The brilliant Kathy Gyngell outlines her skeptical opinion on Islam:
[Islam] is a religion born as an adjunct to conflict. Whereas early Christians, long before their faith had acquired political status, were prepared to die for their personal and spiritual commitment to Jesus Christ, the first followers of Mohammed rampaged through the civilised world, killing and enslaving whole populations of Christians, Jews and Persians as they imposed their power.
Even discounting the fact that religious conflict in Britain has hitherto been within the bounds of Christianity, there is something about Islam which sets it apart from the equally alien faiths of the Hindus and Sikhs: not simply its claim to be the final, incontrovertible word of God, but its apparent inability to draw a line between God and Caesar in public life.
As I’ve said many times before, Islam is not merely a religion. It is a socio-economic system that allows no alternative, no opposition and by its very name, demands submission. It has a system of laws (backed by religious precept) that sets out, violently, to replace whatever other system of laws exist in its proximity.
It is long past time that we drew a line in the sand, and applied an asterisk to the First Amendment. Islam does not deserve Constitutional protection as a religion, especially as it would, if it could, abolish that very Constitution and replace it with the ultra-intolerant shari’a.
No. Enough is enough.
It’s time for a Constitutional convention whereby we can address this issue once and for all: ban the practice of Islam in the United States and, if necessary, implement the denaturalization and deportation of its followers.
And just so we’re clear on the concept: my First Amendment right to express the above opinion would be subject to imprisonment and eventual execution under shari’a. Which is precisely why we need to prevent its implementation, through our Constitutional method.