I’ve been traveling so much (gave a seminar to a military group last week, but Hamas-linked CAIR will have to find out which one on its own) that I am a bit late with this, but Raymond Ibrahim’s devastating observations on Muslim Brotherhood Congressman Keith Ellison’s weepy histrionics at the King hearings have new relevance in light of the Durbin hearings. “Weeping and Other Hysterics: Have Muslim Apologists Nothing More to Offer?,” by Raymond Ibrahim in Hudson New York (via RaymondIbrahim.com), March 14:
From Congressman Keith Ellison’s emotional breakdown to Congresswoman Jackie Speier’s accusations of “racism,” last week’s hearings on Muslim radicalization have made it clear that those who oppose the hearings have little of substance to offer. Still, the tactics used by such apologists””namely, appeals to emotionalism and accusations of racism””are influential enough that they need to be addressed and discredited once and for all.
For starters, though it would have been unheard of generations ago and seen as a sign of instability, public crying is the latest rage for politicians. A 2007 Associated Press report puts it well: “Tears, once kryptonite to serious presidential candidates, today are more often seen as a useful part of the political tool kit–”and are thus indicative of an increasingly therapeutic society, one more interested in a show of catharsis than facts.
Yet, tears aside, if we wish to be objective for a moment, Ellison’s testimony””culminating with his choking up and leaving the hearing””contributes nothing to the topic of Muslim radicalization in America. Instead, it raises more questions about Ellison””a former Nation of Islam leader, mouthpiece for the Muslim Brotherhood front-group CAIR, and critic of the U.S. Constitution.
Indeed, arguing that “suit-and-tie” Islamists have penetrated Western societies and are manipulating the legal system to their advantage””including by imposing aspects of Islamic law, winning special privileges for themselves, and, of course, shutting down criticism of Islam””Daniel Pipes has singled out Ellison as representing a far greater threat to Western civilization than Osama bin Laden.
Did Ellison feign an emotional breakdown during his opening remarks to leave the hearing and evade follow-up questions from Congressman Peter King and others””concrete questions about Muslim radicalization that he preferred not to respond to””or were his tears sincere? Either way, it is not clear which is worse: a dime-a-dozen obfuscating politician, or a politician whose emotions so dominate him that he cannot carry out his responsibilities.
While we are on the topic of strategic-weeping, it is relevant to note that authoritative Muslim scholars, such as Ibn Hajar, recommend deceiving infidels with crocodile tears: “Revealing one thing while secretly planning another is the essence of deception; moreover, the hadith incites [Muslims] to take great caution in war, while [publicly] lamenting and mourning in order to dupe the infidels” (The Al Qaeda Reader, p.142). This is not to conclude that Ellison is taking lessons from Hajar, but that even the most rabid jihadists””not just American politicians””are aware of the power of tears as a ruse….