Read them both. Excellent analysis. I think the voters of Minnesota's Fifth Congressional District deserve to be mocked.

Posted by: FredIsinglass at December 29, 2006 5:52 PM

Don Feder, YES! I could not agree more with his analysis! Utterly demolishes the CAIR dupes and their ilk! Not that they will pay heed or end their hypocrisy. But their much vaunted supremacism (and their braggadocio with respect to the koran or what it can "teach" us) needs to be put in its proper place.

Posted by: J.S. at December 29, 2006 5:57 PM

Wow!

I have faxed each of those articles to my two clueless senators, and my not much better informed congressman, and to Congressman Goode's office.

Posted by: PRCS at December 29, 2006 6:39 PM

Hugh is/was right: This is a teaching moment!

Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at December 29, 2006 6:41 PM

If Virgil Goode is to continue serving in Congress, he needs a refresher course in basic American civics.
--- Mel Lipman

This flap is reinforcing the penchant for self-censorhip against our politicians. It's the 6th Pillar of Islam in action, this time the personal ruination clause, the most powerful one of all.

* 2:61 * 2:64 * 2:96 * 4:41 * 4:47 * 4:55 * 4:160 * 5:13 * 5:41 * 17:7 * 5:59 * 59:2 * 88:1 *

6th PillarObservant Moslems must contribute to a pervasive fear among Infidels that criticizing Islam will entail personal ruination, injury or murder, and could well result in the same for the critic’s family, colleagues, neighbors and, if warranted, even their descendants until the humiliating stain the criticism placed on Islam is cancelled out, and it is guaranteed that no similar criticism will be leveled at Islam again.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at December 29, 2006 7:20 PM

These articles are rubbish and simply rehash Robert and Hugh's orignial analysis.

That said, Ellison should be judged on his performance on the floor and in Committees, which incidentally hasnt commenced yet. Ellison was duly elected in a democratic process. There are some here who are so eager to hang him, without waiting to see how he deals with the important questions when it counts in the chamber.

We will see soon enough how he feels about Israel, counter-terrorism legislation and US military intervention.

Posted by: Haidon at December 29, 2006 9:13 PM

I've long followed the pro-Jihadist press here in Canada -- I know all their tricks. One of the standard refrains of the antisemites at the CBC (also at the BBC) is to make claims (and this is from so-called "news" agencies), to file "news reports" with respect to the future -- it's always anticipatory. Thus, for example, when Ariel Sharon was Prime Minister the antisemites (the despisers of the State of Israel) would constantly make allegations about what Ariel Sharon would be doing tomorrow -- and then, they would predict the miserable fate which awaited the Arabs at the "monstrous" hands of Ariel Sharon. Interestingly, of course, the alleged allegations (always presented in the future tense) never materialized. Ah, what a surprise, eh? also, when Ariel Sharon isn't around, the antisemites will always find yet another boogey-man -- but again, it'll always be addressed in the future tense. It's what is "anticipated" in the minds of the antisemitic hate-mongers -- they're always busily dreaming up yet more fantasized "atrocities" -- which, of course, never actually occur -- but what actually occurs will never be sufficient to stop the deranged, disturbed imaginings of the staff at the BBC or the CCB. These are those with the evil imaginings.

On the other hand, what has been said with respect to Ellison has NOT been based on future speculations -- it's based on the usual, obscene musings about Islam's supremacy and how others must "learn" (as if it's a morally enlightening text) from its marvelous teachings. Well, as has been asked, just what ARE those wondrous teachings? to have school girls beheaded and their heads dumped off to the local Church?? to slit the throat of a journalist while having the victim allege that he's a Jew while the murderers scream Allah Akbar? Then, to hear the similar ravings of this congressmen and his henchmen repeat the same obscene chant -- allah akbar -- should be sufficient to nauseate even the most hardened /calloused.

Posted by: J.S. at December 29, 2006 9:49 PM

Thomas,

Are you also implying that Robert and Hugh's analyses are also rubbish?

C'mon, now. Citations please. You're a smart guy, so let me ask two questions.

Is 5:38 still valid anywhere in the world today?

Do any of the Qur'an's peaceful suras/ayat direct the behavior of Muslims toward non-Muslims?

I know the answer to the first question, but am unsure about the second.

Posted by: PRCS at December 29, 2006 10:03 PM

Yes, this is a teaching moment. Also, be sure to ask Uncle Abid Ellison what he thinks of the continuation of slavery in Sudan and Mauretania.

Posted by: Kepha at December 29, 2006 10:39 PM

Greetings PRCS

Sorry for being less than clear. I'm not saying Robert or Hugh's analyses are rubbish, to the contrary. The articles cited above add nothing new to the debate. I don't think that Robert (nor Hugh) have overreacted to Ellison either; they have merely asked pointed questions that should be answered. At the same time however, both Hugh and Robert have not "judged" Mr Ellison yet. And no one else should.

Of course 5:38 is used widely today to implement huduud, and has undergone a renaissance. I would never dispute this. All I said in my post is that Mr Ellison needs to be judged by his actions in Congress, as those actions are ultimately the indicator of where he stands in the war on terror and the role of Islam in American society. I suspect he will show his true colours sooner than we may think.

But, I'm not going to join the Hon Ray Moore of Virgil Good chorus either. The scoundrel and racist Ray Moore (who is courageous for his stand on the Ten Commandments but thats where my support ends), has essentially argued that Ellison shouldnt be allowed to serve in Congress just because he is Muslim (despite the fact that he was put in office through democratic processes).

All I am saying is that a "wait and see" approach is best. He will reveal himself. Robert and Hugh have raised the necessary questions.

Thomas

Posted by: Haidon at December 29, 2006 11:09 PM

Question 2:

Do any of the Qur'an's peaceful suras/ayat direct the behavior of Muslims toward non-Muslims?

They certainly direct my behaviour towards non-Muslims. Very clearly in many (if not most) cases they do not, as the doctrine of abrogation (according to some ulaema) trumps them. It would be certainly useful to hear Ellison's take on this. But my view is a generally a minority view (as you know too well), and should be taken with a grain (or more) of salt. There are a number of scholars who have challenged the meaning and scope of abrogation however including Mohammed Taha, Mohammed al Ghazali, Kassim Ahmed, Forog Foda and Wael Hallaq (who do not have Ummah wide support).

Posted by: Haidon at December 29, 2006 11:15 PM

Haidon: "We will see soon enough how he feels about Israel, counter-terrorism legislation and US military intervention."

Well he could vote alongside any number of leftwing Democrats on all three scores and it wouldn't be terribly informative, other than to demonstrate that we already have a large 5th column of dhimmis, already working eagerly towards our destruction as a nation. I.e. Would a devout Muslim be all that distinguishable from a left-wing dhimmi at this point in time, in terms of their actual voting record? Probably not. The only difference between them would be the different visions they share in terms of what they think they are working towards in the long-term when they cast their votes. The left-wing dhimmi's (who are largely ignorant about Islam as an ideology and its ultimate aims and goals and so who take Muslim "grievances" at face-value) are imagining a lovely utopia in which all men live in peace and harmony after the evil US military-industrial complex has been destroyed (and gay people marry eachother and live happily ever after after all those nasty right-wing Christians have been eliminated), while devout Muslims would obviously vote in sync with the left-wing dhimmis but with entirely different aims in the long run. Although I can appreciate the basic fairness of where you are coming from in taking that position, the truth is that your litmus test for judging Ellison is entirely inadequate.

Posted by: Caroline at December 29, 2006 11:26 PM

Don Feder is brill . There . I've said it .

Posted by: ewha1 at December 30, 2006 12:00 AM

Fair points Caroline. I suspect that he will vote against Israel, against counter-terror legislation and the like. I think you are right that a devout Muslim may be indistinguishable from a "dhimmicrat" in many respects (except for "moral issues").

But still, his views on Israel, military/development aid to the PA, Egypt and the like, the Patriot Act will be clear. I will wait to see how he votes on these core issues before I judge him. Current indications however are he does not support Israels right to self-defence, he does not support the Patriot Act or other counter-terror legislation, he is a staunch opponent of "racial profiling" in the counter-terror context, suppports recohgnition of the Hamas led PA, et al.

Posted by: Haidon at December 30, 2006 12:14 AM

I did a thread on this very topic today myself- CAIR could care less about Muslims in general except to use them as props to advance their Caliphate ideology here in America and abroad- Dems sadly support this vile group and very soon WILL be passing laws that prevent scrutiny of any Muslim during these war years. CAIR is screaming Islamophobia, and they WILL be quite effective in that any opposition toward radical Muslims will result in outrage and violent reprocussions all over hte world as the world will see us as the racist ones piucking on the poor misunderstood Muzzies. http://sacredscoop.com

Posted by: CottShop at December 30, 2006 12:18 AM

Alarmed Pig Farmer- you hit it exactly on the head- Muslims have just met in a meeting to disguss that very topic, and mark my words- dems will be helping Muslims enact their 'disrespect claus' and world outrage will erupt toward us whenever a bad word is spoke of Islam- It's already happening to a degree as we've seen with all the 'outrages' that have resulted in murder which was NEVER prosecuted or condemned by the world. Yup- Ellison sure is going to 'teach us a thing or two' about tolorance- mainly that there is NO tolorance for anyone outside of Islam- We'll sure get a great view of what being a 'true Muslim' as he has called for is really about

Posted by: CottShop at December 30, 2006 12:23 AM

[Noviana was lucky. On October 29, 2005 she was walking home from school with four teenaged companions, when the group was set upon by machete-wielding attackers dressed in black. Her friends were decapitated.

The inspiration for this atrocity came from which literary work: 1) “The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin” 2) “Sense and Sensibility” 3) “Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm” 4) “It Takes a Village” or 5) “The Koran”?]

Lol sorry- had to do one more comment here- My guess? It takes a village? Or is this a trick question? Because it takes a village is very much like the Koran- I guess I change m7y answer to either it takes a village or the Koran

Posted by: CottShop at December 30, 2006 12:29 AM

Haidon - it would be interesting if we could think of some position that would be peculiarly "Muslim only" that would depart from the short-term Dhimmicrat position in order to serve as a litmus test, like that bit of leftover circle in one of those Venn diagrams that we learned in 9th grade. I'm not sure what it would be, precisely, unless someone put forward a bill in favor of polygamy. But it's not going to come down merely to his voting record. His public comments (in response to pointed questions from informed journalists) and his speeches, as in his recent public comments before a cheering Muslim crowd shouting Alahu Akbhar, will clearly also come into play in terms of evaluating where the guy is really coming from.

Posted by: Caroline at December 30, 2006 12:31 AM

We must support Virgil Goode and condemn Ellison for his arrogance and defiance of the Constitution.

His koran and our Constitution cannot co-exist.

I don't give a fig whether his ancestors were here since the 1700s as he claims or even the 1600s.

His allegiance to Islam and its koran are at odds with the Constitution.

http://islamic-danger.blogspot.com/

Posted by: unicorns62000 at December 30, 2006 12:32 AM

Caroline and Haidon

I can think of some issues where a Muslim is unlikely to have the same POV as Leftists. You (C) mentioned one - polygamy, but I think it very unlikely that it would ever come up, particularly because in this country, it's associated with Mormons. But think of some other issues that are likely to come up - the constitutional amendment on Gay marriage, for instance. Would Ellison vote his party line, and foil attempts of Republicans to do what's needed to make sure that a monogamous heterosexual marriage is the only recognized marriage on the books (which would totally fly in the face of Islam), or would he vote alongside conservatives on this issue? Even then, he could come out with an implausible argument that he's a traditional values Congressman, rather than a Secular Progressive (Bill O'Reilly™), instead of an Islamic fanatic.

Another one I can think of is Darfur, where segments of the Left are still supporting intervention there, given that the GOP is in no mood to go there, having had their head handed to them over Iraq. If the NOI's anti-Semitism ever comes up for discussion, that's something the Left very gingerly touches, whereas he'd find it more difficult to denounce them, since he's a part of it.

On the issue of his oath, I on principle agree more with Michael Medved than with Dennis Prager, except for the fact that it's the Quran that's under discussion here, and not the books of Avesta, Confucius, Adi Granth or anything else. I have a tough time accepting, for instance, somebody swearing to uphold my religious freedom (as in the First Amendment) on a book that has something like 2:193, which enjoins the likes of Ellison to fight me until I either convert or die (since I'm not a person of the book, dhimmitude isn't an option).

As you point out, on other issues, he may simply be on the same spectrum as Barbara Lee and Dennis Kucinich, and it would be hard to tell them apart.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at December 30, 2006 12:59 AM

Thomas,

Thanks.

As I've come to understand it, and as you've stated, the behavior of Muslims towards non-Muslims, as directed by the Qur'an, is open to interpretation.

But sura 5:38 is not. And while you apparently agree, no one has asked Ellison to address either that or any of the other 'ironclad' issues which run afoul of the U.S. Constitution and laws.

Especially not the voters of Minnesota; near as I can tell.

As you know, in their quest to establish 'a pure Islamic state', the Taliban subjected fellow Muslims to such amputations; as do our 'good friends' in Saudi Arabia today.

I believe that if more Americans are made aware of such passages and that some Muslims do comply with them today, they would understand how hypocritical Ellison's upcoming stunt really is.

Unfortunately, too many of them get their information (by way of our clueless media) from the likes of CAIR.

I would add that the two articles are important in that they spread what I feel is an imprtant message to a wider audience.

Posted by: PRCS at December 30, 2006 1:06 AM

IP - Darfur is indeed an excellent example because its an issue where our values as a country are at play but in which the US has ostensibly nothing to gain by intervention (a critical litmus test for the left in terms of advocating intervention) but which favors Muslims if we don't intervene. Great example!

Posted by: Caroline at December 30, 2006 1:16 AM

From Don Feder's article:

Ellison rhetorically inquired of the Dearborn Brethren: “How do you know that Allah … did not bring you here so that you could understand how to teach people what tolerance was, what justice was?”

Right you are, Keith. After all, there are so many shining examples of justice and tolerance in the Muslim world, where minorities are treated with such admirable fairness, justice is impartially administered and respect for human rights is a standard we could all emulate. (Please note the sarcasm here.)
.....................

I've been meaning to comment on Ellison's ludicrous comments about Muslim's teaching Americans all about "tolerance" and "justice", but I don't think I could it better than Feder has.

Posted by: gravenimage at December 30, 2006 1:32 AM

First impressions matter. One of Ellison's first acts after winning election was to meet with, among others, the Six Traveling Imams just before their flight. After the incident, Ellison immediately stirs the discrimination and racism pot with CAIR and NAIF. Judging by this performance, I think we can conclude where his true allegiance lies.

See the Investor's Business Daily article for more:

http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=250126364574564

You are who you affiliate yourself with. To a reasonable person, couldn't his 7 pm meeting with Omar Shahin the night before the flight been seditious? In light of these events, isn't it reasonable to pointedly ask how he reconsiles Islam and the Constitution he is swearing to uphold?

Posted by: No Islam Know Peace at December 30, 2006 2:15 AM

IF Congress comes up with a law that makes speaking out against Islam a hate crime won't the courts have to define what Islam is?

When parents protested it being taught in school the 9th district court said it was a culture.

Whe flying immams or a woman in Tampa airport are looked at too closely it is "racial" profiling.

When the people in Housten don't want a mosque on their street they are religious "Bigots" along with Congreesman Goode.

These are just some of the definations that have come to light recently.
I am sure there are a lot more.

Here is a really good teaching moment. A real definition of Islam.

I found it interesting that when you use our public library online catalogue search it gives you the apologists books on Islam first with no readily apparent reason for doing so. Even though Robert's Pol.Incorrect Guide is there it only shows up if you look it up by Author. The truth about mahammed ain't even on order.

Posted by: auntbea at December 30, 2006 10:11 AM

Where Islam grows knowledge, science and learning dims. That article by Islam Watch was very eye opening. Though they hate knowlege from others they are not beyond plagarism:

Quote:
"To conform to a core Islamic principle of discarding anything from the Jahiliya age, they collected many of original Greek manuscripts from around the kingdom and overseas, translated them into Arabic and destroyed the original transcripts to create an impression that those materials came from the days of Islam. Hence, many of the original Greek manuscripts do not exists and survived only in the Arabic from which Europeans later translated. The translations were mostly done by the Christian, Zoroastrian (Persian) and Jewish sages employed by the Muslim rulers."

No wonder my exmuslim friend (he's of Turkish descent and I am of Greek descent --we are both Canadians) emailed to me: "islam thinks it invented EVERYTHING and that Europe stole it from them. It cannot bear the fact that nonmuslims were blessed by God to be so learned. my education in Turkey was a joke filled with such fantasies at the elementary school level..."

Even so called secular Turkey!

Islam thinks its Gods gift to the world and will lie, kill, steal, behead, and destroy until we all "agree" like those two Fox journalists forced conversions.

ISLAM = NAZISM

Look up what the Nazis did to the fine German Universities and teachings and books when they got into power and youll see how that little slogan keeps on being so accurate on every level in terms of defining Islam!!!

Posted by: THE ALLIES SHALL WIN at December 30, 2006 10:54 AM

ISLAM = NAZISM
or
KuKluxKoran
The 'religion of pieces' is based on Arab supremacy.

Posted by: xqqme at December 30, 2006 12:47 PM

Fedor's article was spot on, but I need to point out an editorial error. The author claims that the following quote is from the koran:

“The last hour will not come before the Muslims fight the Jews and the Muslims kill them, so Jews will hide behind stones and trees and the stone and the tree will say ‘O Muslim. ‘O servant of God! There is a Jew hiding behind me: come and kill him.’”

I know they teach this in Saudi-funded schools, but I do not think this is from the koran (perhaps one of the hadiths). I don't mean to spit hairs, but we have to take care as not to provide ammunition to noxious groups like CAIR that would no doubt use such errors as "evidence" of Fedor's "ignorance.

Posted by: Pavlov's dog at December 30, 2006 2:01 PM

Hugh is right in a previous post. Put Ellison on the spot and demand answers to a lot of very specific questions about his beliefs.

Posted by: sounder at December 30, 2006 2:43 PM

Pavlov's Dog wrote:

Fedor's article was spot on, but I need to point out an editorial error. The author claims that the following quote is from the koran:

“The last hour will not come before the Muslims fight the Jews and the Muslims kill them, so Jews will hide behind stones and trees and the stone and the tree will say ‘O Muslim. ‘O servant of God! There is a Jew hiding behind me: come and kill him.’”

I know they teach this in Saudi-funded schools, but I do not think this is from the koran (perhaps one of the hadiths). I don't mean to spit hairs, but we have to take care as not to provide ammunition to noxious groups like CAIR that would no doubt use such errors as "evidence" of Fedor's "ignorance.
...................

You're right: this is from the Hadiths, Here are the quotes:

Sahih Bukhari Hadith Volume 4, Book 52, Number 176: Narrated by 'Abdullah bin 'Umar: Allah's Apostle said, "You (i.e. Muslims) will fight with the Jews till some of them will hide behind stones. The stones will (betray them) saying, 'O 'Abdullah (i.e. slave of Allah)! There is a Jew hiding behind me; so kill him.'"

Sahih Bukhari Hadith Volume 4, Book 52, Number 177: Narrated by Abu Huraira: Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him."
................

You're right--it's important to be scrupulous with your references, or the cry of ignorance goes up (even when the text is substantively the same). Many people (I'm not saying Pavlov's Dog) seem to think that the Koran itself is peaceful, and that it is only the Hadiths which are violent.

Actually, the Koran itself is full of calls to smite the unbelievers. The Hadiths just add some more "colorful" examples.

Posted by: gravenimage at December 30, 2006 9:46 PM