The Islamic plan to take over America, and a Constitutional amendment to stop it

Rod Dreher (via Andrew McCarthy at the Corner) quotes a 1991 internal memo of the Holy Land Foundation that was uncovered by the Justice Department in a raid on a suspect’s home in Virginia, and presented in the current trial of HLF for ties to terrorism. Here is the key paragraph:

The process of settlement [of Islam in the United States] is a “Civilization-Jihadist” process with all the word means. The Ikhwan must understand that all their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” their miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all religions. Without this level of understanding, we are not up to this challenge and have not prepared ourselves for Jihad yet. It is a Muslim’s destiny to perform Jihad and work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes, and there is no escape from that destiny except for those who choose to slack.

In the rest of his column, Dreher shows how the leading Muslim organizations in the U.S., including those that President Bush (that’s the guy who’s leading the “war on terror”) is in bed with, are all offshoots of the Muslim Brotherhood and follow its jihadist strategy.

Unfortunately, having informed us of this enemy within, Dreher ends on a less than stirring note:

As long as they commit no crimes, CAIR, ISNA and the other Brotherhood-related groups have the right to advocate for their beliefs. But they don’t have the right to escape critical scrutiny, and they deserve informed opposition….

… Six years after 9/11, we’re still asleep. Islamic radicals have declared war on us—and some are fighting here in what looks like a fifth column. Read their strategy document. It’s there in black and white, for those with eyes to see.

They’re waging a war of Islamic conquest on us, and Dreher calls for … criticism of them? Of course, the inadequacy of Dreher’s position stems from the fact that under our current laws the U.S. can do nothing to restrict any religion. But we cannot accept that. We must change the laws. Islam must be offically defined as what it really is, a hostile political movement seeking to impose the tyrannical sharia law in our society, and on that basis be denied the First Amendment protections received by ordinary religions. Then we can go beyond impotently criticizing and kvetching about Islam, and start defending ourselves from it instead. And the only sure way of defending ourselves from Islam is to outlaw it and remove it permanently from our society.

- end of initial entry -

Charles T. writes:

Dreher writes: “As long as they commit no crimes, CAIR, ISNA and the other Brotherhood-related groups have the right to advocate for their beliefs. But they don’t have the right to escape critical scrutiny, and they deserve informed opposition.…”

I deeply disagree. The words in this document outline a plan to overthrow our government and our civilization. This is a crime against us. It can be called sedition.

Is Dreher also among the usual suspects?

LA replies:

The memo didn’t outline anything violent or illegal or seditious. The memo did not call for overthrowing the government. We need to realize that it is, literally, not against the law to seek to destroy Western civilization. Acting entirely within the law, Muslims could gain power in America and then legally change the laws. As long as the only threat that we can imagine taking action against is a criminal threat, we are helpless, as Dreher seems to be helpless in this column.

So this is not a criminal matter, but a political matter in the highest sense, and thus a constitutional matter. Since Muslims, admitted legally to the U.S., and acting within the law once they are here, have the divinely mandated aim of destroying our system, and can destroy our system, we must respond accordingly. It is not a matter of calling Muslims criminals or terrorists. It is a matter of determining that the religion of Islam is antithetical to our culture and civilization and therefore must, at the least, be severely restricted.

This can be accomplished in two ways. Congress could pass a law declaring that Islam is not a religion in the usual sense but a political movement inherently dangerous to our civilization, our laws, and our liberties. This would remove First Amendment protections from Islam and enable the government to pass further laws regulating, restricting, or even prohibiting Islam. Any such laws would, of course, face continual constitutional challenges.

Which leads to the second and more radical approach. We could pass a Constitutional amendment declaring that, notwithstanding any other provision in the Constitution and any laws of the United States, the religion of Islam cannot be practiced in the United States. By placing the prohibition of Islam in the Constitution, by saying that Islam is incompatible with our existence as a society, we would be making a fundamental statement about the kind of society America is, and that is precisely the kind of thing that belongs in the Constitution. After the Civil War, slavery was prohibited, not by statute or presidential proclamation, but by an amendment to the Constitution, indicating that slavery has no place in the United States. Up to that point, slavery had been legal in much of the U.S., and during the Civil War had been ended by presidential proclamation under wartime powers. Slavery was only truly extirpated from the U.S. by the Thirteenth Amendment, which superseded all previous laws and all Constitutional protections that had given slavery a place in this country. It is time to think about doing the same with regard to Islam.

With the Thirteenth Amendment as our model, the amendment could be written as follows:

Section 1. The religion taught by the Prophet Muhammad in the Koran and in the Islamic Traditions or Hadiths, and formalized in the Islamic schools of jurisprudence, also known as the Sharia Law, shall not be practiced within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. This article supersedes any contrary provision of this Constitution and of the laws of the United States, and of the constitutions and laws of the several states.

Section 3. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. The constitutionality of any laws passed by Congress pursuant to this article shall not be subject to the jurisdiction of the federal judiciary.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at September 12, 2007 01:36 PM | Send