Islam’s Human Shields

On X (formerly Twitter) there have 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 believer 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 outlawed, and expressing belief in Communism was never illegal. 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 unsustainability of their structure asserted itself.

Americans more or less tolerated small communes, but were particularly averse to Communism in the late 1940s through early 1960s. This was mostly a cultural reality, not a legal one. Again, communist belief is not illegal; advocating the violent overthrow of the United States is. A large majority of Americans of that time perceived that Communism would destroy a way of life that they valued. So being labelled a "communist" was not good for your employment and did not stimulate healthy neighborliness.

Brandenburg was a 1969 Supreme Court decision reviewing a state case where a communist was charged with violating a state law that somewhat said what 18 USC 2385 says:

Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof— Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction. If two or more persons conspire to commit any offense named in this section, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction. As used in this section, the terms “organizes” and “organize”, with respect to any society, group, or assembly of persons, include the recruiting of new members, the forming of new units, and the regrouping or expansion of existing clubs, classes, and other units of such society, group, or assembly of persons.

The key to Brandenburg is the Court's finding that "advocacy" for violent overthrow is protected by the First Amendment "unless this advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." In other words chanting "Death to America" is not "inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action". Nor is preaching "Death to America." Nor is praying aloud "Death to America." Nor is, as recently was done in Gracie Mansion, praying for "the killing of infidels by your sword."

While 18 USC 2385 criminalizes the overthrow of the United States, 18 USC 241 criminalizes action to deprive citizens of their civil rights:

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured— They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

"Killing the infidel" is the ultimate deprivation of civil rights. Jizya would similarly violate civil rights. Rape gangs, as have been operating in Britain and Europe, if operating in the US, would also violate civil rights. Forcing women to don specified headgear in public would violate the civil rights of those women. So on and so forth.

A "religion" (or political ideology) that, when most completely adhered to, demands violations of civil rights and the destruction of governments that protect them, is a clear and present danger. Pointing to some number (even a majority) of "believers" who do not completely adhere to the tenets of that religion or ideology does not eliminate that danger unless those less than devout followers act to effectively mitigate the danger. Are "peaceful" Muslims mitigating the danger? And, if so, is that sufficient to safeguard the civil rights of American citizens and the government that safeguards those rights?

So let's come back to my reframing: Islam is a clear and present danger to the civil rights of American citizens and the government that safeguards those rights, but is using "human shields" to protect itself against criminal prosecution and punishment by that government. If true, then Islam is a legitimate target and the only question is how to minimize damage to the human shields. Our courts need to acknowledge that a system of belief mandating a theocracy and compulsion, not voluntary acceptance, is not protected. The government need not grant tax-exempt status or treatment on parity with other belief systems that are voluntary.

America was founded with religious plurality, yes. But inherent in the First Amendment is voluntariness -- and that is what the courts must examine and not reflexively shy away from. We have plenty of examples -- we just haven't framed it that way. Jehovah's Witnesses don't believe in transfusions. Yet a court can order a transfusion for a JW child even when a parent objects. The court's rationale has been based on a parens patriae jurisdiction but could have just as easily been because the child was not acting completely voluntarily while under the control of the parents. Similarly, confessions are ruled inadmissible in criminal cases if a court determines the statements were not made voluntarily, with full knowledge of rights. In contracts we routinely examine the relative power of the parties and its impact on the voluntary acceptance of the terms of the “agreement.”

If need be we could amend the First Amendment to read:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the voluntary, free, and peaceable exercise thereof; or abridging the voluntary, free, and peaceable freedom of speech, or freedom of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

But courts have shown the ability to interpret such language into the Constitution and other law. If we had judges that fully appreciated the danger to the entire American Experiment that Islam represents, we wouldn't have to contemplate amending the First Amendment. And if the public broadly understood the danger they would enthusiastically support judges who read the Constitution in this way.