4 readers online now  |  69 million page views


Reader comment on item: Trump: You Should Ban Islamists, Not Muslims
in response to reader comment: Are we ABI or ADATI, do we want only freedom FROM or also freedom To?

Submitted by UNCLE VLADDI (Canada), Dec 31, 2015 at 17:45

Hi Demsci,

Ah, at last we arrive at the heart of the matter!

We must define law versus crime in order to separate civilization from barbarism. So here it is:

The (Binary) Basics In Law: "Do Not Attack First," and "You Must Pay For What You Take" (Rights only come with agreed-on, concommitant corollary Responsibilities).


At all levels of human interaction, from the individual to all increasingly-large group levels (family, clan, tribe, nation, state) the Golden Rule of Law defines all situational morality most simply as "Do Not Attack First" and so enables the social contract to exist, by gaining us trust, economic progress BECAUSE of that trust (because we aren't wasting our time plotting attacks and defenses), and civilization, wherein we all agree to it - it's a free-will conscious contractual choice - and so enables us to realize that our only real right is to not be attacked first, and also that our only concommitant responsibility is to not attack (therefore innocent) others first.

In other words, I can do nothing either TO you, or FOR you, without getting your express consent first.

This is both how and why even the largest gang or group, "the state," has no inherent right to fraudulently, slanderously or pre-emptively "defensively" accuse any of it's real live individual human citizen component parts of any crimes by attacking them first; it's why we have "Innocent UNTIL PROVEN Guilty," and not, as criminal liberals always seem to prefer, "Guilty Until (Never) Proven Innocent!" Even 'the state' has no right to attack first!

And it's based on the fact that one can only have rights with reciprocal responsibility; to have rights without responsibility is to commit theft by extortion or fraud, as all criminals desire: to have rights (like, to your stuff) without any responsibility (like, for earning or paying for it). Even the falsely-sundered "criminal" and "civil" laws agree: you must pay for what you take.

Even small children already inherently, instinctively know this as the:

"But Mom! THEY STARTED IT! Rule."

...and it's also been the linch pin of all civilizations, The Golden Rule was coined first by Confucius in the correct, "Negative" rights way (as Mark Levin puts it) as "Do NOT Do Unto Others" which pre-dates the false, nannystate and micro-managing criminal "positivist" Christian phraseology, of "Do Unto Others" which can be endlessly exploited because it subjectively attacks all others first, pretending one can do whatever one wants TO everyone else, as long as one excuses one's self first by claiming to do it FOR them.

It's part of the Doctor's Hippocratic Oath: Primum Non Nocere, or: "First, Do No Harm" and it's even encoded right in the UN's own founding charter, which defines the #1 war-crime as "to be the aggressor in war."

Even liberal social engineers admit it exists, in their so-called "Precautionary Principle" caveat.

And a somewhat garbled version was even developed hypothetically into Star Trek's "Prime Directive."

Even the so-called 'Ten Commandments' are really only symptoms of this most basic binary moral Principle:

the first five are "Fear and Obey," while the second five are "Do not steal" i.e: "Greed NOT; Be Fearful!"

i.e: do not attack first. The criminal opposite would be "Fear NOT; Be Greedy!" (see islam's sharia crime "law").

In fact, all valid sub-sequent legislations are based on this one main principle: to be a criminal, one must have intended to attack first; after all, choosing to attack first, defines one's self as the predatory criminal aggressor, and they as one's innocent victims; there's no two ways about it. Bearing in mind of course that threats (i.e: intimidation; bullying; harrassment; coercion; duress; activist agitation; extortion; terrorism) ARE attacks, and that attacking second (counter-attacking) is a de rigeur requirement for the existance of all deterrant and punitive justice.

All valid laws are put as: "If you choose to attack first in these ways, then these (not necessarily proportional) responses will occur." They are warnings, not threats, because they involve if/then free-will cause and effect.

Idolatrous false laws, on the other hand, are pre-emptive slanders, and so are crimes in themselves, such as gun control laws: "SINCE you own guns, SO you will use them to commit crimes, SO we must take them away from you and attack you first, to defend our selves!" They are frauds; victim-blaming attacks and crimes in themselves.


The slanderous exact opposite of The Golden Rule of Law, is what I call the brazen rule of crime and chaos: "It is our holy right and duty to always attack all the others first! The best defense is a good offense!"

Deciding to obey this ages-old jungle-law of group-might-makes-right only inflicts distrust, stagnation, and barbarism.

For instance: islam's idolatrous sharia holds not that "If you choose to attack first in these ways, then these punishments will apply" but in stead, that: "If you ARE a member of these (slanderously, falsely and prejudicially defined as criminal simply for existing) groups, THEN these punishments restrictions and criminal attacks will be inflicted upon you!"

And those non-protected groups are all based on might makes right: infidel foreigners, women, children, and slaves, WILL all be officially and "legally" discriminated against, in sharia!

Same goes for any and all "group" rights scenarios; when some or any groups (of individual humans) have more and less rights than other groups (of individual humans), then they give non-members LESS rights, by definition; UN-equal protections under the law; thus, group rights "laws" are really only crimes in them selves.

Corporations, (despite the past frauds of bribed "judges," falsely defined as the "Legal FICTION of the Corporate Person,") are only groups or gangs, and so should not have any human rights at all; they are only, in fact, exercises in criminal negligence conspiracies.

Say you or I, as individuals, went before a judge and said: "Your Honor, I want to take risks which will only affect other people, for gains which will only accrue to myself!" he'd probably tell us to get lost, or jail us for attempted criminal negligence, right? Obviously, us asking for responsibility-free rights which will harm innocent others is an illegal scheme.

But if we declare our selves to be in a gang of potential criminals, as a "corporate" group, then suddenly the ages-old might-makes-right excuse seems to kick in, and we're automatically granted "limited liability" (no-responsibility rights) status! Hey presto, the (dis-)corporate ring of power renders us invisible to all real human legal culpability! Neat trick eh!


FINALLY, it's implicit in morality that when one chooses to NOT agree with it, to NOT agree to not attack first, one is thereby reserving the false right to attack (thereby innocent) others first - and, by doing so, one is projecting a criminal psychological threat attack, and is thus immoral by pretending to be merely "amoral."

What sane people call "the slippery slope," liberals call "progress!"

Bad ("positivist," "defensively pre-emptive") laws are crimes because they attack first, by slandering individual citizens as criminals, and so also insisting that they have no inherent right to self-defense.

Unfortunately, there's only so many symptoms of The Golden Rule of Law (which simply defines all situational morality as "Do Not Attack First!") one can address with lesser, circumstantial "laws" of morality, only so many right answers, before one must veer off into exploiting the almost infinite number of sorta almost right,(but really wrong) answers, in order to keep up the pretense that the legislators are actually doing something responsible to earn their pay and to continue to enjoy the right to govern others – a point which, after whence reached, societies decline into criminality and empires fall into ruin.

And this process of creeping, criminally-negligent might-makes-right control is what they call "progress!"

And their fear is addictive, too, so they must protect their power: their false right to irresponsibly and prejudicially slander everyone else as guilty until never proven innocent! If they can't extort you into defending yourself from their lies, then you might be able to gain the time and ability to counter-attack them in self defense! Oh, the horror! Their right to attack you first must be maintained at all costs - to you!

"Governments" always know what they're doing when they decide to ignore and pretend to not understand any given situation - because criminal negligence is their reason for existing!

Politics has been defined as "the art of ignoring problems until the reason for addressing them have become irrelevant."

After all, their real motto always seems to be:

"There's No Money In Solutions!"

And so our schools have all become total(itarian) CONFORMIST, group-might-makes-right extortionist indoctrination camps! Alles fur den gruppen! Idolatry! For when groups have rights, real live individual human citizens have none!

Islam follows the brazen rule of crime, where all is allowed to be done both to and for one person by others, unless and until very specifically denied in law. (And it's almost impossible to deny in advance every circumstantial situational instance, wihtout agreeing to any guiding principle like the Golden Rule aka do not attack first; one can't expect to pre-legislate "Fat Tony isn't allowed to murder Bob on a Tuesday from between 4 AM and 11PM, but this rule does not apply during leap-years!")

This inveitbaly leads to group-might-made-rights aka criminal extortion.


Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

Submit a comment on this item

Reader comments (138) on this item

Title Commenter Date Thread
1Muslims are the sea that islamist swim in. [6 words]Ed MayApr 6, 2016 11:58228737
Kind of funny the first paragrapgh. [222 words]LynnMar 14, 2016 09:12228413
General [11 words]Firozali AMulla PhDMar 6, 2016 04:48228332
I propose different policy; curtail all immigration [166 words]Stuart FaginJan 5, 2016 02:04227492
1Banning muslim is workable, and is not unconstitutional [99 words]
w/response from Daniel Pipes
Bill PikeJan 4, 2016 22:21227484
2What to do if a political party declares itself to be a religion [248 words]PrashantJan 9, 2016 22:23227484
1Thanx Prashant [40 words]Bill PikeJan 10, 2016 22:39227484
3Saluting Trump; he did what no one has done in 1400 years [242 words]PrashantJan 28, 2017 22:58227484
3Aren't all Muslims Islamists ? [78 words]Bindair DunndatDec 31, 2015 01:14227380
correcting Mr. Trump's hate speech [302 words]Abu FatimaDec 29, 2015 06:06227342
4Fatal mistake of Abu Fatima [218 words]PrashantJan 17, 2016 10:55227342
Suppose 2% of bananas posed a lethal danger [146 words]JeffDec 26, 2015 11:39227291
Trump is on the right track,just needs semantic lesson in Islam lexicon [199 words]Bob JackDec 25, 2015 09:14227280
Except that it is Constitutional [17 words]
w/response from Daniel Pipes
Boston LibertyDec 22, 2015 10:17227219
1Assurances needed [94 words]
w/response from Daniel Pipes
Gloria StewartDec 20, 2015 18:20227170
1Christians pose no threat [68 words]Gloria StewartDec 21, 2015 18:58227170
Question to Dr. Pipes [150 words]SameachDec 24, 2015 00:47227170
Colorado Springs shooter was a radicalized Christian [26 words]Lyle SmithDec 24, 2015 13:45227170
Yes, there is a difference [96 words]Michael SDec 25, 2015 15:28227170
Why taxonomize when it does not explain anything? [225 words]PrashantDec 20, 2015 05:55227164
Lie detector test may help [80 words]Curtis FreedlandDec 20, 2015 00:21227161
Donald Trump [24 words]pat StewardDec 19, 2015 21:14227160
Muslim migration into Europe [221 words]Alvin SamuelsDec 17, 2015 16:47227130
1Jews weren't treated Sooo Nice in Muslim countries [51 words]Jim40Dec 16, 2015 12:06227091
1muslim can be banned [26 words]not soDec 16, 2015 11:37227090
Of course it's constitutional and acceptable! [200 words]MalcolmDec 16, 2015 01:59227085
1vetting individual muslims insufficient - no Turkish community in Germany [638 words]mythDec 15, 2015 05:51227073
4Muslims in Australia [674 words]Ken GunnDec 14, 2015 22:26227071
1To Ken Gunn [117 words]AustraliaDec 17, 2015 12:25227071
It takes a fireman to put out a fire. A roomful of commentators cannot put out a fire [119 words]AlanDec 14, 2015 16:41227068
The Constitution has nothing to do with it. [160 words]GeeDec 14, 2015 12:18227065
How to detect muslims? [266 words]
w/response from Daniel Pipes
AmirDec 14, 2015 11:07227062
US Constitution Apply to Citizens [78 words]CatheyDec 14, 2015 10:55227061
America is not a secular nation. [113 words]CatheyDec 14, 2015 10:40227060
More than 10 - 15 % of Muslims must be Islamist (Or why am I wrong to think this?) [81 words]
w/response from Daniel Pipes
Lyle SmithDec 14, 2015 09:50227056
2Muslim immigration [90 words]dhimmi no moreDec 14, 2015 09:25227055
1Ban Islamists, Not Muslims [83 words]Dan OstDec 14, 2015 08:40227053
1Practical issues of implementing Trump proposal - and the real issue [137 words]Dr. Aaron Lerner - IMRA (Israel)Dec 14, 2015 04:12227048
dissimulation is the rule [158 words]y Brandstetter MDDec 14, 2015 01:05227046
4Trump is Chump but He is Right This Time [219 words]DajjalDec 13, 2015 23:07227044
Religious [22 words]AlbertE.Dec 13, 2015 22:41227041
Screen [27 words]
w/response from Daniel Pipes
AlbertE.Dec 13, 2015 22:38227040
Trumps call for a Muslim Halt is worthwhile [266 words]Mike ConlonDec 13, 2015 22:33227039
Trump is making us look bad [96 words]FrankzDec 13, 2015 22:17227037
stopping muslim/islamic immigration [24 words]
w/response from Daniel Pipes
John RasicciDec 13, 2015 17:02227034
1USCIS screening question re polygamy [110 words]John CavanaughDec 13, 2015 12:18227030
1Islam, Islamism and The Keystone Cops [146 words]
w/response from Daniel Pipes
DaveDec 13, 2015 10:58227028
Experimental Pro-Democracy approach [489 words]DemsciDec 13, 2015 10:58227027
2True Muslims Cannot Be Democratic [116 words]UNCLE VLADDIDec 17, 2015 22:29227027
It's about putting conditions upon entry and residence in(to) democratic nations [195 words]DemsciDec 21, 2015 12:57227027
10-15% [28 words]
w/response from Daniel Pipes
BorisDec 13, 2015 03:14227026
2Potential USCIS questions to screen Islamists who reject Constitutional principles [583 words]
w/response from Daniel Pipes
John CavanaughDec 13, 2015 00:23227022
1Outstanding comment [9 words]BillJan 4, 2016 20:46227022
Naturalization of Refugees or Temporary Shelter? [88 words]GaryE.Jan 25, 2016 02:10227022
Screen all incoming persons [206 words]John CavanaughJan 28, 2016 10:32227022
"Trump: You Should Ban Islamists, Not Muslims" [245 words]Leslie SatensteinDec 12, 2015 21:29227017
w/response from Daniel Pipes
DianneDec 12, 2015 21:20227015
The litmus tests [178 words]AnonDec 12, 2015 16:47227009
1Who likes muslims anyway? [150 words]AdDec 12, 2015 14:56227007
Sam Harris "islamophobe" [56 words]
w/response from Daniel Pipes
ElyDec 12, 2015 14:26227006
5The problems is not Muslims, but Islam and our leftists and politically correct leading us to suicide [457 words]Satya DDec 12, 2015 13:40227005
Yes, Islam is the big problem,but because it is multi-interpretable [278 words]DemsciDec 18, 2015 05:21227005
1Wishful Thinking [127 words]UNCLE VLADDIDec 21, 2015 20:01227005
think about total of Quran-Hadits-Sira (1200 years old + unchanged) + what apologists say. [270 words]DemsciDec 24, 2015 10:10227005
The Qur'an itself IS also really only a Hadith! [169 words]UNCLE VLADDIDec 27, 2015 02:30227005
A difficult problem but I strongly differ... [260 words]Doug MayfieldDec 12, 2015 13:38227004
10%-15%? Some 25% of British Muslims polled said the 7/7 attacks were "justified". [45 words]Anon.Dec 12, 2015 13:22227003
1Unworkable? [211 words]Peter ChewDec 12, 2015 12:36226999
Outrageous? [161 words]Peter ChewDec 12, 2015 12:25226998
Perhaps not unconstitutional? [117 words]Peter ChewDec 12, 2015 12:15226996
Is there an exact overlap between Islamists and Jihadist sympathisers? [144 words]Anon.Dec 12, 2015 12:12226995
1Saudi [66 words]BobDec 12, 2015 11:47226993
And the US government can tell? They don't even get CAIR! [120 words]Abu NudnikDec 12, 2015 10:53226989
Nice try,,, [155 words]Wallace SchwamDec 12, 2015 10:13226987
3Misunderstanding of Islam by secularists [415 words]PhilipDec 12, 2015 09:54226985
Time is running out for Muslims [223 words]DemsciDec 19, 2015 00:29226985
who is in charge? [208 words]PhilipDec 21, 2015 07:53226985
Banning Islamists not Muslims [137 words]DonaldDec 12, 2015 09:42226982
Islam its the sea in which Islamists swim [62 words]Anthony ADec 12, 2015 09:32226980
Muslim or Islamist [49 words]
w/response from Daniel Pipes
ECAWDec 12, 2015 08:43226979
6What about the four "normal" in Islam approved methods of deception Takiyya, Tawriya, Kitman, and Muruna? [93 words]Maria Erlinda MartinezDec 12, 2015 02:31226961
9Banning Muslims [35 words]Brian O' ReillyDec 12, 2015 01:55226959
They're just following their book! [85 words]John SDec 12, 2015 19:33226959
Trump Speaks A Truly Inconvenient, and probably Constitutional Truth [355 words]Mike ConlonDec 13, 2015 21:55226959
Good question! [55 words]JaladhiDec 14, 2015 14:23226959
4Just cut off their heads: ban the Islamic cult [150 words]Alain Jean-MairetDec 12, 2015 01:50226958
3Trump is Fine on Islam [208 words]SAKOVKTDec 12, 2015 01:44226957
Kalegri [49 words]John SDec 12, 2015 22:24226957
1moderates are the fifth coloum of the Islamic army of fighters for their caliphate. [166 words]rodney allsworthDec 12, 2015 01:30226956
If they're "moderate" they should be calling the FBI on the killers [41 words]BBernardo StevensDec 12, 2015 09:39226956
12There is no such thing as an "islamist" - their Qur'an calls them "muslims!" And crime-gangs are already illegal. [1169 words]Uncle VladdiDec 12, 2015 00:38226955
2Islamism? [134 words]DajjalDec 13, 2015 21:21226955
3How to convince a majority of democratic citizens [375 words]DemsciDec 14, 2015 06:20226955
2Islam Trumps Nationality [1316 words]Uncle VladdiDec 17, 2015 19:15226955
2"Islamism" = "Islamic," and "Islamist" = "Muslim." [118 words]UNCLE VLADDIDec 17, 2015 19:28226955
1Being Pro Democracy in a habitual clear way rather than being only anti-Islam [458 words]DemsciDec 21, 2015 21:09226955
1Look how apologists turn and twist in whitewashing Islam [348 words]DemsciDec 22, 2015 03:58226955
1It's illegitimate to claim islam is moderate in any way. [86 words]UNCLE VLADDIDec 24, 2015 23:29226955
1Democracy isn't enough [1215 words]UNCLE VLADDIDec 24, 2015 23:47226955
Islam is a monopolist ideology, for sheep, isn't it? [334 words]DemsciDec 31, 2015 03:32226955
Are we ABI or ADATI, do we want only freedom FROM or also freedom To? [142 words]DemsciDec 31, 2015 04:20226955
To know and promote what we are FOR [308 words]DemsciJan 13, 2016 17:36226955
God (Islam) has to be better, or is otherwise superfluous. [340 words]DemsciJan 13, 2016 17:58226955
1Positivist Law is positively BAD [447 words]UNCLE VLADDIJan 17, 2016 22:23226955
1The Lesser-Expectations of Habitual Liberal Racism [578 words]UNCLE VLADDIJan 17, 2016 22:32226955
Encouraged [49 words]DanielDec 11, 2015 23:59226954
2Perhaps [97 words]PHILIORDec 11, 2015 22:54226953
4How do we tell the difference? [49 words]WeMustResistDec 11, 2015 21:01226951
1President Trump's State of the Union Speech [612 words]DaveDec 11, 2015 20:57226950
1Does that also include… [22 words]
w/response from Daniel Pipes
Dan SchwartzDec 11, 2015 20:00226949
2Genuine separation between the two is not possible!! [45 words]JaladhiDec 11, 2015 19:58226948
2Sudden Jihad Syndrome [155 words]Dale EhrgottDec 15, 2015 01:44226948
2the Constitution is not a Suicide Pact [227 words]ktchnsnkDec 11, 2015 19:56226947
4Amusing Article [103 words]BillDec 11, 2015 19:50226946
As they its a distinction without any difference!! [67 words]JaladhiDec 18, 2015 15:30226946
2How to identify "Islamists?" [36 words]
w/response from Daniel Pipes
philleshfanDec 11, 2015 18:49226942
1Lives are at stake [202 words]WeMustResistDec 12, 2015 05:56226942
Interesting 2003 Article... [118 words]philleshfanDec 12, 2015 18:27226942
1Very much so.... [150 words]SoloviewDec 11, 2015 18:45226941
3Muslims Are Required To Be Islamists, or else they are Apostates [421 words]Mike RamirezDec 11, 2015 18:28226940
Quite agree [2 words]VijayDec 11, 2015 17:49226938
7Don't admit moslems [61 words]alexandra rothDec 11, 2015 17:48226937
Good post, Alexander - almost poetic [24 words]Michael SDec 14, 2015 18:54226937
4HOW TO TELL AN ISLAMIST FROM A MUSLIM ? [256 words]Jacques HadidaDec 11, 2015 17:42226935
2in theory, yes - in practice, problems [288 words]JeffreyDec 11, 2015 16:55226933
2Unconstitutional or Too Constitutional to Question? [847 words]
w/response from Daniel Pipes
TL WinslowDec 11, 2015 16:53226932
I know you are, but what am ? [423 words]T.L. winslowDec 12, 2015 12:25226932
1In Response to your piece to ban Islamists, not Muslims [250 words]elaineDec 11, 2015 16:35226930
That is What Trump Meant [108 words]Barry BlackDec 11, 2015 15:56226928
2I've been pushing that the idxeology of Sharia is the problem - not the religion of Islam [267 words]
w/response from Daniel Pipes
DrRJPDec 11, 2015 15:21226925
1Obama is a Closet Muslim [54 words]Brian O' ReillyDec 12, 2015 06:10226925
3Sharia is a "Law" like the Mafia is a "Business!" [252 words]Uncle VladdiDec 12, 2015 16:54226925
1Semantic Games [169 words]DajjalDec 13, 2015 22:17226925
Emergency [42 words]AlbertE.Dec 13, 2015 22:45226925
5... Daniel Pipes [110 words]Michael SDec 11, 2015 14:51226924
Godspeed, Donald Trump! [305 words]Michael SDec 12, 2015 07:36226924

Comment on this item


Email me if someone replies to my comment

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

See recent outstanding comments.

Follow Daniel Pipes

Facebook   Twitter   RSS   Join Mailing List
eXTReMe Tracker

All materials by Daniel Pipes on this site: © 1968-2020 Daniel Pipes. daniel.pipes@gmail.com and @DanielPipes

Support Daniel Pipes' work with a tax-deductible donation to the Middle East Forum.Daniel J. Pipes

(The MEF is a publicly supported, nonprofit organization under section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Contributions are tax deductible to the full extent allowed by law. Tax-ID 23-774-9796, approved Apr. 27, 1998.

For more information, view our IRS letter of determination.)