Posted on 01/03/2007 9:27:34 AM PST by mngran
Rep.-elect Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress, found himself under attack last month when he announced he'd take his oath of office on the Koran -- especially from Virginia Rep. Virgil Goode, who called it a threat to American values.
Yet the holy book at tomorrow's ceremony has an unassailably all-American provenance. We've learned that the new congressman -- in a savvy bit of political symbolism -- will hold the personal copy once owned by Thomas Jefferson.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
I believe the koran says that a Muslim can freely lie to non-Muslims, so taking an oath on it is complete joke.
I have Thomas Jefferson's muffler on my car!
I believe you are correct. There is no underlying premise of absolute truth in the koran, so swearing upon it is like swearing on the NY Times OP Ed page.
then use the Koran in his individual, ceremonial oath with new Speaker Nancy PelosiIs this going to be Oral Oath with Nancy?
I tapped one of his great, great, great, great, great, great, grandaughters in college.
Does anybody have any history on Jefferson's comments about Islam or the Koran. Him simply owning it speaks to his intellectual curiosity.
On the other hand, isn't swearing on a Bible totally meaningless to this guy?
LOL!!!!!
I wonder who has his cell phone?
Islam was 'in the news' back then in terms of the Barbary Pirates and the Treaty of Triopli.
Clinton swore an oath on a Bible. Clearly the book makes no difference... it's the character of the politician that counts.
Found this nugget re: the Barbary coast...READ CAREFULLY AT THE BOTTOM AS THE KORAN IS CREDITED WITH GIVING AUTHORITY FOR PIRACY LOL...
From AMERICAN SPHINX The Character of Thomas Jefferson by Joseph J. Ellis
"Several muslim countries along the North African coast had established the tradition of plundering the ships of European and American merchants in the western Mediterranean and eastern Atlantic, capturing the crews and then demanding ransom from the respective governments for their release. In a joint message to their superiors in Congress, Adams and Jefferson described the audacity of these terrorist attacks, pirates leaping onto defenseless ships with daggers clenched in their teeth. They had asked the ambassador from Tripoli, Adams and Jefferson explained, on what grounds these outrageous acts of unbridled savagery could be justified: "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 acknowledged their [islams] 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...."
This event occured between 1784-1789 while Jefferson was ambassador to France and Adams (2nd president) was ambassador to England.
Here's some information about it here:
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/early_american_literature/v039/39.2hayes.pdf
OK... so I have a copy of "Mein Kampf" (in my library). That doesn't mean I believe in it.
Is this the copy that Thomas Jefferson tried to flush down the toilet in Guantanamo?
I think George Costanza has his old Chrystler LeBaron. :)
Reference please.
Jon Voight's LeBaron?
With regard to Goode's comments, they were vapid and moronic. The fact that the ultra-leftist voters in Berkley of the North voted for this clown doesn't mean everybody else is going to vote for a muzzy, and as Ellison is native-born, I don't understand WTF immigration has to do with any of it. I'm all for clamping down on immigration, but it's a complete non-sequiter in this case and his equation of the two is alarmist sophistry that undermines the cause.
Muslims have faith while Judeo-Christian America teeters on the edge of following Europe into the abyss.
Me too, and Mao's little red book and The Social Contract and The Communist Manifesto and...
"Jon Voight's LeBaron?"
It's a little known fact that Jefferson had it first.
How did he receive this property.....this piece of useless junk....do doubt it must be on loan to him but from who?
oops that should have been no doubt.....laptop keyboards.
http://www.al-islam.org/ENCYCLOPEDIA/chapter6b/1.html
The word "al-Taqiyya" literally means: "Concealing or disguising one's beliefs, convictions, ideas, feelings, opinions, and/or strategies at a time of eminent danger, whether now or later in time, to save oneself from physical and/or mental injury." A one-word translation would be "dissimulation."
More info in the link provided.
I found this as well..
http://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/ashraf.htm
[...Me too, and Mao's little red book and The Social Contract and The Communist Manifesto and...]
Should I be worried about you?
I frequently swear AT the NY Times.
Reference please.
taqiyyaIn Shi'a Islamic as well as Druze tradition, Taqiyya (ÇáÊÞÃÉ - 'fear, guard against')[1] is the dispensation allowing believers to conceal their faith when under threat, persecution or compulsion. It is based on Qur'an verses 3:28 and 16:106 as well as hadith, tafsir literature, and juridical commentaries.[2] Some Sunnis assert that Taqiyya is an act of hypocrisy that serves to conceal the truth. According to them, Taqiyya constitutes a lack of faith and trust in God because the person who conceals his beliefs to spare himself from danger is fearful of humans, when he should be fearful of God only.
▬ http://www.answers.com/topic/taqiyya
Most definitely. 8^)
If you are so concerned about this guy making a false oath and lying, what difference does it make what book he rests his hand on? Do you really think requiring him to take an oath on the Bible is going to put the fear of God in him?
Hmmm...I was kinda hoping for a one line verse from the Quoran rather than a novel about it. I've always found that the longer the explanation, the less likely it is true.
Maybe someone can point out a quick Quoran reference.
Oddly, I was told the same thing about Jews i.e. that Jews can lie without consequence to non-Jews. Oddly, they never knew a definitive source for the belief. After 9/11, I heard the exact same thing about the Muslims.
It sounds like they are alowed to conceal their faith in certain circumstances. I hope Obama doesn't know this one.
Lying for Allah is okay, according to the eminent Islamic scholar Imam Ghazali, who wrote:
" When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible " (Ref: Ahmad Ibn Naqib al-Misri, The Reliance of the Traveller, translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller , Amana publications, 1997, section r8.2, page 745).
Imam Ghazali does not say this without knowledge. He is basing his fatwa on the words and examples of the Prophet himself.
In one hadith we read that the prophet calls upon his followers to assassinate Ka’b ibn Ashraf, the chief of a Jewish tribe who was wary of Muhammad and tells them it is okay to tell a lie to deceive him. Bukhari, Volume 5, #369
The fact is that Muslims feel no pang of conscience to lie if that lie is said for Allah’s sake and his religion. If the lie is said for a good cause it is okay.
(...) Muhammad said: "Lying is wrong, *except in three things: the lie of a man to his wife to make her content with him; a lie to an enemy, for **war is deception; or a lie to settle trouble between people" (Ahmad, 6.459. H).
(...) *Islam is the only religion that implies in it's scriptures that it's ever permissible to lie.
(...) **any non Muslim land is considered Dar ul Harb a land of war
And probably for the same reasons as Jerrerson had the koran in his.
But, if you are ever elected to public office, don't take it to the swearing in.
Err, that would be "Jefferson" - not jerrerson
That's pretty much the joke I was going to say. I had sex out of wedlock, but it was ok, because it was with a descendant of one of Thomas Jefferson's illegitimate children!
In the Hadith Volume 5, Book 59, Number 369, we see Mohamed make a specific provision for Muslims to lie if it will help them to kill an enemy.
Allah's Apostle said, "Who is willing to kill Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?" Thereupon Muhammad bin Maslama got up saying, "O Allah's Apostle! Would you like that I kill him?" The Prophet said, "Yes," Muhammad bin Maslama said, "Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Kab). "The Prophet said, "You may say it."
Not from the Koran, but still islamic scripture.
In his Autobiography he discusses it in relation to his Virginia bill for religious freedom:
"Where the preamble declares that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word “Jesus Christ,” so that it should read “a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion” the insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of it’s protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and infidel of every denomination."
I imagine Tom J's Koran would be like his Bible- with all "divine" references edited out...
And if I'm going to argue that, I have to also argue that this guy has to able to freely swear on the Koran if he chooses to do so.
The Constitution is absolutely 100% crystal clear on this point; no religious tests or oaths are to be required for individuals to hold public office in this country, period.
In Jefferson's time, the Muslims were not killing Americans. At least, not in large numbers.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/004628.php
The islam-o-fascists deny it of course.
Re: Islamic lying is called Taqiyya
Google is your friend.
Is that what people here are always screaming about? Seems pretty uncontroversial to me. Christianity had that debate in the 3rd century, and it was eventually decided that while hiding the fact that you were a Christian during persecution wasn't a great thing, it wasn't something that should kick you out of the church either, which was what some of the hardliners had wanted.
http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.p?ref=/comment/london200512160955.asp
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=22970
Hmmm. Now, he did consult the Koran -- and just about every other holy book and legal document that existed -- when looking into natural law and working on the founding documents of this nation. However, by the time he was President, I tend to think that his study of the koran was more in the nature of a "know your enemy" mindset.
Frankly, we as a nation need to emulate that. I would like to see that actual text of the koran distributed to as many people as possible so that people could learn what it really says. Might help them recognize the taqqyia practiced by the Islamists, the MSM, and frankly, often our own government...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.