Keith Ellison to swear oath of office on Thomas Jefferson’s Koran

posted at 12:19 pm on January 3, 2007 by Allahpundit

I’m no fan of Ellison, but I know a brilliant political stroke when I see one.

We’ve learned that the new congressman — in a savvy bit of political symbolism — will hold the personal copy once owned by Thomas Jefferson.

“He wanted to use a Koran that was special,” said Mark Dimunation, chief of the rare book and special collections division at the Library of Congress, who was contacted by the Minnesota Dem early in December. Dimunation, who grew up in Ellison’s 5th District, was happy to help.

Jefferson’s copy is an English translation by George Sale published in the 1750s; it survived the 1851 fire that destroyed most of Jefferson’s collection and has his customary initialing on the pages.

How brilliant?

One person unlikely to be swayed by the book’s illustrious history is [Rep. Virgil] Goode, who released a letter two weeks ago objecting to Ellison’s use of the Koran…

Goode, who represents Jefferson’s birthplace of Albemarle County, had no comment yesterday.

Maybe there’s a compromise at work here. As I understand it, the Koran isn’t really the Koran unless it’s in Arabic. To wit: “The Prophet Muhammad inwardly heard the Arabic verses of the Koran. He did not simply encounter the Divine Meaning and compose his own words to express it. Therefore, no translation of the Arabic Koran into any language can be the Holy Koran, but is simply a human interpretation, which may be inspired but does not exist on the sublime level of revelation.” So, technically, he’s not swearing on the Koran. Happy now, Dennis Prager?

No, huh?

Somewhere between Dan Riehl and Rick Moran lies the truth.

Update: Reader “Verbal Abuse” reminds us that Jefferson’s gloss on the Koran might not be the same as Ellison’s. Not only did he send the U.S. Navy to confront the Barbary pirates, but, as Bill Bennett quotes him, he once had a memorable encounter with an Arab ambassador:

When he served as America’s minister to France in the mid-1780s, Jefferson had once confronted an Arab diplomat, demanding to know by what right his country attacked Americans in the Mediterranean:

The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the Laws of the Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Wrong. Again. Good grief you are ignorant.

Andy in Agoura Hills on January 3, 2007 at 2:16 PM

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003459330_quran03.html

See attached. I am dreadfully ignorant in many areas. Not this one. I do console myself with the thought that I am at least not ill-bred.

honora on January 3, 2007 at 2:26 PM

The problem with people like Slublog, etc. is that they do not understand what “values” means. It does not necessarily refer to religious values. Though, many religious values are part of our secular government. Those that have a deep hatred of religion often miss the deeper meaning of a “value”.

Andy in Agoura Hills on January 3, 2007 at 2:31 PM

The problem with people like Slublog, etc. is that they do not understand what “values” means. It does not necessarily refer to religious values. Though, many religious values are part of our secular government. Those that have a deep hatred of religion often miss the deeper meaning of a “value”.

I have a deep hatred of religion?

Someone better tell my pastor.

Slublog on January 3, 2007 at 2:32 PM

The problem with people like Slublog, etc. is that they do not understand what “values” means. It does not necessarily refer to religious values. Though, many religious values are part of our secular government. Those that have a deep hatred of religion often miss the deeper meaning of a “value”.

Andy in Agoura Hills on January 3, 2007 at 2:31 PM

Oh I think I know what “values” means. For example, the value of grace, as in having the grace to admit when you’re wrong.

honora on January 3, 2007 at 2:33 PM

I do console myself with the thought that I am at least not ill-bred.

The fact that you are not ill-bred doesn’t change your flawed logic and made-up facts. Besides, now that you think I’m ill-bred makes me wear that moniker proudly.

Andy in Agoura Hills on January 3, 2007 at 2:35 PM

Or better yet, the value of respecting others’ opinions; even if you don’t agree with them.

dalewalt on January 3, 2007 at 2:36 PM

The fact that you are not ill-bred doesn’t change your flawed logic and made-up facts.

Like assuming someone else hates religion, perhaps?

No, wouldn’t want to make stuff up.

Slublog on January 3, 2007 at 2:37 PM

Bullcrap

Ellison BEFORE HE TAKES THE OATH OF OFFICE NEEDS TO ADDRESS THIS POINT.

He must state that he rejects Sharia Law and the Quoran on how it treats women ! He cannot slide on these issues !

There is no place in the USA for sharia law. If ellison believes that Sharia Law and the Quoran are valid then he believes women are essentually slaves and that the US Constitution is phoney !

Ellison MUST MUST MUST reject Sharia Law and many of the Koran’s teachings as they are anti Freedom and anti woman.

He must state this rejection BEFORE he takes the oath of office !

If he believes in Sharia Law and many of the Teachings of the Koran then he is unfit for office. Women should not be subjected to the Abuses of the Koran and he must make himself clear on these issues.

And we are not going to let him slide on this.

William Amos on January 3, 2007 at 2:38 PM

That’s what freedom of religion is all about. If you start trying to exclude people because of their faith in Islam, then you’re starting down a path that could ultimately lead to one religion only being allowed.

dalewalt on January 3, 2007 at 1:31 PM

But when one religion requires the subversion and enslavement of all those of any other religion, is it really a religion at all or a political “ism?” And how does “freedom of religion” work in that case? This is the major catch-22 I see with Islam and the American way.

BTW, I wonder if Jefferson wore white gloves so as to avoid contact of his slimy infidel hands with the Koran? If he didn’t does that also make his Koran just a prop?

NTWR on January 3, 2007 at 2:41 PM

Ugh, I’m agreeing with Honora!

dalewalt on January 3, 2007 at 2:19 PM

Lying under oath is a crime. As far as I know, agreeing with honora is not a crime. However, I am considering floating a petition for signature by the electorate at large, and then submitting said petition to my congressman — in order for him to introduce legislation which, if passed, will make agreeing with honora a crime (in the future). Anybody want to sign it?

CyberCipher on January 3, 2007 at 2:44 PM

And we are not going to let him slide on this.

William Amos on January 3, 2007 at 2:38 PM

And you’re going to do… what? Go to a speaking engagement of his and ask him? Anything other than complaining on HA that a Muslim shouldn’t be allowed to hold a Congressional office?

dalewalt on January 3, 2007 at 2:44 PM

No. Swearing-in using a Koran does not respect this country’s values. Even if he used a koran AND Bible that would be okay.

Then what about those who swear in with no book at all?

Pablo on January 3, 2007 at 2:47 PM

You are on very shaky ground here, indeed. Do I need to remind you that Adolf Hitler was a duely elected official of the German government?
CyberCipher on January 3, 2007 at 1:52 PM

Actually, Hitler was never an elected official. How he became Chancellor is rather convoluted, but he never received more than 37% of the votes. That’s probably neither here nor there – just one of those myths…

All this crap about Jefferson’s Koran though – come on! Would anyone really believe that Jefferson possessed a Koran for any reason other than to better understand an enemy?

I do have to agree that it would be most enlightening if Ellison would answer the question regarding Sharia law. If he believes in that tenet, he has no place in American politics. However, if he renounces Sharia law, I have to bet that he would be deemed to be an apostate, and a fatwa would be thrown down on him so fast that his head would spin. Kind of a catch-22 for Keith, dontcha think? Of course, since taqiyya is encouraged to advance the goal of making Islam supreme, good ‘ol Keith could just tell Mohammed’s buddies that he lied to the non-believers so that he could remain in a position of power.

Now my head is spinning…

lan astaslem on January 3, 2007 at 2:48 PM

If he believes in Sharia Law and many of the Teachings of the Koran then he is unfit for office.

You’ll need to make that case to the people who elected him. Legally and Constitutionally, it is not so.

You don’t have to like it, but you’re going to have to live with it.

Pablo on January 3, 2007 at 2:48 PM

Wasn’t Thomas Jefferson a slave owner, a large slave owner? Koran and slavery, kind of goes together.
Not exactly a political move that most people would like to use, but he will get away with it.

right2bright on January 3, 2007 at 2:58 PM

Actually, Hitler was never an elected official. How he became Chancellor is rather convoluted, but he never received more than 37% of the votes.

lan astaslem on January 3, 2007 at 2:48 PM

The wording of your statement would lead people to believe that a European political candidate needs 50%+ of the vote in order to win office (e.g. in Germany in 1932). I don’t think that this is true either. European countries DON’T have a two party system like we do. Hmmm. Incidently, 37% of the vote is not THAT much less than the proportion of the vote that Bill Clinton received in 1992, is it.

CyberCipher on January 3, 2007 at 3:09 PM

Not that I would compare Clinton to Hitler, or anything. We leave that sort of thing up to the Kos Kidz.

CyberCipher on January 3, 2007 at 3:11 PM

The wording of your statement would lead people to believe that a European political candidate needs 50%+ of the vote in order to win office (e.g. in Germany in 1932). I don’t think that this is true either. European countries DON’T have a two party system like we do.
CyberCipher on January 3, 2007 at 3:09 PM

That is indeed true, but when the other guy gets 56%, you are still a loser, no matter where you live. He was appointed by a daft old man who thought he could control him. (ClintonHitler doesn’t have the same ring as BusHitler, does it? Oh well.) But we have strayed too far from the topic, so we should get back on course before AP smacks both of us around!

lan astaslem on January 3, 2007 at 3:21 PM

BTW, I would be interested in finding out what the Koran and Sharia law have to say about lying under oath (if anything). All my past experiences with Arabs tell me that (culturally, at least) lying to the infidels does not qualify as any kind of moral crisis for them. I definitely get the feeling that Muslims actually admire their brethren who can lie to, cheat, and steal from an infidel since (as long as a Muslim is not caught and publically humiliated for his crime) he is considered more clever than an infidel.

CyberCipher on January 3, 2007 at 3:24 PM

What was Jefferson’s exit strategy from the meditteranean?

*snicker*

RH

RobertHuntingdon on January 3, 2007 at 3:24 PM

Lying under oath is a crime. As far as I know, agreeing with honora is not a crime. However, I am considering floating a petition for signature by the electorate at large, and then submitting said petition to my congressman — in order for him to introduce legislation which, if passed, will make agreeing with honora a crime (in the future). Anybody want to sign it?

CyberCipher on January 3, 2007 at 2:44 PM

Some women are born to greatness, others have it thrust upon them. I am here to serve…

honora on January 3, 2007 at 3:36 PM

And we are not going to let him slide on this.

William Amos on January 3, 2007 at 2:38 PM

You and what army? (Sorry, smart ass rhetorical question. Takes me back to those days of plaid uniforms and bubble gum…..)

honora on January 3, 2007 at 3:37 PM

And still no one can answer the question of how freedom of religion works with a religion that requires subversion and enslavement of all other religions…

NTWR on January 3, 2007 at 3:44 PM

I meant we are going to challenge the democratic party to state if they agree that Ellison has a right to establish Sharia Law in the US.

If the democratic party is going to push through Ellison then they need to be held accountible for that.

Imagine if David Duke had been elected to congress and wanted to wear a white sheet at the swearing in. I and I hope most other americans would be outraged at that.

And this is no different. Islam has many incompatible beliefs in the US constitution. The Koran is Ellisons “White Sheet”.

William Amos on January 3, 2007 at 3:45 PM

Some women are born to greatness, others have it thrust upon them. I am here to serve…

honora on January 3, 2007 at 3:36 PM

All that greatness, and modesty to boot.

dalewalt on January 3, 2007 at 3:45 PM

Some women are born to greatness, others have it thrust upon them. I am here to serve…

honora on January 3, 2007 at 3:36 PM

honora! You have a sense of humor. Let’s see, that’s at least one redeeming quality. Care to go for two?

CyberCipher on January 3, 2007 at 3:46 PM

hmmm…. I think my last comment got hung up because I combined Bush and Hitler — and made a bad word. Sorry AP! Will you let it go through?

lan astaslem on January 3, 2007 at 3:50 PM

And still no one can answer the question of how freedom of religion works with a religion that requires subversion and enslavement of all other religions…

Maybe we’re just working.

*Snicker* Nah, just kidding.

I’m not a scholar of Islam or an expert in the Koran, but there are verses that suggest Muslims should treat those of other religious graciously. 60:8-9, for instance, would argue against your point that Islam “requires subversion and enslavement of all other religions.”

Slublog on January 3, 2007 at 3:50 PM

honora! You have a sense of humor. Let’s see, that’s at least one redeeming quality. Care to go for two?

CyberCipher on January 3, 2007 at 3:46 PM

I am very good to my mother. (As long as she continues to vote Dem. Otherwise it’s nursing home time for the old broad….)

honora on January 3, 2007 at 3:56 PM

I am very good to my mother…

honora on January 3, 2007 at 3:56 PM

AHA! So you ADMIT that you don’t know the meaning of “unconditional love” (for your mother or anyone else).

My father has already long since gone to his reward (shoveling coal alongside of Saddam, I suspect), and he STILL votes Democrat…you wouldn’t be the one that has been voting in his name, would you? It’s a crime ya’ know.

CyberCipher on January 3, 2007 at 4:08 PM

My father has already long since gone to his reward (shoveling coal alongside of Saddam, I suspect), and he STILL votes Democrat

Paging Doctor Freud, Doctor Freud to hotair, stat…..

honora on January 3, 2007 at 4:12 PM

Like I said before AP, you just don’t get it. Neither does Ellison. BTW, deep thinkers know that this is not a brilliant political move.

Keep insulting and condescending to me, Andy. See where it gets you.

Allahpundit on January 3, 2007 at 12:43 PM

I relent and read an article, and this is what I see.
I have sent an email to Ms Malkin at the address given on MichelleMalkin.com, quoting this and citing my concern. I suggest that everyone else who finds this kind of mild intimidation unsettling do the same.

Hotair may find it needs its audience more than the audience needs Hotair.

You’re entitled to your opinion, Allahpundit, but so are we. Having a place on hotair shouldn’t grant you a monopoly on condescention and insult.

Hiraghm on January 3, 2007 at 4:15 PM

The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the Laws of the Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners.

OK, one interpretation, I know…

Here’s one from an Islamic discussion board in which one Muslim was complaining about the intolerance of Islam. This is the final post of the thread:

Assalaam-u-alaikum:

Just a little wake up call..

Either you’re Muslim or you’re not. if one clearly rejects something in the Qur’an or proven Sunnah, then he’s not Muslim, even if he claims it.

We have tolerance to a limited extent. We tolerate with the understanding that all religions will be under the authority of Islam, and if not yet then IN THE FUTURE. Islam is too good to live “side by side”. It can only be on TOP.

Whether or not it’s in the Koran, it IS being taught widely by the Imams and is therefor relevent WRT the discussion of freedom of religion and how it works with Islam.

NTWR on January 3, 2007 at 4:20 PM

I don’t think it’s out of place for a website author to ensure civility on the board, even if that means needing to drop the ban hammer once in awhile.

I plan to actually send a letter expressing my support for AP and encouraging Mrs. Malkin to retain him, as his writing is a large reason I visit this blog.

Slublog on January 3, 2007 at 4:21 PM

You’re entitled to your opinion, Allahpundit, but so are we. Having a place on hotair shouldn’t grant you a monopoly on condescention and insult.

Hiraghm on January 3, 2007 at 4:15 PM

Allahpundit is polite and takes a lot of crap in better stride that would many people, well, than me anyway. It strikes me as rather ridiculous that people feel free to hurl all manner of invective and then get their little feelings hurt over something like this. Grow up for heaven’s sake. This is a blog, it’s entertainment. If you’re not being entertained, take a hike.

honora on January 3, 2007 at 4:23 PM

Whether or not it’s in the Koran, it IS being taught widely by the Imams and is therefor relevent WRT the discussion of freedom of religion and how it works with Islam.

Good point, but if Ellison does take the oath, then that is an affirmation that he will, as a member of Congress, work to defend and protect the Constitution. Until he does something to show a disrespect for the first amendment, I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt.

Slublog on January 3, 2007 at 4:25 PM

Paging Doctor Freud, Doctor Freud to hotair, stat…..

honora on January 3, 2007 at 4:12 PM

Freud? You’re dating yourself. No one believes in the psychoanalysis of dreams anymore. Not even the shrinks. Here. I’ll prove it to ya’:
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar — unless, of course, you are Bill Clinton, who proved once an for all that “Cigars…they’re not just for smoking anymore.” Maybe you should be calling on Freud to analyze your beloved President.

CyberCipher on January 3, 2007 at 4:29 PM

Fair enough Slublog. Thanks for acknowledging the question. I’ve raised it a few times with no bites.

NTWR on January 3, 2007 at 4:36 PM

I have sent an email to Ms Malkin at the address given on MichelleMalkin.com, quoting this and citing my concern. I suggest that everyone else who finds this kind of mild intimidation unsettling do the same.

Just so people don’t have to go hunting for it, it’s writemalkin-at-gmail.com. Obviously, replace the “-at-” with @. I suggest you put “REPLACE ALLAHPUNDIT” or something along those lines in the subject line.

Having a place on hotair shouldn’t grant you a monopoly on condescention and insult.

Who was condescending to whom, Hiraghm? Every time this subject comes up, Andy launches into one of his agitated attacks essentially accusing me of being stupid because I don’t agree that “our values” require Keith Ellison to swear on a Bible. Scroll up through this thread; did he or did he not call honora a “thick-headed ignoramus”? And did you mention that to Michelle in your letter to her, or do commenters get to be as nasty and insulting as they please?

Allahpundit on January 3, 2007 at 4:37 PM

Freud? You’re dating yourself. No one believes in the psychoanalysis of dreams anymore. Not even the shrinks. Here. I’ll prove it to ya’:
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar — unless, of course, you are Bill Clinton, who proved once an for all that “Cigars…they’re not just for smoking anymore.” Maybe you should be calling on Freud to analyze your beloved President.

CyberCipher on January 3, 2007 at 4:29 PM

Sigh, and you were doing so well….I always get the giggles when RW folks talk about BDS. ‘Cause God knows you guys don’t obsess over Clinton.

Later.

honora on January 3, 2007 at 4:39 PM

You’re entitled to your opinion, Allahpundit, but so are we. Having a place on hotair shouldn’t grant you a monopoly on condescention and insult.

Hiraghm on January 3, 2007 at 4:15 PM

So condescending behavior and insults should replace civil dialogue and exchange of ideas? This is what you aspire to?

I would submit that an inability to engage in a discussion without using insults or slurs indicates a certain intellectual limitation of the writer.

Avoiding this type of behavior is what makes for a real and viable public forum rather than a collection of tin foil hat wearing bubbas.

Bradky on January 3, 2007 at 4:45 PM

Avoiding this type of behavior is what makes for a real and viable public forum rather than a collection of tin foil hat wearing bubbas.

I’m outraged!

My tinfoil hat keeps the alien and UN communiques from penetrating my skull.

Slublog on January 3, 2007 at 4:46 PM

I always get the giggles when RW folks talk about BDS. ‘Cause God knows you guys don’t obsess over Clinton.

honora on January 3, 2007 at 4:39 PM

As Ronald Reagan once said “You ain’t seen nothing yet.” Wait until Hillbillary runs for President. I say “Let the games begin.”

CyberCipher on January 3, 2007 at 4:49 PM

I’m outraged!

My tinfoil hat keeps the alien and UN communiques from penetrating my skull.

Slublog on January 3, 2007 at 4:46 PM

LOL watch out for those unmarked helicopters!

Bradky on January 3, 2007 at 4:50 PM

“Good point, but if Ellison does take the oath, then that is an affirmation that he will, as a member of Congress, work to defend and protect the Constitution. Until he does something to show a disrespect for the first amendment, I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt.”

If Ellison takes the oath, all it proves is that he can repeat words. Muslims are allowed, in fact encouraged to be deceitful when dealing with “infidels” if the deceit is beneficial to isalm. The 9-11 hijackers, especially Atta, drank, went to strip joints and so on. All against the koran yet provided a believable cover for them to succeed in their horrible act.

I’ve yet to see anything positive come from islam to lead me to question my judgement concerning the danger islam poses.

If anyone has any examples of “moderate” muslims working to evolve islam from it’s current status of death cult and it’s lust for global domination I’ll be more than happy to listen.

darwin on January 3, 2007 at 4:50 PM

Hotair may find it needs its audience more than the audience needs Hotair.

Uh, speaking for one member of the audience, uh, Hiraghm… with all due respect, shut up. AP did just fine on his own before HA (hence his invitation to help form HotAir), and in the unlikely event that Michelle would make the poor decision to dump Allah, I’m sure he’d do just fine again. And I’m equally sure that getting rid of AP would cause a loss of readership for HA.

You’re entitled to your opinion, Allahpundit, but so are we. Having a place on hotair shouldn’t grant you a monopoly on condescention and insult.

Hiraghm on January 3, 2007 at 4:15 PM

Actually, Hiraghm, we’re entitled to our opinion, but we’re NOT entitled to post that opinion on HotAir. It seems to me that Michelle created HA principally as a conduit for news and analysis that isn’t as readily available in the MSM. In case you haven’t been noticing; the HA stuff has had to deal with a lot of crap lately from a relatively small minority of posters. If, in the unlikely event, AP *does* condescend or insult (read his posts… while he may attack your views, he doesn’t attack the poster), well, it’s his right as one of the HA staff. You and I, however, actually have NO rights on HA, except for those expressly given us by the staff. While I’ve never seen someone have his privileges taken away without cause, HA doesn’t HAVE to put up with any of us.

If you don’t agree with how this site is managed, you’re always free to spend 18+ hours/day (per person, it seems) reporting and anaylzing issues in any way you see fit.

dalewalt on January 3, 2007 at 4:52 PM

Avoiding this type of behavior is what makes for a real and viable public forum rather than a collection of tin foil hat wearing bubbas.

Bradky on January 3, 2007 at 4:45 PM

While certainly not without sin myself, I do find it strange that so many commentators on this blog begin their comments (diatribes/streams of consciousness) with some version of : “You’re wrong”.

What’s up with that? As if stating it makes it so. Odd.

honora on January 3, 2007 at 4:52 PM

The 9-11 hijackers, especially Atta, drank, went to strip joints and so on.

Hee.

“No really, honey. God told me to go to the Bada Bing! It’s in the Koran.”

Slublog on January 3, 2007 at 4:52 PM

… he HA stuff has had to deal with a lot of crap lately…

Should’ve read HA staff. Stupid fingers.

(Personally, I think AP changed my post just to be condescending and insulting.)

dalewalt on January 3, 2007 at 4:57 PM

…I do find it strange that so many commentators on this blog begin their comments (diatribes/streams of consciousness) with some version of : “You’re wrong”….

honora on January 3, 2007 at 4:52 PM

Oh, I dunno. Doesn’t bother me so much when posters respond to honora with an opening salvo of “You’re wrong..” How about the rest of ya’? I guess it doesn’t bother me because honora IS very nearly always wrong. It’s only when they say something to honora like “You are wrong buffalo-chips-breath…” that I start to cringe a bit. No need to be rude.

CyberCipher on January 3, 2007 at 5:04 PM

B A N G!!!

CitizenJim on January 3, 2007 at 5:08 PM

In case you haven’t been noticing; the HA staff has had to deal with a lot of crap lately from a relatively small minority of posters…. HA doesn’t HAVE to put up with any of us.

dalewalt on January 3, 2007 at 4:52 PM

True, and I have witnessed some of it myself. I hope that I’m not lumped into that same category. I have been known to tease AllahP from time-to-time, but none of what I have posted was meant to be rude, mean, or seriously critical. I hope that AP, Ian, Bryan, see-dubya and the others that serve us realize that there are a few of us that are just joking around when we challenge them.

BTW, I like to tease honora too. I’ll even admit that from time-to-time she comes up with a pretty snappy comeback.
Of course, that doesn’t mean that I actually agree with her about anything.

CyberCipher on January 3, 2007 at 5:16 PM

I thought we were the polite, play-nice conservatives!

What’s with all the vitriole?!?

I trolled the comments here, and I don’t like this Andy character. Disagreement is cool, but what’s with the name calling? Sorry we don’t all bow down to you, my lord.

I think he should be suspended or banned for acting like an insufferable jerk.

Andy, why don’t you take your ball and go home!

1…2…3…CRY!!!!!

budorob on January 3, 2007 at 5:45 PM

Allahpundit is polite and takes a lot of crap in better stride that would many people, well, than me anyway. It strikes me as rather ridiculous that people feel free to hurl all manner of invective and then get their little feelings hurt over something like this. Grow up for heaven’s sake. This is a blog, it’s entertainment. If you’re not being entertained, take a hike.

honora on January 3, 2007 at 4:23 PM

Finally something we agree on.
And may I add, if you can’t be civil (I don’t mean fun little name calling like pompous *ss); get off the internet, then curl up in a corner with pillow you little wimp. Mommy still loves her little man…maybe.

right2bright on January 3, 2007 at 5:49 PM

Been reading this thread on and off for the past couple of hours. A lot of people are claiming that a lot of other people are missing the point. I don’t agree. There have been many points in this discussion, and it has been rich in its broadness. The point (s) will, however, be missed by the media and politicians. Unfortunately, they are the ones who set any public debate and the agendas by which they will be debated. This thread, and many of the comments on it, should be part of the public debate. But the public debate — or whatever passes for public debate these days — will be defined by a media looking only to boil it down to catch phrases and politically correct blathering, and even less so by politicians who will be reluctant to touch the subject as if it were a hot potato.

Tantor hits the nail on the head. It is not so much that Ellison is clever, but that he and his handlers have determined that the best defense in this debate is to get the media to carry their water for him. How many people on television or in print will actually think to question Ellison’s use of Jefferson’s Koran as nothing more than a simplistic stunt to deflect criticism of his use of the Koran in the first place? Very few, if any. What they will do, now and in the future, will be to rush to Ellison’s defense any time he comes under criticism or question by pointing out his conciliatory gesture of using a Koran that was owned by Thomas Jefferson. And so the Koran and Ellison’s use of it will no longer be the issue; the issue will be the unfairness, racism, and dismissal of anyone who questions Ellison on any grounds.

As an aside to my fellow Hot Air commentators who would demand that Ellison come out in public and refute any belief he might have that the Koran supersedes the Constitution; if indeed Ellison is what you fear he is, then how could you believe any such thing he says on the subject?

tomk59 on January 3, 2007 at 5:56 PM

Jefferson was a brilliant man, but not a great theologian. He took his bible and cut out all references to the Resurrection, along with most of the quotes from Jesus. His bible was a mish mash of what he wanted to believe, as opposed to what was written. Not unlike many other intellectuals who refuse the truth so they modify it for their own satisfaction.
I still state that the fact that Jefferson was a large slave owner is something that Ellison has to deal with. The black muslim movement hates all of the founding fathers as white slave owners, and rapists. To use a slave owners bible or religious text would be unthinkable a few years ago. Did anyone think that the Jefferson interest in the Koran was because the Koran supports slavery? And the the texts Jefferson left in his bible did the same?
Ellison, swearing oath on a text held dear by a dedicated slave owner. Might as well use the KKK’s bible.

right2bright on January 3, 2007 at 6:34 PM

Isnt exactly the same name but I swear cant make this stuff up !

The chief of the Library of Congress’ rare book and special
collections division, Mark Dimunation,em> will walk the Quran across the street to the Capitol and then walk it back after the ceremony.

http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=Dimunation&fr=yfp-t-501&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8

Dhiminitude anyone ?

William Amos on January 3, 2007 at 6:39 PM

I don’t know if that’s dhimmitude. Sounds more like the actions of a finicky librarian to me.

Slublog on January 3, 2007 at 6:42 PM

To use a slave owners bible or religious text would be unthinkable a few years ago. Did anyone think that the Jefferson interest in the Koran was because the Koran supports slavery?

right2bright on January 3, 2007 at 6:34 PM

Not to mention Jefferson’s Sally Hemmings episode. Of course, your argument presumes that Muslims can or should somehow respect “the principle of the thing.” Others would probably make a pretty good argument that true Muslims don’t really HAVE any principles, just religious rituals.

CyberCipher on January 3, 2007 at 6:43 PM

don’t know if that’s dhimmitude. Sounds more like the actions of a finicky librarian to me.

Slublog on January 3, 2007 at 6:42 PM

I was joking about his name being Mark “Dimunation”

William Amos on January 3, 2007 at 6:50 PM

Shoot.

Doesn’t change the fact that we should all be vigilant against the fascist tendencies of librarians. Those people are crazy.

Slublog on January 3, 2007 at 6:52 PM

Let me swear with my hand on this philosophy book that I will uphold some other set of philosophies!

People advocating for swearing on a Bible have missed the point as well. When you say the following you should have your hand on a copy of the constitution, that thing you are swearing to uphold.

“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.”

honora on January 3, 2007 at 2:13 PM

Resolute on January 3, 2007 at 7:07 PM

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic”

So Ellison will swear to defend the U.S. against his brethern? He will speak out against domestic and foreign violence against the U.S. and it’s allies? He will vote for legislation designed to fight against islam and his fellow muslims? Somehow I doubt it.

darwin on January 3, 2007 at 7:44 PM

He will speak out against domestic and foreign violence against the U.S. and it’s allies?

yep, he’s already condemned muslim extremists as criminals so there ya go

crr6 on January 3, 2007 at 7:56 PM

Not to mention Jefferson’s Sally Hemmings episode.

Jefferson didn’t father Sally’s baby.

Tim Burton on January 3, 2007 at 8:55 PM

Is this the same Koran that Jefferson used to beat his slave mistress Sally Hemmings with (she being the illegitimate half-sister of his deceased wife by her slave-whoring father) when this poor black girl wouldn’t submit to master Tom’s lascivious ‘attentions’?

The Koran, as a document, scorns all earthly governments and man-made laws, thus to use it as part of a swearing-in process “to uphold the Constitution” is to implode the entire meaning of the event.

No one ever said the pedophile warlord and his tribe weren’t Machiavellian as well as Mohammedan.

profitsbeard on January 3, 2007 at 10:37 PM

I hope some people here search the speeches this yahoo gave to his consituents. He definitely had some alarming words that should make us watch him carefully.

Not swearing on the bible is not the main issue. He’s swearing on a book calling for our destruction that umm….is.

Highrise on January 4, 2007 at 4:50 AM

I saw another story stating the koran being used was one given to John Adams by slaves aboard the Amistad. So, which is it?? Jeffersons or Adams???

gary on January 4, 2007 at 8:18 AM

yep, he’s already condemned muslim extremists as criminals so there ya go

He now must be stoned to death by his fellow muslims.

Problem solved.

JackM on January 4, 2007 at 10:07 AM

I think Robert Spencer At Jihad Watch (jihadwatch.org) really nails this and I have yet to see his angle here, so here it is.

P.S. If quoting him here like this is bad form I apologize.

“This is allegedly a political masterstroke by Ellison, but it really just begs the question. Thomas Jefferson, obviously, was not a Muslim. In his famous statement on religious freedom he wrote about whether one’s neighbor believed in one god or twelve “neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” But what no one is willing to discuss here is whether the Qur’an and Islam really fit into that framework. When I have mentioned that it sanctions lying to unbelievers (3:28 and 16:106, in the mainstream understanding of those verses by Islamic theologians and schools of jurisprudence; cf. Ibn Kathir and many others), people have responded that the Bible is full of nasty stuff as well. But people aren’t swearing on the Bible because it is full of nasty stuff, or endorsing any of it that might actually be there. The idea of swearing on the Bible arises from Christian belief and is buttressed by Christian theology — Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant — that requires honesty and eschews all dishonesty as coming from the “Father of Lies.” The permissions to be dishonest in the Qur’an are not mitigated by Islamic belief, tradition, and theology, but are in fact reinforced — by Muhammad’s statements that “war is deceit” and that lying is permissible in wartime, and more.”

America1st on January 4, 2007 at 11:39 AM

Comment pages: 1 2