NY State Senator, brandishing Qur’an, accuses ex-Muslim human rights activist of “bringing hate and poison” into hearings on terrorism

Yet another circus of political correctness and claiming victim status for Muslims, without any honest discussion of how jihadists use Islamic texts and teachings to justify violence and supremacism. More on this story. “Hearing on Terror Includes Heated Debate on Islam,” by Thomas Kaplan in the New York Times, April 8:

In a local reprise of a polarizing Congressional hearing last month on the question of Islam and terror, state lawmakers warned in grave terms on Friday of the threats facing the New York area, while other lawmakers and interfaith groups criticized the proceedings as anti-Muslim and incendiary.

The hearing, which was convened by the State Senate’s homeland security committee, was something of a spectacle: Security was ramped up at the office building in Lower Manhattan where state legislators have work space, and television cameramen easily outnumbered lawmakers.

Adding to the theatrics, the hearing began to great fanfare with testimony from the lawmaker who convened the Congressional hearing, Representative Peter T. King, a Long Island Republican, who has promised further federal inquiries into what he describes as the radicalization of American Muslims.

Mr. King prefaced his comments by noting that “99 percent” of Muslims in the United States are “outstanding Americans” and not terrorists.

It would have been refreshing if King had spoken about stealth jihadists and Islamic supremacists, who are not terrorists, but he still apparently has only a rudimentary understanding of what we’re really up against.

“But the fact is: The enemy, or those being recruited by Al Qaeda, live within the Muslim community, and that’s the reality we have to face,” Mr. King said. “This is not to put a broad brush over a community, but you go where the threat is coming from, and that’s the reality today.”

Mr. King testified at the invitation of Senator Gregory R. Ball, a Putnam County Republican who is chairman of the Senate Committee on Veterans, Homeland Security and Military Affairs. Mr. Ball was criticized by Muslim and interfaith groups as well as a group of Senate Democrats for his inclusion of Islamic law as one of the hearing’s topics; they accused him of exploiting the threat of terrorism to incite a fear of Muslims among the broader public.

But on Friday, as reporters crammed into a low-ceilinged meeting room for the daylong hearing, Mr. Ball defended the scope of the committee’s inquiry, saying that he asked lawmakers to propose other witnesses but received very little input.

“There are some who are more concerned about the front-page press than today,” Mr. Ball said. “I understand politics. But we cannot allow our homeland security to become a political football.”

Among the witnesses whose scheduled testimony provoked the most criticism was Nonie Darwish, an Egyptian-born American who is president of a group called Former Muslims United, and Frank Gaffney, a former Defense Department official who has often criticized Islam.

Ms. Darwish testified on Friday that young people in the Arab world are taught as children to hate America and to look favorably on terrorism. “The education of Arab children is to make killing of certain groups of people not only good,” she said. “It’s holy. It becomes holy in our culture.”

Her testimony was met with an angry rebuke from Senator Eric Adams, a Brooklyn Democrat, who held up a Koran and said that Ms. Darwish was “bringing hate and poison” to the hearing. Mr. Ball tried to quiet Mr. Adams, and their back-and-forth descended into a shouting match, with Mr. Adams suggesting that Mr. Ball was condoning bigotry and Mr. Ball accusing him of pandering to the news media….

Note how Adams uses the familiar Islamic supremacist tactic of accusing that those who report on the hate and poison of jihadists and Islamic supremacists of spreading that hate and poison. He did not, and could not, refute what Nonie Darwish said about the education of Arab children, so he decided instead to shoot the messenger.

And as for a critic of Islam bringing hate and poison into the hearing, which Adams countered by waving around the Qur’an as a talisman, one wonders if he ever bothered to open the book even once. Adams is worried about hate and poison? How about this for starters:

“O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust.” — Qur’an 5:51

“Strongest among men in enmity to the believers wilt thou find the Jews and Pagans…” — Qur’an 5:82

“The Jews call ‘Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah’s curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!” — Qur’an 9:30

“Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” — Qur’an 9:29

“Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks. At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom, until the war lays down its burdens.” — Qur’an 47:4

“Those who reject (Truth), among the People of the Book and among the Polytheists, will be in Hell-Fire, to dwell therein (for aye). They are the worst of creatures.” — Qur’an 98:6

U.S. spending $20 million to remake Sesame Street for Pakistan
Critics call terrorism hearing in Manhattan "anti-Muslim"
FacebookTwitterLinkedInDiggBlogger PostDeliciousEmailPinterestRedditStumbleUponPrint

Comments

  1. says

    “Her testimony was met with an angry rebuke from Senator Eric Adams, a Brooklyn Democrat, who held up a Koran and said that Ms. Darwish was “bringing hate and poison” to the hearing.”

    What a dweeb. What a Know-Nothing. Of course he’s never even looked in the Koran. Hey Eric, here’s what Islam thinks of you:

    “O Prophet! Strive against the Disbelievers and the
    Infidels! Be harsh with them. Their ultimate abode is hell, a hapless journey’s end.” – Koran 9:73

  2. says

    “Mr. King prefaced his comments by noting that “99 percent” of Muslims in the United States are “outstanding Americans” and not terrorists.” –from the article

    But

    “The Portland Press Herald–“Sixty percent of the young group consider themselves Muslim first, American second. Among all young Muslims, 26 percent think that suicide bombings are justified often, sometimes or rarely. Another 5 percent said they “don’t know” or refused to answer.”

    http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/274683/dangerous_percentage_25_of_young_muslim.html?cat=7

  3. says

    Nazism is hated and defeated until today because it is persistently confronted with the truths on its savagery and barbarism. Thus, Islam must also be exposed with the truths, due to its much more dangerous savagery and barbarism since its foundation by the Arabic Pedophile rapist, robber, slave-owner (including sexual slaves such as young Jewish captive girls), and mass murderer of the Jews, Mohammed, and fortunately we have brave people who’re even risking their lives like Dr. Brahmachari of Islam Watch, Dr. Spencer of Jihad Watch here, Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs, Aryaan Hirsi Ali, Geert Wilder, Nonie Darwish and many more! Why do that suspected Islamic Trojan horse and Muslim Brotherhood agent, Hussein Obama and the Socialists hate Churchil so much? Churchill saw through the evil of Islam and Hussein and his crooked Socialist gang can’t stand that! See – http://www.islam-watch.org/AdrianMorgan/Winston-Churchill-Islamism.htm

    Winston Churchill On Islamism
    by Adrian Morgan
    10 April, 2007

    Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill…was born into privilege but he gained first-hand knowledge of Islam in the army. He joined the Fourth Hussars in 1895, and was posted in the North-West Frontier of India (now Pakistan), bordering Afghanistan. During this time, he became a war correspondent, working with full approval of Sir Bindon Blood, chief staff officer of the Chitral relief force. Originally, Churchill’s reports were sent anonymously by telegram and letter to the Pioneer Mail. Eventually he was writing for the London Daily Telegraph under his own name…. Churchill wrote: “Indeed it is evident that Christianity, however degraded and distorted by cruelty and intolerance, must always exert a modifying influence on men’s passions, and protect them from the more violent forms of fanatical fever, as we are protected from smallpox by vaccination. But the Mahommedan religion increases, instead of lessening, the fury of intolerance. It was originally propagated by the sword, and ever since, its votaries have been subject, above the people of all other creeds, to this form of madness.”……

    When he was describing Nazism, Churchill said: “An appeaser is one who feeds the crocodile hoping it will eat him last.” He also said: “Victory will never be found by taking the line of least resistance.” Those words should be heeded. In the current struggle against the spread of Islamism, they are as true today as they were 65 years ago.

  4. says

    Again we can see, in microcosm, the reality that those on the left side of the political spectrum are even worse, usually significantly worse, than those on the right side of such spectrum in comprehending what Islam is really all about. For all those liberals out there who really do understand that Islam is a menace, a gigantic menace to liberty, you must also understand that far more of your fellow liberals remain clueless about Islam than do conservatives. This understanding is crucial. Denying it leads to nowhere.

  5. says

    This guy Adams is holding in his upraised hand the very source of the hate and violence of which he very theatrically accuses other.

    Until proven otherwise I will assume that the august Senator Adams is a “product” of the public schools.

  6. says

    “Her testimony was met with an angry rebuke from Senator Eric Adams, a Brooklyn Democrat, who held up a Koran and said that Ms. Darwish was “bringing hate and poison” to the hearing.

    I wonder if Senator Adams’ Qur’an was written in Arabic….a language he probably cannot read…(I bet he has voted on bills he never read)…As far as “bringing hate and poison“to the hearing, he was the one who brought the Qur’an in.

  7. says

    “[Ms. Darwish’s] testimony was met with an angry rebuke from Senator Eric Adams, a Brooklyn Democrat, who held up a Koran and said that Ms. Darwish was “bringing hate and poison” to the hearing.”

    Careful with that Qur’an, Senator Adams. Wouldn’t want to drop it.

  8. says

    Mr. King prefaced his comments by noting that “99 percent” of Muslims in the United States are “outstanding Americans” and not terrorists.

    Where did Mr. King get this information? 99 percent ? Outstanding Americans? Shame on him for such groveling. While most Muslims here seem to be quiescent the polling of attitudes of Muslims in Europe & the mid-East have been alarming. I don’t know if American Muslim attitudes toward 9/11, bin-Laden, terrorists, Sharia, etc., are much better but Mr. King need not go so far with praise (remember what Muslims are supposed to believe). I don’t think such nervous exaggerations will gain any respect from Muslims – I suspect it just looks like weakness to most of them.

  9. says

    Senator Eric Adams, the Brooklyn Democrat, is in essence a defender and supporter of Islamism.

    He and his uninformed (or quite possibly “ill informed”) fellow useful idiot dupes on the Left (and Right) who approve of Islam, are literally holding the door open for the Islamists. Shame on them.

    If they would only study the original Islamic source material for themselves, they would distance themselves from the Islamic “religion” in a heart beat. A good start would be for them to listen intently and learn from what the brave ex-Muslim Nonie Darwish and others like her have to say…

    http://www.faithfreedom.org/prologue/

  10. says

    “Mr. King prefaced his comments by noting that “99 percent” of Muslims in the United States are “outstanding Americans” and not terrorists.”

    Outstanding?!..Much more like sitting at home waiting for the rads to do their physical dirty work while they build mosques “in peace”..islam is one gigantic snake pit..period.Might explain why arabic writing resembles snake trails in the sand.

  11. says

    Someone needs to put the question straight to them during one of these hearings: “Under what objective conditions would you be willing to support and assist our efforts to stop Islamic terrorism?”

    Muslims’ arguments against anti-jihadist movements are entirely emotional, always boiling down quickly to “hurt feelings” and “humilitation”, if not sometimes crocodile tears. Although someone perhaps should tell them all to grow up, suck it up, and shut up, the most important thing for now is to publicly display and debunk their lethal illogic.

    How is it that in this day and age, Muslims and Liberals can make such a moronic demand as, “We need to hold a hearing on all forms of radicalism,” and not be mocked and lambasted for it? Call them out on it. Acknowledge their feelings, but make them acknowledge their idiocy.

    They’ll whine. They’ll cry. And knowing them, they’ll probably end up with a bomb strapped to their chest. Either way, political correctness and oversized wet diapers can’t keep getting in the way of saving human lives.

  12. says

    Off Topic Off Topic

    Internet Forum: ASK THE IMAM

    Imam: Our first question comes from Ali in western Iraq.

    Ali: In Islam, is it permitted to “take” the goat?

    Imam: In Islam, it is permitted to “take” the goat. But after “taking” the goat, the goat must be killed and sold in the next village. The wearing of shin guards when “taking” the goat is highly recommended as the hooves of the goat are very sharp. That is all for now, time for prayer.

    From the Vilification Front. Other contributors welcome.

  13. says

    p.s. To give an example of what PEW is capable of asking Muslims…they’ve asked Muslims in Islamic countries (Pakistan, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, etc.) questions about whether they favor stoning of adulterers, death penalty for apostates, and the like. So why can’t they ask the same sorts of questions of American Muslims?

    The problems with the “suicide bombing” question are at least these:
    -some Muslims might favor violent jihad attacks against non-Muslim civilians, while rejecting the method of suicidal attacks on the belief that Muslims should not commit suicide.
    -the use of the word “suicide” is less attractive to Muslims than a word like martydom, as in “martydom operations,” i.e., a term that some Muslims actually use favorably.

  14. says

    NY State Senator, brandishing Qur’an, accuses ex-Muslim human rights activist of “bringing hate and poison” into hearings on terrorism
    ……………………….

    Aren’t hearings about *terrorism* going to”intrinsically”deal with “hate and poison”?

    More:

    Note how Adams uses the familiar Islamic supremacist tactic of accusing that those who report on the hate and poison of jihadists and Islamic supremacists of spreading that hate and poison.
    ……………………….

    Yes”and I get so tired of this. Noting the existence of hate and poison is not the same as *spreading* hate and poison”in fact, most often, it is the exact opposite of this.

    The above assertion only works applies to those who take the “see no evil” approach to to hate and poison”pretend that it doesn’t exist, and “all is well”.

    What are such people doing at hearings on Jihad terror in the first place?

  15. says

    “You cannot do anything that the Prophet Mohammed and his companions did not do.”

    Well, that eliminates the use of the Internet, gunpowder, bombs, and flying airplanes into buildings, doesn’t it? Or am I wrong to expect some sort of consistency here?

  16. says

    The only difference between American Mahoundians and those in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia etc, is a body of water and some hills…Why do some people think that as soon as a Mahoundian reaches American shores they become ‘outstanding citizens’?
    That is an unearned and undeserved title…And on top of that it is a lie…There seems to be a sub party to the Democrat party, it’s name is Hezbollah…The Party of AllAH…Who is Adams really working for carrying a Quran and accusing others of hate? What is interesting that none of the other adults there told him to sit down and shut up…

  17. says

    For the umpteenth time, democrat apoligists are tripping over themselves to appease the islamists.

    Refusing, denying, protesting the very truth about islam even when confronted by the living breathing evidence, Ms Darwish. And then accusing her of lying!

    This is hypocrisy and Dhimmitude at its finest.

  18. says

    It is very difficult to pinpoint what Muslims in Democratic Nations really think about Islam and Democracy and where their loyalties lie.

    And so far the prevailing attitude towards Muslims gives them the benefit of the doubt. “Muslim-advocates” hold that all of them are innocent until proven guilty.

    But there are ever rising mountains of clues that:
    A. There is danger, or at least animosity, coming from among the Muslims of the world.
    B. That many, many Muslims indeed have attitudes and perpetrate crimes and detrimental actions towards other humans, under influence of Islam, it’s texts and it’s leaders. Many of the perpetrators shout “Allahu Akbar” or evenly admit Islamic motivation.

    And it seems that for Muslim-defenders no amount of proof will ever be enough to persuade them that many Muslims are not innocent, of some kind of anti-democratic allegiance. Especially they drown out those telling them the proof with accusations of hate-speech, fear-mongering and discrimination or ‘tarring all Muslims with the same brush”.

    But security needs are legitimate, and because of that AND the rising mountains of clues, can’t Democratic Nations evolve towards demanding from citizens very explicit answers and choices about Islam and Democracy? Even considering Muslims by default guilty until proven innocent? Of course only guilty of very specific charges.

    And one specific charge may be: You openly adhere to far too ambiguous and vague most important guiding texts, that have been misunderstood and misused countless times. And therefore it is criminally negligent of you to adhere to those texts before adhering to your nation and it’s laws.

    Even if you interpret those vague and ambiguous texts in a way neutral or friendly to democratic nations and laws, you still must explicitly choose these over the competing Islamic organisations and laws, at loggerheads with them. Failing to do so means you forfeit earned and deserved trust from fellow-citizens.

    We can then take it from there.

  19. says

    That’s what I thought the minute I read: “Mr. King prefaced his comments by noting that “99 percent” of Muslims in the United States are “outstanding Americans” and not terrorists.”
    With muslims, islam comes before everything and how can colonists be considered “outstanding Americans”? The signs of their intention are all over the American map in the form of their mosques and public displays of “prayer”.

    Mr. King has some serious work to do before he fully realizes the full magnitude of the threat.

  20. says

    Among all young Muslims, 26 percent think that suicide bombings are justified often, sometimes or rarely.

    Sometime I get very impatient with these polls. The above sentence means almost nothing.

  21. says

    Huh? That’s a summary of several poll results, the poll having had answers such as “Often,” “Sometimes,” “Rarely,” and “Never.” Any answer other than “never” indicates that the person believes suicide bombings are acceptable. (Believing that something is rarely justified doesn’t change the fact that you believe it’s justified.)

  22. says

    Traeh,

    I think they mean the sum of those responding “justified” “often”, + those responding “sometimes,” + those responding “rarely” = 26%

    My problem is not with the phrasing, which can be clarified by reading the original report at PEW. The issue I have with these idiots at PEW and other such research organizations, 10 years after 9/11, is that in their polls and surveys they won’t ask direct clear relevant and important questions to American Muslims. We still have almost no credible and reliable statistical data from which to base our conclusions about American Muslims views of sharia in the West and violent and non-violent jihad (not just “suicide attacks”). The researchers always steer clear of ever asking them about their views on sharia and jihad.

    Without this information, apologists have been free to make the most extravagant claims about how American Muslims are so moderate, modern, and tolerant.

  23. says

    Hi Kinana,
    I understood perfectly well how the sentence was meant to be read. The problem is that knowing that 26% “often” or “sometimes” or “rarely” think suicide bombing is justified could mean just about anything. It could mean, for example, that 1% often find it justified, 1% sometimes, and 24% rarely. Or it could mean the opposite: that 24% find it justified “often”, while 1% find it justified sometimes and 1% rarely. Or it could mean any other combination of percentages adding to 26. What would be helpful to know is, how many find it justified “often.” And what exactly is meant by “justified.” I’m glad to hear from you that one can find answers to these questions at PEW. Forgive me for being cantankerous.

    My impression is that polls of Muslims have often asked the wrong questions, and often questions that allow only of unclear or vague answers.

    But I haven’t given enough attention to the polls that have been done.

  24. says

    Traeh

    “My impression is that polls of Muslims have often asked the wrong questions, and often questions that allow only of unclear or vague answers.”

    Yes, exactly.

  25. says

    Kinana,
    Excellent points about the problems with polling about “suicide” bombing.

    And you are right that we need to know Muslim attitudes toward features of Islamic law, such as the death penalty for apostates. Polling about that seems to me much more important than polling about terror. Islamic law is the goal of terror and is to me far more worrisome than terror.

  26. says

    “Where did Mr. King get this information? 99 percent?”

    Oh yeah that was just pulled out of a rabbit hat, obviously. And yeah shame on him for making that up and for groveling.

  27. says

    Marylou,

    You write:

    ” “You cannot do anything that the Prophet Mohammed and his companions did not do.”

    Well, that eliminates the use of the Internet, gunpowder, bombs, and flying airplanes into buildings, doesn’t it? Or am I wrong to expect some sort of consistency here?”

    Verse 8:60 is understood to be calling on Muslims to use whatever powers they can to strike terror into the non-Muslims.

    9:5 says “So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.”

    To follow that order today, Muslims would have to make use of modern technology in many circumstances.

    Muslims are also given permission to use anything against the enemy which the enemy may use against them:

    2:194 “The Sacred month for the sacred month and all sacred things are (under the law of) retaliation; whoever then acts aggressively against you, inflict injury on him according to the injury he has inflicted on you and be careful (of your duty) to Allah and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil).”

    9:123 calls upon Muslims to fight the disbelievers who are near them. In the modern world, they wouldn’t be able to get very far in adhering to that command without using modern technology.

    9:123 “O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil).”

    Then 48:16 says Muslims will be called upon to fight a (non-Muslim) people of great military power, until the latter become Muslims or submit to Muslim rule. If the principle of the verse still applies, there is no way Muslims can conquer modern armies by using swords, spears, arrows, and catapults. They have to use modern technology to fulfill this command:

    48:16 “Say to those of the dwellers of the desert who were left behind: You shall soon be invited (to fight) against a people possessing mighty prowess; you will fight against them until they submit; then if you obey, Allah will grant you a good reward; and if you turn back as you turned back before, He will punish you with a painful punishment.”

    Verse 2:216 tells Muslims warfare is ordained for them, whether they like it or not. To avoid casting themselves into destruction (4:29, 2:195), Muslims would have to make use of whatever “Allah provides,” i.e., modern technology.

    The goal of Islam according to the Qur’an, Hadith, Sira, Islamic law, and the majority of Muslims today (who want strict sharia and a caliphate) is to conquer the world and bring it under Islamic rule and convert as many people as possible to Islam. According to the Qur’an (8:39, 2:193, 61:9, 48:28, 9:32-33) and Hadith, Muslims must fight the people until they convert to Islam (or at least accept Islamic sharia rule). There is no way Muslims can accomplish that using primitive weaponry in this day and age.

    9:33 “He it is Who sent His Apostle with guidance and the religion of truth, that He might cause it to prevail over all religions, though the polytheists may be averse.”

    Muhammad made use of whatever technology was available in his time to fight the non-Muslims. The Qur’an, Hadith, and Sira put no limits that would prevent Muslims from using modern weapons and technology. Throughout their history Muslims have always tried to use modern weaponry if it was available to them.

    Muslims believe that Allah will provide for them to make them victorious, and this is why we hear jihadists today talking about how Allah has given them everything from aircraft to explosives to money flowing out of the infidels’ hands and into the Muslims’ hands, the infidels’ wide-open immigration policies, and so on.

  28. says

    Greetings! Wellington,

    A slight disagreement with the last sentence of your comment: “Denying it leads to nowhere”.

    In my opinion, “denying it” leads to:

    a) Supplying the materials and labor necessary to build a scaffold complete, of course, with a sturdy noose.

    b) Volunteering oneself to be the test subject of the stability and strength of the aobove-mentioned items.

    c) Realizing at the last moment of one’s life that all the willing compliance… uh, submission, in the hope of gaining a favorable view from murderous lunatics was for naught.