| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
"On Jan. 4, I will go swear an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States. I'll place my hand on the Quran..." -- from a remark by Keith Ellison quoted in this article
Whether or not the Qur'an is actually used in the ceremony hardly matters. What matters is that Keith Ellison believes -- with the firm faith of the convert, a faith that is often much more firm and often much more fanatical than many a Muslim born into Islam -- that the Qur'an is the uncreated and immutable Word of God. And that Qur'an is full of things about the duty of Jihad, about the duty of behaving toward all non-Muslims with at least ("do not take Christians and Jews as friends" etc.) and at most sheer murderousness ("kill the Unbelievers" etc.).
How does someone who claims that he believes in a faith that is more than a faith, that is an entire way of life, a Total Regulation of Life, a Complete Explanation of the Universe, a way of life that tells its adherents that they must always and everywhere be submissive, and must acquire if they do not already possess the habit of mental submission to Allah, and never to use their own reason to question his will or for that matter his whim, claim to uphold the U.S. Constitution, which is based on a quite different series of premises?
How does a Muslim, who if he is a real Muslim must locate political legitimacy can never reside in the expressed will of mere mortals, but only in the will expressed by Allah in the Qur'an (and as glossed by the Hadith and the Sira) manage to support the political and legal institutions of this or any Infidel country? How can he give such support especially to a country that so noisily makes a fetish of democracy and that expressed will of the people, and enshrines individual rights, not one of which -- freedom of speech including that of mocking any and all belief-systems, legal equality of men and women, and of all religions ("Islam is to dominate, and not to be dominated") -- is protected by Islamic law?
Is Keith Ellison a real Muslim? That is, does he believe that "Islam is to dominate and is not to be dominated"? Does he take Muhammad as the Perfect Man, uswa hasana, al-insan al-kamil? And so does he therefore endorses the attack on the Khaybar Oasis, the murders of Abu Afak and Asma bint Marwan, the consummation of that "marriage" to little Aisha when she was aged nine, and the beheading of the bound prisoners of the Banu Qurayza, and so much more? Either he does, or he doesn't. Either he is loyal to the American Constitution, or he is loyal to Islam, which in every important particular flatly contradicts both the spirit and the letter of the American Constitution, as it does both the spirit and the letter of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Is there not a single reporter in all of the United States -- or especially in the state of Minnesota -- who will look into this? Is there no reporter who will study it? Is there no reporter who will find out what Islam teaches, find out why the Muslim states, instead of becoming signatories to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, concocted a Muslim version that leaves out all of the most important individual rights recognized in the full, real, Infidel version?
Put Ellison on the spot. Ask him about all that. Ask what he thinks is the source of political legitimacy for governments -- any government. Ask what he thinks of the specific rights in the Bill of Rights. Ask what he thinks, while you are at it, about the Arab Muslim treatment of black African Muslims in Darfur, or of other non-Arabs, such as the Kurds in Iraq, or the Berbers in Algeria. Ask him, and keep asking him, until an answer is received.
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.
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.
The excuse exists. Take full advantage.
Posted by Hugh at December 26, 2006 3:34 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
How does he do it? By lying, of course...which is a concept ALSO allowed in the quran.
Posted by: angryeagle![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at December 26, 2006 3:42 PM
Any pol or other asked on TV will be first asked to denounce Goode's letter. Wolf Blitzer read Bay Buchanan a paragraph from the letter and asked her to comment after Begala said Goode was an idiot and a bigot.
Bay Buchanan was flustered. Begala had scripted the Clinton campaign for President in 1992 to call her own brother a bigot. He was doing it over again to her. It was sort of like a rape trial, but they have no shame, and Begala is a good lawyer from UTexas at Austin .
Begala and Blitzer and anyone else will try to take you out with the first question. So you have to immediately counter that.
One way is to say that they use the bigot charge to cover up the Clinton and Bush lack of response before 9-11. Bigot was used by everyone from the WTC 1993 to the present time to avoid doing anything to stop another attack. This is done from the bottom of the FBI, with some exceptions, to the President. Everyone uses the bigot word to cover up doing nothing.
(If you are afraid to say stop immigration, then just say they don't do anything or enough to stop terrorism. )
If you are flustered on defense, just say they use the word bigot to avoid stopping terrorist attacks. This is vague and true, a perfect combination to attack and defend, and they can't easily come back.
Then go on to ask them to denounce the Verse of the Sword.
See
Complete 9-11 Timeline
for what they missed. (They have a matching grant of 10,000 but are short to meet it. They have done more to expose Pakistan and Saudi Arabia's role than anyone else. The 9-11 Families worked with them to do a DVD that is available as well.)
at December 26, 2006 4:03 PM
As Americans, we should not be judging individuals by the religion with which they choose to affiliate themselves. One can never tell how seriously they take the religion, or if their take on it is the same as ours. Damned if I can see how any Muslim can support democracy, but damned too if I can see how any Catholic can support the right to abortion. I still haven't noticed Teddy Kennedy being excommunicated. Let us judge Keith Ellison by Keith Ellison's political history, not by our take on the Koran.
Let us remember that we are better than them. Not judging an individual on the basis of his religious affiliation is one reason we are.
Posted by: Karl Pov at December 26, 2006 4:04 PM
Thanks Hugh for this and all your brilliant posts.
A few words for mr. x
Abed, ellison,
is an arab word you should know.
It means slave (literally),
it means black (as in race),
it means derision behind your back.
You can never be equal
with your mohammedan masters.
You have cast your lot with the devil
and he will take your duties seriously.
Your soul is his, now and forever more.
at December 26, 2006 4:12 PM
Is there not a single reporter in all of the United States -- or especially in the state of Minnesota -- who will not look into this?
No, there is not.
And, even if there were, striclty speaking hypothetically here, the results of putting Keith on the spot would never see print or the airwaves. Self-censorhip, whether impelled by ignorant piety or by 6th Pillar fear, is censorship nonetheless, and full and total at that.
Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at December 26, 2006 4:20 PM
from a letter sent to my Congressman:
"I want to register my profound displeasure at the idea a congressman will take an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution with his hand on the Qur'an (even symbolically). It is especially inappropriate at a time when we are at war with an ideology whose justification is solely derived from this book and the commentaries about it. The Qur'an, Hadith, Sira and the perfect example of Muhammad are deeply at odds with our Bill of Rights, the principle of religious freedom, women's rights and human rights in general; it is also demands loyalty from Muslims solely to the umma al-islamiyya. Most important, it declares permanent hostility toward non-Muslims (most glaringly in Surah 9, see 9:5; 9:29).
Since Mr. Ellison wants to take his oath on this book, maybe he should be asked about what is contained in it and how he would refute the interpretation of it made by our enemies.
Mr. Ellison has troubling associations he should
explain as well. He is closely linked to CAIR (Council of American Islamic Relations), which is an offshoot of the Islamic Association for Palestine--the IAP was formed by a member of Hamas, Mousa Abu Marzook. CAIR was linked to the Holy Land Foundation, since shut down for support of Hamas. Several CAIR officials are in jail for terror-related offenses. CAIR's former chairman Omar Ahmad, said in 1998 "the Koran should be
the highest authority in America." CAIR raised funds for Mr. Ellison's campaign and he was keynote speaker at their annual banquet.
Recently, Mr. Ellison spoke at the National Imams
conference in Minneapolis. He was rubbing shoulders there with Omar Shahin, one of the six Imams kicked off US Airways shortly after, the head of the Islamic Center of Tuscon (which hatched Al Qaeda's Wael Jalaidan and Wadih El-Hage); Islamists like Sirah Wahhaj, unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 NY landmark bombing plot and a "character witness" for Blind Sheikh Rahman; and in the presence of Ashrafuzzam Khan, whose resume includes a stint with the Al-Badr death squads in the Bangladesh War. Bad company?
Ellison and Shahin are also both associated with
American Open University, a radical Islamic school
closely related to Saudi Wahhabis. It's founder,
Jaafarr Idris, has denounced US democracy as "the
antithesis of Islam." Alumni of the AOU include
memebers of the Virginia Jihad Network, who trained to kill American troops overseas. Ellison was part of a session called "American Open University" at the conference and Shahin is a lecturer there.
Mr. Ellison is going to swear loyalty to the US
Constitution at the same time he is having workshops with Islamists who believe no Muslim can pledge loyalty to such Constitution and that Islamic Shari'a law trumps any man-made law. He is going to swear his loyalty on: the Qur'an.
Since he is doing so perhaps he can also give us his take on certain passages from the Qur'an.
"Fight them (fight to kill, qatiloohum) until there is no more fitna (disbelief) and all submit to the religion of Allah alone." (Qur'an 8:39)
"Kill the infidels wherever you find them" 2:191
"The unbelievers are your inveterate enemies." 4:101 "I shall cast terror into the hearts of the infidels. Strike off their heads, strike off the tips of their fingers." 8:12
"Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them, take
them captive, lay siege to them and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they repent and perform the prayers and give alms (convert) let them go." Qur'an 9:5
"Believers take neither Jews nor Christians for your friends." 5:51 "Allah will tear Christians apart for ascribing partners to him." 30:13
The Qur'an is not historical. You cannot consign these verses to history. It is uncreated and the immutable word of God to Muslims. But some verses are abrogated, cancelled, by later ones. This is called "naskh". All those verses of peace and tolerance quoted all the time to Americans? Abrogated. Cancelled. Not valid. Gone. All are cancelled by the Verse of the Sword (9:5) and other Jihad verses of the later Qur'an.
Do you know this? Has any Muslim ever told you this? What does Mr. Ellison think? Does he believe the peaceful verses of the Qur'an are abrogated by the Verse of the Sword? If not, why not? Is the program of military expansion which spread Islam all the way from Arabia to Spain and India, to be resumed when possible? If not, why not? Should Shari'a, Islamic Law, ultimately prevail on Earth? If not, why not?
Could someone ask him these questions?
Posted by: Nick Danger at December 26, 2006 4:27 PM
We are either covered in the word bigot now, or we will be covered in blood in the future. We may not have long to wait.
Battlefields have names like Malmo, Paris, Madrid, London, New York, and the Pentagon in Virginia.
The Battle of the Pentagon of 2001 was a defeat for us. We lost the Battle of the Pentagon. We lost the First and Second Battles of the World Trade Center. Then we lost the battle for hearts and minds of the American people.
We are now met on a battlefield of this great war. Its name is the battle of Virgil Goode, or Ellison's Oath, or the Battle of the Bigots. If we keep losing the Battle of the Bigot Word we will lose this war and be covered in blood, just as they are in Malmo, Sweden. See
Fjordman on the Rape War in Malmo
The "authorities look the other way". Their catchword is bigot. The word bigot flows from every liberals throat. Where the word bigot flies, there will we die. (To paraphrase Shakespeare, a soon to be banned author.)
Posted by: Old Atlantic at December 26, 2006 4:27 PM
"Let us remember that we are better than them. Not judging an individual on the basis of his religious affiliation is one reason we are."
This is fine in a static situation and at peace. But this situation is not static, and we are not at peace. Their Declaration of War is the Koran. They have reaffirmed that on every battlefield of this war from 633 AD Yamama to Barbary Pirates to bin Laden's 1998 Fatwa. They say we are at war. They say its a war to the finish.
But if we do that for Muslim immigration, then we won't be here. That is the reason that Swedes are fleeing Malmo. Sweden is losing the Battle of Malmo . The Muslim immigrants are waging war. They mean to take over and impose Islam and Sharia law.
Posted by: Old Atlantic at December 26, 2006 4:41 PM
s-sgt7; CAIR's website says: "Jihad" does not mean "holy war."
Well that certainly clears up the matter! Do we feel better now?
Posted by: sounder at December 26, 2006 4:43 PM
One argument defeatists use is that its happening in Europe, so we don't have to worry about it happening here. They say we are different, because its not happening here.
It has happened here. The First and Second Battles of WTC were here, as was the Battle of the Pentagon. We are at war in this country.
All the 19 hijackers came as legal immigrants under the laws created by the left.
Posted by: Old Atlantic at December 26, 2006 4:44 PM
I'd rather be a living and free "bigot" then a dead or subjugated liberal.
Liberals resort to ad hominem attacks like "bigot" or "Nazi" whenever they loose the logical argument.
"Islam is a religion of peace" - the famous last words...
along with Custer's "Indian ambush? What Indian ambush?"
Posted by: godfreyofbouillon at December 26, 2006 4:46 PM
Karl,
that sounds good but couldn't that be used as a cover for the "true believers" in the radical version of Islam? I would agree with you on doing that for virtually every other religion. But when we're dealing with a potentially dangerous religion, one like no other I am aware of, should we take such a chance?
It's not that I am worried that Ellison will blow anyone up in Washington but rather the precedent that is being set. By himself, Ellison probably poses no real threat at all. But, if our immigration policies are not changed, I can envision the day when many Muslims will be elected to public office. Then they could form a political bloc that could have real consequences on our laws and the way we live.
He was duly elected to public office that is true. But I for one wish that the voters had been fully apprised of his beliefs. Were they? I wonder.
at December 26, 2006 4:47 PM
Those laws failed, so they have to be changed in the direction to stop the failure, i.e. stop the Muslim immigration.
9-11 was a failure of the immigration laws. Ellison should be asked if he agrees. If not, why not?
Given it is a failure, the answer is to stop Muslim immigration.
Ask Ellison if it was bigotry to stop Japanese and German immigration during WWII or Russian and Chinese immigration during the cold war?
If that wasn't bigotry, why is it bigotry to stop it during this war? Bush has said we are at war. The Pentagon says it will be a long war. So why don't we stop immigration during this war like during wars past?
Why was it not bigoted to stop Japanese and German immigration during WWII?
Why was it not bigoted to stop Russian immigration during the Cold War?
Posted by: Old Atlantic at December 26, 2006 4:47 PM
"I'd rather be a living and free "bigot" then a dead or subjugated liberal." godfreyofbouillon
Live Free or Die.
Live Bigot or Die.
Stopping Muslim Immigration is the Immigration Policy of Peace.
Posted by: Old Atlantic at December 26, 2006 4:49 PM
Don't name call on me.
Don't tread on me.
Don't call me a bigot.
Posted by: Old Atlantic at December 26, 2006 4:50 PM
Old Atlantic: The left loones will say "oh yes we were (as a nation) biggoted in past wars"
Posted by: sounder at December 26, 2006 4:50 PM
Old Atlantic raises some good points.
The question of Muslim immigration into the U.S. will undoubtedly have to be dealt with sooner or later. Our current open-doors policy needs to be seriously looked at to say the least. Several ways of handling this issue have been discussed. Each has its merits.
But I truly believe that the only approach that is guaranteed to work 100% of the time at preventing radical Islamists from immigrating into the U.S. is to not allow any more Muslims to immigrate into the U.S..
Is that being too harsh or unfair in light of defending ourselves from possible terrorist attacks? I know it may sound cruel or un-American to some but it sounds reasonable to me.
at December 26, 2006 4:57 PM
It's not that I am worried that Ellison will blow anyone up in Washington but rather the precedent that is being set.
Look for Moslem Keith to team up with Nancy to introduce a law making it a criminal act to profile Moslems.
This, to me, seems like a silly law. Probably a good PR stunt, but little more. What sense would it make to profile 85% of the TSA workforce? And, they can't very well profile themselves, so who's gonna do the profiling?
Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at December 26, 2006 5:01 PM
Whether or not the Qur'an is actually used in the ceremony hardly matters.
Then by this reasoning, actually swearing to uphold the Constitution hardly matters either; after all, no body really upholds it anyway -- it is all ceremony.
So, I disagree. I say it does matter.
If Ellison has a problem with abiding by the traditions of this country, and the principles upon which it was founded by demanding to be sworn in upon the quran -- he has no business in office and is unfit.
No. He is a sworn enemy.
The only thing of interest will see if there is any challenge to Ellison.
Frankly, I don't think anyone in Washingto has the guts to challenge Ellison.
If this takes place according to Ellison's demands; America is finished. It will be on the road to offical islamization.
In that case, it will no longer be worth defending because it will have abducated any principles worth defending.
I know a lot of good people serving in harms way that say the same thing too.
Ellison must either conform to our established traditions, and does not have a right for force his convictions on our country!
at December 26, 2006 5:02 PM
Re Ellison:
"How does someone who claims that he believes in a faith that is more than a faith, that is an entire way of life, a Total Regulation of Life, a Complete Explanation of the Universe, a way of life that tells its adherents that they must always and everywhere be submissive, and must acquire if they do not already possess the habit of mental submission to Allah, and never to use their own reason to question his will or for that matter his whim, claim to uphold the U.S. Constitution, which is based on a quite different series of premises?" - Hugh
I think someone else here already said it -- they can lie.
at December 26, 2006 5:04 PM
Ellison must either conform to our established traditions, and does not have a right for force his convictions on our country!
Or hang for treason in my opinion!
at December 26, 2006 5:05 PM
Ronald Reagan said: "If we ever forget that we're one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under."
Posted by: sounder at December 26, 2006 5:08 PM
Fitzgerald: What does Mr. Ellison really believe?
Deception. It's about as likely that a belief-system adherent will be direct/non-deceptive/non-hypocritical as a belief-system adherent singing Dean Martin's Amore to a lady in a Burka. It isn't a very poetic or honest belief-system.
http://www.vidiac.com/video/FC967EC5-A051-4AD6-95E2-98F74F34587F.htm
at December 26, 2006 5:22 PM
Mr. POV said: "Let us judge Keith Ellison by Keith Ellison's political history, not by our take on the Koran.Let us remember that we are better than them. Not judging an individual on the basis of his religious affiliation is one reason we are."
With all due respect, sir, even a nominal muslim's 'holy book' dictates to him that he should hate and kill the infidel. The question becomes, do I want to risk the life of my own children to give this heretofore non-violent muslim a chance to prove himself? Based on the last 1400 years of recorded history of the islamic cult's activities and motivations, I don't see how we can hardly warm up to such an idea. For who really knows the hidden, secret or dormant motivations of anyone whose values are based on a book of hate and lies? Was not even Mohammed Atta non-violent up to a certain point in time?
You might feel more comfortable with such a risk, but I am one who would rather not expose my family to giving such men the benefit of the doubt.
Posted by: angryeagle at December 26, 2006 5:32 PM
Anyone can swear anything on anything. It has already been made clear above that the swearing-in is not on a Bible, or on a Qur'an. That is a false issue. The real issue is: what must Ellison believe about the source of political legitimacy, and what does he believe about the contents of the Constitution, and more specifically, he should be asked, in one of the many interviews he will no doubt be giving, about his view of free speech, his view of the legal equality of women, and his view of pluralism -- not as a temporary measure to be supported because for now it protects Muslims, but forever. And he should also be asked if he objects to, and wishes to do his utmost to change, the inequality of women within Islam, the unequal treatment of non-Muslims in Muslim-run states, and much else. In other words, one wants to see whether he forthrightly distances himself, truthfully, from these central aspects of Islam or he does not. Islam is a Total System, and one is not permitted to pick and choose, and it is unlikely that a convert, that is a real enthusiast, will be among those picking and choosing. The attempt to liken Ellison to Senator Kennedy not objecting to, or even supporting, abortion is not quite the same thing. There are many Catholics who long ago reconciled themselves to the practice of abortion. There are not millions of Muslims who have embraced full freedom of speech, and in Muslim societies as well as non-Muslim, or legal equality of the sexes, or equal treatment of non-Muslims, which does not exist in the Western sense even where, in theory -- as in Turkey -- it should.
As for someone's comment about God, what does that have to do here with the price of eggs? We are not discussing anything here but one thing: can a Believer in Islam offer his unfeigned and permanent support to the American Constitution. I find it difficult to imagine how, but of course, just as soon as Ellison begins to explain this to us, I'll be all ears. And I'm sure many others will be just as keen to hear what he has to say.
Posted by: Hugh at December 26, 2006 5:33 PM
So will Ellison demand a prayer room just outside the doors of the Capitals hall of representatives? will he demand a block of seats for his Muslim friends? No doubt Muslims are already making a dash to his door such as CAIR, and the newly established office of the Muslim Brotherhood. Will he work with dhimmi John Conyers to once again revive a bill ( HR 288) to suppress free speech about Islam in congress? Will we hear Ellison take the floor in front of the C- Span Cameras' and practice the art of deception (taquiya)? Will he make trips at government expense all over the middle east promoting his new found power and influence in the Halls of the peoples Government of America?
The answers are more likely --yes.
Posted by: Mackie at December 26, 2006 6:04 PM
You can't back down, you can't chicken out, you can't be afraid, you got to have faith in Allah, and you got to stand up and be a real Muslim.
Ellison believes in Slow Jihad. Slow Jihad’s aim is to replace the Constitution through demographics.
Our fractured democracy is too weak to prevent him from bringing the Qu’ran to our Capitol in 2006. Our national identity has been shaken by gluttony and guilt; and now too many professional men have chosen their personal comfort over the well-being of the Country. America in many ways has become a business instead of a nation.
I’ve come to the opinion that Ahmedinejad may be a blessing. He will force us to face the issue, instead of dying from a thousand cuts. He’s like an inner-city youth with a can of spray-paint. He just can’t help himself.
at December 26, 2006 6:10 PM
Shortly after 9/11, I listened to a conversation between non-Muslim Asians and non-Muslims from the Middle East. Both groups said that, in their respective native languages, the Muslims obsessed with electing just two Muslim senators and a handful of Muslim representatives to Congress. Even with this small number, the Muslims believed that the pressure from "their" politicians and support from the media would put the US on a fast track to being a Muslim nation. At the time, with the rubble still being cleared from Ground Zero, I thought would not be possible. How could I have been so wrong five years ago? Look for Mr. Ellison to be more openly anti-Jewish, look for him to grow a beard and count on him to demand a number of rooms and special accomodations in the House of Representatives for himself and his Muslim staff (halal meals, considerations for the fasting "rigors" of Ramadan, etc. He is dangerous and should be watched very closely.
Posted by: maryrose at December 26, 2006 6:37 PM
here some of the really important stuff we want to know about keith hakim ellison!
hakim do you:
The Reliance of the Traveller. Version 1.06
By Ahmad Ibn Naqib Al-Misri
*** Found in: BOOK E: PURIFICATION.
Chapter E-9.0: Going to Lavatory.
ćĚĎĘ ÇáßáăÇĘ Ýí ÇáÝŐá
E-9.1: Recommended Measures
It is recommended when one intends to use the lavatory:
1- to put something on one's feet, unless there is an excuse (O:such as not having shoes);
2- to cover the head (O:even if only with a handkerchief or other);
3- to set aside anything on which there is the mention of Allah Most High. His messenger (Allah bless him and give him peace), or any revered name (O:like those of prophets or angels). If one enters with a ring (O:on which something worthy of respect is written), one closes one's hand around it;
4- to ready stones (N: or other suitable material (def:e-9.5) ) (O:if one uses them) to clean oneself of filth (N:though water alone is sufficient);
5- to say before entering:
"In the name of Allah. O Allah, I take refuge in You from demons, male and female,"
and after leaving,
"[O Lord,] Your forgiveness: Praise be to Allah who rid me of the hurt and gave me health";
6- to enter with the left foot first and depart with the right foot first (and this, together with (3) and
5- above, are not only for indoors, but recommended outdoors as well);
7- not to raise one's garment until one squats down to the ground (O: to keep one's nakedness covered as much as possible) and to lower it before one stand up;
8- to put most of one's weight on the left foot while squatting;
9- not to spend a long time;
10- not to speak;
11- when finished urinating, for men to squeeze the penis with the left hand from base to head (O: recommended because this is where the urethra is, and for women to squeeze their front between thumb and forefinger) (N: so urine does not exit later and nullify one's ablution) pulling lightly three times (O: this being recommended when one thinks the urine has stopped, though if one thinks it has not, this is obligatory);
12- not to urinate while standing (O: which is offensive) unless there is an excuse (N: such as when standing is less likely to spatter urine on one's clothes than sitting, or when sitting is a hardship);
13- not to clean oneself with water in the same place one relieved oneself, if it might spatter, though if in a lavatory one need not move to a different place;
14- to distance oneself from others if outdoors and to screen oneself;
15- not to urinate into holes, on hard places, where there is wind, in waterways, where people gather to talk, on paths, under fruit trees, near graves, in still water, or in less than 216 liters of running water;
16- and not to relieve oneself with one's front or rear facing the sun, moon, or the Sacred Precinct in Jerusalem.
all inquiring american infidel minds want to know!
at December 26, 2006 6:38 PM
thndrbang1 --
Your presentation above is a typographical nightmare. Is that in the original, or did something happen on your way to the typewriter, like a typhoon or something?
Posted by: remote_control at December 26, 2006 7:02 PM
"You can't back down, you can't chicken out, you can't be afraid, you got to have faith in Allah, and you got to stand up and be a real Muslim"
Keith Ellison in a speech before the Muslim American Society and the ICNA.
In a sane world, these words spoken by any US Congressman before these groups in the current global context (a context in which the Muslim Brotherhood and other jihadist groups support or directly aid those striving to indiscriminately murder Americans worldwide) would immediately provoke an outcry and demands for a Congressional investigation. The fact that Ellison spoke before these radical groups is damaging enough. But, what could he mean by these words? What else could he mean but 'attend to your religious obligations first and foremost'? And what does the Muslim Brotherhood say about religious obligations vis-a-vis the global jihad against the American Infidels?
The issue is treason in a time of war. The ties between MAS and ICNA and jihadist groups should be clarified by Congress and then Ellison should be put on the hot seat. That is what should happen, but it won't. Ellison surely knows it won't happen, hence he brazenly speaks his true mind so soon after the election.
Posted by: JTF at December 26, 2006 7:12 PM
"Fizgerald?" Am I a dummy? What is a Fizgerald?
If someone visited this site and read: "Fitzgerald: What does Keith Ellison believe?" what would they thik?
What is a Fizgerald? Should the world know?
Posted by: monk at December 26, 2006 7:14 PM
"Old Atlantic: The left loones will say "oh yes we were (as a nation) biggoted in past wars"
Posted by: sounder"
Yes, but make them say it. Then show it to people.
Bigot to Leftists is like Infidel to Muslims.
Posted by: Old Atlantic at December 26, 2006 7:23 PM
thndrbang1 --
Your presentation above is a typographical nightmare. Is that in the original, or did something happen on your way to the typewriter, like a typhoon or something?
Posted by: remote_control
remote, that is the original rules and regulations for muslims taking a dump!
straight from the islamic book of fiqh, reliance of the traveler!
at December 26, 2006 8:01 PM
Actually, the inauguration would be a good place for those of you nearby to carry a few thoughtful, large, simple banners, and unfurl them where television crews will see them.
This one comes to mind:
As to the thief, Male or female, cut off his or her hands: a punishment by way of example, from Allah, for their crime: and Allah is Exalted in power. (Qur'an 5:38)
And there are so many others to work with; from Qur'an only. For the masses would be confused by hadith and sira, and the issue is the Qur'an.
Nick Danger's letter to his congressman is loaded with examples of Muslim belief about which Mr. and Mrs. America are clueless.
One not even say anything; just hold up the banners for journalists, and politicians, and our fellow citizens, and the rest of the world to see.
at December 26, 2006 8:04 PM
Good article. People have been conditioned so much that any rational thoughts are suppressed. So I doubt whether any journalist will ask such very relevant questions. I can only pray.
BTW, why was Ellison's election placards green instead of traditional Blue and Red?
Posted by: Desi at December 26, 2006 8:10 PM
To whom does Ellison owe allegiance? If he is truly a Muslem he has sworn to uphold the Koran; which according to everything I have read disallows democracy and the constitution. How will he sware to uphold a document he denys. Interesting.
I the article, those attending the meeting were pronouncing Allahu Akbar. The words Bismi Allah are a routine incantation in Islamic rituals, such as: attending a prayer, marriage, eating, drinking, reading, writing, sleeping...and whatnot. The only times these two extradordinarily holy words are not involked are: Islamic beheadings, slaughtering an animal, waging a war (Jihad), defecating and visisting graves. The words used in these occasions are; Allahu Akbar. One might note that that the words Bismi Allah are not announced during the Islamic cry for prayer. Instead, we hear Allahu Akbar (three times).
Mr. Ellison please explain.
at December 26, 2006 8:13 PM
"One not even say anything; just hold up the banners for journalists, and politicians, and our fellow citizens, and the rest of the world to see."
EXCELLENT PCRS, and when confronted by the media about the signs, simply say "Mr. Ellison wanted to have religious Islamic values from the Koran present on this important day."............for all to see of course!
at December 26, 2006 8:18 PM
Does everybody remember the MSM media going nuts when then candidate Bush was asked who is your favorite philosopher said "Jesus because he changed my heart"? Of course, that was an indication that his personal faith in Jesus makes him unfit for office because the comment revealed Bush's secret plan to make America a Christian theocracy. Even more recently, Bush was repeatedly criticized for using sectarian Judeo-Christian passages in his speeches, which are offensive to "non-believers", and it was suggested that his personal beliefs in Christianity negatively influence his objectivity when making policy decisions, and that Bush is a threat to freedom of religion.
But Jesus was peaceful figure with no aspirations to political power.
Well Ellison has a deep personal faith in a murderer, a robber, and rapist (by the muslims' own historical records) who made violent struggle against non-believers to establish his patented brand of theocracy worldwide mandatory for his followers. And here he is using sectarian language from that religion in one of his speeches and promising that religion will be his inspiration for his policies.
So, the MSM outrage about how it is divisive and offensive to non-muslims for him to be using muslim sectarian terms and beliefs in one of his speeches, and how his personal faith threatens our freedom of religion, and how his personal faith will compromise his objectivity, will start just about now, right....
Well, it won't because liberals are intellectual prostitutes who will sell their soul to the devil they don't believe in if they think that will allow them to get one over on the conservatives.
Unlike Bush praying to the Christian God and consulting Judeo-Christian moral code before making a decision, which according to the media makes him liable to make dangerous, violent decisions (such as the invasion of Iraq), praying to Allah and consulting the Islamic moral code by Ellison, will not lead to any violent or dangerous decisions, right? So, someone who objects to use of Christian terminology in a speech by a public official is motivated by tolerance (in spite of the fact that Christian ideals and moral codes are not violent and have no inherent political aspirations) and anyone who objects to the use of muslim terminology is a bigot (in spite of the fact that Islam teaches violence against and subjugation of nonmuslims and creation of an Islamic theocracy)?
Seems to me Christianity is already subjugated vis a vis Islam in discourse by public officials in this country, and CAIR and Ellison barely got started...
at December 26, 2006 9:11 PM
Hugh I absolutely believe we should put Ellison on the spot- on camera- for ALL of America to witness and put those questions to him- I've read that he has ties with the Muslim Brotherhood herei n America- He NEEDS to address this accusation IF he wishes to serve in our government! http://sacredscoop.com
Posted by: CottShop at December 26, 2006 9:56 PM
thndrbang1 --
I was thinking, for example, of this part of your pasted material:
4- to ready stones (N: or other suitable material (def:e-9.5) ) (O:if one uses them) to clean oneself of filth (N:though water alone is sufficient);
Now what in blazes does that mean? If that little buried "9.5" means to refer to the 5th item on that list, there is nothing there about a "def" [definition?] of an "other suitable material" to replace stones.
Posted by: remote_control at December 26, 2006 10:09 PM
I would like to nominate Steven Emerson to take up the job to expose Ellison and his fellow travellers of CAIR, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc. Glenn Beck has also taken an interest in the worldwide jihad, and maybe he could use his TV and radio shows to spread the word quickly and keep up the pressure.
Posted by: neurorenegade at December 26, 2006 10:10 PM
What l would like to know are the people who are non muslims in Kieth Ellison's district being represented properly? l am sure they stupidly thought they voted for a "Democrat" and not a muslim. maybe they should start asking questions about what Ellison's policies are toward non muslims in his district, when this muslim is grandstanding in Dearborn for muslim rights, what happened to the majority who voted for this "Democrat" who are non muslims?
Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at December 26, 2006 10:17 PM
"Not judging an individual on the basis of his religious affiliation is one reason we are ["better than they are"].
What about ideology? Was it legitimate during World War II to round up those of known Nazi or pro-German sympathies? Of course it was. Was it legitimate, during the Cold War, to keep out of certain positions, and under close surveillance, those who dedication to Communism made it reasonable to think that they would further the political aims of the Soviet regime? Of course it was. The use of the phrase "religious affiliation" is not right. Islam is not only, not even mainly, a "religion" in the Western sense. It is a Total System, and so much of it is about power and politics, in fulfilling the will of Allah in demanding that the Dar al-Islam be constantly expanded, and Infidel lands taken and Infidels themselves killed or subjugated as dhimmis, that the phrase "religious affiliation" is out of place, far too misleading because far too mild.
Whether this was by accident or design is not clear. But the answer is not only that this is not merely "religious affiliation" but religio-socio-political ideology of the most thoroughgoing and uncomrpomising sort, but that in wartime, one deals with not individuals but precisely with groups. We don't stop to ask "is this German in this house a supporter of Hitler, or should we refrain from bombing until we find out, or can we just go ahead becuase it is Germany, as a unit, that we are now fighting. And similarly, we know perfectly well that when we sent Lend-Lease to the Russians, the Soviet army and regime were not really our friends though they were our temporary and most useful allies, and we had no way of knowing how many of the people in the Soviet Union actually admired or liked us, and it didn't matter.
And it doesn't matter today if we align ourselves with this or that state that may not be much to our liking, but is on our side in the confrontation with those promoting the Jihad, whether by violent means, or by all the other means now available.
We are not required to perform an individual study of each Muslim who wishes to come to this country and settle, if we determine that, say, 15% or 30% or 80% or 90% are likely to prove to be at the very least a security risk. We are permitted to calculate likelihoods, and to act on that basis. No different from the determination of when to have a quarantine for health reasons -- one gathers data on the likelihood of danger, and one is perfectly free, and should be, to ban a whole class of people, if many in that class present such a danger, and if the theoretical adherence of all members of that class represents a clear and present and also future danger to our political and legal institutions, and to our own physical security.
That is not only permissible but the only sane way to proceed.
at December 26, 2006 10:22 PM
I saw a report before on keith where he said that he told some of his 'fellow muslims' that they shouldnt question the rights of homosexuals in the united states. IF this is true and IF he really believes that homosexuals should have rights then he is obviously misguided about Islam. Perhaps he's never even read the koran fully, to see sura 9. Perhaps he doesnt know that islam is supposed to dominate the whole planet. Or perhaps he's just lying about the affair and in that case there is no question to what he really believes in. Anyway, something to consider, a bit.
Posted by: bff at December 26, 2006 10:26 PM
Of course, it makes no difference anyway, because he has strong links with CAIR and that alone is enough to question him being in congress in the first place. Like I said, no muslims should be allowed in congress.
at December 26, 2006 10:32 PM
The Free Exercise Clause - The Founding Fathers' Folly
The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment states that " Congress shall not make law interfering with the free exercise of religion".
Until recent years this freedom from religious persecution and tolerance of all religions has served the country well.
However, the recent surge of Islamists into the country who are bent on overthrowing the Constitution and substituting a caliphate dictatorship and sharia religious law would restore religious persecution to a point beyond the pinnacles achieved in ancient cultures. The Islamists would in fact impose an ancient cult upon us all.
They have exploited this noble clause in our Constitution with the clear intent of destroying the Constitution itself, and with it the democratic government of the American people. By claiming to be a religion, they obscure the fact that they adhere to a cult of unmitigated murder against all who are not Islamic: Jews, Christians, Hindu, and all others, are basically regarded as Infidels. Their cult in fact promises every Muslim that murder of any infidel will be rewarded by eternal heaven.
It is now clear that the continued tolerance of this cult will lead to the demise of America from within. They must be stopped, and the cult must be outlawed. Islam is orders of magnitude more dangerous to America than David Koresh ever was (his cult was destroyed by the Clinton legal team with Army help back in the 1990s). Koresh had a mere handful of followers. The Islamists have 5,000,000 or more followers within America now. Their mosques are centers of subversion and support for terrorists. It must be recalled that Islam considers mosques as suitable for weapons storage and holding of hostages. In effect we have a network of potential enemy armories in all our major cities and even some of the smaller cities. You could not ask for a better Trojan Horse setup.
The Islamists have infiltrated all levels of government and education and are focused on imposing limits on our free speech to criticize them through the press and media. They have already with the help of Saudi and Gulf State money threatened the entire American press and media to the point that they all cower and omit critical coverage of the Islamic machiavellian intent on pushing the USA back to the Arabic desert stone age (see Infiltration by Paul Sperry, 2005). Muslims should be immediately discharged from any federal posts where they are concerned with defense, security, education, or national policy.
The Founding Fathers, the Framers of the Constitution, never considered the possibility that a murderous cult would become a massive internal Trojan Horse under the guise of a religion, invoking the Free Exercise Clause. (Hitler is probably saying in hell, If only I had thought of that!).
Congress must act to remove this cult from the protection of the Free Exercise Clause, and then act to stop its expansion through immigration and through birth. This should be the top priority of Congress and the American People.
All who want to see America's future if this cult is allowed to continue unabated in America should read, for example, "Londonistan" by Melanie Phillips, "The Loosing Battle With Islam" by David Selborne, "Al Qaeda in Europe" by Lorenzo Vindino, and "Eurabia" by Bat Ye'Or.
"The Constitution is not a suicide pact" (see Wikipedia for history and application of this statement). However, if the PC Congress does not attack this problem they will soon enough be either dead or bearing the weight of Sharia law, under which they will not be getting those great pensions. If they do not care about the country, maybe they should contemplate their own existence under Sharia. Quick answer: you are not needed, off with your head! Allah Akbar!
at December 26, 2006 10:36 PM
This is a call for all readers to innundate the Minneapolis Star Tribune with letters calling for inquiry on Keith Ellison's alliances with alarming radical Islamic groups such as CAIR, MAS and ICNA. Their e-mail is : opinion@startribune.com. It takes time to craft a good letter, but please take the time. A stand against sharia/Islam must begin with each one of us in a very public forum!
Keith Ellison was supported by the Minneapolis Star Tribune and a very influential DFL (Democrat Farm Labor party). Very few critical letters regarding Ellison's candidacy appeared in the letters to the editor. I wrote several concerning his associations with Nation of Islam and CAIR. None were published. The paper treated these concerns with disdain. And when Dennis Prager called for Ellison to use the Bible for his swearing-in photo op, the Star Tribune only published letters critical of Prager—I know: I sent another letter in support of Mr. Prager. Not published as well. This newspaper deserves to fold, but my hope is at the least it be forced to be representative of opposing, yet valid viewpoints. Please write!
Posted by: conservativegirl at December 26, 2006 10:38 PM
Conservativegirl - I think every newpaper in the country is now totally submissive (Islam won!) to CAIR - we dont wanna get sued. The Fourth Estate has become worthless as a defender of the country.
Posted by: Jimmy Bones at December 26, 2006 10:47 PM
The Minneapolis Star-Tribune is being sold to a private equity group, and the Editor is leaving:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061227/ap_on_bi_ge/star_tribune_sale_8
Posted by: del at December 26, 2006 11:10 PM
Yes, I know Jimmy, but act anyway. Remember what Margaret Mead said: "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever does."
Let's don't allow that "committed group" to be Islamists. Write the star Tribune!
Posted by: conservativegirl at December 26, 2006 11:11 PM
Let us remember that we are better than them. Not judging an individual on the basis of his religious affiliation is one reason we are.
Posted by: Karl Pov at December 26, 2006 04:04 PM
If Islam were a true "religion", you would be right, but it is not. It is a death cult bent on world domination; a religion, political system, and culture all rolled into one convenient, heinous package. The doctrine of islam is totally incompatible with democracy and the United States Constitution. Muslims may live in free, democratic nations as long as they dedicate their lives to overthrowing the existing governments and establishing sharia. They are forbidden to assimilate and befriend non-muslims, so how in the hell can we afford not to "judge" them on the basis of their "religious" affiliation? It's not like they're pious, pacifist, docile sheep, eager to partake of the American dream. Their dream for America is our nightmare and we better never forget that, or America will cease to exist.
You are right about one thing---we are better than them. It is a crime and disgrace that we have been forced to contend with the presence of millions of muslims in America, thanks to the multicultural agenda of a bunch of politically correct, elitist social engineers. They should all be hung for treason.
Posted by: Susanp at December 26, 2006 11:38 PM
Here are some of the folks that supported Keith Ellisons candidacy for the congressional seat.
Vice President Walter Mondale
The Rev. Jesse Jackson
United States Representatives
James E. Clyburn
John Conyers
Artur Davis
Danny K. Davis
Rahm Emanuel
Mike Honda
Jesse Jackson Jr.
Carolyn Kilpatrick
Dennis J. Kucinich
Barbara Lee
Betty McCollum
John Murtha
Donald M. Payne
Charles B. Rangel
Bobby L. Rush
Stephanie Tubbs Jones
Maxine Waters
Mel Watt
at December 26, 2006 11:54 PM
Whats interesting on Ellisons website when he was running for congress of the 5th district in Minnesota, I found that he does not make any mention that he is Muslim in it that I can find.
Note some of the interesting folks attending one of the campaign rallies in the photos
Posted by: Mackie at December 27, 2006 12:11 AM
Hugh said
We are not required to perform an individual study of each Muslim who wishes to come to this country and settle, if we determine that, say, 15% or 30% or 80% or 90% are likely to prove to be at the very least a security risk.
Agreed. And it is a priviledge, not a right, to be allowed to move to the U.S. We, the citizens and our elected representatives, are free to set immigration quotas as we see fit. If we decide only to allow left-handed professional ping-pong players, under whatever justification, then so be it. Or, if we decide for some reason to exclude left-handed professional ping-pong players, so be that too. This is our nation, and we have the right to say who can join us. The number one priority should be excluding those who want to tear down our current legal system and way of life, and replace it with something else, say communism, or sharia law. There can be nothing wrong with taking the safety and well-being of the citizenry into account when setting policy, whether in times of declared war or not.
Posted by: special_guest at December 27, 2006 1:03 AM
Hugh has offered some great questions for Ellison. But even if someone does ask them, Ellison will have his response memorized from CAIR's playbook. A slick politician such as Ellison should have no problem reciting the well-worn mantra that Islam really is peaceful, and anyone who questions that must be a racist/bigot/islamophobe. Our best weapon is education about the dangers of Jihad such as this website provides...so that we can intelligently decipher the taqiyya when it inevitably comes.
Posted by: Xero G at December 27, 2006 1:43 AM
Xero G said
But even if someone does ask them, Ellison will have his response memorized from CAIR's playbook.
Agreed. Our media should ask pointed, relevant questions. But you're right, he's not about to respond, "Okay coppers, you got me! We Muslims were about to take over the world, but you meddling kids messed up all our plans!".
It'll be more like "Islam is the religion of peace, and these irrational and racist fears come from a lack of understanding. These questions you're asking me are the types of questions that I would expect from radical right wing bloggers, and I'm disappointed to be hearing them from a reporter from such a prestigious newspaper as the [insert name of paper here]." To which the reporter will quickly apologize and change the subject to something more acceptable, like the "Gestapo tactics" of the Israeli "occupation".
Unfortunately, it will be quite awhile until the general public catches on to all of the subtleties of the game.
Posted by: special_guest at December 27, 2006 2:38 AM
This little gem has been around for a while. I thought it was quite appropriate for Ellison:
Just replace the word ‘American’ with Australian or any other (non-Mohammedan) nationality and you are right on the money:
Can a good Muslim be a good American?
I sent that question to a friend who worked in Saudi Arabia for 20 years.
The following is his reply:
Theologically - no. Because his allegiance is to Allah…
Religiously - no. Because no other religion is accepted by his Allah except Islam (Koran, 2:256)
Scripturally - no. Because his allegiance is to the five pillars of Islam and the Quran (Koran).
Geographically - no. Because his allegiance is to Mecca, to which he turns in prayer five times a day.
Socially - no. Because his allegiance to Islam forbids him to make friends with Christians or Jews.
Politically - no. Because he must submit to the mullah (spiritual leaders), who teach annihilation of Israel and Destruction of America, the great Satan.
Domestically - no. Because he is instructed to marry four women and beat and scourge his wife(s) when she/they disobey him (Quran 4:34).
Intellectually - no. Because he cannot accept the American Constitution since it is based on Biblical principles and he believes the Bible to be corrupt.
Philosophically - no. Because Islam, Muhammad, and the Quran do not allow freedom of religion and expression. Democracy and Islam cannot co-exist. Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic.
Spiritually - no. Because when we declare “one nation under God,” the Christian’s God is loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred to as heavenly father, nor is he ever called love in The Quran’s 99 excellent names.
Therefore after much study and deliberation…. perhaps we should be very suspicious of ALL MUSLIMS in this country. They obviously cannot be both “good” Muslims and good Americans.
Call it what you wish…. it’s still the truth.
If you find yourself intellectually in agreement with the above statements, perhaps you will share this with your friends. The more who understand this, the better it will be for our country and our future.
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at December 27, 2006 7:26 AM
"But even if someone does ask them, Ellison will have his response memorized from CAIR's playbook."
-- from a posting above
Yes, but the intelligent interviewer, or opponent in a debate, does not merely ask those questions. He pre-empts. He asks those questions, and in asking them also says "Now please don't answer with that pre-fabricated stuff that is supplied by CAIR and of which we are all quite tired of hearing. Please don't simply answer these specific and important questions, to which we need answers, with some vague and meaningless assurances, and attacks on those who intelligently and justifiably raise such matters, with something along the lines of [as another poster wrote] "Islam is the religion of peace, and these irrational and racist fears come from a lack of understanding. These questions you're asking me are the types of questions that I would expect from radical right wing bloggers, and I'm disappointed to be hearing them from a reporter from such a prestigious newspaper as the [insert name of paper here]."
In other words, the intelligent can always find ways to undercut, in advance, the usual nonsense -- and in so doing, win over the audience and cause it to see the tactics of the keith-ellisons of this world for what they are.
Posted by: Hugh at December 27, 2006 10:28 AM
"But even if someone does ask them, Ellison will have his response memorized from CAIR's playbook."
-- from a posting above
Yes, but the intelligent interviewer, or opponent in a debate, does not merely ask those questions. He pre-empts. He asks those questions, and in asking them also says "Now please don't answer with that pre-fabricated stuff that is supplied by CAIR and of which we are all quite tired of hearing. Please don't simply answer these specific and important questions, to which we need answers, with some vague and meaningless assurances, and attacks on those who intelligently and justifiably raise such matters, with something along the lines of [as another poster wrote] "Islam is the religion of peace, and these irrational and racist fears come from a lack of understanding. These questions you're asking me are the types of questions that I would expect from radical right wing bloggers, and I'm disappointed to be hearing them from a reporter from such a prestigious newspaper as the [insert name of paper here]."
In other words, the intelligent can always find ways to undercut, in advance, the usual nonsense -- and in so doing, win over the audience and cause it to see the tactics of the keith-ellisons of this world for what they are.
Posted by: Hugh at December 27, 2006 10:29 AM
Christmas was a very enlightening time for me. I became re-aquainted with cousins, nieces, and nephews from far and wide. We did a lot of reminiscing about my late parents, discussing football, and yes, in my family, politics. The conversations eventaully moved to Islam, and Iraq. My sister's grandson will most likely find himself there before long. He is currently in Hawaii of all places.
As it always happens, the men wind up one place and the women wind up in another place talking about those mysterious things women talk about. We men did not really discuss Islam because we soon found out that we were all on the same page. It is encouraging to find out that in my family, at least, we uderstand the threat. We are under no illusion that we can "peacefully coexist" with Islam. Even my odd, tree hugging Democrat nephew is not happy that his party has accepted Mr. Ellison.
I am encouraged.
Posted by: Pelayo at December 27, 2006 10:54 AM
In other words, the intelligent can always find ways to undercut, in advance, the usual nonsense -- and in so doing, win over the audience and cause it to see the tactics of the keith-ellisons of this world for what they are.
A double-edged sword; the intelligent can always find ways to undercut in advance win over the audience and advance the cause of ellison too.
Posted by: witness at December 27, 2006 11:19 AM
Hugh-
There is an option to "respond to the writer" regarding the Fox article "No Goode: Congressman's Hateful Comments Demand Response" by Susan Estrich from Christmas eve. See http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,238679,00.html
Hopefully you can educate Susan Estrich.
Posted by: JBarsimson at December 27, 2006 1:46 PM
Ellison cant use the Bible because he believes it teaches polytheism...it would be senseless in hie eyes to do such a thing...
Posted by: jihadlove at December 27, 2006 2:15 PM
"As Americans, we should not be judging individuals by the religion with which they choose to affiliate themselves."
Posted by: Karl Pov at December 26, 2006 04:04 PM
Disagreed. This is a common misconception on the JW/DW boards. One need only read to understand the identity of the enemy...Islam.
To use contemporary terminology, it is best stated as, "Don't hate the playa'(Muslim), hate the game(Islam)."
Ellison should be challenged the way Hugh eloquently stated. Prospect of that happening anytime soon?....slim.
Ellison will probably say anything CAIR wants him to. He is merely a shill for them. Knowing Islam, one cannot expect any sort of truth from him or any other Islamist for that matter.
Posted by: awake at December 27, 2006 2:43 PM
Ellison cant use the Bible because he believes it teaches polytheism...it would be senseless in hie eyes to do such a thing...
Too damned bad; what if he believes democracy and representative government is offensive to shariah as specified in the quaran? It would be equally senseless in his eyes to uphold such a representative government.
Ellison is an enemy of the people of the United States; he is more dangerous to the survival of this country than all the nuclear bombs trembling under the monkey's fingertips in Tehran.
Posted by: witness at December 27, 2006 3:00 PM
Indeed Witness.
that's what makes it a contradiction because as there is no division between the secular and the sacred in islam, any form of representative government not stamped approved by the imams is itself polytheism...
Posted by: jihadlove at December 27, 2006 3:17 PM
On their own they are neither good nor bad. For no deed is either good or bad, isolated from the intentions that motivated it."
You will find similar passages from muslims such as Arafat, Azzam Tamimi, etc. Posted by: s_sgt7
Reminds me of another quote I heard once - "The end justifies the means". Can anyone tell me where/how this quote originated?
Posted by: The Goobs at December 27, 2006 3:31 PM
"The end justifies the means"
The famous claim that the end justifies the means was coined by Niccolo Machiavelli in his greatest work The Prince. It was written in 1513 and published after Machiavelli's death in 1532. The Prince is considered one of the most influential works of Renaissance Philosophy.
Machiavelli (1469—1527), the Italian statesman and political theorist turned political thought in a new direction.
While traditional political theorists were concerned with moral evaluation of the state in terms of fulfilling its function of promoting the common good and preserving justice, Machiavelli was more interested in empirically investigating how the state could most effectively use its power to maintain law and order (political science).
The claim that the end justifies the means seems to advocate the use of even immoral means to acquire and maintain political power. What Machiavelli seems to mean by this is, that sometimes in order to maintain law and order it is necessary for a ruler to do things that, considered in themselves, are not right, but which, considered in their wider context, are right because necessary to prevent greater evil.
at December 27, 2006 3:52 PM
Freedom of religion is not an absolute concept. It is generally accepted that the state can place restrictions on religious practices that are seen as seriously immoral and a threat to the state. Am example is the US state forcing mormons to ban polygamy even though this was their religious belief, or placing restrictions on illegal substance use during religious rituals.
Much more austere restrictions can be legitimately enacted against a religion whose doctrine includes loyalty to the umma and sharia over loyalty to state and civil law, and teaches that homicide of non-muslims is a commendable act.
Not only can these restrictions be legitimately put in place, they must be. The reason is this. The limited police power of a modern democracy can only ensure sufficient order in a society if the vast majority of its’ citizens have civic virtues such as honesty and avoidance of violent aggression against fellow-citizens, in large measures. When those traditional civic virtues have eroded, we have seen a decrease in the quality of life as the crime rate goes up because a democratic state cannot simply solve the crime problem by applying absolute police power to the small minority of criminals, as say in communist China. In a democracy, to a great degree the citizens are on an honor system.
As such, the democracy can absorb only a very limited number of people that do not recognize the legitimacy of its' laws and believe that violent overthrow of the democratic government is divinely ordained. Once the numbers of such a group pass a very low threshold, a democracy quickly degenerates into violent chaos that ends in the violent group seizing power.
The argument that the majority of muslims do not act on the muslim belief that homicide of nonbelievers is commendable and on other aspects of violent muslim supremacism is unconvincing. Relatively speaking, only a few communists were engaged in violent class warfare, and that did not mean that communism did not present capitalist countries with a grave threat of violent overthrow.
The muslim claim that the majority of muslims do not condone the militant beliefs of Islam is implausible. If this was so, there would have been at least a single significant muslim movement to reject the doctrine of violent Islamic supremacism over non-believers during the past 1400 years, along with widespread opposition to such ridiculous aspects of Islam such as death penalty for non-muslims that enter Mecca. There isn't such a movement, and the current trend over the past 100 years is the exact opposite (well before the foundation of Israel).
Posted by: godfreyofbouillon at December 27, 2006 6:14 PM
From an Islamic forum www.islamicweb.com
where a Muslim asks many of the same questions of Ellison.
First point: Do you judge by the book of Allah (i.e., Qur’an) or do you judge by what you think is correct? If your answer is that it is the Qur’an that you judge by – and I’ll assume this since you took on oath on the Qur’an in public – then how will you answer to Allah on the Day of Judgment that you made Halaal what He made Haraam? One example is Homosexuality. I am sure you know that in the Religion of Islam, homosexuality is Haraam and there are strict capital punishments in the Shari’ah against it. So what will you tell Allah, O Keith, on the Day where the hair of a child will turn grey because of the Great Fear? What will you tell the Lord of the Worlds, O Keith, on a Day where people will be drowning in their sweat? What will you tell Allah, O Keith, on a Day where men will be dragged onto spikes that will pierce through their skin and will be thrown into the Hellfire in front of everybody, humiliated and disgraced?
What proof do you have from Qur’an and Sunnah that it is Islamic for you to participate in Congress, knowing that they pass judgments that go against the Shari’ah of Allah? How can you obey them in some of the matter, when you know that they actually hate your Religion? And know that they indeed hate your Religion simply because they hate Jihad (fighting), and Jihad is part of our Religion; don’t believe me? Then stand up in Congress or make it clear in a public speech and say that you agree to the words of Qur’an 100% and that you agree with the verses from Surah al-Anfaal (chapter 8), and Surah at-Taubah (chapter 9) and also that you agree with the following verse because Allah has ordained it and He is absolutely correct:
Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which has 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 Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. (9:29)
How can you take the non-Muslims as your protectors, helpers, friends, judges, law-givers, law-makers, law-deciders, when Allah had forbidden it?
Allah says,
O you who believe! Do not take the Jews and the Christians for Awliyaa (protectors, helpers, and/or friends); they are Awliyaa of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them as Awliyaa, then surely he is one of them (i.e., Kafir); surely Allah does not guide the unjust people. (5:51)
(Two interesting replies on the thread. One has to imagine Ellison's reply that satisfied this woman's husband)
Re: Open Letter to Keith Ellison - from a Muslim
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm sure he's heard this all before.
My husband asked him why he supported unislamic things. Too bad I wandered away to find the punch and didn't hear the answer. But, it was apparently satisfactory for my husband to then support Keith.
__________________
(then)
Dear hater,
I thank you for your efforts and the precious personal time that you put into writing this trivial letter. But I can gaurantee you that this letter will not have any impact on Keith Ellison's status as a congrassman or his personal connection to Islam or his personal life nor would make him change his views. However, if any news group gets a hold of this letter, this letter will bring more negative attention towards Islam.
Therefore, for your much needless services to humanity, and Islam- for bringing people out of it, I, the undersigned, declare you're an Idiot.
And, because you didn't disclose your personal information, and the party you represent, I, the undersigned, declare the fact that you're also a Pansy.
Please take my advice seriously and contemplate over it.
Thank You,
ShahRukh Khan
at December 27, 2006 8:20 PM
keerection islamicaweb.com
http://www.islamicaweb.com/forums/showthread.php?t=57386
at December 27, 2006 8:32 PM
One superficial solution is to not swear on any supposed holy book at all. We ought to swear allegiance only to the constitution in this nation, not to any book. Of course, this does not solve the “riddle” of Ellison’s beliefs, not to mention the source of his religious inspiration so to speak.
And with respect to his beliefs, it has been reported all over the press – the same press that adores the “diversity” of having a Moslem congressman -- that he believes in such things gay rights and abortion. How nice. I believe in those principles as well, but I wonder if those are his genuine positions. Ellison must be asked which sort of Islam he adheres to that allows him to reach the positions he does. In the alternative, he can explain that religion plays little or no role in his life. In either case, I would like to hear which it is.
Last, Ellison must explain why (if he is such a “liberal Moslem) he associates with such extreme groups as CAIR. Start talking. Start asking. I want answers.
at December 27, 2006 9:05 PM
The Open Letter To Keith Ellison was noted at JW last month in the following thread:
Jihadists to Jihad Watch: "I pray to Allah that he breaks your hands and poisons your tongue"
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/014218.php
Here's the Open Letter:
http://inshallahshaheed.wordpress.com/?s=ellison
I have cited the referenced website in many of my letters to elected officials (including the Open Letter To Keith Ellison), but it's unlikely that they actually take the time to visit there.
Here's the website homepage. Look into the various categories on the left. Eye opening stuff.
http://inshallahshaheed.wordpress.com/
BTW: I believe the site owner operates in San Francisco.
Posted by: PRCS at December 28, 2006 12:07 AM
If he's a Muslim (at least one who admits to being one) then we all have a pretty good idea what he believes in.
Run for cover as heads may roll!!!!!!!!
Posted by: pythagoras at December 29, 2006 2:29 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)