A Misguided Petition Campaign to Ban the Muslim Students Association


An ally in the struggle against Islamo-fascism has launched a misguided campaign to combat the malign influence of the Muslim Student Association on campus. The campaign calls for the banning of the Muslim Students Association. Earlier today I posted this blog calling on Brigitte Gabriel to withdraw her organization’s petition to ban the Muslim Students Association. I explain why below. However, since posting this blog, I received an email from Brigitte telling me that she did not support this campaign even though one of the 501 organizations in Act for America is responsible for it. I called Brigitte and she explained that her 501 chapters have autonomy and can act independently. She has told the chapter responsible for this campaign to cease and desist, and to remove the petition from their website. I am greatly relieved to have spoken to Brigitte and would have done so first except that I was alerted to this matter by an unusually fair-minded leftist who was preparing to attack me as result of the interview Frontpage did with the chapter head responsible for the petition (we have removed the interview as well so as not to perpetuate confusion).

As documented by the Investigative Project and by our publication The Muslim Students Association and the Muslim Brotherhood, and by our profile page in DiscovertheNetworks.org, the Muslim Students Association  is a creation of the Muslim Brotherhood. It is a sister organization of the terrorist group Hamas. It is conducting an on-campus campaign whose goal is to demonize and delegitimize the Jewish state so that Hamas can destroy it and push the Jews into the sea. But  one chapter of Act for America decided to oppose the MSA not with arguments, not by exposing its monstrous lies and evil intentions, but by banning it as a campus group, by denying its members their First Amendment rights to assembly and free speech. We at the David Horowitz Freedom Center are unequivocally and unalterably opposed to this petition and its demand — and thankfully so is Brigitte Gabriel and the national leadership of Act for America.

There is no greater or more important bulwark against totalitarianism — and therefore against Shari’a and the Islamo-fascist jihad than our First Amendment freedoms. The chief agenda of the Islamists is to ban any criticism of their totalitarian agendas and terrorist methods by calling it blasphemy, hate speech, and offensive to Muslims. That is what the prosecution of Geert Wilders in the Netherlands is about; that is what the UN resolution banning speech that is offensive to Muslims is about.

Right now we at the Center are attempting to combat the genocidal campus campaign of the Muslim Brotherhood to label Israel an “apartheid state” with a counter-campaign to put up the “Palestinian Wall of Lies.” The Palestinian Wall of Lies exposes their historical fabrications and present-day slanders. It is an argument, not an appeal to authority to shut them down. On the contrary, it is they and their progressive allies who are attempting to shut us down. Through a campaign of intimidation by calling any student who challenges them “racist” or “Islamophobe,” the left is attempting to prevent students from supporting our campaign and thereby preventing us from having access to campus to put up our wall. We have submitted an ad to campus newspapers containing the wall of lies. Of the five school papers to whom we submitted the ad so far four rejected it on the grounds that it would “offend certain religious and ethnic groups.” No specifics were given except that we could not refer to a group like “Arabs” or “Palestinians” as a group even though the ad was about the war conducted against the Jews by Arabs and Palestinians and even though one hundred percent of Palestinians have voted for one of two terrorist groups — the PLO and Hamas. Even the fifth paper, which printed the ad — the UCLA Daily Bruin–  required us to reword passages to avoid the use of the terms “Arabs” and “Palestinianas” and said we could not refer to the goals of Hamas and the PLO as “genocidal” even though they are. Of course, no such injunction against offending religious and ethnic groups applies to Jews or Christians or Israelis or Americans.

The frontline battle against Islamic totalitarianism is the battle to defend the First Amendment — the right of assembly and free speech. Yes, these rights are regularly abused by Islamic totalitarians and their “civil rights organizations” like CAIR (a creature of the Muslim Brotherhood and a sister organization to the MSA and Hamas) just as they were by Communist totalitarians during the Cold War. This is a vulnerability of free societies — that they give rights to those whose goal is to destroy those rights — but it is a vulnerability we must deal with by combatting them through vigorous argument and by exposing their lies. What we must not do is abandon the very rights that keep us free.

  • tanstaafl

    How should we deal with a chapter of the Hitler Youth on a college campus?

    • sky

      Must see thepost@email about financial terrorism suspected in 2008 crash

    • Beth

      "How should we deal with a chapter of the Hitler Youth"

      Show them pictures of families being separated (males and females) boarding trains…never to see each other again…meaning…fathers and daughters, sons and mothers….were seperated (by force) from each other – forever.

      And then ask them…..how such an experience (whether it is real or not) would make them feel.

      Post their answers here. I'd be intersted in reading them…as would so many others (I'm sure).

  • mikeb

    To what extent are student members of the MSA citizens of the United States? To what extent is the MSA located in, headquartered, and managed from the United States by citizen leadership?

    And then, if I as a citizen espouse the burning of the U.S. Constitution, the dismantling of the government, and the erection of a new government of Islamic mullahs, at what point do I become an enemy of the state and subject to criminal penalty?

    If a student group purchases ten thousand cars, loads them all with C4, and blows up Washington D.C., is this an act of protected free speech or the act of an enemy that deserves to be hunted down and killed?

    Any group allied with the Muslim Brotherhood, as is the MSA, is an enemy of the U.S. Constitution and government. At what point do we remove their right to free speech and treat them as an enemy?

    • sflbib

      Good questions. The tongue-in-cheek website "The Onion" once ran a satirical article about the ACLU defending someone's burning down its office as an expression of free speech.

    • rib/eve

      I think it is sheer folly to think that we need to allow terrorist the right to speak and recruit members on college campus. This is not a free speech issue – they are enemies. I am tired of bending over backwards to help the enemy and then say hey – did you see that – look what they did. It's called being an enabler. The enemy is the enemy and cutting them breaks is foolish.

      • Zzzz

        If you stopped looking at it from that perspective, you'd realize that they aren't even enemies in the FIRST place. Do you stop to even think none of this is true, THAT is why it is offensive to Muslims? There is terrorist recruiting going on, all of this is islam-phobia on crack. These are normal law-abiding citizens grouped together based on their religion. Since it happens to be ISLAM binding them, they are suddenly a terrorist organization trying to recruit? Seriously if Muslims were really out to destroy America and everything else "terrorist" supposedly work for, it'd be already done.

  • Chezwick_Mac

    This is a tough one. I'm normally inclined to defer to David's judgment as a reflection of the enormous respect I have for him. He certainly has presented a cogent argument here. But the logical counter is that if freedom of speech were the absolute norm at our universities, David's entreaties to Bridgette would make absolute sense. But as we all know, this is not the case. All manner of speech is restricted on our campuses, depending on its content. So why help perpetuate the double-standard, where critical scrutiny of Islam, for example, is considered hate speech, but demonization of Israel ISN'T?

    If nothing else, perhaps Bridgette's campaign will highlight for all to see the hypocritical double-standards in academe and compel the universities to loosen their restrictions on speech in general, which is precisely what David wants.

  • ThePittsburghSteeler

    However, the difference between the Phelps family(and their miserable church) and
    the MSA, is that the MSA is allied with terrorist groups that advocate the overthrow of
    the U.S. government; groups that at this moment are training terrorists, in remote areas
    such as the Pocono mountains. These fanatic Muslims are being trained to engage in warfare against the U.S. government and U.S. citizens, and thus have crossed the line.
    They are enemies; who have proved they can't be trusted with First Amendment rights.
    America will be attacked again; perhaps not in quite the same manner as on 9/11/01;
    but it will happen.

    To paraphrase Frederick Douglass, we must fight fire with water; in this case, lots of cold water, and put out the fire. Brigitte Gabriel is right to petition to ban the MSA.

  • visitor

    Gee, Steeler. Who gets to determine who "can't be trusted with First Amendment rights"? Perhaps you'd like the Dems to apply that standard to the Tea Party? Or maybe the GOP could apply it to unions? And the First Amendment doesn't just guarantee free speech but also freedom of religion. Maybe adherents of one faith would like to discriminate against another, for example, yours. This is a slippery slope. I'll stick with the liberties guaranteed in the Constitution and its Bill of Rights. Punish those who violate the law, not those whose views we abhor as long as they don't violate the law.

    • bdouglasaf1980

      The dims and liberats apply this standard all the time only much more violently. They hit people with pies, they intimidate them, they shout them down. This is an example of a woman using civil peaceful means to petition for stopage.

  • Supreme_Galooty

    Mr. Horowitz makes a compelling point, and I would throw in with him completely if Congress were to declare war against belicose Musselmen. In the case of a declared war, sedition can be reasonably prosecuted.

    se·di·tion (s-dshn) n.
    1. Conduct or language inciting rebellion against the authority of a state.
    2. Insurrection; rebellion.

  • bdouglasaf1980

    She not asking to have their free speech removed. She is asking that they be banned by the college. Colleges do this often. It's got nothing to do with government interference of our rights. People can petition any other group all they want. It's no different than a boycott.

    • sky

      patriotactionnetwork artical Tea Pot Videos 3-2-11 nuliffy now sheriff mack video

  • bdouglasaf1980

    This is NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL issue. She is not asking the government to ban their speech.

    Geez people!. let logic prevail. You are starting to let your emotions control your thoughts like the demorats.

    • visitor

      Let me offer an example people here might relate to: a "right to life" group denounces abortion providers as "murderers." Someone then kills a doctor who works in a clinic that provides abortions. Feminists call for the "right to life" group to be banned on the grounds that they are responsible for the shooting.

      People, free speech is a right that belongs to people whose speech you don't like: communists, fascists, flat earthers, conspiracy theorists, Muslim fundamentalists, you and me. This is an example of Churchill's dictum that democracy is the worst form of government, with the exception of all the others.

      • Steeloak

        Your analogy works up to a point and then it fails. A correct analogy would be the same anti-abortion group, the same speech, but the killer was actually recruited by, trained by, and sent out by the said anti-abortion group. Then you could see why such a group needs to be shut down. It's not the speech, but the intent & action that are the deciding issue.

  • http://www.resonoelusono.com/NaturalBornCitizen.htm Alexander Gofen

    1) D. Horowitz is right, banning nasty speech is against the 1st Amendment, and against the letter and spirit of the US Constitution. But see item 3.

    2) Brigitte Gabriel is at least inconsistent. We must ban not this particular Islamic group, but all Islamic organizations in the US in the frame of general ban on Islam in the US. Why? How?

    First, because it had been presumed that the US is exclusively Judeo-Christian nation. This presumption is as though unwritten article of the US Constitution.

    Second, Islam is in a permanent war against us notwithstanding whether the treasonous Congress ever declared/acknowledged it. Islam is an enemy ideology during a war.

    3) The conservatives in America have been trapped into a false belief as though everything freely evolving within the frame of our great Constitution is acceptable, and therefore must be just left alone. The life itself would sort things right. Wrong! Our Founding Fathers had warned us that it may be right only as long as the people are right: God fearing, freedom loving, moral people, Christians and Jews.

  • Steve Chavez

    "The Freedom's of the Constitution to Overthrow the Constitution!" Steve Chavez

  • USMCSniper

    The terrorists currently posing a threat to the U.S. internaaly and externally are primarily Islamic/Muslim men between the ages of 18 and 38. Actively opposing the presence of the Muslim Student Organization as officially recognized on campus to many is simply not giving sanction to those who openly support the violent overthrow of western civilization. The Constitution is not a suicide pact.

  • Waldemar

    I still remember the Party's slogan in my early years in the Communist Paradise in Central Europe: "There is no freedom for the enemies of freedom."

  • visitor

    Right, Waldemar. So instead of the Communist Party decreeing what speech may be voiced, some seem as if they would want the Tea Party to play that role. Sinclair Lewis predicted in "It Can't Happen Here" that fascism would come to America masquerading as Americanism. Thankfully, the Supreme Court got it right today; free speech means having to tolerate even speech you find hateful.

    • Supreme_Galooty

      Fascism is liberalism. It has been here since America's elitist left fell madly in love with that exalted fascist Benito and that National Socialist fascist Adolph. American liberals LOVED both of those men in the thirties and backed away from them reluctantly only after it became obvious what they were doing with the Jews. By the way, the American left didn't have a problem with the holocaust. Their problem was the public relations issue, so they cast their lot with Stalin and began referring to Hitler as "right wing." And compared to Stalin – another Socialist mass murderer – Hitler was slightly to his right.

      Please do not sully the concept of Americanism by inferring that it is in any way associated with fascism. Fascism is liberalism. Liberalism is un-American.

    • Beth

      And so, visitor…if i give a speech…one that convinces the crowd that they should kill you and your whole family, simply because it is their duty to do so, and that crowd then carries out what they have been incited to do, is my speech still protected?

    • Beth

      Question to you visitor:

      Am I allowed to go into a theater and yell "Fire" when there is no fire? The answer is well known. But what is not so obvious…is why?

      Why would I not be allowed to do such a thing? visitor?

  • Reason_For_Life

    UCLA is not a private institution. It cannot do things that a private institution can because UCLA is financed with tax money. Harvard can ban anyone and anything they want to. You are not forced to support Harvard. You can choose to not only refuse to give money to Harvard but you can build an organization dedicated to driving Harvard out of business if you want.

    UCLA is supported with tax money, you have no choice about paying taxes. That makes it subject to the restrictions placed on governments by the Constitution which means that it cannot discriminate in favor of some views at the expense of others. Most definitely it cannot create a "ministry of truth" controlling which ideas are to be sanctioned and which are to be banned.

    A weapon like this in the hands of a decent man would be terrible. In the hands of Islamists or PC fanatics it would be a horror that would dwarf the worst censorship that the US has ever known.

  • Fred Dawes

    This is what happens when you say come take my conutry from me! the facts are in nothing is secret the muslims want you as a slave he wants you to die and about all other evil he or she wants your world to be dismantle, that is what the muslim student prganization is all about and it is about the muslim dream of evil. read USMCSniper he understands and can see with open eyes to what evil is. side note a German muslim killed TWO YOUNG Airmen today On a bus, this is what evil is all about and this is what all muslims are about.

  • Suzanne B.

    The first Amendment is important, but our society is more important. The MSA is preaching sedition. The petition should stand. I signed it. So should you.

  • Doug Perkins

    My understanding is that sedition is not protected by by freedom of speech, and that is what the MSA was advocating in their rally with having it’s members recite “The Islamic Pledge Of Allegiance”. The funny thing is that as much as they see nothing wrong in using American freedom of speech laws to protect their work here to promote Sharia, Sharia has no freedom of speech rights in it, so if we DID have Sharia here now and they were advocating something we didn’t like, that would be the end of their “free speech” on whatever it was.

    Lately I have thought a lot about something that I think Adams said about our constitution being “wholly inadequate to govern an immoral people”. I think we are seeing a demonstration of this in how Islam uses our laws against us to further their cause of bringing Sharia to the United States, and ultimately the world. We have become so unsure about what basic concepts of right and wrong are that we can’t invoke simple self protection common sense. In 1940′s America, there would never be a discussion worrying about a group of Nazi’s rights to assemble and advocate the the overthrow of the United States government, because it was just an accepted fact that there was such a thing as evil, the Nazis WERE evil, and as such should be treated as an enemy. In present day America, after decades of being sucked into the quicksand of political correctness, we can’t get an consensus that an ideology that wants to kill anyone not professing it’s ideals is an enemy.

    Islam is not going to stop until it gets Sharia for America and the world, and it is quite happy to laugh while it uses our laws against us to get it. If we don’t figure out how to control it’s spread, be it through petitions to get them out of our schools or whatever we have to do, then they will bind our hands behind us with the Bill of Rights, blindfold us with the Constitution, and behead us with the sharpened crack of the Liberty Bell.

  • http://www.hotexchangerates.com/ exchangerates

    "We at ACT for America are serving this petition to UCLA in our effort to ban the assembly of any group advocating the overriding of the laws of the United States Of America with their own set of laws on a publicly funded university such as UCLA."

    – from the ACT petition.

    Horowitz is dead on in his criticism of Gabriel's petition. The power to silence opponents is a greater threat to American liberty than CAIR or the MSA could ever be.

  • http://www.hotexchangerates.com/ exchangerates

    David is right. Limiting the right of anyone's speech means your speech can be limited. I do not want the MSA to spread their hatred. But the means to that end is to expose them and their agenda so that people will understand what they really want. When that happens MSA's message will start to become ineffective and they will, in effect, maginalize themselves.

  • Doug Perkins

    My understanding is that sedition is not protected by by freedom of speech, and that is what the MSA was advocating in their rally with having it's members recite "The Islamic Pledge Of Allegiance". The funny thing is that as much as they see nothing wrong in using American freedom of speech laws to protect their work here to promote Sharia, Sharia has no freedom of speech rights in it, so if we DID have Sharia here now and they were advocating something we didn't like, that would be the end of their "free speech" on whatever it was.

    Lately I have thought a lot about something that I think Adams said about our constitution being "wholly inadequate to govern an immoral people". I think we are seeing a demonstration of this in how Islam uses our laws against us to further their cause of bringing Sharia to the United States, and ultimately the world. We have become so unsure about what basic concepts of right and wrong are that we can't invoke simple self protection common sense. In 1940's America, there would never be a discussion worrying about a group of Nazi's rights to assemble and advocate the the overthrow of the United States government, because it was just an accepted fact that there was such a thing as evil, the Nazis WERE evil, and as such should be treated as an enemy. In present day America, after decades of being sucked into the quicksand of political correctness, we can't get an consensus that an ideology that wants to kill anyone not professing it's ideals is an enemy.

    Islam is not going to stop until it gets Sharia for America and the world, and it is quite happy to laugh while it uses our laws against us to get it. If we don't figure out how to control it's spread, be it through petitions to get them out of our schools or whatever we have to do, then they will bind our hands behind us with the Bill of Rights, blindfold us with the Constitution, and behead us with the sharpened crack of the Liberty Bell.

  • Doug Perkins

    The comment made here "the constitution is not a suicide pact" is exactly the kind of common sense I like to here -I though tit was original but I guess it goes back to Lincoln – at least it's comforting to know that there were other times like this that we somehow survived:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Constitution_is_

  • Howard

    The first amendment is intended to protect political speech. However, speech advocating the overthrow of our country crosses the line of protected free political speech and the organizations that advocate the destruction of our country should be banned.

    • Beth

      "should be banned"

      It is already..but the leaders refuse to apply the law.

      Freedom of religion (and freedom of speech) NEVER included the right to incite the masses into violence.

      Article. IV. Section. 4 of the United States Constitution

      The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

      I'm a Christian. The Law of Christianity does not allow us to sue….but in this case, I believe it is a duty to do so. Not for money…but for the protection of our children and their future.

      Their Koran is illegal acording to the US Constitution….on a level that even a child can understand.

      Great post Howard. I agree with you 100%

  • Beth

    Article. IV. Section. 4 Of the United States Constitution

    The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

    Taught in the Koran:

    047.004 Beheadings – 033.052 Gang Rape of female 'infidels' – 005.041 Racism – 005.033 Crucifixions – 008.067 Treason – 033.061 Genocide "without mercy"

    In America, Freedom of religion NEVER included the right to incite the masses into violence.

    • ObamaYoMoma

      If anyone looks at the evolution of Islam it is easy to see that Islam is not a religion. While Islam may have initially started out as being a religion, after the Hijra, Muhammad’s migration from Mecca to Medina in 622 CE, Muhammad morphed Islam into something entirely different from religion altogether when he abandoned religion and turned to jihad, politics, and conquest and in the process morphed Islam into what it is today, which is a militant theo-political totalitarian ideology, and it was this transformation of Islam from the realm of religion to the realms of jihad, politics, and conquest that set the stage for Islam to finally become successful after 13 straight years of miserable failure, as a short 100 years after the death of Muhammad, most of the known world from Portugal to India had already been conquered by Islam.

      Indeed, had Islam remained a religion like it was before the Hijra and shortly thereafter, Islam would have died out in the deserts of Arabia with the death of Muhammad and no one would have ever heard of Islam or Muhammad.

      Furthermore, per the doctrine of abrogation, when verses of the Koran conflict with each other the latter issued verses of the Koran abrogate, i.e. supersede and replace, the earlier issued verses of the Koran, and the doctrine of abrogation is taught and advocated by all sects within both Sunni and Shi’a Islam and by all schools of Islamic jurisprudence in both Sunni and Shi’a Islam. In other words, Islam universally accepts the doctrine of abrogation.

      Hence, per the doctrine of abrogation, all the earlier peaceful verses of the Koran that originate from the time when Islam was a religion before the Hijra and shortly thereafter have been abrogated by the latter issued verses of the Koran that command Muhammadans to wage jihad against unbelievers for the spread of Islam and that originate from the time after the Hijra when Muhammadan had morphed Islam into a militant theo-political totalitarian ideology.

      Therefore, Islam should be outlawed in America on the grounds that it isn’t a religion. It may masquerade as being a religion to dupe the societies it intends to subjugate, but the reality is Islam isn’t a religion.

      • Beth

        I can understand why some believe Islam is not a religion, because of its laws. But I believe it is a religion, although, a false one. For the reason that the Bible teaches there are false prophets and false gods, there must also be false religions.

        But, where are the lawyers at?…because Islam's teachings (laws) are illegal in America. That's why the 'progressives' hate the U.S. Constitution. I believe Americans need to wake up and fight back – legally. Especially when it comes to the victims of Islam.

        • ObamaYoMoma

          Again if you study the evolution of Islam it is easy to see that Muhammad abandoned religion altogether after the Hijra when he turned to jihad, politics, and conquest and in the process morphed Islam into something else other than religion and into what it is today, a militant theo-political totalitarian ideology that seeks to subjugate the world into Islamic totalitarianism via the imposition of Sharia as its main goal.

          Indeed, true religions deal with the metaphysical aspects of life only, whereas Islam, on the other hand, is all encompassing and goes way beyond the metaphysical in that it controls every aspect of its adherent’s lives down to the way that all Muhammadans even must use the bathroom. In other words, it goes way beyond just the metaphysical and in fact is totalitarian.

          Further, per the doctrine of abrogation, all the earlier peaceful verses of the Koran that originated from the time when Islam was a religion have also all been abrogated by the latter issued verses of the Koran that command Muhammadans to wage jihad against unbelievers for the spread of Islam. Hence, not only did Muhammad abandon religion and morph it into something else altogether different from religion after the Hijra, but also all the verses of the Koran that originated from the time when Islam was a religion have also all been abrogated, i.e. superseded and replaced, by the latter issued verses of the Koran in which they conflict with and as a result don’t even apply. Hence, how can Islam be a religion if all the verses of the Koran that originate from the time when Islam was a religion have been abrogated and don’t even apply?

          Therefore, it couldn’t be clearer that Islam isn’t a religion, and there are other numerous important differences with respect to Islam relative to true religions that also uniquely set it apart from being a religion that for the sake of brevity I won’t get into, and just because over a billion Muhammadans believe Islam is a religion, doesn’t make Islam a religion or doesn’t mean we have to accept Islam as being a religion.

          The fact of the matter is Islam is far closer to being a totalitarian ideology like Communism than it is to being a religion, as Islam and Communism both seek to dominate the world and the net result of both ideologies is totalitarianism.

          Finally, because of the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment it would be far easier to outlaw Islam in the USA if it isn’t a religion than if it is a religion. Hence, you are very wrong in that regard as well.

          Islam should be declared what it is, which is a totalitarian ideology and outlawed. Then Muhammadan immigration must also be banned and reversed. Indeed, during the Cold War we didn’t let millions of Communists immigrate and infiltrate our countries because that would have been suicidal. Likewise, we shouldn’t let millions of Muhammadans immigrate and infiltrate our country because it is also sucidal.

          • Beth

            Then I must ask you, does Satan have a religion? …or do you believe that he doesn't exist? (keep your answer private…for it does not matter)

            I understand where you're coming from ObamaYoMoma, legally, but I'm trying to show you that you are only hindering the process of defeating Islam altogether. The argument of whether Islam is a religion or not, was made irrelivant a long time ago. The best thing to do is to agree with them. Islam is a religion. Fine.

            That fact DOES NOT protect Islam…because…..

            Freedom of religion (or speech) DOES NOT include the right to incite the masses into violence. In fact, such an act is illegal. You can not go into a theater and yell "Fire!" ….if there is no fire. Why? Because people will get hurt if you do.

            The same can be said of the preachings that take place in the mosques. If their imams deny (they always do)…then America has every right to ban their Koran. Either their own prophet told the truth…or he was a liar. Which is it?

          • Beth

            Do not be afraid to place their Koran upon the table to be exposed….thinking the Bible is no better. Nothing could be further from the truth. No where in the Bible are men taught to be violent with each other. But, there are those who work to twist Old Testament Scriptures, claiming the opposite of what I'm pointing out here.

            And so, Challenge them to present New Testament Sciptures (the sole Supreme Authority of all of Christianity) that teach humans to be violent with each other.

            There are none. Not one. None exist.

            And that will re-direct the burning sunlight upon their Koran. That leaves them with no defense ObamaYoMoma…..legally speaking….Here in America.

          • Beth

            Koran (chapter and verse given for proof)

            047.004 Beheadings –
            033.052 Gang Rape of female 'infidels' –
            005.041 Racism –
            005.033 Crucifixions –
            008.067 Treason –
            033.061 Genocide "without mercy"

            For all who argue….'that speech is protected', well then, let the bloodshed begin…with them, but not before slaughtering their own families before their own eyes.

            Let the slaughtering begin with the judges who feel obligated in giving Islam the same rights as the U.S. Constitution gives to all Americans.

            Would that be fair? And if not – why not?

          • ObamaYoMoma

            Freedom of religion (or speech) DOES NOT include the right to incite the masses into violence. In fact, such an act is illegal. You can not go into a theater and yell "Fire!" ….if there is no fire. Why? Because people will get hurt if you do.

            Muhammadans and their apologists, the useful idiot secular left, will simply point to peaceful verses in the Koran to prove that Islam is a religion of peace, even though those peaceful verses of the Koran have all been abrogated by the doctrine of abrogation and thus no longer apply. At the same time they will also point to the fact that the vast overwhelming majority of Muhammadans living in the world are peaceful and don’t resort to terrorism, and say that you can’t outlaw and ban an entire religion because of the actions of a tiny minority of extremists. They will also morally equate the Koran to the Old Testament and claim that the Old Testament also contains violent passages, at the same time they will point to abortion clinic bombers while also claiming that if Islam is outlawed and banned because of the actions of a tiny minority of extremists, then Christianity must also likewise be banned because of the actions of a tiny minority of extremists, the useful idiot secular left, of course, will agree with them, and you will inevitably lose the argument.

            Plus if those making the argument that Islam should be outlawed and banned happen to be Christians at the same time, then they will also claim that those Christians making the argument are supremacists and are trying to make Christianity supreme over Islam and all other religions. Again, you lose.

            The same can be said of the preachings that take place in the mosques. If their imams deny (they always do)…then America has every right to ban their Koran. Either their own prophet told the truth…or he was a liar. Which is it?

            Moreover, Imams and clerics have been invoking the doctrine of taqiyya for the purpose of deception for decades and getting away with it. What makes you believe they won’t continue getting away with it?

            I hate to say this, but nevertheless it is the truth, you are indeed jaw-dropping naïve. Proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Islam is a militant theo-political totalitarian ideology, which it is, is the only way to defeat Islam in America.

            Indeed, Islam is far closer to the totalitarian ideology of Communism than it is to any faith-based religion, as like Communism Islam also seeks to dominate the world and the end result of both Communism and Islam is totalitarianism.

            Hence, the global jihad Islam is waging against all unbelievers around the world should be treated as the new Cold War of the 21st century.

            No where in the Bible are men taught to be violent with each other. But, there are those who work to twist Old Testament Scriptures, claiming the opposite of what I'm pointing out here.

            Yeah because the Old Testament is part of the Bible, they will successfully equate the violent verses of the Koran to the violent verses of the Old Testament, then they will point to all the violence in the past that is blamed on Christianity to make their point, the useful idiot secular left will back them up, and again you will lose.

            And so, Challenge them to present New Testament Sciptures (the sole Supreme Authority of all of Christianity) that teach humans to be violent with each other.

            If you claim that the New Testament only applies, they will counter claim that only the peaceful verses of the Koran only apply, again you lose.

            And that will re-direct the burning sunlight upon their Koran. That leaves them with no defense ObamaYoMoma…..legally speaking….Here in America.

            I have nothing to say other than you are extremely naïve.

            Let the slaughtering begin with the judges who feel obligated in giving Islam the same rights as the U.S. Constitution gives to all Americans.

            Per the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment the freedom of religion is protected no matter what supremacist Christians are saying about Islam.

          • Beth

            "the useful idiot secular left, will simply point to peaceful verses in the Koran to prove that Islam is a religion of peace"

            Jam 3:11Doth a fountain send forth at the same place sweet water and bitter? (This is a question for the judges OYM)

            Does it? Can War and Peace reside in the same place?

            The Koran incites people (especially the young) to go out and kill. "The tree is known by its fruit" and "we reap what we sow".

            How much bloodshed will it take before society realizes – mixing Islam among any non-muslim society is a sure recipe for bloodshed?

            There is a Scripture (a Prophecy) of which I cling to:

            Isa 14:31Howl, O gate; cry, O city; thou, whole Palestina, art dissolved: for there shall come from the north a smoke, and none shall be alone in his appointed times.

            We shall see.

          • Beth

            One more thing ObamaYoMoma….

            There is not one single sentence that exists in the New Testament that teaches humans to be violent with each other. Not one.

            The same can not be said for their Koran.

            And that is where they'll lose..in a court that honors Truth and Wisdom.

          • ObamaYoMoma

            Again, they will simply point to the peaceful verses of the Koran that contradict the sword verses of the Koran at the same time they will also point to the vast overwhelming majority of Muhammadans in the world that are apparently peaceful. They will also claim that those Muhammadans that perpetrate violence in the name of Islam misunderstand Islam. Just like the bombers of abortion clinics misunderstand Christianity.

            In other words, they will claim that both religions produce their fair share of extremists. They will point to the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, etc., etc., etc., ad nauseum to make their point. Then they will conclude that you can’t ban one religion without also banning the other. That’s why discrediting Islam as a religion is a losing proposition and proving that Islam is a totalitarian ideology is the much better strategy to take.

            Look I completely agree with your sentiments and if I were sitting on a jury I would easily agree with your arguments, but I’m not. Hence, to be very frank, your arguments would never hold up in the court of public opinion. Thus, we must approach the problem from a different angle altogether to be successful.

          • Beth

            "Per the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment the freedom of religion is protected no matter what supremacist Christians are saying about Islam. "

            To the readers…

            you will know what is in the heart – by the words that come from the mouth.

          • ObamaYoMoma

            Hey…nobody knows better than me that Muhammadans don’t immigrate to assimilate and integrate but instead to eventually subjugate and dominate.

  • ObamaYoMoma

    The primary means of jihad employed against Israel by the Islamic world today is the propaganda war to delegitimize the state of Israel, and this propaganda war is an example of non-violent stealth jihad in action. In other words, the Islamic world is exploiting the freedoms inherent in Western democratic societies to wage jihad against Israel. In fact, in Europe the state of Israel, for all intents and purposes, has already been delegitimized, as Europe today is as hostile towards Israel as the Islamic world.

    When most people think of jihad they automatically think of terrorism, but jihad takes place by any and all means. Thus, a Muhammadan who demonizes and vilifies Israel via propaganda is as much a jihadist as the 9/11 terrorists were also jihadists. People need to realize that jihad is not only terrorism or violence, as terrorism and violence are the least ubiquitous forms of jihad deployed today, as non-violent stealth forms of jihad are deployed on an exponentially far greater scale. In other words, far more Muhammadans fulfill their obligation to wage jihad against unbelievers via stealth and deceptive non-violent means of jihad than via violent means.

    Hence, just because a Muhammadan doesn’t have a bomb strapped onto his body it doesn’t mean that Muhammadan is a so-called moderate Muhammadan, which is a myth. It just means that at least for the time being that Muhammadans is a stealth and deceptive non-violent jihadist.

    That is one way the Islamic world has adjusted to the modern world. Another way is through demographic conquest as a form of stealth and deceptive non-violent jihad. In the past, Islam was spread primarily through violent conquest, whereby Muhammadans would conquer land and impose Sharia via jihad and force. Today, violent conquest is illegal according to the international system of laws. Hence, to compensate for this factor, the Islamic world has turned to demographic conquest via the West’s lax immigration laws and generous social welfare benefits. Indeed, once the Muhammadans reach critical mass in any non-Islamic democratic country, they can then hijack the democratic process to impose Sharia.

    Islam is not a religion. Instead it is a militant theo-political totalitarian ideology with the main goal of subjugating the world into Islamic totalitarianism via the imposition of Sharia, and it uses any form of jihad both violent and non-violent that suits its needs. Indeed, Islam is very similar to Communism in that they both seek to dominate the world and the net result of both ideologies is totalitarianism. Hence, Islam should be treated exactly like we treated Communism in the 20th century. We should declare a new Cold War against Islam and NATO should be realigned to oppose it.

    • Questions

      Islam, I am afraid, is a religion. It just happens to be a rotten one. All religions impose a totalistic, ritualized code for daily living on followers — Christianity and Judaism are no different. That said, we still must do whatever is necessary to stop Hamas front groups from operating on our campuses. Religious piety is no excuse for committing felonies.

      • ObamaYoMoma

        Actually, you are wrong. In stark contrast to faith-based religions, Islam requires complete submission to the will of Allah whereby all Muhammadans become the slave of Allah. Hence, in Islam if you so much as question the texts and tenets of Islam or leave the religion or convert to a true faith based religion, you will incur the capital punishment of death.

        While adherents of faith-based religions, on the other hand, can freely question and even challenge the texts and tenets of their religion and can even freely leave the religion or convert to another religion if they so desire without incurring any kind of penalty, much less being put to death. In other words, Islam severely restricts the freedom of conscience and enforces that restriction via the death penalty, while true faith-based religions do not.

        Hence, not only was Islam morphed into something else entirely different from religion altogether subsequent to the Hijra, but also all the earlier peaceful verses of the Koran that originated from the time when Islam was a religion have also been abrogated by the latter issued verses of the Koran that command Muhammadans to wage jihad against unbelievers for the spread of Islam and thus no longer apply. Finally, Islam unlike faith-based religions also severely restricts the freedom of conscience and enforces that restriction via the severe death penalty.

        In addition, Islam is a dualistic system relative to our unitary system. It divides the world between the believers and the unbelievers and then employs one set of rules and ethics for believers and another completely different set of rules and ethics for unbelievers. Our unitary system, in stark contrast, applies the same set of rules and ethics for everyone regardless of race, color, creed, gender, or nationality.

        Hence, Islam is completely incompatible with Western civilization and Western liberal democracies, while true faith based religions, on the other hand, are perfectly compatible. Not only that but virtually the entire Islamic world is not only totalitarian but non-Muhammadans unbelievers living in majority Muhammadan countries without exception are always systematically persecuted and often violently oppressed

        Therefore, you may want to equate Islam with true faith-based religions because apparently you hate all faith-based religions and want to vilify them by equating them with Islam, but the truth is Islam is not a faith-based religion. It’s a militant theo-political totalitarian ideology that seeks to subjugate the world into Islamic totalitarianism via the imposition of Sharia as its main goal, and Islam only masquerades as being a religion to dupe the societies it intends to subjugate.

        Finally, Islam is far closer to being a totalitarian ideology like Communism as they both seek to dominate the world and the net result of both ideologies is totalitarianism, but one thing is for sure, Islam is not a true faith-based religion. Not even close!

        • Questions

          I am not seeking to "vilify" faith-based religions (a redundant term, no?). Nor am I equating them with Islam. All religions differ in doctrine, otherwise, why would adherents go to the trouble of establishing them? This doesn't negate, however, the fact that Islam operates as a religion, and is observed as such every day by hundreds of millions of people.

          If you actually believe that Christianity and Judaism don't have long track records of imposing tyranny in their own realms, you need to brush up on your history a bit. There is a reason why this country doesn't allow religious tests of any sort to be imposed as a prerequisite for holding public office.

          • ObamaYoMoma

            I am not seeking to "vilify" faith-based religions (a redundant term, no?). Nor am I equating them with Islam. All religions differ in doctrine, otherwise, why would adherents go to the trouble of establishing them? This doesn't negate, however, the fact that Islam operates as a religion, and is observed as such every day by hundreds of millions of people.

            How many Christian states are there in the world? How many Hindu states are there in the world? How many Jewish States are there in the world? How may Buddhists states are there in the world? And when I say Christian, Hindu, Jewish, and Buddhist states I mean where the religion is actually the state. The answer is zero, because Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism, and Buddhism are actually faith-based religions as they stick to the realm of religion only, whereas Islam, on the other hand, with its 57 Islamic totalitarian states, is an ideology, where Islam, i.e., Sharia, is the state.

            And yes you are still equating faith-based religions with Islam and I could care less that Muhammadans have been inculcated to believe that Islam is a religion. However, the fact of the matter is Islam is not a religion and as such it isn’t protected under the “Free Exercise Clause” of the First Amendment and should be outlawed in America ASAP exactly for that reason and also because it is extremely subversive.

            If you actually believe that Christianity and Judaism don't have long track records of imposing tyranny in their own realms, you need to brush up on your history a bit. There is a reason why this country doesn't allow religious tests of any sort to be imposed as a prerequisite for holding public office.

            I thought you said you weren’t seeking to vilify faith-based religions? Apparently, that’s exactly what you are seeking to do. I don’t care about past history because it is completely irrelevant today. What happened in the past is in the past. All I care about is today, and today Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, and etc. or all compatible with Western liberal democracy and Islam, on the other hand, is not because Islam isn’t a religion. Instead, it is an ideology far closer to Communism than it is to any faith based religions, as like Communism it seeks to dominate the world and the net result of Islam like Communism is totalitarianism.

            The problem with you atheists is you guys are far more fanatical about imposing your religious views on everyone than the most fanatical bible thumpers ever were, and in case you are wondering, I’m agnostic.

          • Beth

            Challenge to Questions:

            Present the New Testament Scriptures (The Sole Supreme Authority for all Christians) that teach humans to be violent with each other. You may not believe in this Lord (the Lord of the Christians)…and according to Christian Law…you have that right. That's what the Day of Judgment is for…for …He says "Vengeance belongeth unto Me". If you don't believe…and it turns out that you were right….you have nothing to fear.

            The Koran on the other hand…..does not give you that right….to believe as you wish. Therefore, it violates the U.S. Constitution AND (supposedly) International laws.

          • Beth

            Challenge to Questions:

            Present the New Testament Scriptures (The Sole Supreme Authority for all Chriastians) that teach humans to be violent with each other. You may not believe in this Lord (the Lord of the Christians)…and according to Christian Law…you have that right. That's what the Day of Judgment is for…for …He says "Vengeance belongeth unto Me". If you don't believe…and it turns out that you were right….you have nothing to fear.

            The Koran on the other hand…..does not give you that right….to believe as you wish.

        • Beth

          ObamaYoMoma…..For some people, Money is a religion. U.S. laws never protected ANY religion that preaches violence. I believe, – to debate over whether Islam is a religion or not – can only hinder the process of going after it, legally.

          Taught in their Koran:

          047.004 Beheadings –
          033.052 Gang Rape of female 'infidels' –
          005.041 Racism –
          005.033 Crucifixions –
          008.067 Treason –
          033.061 Genocide "without mercy"

          In no way – are those teachings legal – NO WAY !!!

    • Beth

      """The primary means of jihad employed against Israel by the Islamic world today is the propaganda war to delegitimize the state of Israel"""

      which is why….

      The song of Moses is so important. The siants 'sing' this song (prophecy). It is a check mate against Islam. But general society believes this is one for the 'scholars'. It is not. SEE: http://palestinename.com/frlord.htm

  • sflbib

    "You can espouse whatever you want, including the burning of the Constitution; in fact, you can even burn the Constitution and the flag if you want to, as repulsive as these acts are."

    But don't dare express a Christian thought in a public school or university.

  • Steeloak

    This is an important debate on the right of free speech. Do we draw a line or not, and if we do, where do we draw it.
    I absolutely believe in the right to speak freely, especially for those who would say things I despise (KKK, Nazis, Communists, Racists, Islamists, etc.) I think the best way to discredit them is to allow them to speak their minds, then debate & destroy their hate with truth & logic.
    Where I draw the line is action. When these same groups move beyond rhetoric to actions aimed at overthrowing our free & open society they need to be stopped by any necessary means. Spying on their activities, infiltrating their groups, tracing their communications, identifying their members & leaders, prosecuting them, etc. are all on the table.
    Stopping their actions is not limiting free speech, it is self-preservation.

  • vlparker

    David is wrong on this one. There is nothing inconsistent with the Constitution in banning subversive groups whose goal is to overthrow the US. Too many libertarians take free speech to suicidal extremes. I don't for a minute believe the Founding Fathers of this country meant to protect groups whose goal is to overthrow the US government and install sharia law. Like someone earlier in the thread said, The US Constitution guarantees every state a republican form of government. Sharia law is despotism.

  • Albert A Carr

    Since "free speech" is now part of the culture on the "Grounds" at University of Virginia with a "Green light" from FIRE-Foundation For Individual Rights in Education, you should try to get "Palestinian Wall of Lies" published in the Cavalier Daily, the Student Newspaper at UVA. Interestingly FIRE helped students there get the Burke Society recoginzed by the administration and the students in that Society are very active in a positive way on the "Grounds."

  • Saleh Williams

    There should be one little clarification made. There is an implied notion in the the statement that the Muslim Student Association-UCLA is related to the Muslim Student Association of North America. MSA-UCLA has never been a member of, or affiliate of the MSA-National. One of the strong points of the MSA-UCLA is that it has maintained its independence of any other outside organization or network. So, the use of the MSA-national logo above the article is misleading. The statement about MSA-National in the first paragraph, which i persoally dont agree, is misleading in the way that it can be perceived as a statement also about the MSA-UCLA. In the United States, the term "Muslim Student Association" has gained a great degree of independence from any connection to the formal organization, Muslim Student Association-National. Often, when Muslim students at the high school and college levels set out to start a formal group on campus, the mental default name they come up with is muslim student association, but that quite often has no symbolic or material connection to the formal MSA-National organization and network. So, please be clear about such matters, especially when your trying to connect dots that dont exist. When things are not made clear, then it smacks of a smear campaign.

    • Beth

      Connecting the dots…

      Even the so-called 'moderate' Muslims STILL bring their Koran with them.

      Their laws (the koran)… 047.004 Beheadings – 033.052 Gang Rape of female 'infidels' – 005.041 Racism – 005.033 Crucifixions – 008.067 Treason – 033.061 Genocide "without mercy"

      The laws of Islam violate the rights of all non-muslims.

  • kafirman

    The real question in this flap is the 9+ year silence of even any national REPUBLICAN to openly question the wisdom of granting 501(c)(3) tax exempt status to a religious institution that fundamentally denies the American self-evident religious beliefs that "all men are created equal" (see, e.g., Koran 4:3, 9:5, 9:29).

    • Beth

      Where are the lawyers at?

      9+years? This has been going on for a much longer period than 9-yrs.

      Americans are asleep…..thanks be to yesterdays' cbs, abc and nbc networks.

      None of those networks respect America's right to take care of her own.

      1Ti 5:8 But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.

  • Beth

    When speech (of any kind) violates the rights of all others – it is no longer free.

  • Beth

    Brigitte Gabriel is a woman who has an incredible story to tell, about how life was where she grew up, in Lebanon. If anyone understands what is going on, and how to deal with it….Brigitte Gabriel would be that person. Look at Lebanon today. The Hezbollah are now in charge. And Brigitte Gabriel is an eye-witness to how that change took place. If you care about your future, and more importantly, the future of your own children….you will take heed and support her – 100%.

  • Casey

    The author displayed a complete lack of understanding regarding shar'ia, which basically just their version of civil law (as opposed to criminal law). It does not threaten the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, and has no chance of becoming law in the United States. And to the people who want to limit the First Amendment: don't forget, that's the same Amendment that says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." How could you possibly think Islamic law could come to dominate our government?
    And what makes the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist group? Last I heard is that it competes in democratic elections within sovereign states, and does not commit or condone acts of terror.

  • Casey

    If you think shar'ia is despotism, and also think it has a chance of becoming law in the US, you are an idiot. If you think that Muslim's have a shot at overthrowing the US gov. you are also an idiot.

  • http://%BLOGTITLE%-justgreat! worldclock

    A Misguided Petition Campaign to Ban the Muslim Students Association | FrontPage Magazine – just great!