NYT puff piece on Ellison slams “Muslim-bashers in the blogosphere”

posted at 4:45 pm on November 10, 2006 by Allahpundit

A new entry for the Times style guide! They’ll list it somewhere between “fake but accurate” and “ultra-ultraconservative”:

Arab news reports highlighted the fact that Mr. Ellison would probably take the oath of office on the Koran, something which also upset Muslim-bashers in the blogosphere. Some suggested it meant he would pledge allegiance to Islamic law rather than to upholding the Constitution.

Does the article so much as intimate why some of those “Muslim-bashers” might object to Keith Ellison? Is the word “CAIR” breathed even once? No, of course not. If there’s good reason to criticize then it’s not “bashing,” and that fouls up the narrative.

Incidentally, CJ predicted on Election Day that they’d be celebrating his victory in Gaza. Close enough:

Mr. Ellison’s victory was widely noted in the larger Muslim world. The day after the election, it was the third headline mentioned on Al Jazeera, the most popular satellite news channel in the Middle East, right after a report that 18 Palestinian civilians had been killed by Israeli artillery in the Gaza Strip and a report on the overall Democratic sweep in the elections.

The news garnered a rich variety of comments from Arab readers on the Web site of Al Arabiya, a satellite news channel based in Dubai. “God willing in the next election, half of Congress will be from the rational Muslims,” wrote one reader, while another said, “May God make this the beginning of victory for Muslims on the very ground of the despots.”

Exit question: is the Times’s criticism of Bush “America-bashing” or “conservative-bashing”?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Islamophobiamaniaphilia

geoff on November 10, 2006 at 4:47 PM

Everyone’s racists but the racists
And these same people would cut our heads off as easily as they would the times writers

Defector01 on November 10, 2006 at 4:52 PM

btw I don’t care about Ellison taking the oath on a koran for hte same reason that if i ever take office I’d put my hand on the torah, not the king james bible. I just question who he’s truly in allegiance to.

Defector01 on November 10, 2006 at 4:52 PM

Do I detect a certain newspaper playing an absolute moral authority card on behalf of Mr. Ellison?

Nah, couldn’t be that …

thirteen28 on November 10, 2006 at 4:53 PM

The NYT is squarley on the side of Muslim Extremists (I think Ellison is a stealth radical) anyway, so why would anyone be surprised that they are going to try to silence any criticism of this guy?

Buy guns and ammo…..you are going to need them one day.

quax1 on November 10, 2006 at 4:56 PM

Of course … they even manage to get in the always valuable John F. Kennedy comparison:

Many Muslim American activists hope Mr. Ellison will inspire other Muslims to run for office, some even comparing his candidacy to John F. Kennedy’s breaking the taboo against a Roman Catholic’s being president.

Gregor on November 10, 2006 at 4:58 PM

Here is a good article on the subject of Islam. I particularly like the line: “If you want to build mosques in our countries, let us build churches in yours.”

I wish Michelle Malkin would interview him for a Vent.

januarius on November 10, 2006 at 4:58 PM

Well, after reading the article, I must say my definition of “slams” is a lot different that yours.

honora on November 10, 2006 at 5:00 PM

Here is the article:
http://www.christendom.edu/news/releases.shtml#nnorom

He is right on the money about Muslims posing as “citizens.”

januarius on November 10, 2006 at 5:00 PM

Well, after reading the article, I must say my definition of “slams” is a lot different that yours.

“Muslim-basher” isn’t a slam?

Allahpundit on November 10, 2006 at 5:01 PM

He is right on the money about Muslims posing as “citizens.”

You know what would be highly ironic and depressing? If this turned into an actual Muslim-bashing thread.

So let’s not let it, okay?

Allahpundit on November 10, 2006 at 5:01 PM

Honora … your definition of pretty much everything is different from that of those who think.

Gregor on November 10, 2006 at 5:02 PM

Muslim bashers in the blogosphere?

Oh… my… God… they can read!

Cary on November 10, 2006 at 5:03 PM

MORAL AUTHORITY! MORAL AUTHORITY!!!

Troy Rasmussen on November 10, 2006 at 5:03 PM

Oh… my… God… they can read!

Indeed there are some Muslim-bashers in the blogosphere. And there are some insightful critics of Islam too.

They can read, but can they distinguish?

Allahpundit on November 10, 2006 at 5:04 PM

Half of congress might as well be muslim..

Viper1 on November 10, 2006 at 5:05 PM

I think I’m going to convert to Muslim and then register as a Democrat. Both groups seem to be able to do anything they want and get away with it. That might be fun for a while.

Gregor on November 10, 2006 at 5:07 PM

I read on some gay blog that he’s actually for gay rights..suuuuuuuure he WAS. Is the left really that dumb? Uhm, nevermind.

SouthernGent on November 10, 2006 at 5:08 PM

I guess the real question is, what is Ellison’s priority, His religion which states its importance above all other things, or his oath to defend and uphold the constitution, If you ask his Imam the answer most definitely is that Islam and its law comes before all other things. How do you trust this with National Security??

You Dont.

Viper1 on November 10, 2006 at 5:09 PM

Good question AP, your point is well taken.

To answer your question though: No. I don’t think they can distinguish. And I think they choose to see what they want to see in order to validate a twisted ideology that tortures women before the eyes of the world.

Does every freakin’ thing have to be relative?

Cary on November 10, 2006 at 5:11 PM

stop that….lol

quax1 on November 10, 2006 at 5:15 PM

His supporters were quick to point out that they backed Mr. Ellison not simply because he was a Muslim, but also because of his progressive platform, which included calls for universal health insurance and a withdrawal of forces from Iraq, and because he was running a positive campaign.

Sure they did.

On the subject of his oath on the Koran, are Congressmen allowed to take an oath on anything but the Bible?

januarius on November 10, 2006 at 5:16 PM

Everybody needs to read “Infiltration”. This is just the beginning.

Tony737 on November 10, 2006 at 5:19 PM

I always love the argument that it isn’t “all” muslims who are extremists. True maybe, but the majority of the so-called “moderate” muslims are aiding the crazies by BEING SILENT about what they are doing. There are a few notable critics of radical Islam who are muslims themselves, but the vast majority sit on their hands and hold their mouths shut because they cannot speak badly of a fellow muslim.

We infidels get to do all the dying,but open your mouth and complain about it and you are a hater.

quax1 on November 10, 2006 at 5:23 PM

This is just the beginning.

Exactly. Muslims are openly talking about taking power in the U.S.

Gregor on November 10, 2006 at 5:23 PM

Everybody needs to read “Infiltration”. This is just the beginning

CONCUR!

I have been screaming about this here since early last week. If my LIBERAL SCUM neighbors weren’t from MINNESOTA, it would just be dangerous. Now its going to suck in real time, too.

He gets the briefs people. Pay attention, you are witnessing the beginning of the end. This was THE NATION OF ISLAM’S MOUTHPIECE folks.

NOW HE’S THEIR EARPIECE.

seejanemom on November 10, 2006 at 5:23 PM

This seems like a good place to ask: Are you Muslim AP or is that handle just a jab at Islamofacists?

Troy Rasmussen on November 10, 2006 at 5:24 PM

One of the questions we all have is this: How do we distinguish moderate Muslims from radical Islamists?

Daniel Pipes has a series of questions that he thinks are helpful.

Useful questions might include:

Violence: Do you condone or condemn the Palestinians, Chechens, and Kashmiris who give up their lives to kill enemy civilians? Will you condemn by name as terrorist groups such organizations as Abu Sayyaf, Al-Gama’a al-Islamiyya, Groupe Islamique Armée, Hamas, Harakat ul-Mujahidin, Hizbullah, Islamic Jihad, Jaish-e-Mohammed, Lashkar-e-Tayyiba, and al-Qaida?

Modernity: Should Muslim women have equal rights with men (for example, in inheritance shares or court testimony)? Is jihad, meaning a form of warfare, acceptable in today’s world? Do you accept the validity of other religions? Do Muslims have anything to learn from the West?

Secularism: Should non-Muslims enjoy completely equal civil rights with Muslims? May Muslims convert to other religions? May Muslim women marry non-Muslim men? Do you accept the laws of a majority non-Muslim government and unreservedly pledge allegiance to that government? Should the state impose religious observance, such as banning food service during Ramadan? When Islamic customs conflict with secular laws (e.g., covering the face for drivers’ license pictures), which should give way?

Islamic pluralism: Are Sufis and Shi’ites fully legitimate Muslims? Do you see Muslims who disagree with you as having fallen into unbelief? Is takfir (condemning fellow Muslims with whom one has disagreements as unbelievers) an acceptable practice?

Self-criticism: Do you accept the legitimacy of scholarly inquiry into the origins of Islam? Who was responsible for the 9/11 suicide hijackings?

Defense against militant Islam: Do you accept enhanced security measures to fight militant Islam, even if this means extra scrutiny of yourself (for example, at airline security)? Do you agree that institutions accused of funding terrorism should be shut down, or do you see this a symptom of bias?

Goals in the West: Do you accept that Western countries are majority-Christian and secular or do you seek to transform them into majority-Muslim countries ruled by Islamic law?
It is ideal if these questions are posed publicly – in the media or in front of an audience – thereby reducing the scope for dissimulation.

No single reply establishes a militant Islamic disposition (plenty of non-Muslim Europeans believe the Bush administration itself carried out the 9/11 attacks); and pretence is always a possibility, but these questions offer a good start to the vexing issue of separating enemy from friend.

EFG on November 10, 2006 at 5:25 PM

If CAIR is a civil rights organization why is NYT or whoever else afraid to mention them?

elBarto on November 10, 2006 at 5:25 PM

What did the first President, Congress, etc…take their oath on?

1776 Remember Why!!!

rocked on November 10, 2006 at 5:26 PM

Bless their hearts, the fine gentlemen at Powerline blogged for weeks and months about this guy, trying to warn their fellow Minnesotans not to vote for him.

Ellison begins the American version of the cartoon jihad.
Will this be the beginning of an internet censure drive to silence we “rascists” and “hate speech” practitioners of the blogosphere?
It’s hard not to engage in “Muslim bashing” when the enemy is an IslamoFascist.
Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims.
Funniest thing…

Jen the Neocon on November 10, 2006 at 5:27 PM

Or, as a certain Deity once said on his blog, you can tell the radical muslims from the moderates by their prayers.

The radical muslims pray for jihad.

The moderate muslims pray for “fruity” things like “food” and “good health.”

EFG on November 10, 2006 at 5:27 PM

How much do you want to make a bet this is the committee that Democrats will place Ellison on? They will do this to prove that they are multicultural and not racist.

Actually, they might be happier if he is on this one in a self-congratulatory way to prove their tolerance.

januarius on November 10, 2006 at 5:28 PM

Terrorist Enabler Slams Anti-Terrorist Bloggers. Film at 11:00

DannoJyd on November 10, 2006 at 5:28 PM

seejanemom : proud member of the Muslim-bashing Blogitude.

Who’s with me…???

seejanemom on November 10, 2006 at 5:28 PM

One of the questions we all have is this: How do we distinguish moderate Muslims from radical Islamists?

That question in itself … ignores one important fact. ISLAM is defined by the Qur’an. The Qur’an teaches radicalism. Therefore … those Muslims who do not advocate violence and radicalism are actually not true Muslims.

But don’t dare say that in public. That would be considered bashing Islam.

Gregor on November 10, 2006 at 5:30 PM

Oops. Try this link for starters: Powerline: Allah Akbar, y’all

Jen the Neocon on November 10, 2006 at 5:31 PM

On the subject of his oath on the Koran, are Congressmen allowed to take an oath on anything but the Bible?

januarius on November 10, 2006 at 5:16 PM

I am almost certain they are. For example, I’m almost positive Senator Lieberman took his oath on a Torah also.

And as far as Ellison swearing an oath to Islamic Law as opposed to Constitutional Law, well, I can’t read his mind. But the actual congressional oath is as follows:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

So there doesn’t seem to be much wiggle room in this oath for supporting Sharia law over Constitutional law.

EFG on November 10, 2006 at 5:33 PM

So there doesn’t seem to be much wiggle room in this oath for supporting Sharia law over Constitutional law.

And we all know that supporters of Islam don’t lie.

Right?

Sincerely,

Bagdad Bob

Gregor on November 10, 2006 at 5:36 PM

Maybe someone should make a movie about him being assasinated to see the NYT’s reaction. You know, to reflect the times we live in and all.

I’m just saying.

SouthernGent on November 10, 2006 at 5:39 PM

So there doesn’t seem to be much wiggle room in this oath for supporting Sharia law over Constitutional law.

Someone needs to ask that question. Does he support Constitutional law or Sharia law? Should Sharia law be allowed anywhere in America?

januarius on November 10, 2006 at 5:41 PM

So there doesn’t seem to be much wiggle room in this oath for supporting Sharia law over Constitutional law.

I’m going to disagree with you there. Just thinking about the cabbies who won’t let passengers with alcohol in their cabs springs to mind. Plus, I can see the ACLU having a field day with the Free Exercise Clause in regards to allowing Sharia law to spread.

bookwurm322 on November 10, 2006 at 5:43 PM

That is exactly the kind of news coverage that annoys me.

They imply that the problem people have with him is that he’s going to take his oath of office with a Koran instead of a Bible. I’m not sure which blogs they’ve been reading, but they certainly aren’t the mainstream blogs that the majority of conservatives go to. I honestly couldn’t care if he took the oath on a Bible, a Torah, a Koran, or a copy of Moby Dick. My concern is with him as a person and views that he has espoused.

The closest they come to mentioning any of his less-savory associations is when they mentioned that his opponent attacked him because his opponent was Jewish and was offended by his work with the Nation of Islam. Of course, they quickly followed that up by mentioning that Ellison denied any conneciton to The Nation of Islam. Now, while that is factually true, I find it misleading that they didn’t follow that up with the fact that his opponent then produced proof that he had been part of that group, at which point he said, “Ooops….yeah….but I was young and didn’t mean it.” or something along those lines.

And, as has already been mentioned, CAIR was nowhere to be found in the article at all.

JadeNYU on November 10, 2006 at 5:46 PM

Someone needs to ask that question. Does he support Constitutional law or Sharia law? Should Sharia law be allowed anywhere in America?

That question has already been asked of him. It’s important to note:

As part of his political platform, Mr. Ellison is calling for an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq and the impeachment of President Bush. Although he has every right to do so under US law, one must ask that if he is elected, will he serve his constituents in conformance with the constitution of the United States, or will he make decisions for the country as a result of the political doctrine imposed by his religion? An important aspect of our democratic society is the separation of church and state, which is the antithesis of orthodox Islam. Under Islam, there is no separation between church and state; Allah is the sole author of the law and it is up to the state to implement the laws of Allah. One only has to look at any country ruled by a Muslim government: the type of government is either dictatorial or autocratic. A true Muslim stipulates that the Qu’ran is the constitution.

Gregor on November 10, 2006 at 5:47 PM

Someone needs to ask that question. Does he support Constitutional law or Sharia law? Should Sharia law be allowed anywhere in America?

januarius on November 10, 2006 at 5:41 PM

I guess well just have to wait and see if he tries to adjust the rape laws to conform with Pakistans or bring about the “Honora”-ble practice of covering women from head to toe.

I wonder if they will have to mark where Mecca is on the congressional wall, so he can correctly align himself and his prayer rug.

E L Frederick on November 10, 2006 at 5:47 PM

Let me ask my fellow commenters this:

Leaving Keith Ellison and his ties to CAIR,

If there was a Muslim who gave moderate answers to each of the questions that Daniel Pipes proposed, namely
1)Violence: Opposed Jihad
2)Moderninity: Supported it.
3)Secularism: Supported it.
4)Islamic Pluralism: Supported it.
5)Self Criticism: Supported it.
6)Defense Against Militant Islam: Supported it.
7)Goals of the West: Didn’t seek Islamic domination/Sharia

Would this constitue in your opinion a Moderate Muslim? Seriously, what else could a Muslim say that would establish his moderate bonefides?

And assume his actions matched his words? Again, wouldn’t this be the definition of moderate?

Aside from actual conversion/apostasy, what else could a Muslim do to establish his moderate/liberal bonefides?

If you only give Muslims a binary choice, Radical Islam or Conversion to Christianity/apostasy, pretty much almost all Muslims are going to go the Radical route.

What would Christians do if given the same choice?

Muslims have to be given the option of being Moderate if we actually want any of them to be Moderate.

EFG on November 10, 2006 at 5:48 PM

bookwurm
sharia is unconstitutional becaus eit violates the equal protection clause. Women are not given the same legal status as men.

elBarto on November 10, 2006 at 5:48 PM

I’d be more concerned that the “Freedom Fries” in the Capitol cafeteria would be renamed “Farrakhan Fries” and not “Fedayeen Fries.”

It’s the SOS (Shaheed on a Shingle) for which your really have to watch out.

rw on November 10, 2006 at 5:50 PM

Keep in mind I’m not trying to white wash Keith Ellison’s ties to CAIR, which are disturbing, as they are NOT good company.

My question is more geared towards discerning what would constitute evidence that a faithful Muslim was indeed moderate in the eyes of some of our commenters.

EFG on November 10, 2006 at 5:52 PM

EFG –

As I said in an earlier comment … the Qur’an instructs Muslims to be radical, violent, and brutal.

There can be no moderation in a Muslim who truly follows their religion.

The term “moderate Muslim” is pretty much the same as a far left liberal saying they are Christian.

Gregor on November 10, 2006 at 5:56 PM

I believe by your definition that a person who could answer your questions the way you propose would not be considered a moderate Muslim by the majority of what calls itself the moderate Muslims.

I believe the correct term would be blasphemer.

E L Frederick on November 10, 2006 at 5:57 PM

Nice shot, SG.

So, AP. Where shall the line be drawn, between conscientious criticism of a radicalized belief system and “bashing”? Jane is not simply foaming at the mouth when she says that Ellison was the NOI’s mouthpiece. (Umm, Jane, still some foam showing, though)

As hard as he has tried to distance himself from that fact, all of his recent statements have had to include lies to suggest that he didn’t really know what he was into with Farrakan. And of course, only the down-trodden and disenfranchised can claim ignorance as an excuse for bad behavior and lack of character.

It is well if the right wing of the blogosphere keeps a very close eye on Keith Ellison, and trumpets loudly every vote, every spoken word, and every move that can be called anti-American. If we have to start somewhere, it might as well be there.

Freelancer on November 10, 2006 at 6:07 PM

EFG,
I was doing research about whether he can pledge to uphold the Constitution on a Koran. That is a question that is being asked around the country right now, and guess who is getting involved?

Here are two interesting articles:
http://www.gopusa.com/news/2005/june/0622_koran_oath.shtml

Dhimmitude:
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=748

Liberals often talk about the “ugly American” abroad, but we never hear about the “ugly Muslim.” I’ve lived abroad, both in Europe and in Asia. I can’t imagine being in a Buddhist or Muslim country and demanding that a Bible being given to me to swear on if I were in court, especially if I were to have the choice of simply giving an oath of affirmation not on a Koran or any other religious text.

Muslims are not interested in assimilation or respecting our traditions.

januarius on November 10, 2006 at 6:08 PM

Gregor, yes, I’m aware of those violent verses. Robert Spencer knows them much better than I do, and he is concerned about them. And we shouldn’t and can’t white wash them and pretend they don’t exist.

But assuming a Muslim stated that he did not consider himself bound by those violent verses, and rejected them, would we consider this a Moderate Muslim?

And E L Frederick, you are right, the radical Islamists certainly would call this sort of a Muslim a blashpemer.

As for that population of Muslims who self define them selves as Moderates, the Million Dollar Question is, would they consider him a blashpemer? I certainly hope not. Because if they do, this tiny group of extremeist suddenly got a lot bigger, a lot faster.

Anyway, I don’t think we can accept or tolerate a group of people that espouse views that are fundamentaly opposed to our way of life. Which would be Muslims who gave what we would call the wrong answers to Daniel Pipes’ questions.

So what do we do? I think we need to behave similarly to how we behaved when the Nation decided to rid itself of racial discrimination and Jim Crow laws. (Southerners, I love and respect you all greatly. I’m not trying to bash you all here.) Collectively, we decided that that sort of behavior and view were unacceptable and vigorously condemned and confronted them.

And what was the result? After several decades of this, we have a southern woman named Mary Katharine Hamm who speaks eloquently about how the South has turned its back on racism. And you know what? I believe her. It wasn’t just Yankees condemning this that made it possible. When Yankees condemned this, combined with native righteous Southerners working from within to change their culture, the change happened. It wasn’t just Yankees. It was critical to give support to those Southerners. And it couldn’t have been done without those same righteous Southerners.

I think the same approach will have to be taken here. It won’t be easy. It will take a long time. But I think it can be done.

After all, this isn’t France. This is America. And if any nation and culture can do this, it is us.

I say this all with respect to everyone.

EFG on November 10, 2006 at 6:16 PM

EFG, all of this is pretty irrelevant unless you can find a Muslim who can answer your questions.

Good luck in your search.

E L Frederick on November 10, 2006 at 6:21 PM

EFG,

Gregor has it about right.

Analogies between Islam and Christianity have a very limited application to this sort of argument. If I may…

Christianity believes it, through the complete Bible, is the only correct understanding of humanity’s relationship with God. In that, a similarity with Islam exists, but there it also ends.

Christianity does not DEMAND anything of people who do not believe in it.

Christianity does not kill people who do not believe in it.
(Please don’t throw the Crusades at me, you’ll be sorry)

The Christian principles upon which this nation were founded gave people liberty, not a rope; opportunity, not a sword. Here you are free to choose to believe as you wish, within the law of the land.

Freelancer on November 10, 2006 at 6:21 PM

But assuming a Muslim stated that he did not consider himself bound by those violent verses, and rejected them, would we consider this a Moderate Muslim?

How could this person claim to be Muslim if they reject the Qur’an?

Can a Christian say “I reject the teachings of Christ, yet I’m a Christian? Yes. They can SAY it, but that doesn’t mean they are a Christian.

My point is … you’re either a Muslim (follower and believer of Islam and the teachings of Mohammed), or you are not.

We are so busy trying to be politically correct that we are making up new words that don’t have meaning … such as “moderate Muslim.”

Gregor on November 10, 2006 at 6:23 PM

The MSM will yawn when he refuses to take the oath on the Bible. I wonder if he’ll get offended at the prayer that open the sessions?

Hmmm…anyone wanna bet he’s on the Intelligence Committee. Those liberals would just love to say, “See! We can trust them!” (Unless they want to run the ports).

Hypo.crites

SouthernGent on November 10, 2006 at 6:26 PM

januarius on November 10, 2006 at 6:08 PM

I hear what you are saying about the Ugly American. I’ve spent some time overseas, and believe it or not, in my limited experience, it was the Americans who were the most polite, and the European tourists who were the most disrespectful. Every American has heard about the ‘ugly American’ slur, so most of them do their best to combat it.

But the Europeans? Some of those guys were waaaaaay uglier in their actions than any American.

As to the issue of the Koran/BIble situation.

Personally, I wouldn’t swear an oath on a Buddist Holy book. I’d use nothing, or just affirm. Given the option, I’d ask for a Bible. But if they didn’t have it, I’d just afirm.

Historical Trivia. After WWII, several war crime trials took place that involved Japanese Officers as witnesses. I believe it took place during the trial of Tokyo Rose, although I could be mistaken. Anyway, the issue of having a non-Christian Japanese officer swearing an oath with or without the Bible came up. In the end, the court decided that even though the actual word of the law said (I think) swear on a Holy Bible, that wasn’t really necessary. I think the Japanese Officer said he wasn’t Christian, and he didn’t believe in the Bible, but he did recognize it as a Holy Book. The Officer then said he didn’t really have a problem with swearing on it, but it really didn’t matter to him, because his word was contingent upon his honor as a Japanese Officer, and his word was his bond.

In the end I think the court recognized this, and they said Japan had the same concerpt of perjury as we did, except that they just didn’t use a Bible, and basically they decided to just move on and not let this little thing throw them for a loop. I don’t actually remember if he swore on a Bible or not, but it seemed to be a moot point.

Having said that, I think the law in North Carolina might have written itself into a corner there. I’m not sure, but I think that they might not even offer the opportunity of just afirming without a Holy Bible. And I think part of the reason for this impase is that the law says “Holy Bible” instead of Holy Book or something like that.

Anyway, it seems like the easiest thing is just to allow them to either swear on the Koran, or let them Afirm without any sort of Scripture. Demanding them to swear on a Bible seems to be a losing position, and not really defendable in the long run.

EFG on November 10, 2006 at 6:31 PM

Christianity does not kill people who do not believe in it.
(Please don’t throw the Crusades at me, you’ll be sorry)

Freelancer on November 10, 2006 at 6:21 PM

Come on man, give me some credit. I wouldn’t pull that sort of dishonest crap about the Crusades.

EFG on November 10, 2006 at 6:33 PM

The difference between Islam and the Crusades:

Terror was created by a radical and barbaric prophet who instructed his followers to murder and destroy all non-believers.
The Islamic Qur’an instructs it’s followers to murder all non-believers.

The Crusades was caused by radical and barbaric people who happened to be Christians.
The Christian Bible instructs it’s believers to love all non-believers.

Gregor on November 10, 2006 at 6:44 PM

Gregor, I agree, there are some very serious, profound differences between Islam and Christianity.

Robert Spencer has a very straight forward, no BS sort of way of dealing with the issue of the violent verses.

He never tries to whitewash them. He confronts them, and says any attempt to modernize Islam must recognize the existance of these verses and refute them.

And don’t worry. I’m not gonna try to pull some Rosie O’Donnell style “equivalence” BS here.

I think he’s right.

EFG on November 10, 2006 at 6:51 PM

I hear what you are saying about the Ugly American. I’ve spent some time overseas, and believe it or not, in my limited experience, it was the Americans who were the most polite, and the European tourists who were the most disrespectful.

Amen! I have story after story about obnoxious, arrogant Europeans and Canadians. Americans, on the other hand, always seem to make a good impression because we know the stereotype.

My favorite stories are about obnoxious Canadians with their flags on their backpacks, ironically pointing out they are not Americans.

I’ll tell you a funny story about an obnoxious German, but I got to run to class right now.

januarius on November 10, 2006 at 6:52 PM

Oops. The last and second to last sentence are in opposite order.

He never tries to whitewash them. He confronts them, and says any attempt to modernize Islam must recognize the existance of these verses and refute them.

I think he’s right.

And don’t worry. I’m not gonna try to pull some Rosie O’Donnell style “equivalence” BS here.

EFG on November 10, 2006 at 6:53 PM

Maybe someone should make a movie about him being assasinated to see the NYT’s reaction. You know, to reflect the times we live in and all.

I’m just saying.

SouthernGent

Yeah, well I’m just sayin’ that I’ll donate the props. I have a .308 that the last action it saw was a warthog on the plains of South Africa. Hope he won’t mind the whole PORK GUN thing….

seejanemom on November 10, 2006 at 6:57 PM

I don’t understand what would be gained by having people that don’t believe in the Bible swear an oath on the Bible.

I could be incorrect, but, it seems to me that the purpose of having someone swear an oath on a book of scripture is that the oath will supposedly mean more to them.

If that is the case, having someone swear on someone else’s scriptures doesn’t serve much purpose.

JadeNYU on November 10, 2006 at 7:06 PM

If that is the case, having someone swear on someone else’s scriptures doesn’t serve much purpose.

Perhaps the congressmuslim should swear his oath on an AK-47, or a stick of dynamite, or something.

JackM on November 10, 2006 at 7:18 PM

Ellison is going to be looked at closely and if he slips he will get caught. The explanation that he didn’t understand at the time the anti-semitic nature of the N.O.I among other things leaves me incredulous.

Ripclawe on November 10, 2006 at 8:39 PM

CAIR’s spokesman Ibrahim Hooper supports the abolition of the U.S. Constitution and the imposition of Sharia law.

Nuff said. Nuke CAIR.

shooter on November 10, 2006 at 9:53 PM

sharia is unconstitutional becaus eit violates the equal protection clause. Women are not given the same legal status as men.

Very true. However, the ACLU can be very selective as to which portions of the Constituion they uphold at certain times.

bookwurm322 on November 11, 2006 at 1:58 AM

Muslims have to be given the option of being Moderate if we actually want any of them to be Moderate.

EFG on November 10, 2006 at 5:48 PM

EFG, good post. We are never going to simply eliminate the core belief system of 1.5 billion people, and should we try we are only going to be rightfully viewed as their enemy. They need to be talked out of it, or at the least talked out of the especially nasty parts of it. They have to start talking each other out of it, and they will if they are properly educated and motivated to do so.

Those Muslims who want to turn away from the middle age portions tenets of Islam must be encouraged to do so, not condemned as our enemies.

Pablo on November 11, 2006 at 7:11 AM

Hey Pablo and EFG as soon as you come off your hemp try reading The 7 Step Plan for world domination and then over to “Americans Like Pepsi, We Like Death.” mmmk?

And then if you bright ones want to do your own home work check the U-Tube for some interesting videos and then if you really don’t want to be talking through your assholes read this exhaustive commentary on the Koran and moe-ham-ud the pervert. mmmmK?

And if its asking too much to *read* it for yourselves–hey–there’ audio!! Only don’t smoke the hemp or read dailykos before you start listening. It’s asshole remarks like yours that are going to put this nation to seed.

auspatriotman on November 11, 2006 at 2:16 PM

Since the Koran is a book that calls for the violent overthrow of all infidel states, governments, and nations, to “swear” upon it is sedition.

And such a (pre-emptive) ‘oath’ instantly negates and contravenes the ‘taken’ oath itself (…to “defend the Constitution”… in essence), because to the believing Muslim, the only ‘constitution’ is the Koran. And the only law is Allah’s, come down through time as Sharia Law.

This is treasonous infil-traitor subversion of the government and a clear assault on the Constitution, done openly, and applaudly suicidally by the historically-nescien,t self-blinding Oedipal Press and self-loathing nihilistic Media.

Why they want to betray- by giving away national security secrets to the self-declared jihadist enemy during open war, and are now wilfully ignoring the imperialistic dogmas (Sura 9:5 ,etc.’s ‘dominate the infidels’ dictates) in the ‘sworn on’ Koran– and why they seek to slowly destroy the only-adequately-armed-and-mobilized defense position left for freedom in this world is baffling. It you have any sense of self-preservation.

It seems like a kind of masochistic purity ritual that leads only to a cultural headstone. And epitaph:

Here Lie Those Whose Instincts Died

(I swear upon my own Koran (1956 Penguin) that the militant followers of this warlord’s playbook will be glad to do the burying. And, unlike Ellison, I’m actually telling the truth.

profitsbeard on November 12, 2006 at 1:05 PM

Correction to post above about Ellison crowd shouting “takfir.” They were shouting “takbir”, which means “Shout Allahu Akbar!”

My mistake.

eeyore on November 16, 2006 at 11:52 PM