In "At swearing in, congressman wants to carry Koran. Outrage ensues," Jane Lampman in The Christian Science Monitor (thanks to Long-time reader #6,004) discusses the controversy that has arisen over Muslim Congressman Keith Ellison's apparent plan to be sworn in on the Qur'an, and Dennis Prager's protest:
When America's first Muslim congressman, a Democrat from Minnesota, let it be known he will carry a Koran to his swearing-in ceremony on Jan. 4, conservative pundit Dennis Prager called it "an act of hubris ... that undermines American civilization."
Prager brought this up with me when I was on his show recently. I wasn't surprised, of course, since this controversy has arisen before. But several things need to be clarified.
In the first place, the controversy is essentially over a photo-op. Congessmen aren't sworn in on a book. They line up and raise their right hands and are sworn in collectively. Then, if they choose to do so, they can wait on a long line to get a photo-op with the Speaker, in which the Speaker and the Congressman raise their hands, and someone holds a book -- the Bible, but it could just as well be anything else, as it is not a swearing-in but just a photo-op -- between them.
That said, this is an issue that is going to have to be dealt with eventually. And at that time, I hope there will be some who have the courage to point out that no American official should be taking an oath on the Qur'an, since -- as we have been pointing out here for over three years now -- there are so many elements of traditional and mainstream Islam that are at variance with our system of government, our Constitution, and our entire way of life. But since that is blandly denied and unexamined by the mainstream media and government officials, it is much more likely that Qur'anic oath-taking will be allowed without any discussion at all. And Sharia principles will continue to advance in the United States, most often under the guise of freedom of religion, civil rights, and "diversity" initiatives.
Keith Ellison, meanwhile, is moving into an office in the Longworth House Office Building right next door to that of Colorado's intelligent, perceptive, outspoken and courageous Tom Tancredo. Interesting choice. I wonder if Ellison is interested in the comings and goings in Tancredo's office.
Yup, anyone who disagrees with Keith Ellison is going to be immediately attacked by CAIR in their zeal to promote their one-trick pony...
Cheers,
http://doctorbulldog.wordpress.com
The people who elected Ellison need to have their collective heads examined. Maybe it was something in the water...
What difference does it really make about which book Ellison swears on? If he swears on a Bible we all know he doesn't believe in it. Besides, most politicians are frauds anyway, despite swearing on a Bible. And as the article says who knows what book is really being used. I'm more concerned about what he will do regarding terrorism from his "brothers" then what he swears on. At best he'll just be another political hack screwing over the people-he'll fit in nicely with the rest of them regardless of their beliefs.
Keith Ellison will not advance the Moslem agenda one iota. If anything he will set it back. He's a self-serving moron who answers only to himself. He hates whitey, he hates his fellow blacks, he hates America. But goddamnit, he has a job and a paycheck. And that he doesn't hate.
Again I wish to offer my profound thanks to the voters of Mr. Ellison's Congressional District in Minnesota.....Thank you for your open mindedness and tolerance, YOU COLOSSAL MORONS!.....
"He is trying to marginalize Muslims by making it seem as though any practice of American Muslims is different or 'other' than what America stands for," says Arsalan Iftikhar, CAIR's legal counsel.
I don't know about the 'practice of American muslims', but the contents of their manifestos is most certainly at odds with what America stands for.
O. T. MUCH more important!
Email your congressmen today about Nancy Pelosi's bill to stop racial profiling of Muslims.
And, if you live in Minnasota. Push Ellison to clean up Minneapolis, and the no-go zones.
HI ISLAMSFORLOSERS:
"What difference does it really make about which book Ellison swears on? If he swears on a Bible we all know he doesn't believe in it."
It matters because even if he is allowed to bring the Koran to the ceremony, even for the photo op, that is fracturing American culture and the values upon which the country was founded.
I know I seem petty here about this I'm sure, but this his how subugation of the west will take place, tiny bites (advances)at a time, none of which are serious alone, but the culmination of them will destroy the American fabric. "Give them an inch and they will take a mile" is the old saying.
On the other hand if one swears on the Koran becaue one does not believe in the Bible, then conversly, one then must believe in the Koran. We know what the Koran says, and if this guy believes it then he places himself under Islam, and now we are all in very serious trouble. Islam and Islamic values infiltrating the highest levels of the American government? Even if it is only one member. How long does this remain at one member I wonder? What a big win for Islam!
Pricniples do mean something!
My take on it anyway.
Regards,
Interesting choice. I wonder if Ellison is interested in the comings and goings in Tancredo's office.
Hrm. Maybe Tancredo's office can keep tabs on who goes in and out of Hakim's office...although I suppose the real interesting meetings happen in the mosques on Fridays, away from prying infidel eyes.
sounder-
I see your point. I guess I'm just disgusted with politicians in general-regardless of party or belief they all seem to be a bunch of power hungry, moneygrubbing opportunists who could care less about the will of the people. I'd prefer that none of them swear on any book at all since those pols who are Christian kind of defile the Bible by swearing on it when often they do the damndest things. As for Islam infiltrating government I'm afraid it's too late-many "infidel" pols are already in its pocket. Pelosi and company will do Islamania's bidding regarding airline profiling and probably other things and the Saudis get to pols from both parties with their lobbyists. This whole Ellison flap is a drop in the bucket compared to that.
Ya islamsforlosers,
Your right. Indeed, I as you, are sick of it slipping by everyone. It's all the little gains in cumulation, including the influences already in place as you pointed out that form the big picture. Truly truly alarming!
sounder-
If/when the time comes to literally battle the Islamaniacs in the streets I want these treasonous pols to be dealt with first. Give them all the Mussolini treatment for bringing things to that point. They are even worse than the beheaders themselves.
Our laws are founded on Judao-Christian Principals and Keith Ellisons swearing in allegiance is to them whether he ignores, or even tries to subvert them in anyway will certainly bare scutiny and close watching.
Will he attempt to advocate, and introduce legislation that is tainted with a hint of sharia law in those hallowed halls of our United States Congress?
Will he find sympathetic congressman such dearbornistan's Rep.John Conyers?
Certainly Muslim groups in and outside the US will seek his ear for influence. Mr. Ellison will bear very close watching as to who he associates with in an ideology that is committed to overthrowing not only America but the entire world-- (bar none)!
As noted so clearly in these Surahs:
The Koran instructs not to make friendship with Jews and Christians (Koran 5:51) but to war against them: "When the Sacred Months are over, kill those who ascribe partners to God wheresoever ye find them; seize them, encompass them, and ambush them; then if they repent and observe prayer and pay the alms, let them go their way (Koran 4:5).
"Fight against those who believe not in God nor in the Last Day, who... refuse allegiance to the True Faith from among those who have received the Book, until they humbly pay tribute out of hand." (Koran 9:29)]
"...kill the disbelievers wherever we find them" (Koran 2:191);
"fight and slay the Pagans, seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem" (Koran 9:5);
"murder them and treat them harshly" (Koran 9:123).
"Seize ye him, and bind ye him, And burn ye him in the Blazing Fire. Further, make him march in a chain, whereof the length is seventy cubits! This was he that would not believe in Allah Most High. And would not encourage the feeding of the indigent! So no friend hath he here this Day. Nor hath he any food except the corruption from the washing of wounds, Which none do eat but those in sin." (Koran 69:30-37)
"Strike off the heads of the disbelievers"; and after making a "wide slaughter among them, carefully tie up the remaining captives" (Koran 47:4).
"Instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers"; "smite above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them" (Koran 8:12; cp. 8:60).
"O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites, and be stern against them. Their abode is Hell - an evil refuge indeed" (Koran 9:73).
"slay or crucify or cut the hands and feet of the unbelievers, that they be expelled from the land with disgrace..." (Koran 5:34).
"for them (the unbelievers) garments of fire shall be cut and there shall be poured over their heads boiling water whereby whatever is in their bowels and skin shall be dissolved and they will be punished with hooked iron rods" (Koran 22:19-22)
The problem really is not the Bible or not the Bible, it is Islamic hegemony making yet another advance toward American dhimmism. Ellisons election
is another push in that direction.
You cant put a square peg in a round hole. Ellison does not fit the basic requirements of elected gov official, because he elects to support Islam first, and Islams refusal to accept freedom and democracy, except on its terms, is Anti-American.
Ellison has no place in American politics. He would do better to sign up with CAIR...at least he would be consistant, and his squareness will fit perfectly with CAIRS squareness...
To swear by the Koran means, Ellison will carry the duty of "strike the necks" of unbelievers (47:4; cf. also 8:12)
If this man were in Russian parliment, he would have been given Polonium 210 as part of his meal. Were this to happen to him, the Human Rights and CAIR and ACLU would be very angry indeed.
There is no doubt people have enough hatret towards the old American traditions that they are willing to put such a man in power, even at the expense of their own county?
Rebellious people installed into power the rebellious leaders. There are 14 anti-America senators in power; they have the policy of blame America first. They are there because the rebllious citizens want them there, not by accidents.
I have a question. At some point, either in the ceremony itself or in the "photo op", Ellison will place his hand on the Quran.
1. Will he place his left hand on the book? Wouldn't doing that be a serious insult and mark of disrespect for the Quran?
2. When he places his hand on the Quran, someone else will have to hold the book. Will that person be an infidel? If so, will said infidel wear white gloves as required after the "Quran flushing" riots?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Ellison being sworn in on the Qur'an is as valid and as American as being sworn into office on the book entitled "Masters of Deceit"...
http://www.amazon.com/Masters-Deceit-Story-Communism-America/dp/003027365X
Pricniples do mean something!
My take on it anyway.
Regards,
Posted by: sounder
They do indeed mean something. Same meaning as the German proverb: "Beware of Beginnings".
When it comes to Mein KKKoran we need a ZERO-tolerance policy! And that went out the window so long ago.
So I say let's bring on Gobal Warming so when the bastards come over here for good they;ll find a nice and toasty desert to make their lives comfortable :-)
Even if Ellison is not sworn in with a Qur'an, his insistence on carrying it about is all the excuse one needs -- if one is needed at all -- to use this as the point of departure for discussion of what is in the Qur'an, and what Ellison makes of those passages in it about Infidels, including the kind of thing posted by "Mackie" above.
Let a hundred articles be written about what is in the Qur'an, using the Ellison story as the justification and reason. Anything to get those contents out. And don't stop there. Go into the Hadith, and what they tell us about Muhammad's attitudes toward Infidels. And don't stop there: inform everyone about the role of Muhammad as the Perfect Man, always and everywhere to be emulated, uswa hasana, al-insan al-kamil, and then, once you have made that point, tell your readers and listeners all about the Banu Qurayza, the Khaybar Oasis, Asma bint Marwan and Abu Akaf, little Aisha, the Treaty of Al-Hudaibiyya, "war is deception" and all the rest of it -- all the stuff that Karen Armstrong, for some reason, forgot to include in her hagiographical fantasy.
The excuse exists. Take full advantage.
Hugh,this is exactly what`s needed...give them enough rope !
Duh Swami, might I suggest that you get off your lazy butt and do some research... I did and posted it here. Ellison was put in office primarily by the Somali Vote in the Twin Cities, same problem with Conyers whose constituency is Detroit which is muslim and black and black muslim.
Mr Spencer says:
And therein lies a succint, rational and the only valid argument against using the Qur'an in public life in the west.. (besides it being a war manual and instructions for racist Arab Imperialism).
OT, but relevant:
LONDON - After a Muslim prayer service, ex-spy Alexander Litvinenko was laid to rest Thursday in a rain-swept funeral at London's Highgate Cemetery attended by a Russian tycoon, a Chechen rebel leader and other exiled Kremlin critics.
Just so you all know, Tancredo has defended Ellison on this issue. My guess is he is thinking that blocking Ellison from taking his oath on a Koran could eventually lead to a PC effort to keep people from being sworn in on a bible. As far as I know, they can be sworn in on whatever they want, and in my opinion, considering that the Iraq Study Group is pushing "right of return", this oath stuff is the least of our worries.
http://www.modbee.com/local/story/13069747p-13723091c.html
Ellison's decision drew support from one prominent conservative firebrand, Colorado Republican Rep. Tom Tancredo, who champions a fence along the border with Mexico and thinks that unfettered immigration endangers U.S. culture.
"He wants to take his oath on the Koran, that's fine," Tancredo said. "I think whatever you believe is necessary for you to uphold your obligations to the Constitution, that is fine with me."
HI ISLAMSFORLOSERS:
"What difference does it really make about which book Ellison swears on?...
I know I seem petty here about this I'm sure, but this his how subugation of the west will take place, tiny bites (advances)at a time, none of which are serious alone, but the culmination of them will destroy the American fabric. ...
Principles do mean something!
sounder
_____________________
Yes, Sounder, principles do mean something, indeed!
IMHO, most Americans do not come close to understanding the threat of Islam and jihad as compared to the posters on this board.
The majority need small 'insults' like this to wake up and see the Jihadists' strategy....
The quran swearing in and the 6 Imams on US airways are starting to create a buzz....
docgary
Of course we should never abrogate the constitutional guarantee to worship as we individually CHOOSE. The Constitution of the United States of America gives us all the codified CHOICE to worship, or not, as we individually see fit.
The problem with the Quran, and by extension Islam, is that it does not allow for any CHOICE in matters of religion; therefore is a betrayal of the principles of our nation's foundation and is exactly what the founders of our nation sought to eliminate.
No power in the universe has the right to dictate what, where, or when I worship except me! This is the exact opposite of what is taught in the writings and traditions of Islam and is broadcast loudly and publicly by Muslim clergy on a regular, almost daily, basis.
In the article cited the Council for American-Islamic Relations' Arsalan Iftikhar states that Dennis Prager is “...making it seem as though any practice of American Muslims is different or 'other' than what America stands for." which, by the use of the word 'any' avoids the larger truth that in fact the goals of Islam and American Muslims is in fact contrary to “...what America stands for.”
Representative Ellison will take an oath to “...defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; ...”
If he betrays this affirmation let us deal with him and his supporters as the traitor he is, would or will be.
A memo to Keith Ellison: The kuran teaches Muslims to commit first-degree murder under US legal codes' definition of this crime. The Kuran also teaches the principle of deception against the unbelievers (it is called 'taqiyya' in the Kuran), this term 'unbeliever' includes nearly all US citizens and virtually all or most American officers of the court system as well, which in US legal codes constitutes the crime of PERJURY.
Therefore, the Kuran runs counter to American legal codes and should be banned from ever appearing in any courtroom except as state's evidence.
Clearly, reality is not on Islam's side in this case. This is not bigotry. This is reality.
Please get the Kuran out of the US courtrooms NOW!!!!!
Hugh is right;
If Keith Ellison wants to take his oath of office on the Koran,never mind that he must uphold the the Constitution and the laws of the land established under it. Than there should be a full blown exposee on what and how the Koran is in conflict with everything that America stands for. Its tenants should be layed out on the table and openly discussed among those law makers that should be defending the American people from any totalitarian Ideology that has in its driving force the determination to overthrow the America that we know.
A failure to look at this seriously will be a grave mistake in the years to come. Hopfully knowledgible writers will carefully document any intrusions that violate the protections under the constitution.
This door has now been opened to someone who should be watched carfully and who he interacts with from CAIR, The Muslim Brotherhood (now establishing an office in D.C.),Somalians who may have Al-Qaeda contacts Etc. and to other groups who have clear and determined agendas in our country.
MMM Nariz..."Duh Swami, might I suggest that you get off your lazy butt and do some research... I did and posted it here. Ellison was put in office primarily by the Somali Vote in the Twin Cities,..."
Who cares if it was Somali's or Jehovahs witnesses...he's in. No matter who elected Ellison to Congress needs their heads examined. Somali,s voting him in just proves my point. Islamic hegemony in action...
Question...how many Somali's does it take to get a muslim elected to office in Minnesota?
2nd question...how many Somalis live in Minnesota?
3rd question...how many of those are of voting age?
4th question, Nariz...what do you mean by the word' primarily'?
DC Watson...Masters of Deciet...I read that years and years ago. Hoover tells it like it was then, and still is now. Only musims have replaced communists as the most prevelent liars.
Mackie: You have made the greatest understatement of the new century.
"grave" doesn't begin to cover it in my view.
For example, a case can be made that the Muslim Brotherhood is the largest terrorism organization on earth. After all, the Muslim Brotherhood is the source of al-Qaeda which attacked us more than once! al-Qaeda is responsible for at least 5 million deaths in the Congo war that is going on and barely receiving media coverage. We all know about Sudan, also a bastion of al-Qaeda and carnage. Then there's the Balkans....
Islam may well be here to 'Islamize' our nation, but it is plotting to slaughter our people en masse in the process!!!!!!!!!!!!
Some "agenda." Some would dare call it plotting genocide. Some dare to call it suicidal.
There really should be NO 'discussion' about htis- As Robert pointed out- the Koran goes counter to everthing we stand for and as such should NOT be allowed- period! If we as a society can't take a moral stand, and stick to our resolve about htis issue, then we're not long for this world. IF an American/Iranian/Arab were runningfor office in the middle east NO WAY would they allow them to swear in on the Bible. How is it that we allow foreign opinions to form our policies? This really is an outrage!
The other point is that people running for our congress stand before GOD- the very God of THIS country- NOT some other country, and they either make their oaths, or affirm that they are swearing before OUR God that they will uphold our constitution! Whether the person beleives in God or not is NOT the issue- the fact that they stand before America and agree to swear in before God, is what Americans hold dear and God holds them accountable to. Their beleifs make NO difference.
If a person can Not agree to stand before God, and solemnly swear, then they have no business running our country! If they can't assure the American people that they mean to keep their promisses and swear it before God- then they don't deserve our trust!
We've sunk so far in this country that oaths no longer mean what they once did. Such disregard people have for God and His world, that they will stand before Him, swear, and then break that promise- But I assure them that God WILL hold them accountable for breaking their pledge and oath! http://sacredscoop.com
nfidelion1095:
"The problem with the Quran, and by extension Islam, is that it does not allow for any CHOICE in matters of religion"
and pythagoras:
"The kuran teaches Muslims to commit first-degree murder under US legal codes' definition of this crime. The Kuran also teaches the principle of deception against the unbelievers"
I Could't say it any better!
To uphold the oath of office and the constitution under any guise, belief, or message of the Quran is a paradox.
If Ellison is a believing muslim, he must commence Islam's takeover of the infidels. He has no choice. If he does not believe in doing so, he must be tru to his country and denounce Islam and he does not need the Quran any where near the building he takes his sworn oath in.
This guy has a dilemma, even by the teachings of the Quran.
Let his true colors show for all to see!
He will hold the KKKoran behind his back, crossing the fingers of his left hand while his right takes the Oath.
To be honest, the oath has already been cheapened by all of these greedy dhimmiticians who have sold out to business and to SOWdi interests long ago.
This is just another notch up the treason ladder.
It makes me laugh when the Repubo-bots like Limlaugh and Vanity keep blaming the "bush-haters" for the Dhims' victory in the midterms - rather than to think about all the bribery and influence-peddling that was going on. Besides, the Repubes weren't exactly stellar on border security and related issues either.
Stategical blundedring in the misnomered "war on terror" is not as good way to get a mandate for more either.
The Repubes should look inward and then go back to the Roots and don't forget your core constituency. You can never out-liberal the Dhims but that's what Bush&Co. been doing.
So the Reps and the Dems basically succeeded in sidelining the issues and concerns of a vast majority of the citizens of this country.
I'd love to see a study on the econmoic power of these voters who have now been effectively disenfranchised by both major parties.
Where do these voters go from now on?
Then figure in the many who held their noses "this one more time"...
Now THAT is a HUGE block of disgruntled folk!!
There is absolutely NO HOPE for the Dhimmicrats so the only hope we have is that Tom Tancredo or Mitt Romney can snag the Nomination.
I do NOT want to see another liberalist Republican who is backed by SOWdis and Big International Finance to take on either Obama or Rodham.
THEY will be running an in-your-face liberal either way or maybe even a combined ticket. America stands to be the loser if the only alternative to such a ticket is yet another slick 'N'greasy Big Oil candidate.
Rudy Giuliani also looks like an acceptably independent candidate.
Contrary to the optinion of JIhadwatch on this issue, I feel that every Muslim official should be forced to take oath on Koran, because I do not feel that taking oath on Bible would be at all binding to them.
Contrary to the optinion of JIhadwatch on this issue, I feel that every Muslim official should be forced to take oath on Koran, because I do not feel that taking oath on Bible would be at all binding to them. Taking oath on Koran should, in my opinion should make them respect the oath. I wonder what Hugh or Robert say?
OOps!
I commented before reading Robert's posts.
Sorry, disregard my previous post.
To suggest that "no American official should be taking an oath on the Qur'an" is un-American. That pesky Constitution of ours says: "The senators and representatives...shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." IMHO a good solution would be to keep religious books of all kinds out of our swearing-in ceremonies.
Only muslims have replaced communists as the most prevelent liars.
Posted by: duh_swami at December 7, 2006 02:57 PM
Amen, Swami....Worst of all, their "holy scripture" permits them to.
"To suggest that "no American official should be taking an oath on the Qur'an" is un-American. That pesky Constitution of ours says: "The senators and representatives...shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." IMHO a good solution would be to keep religious books of all kinds out of our swearing-in ceremonies."
That pesky Constitution of ours wasn’t founded on Islamic principles; the form of governance prescribed by the Koran is entirely incompatible with our Western Republicanism. That pesky Constitution also allows for freedom of religion; do you propose that Islamists should be free to wage uncontested jihad in America lest we trample upon their First Amendment rights? If the creators of the Constitution could admit that the security of the Constitution was contingent upon certain moral, ethical and religious principles, what makes you so presumptuous as to think you can divorce the Constitution from those principles? Do you think the Constitution just sprang up ex nihilo? So here we are: cheerfully stripping America of what makes it exceptional and particular (the necessary discrimination of certain values and principles) while bemoaning American’s descent into a borderless, weak, and decadent Third World country. And we wonder why our enemies become emboldened day by day. You forget that Islam is not merely a religion; as practiced by a great majority of Muslims worldwide, it is an all encompassing historical, political and religious construct with imperialist designs (so stipulates the Koran you defend). To “suggest” that "no American official should be taking an oath on the Qur'an" is NOT un-American. To suggest that we should be skeptical of those who make a choice to take an oath on a book that is at extreme variance with the very oath that there are expected to uphold is the exact opposite of un-American. I mean, I know in some instances defending the American way of life in our new Liberal World Order is un-American, but this getting ridiculous. We have decided to become everybody...which really means we will find ourselves to be no one.
dryheat: Oh, come off it, chum!!!
Refusal to admit the Kuran in the courtrooms isn't 'un-American' when you consider what the contents of the Kuran are!!! Among the Kuran's instructions to its adherents are first-degree murder of non-Muslims (which would most likely include everyone in the court, including the judge and jury) and perjury as the Kuran's instructions to non-Muslims iclude "taqiyya" which means to lie to the unbelievers (which again would include just about everyone in the courtroom including judge and jury). Both first degree murder and perjury are major crimes under US law. No book that advocates these crimes under US law has ANY business at all being used in any American court of law. It makes a mockery of the entire judicial process!!!! Or is that what "American" or "constitutional" mean to you?
By the way, at least the Old Testament's 10 Commandments make lying a sin, and that is something that is appropriate for a court of law as justice can only be served by getting at the truth and getting witnesses to tell the truth while providing testimony.
As for being a religion, Islam is as political as it is 'religious' and can and should be reclassified as political ideology and removed from its general status as "religion." It would make our jobs that much easier if we did that.