Keith Ellison’s Taqiyya: When He Cries, He Lies

March 15, 2011

Weeping and Other Hysterics
Have Muslim Apologists Nothing More to Offer?

by Raymond Ibrahim
Hudson New York
March 14, 2011
http://www.meforum.org/2851/weeping-and-other-hysterics-have-muslim

  From Congressman Keith Ellison’s emotional breakdown to Congresswoman Jackie Speier’s accusations of “racism,” last week’s hearings on Muslim radicalization have made it clear that those who oppose the hearings have little of substance to offer. Still, the tactics used by such apologists—namely, appeals to emotionalism and accusations of racism—are influential enough that they need to be addressed and discredited once and for all.
For starters, though it would have been unheard of generations ago and seen as a sign of instability, public crying is the latest rage for politicians. A 2007 Associated Press report puts it well: “Tears, once kryptonite to serious presidential candidates, today are more often seen as a useful part of the political tool kit”—and are thus indicative of an increasingly therapeutic society, one more interested in a show of catharsis than facts.
Yet, tears aside, if we wish to be objective for a moment, Ellison’s testimony—culminating with his choking up and leaving the hearing—contributes nothing to the topic of Muslim radicalization in America. Instead, it raises more questions about Ellison—a former Nation of Islam leader, mouthpiece for the Muslim Brotherhood front-group CAIR, and critic of the U.S. Constitution.
Indeed, arguing that “suit-and-tie” Islamists have penetrated Western societies and are manipulating the legal system to their advantage—including by imposing aspects of Islamic law, winning special privileges for themselves, and, of course, shutting down criticism of Islam—Daniel Pipes has singled out Ellison as representing a far greater threat to Western civilization than Osama bin Laden.
Did Ellison feign an emotional breakdown during his opening remarks to leave the hearing and evade follow-up questions from Congressman Peter King and others—concrete questions about Muslim radicalization that he preferred not to respond to—or were his tears sincere? Either way, it is not clear which is worse: another obfuscating politician, or a politician whose emotions so dominate him that he cannot carry out his responsibilities.
While we are on the topic of strategic-weeping, it is relevant to note that authoritative Muslim scholars, such as Ibn Hajar, recommend deceiving infidels with crocodile tears: “Revealing one thing while secretly planning another is the essence of deception; moreover, the hadith incites [Muslims] to take great caution in war, while [publicly] lamenting and mourning in order to dupe the infidels” (The Al Qaeda Reader, p.142). This is not to conclude that Ellison is taking lessons from Hajar, but that even the most rabid jihadists—not just American politicians—are aware of the power of tears as a ruse.
The other tactic that frequently arises and is in dire need of being laid to rest—permanently—is this business of trying to stifle any talk on Islam and Muslims by labeling it “racist.” One would have thought it was obvious, but apparently it needs stressing: race and religion have absolutely nothing to do with one another. Race is inherent, represented by physical characteristics; religion is learned, impacting the mind, regardless of race. Thus most major religions—especially Christianity and Islam—have adherents from all races and ethnicities.
Despite these obvious facts, uncritical thinkers like Congresswoman Jackie Speier—or simply garden-variety manipulators—constantly cry “racism” when Islam and Muslims come under scrutiny. This approach is ubiquitous: discussing the Fort Hood shootings, a former American soldier lamented that “When a white guy shoots up a post office, they call that going postal. But when a Muslim [namely, Nidal Hasan] does it, they call it jihad.” Notice the confusion; as if a “white guy” and a “Muslim” represent different races. (What if the person is a “white Muslim,” as in the instance of Hasan?)
Of course, if a person of any color goes on a random shooting spree, it would be racist to pin it on his race. But if a person of any color goes on a shooting spree—while waving the Koran, screaming Allahu Akbar, or otherwise rationalizing his actions in Islamic terms, as did Nidal Hasan—then we are talking about a shooting spree motivated by a learned ideology or worldview that has nothing to do with the shooter’s race.
And this is the whole point: tears and moral outrage aside, while it is important to recognize that not all Muslims are jihadists, it is equally important to acknowledge that all jihadists are Muslims—hence the need to delimit the hearings to the Muslim community. You will not find jihadists ensconced among neo-Nazis or other “radicals.” Moreover, as Peter King put it:
There is no equivalency of threat between al-Qaeda and neo-Nazis, environmental extremists or other isolated madmen. Only al-Qaeda and its Islamist affiliates in this country are part of an international threat to our nation. Indeed, by the Justice Department’s own record, not one terror-related case in the last two years involved neo-Nazis, environmental extremists, militias or anti-war groups.
Based on these initial hearings, it is clear that the apologists have little to offer. As Jennifer Rubin writes at the Washington Post, “The Democrats’ unhinged rhetoric and wild accusations did more to undermine their opposition to the hearings than anything King could possibly have said.” Yet crying tears or “racism!” is emblematic of a greater problem: politicians trying to appeal to the people’s emotions, not their reason—an approach that has historically had horrific consequences.
Raymond Ibrahim is associate director of the Middle East Forum.
Related Topics:  Muslims in the United States  |  Raymond Ibrahim

This text may be reposted or forwarded so long as it is presented as an integral whole with complete information provided about its author, date, place of publication, and original URL.

“Call me mr Crocodile…!”

Ellison’s teary eyed performance should impress no one: this guy is a nasty piece of work.

Andrew G. Bostom (source)
Matthew Shaffer of NRO (as noted here by Ethel Fenig) exposed Keith Ellison’s   mendacious taqiyya(Koran-sanctioned Islamic dissimulation) theater during the Congressman’s testimony at Thursday’s Homeland Security Hearings on American Muslim radicalization.
The next day, during a 3/11/11 interview with Bill Maher (on “Real Time With Bill Maher”), responding to Maher’s complaint that, “[Islam] comes from a hate-filled holy book, the Koran, which is taken very literally by its people,”Ellison invoked a deceitfully redacted extract of Koran 5:32, and the ostensible Koranic paean to “tolerance,” verse 2:256.
Ellison’s disingenuous response was predictable.

Following the murderous acts of jihad terrorism committed on September 11, 2001, Ibn Warraq highlighted the tragic irony of many apologists quoting selectively from Koran 5:32, “whoso slays a soul …shall be as if he had slain mankind altogether; and whoso gives life to a soul, shall be as if he has given life to mankind altogether”, attempting to demonstrate that the Koran disapproved of violence and killing. Here is the entire verse (5:32), quoted in full context, with the intimately related verse, Koran 5:33:
(5:32) Therefore We prescribed for the Children of Israel that whoso slays a soul not to retaliate for a soul slain, nor for corruption done in the land, shall be as if he had slain mankind altogether; and whoso gives life to a soul, shall be as if he has given life to mankind altogether. Our Messengers have already come to them with the clear signs; then many of them thereafter commit excesses in the earth. (5:33) This is the recompense of those who fight against God and His Messenger, and hasten about the earth, to do corruption there: they shall be slaughtered, or crucified, or their hands and feet shall alternately be struck off; or they shall be banished from the land. That is a degradation for them in this world; and in the world to come awaits them a mighty chastisement

[For direct comparison see, Mishna, Sanhedrin, IV, 5, “Thus was created a single man, to teach us that every person who loses a single soul, it shall be written about him as if he has lost the entire world, and every person who sustains a single soul, it shall be written, about him as if he has sustained the entire world”]
As Warraq noted, with regard to Koran 5:32/33, 1
The supposedly noble sentiments are in fact a warning to Jews. [2 see these commentaries as well] “Behave, or else” is the message. Far from abjuring violence, these verses aggressively point out that anyone opposing the Prophet will be killed, crucified, mutilated, and banished

Regarding the other pacific sounding verse Congressman Ellison cited, 2:256, it must be contextualized by Muhammad’s bellicose evolution within the Koran itself. But how, exactly? Abrogation is critical to understanding this evolution. Ali ibn Abi Talib—revered by Shiite Muslims and Islam’s 4th “Rightly Guided” Caliph—is reported to have told a pious Muslim companion, Abdul Rahman
“[C]an you differentiate between abrogating and abrogated verses” Abdul Rahman said, “no.” Thereupon Ali said “Thou art damned and causeth others to be damned.”
The Koran’s “verses of peace,” as cited by Ellison, and many other Muslim and non-Muslim apologists, most notably verse 2:256, “There is no compulsion in religion,” were all abrogated by the so-called verses of the sword. These abrogating verses of the sword recommend beheading or otherwise murdering and mutilating non-Muslims, and Muslim apostates. According to classical Muslim Koranic commentators verse 9:5 (perhaps the most infamous verse of the sword), “Slay the idolators wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush…”, for example, cancels 124 verses that promote patience and toleration. And this doctrine of abrogation, necessitated by the many contradictions which abound in the Koran, originates as putatively taught by Muhammad, himself, at verse 2:106: “Whatever communications We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring one better than it or like it. Do you not know that Allah has power over all things?”. This verse, in combination with verses* 16:101, 22:52, and 87:6, was elaborated into a formal system of abrogation (naskh in Arabic) by the greatest classical Muslim Koranic scholars and jurists, which entailed (p.72),
…the suppression of a ruling without the suppression of the wording. That is to say, the earlier ruling is still to be found in the Koran, and is still to this day recited in worship, but it no longer has any legal force.
The sacralized Islamic sources indicate that as the Muslim prophet Muhammad accrued political and military power, he evolved from a proselytizer and persuader, to a warrior, and dictatorial legislator.  (i.e., a prototype jihadist; see for example, renowned contemporary mainstream Islamic cleric Yusuf al-Qaradawi’s, “The Prophet Muhammad as a Jihad Model”). Thus the sword and other similar Koranic verses—as per the linkage between Muhammad’s biography and the Koranic narrative—capture the Muslim prophet at his most dogmatic, belligerent, and intolerant. Muslims are enjoined to fight and murder nonbelievers—woe unto those who shirk these campaigns, but those who are killed fighting for the one true religion, i.e., Islam, will be rewarded amply in the afterlife.**
Thus it is reasonable to conclude that Keith Ellison’s deceitful pronouncements at Thursday’s Homeland SecurityHearings, this past Thursday, and one day later on “Real Time With Bill Maher,” are consistent with the Koranic doctrine of taqiyya, Islamic religious dissimulation. Al-Tabari (d. 923), author of perhaps the earliest and most important authoritative Koranic commentary, explains Koranic verse 3:28, which sanctions taqiyya, as follows (translation by Raymond Ibrahim):
If you [Muslims] are under their [non-Muslims’] authority, fearing for yourselves, behave loyally to them with your tongue while harboring inner animosity for them … [know that] God has forbidden believers from being friendly or on intimate terms with the infidels rather than other believers-except when infidels are above them [in authority]. Should that be the case, let them act friendly towards them while preserving their religion.

Notes
*Additional Koranic verses sanctioning abrogation:
16: 101: “And when We change (one) communication for (another) communication, and Allah knows best what He reveals, they say: You are only a forger. Nay, most of them do not know.”; 22:52: “And We did not send before you any messenger or prophet, but when he desired, the Shaitan made a suggestion respecting his desire; but Allah annuls that which the Shaitan casts, then does Allah establish His communications, and Allah is Knowing, Wise”;
87:6: “By degrees shall We teach thee to declare (the Message), so thou shalt not forget.”
**Additional Koranic verses sanctioning jihad, and jihad martyrdom:
47:4: “Now when ye meet in battle those who disbelieve, then it is smiting of the necks until, when ye have routed them, then making fast of bonds.”
9:29: “Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.”
4:76: “Those who believe fight in the way of Allah, and those who disbelieve fight in the way of the Shaitan. Fight therefore against the friends of the Shaitan; surely the strategy of the Shaitan is weak.”
8:12: “When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.”
8:38-39: “Say to the Unbelievers, if (now) they desist (from Unbelief), their past would be forgiven them; but if they persist, the punishment of those before them is already (a matter of warning for them). And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere; but if they cease, verily Allah doth see all that they do.”
9:39: “If you do not go forth, He will chastise you with a painful chastisement and bring in your place a people other than you, and you will do Him no harm; and Allah has power over all things.”
4:74: “Therefore let those fight in the way of Allah, who sell this world’s life for the hereafter; and whoever fights in the way of Allah, then be he slain or be he victorious, We shall grant him a mighty reward.”
9:111: “Surely Allah has bought of the believers their persons and their property for this, that they shall have the garden; they fight in Allah’s way, so they slay and are slain; a promise which is binding on Him in the Taurat and the Injeel and the Quran; and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? Rejoice therefore in the pledge which you have made; and that is the mighty achievement.”
1. Ibn Warraq. Leaving Islam. Apostates Speak Out. Amherst, New York, 2003, p. 401.
2. The classical Qur’anic commentary of Ibn Kathir, and the 20th century commentary of Mawdudi confirm and validate the anti-Jewish attitudes expressed in Qur’an 5:32/33. From Ibn Kathir (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Riyadh, Vol. 3, 2000, p.160), entitled, “Warning Those Who Commit Mischief ”:
This Ayah chastises and criticizes those who commit the prohibitions, after knowing that they are prohibited from indulging in them. [Like] [T]he Jews of Al-Madinah, such as Banu Qurayza, An-Nadir, and Qaynuqa..[Jewish tribes ultimately attacked, expropriated, expelled, and even massacred by Muhammad]
From Mawdudi (Towards Understanding the Qur’an. Vol. 2, pp. 155-56), who includes a contextual reference to Qur’an 5:30/31 as well:
God honored some of the illiterate people of Arabia and disregarded the ancient People of the Book because the former were pious while the latter were not. But rather than reflect upon the causes of their rejection by God, and do something to overcome the failings which led to that rejection, the Israelites were seized by the same fit of arrogance and folly which had once seized the criminal son of Adam [verses 5:30/31], and resolved to kill those whose good deeds had been accepted by God. It was obvious that such acts would contribute nothing towards their acceptance by God. They would rather earn them an even greater degree of God’s disapproval. Since the same qualities which had been displayed by the wrongdoing son of Adam were manifest in the Children of Israel, God strongly urged them not to kill human beings and couched his command in forceful terms.

The “land” (in verse 5:33) signifies either the country or territory wherein the responsibility of establishing law and order has been undertaken by an Islamic state. The expression “to wage war [fight] against Allah and His Messenger” denotes war against the righteous order established by the Islamic state.


FBI Incidents and Offenses – Hate Crime Statistics, 2008

October 30, 2010
HammerSkin Gangs in JAIL via strhatetalk.com

in a nation of 300 million, all of the religious-based hate crimes added together amount to less than a drop in the bucket. This is not to minimize the 964 hate crimes perpetrated against Jews last year, or those carried out against Muslims (128), Catholics (55), or Protestants (40). Some of those attacks were especially shocking or destructive; all of them should be punished. But surely the most obvious takeaway from the FBI’s statistics is not that anti-religious hate crimes are so frequent in America. It is that they are so rare.

Religious bias
 http://xrl.us/hatecrime
2009 Of the 1,575 victims of an anti-religious hate crime:

  • 71.9 percent were victims because of an offender’s anti-Jewish bias.
  • 8.4 percent were victims because of an anti-Islamic bias.
  • 3.7 percent were victims because of an anti-Catholic bias.
  • 2.7 percent were victims because of an anti-Protestant bias.
  • 0.7 percent were victims because of an anti-Atheist/Agnostic bias.
  • 8.3 percent were victims because of a bias against other religions
    (anti-other religion).
  • 4.3 percent were victims because of a bias against groups of individuals
    of varying religions (anti-multiple religions, group). (Based on Table 1.)

Here’s what’s interesting. 
There are approximately as many Jews as Muslims  in the United States

Which mass media outlets will report how much the numbers differ from the perceptions that many of them have worked so hard to promote?

How many mainstream publications will carefully avoid pointing out who the real main victims of hate crimes are in today’s America? Note how many mass media outlets cover this story while avoiding the facts laid out above.

Is anyone going to do some soul-searching or change their behavior regarding the bashing of Jews and Israel, especially on campuses?

Will people in academia, media, and government sing the praises of America as a remarkably tolerant society when it comes to religion?

UPDATE: I am told that the CNN coverage explained none of the above points, focused on hate crimes against homosexuals, and blamed an upsurge in “fundamentalist” Christianity for these attacks.

[Note: African-Americans are roughly four to six times more numerous in the American population but suffer only a bit more than twice as many hate crimes.]

Religious bias

There were 1,606 hate crime offenses motivated by religious bias in 2008. A breakdown of these offenses shows:

  • 65.7 percent were anti-Jewish.
  • 13.2 percent were anti-other religion.
  • 7.7 percent were anti-Islamic.
  • 4.7 percent were anti-Catholic.
  • 4.2 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
  • 3.7 percent were anti-Protestant.
  • 0.9 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc. (Based on Table 1.)
via fbi.gov h/t debbieschlussel.com

In 2001 (the year of 9/11), there were twice as many anti-Jewish incidents [in America] as there were anti-Muslim, according to the FBI. In 2002 and pretty much every year since, anti-Jewish incidents have outstripped anti-Muslim incidents by at least 6 to 1.


Sawyer Paints Ft. Hood Nidal Hasan as Another Worker with a Gun and a Grudge

August 4, 2010

Opening Tuesday’s World News with the workplace shooting in Manchester, Connecticut, anchor Diane Sawyer saw it as one in a long line of incidents involving a “worker with a gun and grudge” as she described the nine killed as “the worst rampage since 13 were killed last November at Fort Hood, Texas.”
Army Major Nidal Hasan’s business cards identified him as a “Soldier of Allah” and his actions at Fort Hood, clearly motivated by Islamic jihadism, hardly fits in the same category as an  aggrieved worker with a gun who has gone on a rampage. Nonetheless, Sawyer’s led the August 3 newscast:

Good evening. Another American tragedy tonight, another worker with a gun and a grudge. This time, nine people are dead, the worst rampage since 13 were killed last November at Fort Hood, Texas. In the normally quiet down of Manchester, Connecticut, this morning one shift was letting off, another was starting the day at a beer distribution center.

Diane Sawyer also seems to believe lately that revoking the 14th Amendment is changing the Constitution. It is called an Amendment because it is an Amendment.


67% of US Hate Crimes are Against Jews

November 26, 2009

Our friend Debbie Schlussel is on the ball, yet again, with exclusive analysis on hate crimes in America:

Well, the FBI official hate crimes statistics are out for 2008. And like every year since the 9/11 Muslim terrorist attacks on America, the vast majority of religious hate crime victims on U.S. soil are America’s Jews. While the Pentagon and US Army did overtime pandering to Muslims like Nidal Malik Hasan, the real hatred was against one set of his mortal enemies…….more than a few of those anti-Semitic hate crime perpetrators are, in fact, Muslims….Missing from the FBI stats are the stats on the perpetrators of these crimes, which I’d bet would be very telling.

Please read her full breakdown here, and follow her on Twitter, here


EXCLUSIVE Analysis: Sorry, Islamophobia Pimps – 67% of US Hate Crimes Against Jews

By Debbie Schlussel

FBIhatecrimes2008-1

fbihatecrimes2008-2

That’s right. A whopping 66.69%–or just over 2/3rds–of America’s religion-based hate crime incidents are committed against Jews. But, hey, there’s no anti-Semitism. I’m just imagining it. The real condition afflicting America is Islamophobia, right? Let’s ignore that only 6.91% of hate crime incidents were against Muslims, with Catholics very close behind comprising 4.94% of hate crime incident victims. Sadly, some Catholic leaders look the other way on anti-Semitism (more on that below).

Another fact that is very inconvenient to Muslim propaganda is the fact that hate crimes against Jews and Catholics are growing, but hate crimes against Muslims, not. In 2007, there were 969 reported hate crime incidents against Jews in America. In 2008, it’s 1,013. In 2007, there were 61 anti-Catholic incidents. In 2008, there were 75. For Muslims, in 2007 there were 115 reported incidents against them. In 2008, it’s 105. And all of this is despite the fact that unlike other groups, Islamic groups work overtime to get alleged Islamic victims to report hate crimes.

fbihatecrimes-1a

fbihatecrimes2007-2

Yup, America’s hate is carried out not against the fellow co-religionists of the 9/11 hijackers–you know, the Muslims. They’re carried out against the most hated targets of the Muslims: the “evil Zionists.” And–guess what?–more than a few of those anti-Semitic hate crime perpetrators are, in fact, Muslims. Missing from the FBI stats are the stats on the perpetrators of these crimes, which I’d bet would be very telling.

Groups like CAIR, ADC, ISNA, MAS, and MPAC–the alphabet soup of Muslim and Muslim-dominated Arab groups–love to tout “Islamophobia” as a vast and wide-spread “bigotry” in America. But it ain’t so. The numbers simply don’t back it up.

Incidentally, while I lament that hate crimes against Catholics are slightly up, I have to laugh at Bill Donohue, President of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, who was quoted in USA Today upset over this. I made him aware that Emily M. Zanotti, a Catholic working for his Catholic friend Richard Thompson at the Catholic Thomas More Law Center, spent all day long on the payroll blogging in support and praise of Muslim Holocaust-denying anti-Semitic death, rape, and torture threats against me and my family (including my Holocaust survivor grandmother). He looked the other way. Ms. Zanotti is now employed by the Sam Adams Alliance, which is aware of her anti-Semitism and praise for violence and torture . . . and doesn’t care. Michelle Malkin (also Catholic) was made aware of this and continues to help Zanotti and Sam Adams Alliance, anyway.

Stuff like this is why anti-Semitic hate crimes are up. It’s not just Muslims and others who are perpetrating it. It’s phonies in positions of influence who are looking the other way and giving it tacit approval.

Posted via web from noahdavidsimon’s posterous


67% of US Hate Crimes are Against Jews

November 26, 2009

Our friend Debbie Schlussel is on the ball, yet again, with exclusive analysis on hate crimes in America:

Well, the FBI official hate crimes statistics are out for 2008. And like every year since the 9/11 Muslim terrorist attacks on America, the vast majority of religious hate crime victims on U.S. soil are America’s Jews. While the Pentagon and US Army did overtime pandering to Muslims like Nidal Malik Hasan, the real hatred was against one set of his mortal enemies…….more than a few of those anti-Semitic hate crime perpetrators are, in fact, Muslims….Missing from the FBI stats are the stats on the perpetrators of these crimes, which I’d bet would be very telling.

Please read her full breakdown here, and follow her on Twitter, here


EXCLUSIVE Analysis: Sorry, Islamophobia Pimps – 67% of US Hate Crimes Against Jews

By Debbie Schlussel


Solomonia: Nidal Hasan’s Palestinian West Bank Cousin: The History of This Family is Non-Violent

November 25, 2009

Dr. Hasan should be given a Nobel Peace Prize too?

The Fort Hood shooter’s West Bank family claims the history of the family is “non-violent” …as he’s interviewed in a room plastered with photos of Yassir Arafat [h/t:Dave]. See around :55 if you’re impatient.

Dissonance:

Arafat and the concept of Palestine is about as “non violent” as Dr. Hasan.

Posted via web from noahdavidsimon’s posterous


Solomonia: Nidal Hasan’s Palestinian West Bank Cousin: The History of This Family is Non-Violent

November 25, 2009

Dr. Hasan should be given a Nobel Peace Prize too?

The Fort Hood shooter’s West Bank family claims the history of the family is “non-violent” …as he’s interviewed in a room plastered with photos of Yassir Arafat [h/t:Dave]. See around :55 if you’re impatient.

Dissonance:

Arafat and the concept of Palestine is about as “non violent” as Dr. Hasan.