Participating in a Terrorist Criminal Association

Prompted by the Charlie Hebdo terror trial in France, Michael Copeland sends this refresher course on the inherent criminality of Islam.

Participating in a Terrorist Criminal Association

by Michael Copeland

The fourteen defendants in the Charlie Hebdo murders trial face charges of participating in a terrorist criminal association. In France assisting a crime is itself a crime, like “aiding and abetting” and conspiracy in English law.

The two murderers of the Charlie Hebdo staff declared that they were acting for Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, and for the Islamic State. Those accused of helping may possibly be shown to have been members of similar organisations. It may not be necessary to demonstrate membership of a known association. Merely participating with others in murder plots is probably sufficient. It is a matter of French law. Murder plots are, of course, criminal. There is no difficulty of qualifying there.

Terrorism is defined as violence in support of a political cause. Someone with mental problems who acquires a gun and goes on a fatal shooting spree would be a mass killer, and may indeed have terrorised many people, but his action does not, in law, qualify as terrorism. The political cause is a necessary component. The Charlie Hebdo killings were specifically perpetrated in the cause of Islam, in consequence of the breaking of Sharia, that is, Islamic law, and in fulfilling its penalties:

“If someone offends the Prophet, no problem, we can kill him”,

explained one of the killers. Sharia specifies death for one who insults the Prophet and authorises vigilante-style killing.

The trial will focus narrowly on the terrible events of that mass murder, and is to establish the involvement of the accused in helping it to occur. What, though, can we see if we draw further back and look at the bigger picture? How does Islam figure in all of this?

Islam is an association. It describes itself as the Ummah, the Islamic nation, a worldwide identity which supersedes citizenship of nations. Nations are a “man-made” concept, and thus something to be despised:

  • “A Muslim has no nationality except his belief.” — Sayyid Qutb
  • “The Muslim nation is one nation to the exclusion of all others” — placard
  • “If we are practicing Muslims we are above the law of the land.” — Mustafa Carroll
  • “I must have allegiance to where the Sharia says I must have allegiance.” — Anjem Choudary

Islam’s rules include “killing someone who deserves to die”, an act that carries no penalty. In other words, Islam authorises certain murders, criminal acts in the West. Islam also authorises a parent to kill his or her offspring. There is no penalty for this. Again, this is murder. Islam authorises under-age marriage — from nine lunar years, the age of eight and three quarters — and forced marriage. Both are criminal in Europe. Islam authorises multiple wives. This is criminal in Europe. Islam imposes female genital mutilation. This, too, is criminal in Europe. Islam authorises wife-beating, another crime in Europe, and rape within marriage, same again. Islam authorises slavery: a crime in the West. It is inescapable that Islam qualifies as a criminal association.

Terrorism is a feature of Islam, a feature that is seen day after day with massacres and killings all over the world (mostly not covered by the media).

  • “Terrorism is part of Islam!” — Abu Izzadeen
  • “The Quran directly commands us to commit terrorism.” — Ragab Hilal Hamida MP
  • “Every Muslim is a potential terrorist.” — Nassim ben Iman
  • “Turhibunna” — terrorise them. — Koran 8:60, part of Islamic law

Islamic acts of terrorism are performed in furtherance of a political end, the imposition of Sharia rules worldwide. Islam is political: it concerns government, laws, territory, rules of dress, diet, second-class status for non-Muslims and so on.

  • “Islam is not like Christianity. Our Islam is political.” — Mullah Krekar
  • “Islam is not a race. It is an ideology.” — Ibrahim Hooper, CAIR
  • “an ideological political movement.” — Choudary
  • “The only one law …anywhere… has to be Islam.” — Abu Bakr, Australia

Western politicians, lawyers, judges, clergy and media are fixed in the idea that Islam only concerns worship. Smug in this assumption, they do not bother to inform themselves. They simply rely on further assumptions, such as “The Koran is a book of peace” (Judge Haddon-Cave), that have no factual basis. Further, and most reprehensibly, they blacken, smear, and shut down informed voices that draw attention to these dangerous and erroneous assumptions. It is a recipe for trouble.

It is straightforward to see from the above that Islam qualifies as a terrorist criminal association. Will the penny drop?

For previous essays by Michael Copeland, see the Michael Copeland Archives.

10 thoughts on “Participating in a Terrorist Criminal Association

  1. The article lays out a persuasive case that Muslims should not be classified as a “religious group” for the purposes of the law of genocide. Islam is one of those exceptional cases in which the state legitimately punishes Muslims for the crimes of idolatry and blasphemy, which in biblical law are capital crimes.

      • Who cares. It’s a deadly enemy massing behind our lines. Go on a walk about outside your tribal enclosure. See for yourself.

  2. Islam states, “We are not only above the law, we make the law!” Christianity does this as well. All the Roman citizens were required to say “Caesar Kyrios” as they burned a pinch of incense to Jupiter as the annual ceremony of (I forgot the name). Christians couldn’t say anything other than “Christos Kyrios” and so were regarded as potential traitors and those who preached the Gospel as fomenting insurrection against the Empire.
    As Christianity was seen (except by the Jews) as the fulfillment of God’s promises to the Jews and His loving offer of salvation to all who would accept it, along with its code of conduct that embodied love and care for family, friends and neighbor, it was welcomed, accepted into the social structure, and became the defining foundation of civilization as we know it.
    Satan, being jealous of the Lord’s success, decided to come up with his own version of god-inspired government which has been shown repeatedly to be a hellish counterfeit of the worst sort, and regarded as an anathema by even those who question the existence of a god.
    The problem comes down to the State being forced to make a choice between Christianity and Islam, or as some jurists would suggest, outlawing both so that no favoritism is shown. The U.S. Supreme Court did exactly that in 1948 and again in 1963, but also left the door open public assembly which allowed the churches, and mosques to remain functional as long as they complied with the laws regarding public assembly.
    With the advent of Covid-19m and closures of places of public assembly, the Supreme Court in response to numerous lawsuits that invoked the First Amendment adopted the position that the State has the right to regulate the practice of religion even though it cannot outlaw it. If BLM decides to march under the flag of Islam as it riots and burns, then the courts will have no choice but outlaw all religions because in the eyes of the secular courts, all religions are outlaws. Thus, Satan wins his battle against the true Church by having it forced underground as it is in China where only the State is to be worshipped.
    To misquote John Lennon, “My Lord told me there would be days like this, strange days indeed!”

    • Why the duck are we only noticing this now?
      Churchill saw clearly. If we ever hope to be free again there is one hell of fight ahead. Better start changing to manpower soon. Before entering the valley of the shadow of death might be helpful.

  3. The photo above shows armed men tromping across the words of the Holy Quran. Must be Islamophobes.

  4. Pat Robertson said it best in two sentences. “Islam is not a religion. It is a political system masquerading as a religion.”

  5. The difference historically is that Christian directives toward violence or domination are entirely historical. Islam has no “New Testament” equivalent and still orders punishment based on a strict interpretation of the Koran, and carries out such punishment as honor killings, death sentences for homosexuality, or insulting the Prophet, or other examples of apostasy. Sharia justifies murdering Christians who refuse to convert to Islam, where no Christian groups commit mass killings of Muslims. It seems all other religions have evolved away from destroying or controlling “non-believers” except Islam.

Comments are closed.