Islam’s Human Shields
14th March 2026
On X (formerly Twitter) there has been some exchanges between Professor Gad Saad and Ambassador Richard Grenell. Saad has authored several books and his latest, Suicidal Empathy: Dying to be Kind, is scheduled for release May 12, 2026. Saad’s experience as a Lebanese Jew whose family narrowly escaped Islamic violence shapes his understanding of Islam. His studies have helped him understand how the West is an enabler and may well fall as a result. Grenell has pushed back on some of Saad’s posts decrying painting all practitioners of Islam as a threat. Grenell also emphasizes the First Amendment protections for beliefs and peaceful practice.
As I followed this exchange I saw a truth in both viewpoints. As a firm believe in the First Amendment (and all civil rights recognized by our Constitution) I struggle with how America battles Islam within a constitutional framework. Can it be done? I don’t know, but maybe this reframing of the issue is a start:
Islam is a violent/invasive political movement that uses its non-violent practitioners as “human shields” to invoke First Amendment protections for its persistent and embedded civil rights violations.
Recall that the First Amendment isn’t limited to religious belief and practice. It also includes political beliefs as well. That is why the Communist Party was never illegal, and a belief in Communism was never outlawed. What is outlawed is advocating the violent overthrow of the United States (but see discussion of Brandenburg v Ohio below). American history is littered with small communist organizations — communes — that came into and out of existence as the ultimate un-sustainability of its structure asserted itself.
March 15th, 2026 at 00:23
Re: “As I followed this exchange I saw a truth in both viewpoints. As a firm believe in the First Amendment (and all civil rights recognized by our Constitution) I struggle with how America battles Islam within a constitutional framework.”
Many Americans are unaware that several of the Founding Fathers, i.e., John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and John Quincy Adams, debated an amendment forbidding the practice of Islam in the new republic. They saw quite clearly the dangers it presented to the U.S., western civilization and Christianity – and that Islam was utterly incompatible with our founding ideals.
Islam is not just or even primarily a religion; it is a totalitarian way of life and form of conquest disguised as a religion.
One possible avenue would be to outlaw the practice of sharia law. But Muslims themselves will tell you that Islam isn’t Islam without sharia. They would surely resist such a ban, and a sympathetic leftist judge would overturn it.
The problem with Islam is that it recognizes no peers, no other religious traditions as valid. Once a nation is majority Muslim, sharia is declared, and other faiths are outlawed. One cannot legally own a Bible or build a church in Saudi Arabia.
So the question is two-fold: Not just can other religions coexist with Islam, but can Islam coexist with them?
The Koran, Hadiths and Sira – the foundational “trinity” of Islam – provide the answer: There must be eternal jihad (holy war) against the unbelievers (infidels) until all have submitted to the believers and the one true faith.
The jihadists waging war in the name of their prophet are not some sort of “extremists;” they are right within the heart of orthodox Sunni Islam. They are doing as Mohammed did, as their prophet commands them to do. No more, no less.
This is why Islam is incompatible with any other type of society of civilization. Islam recognizes no other way but its own.
There is no “coexistence” with such a fanatical system of belief.
The only choices offered to the non-Muslim are these: 1. Convert to Islam by making the profession of faith 2. Submit to Islamic authority and superiority and pay the jizya tax 3. Enslavement 4. Death (execution).
Or one may take up the sword and resist Islam in that manner as so many have done down through the centuries.
March 15th, 2026 at 06:23
Well said. The problem is that a lot of people in the West, including most of the Crust, think that the evolved Wester Liberal Order is a one-size-fits-all approach to governance that can be stretched to cover incompatible Turd World situations. What is necessary is a realization that what system we operate under amongst ourselves cannot be applied to our relations with incompatible systems like Islam. Just as a body makes a distinction between ‘our cells’ who are free to do what they do and ‘not our cells’ which must be ruthlessly hunted down and destroyed (because that is what they will otherwise do to ‘our cells’), we have to have different standards for people who are of Our Culture and people who are not of Our Culture and who are actively hostile to Our Culture. Things have to get Really Bad before enough people will wake up and realize what needs to be done to actually get it done. We are starting to see this with the struggle between Reform and Restore in Britain, which I would encourage everyone to watch very closely.