Ah,my congressman. He should have proposed a new immigration law allowing for no more muslims, and an updated sedition law as well. Instead he apologizes. But Bill's heart is in the right place I believe.

Posted by: bob at August 19, 2007 2:39 AM

For once I would like to see a politician who makes a truthful remark about Islam etc not back away from their comments like some scared chicken.

When will they realize that the majority of people will NOT vote them out if they speak their minds on this issue.

They should stop pandering to the left leaning ding bats who are very capable of denying that their asses were on fire even if they saw the flames.

Posted by: Joe Bananas in Pajamas at August 19, 2007 3:24 AM

If the democrats could actually offer something vital to America, then they could actually win a decent number of elections and not have to demand resignations.

Does anyone else picture the DNC as a group of hungry hyenas waiting for terminal illness and/or resignations from Republicans so that they can start cackling and take some political power for themselves?

Posted by: Peter_Wiggin at August 19, 2007 4:06 AM

Latest Message to United States citizen jihad watchers:

We are at the beginning of the sixth day of posting this request at Jihad Watch, and we are up to 33 volunteers. Currently, California is in first place with 5, and Florida places second with 4.

I'm looking for at least two people in every state of the Union who would be willing to purchase a copy of Robert Spencer's Religion of Peace? Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn't and mail it to one of the senators in your state. I'm organizing an effort to get the book simultaneously to all 100 senators, in order to send a strong message.
If we get more than two people per state, we’ll also send copies to the House of Representatives.

If you’d like to be involved, please write to me at traehnam@yahoo.com under the subject heading “Senate,” and tell me the state your senator represents, an email address where I can reach you, and a nickname. No need for your real name. And I will never share your email address with anyone, not even with other volunteers for this project.

And visit www.jihadawareness.blogspot.com to get more info on this project and to leave comments other volunteers can read. You can also see there the growing list of participants in this project, and the states their senators represent. I’ll try to update the list at least once a day. I've also designed a new graphic that might amuse. Scroll down when you get to the site.

Once we have at least two people from every state, we can agree on a mailing date and then each of us can mail a copy of the book on that date.

Right before we do the mailing, we can issue a press release to various media outlets in every state, and in that way announce and explain the mailing. And perhaps we can come up with some other ways of maximizing the effectiveness of this project and gaining as much positive attention as possible.

One of the project's volunteers suggested contacting Rep. Sue Myrick, who started the anti-Jihad caucus in Congress. I'll try to coordinate this project with Rep. Myrick to maximize its effectiveness. I've also been calling various congressional offices to get advice on how best to go about this. And I'll soon contact Regnery, Robert Spencer's publisher, to ask their advice and to see if we can coordinate with them in some way.

Posted by: traeh at August 19, 2007 7:44 AM

Bob says:

"Ah,my congressman. He should have proposed a new immigration law allowing for no more muslims, and an updated sedition law as well."

___

Existing immigration and seditions laws (such as the SMITH ACT, in this country are sufficient to protect us against many of the problems we face. The problem is a.) lack of enforcement, and, b.) awareness of the threat.

After all, what is to worry about when our President, our commander on chief of the armed forces and the Department of HOMELAND SECURITY, believes that Islam is, after all, a "Religion of Peace".

ENFORCE THE SMITH ACT

STOP THE IRAQI REFUGEE ACT H.R. 2265

Posted by: Leave Iraq Now at August 19, 2007 9:07 AM

Why is the unindicted co-conspirator still being asked about these matters? Who died and made CAIR the "ofiicial Muslim voice" in the USA?

Posted by: Crusader at August 19, 2007 9:31 AM

If memory serves me correctly, Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO) did not apologize when whiffs of his cigar smoke filtered into the sanctuary (office) of his fellow congressman, Keith Ellison, causing 'concerns' from the staffers and Cong. Ellison. What countries is the good congressman visiting on his summer break? Inquiring minds would like to know. I would also like to know the content of his speeches. I bet that he is traveling to Muslim countries and that his speeches are not exactly filled with American patriotism. His speeches and interviews need to be watched at all times, especially when outside the US. Like most Muslim politicians, he probably has one message to his fellow believers and another message for the infidels.

Posted by: maryrose at August 19, 2007 9:38 AM

So...am I to understand that an apology was required for muslims, but not for the Hindus? More Islamic supremacism.

From the information given about the "apology" it was not an apology, but an explanation (which is what the word "apology" actually means, but not the way we use it commony). There is a difference.

Posted by: Archimedes2 at August 19, 2007 9:42 AM

Ellison is traveling outside the country, but his spokesman said the congressman typically does not take such remarks personally.

"We will take Bill Sali at his word," Rick Jauert said Friday. "That would be in keeping with Keith's turn-the-other-cheek mentality. He figures if someone has a bad day, chooses their words poorly, we'll give them the benefit of the doubt."

So these comments are offensive to Christians or at least were a swipe at Christians.

Where is the outrage? None.

Are Chirstians so stupid that they don't know when they have been insulted? Or are they so weak politically that they dare not demand an apology?

My guess is they will console themselves by somehow thinking that they are doing Jesus a favor in some way, by remaining quiet.

In reality, they are doing Jesus no service whatsoever.

In fact, the Christians are only encouraging and empowering the islamic jackals who seek only to murder Jesus' followers, by not demanding an apology from Ellison's office for this bald faced insult to Jesus his Christian followers!

Will none dare to demand an apology from Ellison?

(long pause), (another longer pause)

I thought not.

Posted by: witness at August 19, 2007 9:52 AM

There is no doubt that the American political and legal system flatly contradicts, and is flatly contradicted by, Islam. There is no doubt that the Founding Fathers could never have imagined that Muslims would live in this country. Indded, it was until just a few decades ago a fantastic idea that more than a handful of Muslims -- and those of course not citizens -- would exist in Western Europe.

Such an attitude was also held by Muslims. For traditionally Muslims were informed by their clerics that it was impermissible to move to non-Muslim countries and thus to endure rule by non-Muslims. Latterly that has changed. It is permissible, if in doing so those non-Muslims allow full Muslim worship and, of course, then the Muslim presence can not only be permitted but encouraged, even possibly commanded (in Islam there are two categories: the Commanded, and the Prohibited), if those Muslims are engaged in the struggle konwn as Jihad, that is the struggle to remove all obstacles to the spread of Islam, and to work, employing all conceivable and effective instruments including the Money Weapon, Da'wa, and demographic conquest (outright military conquest at this point is not possible, and the only kind of "qitaal" or military combat that is possible is the variant that we Infidels clearly identify as "terrorism" but that Muslims very clearly do not). For that has now been taken to justify the presence of Muslims in what are assumed to be -- and may be -- lands only temporarily in the hands of non-Muslims.

The Congressman did not need to apologize. He needed to something that would have, however, required him to spend time. He would have had to learn a good deal more about Islam. He would have had to understand that the foundation of advanced Western democracies is the belief that political legitimacy of any government can be located, must be located, in the will expressed -- however imperfectly -- of the people. He would, if he had studied just a bit of Islam, have discovered that this principle is lacking. He would have found out that in Islam, the political legitimacy of the ruler comes from his being a Muslim, and acting according to Muslim principles. He need not have a vote, and voting makes little sense in Islamic terms. He need only hew to the will expressed by Allah, not the expressed will of the people.

That Congressman might further have noted that Islam is a Total System, that it requires of its adherents that their complete and sole loyalty be to Islam, and to fellow members of the umma al-islamiyya, and that while not all Muslims are good Muslims, and some may even be bad or non-obsrevant Muslims (and hence, perhaps, capable of being loyal members of the American polity, though there is always the question of when a "bad" -- that is "moderate" -- Muslim is only feigning an outward show of non-compliance with the ideologica dictates of Islam, and furthermore, we have no way of knowing when, even if such non-observance or non-belief in a central doctrine of Islam by some who continue to call themselves Muslims, such a "moderate" Muslim will change his views, and become a much truer True Believer, which means, for the Infidels among whom he has come to live, nothing good.

If that Congressman wishes to rethink his apology, and to learn what he, and all of his colleagues, now have a solemn duty to learn or, if they cannot learn, they should resign their positions, because only those willing and able to put in the effort (it isn't elementary particle physics, for god's sake -- more than a billion people know what Islam inculcates, because they have been so inculcated) then there is, at this website, more than one Barkis who is willin'.

Have minds, will travel.

Posted by: Hugh at August 19, 2007 11:01 AM

Here from the most learned statesman, and also the most learned President, in American history, John Quincy Adams, in his "Unsigned essays dealing with the Russo-Turkish War, and on Greece,” written while Adams was in retirement, before his election to Congress in 1830, and originally published in The American Annual Register:

"In the seventh century of the Christian era a wandering Arab, of the lineage of Hagar, the Egyptian, combining the powers of transcendent genius with the preternatural energy of a fanatic and the fraudulent spirit of an impostor, proclaimed himself as a messenger from Heaven, and spread desolation and delusion over an extensive portion of the earth. Adopting, from the sublime conception of the Mosaic law, the doctrine of one omnipotent God, he connected indissolubly with it the audacious falsehood, that he was himself his prophet and apostle. Adopting, from the new revelation of Jesus, the faith and hope of immortal life, and of future retribution, he humbled it to the dust by adapting all the rewards and sanctions of his religion to the gratification of the sexual passion. He poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war as a part of his religion against all the rest of mankind. The essence of his doctrine was violence and lust; to exalt the brutal over the spiritual part of human nature....While the merciless and dissolute are encouraged to furnish motives to human action, there never can be peace on earth and good will toward men. The hand of Ishmael will be agains
t every man, and every man’s hand against him."

Much more about what Adams understood about Islam from his wide reading, and his travelling, and his dealings with, and observations of, Muslims (in Russia and in his negotiations over the Barbary pirates)can be found in Andrew Bostom's essay on the subject, easily googled up from the McGelligott's Pool of the world-wide web.

Posted by: Hugh at August 19, 2007 11:07 AM

Here. Skip the pool. I just dove in myself and retrieved the article:

JOHN QUINCY ADAMS ON JIHAD

Andrew Bostom, M.D.

"As this country's leaders struggle to come to grips with Islamic jihad -- still reluctant to use the term, they prefer the nebulous “war on terror”-- it is important to note that an early U.S. President possessed a remarkably clear understanding of the challenge posed by Islam to Western civilization.

I have reviewed little-known essays dealing with this subject by John Quincy Adams, written after his Presidency and before his election to Congress in 1830 (Chapters X-XIV, pp. 267-402, in The American Annual Register for 1827-28-29, New York 1830). The contributions of the second Adams, thus far less recognized than those of his father John Adams, particularly in shaping U.S. foreign policy, are being rediscovered. In 1949 the distinguished Yale diplomatic historian Samuel Flagg Bemis wrote:

'Adams grasped the essentials of American policy and the position of the United States in the world more surely than any other man of his time. He availed himself of matchless opportunities to advance the continental future of his country and the fundamental principles for which it stood in the world….Even if John Quincy Adams was not to have another great career, as a crusader against the expansion of slavery, [his] first and mighty achievement, of no less than continental proportions, in laying the foundations of American foreign policy, would have been great enough for one lifetime.'

In an era untouched by cultural relativism, Adams, convinced of the truth and moral superiority of Christianity, had no hesitation in drawing a harsh contrast between Jesus and Christianity, and Muhammad and Islam.
'And he [Jesus] declared, that the enjoyment of felicity in the world hereafter, would be reward of the practice of benevolence here. His whole law was resolvable into the precept of love; peace on earth – good will toward man…On the Christian system of morals, man is an immortal spirit, confined for a short space of time, in an earthly tabernacle. Kindness to his fellow mortals embraces the whole compass of his duties upon earth, and the whole promise of happiness to his spirit hereafter. THE ESSENCE OF THIS DOCTRINE IS, TO EXALT THE SPIRITUAL OVER THE BRUTAL PART OF HIS NATURE [Capitals in original].'

Of Muhammad and Islam, he writes:

'Adopting from the sublime conception of the Mosaic law, the doctrine of one omnipotent God; he connected indissolubly with it, the audacious falsehood, that he was himself his prophet and apostle. Adopting from the new Revelation of Jesus, the faith and hope of immortal life, and of future retribution, he humbled it to the dust by adapting all the rewards and sanctions of his religion to the gratification of the sexual passion. He poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind. THE ESSENCE OF HIS DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST; TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE (Capitals in original)...Between these two religions, thus contrasted in their characters, a war of twelve hundred years has already raged. The war is yet flagrant...While the merciless and dissolute dogmas of the false prophet shall furnish motives to human action, there can never be peace upon earth, and good will towards men.'

Adams concluded solemnly,

'As the essential principle of his [Muhammad’s] faith is the subjugation of others by the sword; it is only by force, that his false doctrines can be dispelled, and his power annihilated.”
John Quincy Adams lucidly described the permanent Islamic institutions of jihad war and dhimmitude. Regarding jihad, Adams observes,
'…he [Muhammad] declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind…The precept of the Koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God… the faithful follower of the prophet, may submit to the imperious necessities of defeat: but the command to propagate the Moslem creed by the sword is always obligatory, when it can be made effective.'

And Adams captured the essential condition imposed upon the non-Muslim dhimmi “tributaries” subjugated by jihad, with this laconic statement,
“The vanquished may purchase their lives, by the payment of tribute.”

Adams also reported on the religiously rooted pattern of bad faith in negotiations -- the false promises of "peace," the saying of one thing in the language of "foreigners," another in Arabic --that Israel has belatedly discovered, at great cost, and the rest of the world has yet to confront. Writes Adams: '..The commands of the prophet may be performed alike, by fraud, or by force. Of Mahometan good faith, we have had memorable examples ourselves. When our gallant [Stephen] Decatur had chastised the pirate of Algiers, till he was ready to renounce his claim of tribute from the United States, he signed a treaty to that effect: but the treaty was drawn up in the Arabic language, as well as in our own; and our negotiators, unacquainted with the language of the Koran, signed the copies of the treaty, in both languages, not imagining that there was any difference between them.'

Adams continues:

'Within a year the Dey [Muslim ruler of Algiers] demands, under penalty of the renewal of the war, an indemnity in money for the frigate taken by Decatur; our Consul demands the foundation of this pretension; and the Arabic copy of the treaty, signed by himself is produced, with an article stipulating the indemnity, foisted into it, in direct opposition to the treaty as it had been concluded. The arrival of Chauncey, with a squadron before Algiers, silenced the fraudulent claim of the Dey, and he signed a new treaty in which it was abandoned; but he disdained to conceal his intentions; my power, said he, has been wrested from my hands; draw ye the treaty at your pleasure, and I will sign it; but beware of the moment, when I shall recover my power, for with that moment, your treaty shall be waste paper. He avowed what they always practiced, and would without scruple have practiced himself. Such is the spirit, which governs the hearts of men, to whom treachery and violence are taught as principles of religion.'

Adams assails the subterfuges of the Ottoman Sultan in his dealings with Russia. The Sultan, he writes, prepared for war while pretending, so as to gain time, peaceful intentions. He had the Ottoman Grand Vizier send a letter to the Russian Prime Minister declaring "the Sublime Porte has at all times no other desire or wish than to preserve peace and good understanding" while at the same time another state paper was issued, addressed by the Sultan to his own subjects--this was the Hatti Sheriff of the 20th of December, sent to the Pashas of all the provinces, calling on all the faithful Mussulmen of the empire to come forth and 'fight for their religion, and their country, against the infidel despisers of the Prophet. The comparison of these two documents with each other, will afford the most perfect illustration of the Ottoman faith, as well as of their temper towards Russia.'

Adams continues:

“The Hatti Sheriff commenced...'It is well known (said the Sultan) to almost every person, that if the Mussulmen naturally hate the infidels, the infidels, on their part, are the enemies of the Mussulmen: that Russia, more especially bears a particular hatred to Islamism, and that she is the principal enemy of the Sublime Porte.' This appeal to the natural hatred of the Mussulmen towards the infidels, is in just accordance with the precepts of the Koran. The document does not attempt to disguise it, nor even pretend that the enmity of those whom it styles the infidels, is any other than the necessary consequence of the hatred borne by the Mussulmen to them--the paragraph itself, is a forcible example of the contrasted character of the two religions. The fundamental doctrine of the Christian religion, is the extirpation of hatred from the human heart. It forbids the exercise of it even towards enemies. There is no denomination of Christians, which denies or misunderstands this doctrine....The unqualified acknowledgement of a duty does not, indeed, suffice to insure its performance. Hatred is yet a passion, but too powerful upon the hearts of Christians. Yet they cannot indulge it, except by the sacrifice of their principles and the conscious violation of their duties. No state paper from a Christian hand, could, without trampling the precepts of its Lord and Master, have commenced by an open proclamation of hatred to any portion of the human race. The Ottoman lays it down as the foundation of his discourse.”

Adams notes that the Sultan's pronouncement to his subjects continued:

“...all infidels are but one nation...This war must be considered purely a religious and national war. Let all the faithful, rich or poor, great or little, know, that to fight is a duty with us; let them then refrain from thinking of arrears, or of pay of any kind; far from such considerations, let us sacrifice our property and our persons; let us execute zealously the duties which the honor of Islamism imposes on us -- let us unite our efforts, and labor, body and soul, for the support of religion, until the day of judgment. Mussulmen have no other means of working out salvation in this world and the next.”
But then, writes Adams, when the Russians got wind of this declaration "summoning the whole Ottoman nation to arms against Russia, the Sultan now thinks proper to say, that it was only a proclamation which the Sublime Porte, for certain reasons, circulated in its states; an internal transaction, of which the Sublime Porte alone knows the motives, and that the language held by a government to its own subjects cannot be a ground for another government to pick a quarrel with it...that if Russia had conceived suspicions, from the Sultan's address to his subjects, she might have applied amicably to the Porte to ascertain the truth and clear up her doubts.”

An early anti-imperialist, Adams was a strong advocate for the liberation of Greek Christians, like Christians in the Balkans and the Black Sea lands of Russia, then suffering under the strictures of dhimmitude within the Ottoman Empire.

Wrote Adams:

'Those provinces are the abode of ten millions of human beings, two thirds of whom are Christians, groaning under the intolerable oppression of less than three millions of Turks. Those provinces are in some of the fairest regions of the earth. They were Christian countries, subdued during the conquering period of the Mahometan imposture, by the ruthless scymetar [sic] of the Ottoman race; and under their iron yoke, have been gradually dwindling in population, and sinking into barbarism. The time of their redemption is at hand.'

Adams assails the phony “moral equivalence” the Western powers, above all England, applied to the Islamic Ottomans and their victims (shades of the approach of modern Western statesmen to the multitude of conflicts on what Samuel Huntington aptly termed, “Islam’s bloody borders”) and the moral cowardice that put the status quo above liberty. Writes Adams:

'In the king's [George IV] speech, at the opening of the session of Parliament, on the 29th of January, he said that, 'for several years a contest had been carried on between the Ottoman Porte, and the inhabitants of the Greek provinces and islands, which had been marked on each side, by excesses revolting to humanity.' Still more extraordinary was it to the ears of Christendom to hear a British king, in a speech to his parliament, style the execrable and sanguinary head of the Ottoman race, his ancient ally; and denominate a splendid victory, achieved under the command of a British admiral, in the strict and faithful execution of his instructions, an untoward event. But the last member of the paragraph from his majesty's speech...to those accustomed to the mystifications of royal speeches and diplomatic defiances, explained these apparent disparates. He declares the great objects to which all his efforts have been directed, and of which...he will never lose sight, are the termination of the contest between the hostile parties; the permanent settlement of their future relations to each other, and maintenance of the repose of Europe, upon the basis on which it has rested since the last general peace.'

In all the documents 'issuing from the profound and magnanimous policy of the British warrior statesman,' writes Adams,'nothing is more remarkable than the more than stoical apathy with which they regard the cause, for which the Greeks are contending; the more than epicurean indifference with which they witness the martyrdom of a whole people, perishing in the recovery of their religion and liberty.'

Given the global struggle with jihad terror, perhaps it is time for John Quincy Adams remarkable series of essays to be read by contemporary U.S. diplomats and politicians, and heeded."

Posted by: Hugh at August 19, 2007 11:13 AM

One more thing:

When John Quincy Adams wrote about Islam, when De Tocqueville wrote about it several decades later, or when Churchill wrote about it several decades after Tocqueville, Islam was exactly what Islam is today. The doctrines did not change. The contents of Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira were no different.

The differences are not in doctrine, but in the fact of three changes:

1) Trillions of dollars. That is, enormous wealth, due intirely to an accident of geology, not to any hard work or entrepreneurial falire by Muslims -- some ten trillion dollars, since 1973 alone, to the Muslim members of OPEC. They have bought huge quantities of arms, paid for mosques and madrassas and campaigns of Da'wa, employed a shifting army of well-connnected Western hirelings, sometimes by direct payments, as "consultants," and sometimes indirectly, as when large sums are given for supposedly neutral lectures to Arab and Muslim audiences, or sponsored by a lecture series that is, in turn, paid for by Arab Muslims.

2) Millions of Muslim migrants, now settled in Western Europe and even, to a thankfully much lesser degree, in North America. They give no signs of abandoning their loyalty to Islam and no signs of any permanent acceptance of the principles on which the Infidel nation-states in which they have been permitted to settle are built. They give no signs, en masse, of truly integating into a world which, of course, since every political, intellectual and moral principle of that world is flatly contradicted by Islam, of course they would not. Only a handful, who essentially abandon Islam (even if they pretend they have not, often calling themselves "cultural Muslims" by which they mean little more than a fond memory of certain kinds of cooking), can be intelligently integrated into Western societies. The rest remain a permanent source of disruption, misinformation, threat, and of course potential menace.

3) The appropriation, by the world's organized Muslims, of the Western advanced technology that makes transportation from Dar al-Islam to Dar al-Harb and back easy, so that Muslims living in the latter can keep in close touch with those in the former (think of the hundreds of thousands of Pakistanis -- some of them British citizens -- who travel back to Pakistan every year, and other wise keep in close and constant touch by inexpensive phone calls, and by Internet, even video connections over the Internet, unheard-of possibilities just a few years ago).

This technology also allows for the widespread and rapid diffusion,by satellite television, videocassettes, and the Internet, of the texts of Islam and of violent propaganda based on those texts, to what in centuries or even decades past were largely quiescent or indifferent, illiterate peasantsleading hard-scrabble existences in remote villages, and now able to watch Islamic satellite television, or even get connnected by, in even the most unlikely villages, Internet connections, and computers, supplied by the funds of rich Arabs in the Gulf.

Posted by: Hugh at August 19, 2007 11:26 AM

If Adams were alive today, he would probably be on JW/DW staff...Adams 'got' 'it', but somehow 'it' got lost to the US gov collective memory, buried by PC, fear, personal ambition, and dhimitude...thats where we are today, not a good path, but it is the one we are on.

Posted by: duh_swami at August 19, 2007 11:40 AM

duh_swami:

And if Mohammed were alive today he'd be an al-qaeda member.

Doesn't our pledge say "One nation under God...?" Not "gods" or "Allah." Why is any apology warranted here?

Posted by: CapitalistGig at August 19, 2007 12:06 PM

and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war as a part of his religion against all the rest of mankind. The essence of his doctrine was violence and lust; to exalt the brutal over the spiritual part of human nature....While the merciless and dissolute are encouraged to furnish motives to human action, there never can be peace on earth and good will toward men. The hand of Ishmael will be agains
t every man, and every man’s hand against him."

If U.S. Representative Bill Sali has apologized for remarks suggesting the United States' founders never intended for Muslims to serve in the U.S. Congress, do you think he would even dare read this from the hand of Adams?

Nor do I.

writes Adams,'nothing is more remarkable than the more than stoical apathy with which they regard the cause, for which the Greeks are contending; the more than epicurean indifference with which they witness the martyrdom of a whole people, perishing in the recovery of their religion and liberty

Adams essay could easily describe the political climate today in London and in Washington regarding islam.

Given the global struggle with jihad terror, perhaps it is time for John Quincy Adams remarkable series of essays to be read by contemporary U.S. diplomats and politicians, and heeded."

This sounds good in theory, but we all know that even if they did take the time to actually read these essays, they would either say that Adams didn't mean to say what he actually said; or they would apologize further to the muslim world for Adam's harsh but right assessment of the nafarious death-cult that is islam.

Posted by: witness at August 19, 2007 12:13 PM

And if Mohammed were alive today he'd be an al-qaeda member.
Posted by: CapitalistGig

Either that, or a used car salesman...can't trust them either...LOL

Posted by: duh_swami at August 19, 2007 12:15 PM

"turn the other cheek" - Which holy book does this come from?

Posted by: tanstaafl at August 19, 2007 12:32 PM

"turn the other cheek" got my attention too. Sali seems to have covered his non-facial cheeks while retreating.
We're way beyond the "Founding Fathers" references which, if he possessed just token sophistication, he would have sensed. Surely, he could have thought of a more appropriate
'slider', avoiding the 'jingoism, by suggesting that the invocation would be more appropriate at the UN (if they open with invocations). Verbal jousting requires some mental agility.

Posted by: Shawmut at August 19, 2007 12:47 PM

Hugh Fitzgerald -- Thank you.

tanstaafl -- I think the "turn the other cheek" comment was made deliberately to suggest that Islam also contains this command and to reinforce the lie that Muslims and Christians share many common beliefs.

I happened upon a Muslim faith TV program a while ago in which one man told the other that all three Abrahamic faiths, including Islam, contain the Golden Rule and that Islam teaches people to respect their fathers and mothers just like Christianity does.

But Islam does not have the Golden Rule: they were lying. Just as, I believe, Ellison's representative (or Ellison himself) is also lying.

It may be a subtle whitewash to some or glaringly obvious false propaganda to others. Unfortunately, they're doing what all good liars do: take a little bit of the truth (most in North America know about the Golden Rule) and mix it up with a lie (most in North America do not know that Islam does not teach the Golden Rule).

Whether or not someone swallows this and other lies equating the two religions probably depends on how well he knows the Bible and how much he has also learned about Islam.

Posted by: Josephine at August 19, 2007 1:20 PM

"turn the other cheek"

A calculated attempt to feign to the unwary masses that Mr. Ellison holds close to his breast a morality foreign to his actual creed.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at August 19, 2007 1:22 PM

There's something else that has been on my mind and I wonder if anyone has any thoughts about this.

Whenever I hear or read that a Muslim spokesperson has said that Christians, Jews and Muslims all worship the God of Abraham, this is what automatically goes through my mind:

But we (Christians and Jews) worship the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

Exodus 3:6 "Moreover he said, I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob."

Posted by: Josephine at August 19, 2007 1:30 PM

"Those are changes, and they are not what was envisioned by the Founding Fathers."

Indeed. Why is that not discussed in congress and in the senate?

For Bill Sali to back off and to apologize is bad news. Why doesn't he stand by his words and sweat it out? What is this apologizing BS supposed to achieve?

It is equally bad news when the EU weasels out of supporting Denmark during Cartoon rage, and the pope backing down after making a critical statement about the mad profit and the blood-cult.

These are changes, changes which were not envisioned by our ancestors and those who sacrificed their lives to keep our nations free from the musulman.

Bill Sali has to grow a spine.

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at August 19, 2007 1:42 PM

The Disease: "Christians, Jews and Muslims all worship the same God"

The Cure: Revelation? Do We Worship the Same God? By Mark Durie

We might should consider sending a copy of this to our senators as well.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at August 19, 2007 1:48 PM

Islam to Christians and Jews (and other infidel dogs):

"You 'turn the other cheek', and then I will be able to 'strike at you necks' better."

Islam is a theocratic tyranny.

Theocratic tyranny is incompatible with a secular democratic republic.

You'd think someone who made it Congress would know that.

The only thing he needs to apologize for is his apology.

Posted by: profitsbeard at August 19, 2007 1:50 PM

Hey, turn the other cheek does not mean that if you are shot through one lung, you should turn and let the jihadist shoot you through the other lung.

Posted by: Pelayo at August 19, 2007 2:16 PM

Off Topic:

Anti-Dhimmi Alert!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=nI5WoXpmPiM

Islam in Europe!

No Thanks!!!

Regarding the Brussels 911 rally. ;)

Posted by: ThinkForYourself at August 19, 2007 3:25 PM

The Gordon Brownnose Dhimmi government keeps aiding and abetting the global jihad

http://sheikyermami.com/2007/08/19/muslim-terror-suspect-allowed-to-stay-in-uk/

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at August 19, 2007 4:14 PM

"...it is absolutely necessary to undeceive those who, from the ignorant or unfair translations [of the koran] which have appeared, have entertained too favourable an opinion of the original..."

-Thomas Jefferson

From the much longer:

"I IMAGINE it almost needless either to make an apology for publishing the following translation, or to go about to prove it a work of use as well as curiosity. They must have a mean opinion of the Christian religion, or be but grounded therein, who can apprehend any danger from manifest a forgery: and if the religious and civil insti­tutions of foreign nations are worth our knowledge, those of Muhammad, the lawgiver of the Arabians, and founder of an empire which in less than a century spread itself over a greater part of the world than the Romans were ever masters of, must needs be so; whether we consider their extensive obtaining, or our frequent intercourse with those who are governed thereby. I shall not here inquire into the reasons why the law of Muhammad has met with so unexampled a reception in the world (for they are greatly deceived who imagine it to have been propagated by the sword alone), or by what means it came to be embraced by nations which never felt the force of the Muhammadan arms, and even by those which stripped the Arabians of their conquests, and put an end to the sovereignty and very being of their Khalifahs; yet it seems as if there was something more than what is vulgarly imagined in a religion which has made so surprising a progress. But whatever use an impartial version of the Qura'n may be of in other respects, it is absolutely neces­sary to undeceive those who, from the ignorant or unfair translations which have appeared, have entertained too favourable an opinion of the original, and also to enable us effectually to expose the imposture; none of those who have hitherto undertaken that province, not excepting Dr. Prideaux himself, having succeeded to the satisfaction of the judicious, for want of being complete masters of the controversy. The writers of the Romish communion, in particular; are so far from having done any service in their refutations of Muhammadanism, that by endeavouring to defend their idolatry and other superstitions, they have rather contributed to the increase of that aversion which the Muhammadans in general have to the Christian re­ligion, and given them great advantages in the dispute. The Protestants alone are able to attack the Qur'an with success; and for them, I trust, Providence has reserved the glory of its overthrow."

-Thomas Jefferson

Posted by: Foehammer at August 19, 2007 5:11 PM

Ellison is traveling outside the country, but his spokesman said the congressman typically does not take such remarks personally.

"We will take Bill Sali at his word," Rick Jauert said Friday. "That would be in keeping with Keith's turn-the-other-cheek mentality. He figures if someone has a bad day, chooses their words poorly, we'll give them the benefit of the doubt."

So these comments are offensive to Christians or at least were a swipe at Christians.

Where is the outrage? None.

Are Chirstians so stupid that they don't know when they have been insulted? Or are they so weak politically that they dare not demand an apology?

My guess is they will console themselves by somehow thinking that they are doing Jesus a favor in some way, by remaining quiet.

In reality, they are doing Jesus no service whatsoever.

In fact, the Christians are only encouraging and empowering the islamic jackals who seek only to murder Jesus' followers, by not demanding an apology from Ellison's office for this bald faced insult to Jesus his Christian followers!

Will none dare to demand an apology from Ellison?

(long pause), (another longer pause)

I thought not.

Posted by: witness at August 19, 2007 9:52 AM

Now, I am convinced that Christians really are too stupid to recognize when they have been insulted, especially by islamics.

In that case perhaps Bill Sali should grovel in the mud at the feet of Ellison, and beg forgiveness for his terrible insult to islam.

Then Ellison should kick him in the face -- but frankly, I don't think it really matters anymore -- at least not to the Christians.

The damage has been done and is irreversable.

Posted by: witness at August 19, 2007 5:24 PM

Latest Message to United States citizen jihad watchers:

We are around the middle of the sixth day of posting this request at Jihad Watch, and we are up to 37 volunteers. Florida has pulled even with California. The two states are now tied for first place, with 5 volunteers each.

I'm looking for at least two people in every state of the Union who would be willing to purchase a copy of Robert Spencer's Religion of Peace? Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn't and mail it to one of the senators in your state. I'm organizing an effort to get the book simultaneously to all 100 senators, in order to send a strong message.
If we get more than two people per state, we’ll also send copies to the House of Representatives.

If you’d like to be involved, please write to me at traehnam@yahoo.com under the subject heading “Senate,” and tell me the state your senator represents, an email address where I can reach you, and a nickname. No need for your real name. And I will never share your email address with anyone, not even with other volunteers for this project.

And visit www.jihadawareness.blogspot.com to get more info on this project and to leave comments other volunteers can read. You can also see there the growing list of participants in this project, and the states their senators represent. I’ll try to update the list at least once a day. I've also designed a new graphic that might amuse. Scroll down when you get to the site.

Once we have at least two people from every state, we can agree on a mailing date and then each of us can mail a copy of the book on that date.

Right before we do the mailing, we can issue a press release to various media outlets in every state, and in that way announce and explain the mailing. And perhaps we can come up with some other ways of maximizing the effectiveness of this project and gaining as much positive attention as possible.

One of the project's volunteers suggested contacting Rep. Sue Myrick, who started the anti-Jihad caucus in Congress. I'll try to coordinate this project with Rep. Myrick to maximize its effectiveness. I've also been calling various congressional offices to get advice on how best to go about this. And I'll soon contact Regnery, Robert Spencer's publisher, to ask their advice and to see if we can coordinate with them in some way.

Posted by: traeh at August 19, 2007 5:55 PM

Hugh - thank you for reproducing here, Bostom's essay presenting the thoughts of John Quincy Adams on Islam. The hair on the back of one's neck stands up whilst reading it. Adams is magnificent.

J Q A's campaign against slavery, and his essays against Islam, seem to me to be logically and necessarily connected - Islam being at its heart and core a system of despotism/slavery.

May we hope for someone to resurrect J Q A 's essays on Islam in their entirety, as a modern pamphlet reprint? Or, perhaps, via Project Gutenberg, to make them available online, as Samuel Zwemer's "The Law of Apostasy in Islam" is available online. And , furthermore, were they ever circulated in French? in German? Italian? Russian?

When I read the excerpts from Adams printed here - as when I read the quotation from John Wesley, and the quotation from de Tocqueville - I hear the equivalent of Tolkien's Horn Call of Buckland - "Awake! Fear! Fire! Foes! Awake!". These powerful, lucid warnings from our wise Elders need to be multiplied and spread abroad, unstoppably.

Question: where, precisely, in the voluminous writings of De Tocqueville, may be found his dissection of Islam? Name of book, chapter and verse, please! There's a great de Tocqueville quote in Spencer's PIG to Islam and the Crusades, but it is not 'located'.

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at August 19, 2007 6:05 PM

Hugh-

You have to wonder why no "hard-hitting investigative journalists" ever reproduced that all-too-relevant Jefferson quote about Islam and the Koran when Rep. Ellison hijacked Jefferson's copy of the book in order to hypocritically "swear" to defend the secular Constitution upon it?

Cowardice or collusion?

Posted by: profitsbeard at August 19, 2007 8:49 PM

The quotation about Islam which is attributed to Thomas Jefferson above is, I believe, not by Jefferson, but from the introduction by George Sale to his translation of the Qur'an (Koran), the very translation which Jefferson bought, in which he, Sale, explains that he wishes to give a more accurate translation than had heretofore been available so that non-Muslims could see for themselves what Islam taught, and not entertain what, for Sale, was among some an unnecessarily favorable impression.

It is Jefferson's copy of the translation by Sale that Ellison used for his public-relations stunt at his swearing-in. It was for others to point out that the translation was undertaken by Sale in order to reveal to non-Muslims -- such as a certain Thomas Jefferson, who no doubt was perfectly aware of Sale's intent -- what the Qur'an really says.

Posted by: Hugh at August 19, 2007 9:35 PM

Muslim colleague?

Mr. Ellison...wasn't he at one time of the Nation of Islam? He is a colleague of the Council of Islamic Relations, not of any other member of Americas congress with the exception of the Pelosi, Harry Reid, and John Conyers types who are too bloody ignorant and gullible to know what's happening right under their up in the air noses.

Posted by: Unbridled at August 19, 2007 10:48 PM

A prick indeed-- CAIR would do better in the public eye were its most prominent spokesman not so self-evidently a horse's ass.

I am grateful Rep. Sali apologized for the comment directed against the Hindu prayer. Hinduism is wholly compatible with Western ideals and there's no reason why the Founders would have opposed Hindu prayer in the Senate. One imagines that a stalwart and responsible Hindu or Sikh Congressman, alert to the jihadist threat, would do the United States a great deal of good.

Ellison is something else again.

Posted by: Funky Child at August 19, 2007 11:19 PM

Sort of on topic.
I tuned across Oprah's show the other day and saw a muslima in her garb discussing islam. This woman straight face lied on television, she claimed islam follows the 10 Commandments and the "Golden Rule". It drives me crazy when they are allowed to spout their drivel without anyone challenging them. It is accepted as the gospel truth.

Posted by: interestinconundrum at August 20, 2007 12:53 AM

There is no such thing in my book as an American muslim! Shadow people! You would think Hooper is running the show! Mosque nothing but fortress! Ellison should not be there. He is right about that it should never be in the first place! Our forefathers did not intend for muslims to be in the white house! Nor appeasers like Polosi to help them figure out how to sware on the Koran! All this does is strengthen their cause!

Posted by: MZ at August 20, 2007 2:49 AM

interestinconundrum -- I agree. Since the listeners don't know any better, the lies are "accepted as the gospel truth".

Most people would think, well, she's obviously a devoutly religious person, why would she lie about such a thing? Why make it up if it isn't so?

(Of course, Jihad Watch readers know the answer to that question.)

Posted by: Josephine at August 20, 2007 10:20 AM

witness -- What would you have Christians do?

Should a church issue a statement saying, "How dare a Muslim emulate Jesus!"

What kind of reasonable objection could a Christian present to the media in response to Ellison's spokesman saying he had a "turn the other cheek mentality"?

It's a sneaky statement that holds no obvious insult.

Ellison's people are positioning him quite deliberately as following a similar religion to Christianity because they know that many people don't like the fact that Ellison is a Muslim.

Yes, when you examine it, this is ultimately an insult; however, on the surface, it is not. We can't expect ordinary reporters to delve deeper than the surface on most issues, especially when it comes to religion.

It would be a good starting point for an article or a letter to the editor which examines the "turn the other cheek" philosophy and whether or not it is found in the Koran.

It would also be an excellent starting point for sermons on the topic.

I don't agree that this one whitewash statement has caused irreversible damage to Christianity.

Posted by: Josephine at August 20, 2007 10:37 AM

As a practicing Orthodox Jew, I am personally offended by comments like this:
"So are we to understand that Muslim congressmen and Hindu prayers in the Capitol were envisioned by the Founding Fathers?"

In all honesty, Jewish congressmen and prayers were also not envisioned by the founding fathers, but that doesn't mean we should kick my fellow Jew Sen. Joseph Lieberman out of his position. If you have something on Ellison, by all means go after him! But this talk of what religion the Founders intended the Congress to be is un-American garbage. Shlomo.

Posted by: Shlomo_Michael at August 20, 2007 12:21 PM

It is very hard to adjust to the image of the people of 9-11 and then to see Muslim's in The White House. To see muslim-islamistberg insight of the towers! Those people would never guess in their wildest years after their death, they are here! To see them being catered to every turn, while we wait in lines going through intimidation at airports, ect. Even the illegal mexican is a shadow person. I am dealing with a shadow person. Legally! A shamtra's!
All the things I have learned in this last year!
I have dreamnt this stuff since a kid-3. It is amazing I would ask my grandma can this happen here? She assured me, "Noo.."
There is only room in my world for God Jehweh, the devil can go to hell! Unfortunately not that easy! We all battle him everyday and our own way we do send him back to hell! We had a good America! I want it back! All the money we pay in taxes ect, is OUR POCKET BOOK! It makes me mad it is handed out to Lebanon, Syria, Palestine, Palestine, Palestine, when do we get to have our own money?
All I wanted to do was type my grandfathers book of LOVE! Jehweh! I ran into islam! I ran into ....
Having to learn something else! Bull! I respect so many religions..I do! I cannot convert to just one! I told my granfather that! How do you know?
I know this God's name is Jehweh! I know Jesus is the True Messiah! I will NOT wipe out Jesus Name!
Nor Jehweh! I say "Merry CHRISTmas." Most say happy holi-days! I ask what holi-day is it?
We cannot go backwards!
Geraldo idiot! Keeps ahhww... the poor illegals! I cannot watch him anymore! Those kids shot in the head Ms-13. Exspect more of that!
Ted Hayes on tv activist helper of the poor. A good man. Talking about how illegals mest up alot for the poor and him getting them help. The mexicans get it all. I agree with all he said. I thought about that along time ago. What will they do? No welfare for moms who need it, no food for the poor or shelter. I had a nightmare the night before. Poor black people. One she opened her Bible and stroked a cross- red top with feathers. She was crying. I felt her suffering, it must of been someone close to her. Then a man appeared he was in a army uniform as if just getting home!
Did have a terrible nightmare AGAIN! not good!
Evil. Women were in trouble even me! One being shocked with volts of electricity to submiss!
There is more I fought them off braking bones, I had some evil in me but I fought!......
Maybe I feel alot of evil around me?...
Everything is catered to the privileged. The Jesus pictures are still down, the flags. America is a real adjustment! I cannot imagine how our children feel! A bunch of B.S.!

Posted by: MZ at August 20, 2007 2:55 PM

It surprises me that people are not willing to research the Founding Fathers and see what they said or wrote regarding issues.

Most of our Founding Fathers spoke multiple languages and had degrees in Theology and Law. Christian Theology that is.

Several of our Founding Fathers wrote about other religions after they had completed research into them. If you want to see what they said about other religions, go do some research, the information is there for the taking. They called it like they saw it.

We quote the term 'Founding Fathers' like we know them.

If our Founding Fathers showed up in Washington D.C. today they would not be invited into the Chambers that they created. Based on their writings and speeches, they would not want to be invited.

Posted by: alaskan1000 at August 20, 2007 5:05 PM

witness, if we Christians brought to account everyone who used deception on us, our societies wouldn’t be very pleasant places to live. I’m constantly insulted every time I watch the news or religious programs on government channels. Their deception will not stand, however, because as a Christian I myself stand for truth. (Take that to mean whichever way you want, but read the Bible if you really want to know what I mean.)

I agree with Josephine.

Of course, one wants Christians to recognize the blasphemy in the statement because of the nature of Ellison’s religion, but many will not due to their multicultural brainwashing in school.

Posted by: ofcourse at August 22, 2007 1:27 AM

Shlomo I have issue with your issue. I expected one of our Hindu friends to take offense first, but I’m not surprised it would be a Jew to ultimately “call foul.” (Boy, it has been a long time since I heard that phrase.)

He is just telling it how it is. We need to get real, and stop these guilt trips for anyone having convictions. Sali is trying to bring awareness to important current issues. It should be known that if America is going to continue to work, America’s leaders better be united, if not religiously, at least in the same spirit as the forefathers. It also better be known that is a Christian spirit, and it is one of love, value of life, integrity and goodwill. This would right-out exclude Ellison, because of his loyalty to Islam, which has supremacy and oppression as its goal.

And that goes for every other Western nation.

Posted by: ofcourse at August 22, 2007 10:59 AM

"The American population is entirely Christian, and with us Christianity and Religion are identified. It would be strange indeed, if with such a people, our institutions did not presuppose Christianity, and did not often refer to it, and exhibit relations with it." -John Marshall, in a letter to Jasper Adams, May 9, 1833, JSAC, p. 139. Marshall was Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court from 1801-1835.

"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers." -John Jay, First Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court and co-author of the Federalist Papers, letter to Jedidiah Morse, 28 Feb 1797.

"The real object of the [First] Amendment was not to countenance, much less advance, Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects." -Joseph Story, Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court 1811-1845, founder of Harvard Law School, Commentaries on the Constitution, Vol. II, 1871 (1833).

"Christianity becomes not merely an auxiliary, but a guide, to the law of nature; establishing its conclusions, removing its doubts, and evaluating its precepts." -Joseph Story, "The Value and Importance of Legal Studies," a lecture delivered August 25, 1829 at his inauguration as Dane Professor of Law in Harvard University, cited in James McClellan, Joseph Story and the American Constitution (Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma, 1971), p. 66.

"No free government now exists in the world, unless where Christianity is acknowledged, and is the religion of the country." -Pennsylvania Supreme Court, 1824. Updegraph v. Commonwealth; 11 Serg. & R. 393, 406.

"Laus Deo," Latin for "Praise God." -Inscribed on the eastern face of the apex of the Washington Monument in Washington, D.C., so placed as to be the first thing illuminated at sunrise in our nation's capitol.

"Holiness unto the Lord," Exodus 28:36. "Suffer the little children to come unto me and forbid them not; for such is the Kingdom of God," St. Luke 18:16. "Search the Scriptures," St. John 5:39. -Inscribed on the starircase walls inside the Washington Monument, Washington, D.C.

"Proclaim Liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof," Leviticus 25:10. -Inscribed on the Libert Bell.

"What doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, love mercy and walk humbly with thy God," Micah 6:8. "The heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament showeth His handywork," Psalm 19:1. "The light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehendeth it not," St. John 1:5. "Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and withall thy getting, get understanding," Proverbs 4:7. -On the walls of the Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.

"One God, one Law, one element, and faroff Divine event to which the whole creation moves." -Alfred Lord Tennyson, in the rotunda of the Library of Congress.

"The husbandman that laboureth must be first partaker of the fruits," 2 St. Timothy 2:6. -Inscribed on the front of the Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.

"By renouncing the Bible, philosophers swing from their moorings upon all moral subjects. . . . It is the only correct map of the human heart that ever has been published. . . . All systems of religion, morals, and government not founded upon it [the Bible] must perish, and how consoling the thought, it will not only survive the wreck of these systems but the world itself. 'The Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.' [Matthew 1:18]" -Benjamin Rush (Letters of Benjamin Rush, L. H. Butterfield, editor (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1951), p. 936, to John Adams, January 23, 1807.)

Posted by: ChristianRepublic at August 23, 2007 10:48 AM