April/May 2009). In it, Grygiel does not discuss the Palestinians in particular, but rather the attitude of stateless people in general.

Statehood is no longer a goal, he writes. Many stateless groups “do not aspire to have a state,” for they are more capable of achieving their objectives without one. Instead of actively seeking statehood to address their weakness, as Zionist Jews did in an earlier phase of history, groups like the Palestinians now embrace their statelessness as a source of power.

New communication technologies allow people to achieve virtual unity without a state, even as new military technologies give stateless groups a lethal capacity that in former decades could be attained only by states. Grygiel explains that it is now “highly desirable” not to have a state—for a state is a target that can be destroyed or damaged, and hence pressured politically. It was the very quasi-statehood achieved by Hamas in the Gaza Strip that made it easier for Israel to bomb it. A state entails responsibilities that limit a people’s freedom of action. A group like Hezbollah in Lebanon, the author notes, could probably take over the Lebanese state today, but why would it want to? Why would it want responsibility for providing safety and services to all Lebanese? Why would it want to provide the Israelis with so many tempting targets of reprisal? Statelessness offers a level of “impunity” from retaliation.

But the most tempting aspect of statelessness is that it permits a people to savor the pleasures of religious zeal, extremist ideologies, and moral absolutes, without having to make the kinds of messy, mundane compromises that accompany the work of looking after a geographical space.

The closest that Israelis and Palestinians ever came to peace was at the end of the Clinton Administration in 2000, when then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak of the center-left Labor Party offered a slew of concessions to the late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat—only to have Arafat reject them. Arafat’s epitaph was that he remained loyal to the cause of his people, that he never compromised, and that he was steadfast to the bitter end. He may have seen that as a more morally and emotionally satisfying conclusion to a life of statelessness than that of making the unenchanting concessions associated with achieving statehood.

Read the full article here.

If this report is right, then President Obama's effort to ram an agreement down the Israelis throats is doomed to failure. For it will always be in the best interest of the Palestinian leaders to reject any offer to them that doesn't include all the land from the river to the sea. In other words, unless they get it all and Israel is eliminated, then they will not take any deal.

It is in the best interest of the Palestinian leadership to remain stateless and cry victim every time Israel tries to stop the terror that the Palestinian leadership uses to achieve their ends.
For once a nation has been formed, attacks such as the rockets falling into Israel from Gaza, suicide bombers, or the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers would and is considered an Act of War under International Law. Without the 'protection' of being stateless, the Palestinians would have to face Israel's wrath without International support.

Another consequence of the creation of a Palestinian state would be the removal of their special refugee status. Although the Saudi Peace Plan insists on a Law of Return, there is no Israeli government (on the left or the right) that will ever agree to such a demand. But for the sake of this article, let us say that the Palestinians do agree to drop this demand (Yassir Arafat refused a Palestinian nation in 2000 by doing this). Finally the Palestinians living in refugee camps in Gaza and the West Bank would now be living in cities of their new nation, and the remaining refugees living in camps through out the Arab world could be relocated to the new nation, having gained the status of citizen of Palestine and losing the status of refugee.

For the average Palestinian this would be a boon. But for the leadership, this would be a nightmare. No longer would the world support through massive donations of food and monies the Palestinian people. Any agreement reached by both sides would have to include a date for ending refugee status. And thus funds. Such funds which are often diverted into Swiss bank accounts for the private use of the leadership and not the benefit of the people. This international gravy train would dry up, and the leadership would either have to beg more money from within the Muslim community and the US or EU. Eventually these funds would dry up too.

As things stand now, the PA has no reason to agree to anything except the full release to them of the land that is now Israel. Other than that, there will never be a peaceful solution to this problem. And just like Bill Clinton before him, Barack Obama just might come to realize that the PA and Hamas will never agree to anything that will end their free ride.

Sphere: Related Content

Flight 93 Terrorist Memorial

Moral Muslims don't want a memorial to the terrorists on the Flight 93 crash site Thanks to Khalim Massoud, president of Muslims against Sharia--Islamic Reform Movement, for his press release in support of Tom Burnett Sr.'s efforts to stop the Park Service from planting a giant Mecca-oriented crescent atop his son's grave. Islamic Reform Movement is clear eyed on the problem:

We all know who the enemy is. It's Islamic radicals who are guided by the ideology of Islamic supremacy¹. Just as Nazis were guided by the ideology of Aryan supremacy. The only difference is that Gihadis consider it their religious duty to impose Islam all over the world and many of them yearn to die (and kill) for Allah. They use lines from the Koran such as "kill them [infidels] wherever you find them" or "slay the idolaters wherever you find them" as their guiding principles.²

Islam needs to be reformed so that it rejects supremacism and violent conquest, but trying reform Islam is a difficult and dangerous business³:

Islamic radicals murder more Muslims than Christians, Jews, Hindus and everybody else combined. Gihadis may hate you for being infidels. But they really hate us for not following their demented dogma.

In this struggle for the soul of Islam, the last thing that moral Muslims⁴ want is any kind of victory for the supremacists, never mind a mind-boggling symbolic victory over the heroes of Flight 93:

What possible reason could be there for including anything Islamic or anything even resembling an Islamic symbol into Flight 93 Memorial? Inclusion of Islamic symbols memorializes murderers who brought down the plane and is tantamount to spitting in the faces of victims and their families. United Airlines Flight 93 was hijacked in 2001. Let's not allow hijacking of Flight 93 Memorial in 2008.

Muslims know all about facing Mecca for prayer One of the difficulties in getting people to understand the significance of the Mecca-orientation of the Crescent of Embrace is that it all seems so esoteric, and if it is esoteric, how important can it be? Witness Allahpundit, who as Michelle Malkin's pointman on this issue ought to be one of our strongest allies. Instead, he dismi sses all concern about Islamic symbolism (effectively dismissing Michelle's original concern about the giant crescent, which remains comp letely intact in the "broken circle" redesign), on the grounds that: "if you need a protractor to properly express your outrage, you've probably gone too far." We don't need a protractor to express our outrage. We need a protractor to explain what architect Paul Murdoch did. He built the world's largest mihrab: the Mecca-direction indicator around which every mosque is built. The planned memorial will be the world's largest mosque by a factor of a hundred. The gigantic Sacred Mosque in Mecca would fit four times over inside Murdoch's 3000 foot wide crescent, which is just the centerpiece of Murdoch's mosque. Orientation on Mecca is THE central symbol of Islam, together with the crescent shape. Unlike Allahpundit, Khalim knows these things:

The shape of the "broken circle" resembles a crescent moon. So does the shape of the tower. Crescent moon is the most recognizable Islamic symbol. When we pray, we face Mecca and Mosques are traditionally built to face Mecca. The case could be made that the proposed design is aligned in North-Easterly direction, which corresponds with Qiblah, a direction to Mecca. Conventional wisdom would dictate that since Mecca is located to the South-East of Somerset, Qiblah cannot possibly have a North-Easterly direction. This assumption would be correct if you're using a flat map. However, if you take a globe, place pins on locations of Somerset and Mecca, and connect those pins with a string, you'll see that the string at the base of the Somerset pin points North-East. This symbolism may not be noticeable to a non-Muslim, and it is also possible, but likely improbable that the designer is ignorant of its significance. The proposed design would be perfect for EgyptAir 990 memorial. But for United 93 memorial, it is simply unacceptable.

Allahpundit is just being careless, but the willful blindness of the Park Service is foundational The Memorial Project is committed to the idea that Islam was also hijacked on 9/11. To them, blaming Islam would be as bad as blaming the hijacked passengers and crew. Thus the possibility of hostile Islamic intent cannot be contemplated, no matter how high the "coincidences" pile. According to Flight 93 Advisory Commission member Tim Baird, the Memorial Project participants all know that the Crescent of Embrace does in fact point almost exactly at Mecca (despite the Memorial Project's many public denials). They just assume it has to be a coincidence, just as they assume it is a coincidence that the Sacred Ground Plaza sits almost exactly in the position of the star on an Islamic crescent-and-star flag. (Both of these almost-exact Islamic symbol shapes also contain exact Islamic symbol shapes. Remove the symbolically broken-off parts of the giant crescent and what is symbolically left standing in the wake of 9/11 is a giant Islamic-shaped crescent pointing EXACTLY at Mecca. In the exact position of the star on an Islamic crescent and star flag is a separate upper section of Memorial Wall, centered on the centerline of the giant crescent, that will be inscribed with the 9/11 date.) Backers of the crescent design chose it specifically as a symbol of healing and outreach, implicitly to the Islamic world. Having been so generous to Islam, they just can't believe that a hidden al Qaeda sympathizer could be so ungenerous as to take advantage of their outreach by sneaking a memorial to the terrorists past their noses. They just can't believe that anyone could actually want to hijack Flight 93! This refusal to acknowledge evidence of hostile Islamic intent stabs at the heart of what Islamic reformers like Khalim are trying to accomplish. How to distinguish a moral Muslim from an Islamic supremacist Being knowledgeable about Islam, moral Muslims recognize (as bin Laden's followers do) that Osama bin Laden is a perfectly orthodox Wahabbist, using traditional means of violence and deception to pursue the traditional Islamic objective of world domination. The difference is that moral Muslims⁴ reject the totalitarian methods and objectives of established Islam. Moral Muslims recognize that traditional Islamic orthodoxy needs to be reformed. Textually, the opportunities for reform are very propitious. The Koran contains both sweeping calls to violence (9.05, 9.29) , and sweeping calls for tolerance (2.256, 109). To turn these diverse commands into a religion of violent conquest⁵, every major school of Islamic interpretation, both Sunni and Shiite, considers the peaceful verses of the Koran to be expunged via the doctrine of "abrogation." Where different verses can be seen to contradict each other, the doctrine of abrogation holds the earlier verses to be abrogated and replaced by the later verses. The peaceful verses are all early verses, so as far as traditional Islam is concerned, they don't even exist, except as a device for deceiving infidels into believing that Islam is a "religion of peace." This doctrine of abrogation flies in the face of the Koran's own insistence that it contains no contradictions (4.82), and that nothing is abrogated (2.106)⁶. Textually, traditional Islam does not have a leg to stand on, but anyone who points it out is subject to the traditional Sharia death penalty for blasphemy. Alternatively, in a Wahabbist specialty called "taking takfir," such heretical interpretations constitute apostasy, another death penalty crime in every major school of Islamic interpretation. The Koran repeats dozens of times over that those who forget the words of Moses will burn in Hell forever (e.g. 2.75, 3.187, 5.13, 13.25, 15.90, 16.63). This is repeated so many times because it is Muhammad's accusation against the Jews: that they twist the "allegorical parts" of the Torah (3.07). But the LEAST allegorical part of the Torah is the Ten Commandments. Thus according to the Koran, the 6th Commandment--Thou shalt not murder--is binding on Muslims. Murder is any killing that is not in defense against either a violent attack or a conspiracy to violent attack, and there is no clearer case of murder than the traditional Islamic death penalty for apostates, who only want to go their own way. The same goes for blasphemy. To kill someone for challenging doctrine is MURDER. If the Koran really is the word of God, then every traditional Muslim in the entire world who supports established Sharia law is "wood for the fire." Whether Islamic reformers are out to save the lives of those who would be murdered, or out to save the souls of the murderers, they are engaged in a great contest with perhaps the greatest evil the world has ever known: a RELIGION of evil. All they need to do to win is expose the truth: that traditional Islam⁷ is in systematic violation of the Koran's own most fundamental commandments, yet to expose this truth they must break through the teeth of traditional Islam's strength: its totalitarian repression of dissent. In short, all they have to do is bring truth to the most psychologically brutalized people in the history of the planet. What could be worse, in a battle like this, than to see the land of liberty--the great haven from which truth can be spoken--build a gigantic terrorist-memorial mosque on the Flight 93 crash site? No helping hand from the land of the free If this willful blindness prevails, it will be a clear signal that in the battle to wrest Islam from the grasp of evil, America will not help. By following the morally blind idea that goodwill to Islam means having a see-no-evil attitude toward Islam, America is refusing to witness what moral Muslims are trying to expose: that the worst evils--condemned to the fire many times over by the Koran itself--thrive at the heart of Islamic institutions. That evil heart is what throbs, a half-mile across, in the crescent memorial to Flight 93, and the refusal of our own Park Service, fully alert to all the facts, to witness this evil is the worst possible betrayal, not just of America, but of the good people in the Islamic world as well. A see-no-evil attitude towards Islam is NOT goodwill. It emboldens the worst in Islam at the expense of the best. To help the good against the bad, we have to distinguish the good from the bad. The good are those who are trying to reform Islam. The bad are those who pretend that traditional Islam orthodoxy is already peaceful, and deny that reform is necessary. Muslims against Sharia has a facebook group, if anyone wants to join. Check out the Islamic Reform Movement website here. To join our blogbursts, just send your blog's url.

---

The text above the horizontal line originated at errortheory, without the superscripts, which I added. The superscripts are linked to my comments in the following enumerated list.

1. Islamic supremacy is intrinsic to Islam, established by the Qur'an: 9:33 and Sunna: Bukhari 4.52.65 . Offensive Jihad, genocide and terrorism are intrinsic sacraments of Islam: standard, off the shelf, Islam, not some imagined radicalism. The Banu Qurayzah knew who the enemy was: "Muhammad and his army".
2. The Qur'an is given as a guide to mankind. In it, Allah issued clear commands, which are to be believed and implemented. 8:39 says "Fight them until..." ; 9:29 says:"Fight those who...until:. Why did Moe say "I have been ordered to fight the people till..."?
3. Islam can not be reformed because the Qur'an is Allah's perfected word which can not be changed. Supremacism and conquest are intrinsic to Islam, permanent parts of it.
4. Oxymoron: "moral Muslims". A moral man who adheres to Islam suffers from the most severe cognitive dissonance. He worships a blood thirsty demon as the Almighty Creator. Allah set making "great slaughter" as Moe's price of admission to Paradise. He worships a genocidal war lord as the greatest and best of men.
5. No such conversion occurred. Moe's preaching evolved as he accrued an army and gained strength. In Mekkah, vastly out numbered, he preached forbearance and tolerance. In Medina, after building an army, he preached conquest.
6. 2:106. Whatever a Verse (revelation) do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring a better one or similar to it. Know you not that Allâh is able to do all things? For confirmation, see The Meaning of Naskh. Surah At-Taubah, which contains the commands to fight Jews & Christians, was among the last to be revealed, it abrogates the earlier, more tolerant verses.
7. Traditional Islam is what Moe said, speaking for Allah, and what he did, in obedience to Allah's word. Traditional Islam is authentic Islam, the real thing. The "reformers" seek to create a new religion and call it Islam.
   
   

Sphere: Related Content

The Real Attack on the Bill of Rights

The First Amendment is Under Siege

posted on Tuesday, April 14, 2009 4:30 PMBy Jonathan

Selected excerpts interspersed with my comments.

A dangerous attack on the American Bill of Rights has begun to show up on right wing blogs.

In February of '07, Pedestrian Infidel proposed a 28^th Amendment to the Constitution. I believe that blog post to be the first such concrete proposal I encountered on the web. Others had suggested a need for legislation, some had suggested the need for an amendment, but, to the best of my knowledge, there were no concrete proposals. Concern about Islam's threat to our liberties dates back more than two years, it is not a novelty.

The proposed amendment is a counter attack against Islamic supremacism, not an attack against the Bill of Rights. An outline of the proposal follows.

1. Islam is not recognized as a religion, it is stripped of First Amendment protection.
2. Declares Islam an enemy of the United States of America and prohibits its public practice.
3. Muslim institutions are to be closed and propagation of Islam prohibited. Muslim immigration is terminated.
4. Discrimination, assault & impairment of individual rights (as limited by Art. 3) of Muslims prohibited.

The threat to liberty issues from Islam, not from 'Islamophobes'.

• Islam denies freedom of conscience.

3:2. Allâh! Lâ ilahâ illa Huwa (none has the right to be worshipped but He), the Ever Living, the One Who sustains and protects all that exists.
3:85. And whoever seeks a religion other than Islâm, it will never be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers.
9:123. O you who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are close to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allâh is with those who are the Al-Muttaqûn (the pious - see V.2:2).

• Islam denies freedom of speech.

O8.7: Acts that Entail Leaving Islam [If you leave Islam, you must be executed: O8.1 -.2]
-3- to speak words that imply unbelief
-4- to revile Allah or His messenger (Allah bless him and give him peace);
-5- to deny the existence of Allah, His beginingless eternality, His endless eternality, or to deny any of His attributes which the consensus of Muslims ascribes to Him (dis: v1);
-6- to be sarcastic about Allah's name, His command, His interdiction, His promise, or His threat;
-7- to deny any verse of the Koran or anything which by scholarly consensus (def: b7) belongs to it, or to add a verse that does belong to it;
-16- to revile the religion of Islam;
-19- to be sarcastic about any ruling of the Sacred Law;
-20- or to deny that Allah intended the Prophet's message (Allah bless him and give him peace) to be the religion followed by the entire world (dis: w4.3-4) (al-Hadiyya al-`Ala'iyya (y4), 423-24). )

• Islam denies freedom of religion.

O11.5 Such non-Muslim subjects are obliged to comply with Islamic rules that pertain to the safety and indemnity of life, reputation, and property. In addition, they:
-2- are distinguished from Muslims in dress, wearing a wide cloth belt (zunnar);
-4- must keep to the side of the street;
-6- are forbidden to openly display wine or pork, (A: to ring church bells or display crosses,) recite the Torah or Evangel aloud, or make public display of their funerals and feastdays;
-7- and are forbidden to build new churches.

Source:: Umdat as-Salik, the hand book of Islamic law.

• Allah's word is law, once Allah and Moe have decided a matter, there is no right to question their decision and no appeal.

Concerning proposals to write Islam out of the First Amendment, deport Muslims and close Islamic institutions, Jonathan responds: " These attitudes are intolerable." Either Jonathan's value system varies greatly from ours or he perceives Islam through a fact filter that prevents him from perceiving Islam's intolerance & violence, which make it intolerable to lovers of life and liberty.

Allah's word must be "made superior", as specified in 9:33 and 48:28. Supremacism & triumphalism are interwoven throughout Islam's canon of scripture. This fatal fact becomes clear when one reads the titles of related topics in Ibn Kathir's Tafsir.

• The Good News that Muslims will conquer the Known World, and ultimately the Entire World
• The Good News that Muslims will Dominate the People of the Book
• The Good News that Islam shall prevail

How will Islam conquer us? By Jihad: "Holy fighting in Allah's cause, "ordained" for Muslims,. as the price of admission to Paradise. Jihad continues from the beginning of Moe's prophetic career until Judgment Day. Jihad is the Muslim's "original. religion". Islamic law requires that offensive Jihad be performed at least once in every year[Umdat as-Salik O9.1]. That is confirmed by Al-Shafi'i: "The least that the imam must do is that he allow no year to pass without having organised a military expedition by himself, or by his raiding parties, according to the Muslims' interest, so that the jihad will only be stopped in a year for a (reasonable) excuse."

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," precludes our government from discriminating against any religions. What could be a worse discrimination against a specific belief system than to legislate that it doesn't "qualify" as a religion at all.

The establishment clause precludes establishing a national church. The founders wisely decided against allowing the government to decide which church, if any, we will join.

The worst course of action is that which has been followed for the last 220 years, giving a piracy cult undeserved constitutional protection. Islam has theology, cosmology, prayer, ritual & charity and it binds men permanently to Allah, so it must be a legitimate religion, right? Wrong! Islam has a mercenary mission! When reading a book one third as long as the Bible, it is difficult to perceive certain patterns. Isolating a few critically important ayat makes the pattern perceptible by removing the chaff which otherwise occludes the pattern.

8:1. They ask you (O Muhammad) about the spoils of war. Say: "The spoils are for Allâh and the Messenger." So fear Allâh and adjust all matters of difference among you, and obey Allâh and His Messenger (Muhammad), if you are believers.
8:41. And know that whatever of war-booty that you may gain, verily one-fifth (1/5th) of it is assigned to Allâh, and to the Messenger, and to the near relatives [of the Messenger (Muhammad)], (and also) the orphans, Al-Masâkin (the poor) and the wayfarer, if you have believed in Allâh and in that which We sent down to Our slave (Muhammad) on the Day of criterion (between right and wrong), the Day when the two forces met (the battle of Badr) - And Allâh is Able to do all things.
8:67. It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war (and free them with ransom) until he had made a great slaughter (among his enemies) in the land. You desire the good of this world (i.e. the money of ransom for freeing the captives), but Allâh desires (for you) the Hereafter. And Allâh is All-Mighty, All-Wise.
48:19. And abundant spoils that they will capture. And Allâh is Ever All-Mighty, All-Wise.

Who gets the spoils? Allah and his Messenger, who takes the top 20% with right of first selection. Since Allah is an impotent idol, Moe got the best of the loot. What did Moe want? "the good of this world" . What does Allah want? "great slaughter"! Making a great slaughter was the price of Moe's ticket to Paradise.

The clear pattern formed by the ayat cited above is confirmed and reinforced by several of the oral traditions of Moe's companions.

Muslim Book 019, Number 4327:
The spoils of war were not made lawful for any people before us, This is because Allah saw our weakness and humility and made them lawful for us.

Muslim Book 019, Number 4294 [...]Make a holy war, do not embezzle the spoils [...]

Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220
Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah's Apostle said, "I have been sent with the shortest expressions bearing the widest meanings, and I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy), and while I was sleeping, the keys of the treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand." Abu Huraira added: Allah's Apostle has left the world and now you, people, are bringing out those treasures (i.e. the Prophet did not benefit by them).

Bukhari Volume 3, Book 37, Number 495 [...]When Allah made the Prophet wealthy through conquests, [...]

Allah made spoils lawful for Moe because of his weakness and humility. Allah gave Moe the keys to the treasures of the world. Allah allocated the spoils to Moe, who kept the top 20% for himself.

How did Allah make Moe victorious? How did Allah make Moe wealthy? Is it possible that Moe was an arrogant, belligerent narcissist, unworthy & unqualified to be a Prophet? Aisha Bewley translated part of Sahih Bukhari which Khan Bowdlerized.

Bukhari Ch 61 # 2756: ...It is mentioned from Ibn 'Umar from the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, "My provision has been placed under the shadow of my spear, and abasement and humility have been placed on the one who disobeys my command.

Those are the words of a pirate, not a Prophet. Moe founded a piracy cult, which wears a false mantle of religion as a camouflage and motivational tool. What legitimate religion says 'go to war or go to Hell'?

9:39. If you march not forth, He will punish you with a painful torment and will replace you by another people, and you cannot harm Him at all, and Allâh is Able to do all things.
9:90. And those who made excuses from the bedouins came (to you, O Prophet ) asking your permission to exempt them (from the battle), and those who had lied to Allâh and His Messenger sat at home (without asking the permission for it); a painful torment will seize those of them who disbelieve.

Those clear and obvious ayat are confirmed by an equally clear hadith.

Abu Dawud Book 14, Number 2497:
Narrated AbuUmamah:

The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: He who does not join the warlike expedition (jihad), or equip, or looks well after a warrior's family when he is away, will be smitten by Allah with a sudden calamity. Yazid ibn Abdu Rabbihi said in his tradition: 'before the Day of Resurrection".

We have a responsibility to judge individuals by their actions, not by the books they read.

We are judging an institution, not individuals. We must judge it by its doctrines and its fruits. What legitimate religion sanctifies aggressive conquest, genocide & terrorism ? What legitimate religion enslaves people?

O9.13 When a child or a woman is taken captive, they become slaves by the fact of capture, and the woman's previous marriage is immediately annulled.

Whatever any of us believe about the tenets of the Muslim faith, it isn't anyone's place to judge their neighbor's religious beliefs, and American citizens who are Muslim are entitled to the same constitutional protections as any other American - including the practice of their religion, and obviously, not being deported. This paranoia reminds me of America's imprisoning 70,000 United States citizens during World War II - among a total of 117,000 of Japanese descent who were detained in so-called "relocation centers." Haven't we grown up since then?

What we believe about the tenets of Islam is irrelevant. The reality is relevant, and it is evident on the face of the Qur'an, hadith, tafsir & Shari'ah, which form a congruent pattern of violent, genocidal aggression. In a state of weakness, with numerical inferiority, Islam is relatively docile. As its numbers increase, it becomes increasingly aggressive. In Mekkah, vastly outnumbered, Moe preached forbearance. In Medina, when he amassed an army, he preached Jihad.

A 1400 year death toll of 270 million tells us that objection to Islam is not paranoia. Muslims form a fifth column on our own soil. Trusting them is not possible. A bullet or bomb can come from any direction at any time, as thirteen victims discovered in the metropolitan Washington D.C. area a few years ago. Since that attack, there have been several shootings, vehicular assaults and one attempted bombing.

What's the point of this post? Simply that people will always be people. Whether they read books with messages of peace or books that endorse wrath and vengeance, most people are usually peaceful, but circumstances sometimes push people to violence, and a few people will always be obsessively addicted to violence.

Most Muslims do not read the Qur'an, the last statistic I saw showed a Qur'an literacy rate of 17% among men and 13% among women. They get their ideals from the Mosque, and most Mosques in America are run by Wahhabis. The fact is that Jihad is a mandatory Islamic sacrament, not an option. A Muslim can not be absolutely assured of avoiding Hell & admission to Paradise without participation in Jihad.

If we were to discriminate against Muslims, who's next, Scientologists? Jehovah's Witnesses? Mormons? Japanese? I'm saddened when fundamentalists of any faith advocate wrath and vengeance, but I support everyone's right to their books, their beliefs, and all their rights as United States citizens. This is a plea for all to put aside fear and prejudice, and to respect our American Bill of Rights and our American way of life.

While Jonathan accuses Islam's critics of paranoia, his penultimate paragraph is a clear example of paranoia. Why should anyone be next? Do they worship a blood thirsty demon who demands human sacrifice? Do they make sacraments of conquest, genocide & terrorism? Do they constitute a security threat? Are their doctrines inimical to liberty? Do they demand that their scripture be substituted for our Constitution?

Sphere: Related Content