In this new John Guandolo Moment, John discusses: Qur’an Oath in America, and he asks: Does it matter if an individual is sworn in to serve us with his/her hand on the Qur’an?
Don’t miss it!
Please donate through our new Unified-4-People Campaign or via our Pay Pal account.
Subscribe to the Glazov Gang‘s YouTube Channel and follow us on Twitter: @JamieGlazov.
Order Jamie Glazov’s new book: Jihadist Psychopath: How He Is Charming, Seducing, and Devouring Us.
Michael Copeland says
Unintentional slip at 3:18.
“There is no such thing in the United States as separation of church and state”
For “United States” substitute “Islam”.
It is Islam that has no separation of the two.
Mack Truslow says
This fellow is a disaster. I wonder if CAIR is privately subsidizing him to pull the rug out from under the anti-Islamacist movement at a given time:
Here is what got him canned from the FBI;
As the corruption case against former Rep. William Jefferson was about to go to trial in June, prosecutors learned from their star witness that she had had a sexual relationship with the undercover FBI agent who drove her to all the meetings where she secretly taped and delivered cash to the New Orleans Democrat.
Story Continued Below
On Monday, Judge T.S. Ellis III denied a request by Jefferson’s lawyers for a new trial, a request based in part on defense claims that Ellis erred in not letting them bring up Lori Mody’s relationship with an FBI agent at trial.
But according to court documents unsealed last week, the FBI and its Office of Professional Responsibility knew at least as far back as last December that the agent, John Guandolo, “had had an intimate relationship with a confidential source that he thought could damage an investigation.” But they never passed that information to the U.S. attorney’s office prosecuting Jefferson or
American Pride says
Islam does not assimilate into any other society, Islam Dominates every other society.
vlparker says
I consider John Guandolo to be one of the top five counter-jihadists in the nation. But this is a poor argument, one that has no chance of flying IMO.
Article VI, Section 3 of the US Constitution:…but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
John Jay may have said only Christians can hold public office in the US, but that is only one man’s opinion. The US Constitution, which was signed by 39 men representing 13 colonies, says otherwise.
And the man who wrote the words about the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God, Thomas Jefferson, is the same man who claimed that we DO have a wall of separation of church and state in his letter to the Danbury Baptists. Which is not the same thing as a wall of separation between God and state.
Keep doing what you do, Mr. Guandolo, you are an American hero. But lose this bad argument. It doesn’t have a snowballs chance in hell.
Karen Dowden says
Not really. What Mr. Guandolo is explaining is that the content of the Koran and the teachings of the hadith are antithetical to what is laid out in the US constitution/Bill of Rights. In essence, to Western human rights. Although there is separation of church and state and freedom of religion, the instructions in the Koran and teachings of Islam/Sharia Law are against that. So to swear on a Koran (giving a person freedom of religion), that person is in no swearing to uphold the US Constitution.
The entire opposite.
vlparker says
If Mr. Guandolo wanted to ban muslims from holding public office I would be all for it. He lays out perfectly how islam is incompatible with the US Constitution. But instead of making the argument that no muslims should be allowed to hold public office he tries to make the argument that only Christians should be allowed to hold public office. Big difference and totally unconstitutional.
Carol the 1st says
i agree with Karen, and Guandolo was only pointing out that it takes a Judeo-Christian value system to remain faithful to the very philosophy that is the warp and woof of the US Constitution. Islam is incompatible and Guandolo has spelled this out so that even the literal minded can catch on.
Those who wrote the Constitution weren’t flawless and I doubt they were even imagining big birds flying over with Islamic droppings for American shores
PRCS says
During John F. Kennedy’s 1959/60 election campaign, he was asked what role Catholicism would play in his presidency.
He responded, “I am not the Catholic candidate for president”.
Given that MANY aspects of the shari’ah are unequivocally antithetical to democracy, the U.S. Constitution, and the laws which flow from it, the obvious question has to be:
Why aren’t Muslim candidates for offices which require the winner to swear to ‘support and defend’ asked the same question?
Walter Sieruk says
To take an “Oath on the Qu ran” in America to make such an “oath’ on Islam’s top religious book is ,regardless if the Oath taker knows it or not, is taking oath on a book that is a blasphemous fraud.
For faith and belief in the Qu ‘ran is upheld by many invalid claims
For example a claim by many Muslims is that no one can produce something as beautiful as the Quran in the way the words are arranged and thus it can only be of God. This claim should be answered.
First, all someone has to do is examine some of the great works of literature to fine much written beauty. Such as the Greek epic poet Homer with his Iliad and Odyssey and then Virgil who produced the Aeneid has beauty. Even one of the non-Bible books in the Apocrypha called The Song of Three Children is also very beautiful. Thus just because someone sees a work that is written in great beauty doesn’t mean it’s inspired by God.
Moreover,, the scholar Edward Gibbon wrote after an examination of the Quran that it is an “incoherent jumble of fable and precept and declamation which seldom excites a sentiment or an idea, sometimes craws in the dust and is sometimes lost in the clouds…” The writer Thomas Carlyle wrote the Quran is “A wearisome jumble, crude, incondite [with] endless iterations [and] long-windedness…” Likewise, the philosopher David Hume was NOT favorably impressed after reading the Quran.
[Source of the three scholars mentioned – Secrets of The Koran: Revealing Insight Into Islam’s Holy Book .56,66, by Don Richardson]
Furthermore, the following should be taken into consideration. Of course the Muslim who reads the Quran will see great beauty in the way the words are arranged. This is, in part, because of the power of suggestion after being told so many times that the Quran is so beautifully written. That’s an old brainwashing method, repeating and being told that same thing again and again. Since he or she is always being told the same lie will end up believing that lie. In addition to that, the Imams try to discourage their people from reading other works, such as the Bible, so then they don’t have much or anything to compare or contrast the Quran with. Of course there are some Muslim’s that do read other works, but they are exceptions and they read other things only after they were already brainwashed by the Imams. In short, the Muslims can’t read the Quran objectively because their Imams have programmed them to have a strong bias towards it.
Walter Sieruk says
If a person just stops to thing about taking an “oath on the Qu ‘ran” is in reality n an action of nonsense .
This is because ,when all the facts are taken into an account it may be seen, by all who are willing to see that the Qu ‘ran is a hoax.
As to explain , the very foundation of and for Islam is the Quran ,this leads to very important question: “Is the Quran the Word of God or is it a fabrication of a man. Thus, is the Quran the truth or a fiction and a hoax ?” The answer is clearly given on pages 145 through 157 in THE ISLAMIC INVASION by Robert Morey in which he wrote a section on the Quran with its self-contradictions. Just two of the many he cited are the following “The Quran differs on whether a day is a thousand years or fifty thousand years in God’s sight’ and “Who was first to believe? Abraham or Moses [Sura 6:14 versus 7:143]? The above is inconsistent and illogical. Further, Morey wrote about “The fact that Judaism and Christianity broke up into different sects was used in the Quran to prove that they are not of God [Suras 30:20-32. 42:13, 14]. Yet Islam has broken up into many warring sects and therefore cannot be true if the Quran is right.”
Moreover, Morey in his book shows many more contradictions and absurdities in the Quran, there are and how Muhammad incorporated extra Biblical and Jewish folklore along with pre-Islamic Arabian myth and parts of Zoroastrian and Hindu stories into the Quran. Furthermore, the Muslims claim that “the Quran is the direct, literal word of God unmodified in any way by the Prophet who uttered them at the bidding of God.” Nevertheless, in the book UNVEILING ISLAM by Ergun Mehmet Caner and Eethi Caner has shown that the Quran was modified in the following account on pages 45. “Muhammad felt the need to improve on the words of Allah, since he changed Allah’s wisdom for his own on several occasions. A hadith tells of the nonchalant emendations of Muhammad:’ On a number of occasions he [a scribe] had, with the Prophet’s consent changed the closing words of verses. For example, when the prophet had said ‘God is mighty and wise ‘ Adbollah b. Abi Sarh suggested writing down ‘Knowing and wise’ and the Prophet answered that there was no objection. Having observed a succession of changes of this type, Adbollah renounced Islam on the grounds that revelations, if from God could not be changed at the prompting of a scribe such as himself. After his apostasy he went to Mecca and joined the Qorayshites.’ Other writers reveal that later Muhammad and his people did go war with the Qorayshites and he personally killed Abdollah. Obviously Abdollah knew too much and Muhammad wanted Abdollah’s knowledge to die with him.” In conclusion, the Quran is not only a fiction, it’s also a hoax.
Even though the above essay was posted before, it should now be added that the last statement of the above that “the Quran is not only a fiction, it’s also a hoax.” To put this in a Biblical way. As in from the Bible, it may be truly explained that the Quran is a deceptive work of “the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming.” Ephesians 14:12.. [N.I.V.]
gravenimage says
Guandolo Moment: Qur’an Oath in America
…………….
Taking the oath on the Qur’an is like taking the oath on a copy of Mein Kampf.
Brian hoff says
This man os than great belp to Islam in it spead into america as than preaceful religion.
gravenimage says
What man? What is “Brian hoff”–really, “DefenderofIslam”–babbling about now?
And “DefenderofIslam” has admitted before that Islam teaches waging violent Jihad against anyone who does not submit to Islam–how does that make it “than preaceful religion”?
As for taking the oath on a Qur’an being compatible with loyalty to the United States, note that “DefenderofIslam” himself has said that when Muslims reach sufficient numbers here that he and his coreligionists plan on destroying the Constitution and imposing the horrors of brutal Shari’ah law on all of us.
Rufolino says
The current Moslem Home Secretary of the UK was required to swear an Oath of Loyalty to Her Majesty the Queen in the House of Commons, on a Bible.
In something which looked very like sleight-of-hand, a Koran was slipped into his hand the moment before he took the Oath.
Carol the 1st says
Was it Charles who did it?