The Islam Racket

Last month Michael Copeland posted about Koranic instructions on jihad, which “radicalize” young Muslims. He made the point that if existing UK laws were enforced, instructors using the Koran would be arrested and charged, and Islamic schools would be shut down.

In the comments on the post, Bob Smith pointed out a similar situation here in the United States:

We already have criminal enterprise statutes. Islam is a (cult) criminal enterprise.

American RICO statutes (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) were intended to go after the mafia. The acts of Islamic mullahs and jihadis clearly fall into the same pattern as the mafia. The only difference being Islam’s claim of an oddball form of “religious legitimacy”.

The US should use the RICO statutes to declare Islam a criminal enterprise. Then close Islam down as it presently exists in the US.

RICO allows the government to follow crime and money. Then arrest and confiscate anything in its path.

You can be sure the movement of money for jihad is widespread. You can be sure the incitement and communication between mullahs and mosques is widespread. You can also be sure there is foreign involvement. The RICO statutes were made just for this type of activity.

Use a small army of CPAs and attorneys to investigate every jihad attack. Follow 100% of the money back to its source. Track anyone involved, in any way. Then use the RICO statutes to jail, confiscate, and shut down all involved. That includes:

M1     Shutting down mosques involved in any jihad attack.
M2     Arrest mullahs involved.
M3     Follow, and confiscate, all jihad money back to its source.

Read it all at:

The conspiracy to wage jihad is indeed a criminal enterprise under existing laws, including the RICO statutes. Many provisions of Islamic law are also arguably seditious, and actionable as such under much older statutes.

However, there’s a catch: Islam is protected by the First Amendment as a religion. This puts a serious roadblock in the way of any criminal investigations or prosecutions. No prosecutor would be willing to set in motion a RICO process targeting Islam and Muslims, knowing that his efforts would most likely be shut down by a federal judge as soon as they had begun. It probably wouldn’t even need to go before the Ninth Circuit — almost any judge would agree that the same provision that grants Islam tax-exempt status would prevent any deep investigation unless stringent probable-cause conditions were met.

What is obviously needed is a long-term strategic push to revoke Islam’s status as a recognized religion.

To achieve success in such an endeavor, we would need to move away from the “pedophile prophet” and “barbaric 7th-century desert cult” sort of rhetoric. A push to de-legitimize Islam would have to occur at the highest levels of our legal system, in the realm of constitutional law. It would need to be a carefully documented demonstration that:

(1)   Islamic law, as formulated in well-established compendia enjoying the consensus of Islamic scholars, directly contravenes the U.S. Constitution in many of its provisions; and
(2)   Such provisions are codified from Koranic verses and hadith that make up well over 50% of the content of Islamic scriptures.

Therefore Islam is not a religion as the word is commonly understood, and thus lacks any protection under the First Amendment.

A case against Islam as a religion could be modeled on the work of Robert Spencer, Bill Warner, and especially Stephen Coughlin. Maj. Coughlin is a lawyer as well as an expert on Islamic law, and has already laid the groundwork for demonstrating that Islam is much more a legal and political system than it is a religion.

I’m no expert on constitutional law, but I suspect that removing Islam’s protected status might well require a constitutional amendment. However, even if it could be accomplished under statutory law, it’s a daunting task that will face formidable obstacles. Any congressman who proposed such action would immediately be subjected to the well-funded vitriol of CAIR and other Muslim Brotherhood organizations. Remember what happened to former representatives Virgil Goode and Michele Bachmann? Well, you may not, but I guarantee that your congressman does — both were targeted for removal by bottomless pockets.

In order to be successful, such an operation would have to be launched simultaneously by a group of congressional “Islamophobes”. It would take grit, determination, and great patience to see it through. Everyone involved would face smears, death threats, harassment, etc. Only the most dedicated public officials would attempt it.

Can it be done? It’s theoretically possible.

But without something like it, RICO statutes will never be applied against Islam.

41 thoughts on “The Islam Racket

  1. America sure went after Mormons and their polygamy back in the day. That is enough precedent, surely, to begin the pushback.

    BTW, the Mormon religion probably grew stronger once it joined the mainstream. I’m strictly making a case for precedence in the law.

    • Using RICO against Islam is a great idea, Baron.

      I believe the Baron is overly pessimistic in his perception of an actual legal First Amendment block to his ideas to use RICO against Islamic enterprises. I believe the main blocks are merely political and perceptual.

      I have no doubt though that a Regressive court would tend to take the view that the Baron fears, namely that Islam must be protected at all costs because it is a religion. But that doesn’t fit with the law as it stands. The government can pass laws prohibiting things allowed by religions. Polygamy, as Dymphna pointed out, is a good example. Use of peyote is another. Therefore, I expect that it would be blocked indeed by Regressive lower courts, but, especially if Trump manages to maintain a constitutional majority in the Supreme Court, allowed by SCOTUS itself. Not unlike the so-called ‘Muslim ban’.

      Technically, the right RICO case should be against the Ummah.

      There is an article on wikipedia dedicated to the ‘Free Exercise Clause’ of the First Amendment which is quite good.

    • I don’t know if you’ve ever read Jon Krakauer’s book about the Mormons, but it’s well worth checking out – I listened to the audio book – very well read indeed.

      There’s a good deal to be had with Audible – a monthly subscription & you get a book of your choice each month. If the Baron’s peepers are still giving him grief, that might be an idea.

      I started listening to audio books years ago when I was driving about a lot – it’s a great way to put in those long runs on the road.

      • Yes, I used to love audiobooks when I had a long daily commute. I’d borrow them from the library. Sometimes I’d be driving with the young future Baron in tow and he’d become engrossed in a Jane Austen audiobook. I think the British accent just added to his interest. When we’d arrive at our destination, he’d be reluctant to stop listening.

        Now my eyes work better than my ears, though reading in a moving car makes me queasy. So when the B puts on Bach, I’m content to hear what I can. I can still use audio at home, where there is not so much ambient noise…

        The B doesn’t have time for leisure reading. As in “what leisure?” — he spends a lot of time working on videos with Vlad or with translators or doing occasional book editing. He does bring his Kindle to my doctor appointments and gets in a few pages of Nabokov that way.

  2. I’ve developed significant doubts about the first amendment regarding religion. I think we need emphasis on the freedom of belief. Both religious and secular. It seems now pretty obvious that while secularism dampened the impulse toward wars of religion, the virus mutated and turned secular. It was secular religions like Marxism Leninism and National Socialism that began the next series of wars.

    I don’t think the government ought to be involved in establishing any sort of ideology, including scientific ones.

    As for “free exercise thereof” worked when the Calvinists were persecuting the Quakers. It does not work when “free exercise thereof” means culling kuffar, or means the ritual torture of animals under some santeria type cults, or when it involves offering one’s children to some guru to abuse, and so on and so forth. (This could be overcome by specifying that “free exercise thereof” does not apply to unlawful behaviors, but we know how that one is going.)

    Just because I have the freedom to believe as I wish, does not mean I have the freedom to behave as I wish. Our definition of religion has trapped us in a cul-de-sac. My 2 cents.

    • We may all have the right to believe whatever we want in the forum internum, we do not have the right to practice our beliefs in the forum externum if our actions violate the internal laws of the countries we live in. Obviously, this important legal principle applies to Muslims too.

      For example: See Janis Khan v. The United Kingdom.

  3. Hello, this comment is from Europe.

    It would be great if Islam was declared a criminal enterprise using the RICO laws, but I don’t believe it will happen soon, if ever. In Europe, we have laws against religious sects in some countries, but they could not be used for a very sad reason: 99% of people still think Islam a religion and not a malevolent sect…

    I have spent many years and traveled widely in muslim countries. I started open-minded but through the years, and having read the Koran and lots of hadiths, I came to the conclusion that Islam is NOT a religion. A religion is something that tries to uplift people and connect them to a higher reality. It usually has a strong moral message to transmit. Islam has none of that. Its message is about hatred, violence, predation and subjugation of enemies. I firmly believe, based on my personal experience, that Islam is indeed a sect, craftily disguised as a religion to fool people. Its only purpose is not to elevate people to a sense of the divine but to subdue, dominate and enslave the whole of humankind. It is by far the most vicious enterprise ever created by man, far worst than nazism or communism… Right now its plan to conquer Europe is succeeding.

    Carl Gustav Jung said that ” man is by essence religious”. I think he was right. Humans respect things religious almost instinctively. As long that the West believes Islam is a “religion” like other faiths, Islam will hold the moral high ground and we will be defenseless. The author of the article is right: the first task is to destroy the wrong belief that Islam is a religion.

    • Hi Ernst,

      While I agree with much of what you’re saying, and that approach would undoubtedly bear fruit, it may be worth remembering in the meantime that it is settled law that Muslims are only allowed to practice their “religion” up to the point where they are in violation of the internal laws of the countries they live in. After that, they go to jail, same as everyone else.

      See Janis Khan v. United Kingdom. A record of this important case, which lays out this important legal principle, is available on the HUDOC database.

      • The ruling is dated 1986 … tempora mutantur. I doubt it would hold today.

        Why do you think it is an important case? – I can’t imagine having such a trial today, or rather an outcome thereof.

        Correct me if I am wrong in thinking that the case you are pointing to bears any weight nowadays.

        • How do you know if you don’t try?

          There are several important legal principles that are on the books & have several precedents.

          The Special Rapporteur’s reports make extremely interesting reading.

          You will recall the video on GoV not long ago of a Finnish lady quoting some European case law to a couple of leftist people.

          When they heard what the law said the pair of them looked as if they had been sooking a lemon. And of course, they had no answer to it.

          So quoting the law to these people can work. But only if we know what the law says, and only if we use it.

          If you were at war, and there was an ammunition factory in the next street, it wouldn’t do you any good unless you took some of those bullets, put them in your weapon and fired them at the enemy.

    • Very true when you describe them a vicious enterprise. I would also add that they are most of the time quite obviously a vicious enterprise that seek to dominate, profit, enslave and pushed us further into debt or homelessness. Their oppressive Oriental Muslims influence together with their imposition of Islam can be extremely toxic indeed to those of us who even dare to openly disagree with them the slightest.

  4. My positon is to hell with constitutional law or any other legal process – we do not have the time left even if there was an outside chance of it working which there is not, at least here and probably in the USA as well.

    In the UK Muslims are protected by a majority of the vote whores in Parliament, a politicised Civil Service and a Dhimmified Police Force that is more interested in hunting down original native-born Brits for speaking truth about Islam than it is about preventing Muslim rape fests, indoctrination, fundraising for terrorism, acid and knife attacks and the rest of the process of our Islamification.

    Furthermor, reading and watching news and commentary throughout the Anglo-Eurosphere these days one is confronted by endless iterations of outraged protest that this or that Government, Department, Company, Club, University, School, Church, Synagogue, Town or Suburb is ‘Too White’, often accompanied by infantile cries of ‘Racist’ and ‘White Supremacy’ as if one is expected to be surprised or appalled at what is patently obvious to a functional mind – this demographic distribution is simply ethno-proportional representation, as is the reverse case in brown or black majority countries.

    Those acquisitive and aggressive foot soldiers of the NWO who, together with the perpetrators of the multiplicity of continent wide, very less than random physical attacks, are nothing less than another front in a war designed to conquer the original ethno-cultural populations of the West. The rational response to this attack is very simple; drive them out and back to whatever failed brown or black self-created hellhole they or their immediate ancestors came from and are trying to recreate here.

    If that doesn’t work then [intemperate recommendation redacted].

    Finally, gruesome though this process may be the reality is that if these necessities are not implemented post haste then this the exsanguination of the West’s survival instinct via an overdose of pathological altruism can only lead to its mass ethnocide and the enslavement of what few of its original inhabitants are permitted to survive.

    • Ernst and Seneca, well posited comments, and it may well come to regrettable terminal actions. I hope it can be avoided, as the cure tends to be overwhelming for a long while. The alternative however, lasts much longer, with unimaginable depravity and total effect, as 1400 years shows, or even the assassins 100 years. So here is my say:

      Frankly, the problem lies in the characterization, definition of “religion”.

      Scientology is no religion by even a dolts understanding, but some treat it so, because it bullied the irs into treating it as such for tax purposes, by threatening thousands of lawsuits against the irs, according to PBS, and Readers Digest, multiple investigations.

      Likewise, the multiple cults, gangs, which have appeared from time to time, in America, and the globe, (including the hashish and other so called “religions”) each of which is a cult, gang, and less, must be addressed in the law. It is a serious matter, Freedom of self, which if not addressed properly at law, will be addressed at arms, regardless, in time.

      The guarantee of Freedom of religion no more allows one permission to destroy all or any others, nor to hate all others who don’t practice or believe in their own criminal behavior, than does the special exceptions provided at law for service dogs, (or ponies), which do not suggest a peacock can provide a permitted service, defined under the law.

      A criminal act is not allowed of any so called “religion”, whether against its own, or outsiders, including hatred for not believing. An organization which is defined and characterized by every imaginable crime against humanity, which is claimed to be accepted, encouraged, tolerated, and commanded by any imaginary or real leader, such as an allah, mohammad, or the godfather or the grand poobahs, is neither a religion nor a cult.

      To claim to worship such a figurehead, is merely a mark of depravity, and degeneracy, and severe mental disability, particularly when such figurehead is guilty of the worst crimes known to mankind. It has the status of a gang, such as the mafia, or the assassins. If it is organized, or merely forms a loose network of co-conspirators, it is merely a criminal organization, prosecutable under RICO and other legal precedent, acts, and codes, and statutes.

      People may have their beliefs about their own existence, or others, but it is another reality when they act upon beliefs which are demonstrably negative upon others physical wellbeing, threat to such, and freedoms, both physical above all, and existentially.

      • And yet there is the principle & legal precedent.

        A lot of people may have “forgotten” this – and the political elites would like this not to be known or understood by the subjects of the great social engineering experiment.

        But there it is – it’s up to people like us to bring this knowledge BACK into the public consciousness. So that as a society, we can remember who we are and what we stand for.

  5. How about conspiracy to formant and commit perjury with respect to the public record and accepted history as portrayed in the textbooks that cast Islam in a favorable light and Christianity and Judaism in an unfavorable and marginalized light?
    How about the lack of documentation of the religion’s holy writ?
    I learned in my World Religions class (under-grad level) that all of the world’s major religions and sects have a thoroughly documented history that spans more than two millennia, EXCEPT Islam, which has 31 different versions and multiple mis-translations, apocrypha, and document alteration (the bleaching of the vellum of the Qur’an that is stored in the Ankara Museum, Jay Smith).
    Islam does not even qualify as a religion and barely qualifies as a sect. The historicity of the Qur’an is in question as it its authenticity.
    A Forensic Audit is in order, and I don’t CAIR what others may have to say.

  6. There already is a precedent in the USA. My understanding is that religions get their charitable status revoked if they get involved in politics.

    Islam is at least half-political. So a starting point is to revoke the charitable status of the manifestations which are political. That’s a start.

    There is another interesting American precedent, though it didn’t happen in the USA. There was once a similar religion, complete with suicide bombers, a militaristic aspect, and a Caliph-like figure. Less than 100 years ago. It was very seriously reformed, and is no longer a threat. It is called Shintoism. What the USA (MacArthur) did to it after WWII was brilliant: they were allowed to operate as a religion so long as they dropped the militaro-political bit. It worked. Of course, it worked better because two nuclear bombs were dropped shortly before the reform efforts began.

    • So it sounds like the solution is five-pronged:
      * use RICO with all cases of terrorism
      * restate that any religion or religious institution will have its religious status revoked if shown to engage in politics, and proceed with the revocations: the advantage being that it can be done mosque by mosque, or if politics allow, more broadly
      * mount a massive educational effort for people to understand how badly they have been lied to, for a very long time (thank you Baron, Vlad, et al)
      * encourage the rebirth of Zoroastrianism, the ancient religion of Persia and Arab lands which is already underway

      Thanks! I appreciate the growing clarity. Will read up on Shintoism and how that was done.

      • Oh and the solution has the advantage of not having to attack Islam as such which would be both unwise, and incorrect, since there are sects within Islam which are not equally pernicious as some others. And it would be up to the “moderate Muslims” to put their money where their mouth is.

        • One more thing: there was a Shinto Directive issued to Japan after the war that was careful not to destroy religious Shinto. Here is a paraphrase that would work on Islam:

          The Islam Directive states it is established to “free the Muslim people from direct or indirect compulsion to believe or profess to believe in a particular version of Islam” and “prevent a recurrence of the perversion of Islamic theory and beliefs into militaristic and ultrasupremacist propaganda.”

          Added benefit: trapping the useful idiots in a trap of their own making.

        • “it would be up to the “moderate Muslims” to put their money where their mouth is.”

          Keep dreamin’

  7. So, the mistake of the Mafia was to not declare itself a religion with certain rites and dogmas?
    Maybe if the conspiracy could be limited to the spread of Islamism and jihad, the Islamic Reformation could come sooner rather than later.

    • I thought that the Mafia’s religion was Catholicism and that they felt that all they needed was a Mass to be said to cover their deeds. They could then finish the cleanup of their souls in Purgatory after cashing in on the indulgences that they had purchased. At least that is the way it seemed to me.

      • There is some contention among historians that the Italian mafia took their rules and outlook from the Muslim pirates that repeatedly accosted Sicily…Sicilians certainly lost a lot of their women and wealth to the pirates.

        • to my knowledge, the mafia emerged after the italian unification process in the 1860 ies when the classic aristocracy lost power. Due to the land reforms, they lost their financial base and sent out ” enforcers” to collect what they thought sharecroppers owed them. One vestige of the muslim experience in Sicily is certainly the brutality that was used for intimidation, like cutting of members or mutilation, still en vogue in those areas.
          As far as the RICO and islam topic is concerned, I would like to remind that Al Capone got framed for tax evasion, not murder or bootlegging. Thats what the secret service and the FBI were founded for originally. Go for it, guys.

          • Tax Evasion, we could charge the various Imams with that! Capital idea! Maybe even get some of our capital returned to us. 🤗

  8. The problem is not islam. Cult. Ideology. The koran. The muslims. The jihadis.

    The problem lies with the satanic ideology that has possessed the western traitors to import invaders to destroy the west.

    If traitors cannot or will not distinguish between a serpent and a dove then we are helpless to defend ourselves when traitors and invaders are against their own people.

    Invaders are doing what they have been doing for the last 14 centuries.

    Traitors have an ever mounting passion to destroy us by invader jihadis.

    Who can understand this mystery?

  9. I have often wondered if, when the founding fathers decided that govmt “shall make no law”, weren’t they thinking of CHRISTIAN SECTS, & perhaps the Jews that were here? Surely they didn’t think of Mohammedanism as being included in this freedom.

    • It was after the founding, wherein Jefferson and others read the koran, learned something of the evil contained, during the period of the Barbary muslim wars, and the initial and later permanent founding of the Navy and Marines.

      So probably that was the thinking. I have considered the same thing myself, but have not seen nor searched to see if anything is revealed on perspective in the Federalist Papers. This whole subject line you brought up really ought to be examined, some, to see whether they had some thinking on this point or assumed general thought as finalized would cover the matter.

      Any way you cut it, “religion” definition, and criminal acts, define islam as phony as the dossiers, and the democrats’ behaviors, or a CURRENT thousand dollar bill! Take your pick…..

  10. What is the academic study of history other an appreciation of all human endeavor?

    Islam exploits the notion that their supremacist civilization, complete in every regard of social organization and openly seeking to obliterate all other civilizations and replace them with itself, is simply another spiritual religion entitled to legal protections by the polity hosting their presence.

    Would Nazism qualify as a spiritual religion as the holy warriors of the SS annihilated Jews with theEinsatzgruppen? Why not? Have not pious Nazis a religious entitlement to animate their Divine Manifesto?

    Well, mark me down as a bigot, then for maintaining otherwise.

  11. I don’t know, Im not a muslim, but making islam illegal would probably mean war. Not that Im expecting it to end in any other way, but still, the gutmenschen and the refugee welcome types are going to postpone it as long as they can, because they are absolutely terrified of it. But to be honest, in case that happened, are you ready to get your hands dirty? Tough question.

    • We should not let Muslims provoke us into going into another war for any reason because it would give them more excuse to seek acceptance as refugees or migrants or spread their Islamic disease in the West. Muslims infested countries have provoked too many wars. For example the most recent one to happen in Europe was the Bosnian War, where it seems there are now even an enforced code of silence over what happened in what was formerly part of Yugoslavia.
      We need to take steps, even small initial steps to stop them taking over the West, not by war but by, for example, stages of deportation via the proper channel or via requesting them to volunteer to go back to their predominantly Islamic countries of origin where they would feel more at home.
      We also have to stop believing that their oppressive Islamic communities is peaceful because we know for a fact that historically and even up to present time they are never peaceful whenever they have the socalled upper hand over us nonbelievers.
      They cannot be allowed to take over every Western countries and claimed it as theirs.

    • ‘in case that happened’
      Therein would lie a considerable rub;
      Western ‘progressive’ education systems, are disseminating wishful-think as fact:
      Jihad and holy wars are ‘myths’ apparently (but not in Turkey of course)….
      …and the official position of numerous progressive Europeans establishments is, it’s a religion of peace and tolerance.

      It all leaves many not just in Europe but the wider West, particularly the young, singularly unprepared for what, history and an unreformed scriptural blueprint for conquest suggest, awaits in the not too distant future.

      • The present day Turks stole the land belonging to another more advanced civilization and thus have no right to be part of Europe or part of Western civilization. It is fact that those ambitious Oriental Turks that are so anti-Western want to take over Europe with their mosques. They want war and we want peace and that is why there is no place for them in Europe.

  12. Every practicing Muslim is seditious, it is an inescapable sine qua non obvious to every literate person.

  13. The way to test it is to start your own religion which mirrors the doctrines and tenets found in the Quran or sanctions by Islamic schools of jurisprudence. Position yourself as the self-appointed prophet starting writing some scripture and get some people to follow you. Have your charter (divinely revealed code of conduct ) Include all the unsavory aspects like child marriage, death to apostates, slavery, polygamy, sanctioned violence and discrimination against unbelievers and demonization of an ethnic minority (say substitute Laplanders for Jews).

    File with the IRS for tax exemption, get denied, draw heat from the Feds and create a lot of press attention, the entire time not giving a clue that it is simply a knock-off of the religion of peace.

    Then fight it in the courts by invoking religious freedom and the precedent set for Islam.

    It would take [testicular fortitude] (legal, social, financial risk) and a bankroll. But it might finally force the issue and the anachronistic treatment of religions versus any other political/social institution on could for. I’ll contribute to a crownfund if someone wants to take lead. ;/)

    • If you want a legal precedent, then there’s no need to create a new one. Plenty of those exist already. Check out the Special Rapporteur’s reports, also check out the HUDOC database.

      Raymond Ibrahim and Majed el Jafie cite a few interesting cases in their books. That might be a good starting point for anyone who is up for a bit of interesting reading.

      What I would suggest is that people learn about these important legal principles, memorise these legal precedents, and then throw them in the faces of the brainwashed wingnuts whenever we get the chance.

      Remember the video here on GoV not long ago, when a Finnish woman quoted some European law on freedom of speech? Her fellow panelists, multi-cultists all, had no answer to it – it stymied them completely.

      Their problem is that all they have to go in is their “feelings” and their totally mixed up and incoherent “philosophy”. In short, they have nothing.

      We need to start hitting them back with actual facts, actual principles, actual cases. Very useful arrows to have in your quiver.

Comments are closed.