Albert Mohler: Islam or Islamism

25 Years After 9/11 The Americans and British are still wrestling with the big challenge we face and a crucial question: Is the big challenge Islam?—or Islamism? The Economist magazine recently published a notable cover story. Where they argued —and I quote: “Islam poses no serious danger. But Islamism and the fear of Islam do.” Then they argue Islam is not a threat, but Islamism is. They define it as a fringe ideology in Islam, the belief that government and society should be guided by Islamic principles. The problem for that theory is that central to Islam not just Islamism, but Islam, is the combination of Islam as a religion and a government. It’s not a peripheral idea to Islam. It’s not a misreading. It’s in the Quran. When you look at Islam, you are looking at a civilizational project. You are looking at a civilizational challenge. And quite honestly we had better recognize it as such.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

We all learned it – or should have – in civics class. Congress makes the laws. The executive branch enforces them. And judges interpret them. But some federal judges in Minneapolis have forgotten it.  Patrick Schiltz, until recently chief judge of Minnesota’s federal district court, just gave a remarkable 90-minute interview to the New York Times. Schiltz and other judges were sharply critical of the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown. And as cases poured in, the judges met, consulted, and developed templates for court orders.  Consider that. Judges personally opposed to administration policy were coordinating their rulings on cases challenging it.  Judges must rule against any president when the law requires it. But judges shouldn’t become a coordinated opposition to policies just because they personally oppose them.   That undermines faith in an impartial judiciary — and in a fundamental safeguard of American government.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In New York City this week, the United Nations is hosting 81st session of the U.N. General Assembly. World leaders, you can count on this, will be discussing the deal President Trump announced with Denmark and Greenland they will allow the U.S. to deploy military throughout virtually all of the nation of Greenland. President Trump posted: “The United States will forever have the complete ability to do what is necessary in Greenland.” This is a big win for the U.S., Greenland - which is a semi-autonomous region of Denmark – and it’s big for Denmark itself. As we watch the world order being re-shaped so dramatically, the polar ice cap becomes a place of vulnerability and military strategy particularly as we see the northern seas become more navigable for sea vessels. This is the work of serious statesmanship. So: When the ink is cleared on this one, let’s be thankful. President Trump is right on this one. This is a three way win. Let’s take it.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Canada legalized Medical Assistance in Dying, or MAID, in June of 2016—with promises of compassion. More than 100,000 assisted deaths later, the reality looks far different. Last year, Canada had more MAID deaths than America had gun homicides -- despite America’s much larger population. And now troubling questions are being raised about MAID.  The family of eighty-three-year old Bridgitte Stegemann says she rejected assisted suicide because of her Christian faith. Later, they say, she lacked the ability to consent and wept inconsolably after learning she was scheduled to die.   Forty-eight hours later, she was dead. Her family says she never gave final verbal consent. They describe her dying with her hands clasped in prayer, covered in her own blood after a botched attempt to start an IV. That isn’t “death with dignity.” It’s something far darker.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

With CNN, Politico, and MS NOW in high dudgeon over being denied access to the White House, you’d think it was the end of democracy.  What it is is the end of hypocrisy. For years, CNN and her confederates have been unified in distorting the news when it comes to Donald Trump, and burying news about the Biden administration. So much so that their behavior hardly gives them any moral high ground.  We should recall well their efforts to stifle reporting on Joe Biden’s mental condition as well as their complicity in covering up the story of Hunter Biden’s laptop, including uncritically platforming the 51 intelligence experts who abused their security clearances to further conceal political damage to the Biden presidency.  They were silent when the Biden administration tried to create a disinformation board and said little else about the exposure of the manifold Biden efforts to censor social media. As they preen over their rights to report truth to power, let us not drown in their crocodile tears about their commitments to truth and free speech.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Supreme Court has long recognized that parents — not the state — have the primary right to direct their children’s upbringing. But Massachusetts apparently wasn’t listening. In December 2024, the state took a 15-year-old girl named Sophie from her home. Her school had been helping her socially transition. When her Catholic parents refused to use a male name or support a gender transition, they lost custody. Her family says they’re now barred from contacting her. This is un-American. Massachusetts doesn’t care more about Sophie than her parents do. And holding traditional Catholic beliefs shouldn’t cost parents their child. How Sophie chooses to live once she’s an adult will be her decision. But while she’s still a minor, disagreement with her parents — even over something this profound — isn’t sufficient reason for the state to replace them. Sophie belongs with her family.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

It seems like every morning lately brings a new warning about artificial intelligence along the lines of, “We’re all going to die!” Dario Amodei—Anthropic’s chief executive—struck the panic chord in a recent essay, arguing AI was advancing too quickly for researchers to continue building it safely. Then billionaire tech investor David Sacks struck back. In a post on X, Sacks rejected the “AI doomerism,” landing a roundhouse punch: “Stop pretending you need anyone else’s permission,” Sacks wrote. “Stop pretending antitrust law has to be suspended so you can form a cartel. Stop pretending you need a regulatory approval process that supersedes product liability.” China’s President Xi is not going to be satisfied with a silver medal in the AI Olympics. Neither should we. Unless and until Congress says “stop” and the president agrees with a signature, the private sector gets to run with the AI ball as far and as fast as it wants.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

205 Democrats voted early this month to leave the door open to packing the Supreme Court. Everyone needs to be paying attention. The original Constitution was silent as to the number of justices on the high court, but from 1866 to 1869, a combination of three statutes and one constitutional amendment put a constitutional imprimatur on the number nine.  The Fourteenth Amendment was ratified on July 9, 1868, by the necessary number of states then, and Secretary of State William Seward formally proclaimed the Fourteenth Amendment as part of the Constitution on July 28, 1868. Less than a year after ratification and certification of the Fourteenth Amendment, Congress completed the work of the Reconstruction Era with regard to the Supreme Court with the passage of the Judiciary Act of 1869. When he came into office, President, Ulysses S. Grant, promptly signed that law. Like the pro-slavery Democrats of antebellum America, the Democrats of today would rather wreck the Constitution than abide by it.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

After commemorating the 25th anniversary of 9/11, let’s remember the adage: when you lose something, do not lose the lesson.  Did we learn the lessons of 9/11? Those lessons include understanding the difference between good and evil, and never to confuse the two—calling evil good or good evil.  That has not been learned. There are vast networks of terrorists in the world—all who want to destroy America and her allies. Much of the terrorist intellectual mindset now has great support in America, itself. Whether we are speaking of allies of the Muslim Brotherhood on our campuses or in Senate and House races, or in the fulminations of too many political activists, pro-Islamist anti-Americanism is more accepted and embraced in America today than at any other time in our history. The lesson now?  We cannot abandon the courage of our convictions from our other anniversary—that is: 1776.  Those convictions, and the teachings about them, in our schools and in our politics, have never been more needed.  We must do everything in our power to reinfuse them.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Last week, Americans commemorated the twenty-fifth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks carried out by Islamist extremists. Afterward, our leaders rightly emphasized that America’s quarrel wasn’t with Muslims generally. And millions of peaceful, patriotic Muslims have made America their home. But tolerance can’t require us to ignore a legitimate question about assimilation. Some beliefs found in significant parts of the Islamic world — about the treatment of women, Jews, religious minorities, or those who leave the faith — are completely at odds with American principles. America has always welcomed immigrants of every faith. But immigration only works when newcomers are willing to embrace our fundamental values — not when they seek to remake our country according to values Americans have rejected. Twenty-five years after 9/11, asking whether we’re doing enough to encourage assimilation isn’t bigotry. It’s common sense.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.