Is Islam a Religion?


So many of us keep saying that we want islam banned in Australia.

But how do we do it?

One has to have a clear understanding that it is not simply a denomination that can be included in the free realm of pluralistic society. – Pope Benedict XVI

A lawyer in the UK may have the answer….we already have laws in place that would make it possible for our government to declare islam a deadly ideology and ban it.

graham-senior-milneGraham Senior-Milne, a UK lawyer, has written a detailed paper laying out the laws and the reasons why islam is not a religion. This is the link to the full article:

The following introduces the basic legal concepts. We urge our lawmakers to read the paper and then act according to the law to declare that islam is not a religion.


1. This paper considers the question of whether Islam is a ‘religion’ as that word is defined in UK law; that is, it identifies what the legal criteria are and assesses whether Islam meets those legal criteria.

2. This paper concludes that Islam is not a religion as that word is defined in UK law.

3. Religions and philosophical beliefs attract numerous protections, privileges and rights under the law, so the consequences of not meeting the legal criteria are significant.

4. Of course, to many people the idea that Islam might not qualify as a religion in UK law will be surprising, to say the least (which might explain why, as far as I can see, the question has never been addressed by a UK court). But ask yourself this: ‘On what’s grounds is Islam exempt from the legal criteria that other religions or philosophical beliefs are required to meet?’ There are no grounds.

5. The rule of law requires equality before the law. No-one is exempt. This includes Christianity of course. But (jumping the gun somewhat) in that case there is a very simple answer; it’s called the New Covenant, under which Christians are not required to believe (in fact, are required not to believe) in ‘Old Testament doctrines’ like ‘an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth’. In the case of Islam, there is not and never can be an equivalent to the New Covenant because Muslims believe that the Koran is the perfect and unalterable word of God. This is the critical difference between the two religions in the current context.

6. Before proceeding, I would remind readers of the words of Lord Halsbury in the Earldom of Norfolk Peerage Case [1907] AC 10 HL: ‘Our duty is to the best of our ability to ascertain what the law is, and, having ascertained it, to give effect to it; to alter it or even modify it is the function of the Legislature, and not of your Lordships’ House. No stronger illustration of this principle can be given than when, so lately as 1818, the Court of King’s Bench, with Lord Ellenborough presiding, felt itself compelled to allow a claim to wager of battle [trial by combat] in an appeal of murder, and but for the intervention of an Act of Parliament (59 Geo. III, c.46), some of His Majesty’s judges might have had to preside over a single combat between the appellant and his antagonist.’

7. Thus, the judges in that case felt compelled to enforce a law (trial by combat) that had fallen out of use over 500 years earlier because it was their duty to apply the law and nothing more; they could not alter the law to suit their own opinions.

From there, Graham Senior-Milne goes on to provide plenty of proof that islam can and must be declared a dangerous ideology, and therefore it can, should, and must be banned.

The question for all Australians now is, do we have the same or similar laws in place, and if so, why aren’t our lawmakers in Parliament applying them equally to all?