It’s more than just about having three Muslims in Congress. I think symbolically it has great value, but I won’t rest until 2020 we have five more members of Congress; 2022 and 24, we have ten more Muslims in Congress. In 2030 we may have about 30, 35 Muslims in Congress. Then we’re talking about Madame Chair Rashida. We’re talking about Madame Chair Ilhan. Hell, we could be saying Speaker of the House Ilhan, Speaker of the House Rashida, Senator Rashida, Governor Ilhan, President Fatima, Vice President Aziza, Inshah’ Allah…Each and every one of us has a directive to represent Islam, in all of our imperfections, but to represent Islam and let the world know that Muslims are here to stay, and Muslims are a part of America. And we will, we will have a Muslim caucus that is sizable, that is formidable, and that is there for you.
U.S. Congressman Andre Carson at the CAIR Community Congressional Reception, January 10, 2019
People in public office at the local, state, and federal levels are required to take an oath of office that requires them to swear, or affirm, to support the U.S. Constitution. This is based on Article 6, Clause 3 of that Constitution (the “Oaths Clause”):
The Senators and Representatives [in Congress] before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution…
As David Shestokas noted:
This constitutional requirement is binding upon every government official in the United States from state governors and judges to members of city councils, police officers, firefighters or board members of mosquito abatement districts and library boards.[1]
The 2019 elections saw an increase in the number of Muslims re-elected and newly elected to public office across the United States, and as part of their oaths of office they each swear to support the U.S. Constitution. However, as I showed in my latest book Islamic Doctrine versus the U.S. Constitution: The Dilemma for Muslim Public Officials,[2] there are many core tenets of Islam that are in direct conflict with much of that Constitution.
In theory, however, one would think that after a Muslim public official had publicly taken an oath to support the U.S. Constitution, having to publicly choose between either following that Constitution or following Islamic Doctrine would be simple: a Muslim public official would abide by the oath of office and choose the Constitution.[3]
So I decided to put that to the test. In Chapters 10 and 11 of my latest book I provided a number of questions that could be asked of a Muslim public official and that require that official to choose between the Constitution and Islamic Doctrine. I put four of those questions into an e-mail and individually sent that e-mail to eighty Muslim public officials across the United States.
We shall first look at the four questions I used and then examine the variety of responses I received. I then list the Muslim public officials, by State, who did not respond to what, considering their oath of office, should have been simple questions to answer. This is followed by my concluding remarks.
The Questions
On December 9th and December 16th of 2019 I sent the following e-mail to eighty Muslim public officials across the United States who were either incumbents or who had been newly elected to office in the November 5th elections:
I am interested in your response, as an elected public official who follows the religion of Islam, to the following questions:
No. 1: Will you go on record now and state that our 1st Amendment right to freedom of speech gives the right to anyone in the United States to criticize or disagree with your prophet Muhammad, and will you also go on record now and state that you support and defend anyone’s right to criticize or disagree with your prophet Muhammad, and that you condemn anyone who threatens death or physical harm to another person who is exercising that right?
No. 2: Our 1st Amendment guarantees freedom of religion in the United States. As part of that freedom, anyone in the United States has the right to join or leave any religion, or have no religion at all. Will you go on record now and state that you support and defend the idea that in the United States a Muslim has not only the freedom to leave Islam, but to do so without fear of physical harm, and will you also go on record now and state that you condemn anyone who threatens physical harm to a Muslim who is exercising that freedom?
No. 3: According to the words of Allah found in Koran 5:38 and the teachings of your prophet Muhammad, amputation of a hand is an acceptable punishment for theft. But our U.S. Constitution, which consists of man-made laws, has the 8th Amendment that prohibits cruel and unusual punishment such as this. Do you agree with Allah and your prophet Muhammad that amputation of a hand is an acceptable punishment for theft in the United States, or do you believe that our man-made laws prohibiting such punishments are true laws and are to be followed instead of this 7th Century command of Allah and teaching of Muhammad?
No. 4: According to the words of Allah found in Koran 4:3, Muslim men are allowed, but not required, to be married to up to four wives. Being married to more than one wife in the United States is illegal according to our man-made bigamy laws. Do you agree with Allah that it is legal for a Muslim man in the United States to be married to more than one woman, or do you believe that our man-made laws prohibiting bigamy are true laws and are to be followed instead of this 7th Century command of Allah?
I look forward to your responses.
Support for the U.S. Constitution
Only six Muslim public officials responded by specifically saying that they supported the U.S. Constitution. I emailed each of them and asked if each would be comfortable in being publicly identified in an article I would be writing. Three did not reply and one asked not to be identified, so I have not identified those four. The two that had no problem in being identified for their support of the U.S. Constitution were:
Mohammad Iqbal – Kane County Board, Kane County, Illinois
Shammas Malik – City Council, Akron, OH
Other Replies
I received various replies from seven other Muslim public officials:
Ilhan Omar – U.S. House of Representatives (MN-5): On December 16th I sent the e-mail to three different e-mail addresses I had for Omar. That same day I received a form response from Connor McNutt, Omar’s Chief of Staff, stating that he was out of the office but would be returning that day. On December 20th I received a form e-mail from Omar that started out:
Dear Stephen,
As your Congresswoman, I do not only want to represent Minnesotans, I want to govern with you…
Omar never responded to the questions I had sent her.
Rashida Tlaib – U.S. House of Representatives (MI-13): On December 16th I received a form response from Tlaib acknowledging receipt of my e-mail. I have received nothing further from Tlaib.
Kaleem Shabazz – City Council of Atlantic City, New Jersey: On December 19th I received this reply from Shabazz:
As an elected official I support uphold [sic] and defend the laws of this nation state and city [sic] where I reside. Islam is completely compatible with the American laws. As president of the local branch of the NAACP and a member of the state Executive committee of the NAACP I support and speak for social justice civil rights and equality for all citizens [sic]. As President of Bridge of Faith an Interfaith group I try to being [sic] understanding of various faiths.
The next day I sent this response to Shabazz:
Thanks for getting back with me. I am curious about your statement that “Islam is completely compatible with the American laws,” especially in light of the glaring incompatibility between Islamic Doctrine and the U.S. Constitution/“American laws” shown in the four questions I sent you. How can you support “the laws of this nation” when such an incompatibility exists between some of those laws and some of the tenets of your religion? Are you saying that when there is a conflict between the two, our man-made laws are superior to the commands of Allah found in the Koran and the teachings and example of your prophet Muhammad? Do you mean that Islam “is completely compatible with the American laws” because when there is a conflict between the two, the Doctrines of Islam are subordinate to the U.S. Constitution and our other man-made laws?
I have not heard back from Shabazz.
Pious Ali – City Council of Portland, Maine: Ali responded on December 9th, simply writing:
The Inquisition ended in 1834
I replied that same day:
There is no “inquisition” involved. These should be very simple questions to answer because I believe your oath of office included a statement that you would support our U.S. Constitution and laws. Why do you hesitate to support the 1st and 8th Amendments to our Constitution, and our bigamy laws?
On December 10th Ali responded:
Where are you located again? I have taking [sic] that oath three times, It [sic] never says I should answer to bigots who live outside my jurisdiction, I hope your week is going well.
I replied that same day by pointing out that there was nothing bigoted about asking how he resolved fundamental conflicts between doctrines of his faith and the U.S. Constitution, and I asked why he was reluctant to answer.
On December 11th Ali responded:
I don’t think I have to answer you, for one basic reason there is a separation between faith and politics in America. Unless you have another question that is directly connected to my role as an elected official in Portland Maine. [sic] I will not answer any of your racist anti-Muslim questions.
On December 12th I thanked him for his input. Later that same day he responded:
that is what I thought [sic]
I had not further exchanges with Ali.
Mustafa Al-Mutazzim Brent – City Council of East Orange City, New Jersey: Brent responded on December 12th, writing:
Please pardon my delayed response, it is neither deliberate nor intentional. Thank you for this timely and necessary discourse. Please feel free to reach out to me at your convenience, I will be happy to answer any questions you my [sic] have.
I replied that same day by pointing out that I looked forward to his responses to the four questions I had sent him. I have not heard back from Brent.
Abrar Omeish – Fairfax County School Board in Virginia: Omeish responded on December 9th with a form e-mail thanking me for contacting her and for everything I had done to help her to win. She noted that if the matter I was contacting her about was “time sensitive” I should send the e-mail again with “time sensitive” in the subject line. That same day I sent the e-mail again with “time sensitive” in the subject line. I have not heard back from Omeish.
Robert Jackson – State Senate of New York: On December 16th I received a form response from Jackson confirming receipt of my e-mail and stating:
We will review your email and do our best to provide feedback on the matter.
On December 17th I received the same form response again. I have not heard back from Jackson.
No Reply
These Muslim public officials did not reply:
California
Maimona Afzal Berta – Franklin-McKinley School Board
Javed I. Ellahie – Monte Sereno City Council
Al Jabbar – Anaheim Union High School District Board
Farrah N. Khan – Irvine City Council
Ali Saleh – Mayor of the City of Bell
Cheryl Sudduth – West County Water District Board of Directors
Ali Sajjad Taj – Artesia City Council
Aisha Wahab – Hayward City Council
Sabina Zafar – San Ramon City Council
Georgia
Sheikh Rahman – Georgia State Senate
Illinois
Bushra Amiwala – Skokie School District 3.5 Board of Education
Sadia Covert – DuPage County Board Member
Raabia Khan – Oak Grove School District 68 Board of Education
Sara Sadat – Lisle Board of Trustees
Indiana
Andre Carson – U.S. House of Representatives (IN – 7)
Iowa
Ako Abdul-Samad – Iowa State House of Representatives
Mazahir Salih – Iowa City, City Council
Maine
Marwa Hassanien – Bangor School Board
Maryland
Hasan M. “Jay” Jalisi – Maryland State House of Delegates
Fazlul Kabir – College Park City Council
Sabina Taj – Howard County Board of Education
Massachusetts
Afroz Khan – Newburyport City Council
Sumbul Siddiqui – Cambridge City Council
Michigan
Dave Abdallah – Dearborn Heights City Council
Mohammed Alsomiri – Hamtramck City Council
Sam Baydoun – Wayne County Commissioner
Nayeem Leon Choudhury – Hamtramck City Council
Abdullah Hammoud – Michigan State House of Representatives
Angela Jaffer – Northville School Board
Minnesota
Abdisalam Adam – Fridley School Board
Keith Ellison – Minnesota State Attorney General
Nadia Mohamed – St. Louis Park City Council
New Jersey
Alaa Abdelaziz – Paterson City Council
Assad Akhtar – Passaic County Freeholder
Mussab Ali – Jersey City Board of Education
Jamillah Beasley – Irvington Municipal Council
Adam Chaabane – Woodland Park Board of Education
Sadaf Jaffer – Mayor of Montgomery Township
Mohamed T. Khairullah – Mayor of the City of Prospect Park
Alaa Matari – Prospect Park City Council
Raghib Muhammad – Montgomery Township Board of Education
Salim Patel – Passaic City Council
Kamran Quraishi – Montgomery Township Committee
Denise Sanders – Teaneck Board of Education
Hazim Yassin – Red Bank City Council
Adnan Zakaria – Prospect Park City Council
Esllam Zakaria – Prospect Park Board of Education
New Mexico
Abbas Akhil – New Mexico State House of Representatives
New York
Charles Fall – New York State Assembly
North Carolina
Nasif Majeed – North Carolina State House of Representatives
Mujtaba A. Mohammed – North Carolina State Senate
Ohio
Basheer Jones – Cleveland City Council
Omar Tarazi – Hilliard City Council
Pennsylvania
Rochelle Bilal – Philadelphia City Sheriff
Nusrat Rashid – Delaware County Court of Common Pleas
Sheikh Siddique – Upper Darby Township Council
Virginia
Buta Biberaj – Loudoun County Commonwealth’s Attorney
Ghazala Hashmi – Virginia State Senate
Haseeb Javed – Manassas Park City Council
Babur Lateef – Prince William County School Board
Harris Mahedavi – Loudon County School Board
Sam Rasoul – Virginia State House of Delegates
Ibraheem Samirah – Virginia State House of Delegates
Mohamed E. Seifeldein – Alexandria City Council
Lisa Zargarpur – Prince William County School Board
Washington
Riaz Khan – Mukilteo City Council
Varisha Khan – Redmond City Council
Conclusion
As I had previously noted, in theory one would think that after a Muslim public official had taken an oath to support the U.S. Constitution, having to publicly choose between either following that Constitution or following Islamic Doctrine would be simple: a Muslim public official would choose the Constitution.
The reality is quite different. Out of the eighty Muslim public officials I contacted, only six expressed support for the Constitution; it is interesting that of these six, only two of them agreed to be publicly identified. Seventy-four Muslim public officials would not even make a choice between the Constitution or Islamic Doctrine, even though each had publicly sworn to uphold that Constitution.
The fact that 93% of the Muslim public officials that I contacted would not express support for the U.S. Constitution is concerning and lends increased significance to the remarks of Congressman Andre Carson mentioned at the beginning of this article:
Each and every one of us has a directive to represent Islam, in all of our imperfections, but to represent Islam and let the world know that Muslims are here to stay, and Muslims are a part of America. And we will, we will have a Muslim caucus that is sizable, that is formidable, and that is there for you.
It would appear that 93% of the Muslim public officials I contacted give more credence to that directive than to their oath of office.
It is time to start publicly asking Muslim public officials to make a choice between the U.S. Constitution and Islamic Doctrine.
Dr. Stephen M. Kirby is the author of six books about Islam. His latest book is Islamic Doctrine versus the U.S. Constitution: The Dilemma for Muslim Public Officials.
[1] David Shestokas, The US Constitution and Local Government, January 7, 2014, http://www.shestokas.com/constitution-educational-series/the-us-constitution-and-local-government/.
[2] Stephen M. Kirby, Islamic Doctrine versus the U.S. Constitution: The Dilemma for Muslim Public Officials (Washington D.C.: Center for Security Policy Press, 2019); https://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2019/12/03/csp-press-releases-primer-on-islamic-doctrine-versus-the-u-s-constitution/.
[3] However, according to Islamic Doctrine a Muslim can break an oath with minimal cost, or even negate the oath at the time it is being made. A Muslim can also make an oath but at the same time mean something completely different. For eye-opening details about this, see Islamic Doctrine versus the U.S. Constitution: The Dilemma for Muslim Public Officials, pp. 13-33.
CogitoErgoSum says
Muslims will go along with our laws until they become numerous enough or strong enough to make the necessary changes so that those laws do nor forbid what Islam allows and do not allow what Islam forbids. Until then, they don’t want you to know what those changes will be … because you will not like them.
Savvy Kafir says
Exactly! And that’s why they cannot be allowed to remain in the U.S., or any other part of the civilized world. Even if the majority of them seem to be peaceful & non-threatening when they make up only a tiny percentage of the population, that will inevitably change as soon as their numbers give them more power. Islam is a cancer that must be cut out of the West — and the sooner, the better.
Jedothek says
Expelling Muslims from the U.S. would be wrong and un-American, but we need to free up the public discourse so that , e.g., a candidate for office could say, “my opponent, as a Muslim, holds legal ideas incompatible with those of most voters” – without being hounded out of the race.
Some liberals will respond: “but that’s just bigotry, like opposing JFK because he was a Catholic.” In truth, however, some concerns about JFK were rational. What would happen if a Catholic president received a private communication from the pope telling him to , say, veto a certain bill? Would he disobey the Vicar of Jesus Christ?
Savvy Kafir says
If we don’t expel Muslims from America, the country will inevitably become Islamized, via the Demographic Jihad. We either amend the Constitution, so that Muslims can be deported en masse, or eventually we will lose the Constitution entirely.
Robert Pegram says
You don’t seem to understand that their religious views makes them traitors.
Corey Beckman says
That is not even close to the same thing. Catholics or Christians dont call for killing of anyone While muslims claim
killing all non believers of islam is there right,
Kate says
You have that 100% correct. They said they are going to take us over from the inside out and they have every plan to do that. They definitely cannot be trusted. This is a very scary situation. how do we even know if the two that said they would uphold the US Constitution were telling the truth. We don’t. Remember 911.
Garry carlson says
We must not allow any Muslim in any office concerning the United States on any polictical level. This is the plan truth people
Captnhook says
And we should be surprised they come here…live on welfare ….and ignore our countries rules. They don’t need bombs or soldiers……just have the young women constantly pregnant….and take over our cities with political power. They will breed us out of existence as they are attempting to do in Europe. I pray for my children and grand children. GO TRUMP!
David A. Moore (@DavidAMoore3) says
Well put and EXACTLY RIGHTEOUS?? #AmericaFirst #Trump2020 ??
Art Lashbrook says
Obama opened the Muslim door and it’s been a mess ever since. The door must be shut and locked to all Muslims forever if the USA wants a future. My grandkids will not like what we’ve left them if we don’t.
Infidel&glad says
Exactly!
don vito says
The names I am familiar with, in this list, are all dhimmicrats. Until I hear different, I shallfirmly believe all these saracens are of the dhimmicrat party. Dhimmicrats = the party of traitors, collaborators, and sympathizers. If this party is successful in its future political plans, the future of Kfur’s is dhim indeed.
Jerome Henen says
YES!
Merri-joy says
Hi Stephen M. Kirby, thanks for doing due diligence in asking those questions of the Muslim Politicians!
In Q4 you stated “Being married to more than one wife in the United States is illegal according to our man-made bigamy laws”
The Laws of America, Britain, New Zealand, Australia are founded on Judeo-Biblical Law – Jesus quoted from Old Testament / Torah Law when he stated God established the Covenant of Marriage as between one man and one woman!
It would be interesting for you to revisit that question and show these Muslim politicians that Judeo-Christian Law / God’s Law is above the laws of Muhammad a man – one man who supposedly saw an angel and was given “divine revelation” and it was recorded a century plus after the event (no first hand witnesses) – similar story as Joseph Smith!!!
GOD gave Moses His Laws Commandments – it was WITNESSED by thousands of Jews at the foot of the Mount and was RECORDED and taught at the time (not a century or two later)!
Savvy Kafir says
We will be much more effective in pushing back against the Islamization of the West if we do NOT make it a contest between Islam & Christianity, but rather a conflict between Islam and freedom, human rights, animal rights, reason, sanity, & basic human decency. In that scenario, Christians will still have all of the practical, real-world motives for resisting Islam that concern & motivate non-believers. But if we frame the conflict as one between rival religions, we will lose the support of many potential counter-jihadis, especially in Europe, but also here in the U.S.
Merri-joy says
True point – thanks!
gravenimage says
Agreed, Savvy Kafir. These values are ones all good people can agree on.
Sun says
+1
Ed Mudd says
Thank you for your enlightening work. I believe that any one running against a Muslim needs to ask these questions in public forems to put their opponent to the test. Debates would be a excellent avaneu to make the public aware that they have no intention of backing the constitution.
Westman says
The silence thunders loudly in our ears, yet never enough to make us deaf to the machinations of Islam.
In this modern world, Islam is a liability to everyone, including its adherents.
tim gallagher says
No surprise in these findings. I’m sure that, when it comes to islam, it is them or us. Islam is 100% incompatible with our values. To me, the only, and very worrying thing, is that so many people in our societies still don’t get it (the way, say, the Hungarians and Poles and Czechs do get it) and still think we can live harmoniously with the Muslim enemy. Keep Muslims out, that’s the only solution to Islam’s totally incompatible, barbaric values. It is so stupid to keep inviting the trouble that Muslims bring into our societies.
Savvy Kafir says
Agreed!
Wellington says
93%, eh? A devastating statistic and, a la Thomas Jefferson in old age from Monticello when the Missouri Compromise occurred in 1820-21, “…like a firebell in the night awakened and filled me with terror. I considered it at once as the {death} knell of the Union.”
Forty years later after this prescient statement by Jefferson the Union entered into a brutal civil war which came close to killing the Union. I wonder what forty years from now will bring because of a different kind of slavery in America—Islam.
SDnikko says
It appears that many Muslims have successful careers in local and federal U.S governments. So I looked up how many Christians have similar levels of success in Muslim majority countries. This article from 2016 examined that question. The article itself was from a Facebook user and was, of course, removed. To summarize the findings; in 8 Muslim majority countries there were a total of 8 Christians in those countries governments, combined, in total, no more, just eight.
https://tribune.com.pk/story/1102013/these-8-muslim-majority-countries-elected-christian-leaders-before-london-elected-sadiq-khan/
gravenimage says
Very telling. And in many of these cases their position is something like “minister for minority affairs”, which is just window dressing for the outside world.
For instance, Shahbaz Bhatti was the first Federal Minister for Minorities Affairs in Pakistan from 2008 until his assassination in 2011 in Islamabad and the only Christian in the Cabinet. Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan claimed responsibility for his killing and called him a blasphemer of Muhammad.
He was murdered for trying to protect Christians and other religious minorities in Pakistan, including from the notorious blasphemy laws there. The death threats increased when he championed the case of Asia Bibi, sentenced to death for saying she loved Jesus.
This office no longer exists.
Art Hunt says
A province in Pakistan (Sindh) just rejected a law that would have provided protections to Christians and other minorities from “forced conversions” to Islam. Essentially, a law that was designed to prevent underage girls from the Christian/Hindu minorities getting kidnapped and forced to adopt the religion of their kidnappers (Islam).
http://www.asianews.it/news-en/Sindh-rejects-law-against-forced-conversions,-a-big-disappointment-for-Christians-and-Hindus-39607.html?fbclid=IwAR1LmV9JO7NtaAc5Wk7rN4R3ykhHq0lRhgeM41E3DkVBxg4PohjBo-XRtyc
gravenimage says
Thanks for the link to that terrible story, Art. I am not surprised. Pakistan has frequently supported the kidnapping and rape of Infidel girls, and often punished anguished relatives who try to report these crimes.
Huh!?! says
Hmm. Even if they answered this question in the affirmative, what good would that do? As noted many times in Jihad Watch, and here in these postings islamists can break any treaty or oath with an infidel at will.
I wonder if it would be possible to remove them for office? Perjury, sleeper cells, something can be used against them.
I made note of this once before that Robert Spencer made comments that the truth about islam must be continued to be spread. Like grass coming up through concrete the slab will begin to break apart.
islam must be removed from Uncle Sam. islam has never honored any other society. Keep voting for real Uncle Sams. This islamic concept of conquering the U.S.A. and The West won’t work. Those who have dreamed of this sort of thing or thought they could do it are dust now. islam will eventually fall in on itself. The world does not belong to islam.
Merri-joy says
Those politicians questioned should be immediately expelled from their positions – why is America tolerating enemies in their ranks?
Would they have permitted Nazi’s to be in Parliament during WW2?
Wellington says
Merri-joy: Actually, Nazism was legal in the US during WWII just as Communism was legal during the Cold War (N.B., Obama’s CIA Director, John Brennan, in the 1976 Presidential election voted for the American Communist Party candidate for President, one Gus Hall—Brennan was a confused young man back then and now he is both a confused and malevolent old man).
Tolerating enemies amidst us is all right AS LONG AS the evil ideology they adhere to is properly identified. This was done with Nazism. This was done with Communism. This has not been done with Islam—and herein lies the real problem.
Savvy Kafir says
But even if we identify the enemy properly, if Muslims are allowed to remain in the U.S. and other Western countries, eventually we will lose the fight due to the Demographic Jihad. Muslims will never stop trying to subjugate us. And they will succeed if we allow them to live & breed among us.
Wellington says
Respectfully disagree, Savvy Kafir. Once Islam is identified as iniquitous, as it surely is, then liberty will defeat totalitarianism again. I know it’s a big “once” but it is a “once” that is an imperative.
A truly free society, when it properly identifies malevolent ideologies in its midst, will thereafter have the upper hand as the ideological cancer is ridiculed, ostracized, and all those adhering to such an ideological cancer are made to feel, as they should feel, that they’re total losers and have virtually zero power. And this will thereafter be followed by mass exodus from such an evil ideology, with just dead-enders hanging onto it (and these are relatively easily contained as, say, KKK adherents are).
Count on this. And put your faith in liberty, proper knowledge, common sense and moral intelligence rather than any banning of evil ideas—which doing so actually puts true freedom in jeopardy.
Liberty can tolerate intolerance as long as intolerance is accurately characterized and NEVER allowed to act upon any beliefs which violate the laws of a free society.
In short, mock Islam, expose it for the awfulness which it is, crush it when Mo’s deluded followers “get out of line,” and the rest will take care of itself. And freedom will still prevail.
Savvy Kafir says
I think you are overly optimistic, Wellington. And if your approach is taken, and it fails, eventually the U.S. will be lost to Islam. Totally. Along with every other Western nation that takes the same approach. The risk is too great. And the longer we wait to take effective action by expelling these invaders, the more difficult, expensive, & bloody the task will be; and the outcome will become less & less certain.
It’s far better to amend the Constitution so that Muslims can be expelled, than to take the very real risk of having the Constitution replaced by Shariah. A Muslim-free America, with a Constitution amended in this way, will be a country in which freedom is enhanced & protected, not degraded.
gravenimage says
Savvy Kafir–with all respect–I don’t think we should change the Constitution for Muslims.
But we *should* shut down new Muslim immigration–this is already down 90% under Trump–and start deporting Muslims, starting with the worst Jihadists.
There are also heartening moves like this one:
“Trump officials pushing to strip convicted jihad terrorists of citizenship”
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2019/06/trump-officials-pushing-to-strip-convicted-jihad-terrorists-of-citizenship
Wellington says
Thanks for your reply, Savvy Kafir. I must say I’m with gravenimage here. No need to amend the Constitution, just accurately characterize Islam as an iniquitous religious ideology that is protected as far as belief is concerned but not where certain actions are, all the while it is scorned, mocked and ostracized.
We do need to halt Muslim immigration and this will never be done as long as Islam is not looked at in the negative. The First Amendment is flexible enough to protect all religious belief while not necessarily equating to having to let in all religious believers. Per the old line, the Constitution is not a suicide pact.
PRCS says
and herein lies the real problem
During the 1960 presidential campaign, many journalists, rival politicians and everyday citizens were concerned-and made public-their concerns that Kennedy’s Catholicism would unduly influence–even control his decision making–should he be elected.
He made clear, and publicly, that he was not the Catholic candidate for president.
To date, I am not aware of a single Muslim being asked–before taking the oath–the same re: Islam–an ideology which truly is incompatible with our man-made laws.
Yes, herein lies the real problem.
gravenimage says
Good point, PRCS.
Wellington says
PRCS: Catholicism in America was never in the first place a threat to democracy and freedom in its theological blueprint, contra Islam’s theological blueprint which is most certainly a mortal threat to both democracy and freedom here in the USA.
So, Kennedy’s correcting of ignorance by non-Catholics was a very different matter from correctly ascertaining why no Muslim SHOULD EVER be elected POTUS. I’m sorry to say this to you, PRCS, since you overwhelmingly nail things down correctly, but your comparison here is both inapt and inept.
To reiterate and state matters in a slightly different way: Catholicism in America was NEVER a threat to liberty even those many mistakenly thought it was. By contrast, Islam in America is MOST DEFINITELY a threat to liberty even those many still quite erroneously believe it is not. A huger difference between these two polarities would be deuce difficult to find.
Wellington says
“…even though…” twice over in my last paragraph rather than “…even those…” respecting my 8:34 P.M. post to you.
PRCS says
People were concerned back then–out of ignorance–that Catholicism was a threat to democracy.
When asked, Kennedy responded and–for the most part–ended the controversy.
Inversely, too many today have come to believe–out of ignorance–that Islam does NOT pose that threat.
Until Muslims are asked–before taking the oath–they will continue to be elected.
Yes, herein lies the real problem.
Wellington says
So, PRCS, I think we have no difference after all. Glad to know this and sorry if I misinterpreted what you previously conveyed.
Merri-joy says
Thanks for that clarification!
David says
Regardless of the outcome, President Trump and American patriots are the good guys in this one and have done a perfectly justified thing. Using Biblical concepts, authentic Christians are beginning to carry out vengeance by the command of Yahweh, the only true God.
They, Soleimani and the Ayatollah, mistakenly thought Trump wouldn’t and couldn’t do “a damn thing” because their allies, people like Schumer, Brennan, Comey, Pelosi, Hillary, Obama, CAIR, Zuckerberg, Tlaib, Omar, Cortez, Sanders, Kerry, Warren, Gates, Kissinger, Soros, and the rest of the Marxists, Nazis and the Muslim-brotherhood in the U.S., had Trump under control. It was the last mistake Soleimani and his buddies would ever make. The Muslim dream of a global caliphate is slowly coming to an end for all time but millions of people are going to suffer and die before it finally does.
Michael Copeland says
Swearing an oath? Not a problem.
Faisal Shahzad, would-be Times Square bomber, was reminded that he took the Oath of Allegiance on becoming a US citizen:
“I sweared”, he explained, “but I did not mean it”.
Islam allows such deception: it is authorised. The US Constitution does not, however. The retaining of a mental reservation is expressly forbidden when taking the Oath. Because the retaining of a mental reservation is expressly permitted in Islam this should mean that no muslim is eligible to take the Oath.
The law is there. Press for it to be upheld.
Diane Harvey says
Take a course on Muslims’ lying,
https://www.raymondibrahim.com/2014/04/12/taqiyya-about-taqiyya/
Believe the value of a Muslim’s Article VI oath at your own risk.
Selina Robbins says
Exactly, so why are they able to be elected to congress in the first instance?
gravenimage says
Selina, many Americans are in denial about the threat of Islam–especially on the left.
gravenimage says
I was also thinking about that case, Michael.
Emilie Green says
“It is time to start publicly asking Muslim public officials to make a choice between the U.S. Constitution and Islamic Doctrine.”
Of course it is. You’ll know by their votes. They will be voting Democrat. Every time. All the time.
PRCS says
Of course, we already know where their allegiance lies (see @ 1:39 of Sarsou’rs jihad rant).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThJdMXbxChs&t=29s
But, yes: they MUST be publicly asked.”to make a choice” between the U.S. Constitution and Islamic law, which would better inform the public about the Muslim mindset, and—BONUS–forces them to either blaspheme themselves by supporting/defending man-made laws which make legal what ‘Allah’ and Muhammad made unlawful or telling the truth: it’s Islamic law über alles
gravenimage says
93% of Muslim Public Officials Would Not Express Support for the Constitution They Swore to Uphold
………………….
I keep thinking I can’t be shocked–and then I am again.
I thought that more Muslims in political office would at least give lip service to upholding the Constitution–but find that only a bare handful in the entire nation did so, and only *two* said that they would be happy being identified as not having lied in their oath. That one specifically asked not to be publicly identified as supporting the Constitution is also terribly disturbing.
I realize that this request may have gotten lost in the shuffle of mail in a few cases, but it hardly seems that this would be the norm.
Thank you to Stephen Kirby for exposing this.
Infidel says
I even have doubts about those 2, unless they happen to be closet apostates.
But when woke Dems are openly assaulting the 1st Amendment in terms of the cancel culture, hate speech, safe spaces, trigger warnings and so on, as well as the 2nd Amendment and calling for its repeal, why is it surprising that their Muslim subset is just as brazen in not supporting parts of the constitution that go against the Quran?
gravenimage says
Agreed, Infidel.
Juan says
Even if the Muslim official says that he will follow the constitution, you will never know if he or she is practising Taqiyya, which is to deceive non-Muslims.
gravenimage says
True, Juan. But that most Muslims are not even bothering to pay lip service to the Constitution is even more troubling. Muslims only use Taqiyya when they feel they are at a disadvantage. Clearly most of these elected Muslims feel far more emboldened than that.
Savvy Kafir says
Good point! They are bold FAR beyond their numbers — no doubt (largely) due to the massive support they get from ignorant, politically-correct non-Muslims.
gravenimage says
Grimly true.
somehistory says
One can never trust a moslim to tell the truth. It is difficult enough to put any trust in a politician…they lie to get into office, saying whatever they think those present to hear them wish to hear…”no more taxes,”…”new roads,’…”better schools,” etc. and then when the vote is counted, all promises are seen for the lies they always were.
But, moslims are liars…even before seeking public office…or if they never seek public office. So, who can trust any one of them to truthfully answer the questions? They lied to get in, they’ll lie to stay…or they lie by omission.
And, on a related note: Would pelosi and shiff and some others ever have been elected if the entire country voted for each rep as it does for the president? These ones don’t just make laws for each one’s respective state…but they get together and make laws for the entire country. So, if pelosi had to get enough votes from all other states, would she be a rep? Esp now? And omar? Or tlaib? Or o-cortez?
PRCS says
“One can never trust a moslim to tell the truth.”
These Muslims seem truthful, to me.
*Minneapolis Muslims: Sharia law better than American laws
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6QC_qEyl0Q
*Anjem Choudary
Pick any of his interviews
gravenimage says
Taqiyya is just a tactic. When Muslims feel emboldened enough, they tell the truth about their vicious aims.
Carol the 1st says
Actions speak louder than words. They get told the rules and acknowledge this. They understand that subversion means they get the boot or at least lose their place. We don’t condone private political+ systems. Being informed is a good thing. No excuses. I expect these would be China’s ground rules.
Six months ago an Australian politician gave it some thought:
Islam is a political Ideology. Not a race or a religion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBDbc5lqy4c
E T says
The Muslim Brotherhood hoods: “Ultimately we can never be full citizens of this country because there is no way we can be fully committed to the institutions and ideologies of the country.”
“We have a code, they are like Jello, we are like a knife.”
“When Muslims are in the minority, they are very concerned with minority rights, when they are in the majority there are no minority rights”. Winston Churchill
Canadian IMAM, Zafar Bangash It is time for us to pick up stones and stone these people to death for this abomination……Allah imposes this responsibility upon us.”
James Bill, Jimmy Carter’s advisor, “Khomeini was a man of impeccable integrity and honesty.”
Iranian dissident reporters imprisoned or executed 860 journalists.
revolutionary guards took one minute to identify prisoners, declared them Mohamed (enemy of God) and hung them on gallows they erected in the prison.
1979 —U S embassy Theran, 52 Americans were held for 444 days
After President Trumps address to the Nation Van Jones, CNN, “Psychotic speech, incoherent with cookies and dog poop.”
Mark Twain. “ Rags, wretchedness, poverty, and dirt, those signs and symbols that indicate the presence of Muslim rule more surely than the crescent flag itself abound.”
Smiling, Ilan Omar. “Some people did something.”
The Muslim Brotherhood hoods. “Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. Qur’an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the name of Allah is our hightest hope.”
Syed Abul Ala Maududi, Jamaat-e-Islami Party. “Non-Muslims have absolutely no right to seize the reins of power in any part of God’s earth nor to direct the collective affairs of human beings according to their own misconceived doctrines, if they do, the believers would be under an obligation to do their utmost to dislodge them from political power and to make them live in SUBSERVIENCE to the ISLAMIC way of life.”
Sheikh Ahmed Badran. “Once Muslims come to power, they will NEVER allow infidels to rule over Muslims.”
Infidel says
I’m surprised that Mohammad Iqbal and Shammas Malik answered yes. My guess is that they were simply lying, or less likely, they’re unaware about what’s in the Qur’an. Particularly the one about the 8th amendment about cruel and unusual punishment vs the severing of limbs for theft.
But if one looks at it, there is Quran 2:189-193, as well as 8:39 (which is identical to 2:193) which states that Muslims should keep fighting until all religion is for allah i.e. Islam is the only religion left standing. That’s even a more basic assault on religious freedom than attacks on Muslims who apostatize. Kirby seems to be putting the cart before the horse.
Good questions that Stephen Kirby asked, but the only reason I think that it’s a futile exercise is that the elected Muslims in question either refused to answer (thereby confirming that they oppose those parts of the constitution) or downright lied, to avoid looking like fifth columnists. I guess one could point to that as evidence that 93% of elected Muslims are fifth columnists, but chances are more likely that all 100% of them actually are.
mortimer says
Infidel wrote: “My guess is that they were simply lying, or less likely, they’re unaware about what’s in the Qur’an.”
I am certain that all Muslim politicians KNOW that Sharia law is supposed to be supreme over man-made laws. Thus, they are certainly lying or pretending to be ignorant.
Muslim politicians have to lie about Sharia law or remain silent to get elected in the US. They are all liars or they will have to stay out of politics.
Most of the Muslim politicians chose to avoid answering the questionnaire so they would not be exposed either as apostates or as supremacists. There is no middle ground.
I don’t buy that Muslim politicians are unaware of the conflicts. Muslims in politics will be more aware of conflicts than anyone, because they are daily walking in a political minefield.
gravenimage says
Oh, there might be two Muslims in office in the US not intent on imposing Shari’ah law–or maybe not. Hard to know if we should take this as face value.
But even if these two Muslim politicians–one a county board member in small-town Illinois, one on the city council in Akron, Ohio–don’t have this as a goal, these numbers–a bare 7% of Muslims who support the Constitution, and their holding low level positions–do *not* fill me with confidence.
PRCS says
“Particularly the one about the 8th amendment about cruel and unusual punishment vs the severing of limbs for theft.”
IMO, as expansive and noteworthy as Dr. Kirby’s survey was, questions to Muslims who have or are about to ‘take the oath’ re: cruel and unusual punishment should have a gone one step further with this:
Where on the planet is the punitive amputation of a a human being’s hand–or a hand and a foot on opposite sides–morally acceptable to you?
Have Carson, Tlaib, Omar, Ellison, et al ever been asked if any aspect of their ‘complete way of life’ is incompatible with the very concept of democracy, U.S. law or the oath they took to support and defend man-made laws which ‘Allah’ and Muhammad have made unlawful?
E T says
“Under an obligation to do their utmost to dislodge them from political power and make them live under the Constitution of the United States of America or leave the country.”
“Under an obligation to do their utmost to dislodge them from political power and make them live under the Charter of Rights and Freedom of Canada or leave the country.” E T
mortimer says
Many thanks to Stephen M. Kirby for this illuminating story of evasiveness by Muslim politicians. If they are caught in a logical contradiction they simply ignore it or call any questioning of their political ideology ‘racist’.
It is the right of voters to know how a politician will vote.
Will Muslim politicians vote to support the US constitution or will they vote to get around US law in order to bring US law into sync with Sharia.
Those Muslim politicians were given a chance to come clean, but they waffled, lied and clammed up when the moment came to state their political position regarding discriminatory Sharia.
Sharia law does discriminate against women and dirty kafirs, so Sharia is clearly NOT compatible with US laws guaranteeing equality and freedom of expression.
coolflow@comcast.net says
Islamic ideology does not permit Muslims to have patriotic allegiance to any nation except the nation of Islam. That means they reject the fundamental requirement for American citizenship. Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution is referred to as the “Supremacy Clause” because it requires 100% allegiance to our Constitution and the repudiation of Sharia Law and all other foreign law. THAT is WHY we need to DEMAND the DEPORTATION of ALL Muslims from our country. Not some, but ALL of them. Ignore their bogus claims of racism, bigotry, etc. They have cowed us into submission because we have not made it clear that the Muslim argument they are a “religion” hides the fact that they are very dangerous and evil foreign enemies, plotting our destruction. They all need to be loaded on a boat and sent to the Middle East, and never allowed to set foot on our shores ever again. That includes those are currently U.S. citizens.
Jerome Henen says
Yes exactly. Devout muslims cannot have it both ways. Islam means submission. Their god is NOT the same as that of the judeo – christian one. Many of the tenets of the Quran , hadiths and suras are clearly not compatible with western civilization.
Shippie says
Then they aren’t fit to be in service they need to be impeached out of office immediately…the Constitution is Law of the Land if you don’t like it you can leave go back or go to where you want…this is American and we the people have spoken …get out of service if you can serve the Constitution…
mortimer says
Kaleem Shabazz: Islam is completely compatible with the American laws.
Shabazz is flat out lying.
He must practice that lie in front of the mirror to prevent himself laughing when he says it in public.
Jay says
These treasonous invading maggots are jamming our state, local and federal government and bureaucracy, as well as our security agencies, military, and military intelligence. Until we deal with this enemy infestation strictly and thoroughly there will never be any peace in the USA or in the world as a whole. REINSTATE the McCarran-Walter Act and apply it against all totalitarians equally, including most certainly against all moslems, no matter how slimy and ingratiating their demeanor. The Muslim Brotherhood, which prides itself in “fitting in” and “assimilating” as well as they can to USAmerican culture and society, is probably the most dangerous moslem organization in the world. They have made great inroads into our system of government and our communities. Realizing and facing this clever, diabolical enemy is one of the primary tasks we face as USAmerican citizens. Recommended reading: The Brotherhood: America’s Next Great Enemy, by Erick Stakelbeck.
gravenimage says
+1
Jerome Henen says
Absolutely agree! Pity this will never happen. Every administration, including the current one, misses completely the threat of stealth jihad. The enemy has mastered the art of propaganda, whilst the west , or most of it , is in a coma of obliviousness!
No Muzzies Here says
It is impossible to swear allegiance to both Islam and the Constitution at the same time. When they take the oath of office they are lying.
Jerome Henen says
Why are they not arrested for sedition?
ONTIME says
If this is the view and opinion of the muslim elected to office then it follows, they will not support the US Constitution, the rule of law or inalienable rights therefore they cannot provide for you representation as described by law, they by their own admission are un electable…this may go to court soon and be reviewed….
Buford says
Their only objective is world domination no matter what it takes or codt
staffsgt7 says
oh come on now, if they are cornered they will say what they think we want to hear. So I believe them … NOT!
Anjuli Pandavar says
Mr Kirby,
You have done critically-important work for which every American should be grateful. The rest of us, too, should be grateful for being all the better equipped for your work. Thank you.
What I’m about to say might come across as unduly cynical, but I ask you to indulge me anyway. I would suggest that the two Muslim public officials who said that their allegiance is with the US Constitution say so because they have (or think they have) figured out a way of interpreting their oaths that allows them to publicly claim allegiance to the Constitution despite their allegiance being to Islam. I would not be rushing to endorse them, if I were you.
Something else struck me (and this could be purely down to my ignorance of the US). What percentage is 80 of the total number of Muslim elected officials in the US? 80 already seems an awfully high number for a population of only 1.85 million. At 80, the representation ratio is 1: 23,000 or so. How does the actual ratio compare to the rest of America? What I’m getting at is that for people who do not accept democracy or “man-made laws”, it’s an enthusiasm for democracy that doesn’t add up. I think the figures will show that this is nothing but good old jihad. I think the clue is here: “Each and every one of us has a directive to represent Islam.” Read that carefully. They do not represent their constituents, of whatever religion, they represent *Islam*. And when, exactly, did Islam elect them?
Without the benefit of your research, I’ve tried to highlight the same sleeping monster with respect to the Muslim Members of Knesset in Israel, that I draw attention to here: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2020/01/a-book-critical-to-the-survival-of-israel-and-of-civilization-as-a-whole and discuss a little more deeply here: https://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm?frm=189937&sec_id=189937
All such officials must be challenged as you have, and the results made public, as you have, but more importantly, for the slightest reluctance to publicly commit to the Constitution, they must be automatically debarred. If they are already elected, they must be put to the test and if they fail it, immediately disqualified from office *and arrested for perjury or similar*. We cannot wait until they show their true colours at a time of their choosing, for by then we will already have lost.
Chuck Wickham says
It becomes more difficult to reduce the advance of the invaders as they gain strength at present is growing every minute there are not moves to protect the public from themselves. The eradication of those as well as education of the USA citizens to The prospects of the loss of this country if not corrected!
standingcloud49@gmail.com says
Why do all you want is Muslims to run the US?