Virgil Goode and Keith Ellison
Friday December 22, 2006
Though I agree with Rep. Virgil Goode that it's a smart idea to sharply reduce immigration from Islamic countries, at least at the present difficult time, I find appalling his behavior toward Muslim convert Keith Ellison's intention to use the...
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Advertisement
Advertisement
Search This Blog
Recent Posts
About Crunchy Con
Rod Dreher is an editorial columnist for the Dallas Morning News, and author of "Crunchy Cons" (Crown Forum), a nonfiction book about conservatives, most of them religious, whose faith and political convictions sometimes put them at odds with mainstream conservatives. The views expressed in this blog are his own.
Subscribe
Archives
Blogs Worth Reading
- Front Porch Republic
- The American Conservative
- Patrick Deneen
- Conventional Folly
- The American Scene
- First Things
- Andrew Sullivan
- The Plank
- Eunomia
- Get Religion
- Postmodern Conservative
- Alex Massie
- The Corner
- Contentions
- Sharon Astyk
- Barry Ritholtz
- The Oil Drum
- Mere Comments
- First Principles (ISI)
- Brian Kaller
So I shouldn't be worried if government employees swear in on a book that blatantly calls for my death?
Please expound.>
RB - I know another book that people have used to call for the death of others too.
Goode's behaviour is much more frightening to me than Ellison's. After all, what has Ellison done to frighten anyone?
We live in America which is made up of many people, cultures, and races. I think it is time for us to get used to it.>
So I shouldn't be worried if government employees swear in on a book that blatantly calls for my death?
Please expound.
RB
Welcome to my world.
What I like about Goode is does bad, well, so good.>
"Alhough I agree with Rep. Virgil Goode that it's a smart idea to sharply reduce immigration from Islamic countries, at least at the present difficult time"
Unbelievable. What would be your criteria for determining the the "present difficult time" is over?
And can you imagine your howls if a country proposed limiting immigration from Christian countries?>
Rod,
The problem is that, symbolically, Ellison is saying that he doesn't support our culture. Goode is being consistent in his criticism. Goode recognizes that our country is more than a government. It is a people, a culture, and a place. By allowing in large numbers of people from incompatible backgrounds, we are going to end up with more Ellison's. A large portion of his support came from the Somalis we have allowed to come here under refugee status. So, I don't see Goode as condemning Ellison in an unfair manner. He is just pointing out that Muslims will follow Islam.
A small "What if" scenario might help. Would this be the same country if Muslims had colonized it? Will this be the same country if we allow in large numbers of people who refuse to leave their old cultures behind?
RB,
Anyone can say that until they're blue in the face and all they'll get are denials and obfuscations. Just yesterday, a Muslim on another blog posted that you can't do a theological study of Islam unless you can read it in the original Arabic. Arabic is just too difficult to translate. The mind boggles at the anti-reason inflicted upon us by liberal orthodoxy.>
i Ellison is saying that he doesn't support our culture.
Call me crazy, but wanting to take the oath using a holy text of a minority religion is EXACTLY what out culture is about. It is surely what our Constitution is about, what our founding fathers were thinking about, and what we have fought wars over.>
Susan S - you go girl!>
Deb,
There is a difference between
a book that blatantly calls for my death
and
a book that people have used to call for the death of others .
Do you see it?>
Susan, I'm all for minority religions which allow us to live together peacably. A true devotee of the Q'uran, however, is not permitted to live peacefully alongside anyone else - orthodox, athiest, pagan, catholic, reformed, whatever. We ignore this out of political correctness at risk of our very lives. I guess to most commenters here, though, I'm just another paranoid obsessive.>
We live in America which is made up of many people, cultures, and races. I think it is time for us to get used to it.
So regardless of what those people from another culture believe, we're just supposed to accept that? Actually, we do have a Judeo-Christian culture. The problem is is that people like you don't care about it or our actively working to destroy it.
Deb, Susan is not the most stable person on this board as can be seen from another thread where she went nuts calling people names because they used the term fascism and it didn't meet her standards.
Call me crazy, but wanting to take the oath using a holy text of a minority religion is EXACTLY what out culture is about.
Maybe by your warped liberal standard. You, as a woman, support someone swearing on a holy book that calls for men to beat their wives if they disobey? Or just as a person, you support someone taking an oath on a holy book that says the believers should wield the sword until the earth is for Allah? I just want to know what you support.>
"You, as a woman, support someone swearing on a holy book that calls for men to beat their wives if they disobey? Or just as a person, you support someone taking an oath on a holy book that says the believers should wield the sword until the earth is for Allah?"
Yes, I do. Given the amount of violence and subjugation of women contained in the Bible, it doesn't stop me from (a) being a Christian and (b) thinking it's okay for people to use for swearing in.>
What he takes the oath of office on is less important than how Ellison came to be a Muslim. He converted through the especially hateful Nation of Islam. Elijah Muhammad and now Louis Farahkan have led this racist cult with ideas about Jews and whites that would laughable if they weren't so dangerous. I'm at a loss how any American could vote for anyone who holds those crazy beliefs. In the nuthouse that is Islam, NOI is the pyschiatric ward.>
"He converted through the especially hateful Nation of Islam"
Actually, he didn't. He was endorsed by Jewish groups and said that he had limited connection with the Nation of Islam for a short period of time, and was never a member.
It might help if you read more than just Free Republic and actually do some investigation before you embarrass yourself with comments like this.>
Yes, I do. Given the amount of violence and subjugation of women contained in the Bible, it doesn't stop me from (a) being a Christian and (b) thinking it's okay for people to use for swearing in.
And where is violence and subjugation approved of in the Bible, especially the New Testament? Don't bring up the lame Old Testament argument about Israel. The Jews today are called on to subjugate the entire world and they never were. Islam has an open ended call to such violence.
Sura 4:34 ...If you fear high-handedness from your wives, remind them [of the teaching of God], then ignore them when you go to bed, then hit them. If they obey you, you have no right to act against them. God is most high and great.
Bugg,
Liberals vote for him because he's a Democrat. Muslims vote for him because he's Muslim. Remember, only white Christians can be bad. Everyone else is just responding to the evil of white Christians.>
A true devotee of the Q'uran, however, is not permitted to live peacefully alongside anyone else - orthodox, athiest, pagan, catholic, reformed, whatever.
And yet millions of them do just that in nations around the world, including the United States. Sorry, RB, statements like that aren't "reasonable questions," they're simple ignorant bigotry.>
Paranoid obsessives unite.
Folks, we ignore Islam at our peril.>
Oy vey>
Trotsky:
Apparently, you are so blind as to dispute the fact that nearly every Muslim state in history has brutalized it's Christian population. Even now - increasingly.
You simply illustrate my comment in an earlier thread: valid concerns aren't addressed, they're just shouted down with accusations of racism. We've rounded the circle again.>
"There are those who hate Christianity and call their hatred an all-embracing love for all religions."
G.K. Chesterton>
Our Constitution plainly states that there shall be no religious test for public office. I can only assume those who oppose Representative-Elect Ellison on religious grounds would back an amendment abolishing this.
I live in Mr. Ellison's district. (I hope it goes without saying, since I regularly visit this blog - - and not just to hurl insults at Rod - - that I didn't vote for him.) It's one of the "bluest" in the nation. He could not have won without fully backing gay and abortion "rights." In other words...he's an apostate.
He may be misguided, but he and the brand of Islam he's embraced pose no threat to our national security. The idea is absurd. True Islamic extremists would want to kill him as much as any of us, for reasons mentioned above.
If religious freedom doesn't mean that a duly elected representative of the people can practice his faith as he sees fit, it means nothing.>
"If religious freedom doesn't mean that a duly elected representative of the people can practice his faith as he sees fit, it means nothing"
Tony D, don't you see the danger in a phrase like this, especially the 'As he sees fit' part.>
Susan-
Matter of record he converted in college via the NOI. Sorry anyone citing such facts are automatically disqualified. Now may be he's backed off some of it, but he's never repudiated it. Farahkan's group is also responsible for the murders of Malcom X and NYPD Officer Philp Cardillo, but Susan doesn't want anyone to know that. That might be judgemental and hurtful to dialogue, which is so much more important than surival. Those were just minor incidents, as per Susan.
Good luck living in your own private fantyasyland-again.The rest of us are in reality, where Islam's adherents look to kill us, whether you want to see that or not. I'd love to have this academic discussion with a pot of tea and patches on our blazers on some leafy campus quad,but some neighbors and friends who might otherwise participate were murdered on 9/11. Also, 3 mosques (96th Street, 5th Avenue in Bay Ridge, Brooklyn and Al Farooq on Atlantic Avenue, Brooklyn)within the city line of NYC have been part of numerous bomb plots , some of which failed, and some like 9/11 and 1993, succeeded. You can either deal with Islam as it is or pretend they're just a quirky bunch not unlike Quakers or something. And when any Muslim gives a full-throated, unequivocal renunciation and comdenation of the murderous acts of their coreligionsits(without mentions of "yes, but the Jews...") please let us all know.>
RB,
Nearly every Christian state in history has brutalized its Christian population too. That's government for you.
But seriously, the history of religious intolerance leaves no sect looking particularly good. The West is, I think, uniquely tolerant in our day --- to an extent that many Christians actually find disturbing. And indeed, Virgil Goode and Rod Dreher think we should be less tolerant of Muslims (for reasons I quite undertstand, though I disagree).
Look, there are plenty of crazies in the Muslim world. Any sentient observer agrees with that. But Muslims include both the %^*(!heads who are blow up grocery markets in Baghdad and, for instance, my local (American-born, convert) imam, who spends a great deal of time on interfaith activities with Jews and liberal Christians, and Dr. Kahn, the Pakistani-born chief cardiologist at my local hospital.
I assure you, the latter two aren't interested in oppressing any infidels. Good grief.>
Tony, if the "way he sees fit" is to embrace a book that calls for the elimination of all who worship differently, he has a slight conflict of interest when it comes to religious freedom. If wanting to swear on the Koran is just an act of political opportunism, as you're suggesting, then the swearing in and of itself means nothing anyway, and we should stop the practice altogether.>
I assure you, the latter two aren't interested in oppressing any infidels. Good grief.
trotsky | 12.22.06 - 3:38 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then they don't take the Q'uran literally. That's why I qualified my statement with "true devotees."
Here's the thing: as a Christian, I can live and work side by side "at peace with all men, in so far as is possible." I disagree with but do not wish to remove from existence those who don't share my views.
The guy who takes the Q'uran literally is not permitted that luxury. After even a passing glance at the material in the Q'uran, the unfortunate but unavoidable conclusion is that the Jihadist is the most devout Muslim.>
I assure you, the latter two aren't interested in oppressing any infidels. Good grief.
And you know this how? Where does their zikat go to? We always hear from fellow Muslims when they round up the latest terror cell, "They were nice people. We never suspected them of doing anything wrong. They were devout Muslims." If fellow Muslims can't tell the radicals from the ones who are willing to discard the violent calls in the Koran, that is a problem? If they can tell but aren't telling us, then that also is a serious problem.
As RB noted above, they are either ignorant of what the Koran says or they ignore portions of it. If the Koran doesn't say what many of us think it says, prove us wrong. Show us in straight forward, reasoned manner that the Koran is love and light. Actually, show us where OBL, and his ilk are wrong in their interpretations. In all honesty, their interpretations make more sense than what the moderates usually come up with. Remember, the Koran itself says that it is clear and easily understood.>
Why don't you paranoid freaks go dig yourselves a great big bunker? Then you can keep out all the people who refuse to be assimilated into your Wonderbread Borg Collective.>
Eep - this has gotten waaaaaay beyond the topic of the article, which is ultimately whether we still have freedom of religion in this country.
Honestly, do people like this Goode *really* want to go down the road they're intimating toward?>
I've seen all sorts of excerpts from the Koran, though I've never had the joy of sitting down to read the whole thing cover to cover.
I'm certain, however, that anyone who takes this piece of ancient Scripture literally is a dangerous fanatic. I'd say the same thing about the Old Testament.
Like every religion with which I'm familiar, Islam is heavily encrusted with interpretations, interpretations of interpretations, sayings of wise men and scholars, different emphases that arose from different times and places.
Are Wahhabbi fanatics dangerous? My newspaper proves the answer is yes every day. Is that the alpha and omega of Islam? No.>
giittv:
see my earlier comment:
Tony, if the "way he sees fit" is to embrace a book that calls for the elimination of all who worship differently, he has a slight conflict of interest when it comes to religious freedom.
anon:
back up your shrieking with actual information.>
Anonymous,
I wish I could share your optimism, I really do.
The Islamist challenge to the U.S. Constitution is, unfortunately, very real.
http://www.meforum.org/article/920
Seriously, do you really think it's a good thing to have Muslims, however supposedly apostate they may be, elected to Congress?>
RB: I did read your earlier comments, and you seem to be under the impression tat anyone who doesn't take every jot and tittle of the Qu'ran literally is not a true Muslim.
I suppose you would say that every religionist that doesn't take every jot and tittle of his respective holy literature literally isn't *really* a (fill-in-the-blank).
But by what authority can any of us make that claim?
And by whose authority could we exclude someone from this country on the basis of religion, creed or nationality?
It runs counter to everything this country stands for.>
Susan said (referring to restricting Muslim immigration):
What would be your criteria for determining the the "present difficult time" is over? And can you imagine your howls if a country proposed limiting immigration from Christian countries?
Well, probably for a generation or two. And we will probably have to restrict immigration from all countries as well (even Christian ones). You see, we've been here before. We're talking about a group of immigrants from one particular region of the world. A portion of them use terrorism, bombing, and assassination to further an ideology with a religious fervor. There was a similar problem here about 90 years ago. The region was eastern and southern Europe, and the ideology was called anarchy.
When most people think of the "red scare" they think of McCarthy. But that term had been in use for a couple of generations by then. The original "red scare" took hold shortly after WWI. Anarchists had already assassinated a President and committed a string of murders, bombings, and robberies. Anarchists in southern Europe had triggered what was, at that time, the bloodiest war in the history of mankind. The panic in the U.S. reached a fever pitch by the early 1920 s. Eventually Congress restricted all immigration. There were other arguments made too, such as lack of assimilation (entire neighborhoods had no English speakers) and economic populism (many native workers complained about immigration then as now). But the red scare drove much of public opinion. For the next 40 years immigration into the U.S. from everywhere slowed to a trickle.
You have a point. Virtually nobody in public life is willing to take on the tolerance police and call for restricting immigration from only Muslim countries. The Virgil Goodes will be few and far between. But if there are more terrorist incidents, then they will drive public opinion further against mass immigration, and eventually the legal/illegal distinction will not matter.>
"He may be misguided, but he and the brand of Islam he's embraced pose no threat to our national security. The idea is absurd. True Islamic extremists would want to kill him as much as any of us, for reasons mentioned above."
If he were really an extremist, he could have been elected from a much redder district like . . . Mr. Goode's or someone like Marilyn Musgrave. On many issues, the political line between Islamic fundamentalists and Christian fundamentalists is a thin one.>
I agree that the practice of an informal, ceremonial swearing in with sacred texts should probably be done away with. From what I understand, this isn't even the actual oath of office, which is done en masse without the Bible, Koran, a Superman comic, or whatever.
I have to confess I have a hard time taking a lot of the hyperventilating - - which has been growing almost beyond the point of bearability here at CC lately - - seriously. Suffice it to say, I live in the guy's district, I disagree with him on many issues, but he doesn't scare me.
Have fun screaming at each other, I'm outta here.>
Why is anyone swearing on a Bible or any other holy book anyways? As a Christian I don't want (or need) my congress person to swear to uphold my religion. I need them to swear to uphold THE CONSTITUTION!>
I am sorry but I have read many of Susan S. posts and I do not think that she is unstable. Do you know that you can type in any name and make it look like Susan posted it?
I am sorry but the Muslims I know are NOT extremists. There are extreme Muslims and there are extreme Christians. Christians may not be killing people now in the name of God, but it could happen so very easily.
If you read many of the posts on beliefnet there are many here who would send almost everyone away from the US because we don't fit into your standards.
I am sorry, but I find that scary.>
I think there are two issues here. One is how much Muslim immigration should we allow? Can they assimilate? Are they all radical fundy types out to get us? Are there no Muslims that are reasonable people living in peace with their neighbors? Like my niece's husband (a Turk) not that religious at all. Some I have known who are religious and I don't know their inner thoughts about Christianity or whatever but they appear to be too busy raising their families and working their jobs to plot our doom. However, there are some plotting our doom and I think the large scale immigration that Europe has a bad idea.
The other is a Constitutional issue. The Constitution states that no religious test can be imposed as a requirement for public office in the United States. This was a repudiation by the Founding Fathers of the British practice at the time of not allowing Catholics to vote, hold public office, practice certain professions, or own a horse woth more than five pounds. The idea that someone should be required to swear an oath of office on a Bible if they don't believe in it is not only a religious test, it is saying we want people to perjure themselves as a requirement to hold public office. We don't want to go down that road. I would prefer that people swear an oath with their hand on the Constitution. However, if they want to swear it on the Bible, the Bhagahavid Gita, the Qu'ran, the Tanakh, or L. Ron Hubbard, that's America. That's what we do, no religious test. If the people want to elect a Muslim to public office, that's democracy.
One thing I've always wondered. Have any atheists ever been elected to Congress? What did they swear by, or on?>
Benjamin Franklin:
'And it being found inconvenient to assemble in the open air, subject to its inclemencies, the building of a house to meet in was no sooner propos'd, ... . Both house and ground were vested in trustees, expressly for the use of any preacher of any religious persuasion who might desire to say something to the people at Philadelphia; the design in building not being to accommodate any particular sect, but the inhabitants in general; so that even if the Mufti of Constantinople were to send a missionary to preach Mohammedanism to us, he would find a pulpit at his service. '>
Islam is the LEAST tolerant of all the world's major organized religions. The Muslims never figured out how to separate church and state, and truly, a Muslim CANNOT serve the state above his religious calling without an exact repudiation of the silliness inherent in his misguided faith. In other words, you can't trust 'em. They are on the march all over the world, and if they can't convert you they chop your head off. Congressman Goode did and said the right things, and as a practicing Christian he could not have acted any other way. I'm tired of the PC crap; screw the Muslims. I owe Islam nothing. The Pope was right to gently ask them to back off a bit and stop being so violent and stupid. So what did they do? They ran into the streets and reacted with violent stupidity. What a shock!
Congressman Goode is modeling the only sane behavior that is possible under the circumstances.
For s**** and giggles, google "persecution of Christians in Muslim countries".>
May I, from the left fringe of the readership of this weblog, make two comments on points that bothered me above?
Gavrilo Princip was hardly an anarchist -- he was a Serbian nationalist. The anarchist scare that killed McKinley, King Umberto, etc., peaked about 1905 and can hardly explain the 1920 red scare.
I'm puzzled as to what Chris L objects to in the statement that you can't really understand the Koran without knowing classical Arabic, and what in hell that has to do with anti-reason being inflicted on us by liberal orthodoxy. I frequently come upon places in the Pauline Epistles and Hebrews, and not uncommonly in the Gospels, where I cannot really be half-way sure of the point being made without looking at the original Greek. And if I were much of a theological I'm sure I would find checking the Greek all that more imperative.>
Gene -
You're right about Princip. Sorry about that. For some reason I had picked up the notion that Black Hand had an anarchist ideology.
But I don't agree that the anarchist scare peaked in 1905. There were a series of small attacks and bombings attributed to anarchists up until WWI, and then a series of bombings and attempts aimed at various public figures throughout 1919. The Wall Street bombing took place in 1920 and was the deadliest bombing in U.S. history until OKC. The Anarchist Act and Palmer Raids were during this time as well.>
"I did read your earlier comments, and you seem to be under the impression tat anyone who doesn't take every jot and tittle of the Qu'ran literally is not a true Muslim."
Uh, GIITTV, it is not "our" impression it is what Muslims believe. The Koran is the voice of God and is to be taken literally!>
I'm puzzled as to what Chris L objects to...
Gene, my point is that the gentleman in question was saying you can't understand Islam unless you understand Arabic (and classical Arabic at that). What this does is allow some Muslims to shutdown debate. Do you believe that we can't properly translate the Koran into English so that we can understand what Islam says? The gentleman says we can't. Are there translation debates, sure. But to say that we can't translate it is very suspect.
Sorry, I did tend to conflate points with the liberal anti-reason statement. A lot of liberals will tell you that a religion is whatever people say it is. Hence, the scriptures of the religion don't really say anything but are perfectly malleable. This is really an anti-reason statement. It denies that (1) the person writing the text meant to make a specific statement and (2) that we are unable to logically determine what that statement is.>
"What this does is allow some Muslims to shutdown debate."
Hate to say it but that is what many of the "Christians" do on beliefnet also.
Take a look at "Are Agape Politics Possible?" in Jim Wallis' blog, (I think this ran in early December). The "Christians" couldn't get along and agree on anything.
I personally don't want ANY religion brought into our political arena. The extreme Christians also scare the hell out of me.>
Bruce -
Then how do you explain the vast numbers of moderate Aemrican Muslims who have no wish to put you under the sword for being an infidel?
Oh. I know how - you don't believe they exist. Do you believe that behind every smiling moderate Muslim face is lurks a killer just waiting for the opportunity to open up a can of jihad on your ass?
How is that irrational fear any different than the blood libel leveled against Jews for centuries?>
Jews haven't spent the better part of their religion's existence spreading the Torah by the sword.>
And what exactly does *that* have to do with moderate Muslims being painted with the same brush as suicide bombers or the incessant bleating for proof of loyalty from the paranoid right?
No one in this country should feel coerced to stand up and denounce *anything* just to make a bunch of tinfoil-hat rednecks feel better about not lynching them.>
There's nothing inherently sinister about Islam. The religion has been around 1400 years. For about 1200 of those years, religious minorities were generally treated better than they were in the Christian world.>
Uh, GIITTV, it is not "our" impression it is what Muslims believe. The Koran is the voice of God and is to be taken literally!
Bruce | 12.23.06 - 7:35 am | #
Soooo not true. I recall the husband of Benazir Bhutto (paraphrase to follow) saying in an interview that the Quran is an "Eastern book" written in an "Eastern language" in which every word points in a number of directions and is a mystery. The structure of the Arabic language makes this true. Sets of consonants form the roots of a group of related words- each formed from the root by using different vowels in and around the root. Each word that derives from one root points to all the other words from that root, leaving it wide open to interpretation. This is why every Islamic community in the world has local authorities to whom they go for interpretation. They disagree on things as basic as the rules for comprises an appropriate gift from the groom's family to a bride to the big issues. (Did you all know that the Quran requires the groom's family to make a significant gift to the bride, which is hers to keep even if the husband divorces her? Sort of pre-nuptual alimony, so she won't be left with nothing.)
In Malaysia, a formally Muslim country, only Muslims are subjected to Islamic dress code- which is not as severe as the Saudi code, as the definition of "modesty" is open to interpretation. The Malaysians leave alone the many Chinese and Indians who have lived there for generations. In addition, religious authorities have decided that for purposes of determining where Muslim women must "cover," in the traditional villages, the entire village counts as the woman's home. Therefore, she need not cover anywhere within the village.
In other parts of the Islamic world, saints are venerated, shrines are built to which the faithful make pilgrimages, graves are marked, etc. None of which is allowed by the Wahabists. In fact, the Wahabists have killed and enslaved more other Muslims than anyone else in the world, despite the strictest Quranic injunctions against just that.
Despite the words in books which are at the core of anyone's faith, humans are still left to practice those faiths. Modern Jews don't practice animal sacrifice, though the Torah devotes extensive text to the rules regarding what has to be sacrificed for what sins. Does that mean they are not "real Jews?"
Wahabists, the extremists of Saudi Arabia, were a fairly recent "fundamenalist" (in Western use of the term) development in Islam, a reaction to the modernism of European colonialists.
Iranians were shocked by the crackdown that followed the takeover of the Ayatollah. They have a funloving cultural tradition- nothing like what followed the revolution, and the generation that grew up under it has about as much respect for it as the youngsters who grew up under Mao have for communist ideology.
The world of Islam is a patchwork quilt of practices and beliefs. The Muslims of the former Yugoslavia were more like modern liberal Protestants than anything else. (Oh - and wasn't it Christians who lined them up in front of pits for mass executions as recently as the 1990s?)
The Turks have lived with a secular government since the downfall of the sultanate. Indonesian Muslims have denounced violent fanatics in their countries.
The extremists of any religion only define the "true" faith if the rest of us let them. Much like the evangelicals who insist that Catholic/Lutheran/Methodist etc. infant baptism is not valid, for example. Anyone out there want to insist that those are the only "real Christians?"
"Gene, my point is that the gentleman in question was saying you can't understand Islam unless you understand Arabic (and classical Arabic at that). What this does is allow some Muslims to shutdown debate. Do you believe that we can't properly translate the Koran into English so that we can understand what Islam says? The gentleman says we can't. Are there translation debates, sure. But to say that we can't translate it is very suspect."
This points to the structure of the Arabic language, discussed above. Biblical scholars learn Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic. If translation is so easy, why are there constant new translations of the Bible?
I too live in Ellison's district. He is an immigrant, actually - from Detroit! His people were brought over in the 1700s, probably before we thought up limiting "immigration" from Africa ;^), don't you think?
The word on Keith from everyone who has worked with him over the years is that he is the real article. He cares about building alliances and has convinced just about everyone who has had the pleasure of working with him over the years that this is true. His alleged association with the NOI had to do with the Million Man March, not the theology of the group. He has firmly and repeatedly distanced himself from NOI. If he had truly converted through them, it would have been a major issue during the election. The best the Repubs here could do was trot out his brief association with the March and some unpaid traffic tickets, from which they tried to convince us that he is a potential felon- or something.>
"Then how do you explain the vast numbers of moderate Aemrican Muslims who have no wish to put you under the sword for being an infidel?"
My answer is that they are not true muslims!
My answer to your second question is no!
So your third question is asinine.>
"Muslims believe the Qur'an to be the literal word of God
"The Qur an is the record of the exact words revealed by God the Prophet Muhammad"
So Elizabeth ,are you saying that the statements above are incorrect?>
Though I agree with Rep. Virgil Goode that it's a smart idea to sharply reduce immigration from Islamic countries, at least at the present difficult time
I don't think we should confuse the war on terrorism with a war on a religion or on the people who practice it. Moreover, I don't think we should engage in collective punishment.
Rod Dreher's opinion seems to violate all those principles.>
What does immigration have to do with Rep. Ellison? He was born and raised in Detroit and converted to Islam in college - what are we going to do, restrict American-born Muslims from office? That is a preposterous notion. The WASPS tried to do that when Kennedy ran for President.. and failed. Any attempt to stereotype and isolate other American-born citizens should fail. Just remember:
If Virgil Goode wants to propose changing the definition of citizenship to mean 'white, anglo-saxon, protestants' let him get on with it so my Catholic, non-Caucasian, natural-born butt can move to Canada.
As for limiting immigration from "Islamic" countries - where do you start first? How about Saudi Arabia - no, we need their oil. The majority of the terrorists and the funding have emanated from SA, but both the US and UK are afraid to challenge them since the oil might dry up. Just this week the UK government blocked a corruption investigation at the insistence of the Saudis. Why pretend that terrorists are going to shuttle from the Mexico border or stow away from India when the Saudi royals can stop a security check with the wave of their unspotted white dishdasha or secretly pay the extreme minded to train themselves in the Art of Tsun-Tzu?>
Mike, you lie about what Virgil Goode did and said.
However, you're right about the Saudis. With friends like the Saudis, who needs enemies?>
One thing I've always wondered. Have any atheists ever been elected to Congress? What did they swear by, or on?
FWIW - Many Quakers also don't swear on anything. Why bring God down to our level?
The following is attributed to a text by Voltaire from an interview with a Quaker:
"We never swear an oath, not even in a court of law. We think that the name of God ought not to be prostituted in the miserable squabbles of men. When we are obliged to appear before a magistrate on someone else's account (for law suits are unknown amongst Friends) we affirm the truth by a "yes" or a "no". The judges believe us on our simple word, whilst so many other Christians perjure themselves upon the Gospels."
http://quakerscotland.gn.apc.org/volt2.htm
Simply put, you say that you will do your best to uphold the responsibilities of your office, whether you are Quaker, Muslim or atheist.>
I have to say--I really see the hype about this representative swearing on the Koran as truly a non-issue.
Who cares? I don't want to coerce someone to swear on something they don't believe in. If this representative is rotten, then vote him out.>
"Muslims believe the Qur'an to be the literal word of God
"The Qur an is the record of the exact words revealed by God the Prophet Muhammad"
So Elizabeth ,are you saying that the statements above are incorrect?
Bruce
I'm saying you cannot insist that you know the mind, or the interpretation, of a billion individuals' perspective on their religion, and that you show a shocking lack of exposure to the breadth of practice and belief in the Islamic world. And that to form policy based on the assumption that you can is foolish.
I'm gone. This has gone far enough.>
I don't think we should confuse the war on terror with a war on a religion or on a people that practice that religion. Moreover, I don't think we should engage in collective punishment.
Rod Dreher's comments about sharply reducing Muslim immigration seems to violate both those principles.>
We had better limit Muslim immigration, or we'll wind up in the same mess that Europe is in.
Islam is the religion of peace. NOT.>
The contents of the Koran are irrelevant to the swearing in matter. The Constitution specifically prohibits a religious test in such matters.
Of course a simple solution would be to require everyone to be sworn in on a copy of the Constitution. That would annoy everyone.>
If you subject Muslims to the exact same conditions that Christians are faced with, the Muslims either cry Islamaphobia, or kill you.
Is this not the truth around the world?>
Let me start by saying that I am a committed christian (at least I'm trying to be). At the risk of sounding politically incorrect - deep down I believe that all people who have not accepted Jesus christ as their Lord and savior risk eternal hellfire (i.e. Muslims, Bhuddists, Jews, maybe even Mormons for all I know - whether they call themselves republicans or conservatives or white christians or whatever). So I've said it. I'm still struggling with my own belief, but I believe it's an article of the christian faith. However, as far as religious tolerance is concerned, the history of 'christendom' itself is filled with many 'christians' misinterpreting scripture to kill and slaughter other humans in cold blood. Only after the enlightenment and the prosperity it eventually brought (which I believe was the gift of God), have we in the west focused more on the true love inherent in Jesus' message. I strongly believe that in the long run, the best way to bring that enlightenment to the muslim world is actually to encourage more interaction. All muslims who want to voluntarily immigrate to this or any western country should be allowed to (subject to reasonable securtiy checks of course)- so that they can experience both christian enlightenment and christian love first hand. I strongly believe that in the long run, we will win the war againt islamic extremism not by beating them into submission or by isolating them, but by exposing them to virtues of enlightenment and christianity.
By the way, I'm convinced that Virgil Goode's statement is not out of any deep conviction, but is one of those politically motivated neo-nativist conservative statements determined to use hate to stoke up emotion among a still surprisingly large group of voters out there. I agree with Rod - it's very ungentlemanly. All reasonable people can disregard it - methinks.>
Holy $#%^, it's good to see thinking people for a
change. Susan S and Tony, Deb, Liz and a few others.
There is a certain word that sticks into the gut of
fundy Muslims and it is called sharia as in sharia
law as in Arabic interpretation. F#$% THAT.
Bush thought he could deal with fundamental
Islamists because he, from a Christian point of view, was one of them. Both are one and the same. Fundamentalists and extremists from the left and the right all get very excited very easily
whether it's religion or politics because thats
the way there brains are wired. They are wired
to react. Check "Under The Banner Of Heaven"
Devastating. Unbelievable stuff.
I am in favor of restriction of immigration from
Muslim countries. I also know that Ellison
can trace his roots back before even a guy with
a name like Viiirgil Goode's. Virgil Goode is no
dummy. He just reacted. He didn't talk to
Ellison. If Ellison was with NOI I would not listen
to him, flat out. If he was a diplomatic version
of NOI I would not listen.
There is the possibility that Virgil Goode said what he said to put his name on the map. The right wing went crazy.
He succeeded.>
Dennis Prager, who initiated this whole
megillah, has spawned a neo-confederate like Goode who apparently has taken this
light years further than Prager had ever
anticipated, but when one paranoid gets antsy, a passel of fearful types come out of the woodwork and always wind up embarrassing themselves and this nation. History books will report this overreaction to the "Muslim hordes"
some day as paranoia and a ugly resurgence of xenophobia and racism. Goode can't pick on blacks and Jews anymore, so he'll settle for Mexicans and Muslims. In the twenties I'm sure besides blacks his ilk was fuming about
"mackerel snappers" and "garlic eaters." Someday somebody will resurrect the gypsies as the great evil. After all, we haven't kicked them around since what, the Middle Ages?>
In response to several earlier commenters: Actually, all 435 representatives are sworn in collectively without any book. Bibles (or Korans) are only used in later photo-op ceremonies that have no legal validity.>
"Islam is the religion of peace. NOT."
But no less a luminary than George W. Bush has told us that Islam is a religion of peace. You must be wrong.>
Elizabeth, I know you said you were leaving, but in case you peek in some time -- thank you for a really interesting and reasonable post (your long one about the many ways Muslims interpret the Koran and live their religion). It was a breath of fresh air!
HB>
When Representative-elect Keith Ellison responded to Wolf Blitzer s question (on CNN) concerning Representative Virgil Goode s negative comments, with the statement, I think he has a lot to learn about Islam! I, too, realized I needed to
Learn more about Islam:
It was Prophet Muhammad who said, "Whoever sees an abomination must straighten it with his hands." Saddam Hussein repeated and relied upon this saying in his attack on Kuwait's ruling family. The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt depended upon this saying when they killed Anwar El Sadat. We must never imagine that such Muslims are being unnecessarily wicked They are simply being faithful to their religion!
From the President, to most religious leaders, to the average talk radio program, we are being told that Islam is a peaceful religion. It is said that bin Laden and the Taliban only represent an extremely radical Muslim fringe, which is not representative of true Islam.
THIS IS NOT TRUE!
First of all, Islam means submission, not peace. The Arabic word, isl m is submission; from; aslama - to surrender, resign oneself; from the Syriac, a lem - to surrender; from the stem lem - to be complete.
This does not imply voluntary submission but includes a forced submission where the subjects will not comply. Historically Islam is not known for its peace movements, but for a uniquely Arab word, "jihad," which means an offensive war intended to lead to the conversion of the infidel to Islam, or to his annihilation!
Islam in the Arabic language and in the Qa'ran/Koran means total submission and obedience. However, the original meaning of "Islam" in the Arabic language is the acceptance of a view or a condition which was not previously accepted, that is the readiness of a person to take orders from god and to follow them. "Muslim" is a word taken from the word Islam, and applies to that person, who is ready to take orders from god and follow him without question.
Do they seek a deen other than the deen of Allah and to him all what is in the skies and in the earth have submitted willingly or forcefully and to Him they shall return. [Qur an 3:83]
The word Islam was used in the Qur an as a symbol for the word deen, revealed by the Prophet Muhammad. Prophet Muhammad stated that his teachings contain the teachings of all the previous prophets, and all divine commandments. When a person professes the belief in the truthfulness of Prophet Muhammad, and pledges to follow his message, he, in fact, stating his readiness to obey the orders of god unconditionally.
From the Koran/Qur an ("An English Interpretation of the Holy Quran with Full Arabic Text," A. Yusuf Ali), The deen [religion] before Allah is Islam. [Qur an 3:19]. Whosoever seeks, other than Islam, a deen, it will not be accepted from him and he, in the Hereafter, is among the losers. [Qur an 3:85].
The concept of deen involves four principles: 1) Subjugation, authority, and ruling; 2) Obedience and submission due to subjugation; 3) The method and the habit; and 4) Punishment, reward and judgment. Therefore, deen implies a comprehensive system of life that is composed of four parts: 1) The ruler ship and the authority belong to Allah only; 2) The obedience and submission are to Allah; 3) The comprehensive system (intellectual and practical) is established by this authority; and 4) The reward given by this authority (Allah) to those who followed the system and submitted to him and the punishment inflicted upon those who rebel against it and disobey it. Prophet Muhammad said: Every human being is born in a state of pure nature; but through the influence of his parents, he may become non-Muslim." Islam is a divine system, and with it Allah sealed all other religions, and made it a comprehensive system dealing with all aspects of human life (belief, intellectual, moral, and practical). This system is based on total submission to Allah alone, purifying worship to him only, and following the traditions (sunnah) of Prophet Muhammad.
Therefore, when you hear people saying that Islam is a peaceful religion, know rather, that Islam is fighting a holy war for control of the world! That war was begun by Prophet Mohammed himself in the seventh century, and is still being carried on today by his followers through terrorism. These terrorists are not radicals or extremists, as the media continually labels them. Rather, these are Islamic fundamentalists who are true to their religion and the teachings of the Qu ran, and who are following faithfully in the footsteps of the Prophet, Mohammed.
As Abd El Schafi has said in his book (Behind The Veil: Unmasking Islam), We must never imagine that such Muslims are being unnecessarily wicked. They are simply being faithful to their religion. The fact is never hidden as to what the proper attitude a good Muslim should have towards Christians and Jews. In fact, much of the incitement to violence and war in the whole of the Qu ran is directed specifically against Jews/Christians who rejected what they felt to be the strange "god" that Prophet Mohammed was trying to preach. Prophet Muhammad and his successors initiated offensive wars against peaceful countries in order to impose Islam by force as well as to seize the abundance of these lands. So, Islam was imposed upon Syria, Jordan, Palestine (Jerusalem), Egypt, Libya, Iraq, Iran, all of North Africa, some parts of India and China, and later Spain. So, it appears the radical fundamentalists are closer to historic Islam than those who profess to be followers of so-called mainstream version. Islam has always been, and continues to be a religion (a way of life) spread by force, not through peaceful means or persuasion.
Islam was planted by Prophet Muhammad with the sword, not a philosophy or ethic of peace. It s rather astonishing to learn just how cruel and brutal Prophet Muhammad was as he tortured his captives with fire, then killed them and took their wives as bond maids for himself, as well as for his companions. Following his death, these brothers-in-arms then fought each other in relentless, savage wars; competing for authority and out of deeply rooted hatred, Prophet Muhammad's relatives and closest friends sacrificed and slaughtered each other!
No wonder we see Moslems, these days, fighting with each other. In fact, these wars and hostilities spring from the very heart of the Islamic teachings, since it calls for the use of force to combat "wrongdoing," ... just as Prophet Muhammad's relatives did with one another! It was Muhammad who said, "Whoever sees an abomination must straighten it with his hands." Thus, Saddam Hussein repeated and relied upon this saying of Muhammad in his attack on Kuwait's ruling family; and the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt depended upon this saying when they killed Anwar El Sadat (a real man of peace).
Therefore, when you hear people saying that Islam is a peaceful religion, know rather that Islam is fighting a holy war for control of the world! That is, the concept of an offensive war, to spread the faith, is a genuine Islamic concept; known as a Holy War for the sake of god. This, not peace, is the essence of Islam! That is, if there were sufficient military power available to Islamic countries, they would attack all other countries in order to force them to embrace Islam. The Qu ran is the authoritative scripture for the Muslim, and here are a few quotes advocating this militancy toward the non-Muslim:
#1) But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them. And seize them, beleaguer them. Lie in wait for the in every stratagem of war; but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them: For Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. (Surah 9:5)
#2) Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, even if they are of the people of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with will submission, and feel themselves subdued. (Surah 9:29)
#3) Go forth, light-armed and heavy-armed, and strive and struggle with your goods and your persons, in the Cause of Allah. (Surah 9:41)
#4) The infidel is to be "killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land, and in the hereafter theirs will be an awful doom. (Surah 5:33)
#5) Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth no aggressors. And slay them wherever you find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out. But if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving, merciful. (Surah 2:190-92)
#6) Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day. Go forth, light-armed and heavy-armed, and strive with your wealth and your lives in the way of Allah. ( Surah 2:29, 41)
#7) Those who believe do battle for the cause of Allah; and those who reject the faith do battle for the cause of evil. So fight ye against the friends of Satan. (Surah 4:76)
Prophet Muhammad founded Islam with the sword; his followers maintained Islamic rule with the sword; subsequent generations have always spread Islam's oppressive rule beyond the Arabian Peninsula with the sword. One cannot be a true follower of Islam without holding to the tenants of the Qu ran, which also advocates forced submission to its rule. How can anyone who knows anything about Islam deny this? Why are so many, today, inclined to believe that Islam is a peaceful religion and not a militant movement, which desires to conquer the world through Jihad?
Obviously there are political motives behind the President and his administration that have given rise to their many statements that Islam is a peaceful religion. Yet s>
I really am getting tired of hearing conservative Christians rant about how evil and warlike Islam is, while they simultaneously proclaim war not only against other religions, but peaceful members of their own. The true warmongerers are every person, who has ever used the phrase "culture war." The smallest child can recognize such nonsense as hypocrisy and only those indoctrinated by the corporate elite to conservative submission will fail to see the faults within their own souls. If they wanted to demonstrate that Islam is a religion of war and that Christianity is a religion of peace, they would stop calling to unleash the dogs of war against everyone who disagrees with them, and start harnessing their own tongues.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.