What if another Congressman spoke to the KKK, or to the Nazi Party? Would we hold him accountable? Of course, we would. So, why is the hiding, yes, hiding the fact that Muslim Congressman Keith Ellison is speaking to known radical groups:
The Muslim American Society has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and does not deny a report published in the Chicago Tribune in 2004 that it hopes to replace the U.S. Constitution with the Qur'an. According to terror expert Steven Emerson, the Islamic Circle of North America "Another individual who was quoted in the New York Times was an official of the Islamic Circle of North America, again portrayed as a mainstream group. What they didn't reveal is the Islamic Circle of North America "is a Jamad Islamia group, which is on record as calling for jihad in the United States, to promote the notion of an Islamic world. ICNA also published something very recently saying that they are against suicide bombings, except when it comes to killing Israelis."
Does Ellison endorse these views? Would he kindly issue an unequivocal statement affirming that he does not?
"Muslims, you're up to bat right now..." he (Ellison) said. "How do you know that you were not brought right here to this place to learn how to make this world better? How do you know that Allah, subhanahu wa ta'ala,” (meaning praised and exalted is he) “did not bring you here so that you could understand how to teach people what tolerance was, what justice was?… How do you know that you're not here to teach this country?"
Fine. Teach us. Teach us how Sharia is compatible with the Constitution. Take head-on the questions about non-establishment of religion, freedom of conscience, and equality of rights for women and religious minorities that raise legitimate questions about the compatibility of Sharia and the Bill of Rights. Discuss these questions openly, rather than indignantly claiming that to ask them is to manifest "bigotry."
8 comments:
Looks like great minds think alike
Yep. That's funny.
I predict that Ellison will not answer the questions mentioned. Instead, portions of his speech imply rising up against persecution.
Good guess. I wonder if it is possible to get the text of his whole speech yet?
Calling Mr. Russert, calling Mr. Russert
Pastorius,
Perhaps MAS will post it.
Actually, you guys are right. That's why Keith shouldn't have campaigned and run in the first place. We believe in a government with almost all of its laws alreay encoded in the Shariah. The rule is for Allah, implemented by men. In the US, the rule is by the people, of the people, and for the people. It's not compatible. There are even some similarities, but not compatibility.
Now regarding non-establishment of a religion, that is in the consititutionm and I understand that. But it says congress shall make no law respecting a religion. It doesn't apply to state, county, or city governments. Frankly, I think the Gulf Coast states along with South Carolina and Georgia ought to be turned over to Muslims to govern with Shariah law, since obviously Bush cares not about the Gulf Coast states, and Georgia and South Carolina were developed by slave labor, 30 percent of which was Muslim slave labor. That's alot of states left over for the rest of you to do what you will.
Black Lion,
You're great. So honest.
Post a Comment