More Questions about Congressman Ellison

[RMNIXON]

WorldNetDaily: Doubts grow over Muslim lawmaker's loyalty


"Later that day, Ellison met with NAIF's president, Omar Ahmad Shahin, who lectures at the same American Open University. (He also met at the time with New York imam Siraj Wahhaj, an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 bombing.) The radical Islamic school trains many of NAIF's more than 150 members, who control mosques across America.

American Open University supports Sharia, or Islamic law. And its founder and chairman, Jaafar Sheikh Idris, has denounced the U.S system of democracy as "the antithesis of Islam" and argued no man has the right to make laws outside Allah's laws expressed in the Quran.

"There is a basic difference between Islam and this form of democracy," he says. "The basic difference is that in Islam it is [Allah's] law as expressed in the Quran and the Sunna that is the supreme law within the limits of which people have the right to legislate.

"No one can be a Muslim who makes or freely accepts or believes that anyone has the right to make or accept that is contrary to that divine law," Idris adds. "Examples of such violations include the legalization of alcoholic drinks, gambling, homosexuality, usury or interest, and even adoption."

Conversely, laws prohibiting polygamy and domestic violence also violate the Quran.

Further, he maintains that no Muslim elected to Congress or the White House can swear to uphold the U.S. Constitution and still be a Muslim.

"No Muslim could become president in a secular regime, for in order to pledge loyalty to the constitution, a Muslim would have to abandon part of his belief and embrace the belief of secularism – which is practically another religion. For Muslims, the word 'religion' does not only refer to a collection of beliefs and rituals, it refers to a way of life which includes all values, behaviors and details of living," Idris says. "Separation of religion and state is not an option for Muslims because it requires us to abandon [Allah's] decree for that of a man."

He further explains: "Islam cannot be separated from the state because it guides Muslims through every detail of running the state and their lives. Muslims have no choice but to reject secularism for it excludes the laws of [Allah]."
Also, he asserts that "there is absolutely no compromise: Any belief that contradicts Islam is false."

__________________________________________________ _________________

Now I don't want to pin the words of others on the Congressman, but since we have been so big on who Republicans associate with, what organization they once belonged, I would like to hear the good Congressman renounce these views before he takes his oath of office. Is that asking too much in the name of tollerance?

[Diamond Cross]

Yes.

[7960]

kerry says he's against abortion but votes pro-choice...... why can't ellison be muslim but vote in a way that may "violate" his faith?




fake edit: oh fuck, I just used a kerry reference in a positive way

[imind]

absolute nonsense.

there are no tenets in the islamic faith that would inhibit a muslim from an office in our govt, as islam does not teach that its followers are to impose their laws/beliefs on other, unwilling people.

this is in response to a muslim concerned about taking a citizenship oath in canada...

I do not see anything wrong with such oaths for Muslims, unless the constitution of the state does not provide for religious freedom of its citizens and forces them into actions, which are clearly against any of the directives of his religion. If such is not the case, then remaining loyal to the state is a natural right of every state on its citizens.

Even such provisions as recognition of homosexual marriages etc. do not force Muslims into living a life of disobedience to God. Even though such provisions are clearly against the teachings of Abrahamic religions, yet they do not force those, who want to adhere to the teachings of their religion into living a life of disobedience.

institute of islamic sciences

the man may be a loon (idris), but none of his statements (the ones i've seen) differ greatly from statements made by some christians.

[hsmith]

one out of 535 members of congress is a Muslim and "CONservatives" are already claiming they want women to be wearing burkas and chopping peoples heads off

god people grow up

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by hsmith

one out of 535 members of congress is a Muslim and "CONservatives" are already claiming they want women to be wearing burkas and chopping peoples heads off

god people grow up

Rather childish really. I made it clear in the other post that I have no objection to a Muslim in Congress or for this individual to carry a Koran into congress.

It is also clear by the above quoted post the Muslim groups and organizations this particular congressman has some association with. I am questioning "his" beliefs, not Muslims in general.

Tell me that if some Republican who had even loser ties to a fanatic Christian group that believed the laws of the bible or christ superseded the constitution and many of you would go bananas!

[Scrum]

WND

[Kytro]

He met with someone of controversial beliefs? So many public figures have done this.

Just because someone meets with someone does not mean they share the same viewpoints.

Even if he does share those viewpoints, he has been elected and can lose the next election should his viewpoints upset those who put him there

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by Kytro

He met with someone of controversial beliefs? So many public figures have done this.

Just because someone meets with someone does not mean they share the same viewpoints.

Even if he does share those viewpoints, he has been elected and can lose the next election should his viewpoints upset those who put him there

Now I don't want to pin the words of others on the Congressman, but since we have been so big on who Republicans associate with, what organization they once belonged, I would like to hear the good Congressman renounce these views before he takes his oath of office. Is that asking too much in the name of tollerance?

In case you never read down that far?

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by Kytro

Even if he does share those viewpoints, he has been elected and can lose the next election should his viewpoints upset those who put him there

Yes, but why would you even run for elected office if those were your beliefs? You would think the honest thing to do would remain outside the government in order to protest those actions and other aspects that violate your beliefs. That is certainly something he is free to do here unlike in the Muslim Nations of the type the people he meets with advocate.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

Yes, but why would you even run for elected office if those were your beliefs?

Why does anyone run for office?

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

You would think the honest thing to do would remain outside the government in order to protest those actions and other aspects that violate your beliefs. That is certainly something he is free to do here unlike in the Muslim Nations of the type the people he meets with advocate.

Assuming he holds beliefs of such a nature.

Of course if someone wants change, whatever that may be, they will not get it sitting around protesting

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

In case you never read down that far?

I did, but I believe that is more a political game than anything. You don't need to renounce a viewpoint unless you actually advocated it.

Never the less he was elected by the system, and is playing by the rules. Better than blowing up a building.

[avsp]

Firstly, Dick, (may I call you Dick?), when did you stop beating your wife?

Anyhow, you may have a legitimate point, in that having been photographed with members of a shariah law supporting organisation, he should be asked to make his own views clear

A brief look at his site doesnt immediatly throw up any such statement. However I found this

On the Issues: Israel and the Middle East

I believe that peace throughout the world should be the guiding principle of the United States. To this end working towards a lasting peace in the Middle East should be one of the United States' most focused goals. Peace is necessary for both Israeli and Palestinian people, and I wholeheartedly support peace movements in Israel and throughout the region.

The template set forth by the roadmap for peace currently provides the best outline for achieving a two-state solution to bringing about a lasting settlement. Right now Hamas represents the greatest obstacle to this path, and until Hamas denounces terrorism, recognizes the absolute right of Israel to exist peacefully and honors past agreements, it cannot be considered legitimate partners in this process. Sensible and moderate elements in Palestinian society could possibly provide credible negotiating partners. The United States should encourage dialogue with peaceful Palestinian leaders that recognize Israel, condemn terrorism, and honor past accords.

Terrorism is the greatest impediment to peace. At this point the Palestinian Authority (PA) has yet to dismantle the terrorist infrastructure in Gaza and the West Bank. The United States cannot support any government that condones or embraces terrorism. However, the humanitarian needs of the Palestinian people cannot be neglected, and the United States should respect these needs through the use of non-governmental organizations (NGOs).

The obligation to help the Palestinian people is also a political necessity. It is important not to play into the hands of terrorist organizations by allowing them to credibly argue that the US and Israel are denying food and medicine to women and children.

The other serious threat to the security of the region is Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons. This must be stopped. A nuclear-armed Iran would upset the strategic balance in the region and pose a clear threat to world peace. Iran's sponsorship of international terrorism as well as financial aid to terrorist organizations endangers peace around the globe. I believe that the United States must engage Iran in a diplomatically meaningful way, through direct or multi-lateral negotiations, before resorting to military force.

Iran is the leading sponsor of international terrorism as well as the major financial supporter of many radical groups that threaten moderate regimes throughout the Middle East.

I believe the United States should continue to do all it can to foster and promote peace between Israel and Palestinians. The best chance for this lasting peace can be achieved through direct negotiations between Israel and its neighbors with the United States working as broker between them. Only with a democratic Palestinian state alongside a secure Israel can the safety of the entire region be assured.

Source: Keith Ellison for U.S. Congress

Which all seems reasonable enough, ..., but perhaps one could argue that as a Sunni of course he would condem Iran, but thats, IMO, pushing it. Either way he recognises Isreals right to exist

Elsewhere on his site he also trumpets his own refusal to 'stigmatise' those of a non-standard sexuality, ..., though he does prevaricate somewhat IMO, ..., presumably because he does feel that such behaviours are sinful.

In the meantime perhaps we could email him to ask him to make his views explict info@keithellison.org

Though I doubt, even if he replies, that he'll satisfy many no matter what his views, ..., coz thats in the very nature of things Islamic or otherwise.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by avsp

Firstly, Dick, (may I call you Dick?), when did you stop beating your wife?

Yes, and No I never beat my wife. Never cheated on her in or out of office. Never lied about it to a national television audience and under legal oath.

[RMNIXON]

It is not a matter of being photographed with someone. Although that never stops the Saddam/Rumsfeld photos from being posted endlessly! I made my views clear. I am not putting words in this congressman's mouth even as you try putting words in mine. We obviously can't have a civil debate on this issue as you can see by the above quote. So I will end my partisipation in this post.

[avsp]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

It is not a matter of being photographed with someone. Although that never stops the Saddam/Rumsfeld photos from being posted endlessly! I made my views clear. I am not putting words in this congressman's mouth even as you try putting words in mine. We obviously can't have a civil debate on this issue as you can see by the above quote. So I will end my partisipation in this post.

Well, thats a shame, not least coz I largely agree with you

He is almost certainly the highest profile Muslim in the US now & as such is now obliged, regardless of how 'fair' it is, to speak for the mainstream muslim viewpoint.

My wife-beating comment was a joke, its a well known saying here in the UK about proving a negative & 'mud sticking', ..., plus your, (your namesakes?), reputation as a wife-beater.

I dont think I have put words in your mouth & I'm sorry that you think so. Either way I apologise for any confusion. I dont think you've put words in his either.

My coments about photos arose from your choice of citation & "It is also clear by the above quoted post the Muslim groups and organizations this particular congressman has some association with. I am questioning "his" beliefs, not Muslims in general.".
My view is that as he is going to be seen as speaking for Muslims in general then he has little choice but to embrace this role as failing to do so will serve to reinforce Islamophobia.
I believe your view is that as an elected official he is in some way almost obligated to make his own views clear in order to remoe the doubts & fears that some have.

BTW, IMO, framing this matter in terms of the ongoing red v blue bickering serves little point, ..., but then i recognise that taking this view is against what many see the purpose of LL as.