Constitutional Amendment Proposed

Pedestrian Infidel has posted a proposal to amend the U.S. Constitution which would:

1. declare that Islam is "not recognized in the United States as a religion"
2. exclude Islam from first amendment protection
3. prohibit the practice of Islam
4. close Mosques & Madrassahs
5. prohibit preaching of Islam

    While imperfect, the proposal is good; it can form the skeleton of an effective amendment.  Please do what you can to increase awareness of the proposal. Lets start something!!!

 

 

Who's next?  Mormons?  Catholics?  Buddists?   Are you nuts?

---

I don't think it's nuts. These people scare me, and I think everyone should be.

The Islamic religion is not a religion of peace. It's a very intolerant religion especially when they are in the majority.

Some History

Ask one hundred people in the United States what a dhimmi is and perhaps
two or three might know. In Western Europe the number would be slightly
higher because of latent memories of battles fought against invading
Moslem armies over hundreds of years.

In 732, Charles Martel led his Frankish forces at Tours to victory
against an Islamic invasion of France, which nearly destroyed Christian
Europe. Similarly, Islam was ousted from Spain in 1492 after an
occupation of the Iberian Peninsula by the Moslems for hundreds of years.
Sadly, the Spanish Christian monarchs, Isabella and Ferdinand, and the
Portuguese a few years later, also expelled the Jewish community although
the Jews had lived in Spain and Portugal for many centuries and had never
posed a threat to either Moslem or Christian sovereignty.

In Italy, Islamic power was brought to an end when the heavy Turkish
galleys were defeated by Venetian galleasses at the great naval battle of
Lepanto in 1571. And the Moslem Ottoman power, which at its height again
threatened all of Western Europe, was barely turned back at the gates of
Vienna on 11 September 1683 by a coalition of European armies.
Incidentally, could there be a connection between 9.11.1683 and
9.11.2001, or is it just coincidence?

These were four major defeats by Europe of Islamic attempts of conquest
and subjugation set against a history of victorious Moslem invasions and
conquests that had been the hallmark of Islam since its founding in the
seventh century.

But what of the peoples and nations that fell under Islamic occupation?
For them the story was one of forced conversions to Islam, slavery, death
and the Islamic institution of dhimmitude.

This is the word that describes the parlous state of those who refused to
convert to Islam and became the subjugated, non-Muslims who were forced
to accept a restrictive and humiliating subordination to a superior
Islamic power and live as second class citizens in order to avoid
enslavement or death. These peoples and populations were known as
dhimmis, and if such a status was not humiliating enough, a special tax
or tribute, called the jizya, was imposed upon them and upon all dhimmis.

Dhimmitude is the direct outcome of jihad, which is the military conquest
of non-Islamic territory mandated by Allah as a spiritual obligation for
every individual Moslem and Moslem nation.

From its beginnings in the seventh century, Islam spread through violent
conquest of non-Moslem lands. In the eighth century, a formal set of
rules to govern relationships between Moslems and non-Moslems was created
based upon Moslem conquests of non-Moslem peoples. These rules were based
upon jihad, which established how the Moslems would treat the conquered
non-Moslems in terms of their submission to Islam.

Jihad can be pursued through force or other means such as propaganda,
writing, or subversion against the perceived enemy. The so-called enemies
are those who oppose the establishment of Islamic law or its spread,
mission, or sovereignty over them and their land.

Propaganda and subversion are the very means now being employed against
the West and Judeo-Christian civilization, and Islamists have shown
themselves to be brilliantly adept at manipulating the gullible and
uninformed western media in pursuit of their aims of world domination.

As I have written in previous articles, non-Islamic lands are considered
the dar al-harb, the "house of war," until they submit to Islamic rule
and enter the dar al-Islam. The infidel falls into three categories:
those who resist Islam with force, those living in a country that has a
temporary truce with Islam, and those who have surrendered to Islam by
exchanging land for peace.

Since the Oslo Accords, successive Israeli governments have been guilty
of the now thoroughly discredited notion of land for peace in which
Israel gives away land but never receives peace. Even the peace treaties
with Egypt and Jordan are cold at best and the lands given away to
Lebanon and the Arab Palestinians has been a calamitous error. The belief
that Moslem Arab powers respond to overtures of peace by ending their
aggression is but a mirage in the desert. This is proven time and again
to be a delusion and is, in fact, a classic example of the mindset and
behavior of the dhimmi.

A non-Moslem community forced to accept dhimmitude is condemned to live
in a system that will only protect it from jihad if it is subservient to
the Moslem master. In return, it is guaranteed limited rights under a
system of discriminations that it must accept, or face forced conversion,
slavery, or death.

In the early years of the Islamic conquests, the "tribute" or jizya was
paid as a yearly poll tax, which symbolized the subordination of the
dhimmi. Later, the inferior status of Jews and Christians was reinforced
through a series of regulations that governed the behavior of the dhimmi.
Jews and Christians were awarded a different status than other faiths.
They were considered to be under protection as people of the book.
People of non-monotheistic faiths, pagans, or atheists were simply to be
exterminated.

According to Mitchell G. Bard, who has written extensively on the subject
and produced the excellent rebuttal to Arab and pro-Arab propaganda in
his book, Myths and Facts, ... dhimmis, on pain of death, were forbidden
to mock or criticize the Koran, Islam or Muhammad, to proselytize among
Moslems or to touch a Moslem woman (though a Moslem man could take a
non-Moslem as a wife).

Dhimmis were excluded from public office and armed service, and were
forbidden to bear arms. They were not allowed to ride horses or camels,
to build synagogues or churches taller than mosques, to construct houses
higher than those of Muslims or to drink wine in public. They were not
allowed to pray or mourn in loud voices as that might offend the Moslems.


The dhimmi had to show public deference toward Moslems, always yielding
them the center of the road. The dhimmi was not allowed to give evidence
in court against a Moslem, and his oath was unacceptable in an Islamic
court. To defend himself the dhimmi would have to purchase Moslem
witnesses at great expense. This left the dhimmi with little legal
recourse when harmed by a Moslem.

Dhimmis were also forced to wear distinctive clothing. In the ninth
century, for example, Baghdad's Caliph al-Mutawakkil designated a yellow
badge for Jews, setting a precedent that would be followed centuries
later.

By the twentieth century, the status of the dhimmi in Moslem lands had
not significantly improved. H.E.W. Young, British Vice-Consul in Mosul,
wrote in 1909:

The attitude of the Muslims toward the Christians and the Jews is that
of a master towards slaves, whom he treats with a certain lordly
tolerance so long as they keep their place. Any sign of pretension to
equality is promptly repressed.

The concept of jihad is not something now discarded by Islam as a quaint
belief appropriate to the distant past. On the contrary, it is a cardinal
belief in the 21st century for Moslems based upon Koranic injunctions. It
is believed in by millions of Moslems around the Third world, as much as
by Moslems living in America, Britain, Europe, Australia, New Zealand and
Canada. It is a belief, passionately held, that one day the entire world
will become Islamic and accept completely the will of Allah.

It is vital, therefore, that the general public in every non-Moslem
country be made aware that Moslems consider themselves in a perpetual
state of war with their non-Moslem neighbors. If Islamic armies are
unable to defeat what they consider the infidels, (that's you and me),
then a period of "truce" exists, which has several conditions. These
include allowing Islam to be propagated, and if a non-Moslem nation
forbids it or rejects mass proselytizing to Islam, then that nation will
be considered as subject to holy jihad.

Sheikh Zayman al-Zawahiri, Al Qaidas second in command, recently invited
America to embrace Islam. The invitation is always given, according to
some experts, prior to a major assault upon the infidel nation, because
any rejection is considered by Moslems as an empirical reason to wage war
upon the non-Moslem state; in this case the United States of America.

It is nearly impossible for sophisticated and secularized Western and
European elites to understand or accept such medieval concepts, let alone
the idea that a religious war is being waged against them. But their
dismissal and amused disregard of what is taking place is as calamitous
as that exemplified by the myopic politicians in Britain and America
before the Second World War.

The lone voice in the wilderness at that time, Winston Churchill,
appealed in vain to the political leaders who had not the ears to hear or
the eyes to see the growing fascist menace during the 1930s posed by
Germany and Italy. He called one such British politician an epileptic
corpse, and reached back through his prodigious memory to find a poem,
which characterized the failure of the Baldwin government in 1935 to
re-arm. The apt poem was, The Clattering Train, which could equally be
applied to the later appeasement of Hitler by Neville Chamberlain and
Lord Halifax.

Those in charge of the clattering train, the axles creak and the
couplings strain.
The pace is hot and the points are near and sleep has deadened the
drivers air.
The signals flash in the night in vain, for death is in charge of the
clattering train.

Western notions of peaceful co-existence between states, human rights and
liberal democracy are all alien to the bin-Ladens and Zawahiris of the
Islamic world. Hizbullah, Irans president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Hamas,
Al Qaida, ad nauseum, all reject Judeo-Christian civilization as being in
theological error. For them, the entire human race must embrace Allahs
pre-eminence and the Moslem believer is the divine instrument to bring
about the "Umma"  (worldwide Moslem community) in whatever way possible,
including warfare and terror.

Jihad has reappeared as a way of wiping out the humiliation the Arab and
Moslem world has felt as Western power became ascendant, especially after
the defeat of the Ottoman Turkish Empire at the end of the First World
War.

With a fabulous and never ending flow of petrodollars pouring into Arab
and Moslem coffers, the belief among Moslems is that the time is now
right for Islam to reassert itself in dominating the world and bringing
it to Allah through all out war, including nuclear war, if necessary.

The corollary to jihad is dhimmitude. This is what appeasement by
non-Moslems to Islamist threats and terror leads to. Winston Churchill
would have been shocked but not surprised at the craven appeasement
displayed by todays elitists in the European political echelons.

It is in marked contrast to the manner in which their ancestors
confronted an earlier existential Islamic threat when they defeated
decisively the Moslems at Tours, Iberia (Spain and Portugal), Lepanto and
Vienna.

But without a similarly decisive defeat of present day Islamist
aggression and Islamo-fascism we may all be faced, sooner than we think,
with the choice of forced conversion to Islam or subservience and
wretchedness as dhimmis.

Better, therefore, for us all to be aware of the facts and not also be
dummies.

Just tell me how this amendment would be enforced?

---

Firewing, you changed the question. It won 't be enforced. I can't think of anything that our politicians have enforced that have been good for America recently. This country has been betrayed by a succession of traitorous politicians

You have seen what the appeasement of the Religion of Peace  have done in France. I'm sure they would have second thoughts about being so tolerant. The Muslims are ready to take over Sweden, and poor  proud  old England has been reduced to a land mass of conflicting minorities, as well as the rest of Europe.

It won't be enforced, but it should be.

 

 

 

I'm a Christian and been around moslems a lot. I had 'em working for me at Ford.  I even went hunting and fishing with some of them.  Most people have enough sense to leave religion in the church, mosque, shul or whatever.  I really don't care about it.  What I am concerned with is someone preaching violence, and then some idiot tries to carry it out.  That gets people hurt.  And it ain't like we haven't seen religious violence in the USA.  A church in Royal Oak, Mi was burned down in the '30s cause the pastor was on the radio and not everybody liked what he said.  The mormans were persecuted.  Black churches have been burned down.  They can do whatever they want in their church, bang their heads on the ground or kiss each other's asses.  As long as they don't come out the door and try to get in my face with it, who cares?  I say leave 'em alone....and I don't care about our OTHER idiots either.......like KKK, militias, posse comode-us, biker gangs or whatever assholes are out there.  If they ain't violent or in my face, they can be all the idiots they want.

---

BEN POWEL--The only changes I want to OUR CONSTITUTION is--"AMENDMENT 14. That all children born her,become citizens." It should read "ONLY PEOPLE HERE -LEGALLY- CAN THEIR CHILDREN BECOME CITIZENS" NOT OF ANYONE HERE ILLEGALLY" As they shouldn't be here anyway,THEY HAVE NO RIGHTS UNDER OUR CONSTITUTION!! PERIOD!!                                                               The next  Amendment is--Over-ride the action taken by that stupid SUPREME COURT. Change  Amendment "5" To go back to what it really says "NOR SHALL PRIVATE PROPERTY  be taken  for PUBLIC USE without just compensation"        The Supreme court use the phrase "FOR PRIVATE USE" That's why many people are LOSING THEIR HOMES AND BUSINESSES!! THIS IS WRONG!! SO VERY,VERY WRONG!!

IThis is a tuff one.  I can see many different outcomes, many of them bad.  I can see the far left using it to sensor all religions down the road.  The other side of it is a belielf that I have had more recently.  I feel that the time is coming soon , if it has not already that people are going to have to come to the realization that the religion of Islam is a danger to our security as a nation and that of the world.  I no long feel that we can take a chance that some are good and some are bad.  They have almost all, but destroyed Europe.  We have been severly weakened by illegals and the far left already.  There is no way in hell after all that , that we will be able to handle similar circumstances.

 I sorry guys, but I think its worth the risk.  I'm gonna have to side with Ben on this one.

Hey Tonto Lone Ranger see many problems with Muslims, the biggest is they want to kill your ass and mine they just have not had the right opportunity yet. How bout 3000 dead in the 9/11 attack by Muslims.

---

the first protects free religion . Islam IS a terror group . the country is based on liberty . islam does not allow liberty . we are at war with all of islam .

---

darthlung said: the first protects free religion . Islam IS a terror group . the country is based on liberty . islam does not allow liberty . we are at war with all of islam .

Bingo!!!  We have a winner!!!

 

---

How about we go right to the source of our problems & ban liberalism?  Then we could deal with everything else appropriately & America would be saved!!!

---

Unlike denominations Muslims do not embrace the same principles of our Christain based nation. I would support such an ammendment.

---

Something should be done about the Radical Islam movement.  But at what point do they draw the line?  When would somebody fade the lines and call gun ownership a radical movement?  Or, when will free speech be considered religious?   How many of our rights are based of religion, or can be construed as religious? 

---

Tonto said: I'm a Christian and been around moslems a lot. I had 'em working for me at Ford. I even went hunting and fishing with some of them. Most people have enough sense to leave religion in the church, mosque, shul or whatever. I really don't care about it. What I am concerned with is someone preaching violence, and then some idiot tries to carry it out. That gets people hurt. And it ain't like we haven't seen religious violence in the USA. A church in Royal Oak, Mi was burned down in the '30s cause the pastor was on the radio and not everybody liked what he said. The mormans were persecuted. Black churches have been burned down. They can do whatever they want in their church, bang their heads on the ground or kiss each other's asses. As long as they don't come out the door and try to get in my face with it, who cares? I say leave 'em alone....and I don't care about our OTHER idiots either.......like KKK, militias, posse comode-us, biker gangs or whatever assholes are out there. If they ain't violent or in my face, they can be all the idiots they want.

 

 

Len gave you a condensed version of the relevant ancient history. In recent times, there was a series of abductions for ransom, aircraft hijackings, bistro fraggings, an Olympic abduction & murder, OKC, WTC 1 & 2, the Beltway snipings, several shootings & vehicular assaults & homicides.  All the above listed events being Islam at work.

You may think that you have Muslim friends. You dont. If they are your firends, they are apostates, subject to the death penalty.  Muslims are explicitly forbidden to take us as friends. They are permitted to deceive us for the purpose of advancing Islam.  

  I urge you to read the Qur'an and the Jihad & Khumus Hadith of Bukhari. Thus will you find out what Islam really is. Like it or not, there is a war on, we are the intended victims of genocide, and the enemy has a fifth column on our soil.  

FireWing said: Who's next? Mormons? Catholics? Buddists? Are you nuts?

 

 

No, we are sane and sober. The nuts are on the sidelines lulled into beliving that Islam is a "great religion of peace" when, in fact, it is neither a religion nor peaceful.  Those you listed are not attacking us. Those you listed do not sanctify and mandate Jihad, genocide nor terrorism; neither do they practice those evils on a global scale.

FireWing said: Just tell me how this amendment would be enforced?

 

 

Unless we succeed in electing a Conservative to the Presidency and Conservative working majorities in both houses of Congress, it won't be necessary to worry about enforcement, because it will never be approved by supermajorities in both houses & ratified by the states.

rush-baby said: BEN POWEL--The only changes I want to OUR CONSTITUTION is--"AMENDMENT 14. That all children born her,become citizens." It should read "ONLY PEOPLE HERE -LEGALLY- CAN THEIR CHILDREN BECOME CITIZENS" NOT OF ANYONE HERE ILLEGALLY" As they shouldn't be here anyway,THEY HAVE NO RIGHTS UNDER OUR CONSTITUTION!! PERIOD!! The next Amendment is--Over-ride the action taken by that stupid SUPREME COURT. Change Amendment "5" To go back to what it really says "NOR SHALL PRIVATE PROPERTY be taken for PUBLIC USE without just compensation" The Supreme court use the phrase "FOR PRIVATE USE" That's why many people are LOSING THEIR HOMES AND BUSINESSES!! THIS IS WRONG!! SO VERY,VERY WRONG!!

 

 

rush-baby,  If we don't outlaw Islam and get its fifth column off our shores, we won't need to worry about anchor babies  or eminent domain, because we will be either dead or wearing Islam's yoke of slavery.

Jared Hulse said: Something should be done about the Radical Islam movement. But at what point do they draw the line? When would somebody fade the lines and call gun ownership a radical movement? Or, when will free speech be considered religious? How many of our rights are based of religion, or can be construed as religious?

 

 

Take a good long look at the Declaration of Independence, Jared!  All of our rights and liberties are religiously derived. Islam does not recognize those rights: our lives and proprty are not sacred to Muslims; are lawful for them to take at will until we recite Shehade. You save yourself from Allah's predatory slaves only by submission. 

 

    The propsed amendment does not interfere with religious liberty, it merely recognizes reality. Islam is a crime syndicate, not a religion.  

Islam is NOT what its supporters claim it to be. They are after world domination (which is not peaceful at all). Additionally, Islam is NOT compatible with Western Culture. This is why they want to get a little here get a little there....silence any opposition (using the political correctness nonsense). Once they have their roots established in mainstream America....it is all over. Don't be fooled! You do not see this with Christianity (which is what this country was founded upon). Christiantiy promotes peace and love. It does not try to dominate at all costs like Islam. After all....people that steer clear of Islam in the Islamic states get killed. Why don't people UNDERSTAND THIS!

---