Secular writes:"Akafir, I browsed thru one of the urls you posted. Man that is so vile i could not believe it."

Note that the article is dated 1998, and it was written by a muslim oppressed by other muslims and he is appealing to other muslims and not to the western audience. Americans need to learn that when a Muslim scholar, Imam, Mufti writes to or addresses a Kafir audience he will slant and color his talk with "code speak" such that the Kafirs will understand it quite differently than the Muslim audience. One way around it is to find papers and conversations by Muslims directed towards other Muslims.
With translate google now, many arabic sites have become accessible to the Kafir audience and many of them are true eye openers.

To conclude while a minority of Muslims subscribe to the view that non-muslims (or more-commonly among this minority, non-believers in God) are not spiritually pure, it does not mean that they view them as unclean, or cast any normative judgement about thier value as human- beings.
===

We always get bogged down in hair-splitting arguments over exactly what does the Quran mean when it says this or that, arguments that even people who have spent their lives studying Islam cannot settle.

The real issue is this: do you wish to see the USA become Islamicized?

That's the basic issue. It doesn't matter how good or bad Islam is. It's like arguing if chocolate or vanilla taste better. Who cares? The question is, which do you like?

So again, take a look at Europe and ask yourself if you want that here. That's really the only question. This is our culture. We have every right to defend it, and it's neither racist nor bigoted to do so.

So to anyone arguing that Islam is good and wonderful, that's fine. Keep your religion to yourself. It's your private faith, and we do not want it as a lifestyle.

Akafir, I browsed thru one of the urls you posted. Man that is so vile i could not believe it. I recommend that some of our ilk who seem to have a reflexive reaction to give benefit of the doubt to also read it. This pond scum Dr. Abdul Rahman Albaloushy, in one of the early paragraph claims that Iran was a Sunni country and that was illegitimately converted into a Shia country. He does not have word of mention about before it was aSunni country all of Iran was a Zoroastrian country for over 2000 years. However, in the same para he also bemoans that but for the despicable Shia Safawid, Austria, France. Listen up Islamic apologists that think world conquest is not prevalent in Islamic read it for yourself, it is always in the background. This turkey then bemoans the persecution of Sunnis in Iran. But has no words against the Saudis who expelled him because he was from Shia Iran. Such is the blind hatred. While he bemoans the plight of Sunni in Iran he has not a word about the systematic persecution of Shia in rest of Islamia.

Anyway what I find amusing is that MO's nemesis during most of his lifetime Abu Sufiyan had the last laugh. When his grand son Yazid mercilessly humiliated MOs grandson Hussain and killed him, that was really the undoing of MO. It is also illuminating to realize that Sunni Islam which is the predominant one has no familial lineage with MO.

mono1:
Quran 9:28 states:
(Transliteration)
Ya ayyuha allatheena amanoo innama almushrikoona najasun fala yaqraboo almasjida alharama baAAda AAamihim hatha wa-in khiftum AAaylatan fasawfa yughneekumu Allahu min fadlihi in shaa inna Allaha AAaleemun hakeemun

The word is "najasun". I have shown that the sunni Imam Raghib Isfahani says that it covers all kinds of filth including your "impurity of heart". I have shown that Shia Imams compare non-muslims to feces and urine explicitly.
Now can you please show where in the Quran or in the Hadiath do you get the meaning that "najas" only means "impure" of heart?

Here is a hadiath by Imam Bukhari (and Imam Muslim: Book 021, Number 4743:

Volume 7, Book 67, Number 387:

Narrated Abu Tha'laba Al-Khushani:

I said, "O Allah's Prophet! We are living in a land ruled by the people of the Scripture; Can we take our meals in their utensils? In that land there is plenty of game and I hunt the game with my bow and with my hound that is not trained and with my trained hound. Then what is lawful for me to eat?" He said, "As for what you have mentioned about the people of the Scripture, if you can get utensils other than theirs, do not eat out of theirs, but if you cannot get other than theirs, wash their utensils and eat out of it. "

Why does "impurity of heart" makes eating from the utensils of the Ahle-Kitab (christians and jews) haram and muslims need to make them pure by washing them first. How about the utensils of real Kafirs like the hindus, buddhists, pagans, etc?

mono1: "Islam reefers here to the purity and impurity of the heart or the creed not purity or impurity of the body,

in islam water is pure and it purify the body,"

mono1, then why not put Mecca under water? Let us accept that the non-muslims are "impure". What does that mean? What does being impure of the heart mean? Are there any muslims in the millions of muslims who circle the Kaaba who show the same symptoms of being "impure" or heart, or just because they choose to call themselves "muslims" they all become automatically "pure of heart"? So explain again why is it that the non-muslims are excluded from entire cities of Mecca and Madinah and their surrounds?

AFC was excluded from a mass because the catholics at the Basillica did now want to be gawked and put on exhibition. AFC was not denied entry to the Vatican or the Basillica. The priest does not stand up and say that all non-catholics or even all non-christians now should leave the Church because they are going to hold mass. He was not taken away by the police, given 20 lashes and expelled from the country because he had polluted the city by the "impurity of his heart".

Islam reefers here to the purity and impurity of the heart or the creed not purity or impurity of the body,

in islam water is pure and it purify the body,

monotheism is pure and it purify the creed or the heart from Shirk(associating partners and off spring to the god)
and disbelieve in god .

the last messenger to mankind said,
every mankind born on the state of Fitra, monotheism until his/her parents convert him/her to a pagan or a jew or christian .

people who are reverting back to islam are coming back to their right pure monotheism Fitra that they were created with in the first place not the impurity that their parents and societies heart and creed washed them in.

AbrahamFromCanada (AFC) writes:

"Muslims can be spiritually impure as well, so using this example to say that Muslims are not tolerant of other religions is inaccurate in my opinion."

So are these Muslims prohibted from Mecca? No. Are you telling me that Muslims in Mecca don't have wet dreams or sexual intercourse? But a non-muslim caught in mecca receives lashes and expelled from the country.

Infact this type of spirtual designation is common in many faiths. When I visited St. Peter's Bascillica, I was not permitted to sit for Mass, because this is reserved for adherents of that faith. Likewise, only members of the Buddist faith are permitted to enter certain areas in Tibet.

Not permitted to sit for Mass. Were you permitted in the Bascillica? Yes. There is a problem at the Vatican City these days because some of the Muslim youth insist on urinating on some of the statues and columns. But there is no restriction to entry to the Vatican City or the Bascillica. Which areas in Tibet are off limits based on religion? I know Tibet quite well. So go ahead and tell me which are are off limits to Tibet. Chinese limit access to certain areas based on security but I have never come across restirictions by buddhists based upon religion. Now hindus restrict access to untouchables, humans who are treated as filth. Now why do the muslims prevent access to entire cities of Mecca and Jeddha and their surrounds to the "impure".

AFC writes: "I did not mention that I was Muslim, so this was an assumption on your part."

I have reread my post to you twice and I cannot see where I said you were a Muslim. Don't be so sensitive. I consider myself to be forthright and not aggressive.

If I come across as aggressive because I speak plainly then so be it.

AbrahamfromCanada (AFC) writes:
"To answer your first question, I referred to this minority as 'a minority' because this Sunni/Shia distinction is only useful for creating artificial categories."

You are entitled to your opinions. That is not what the facts are on the ground. The difference between the Shia and Sunnis stretch back into history, and Iraq is still dealing with it in the present. Couple of sites from the hundreds you can get from Islamic sources detailing the arguments between Shia and Sunnis.

http://www.islamicweb.com/beliefs/cults/shia_dismal_iran.htm
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/09/02/saudi-arabia-treat-shia-equally

From your statement above it is clear that you have a hard time separating facts as they exist from what you wish them to be. The rest of your letter is filled with similar wishful thinking.

AbrahamFromCanada: "Simmilarly, as all people are brothers in humanity"

You do not say what you mean by brothers in humanity. However Allah says
(58.22)
[لاَّ تَجِدُ قَوْماً يُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الاٌّخِرِ يُوَآدُّونَ مَنْ حَآدَّ اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ وَلَوْ كَانُواْ ءَابَآءَهُمْ أَوْ أَبْنَآءَهُمْ أَوْ إِخْوَنَهُمْ أَوْ عَشِيرَتَهُمْ]

(You will not find any people who believe in Allah and the Last Day, making friendship with those who oppose Allah and His Messenger, even though they were their fathers or their sons or their brothers or their kindred.) Meaning, do not befriend the deniers, even if they are among the closest relatives. Allah said,

[لاَّ يَتَّخِذِ الْمُؤْمِنُونَ الْكَـفِرِينَ أَوْلِيَآءَ مِن دُونِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ وَمَن يَفْعَلْ ذَلِكَ فَلَيْسَ مِنَ اللَّهِ فِي شَىْءٍ إِلاَ أَن تَتَّقُواْ مِنْهُمْ تُقَـةً وَيُحَذِّرْكُمُ اللَّهُ نَفْسَهُ]

(Let not the believers take the disbelievers as friends instead of the believers, and whoever does that will never be helped by Allah in any way, except if you indeed fear a danger from them. And Allah warns you against Himself.)

And the Kafirs are barely starting to understand " no friendship except if you indeed fear a danger from them" and how flexible that meaning of danger can be and how easy that makes lying for a Muslim when dealing with a Kafir. So tell me again where is this "brothers in humanity" bit fit in with all the hate for the Kafirs?

AFC writes: "Its funny to me that your quotation from the Philosopher Isfahani was useful in answering some of your questions. It's also funny that this scholar is also a member of the minority viewpoint. Isfahan is a city in Iran, that is where the name comes from."

Isfahan is a city in Iran but Imam Raghib al-Isfahani was not a Shia. He died in 1108. His Tafsir Al-Mufradat fi Gharib al-Quran is a Sunni Tafsir and not a Shia one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Sunni_tafsir

Your argument trying to draw a distinction between which one of the three types of najassat applies is just nonsense. The imam clearly says that the "The word "najas" covers all three.".

You accuse me personally and I suppose Muslims generally of many charges that are addressed above. The vast majority of Muslims are innocent of your accusations, because it is not theologically correct. Some muslims no doubt have been condescending to other faiths, this is incorrect Islamically. But please note, that members of most faiths have done the same. Generally faiths respect humanity and this is not different, in my faith or yours. By the way, non muslims are permitted to enter any masjid in the world besides two, and muslims also are also not permitted in the two mosques you mention when they have certain najasat.

Yes I do believe most Muslims do not on a daily basis share every part of what is written in Koran. One of the main reason for that is most of them are not even as familiar with Koran as people like me or for sure like Akafir are. However that said how do you explain the fact that all the OIC countries have the most draconian laws that as hostile to non-muslims as the vile passages quoted on this blog. This is despite the above claim. What does that mean? That means the fundamental literalists hold the sway. This is not like all the laws are hold overs necessarily. It is not like these types are all despotic countries either. Even the so called moderate places like Malaysia and Indonesia are also afflicted with the same laws. Either the sane majority is also a very silent majority, as long as it doesn't hurt me why bother

On the other hand the constant refrain of the apologists is we similar passages in Bible too, blah, blah, blah. However, we do mot have any civil laws in the west that reflect the vile passages of bible. That is the big difference. Unless the so called moderate silent majority speaks up and wrests control there will be tension.

Dear Akafir,

To answer your first question, I referred to this minority as 'a minority' because this Sunni/Shia distinction is only useful for creating artificial categories. It's a form of division that is not beneficial in my opinion. Difference of opinion is the issue, not difference of faith. Simmilarly, as all people are brothers in humanity, I would not target your faith or denomination, but rather try to change your opinion on this subject.

Its funny to me that your quotation from the Philosopher Isfahani was useful in answering some of your questions. It's also funny that this scholar is also a member of the minority viewpoint. Isfahan is a city in Iran, that is where the name comes from. While any scholarly opinion does not speak for an entire religion, a minority position is especially limited in scope. Nevertheless, this is a great scholar and so lets examine his opinion. In this quotation he distinguishes between three type of najis: material, legal, and spiritual. In this context spiritual and ritual are fairly constant, because as we discussed the najasat is removed for ritual prayer which is needless to say spiritual. Al-Shafi a prominent Preist, explains that it is not that those who put anything on the same level with God are impure, but that this disbelief which is within is impure. We already discussed that impurity does not mean filth, and that we could not equate differnet types of impurity. Now you see that Muslims respect the individual who is not of thier faith, however as would be expected, they consider that person spirtually impure, which again is not to say unclean, but only not completely faithful. Muslims can be spiritually impure as well, so using this example to say that Muslims are not tolerant of other religions is inaccurate in my opinion.

Infact this type of spirtual designation is common in many faiths. When I visited St. Peter's Bascillica, I was not permitted to sit for Mass, because this is reserved for adherents of that faith. Likewise, only members of the Buddist faith are permitted to enter certain areas in Tibet.

You accuse me personally and I suppose Muslims generally of many charges that are addressed above. The vast majority of Muslims are innocent of your accusations, because it is not theologically correct. Some muslims no doubt have been condescending to other faiths, this is incorrect Islamically. But please note, that members of most faiths have done the same. Generally faiths respect humanity and this is not different, in my faith or yours. By the way, non muslims are permitted to enter any masjid in the world besides two, and muslims also are also not permitted in the two mosques you mention when they have certain najasat.

I did not mention that I was Muslim, so this was an assumption on your part. Many of your accusations are also. If you intend to influence public opinion, I suggest you change this aggressive rhetoric.

Why is it that the only muslim congressman is a liberal?

Perhaps it is because the liberals are doing such a fine job of causing suicide of democratic ideals in Europe, priming Europe for the takeover by radical Islam and establishment of the caliphate in Europe.

Wake up, liberal dhimmi-wannabes. Remember the muslim principle of taqiyya where muslims like Ellison can lie to non-muslims to advance the cause of jihad.

AbrahamFromCanada:
A minority group of Muslims? Why not say Shia? It is accepted by Khomenii, and Sistani the two big wig Ayatollahs. It is the official dogma of the Islamic republic of Iran. That is not a negligible minority, is it?

So do you consider the Kafirs to be so impure that they should be excluded from the entire cities of Mecca and Medinah? And do you mind showing where you get the translation of "najis" as ritually impure? What do you mean by "ritually impure"? An impure ritual? Something that makes the ritual filthy?

Arberry, Palmer, Sale, Rodwell, Pickthall, Shakir, Yusuf Ali, Abdul Haleem, Ali Quli Qara'i, Hamid S Aziz, Maududi, all translate najis as unclean. Daryabadi and Sarwar translate it as filthy.

Maulana Mufti Muhammad Shafi in his commentary on the Quran (Maariful Quran) states:
"Here, the word najas has been used with fathah on the letter jim which carries the sense of filth and filth denotes every impurity which one avert naturally. Imam Raghib al-Isfahani has said: It also include impurity that is perceived through the senses, such as the eye, the nose, or the hand as well as that which one is able to know about through knowledge and reason. Therefore, the word 'najas' is inclusive of filth or impurity of three types. The first one is real. Everyone perceives it as such. Then, there is the second type. This is known as legal because it makes wudu or ghusl legally necessary. Examples are the state of Janabah (intercourse, ejaculation, wet-dream, etc.) as well as, the post-menstruation known as haid and nifas. And then there is the spiritual impurity that relates to the human heart, for example, false beliefs and evil morals. The word "najas" covers all three."

Now you cannot get any filthier than that, can you? Your ritually impure includes the Shia definition and more according to the Suni Mufti Shafi.

So you tell me how does saying that all non-muslims are "ritually impure" makes it any less hateful than calling them as filthy as urine and feces? You denigrate their beliefs, their creed, their Gods, their life, to the point where they are to be kept away from entire cities because they will "pollute" the atomosphere!!! And you think that is better some how? No wonder Wafa Sultan titled her book 'A God who hates' for truly Allah hates his own creation, 80% of humanity who are non-muslims.

Please give the verses that you are referring to in the Quran so people may see exactly what Allah said. Would you like to go into detail what is meant when it is said that non-muslims are brothers in humanity? Please show the hadiath and just a few verses from the countless ones you allude to will do.

Akafir, I think your post is misleading in very fundamental ways.

1. The concept of najasat does not mean uncleanliness or filth as you describe, but rather impurity in the sense that one should not preform ritual prayer in that state. That is why a strict translation of 'najis' is 'ritually impure'. Many people have dogs, raise pigs, work with dead bodies etc, they are not considered filthy, however they consider it necessary to wash before they pray one of the 5 daily ritual prayers, praying informally is has not prerequisites.

2. The source you gave in your comment comes from a minority group of Muslims. This is evident by the many references in that document to the 12 Imams. If I were you, I would hesitate to use this document to make theological conclusions about all Muslims, especially because there is not even unanimity on this subject among this minority.

3. Unlike purity, impurity is not an absolute term, it is relative, and so there are degrees to which something is impure. 99% dark chocolate and everyday milk chocolate are both impure forms of chocolate but there is a difference in their nearness to pure chocolate. It is not correct as you comment, to say that if two things are impure, then they both have the same degree of purity.

4. Muslims consider all human life to be intrinsically valuable, and there are countless verses and examples to illustrate this point. One such example is the well known hadith that all non-muslims are brothers in humanity. Moreover, the Bible and Old Testament are accepted in Islam and they give further importance to principle of respect for all life.

To conclude while a minority of Muslims subscribe to the view that non-muslims (or more-commonly among this minority, non-believers in God) are not spiritually pure, it does not mean that they view them as unclean, or cast any normative judgement about thier value as human- beings. Good luck in the future.

WPC 9 pontificates thus:

“in the heyday of Islamic civilization in Iraq, Egypt and Spain, following the example of the Prophet and the teachings of the Qur'an, the Islamic community not only protected the people of the Book but also supported and encouraged the building and protection of their places of worship.”

Muslims in general are taught by their clerics that if they repeat the same lie often enough it becomes believable. As for Islam protecting the houses of worship of Christians and Jews simply browse the Omar Pact that codified the treatment of the People of the Book by no less authority than a major companion of the Muslim prophet, his advisor and successor, namely Omar ibn al Khattab..
One of the 28 provisions of that constitution states:

“We shall not build, in our cities or in their neighborhood, new monasteries, Churches, convents, or monks' cells, nor shall we repair, by day or by night, such of them as fall in ruins or are situated in the quarters of the Muslims.”

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/pact-umar.html

asizk:

Do you agree that the mushrikun (those who associate someone or something with Allah like the Christians associating Jesus as the Son of God, or the Jews calling Ezra the Son of God according to the Quran, or the Hindus with their many Gods, or the Buddhists with their Buddha, etc) are Najissoun.

The following islamic site lists the things that are Najis:
http://www.al-islam.org/laws/najisthings.html
84. * The following ten things are essentially najis:

* Urine
* Faeces
* Semen
* Dead body
* Blood
* Dog
* Pig
* Kafir
* Alcoholic liquors
* The sweat of an animal who persistently eats najasat.

A Kafir (non-muslim) is as filthy as the other items listed.

Does Keith Ellison agree that the Kafirs are Najassoun?

asizk writes: "Why should some one like want to go to a clean and holy place like Mecca?

However u should be allowed to Mecca as soon as your jewish occupiers of all of Palestine allow the six million Palestinian refugees who were violentely ethnically cleansed by illegal armed jewish immigrants in 1948-to return to their occupied homes in Jaffa,Haifa,Acka...Asdod,Beir Shbea,Bethlahem and above all to their beloved city Jerusalem. "

If that is Keith's position, then the people of his district need to be aware of it. The non-muslims, Christians, Jews, pagans, Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, Taoists, etc. are not allowed to enter Mecca because they are Najassoun (filthy as filthy as urine and feces) according to your Koran. Keith by going there indicates his agreement with that discriminatory and hateful policy of his religion. Has he ever voiced his opposition to it? Non-muslims who vote for him should become aware of his position. Hopefully they will in time as the awareness of Islam's hatred for the non-muslims becomes more widely known.

My jewish occupiers? Are they Keith Ellison's jewish occupiers as well or not?

It's like with Mitt Romney in Massachusetts: A lot of people voted for him because he promised not to mess with gay rights.

When being a Mormon and trying to go national meant doing the opposite and breaking that promise with a smile, it had *zero* to do with his version of religion being a minority when he made a lot of people's s-list.

The Congressman's religion is only relevant inasmuch as it may or may not affect his performance of his job.

Let's make it simple.

I'm a member of another religious minority, an American Pagan. It also happens I'm in a committed same-sex relationship, ...both of which categories are a not-insignificant minority in the Twin Cities.

How do you intend to represent these constituencies, based on your record and future intentions?

Perhaps it'd put the people who voted for Bachmann at ease. If they're capable of that state. ;)

Akafir,
U deserve this description after all.

Why should some one like want to go to a clean and holy place like Mecca?

However u should be allowed to Mecca as soon as your jewish occupiers of all of Palestine allow the six million Palestinian refugees who were violentely ethnically cleansed by illegal armed jewish immigrants in 1948-to return to their occupied homes in Jaffa,Haifa,Acka...Asdod,Beir Shbea,Bethlahem and above all to their beloved city Jerusalem.

If Kennedy had given a speech saying he would have to abide by the rulings of the Pope since he was a Catholic, it is doubtful he would have been elected.

Keith will be elected because the democrats in his district are good people and cannot believe that a religion, Islam, can be as evil for them as it is.

1. Keith did accept $13000 from CAIR to go to Mecca. Non-muslims are not allowed into Mecca because they are Najis. Keith by his actions is telling the non-muslims who will vote for him that they are as filty as urine and feces.

2. Keith does support MAS Minnesota who on their website do carry the Koranic injunction of 'to enjoin that which is good and forbid that which is bad,' which effectively does mean telling the non-muslims that their faith is wrong and telling that the subjugation of the non-muslims that Sharia imposes is the long term goal.

3. The hatred for the non-muslims is built into the DNA of Islam. The existing laws of muslim countries around the world implementing Sharia demonstrate that hatred unequivocally.

Given these facts, Keiths religion must not be his private business. It will be his private business if he unequivocally and unambiguously condemns the supremacist Sharia laws and refuses to participate in the insulting to Kafirs Hajj. Till that time, the Kafirs should be wary of Keith and his religion.

Likewise if Mr. Ellison, were to advocate that he is going to be guided by Koran about marital issues, then it becomes entirely relevant to ask him about his stand on child marriage notwithstanding Koran.

I hope that clarifies my position.

- Secular

******************************************

The Mormon example on racial segregation was some over 45 years. Rommney should not be asked on something he has no direct say legally and Constitutionally before and has come to pass.

Yes, if a candidate says he/she will be guided by his religious dogmas and values in public affairs, and undertake or support initiatives which are driven by his/her religious beliefs and values, then to question them on the wisdom of it in a multicultural society and secular nation.

However, to "hair-split" (which you dislike and are not into) if a candidate says he/she is a Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu etc, or his faith is important to him/her personally in his/her private life, it should not be a matter of no concern to anyone.

A "religious test" for public officials of particular faiths but not for atheists?

No body is advocating religious test.

There are racial segregation in Utah now?

What religious belief would be in conflict with the discharge of public service and upholding the Constitution as all US elected officials swore to uphold the US Constitution etc?
>/blockquote>

For instance the mormon dogma was until 1965, that blacks are not full fledged humans and are will not be in line for the eternal paradise under the eternal dictator. Long and short it had several blatantly racists dogmas as part of their credo. Of course they all got thrown out the window with a new timely revelation form their sky-daddy.

Given that it is wholly appropriate to have questioned Romney, at that time an adult, as to how far he subscribed to the dogma and how he had conducted himself in those matters. Or he should have been questioned further when he claimed only people of faith, of any faith, had a place in US. When they profess such views and air them, then it becomes a thing to discuss of the candidate. Similarly if a Hindu Brhamin was running and were to air his endorsement of Manu as a guiding light then it is altogether appropriate to question his thoughts about varnas. Likewise if Mr. Ellison, were to advocate that he is going to be guided by Koran about marital issues, then it becomes entirely relevant to ask him about his stand on child marriage notwithstanding Koran.

I hope that clarifies my position.

I was in the seventh grade when J.F.K. was elected President. There was a smear campaign against him, that said, if he was elected President, the Pope would rule the country. It was rediculous, but listened to by many - including many in the church to which I belonged (Lutheran). Every candidate, when they take the oath of office, swears loyalty to serve the people of this country, and to abide by the Constitution and laws of this country. If they cannot take that oath, they cannot serve; if they violate that oath, they should be impeached or quit of their own volition. There should not be any kind of religious test for public office. Mr. Ellison is correct. Those who say that he should not be elected because of his religious faith are bigots and un-American.

That said, it is by all means proper for the candidate to be questioned about his position on some of the dogmas of the candidate's religion, when the dogma is clearly in conflict with his constitutional obligations. Like for instance I felt that Mitt Romney should have been questioned about some of the Mormon dogmas about the racial segregation, etc

- Secular

*******************************************

A "religious test" for public officials of particular faiths but not for atheists?

There are racial segregation in Utah now?

What religious belief would be in conflict with the discharge of public service and upholding the Constitution as all US elected officials swore to uphold the US Constitution etc?

Dragging religion in the public square in spite of not wanting religion in the public square by questioning public officials on their belief rather than their stance and plans on the economy, health care etc?

But, of course, just as some "religionists" want to have "religious test" for candidates not of their same faith group in the public office, so do some "secularists" for approval in being "religously correct" and thus acceptable.

We have a goverment of the people, by the people, and for the people BUT OF NOT ANY RELIGION WHAT SO EVER. Thomas Jefferson is still correct. All religions must stay out of our goverment and if the want to speak on political matters under their freedom of speech, so be it but FILE YOUR INCOME WITH THE I.R.S. AND PAY YOUR TAX ACCOUNT YOU ARE NOW NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE TAX EXAMPT LAW'S RULES. If not , congress should just repeal the tax exampt law so the religions can be honest like the rest of us.

I am with representative Ellison on this. It is pretty clear per constitution, that he must not be barred from holding that office. Even if constitution had not sanctioned it, I would strenuously argue the position. That said, I would also be of the position that his religion should be off the table for discussion. There may be people who may not vote for him, because he is a muslim. Unfortunately bigotry cannot be outlawed nor can it be curtailed in a free society like ours or a anywhere else. That said in a country like ours it must not be subject of public debate for an electoral office, any more than a candidates taste in food is. That said, it is by all means proper for the candidate to be questioned about his position on some of the dogmas of the candidate's religion, when the dogma is clearly in conflict with his constitutional obligations. Like for instance I felt that Mitt Romney should have been questioned about some of the Mormon dogmas about the racial segregation, etc. As far as which religion he/she adheres to or does not at all, must be prohibited speech in the context of elections. Additionally the candidate's associations are open to question by all means.

Thank you, representative Ellison, for your service to this country. It is in the spirit of true Islamic service.

As I have repeatedly pointed out, there is a wave of distortion fed by fear and prejudice about what the Qur'an states regarding "unbelievers" or "infidels." It does not state that all who do not accept Islam must be slaughtered. First, the "people of the Book" (variously defined as Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians, and others in various historical contexts) are defined as having received revelations from God. People of the Book are to be protected; in the heyday of Islamic civilization in Iraq, Egypt and Spain, following the example of the Prophet and the teachings of the Qur'an, the Islamic community not only protected the people of the Book but also supported and encouraged the building and protection of their places of worship. When certain nations today - such as Saudi Arabia - prohibit the building of houses of worship of other religions, it is a violation of the teaching and spirit of Islam.

Second, even the pagans were not mistreated when Muhammad defeated them and destroyed the idols in the Kaaba in Mecca. There was not a general slaughter of pagans but rather an invitation to Islam.

Third, where fighting or "slaying" infidels is mentioned in the Qur'an, it is in the context of groups and peoples who aggressively sought to eliminate the belief in one God from Arabia by attacking and fighting against the Islamic community.

Even in the heat of battle, the Qur'an explicitly states that should an opponent surrender or request mercy, the Muslim is to treat him kindly and cease fighting.

I know perfectly well that this will be dismissed by those who are convinced that Islam is a religion of war and bloodshed. But your views not only ignore history and context, but they also are based on "translations" of passages by people who have taken them outside of their context or intentionally mistranslated them. What, in effect, the prejudiced opponents of Islam have done is accept the distorted view of Islam that fanatical Muslims and terrorists have presented as their picture of what Islam is.

I am not a member of the Islamic community, but I have read the Qur'an in many translations and studied its teachings and history. As a member of the Baha'i Faith, I also accept the Prophethood of Muhammad and the divine origin of the Qur'an. Religious revelation occurs within history and no understanding of Islam and the Qur;an is possible without knowing the vast improvement that Islam made to the lives of people in Arabia and across the world.

In Rwanda during the bloodbath of the mid-1990s, so-called Christians were killing each other at a tremendous rate based on ethnic background. One of the untold stories is how many people were sheltered and saved by Muslims in Rwanda, who took in persecuted people and demonstrated the reality of their belief in human oneness under our submission to God.

Those Americans who believe Muslims are required to kill all infidels base this on hearsay rather than actual knowledge. There are passages in the Quran (as in the Bible)that justify killing Christians and Jews who are attacking Muslims, but there are far more passages that honor all 'People of the Book' and order Muslims to treat them with consideration and respect, as long as they do not attack God and other Muslims. Seems pretty reasonable to me!

Let us examine the historical record to see if the charges made by various commentators hold water, and verify that Muslims actually do intend to kill all Christians as they charge. When Muslims conquered the (Christian) Visigoth rulers of Spain in the 8th Century, they gave the local Christian and Jewish subjects the choice: they could leave the country, or convert to Islam, or remain Jews or Christians and simply pay a poll tax as non-Muslims. Since that tax was actually less than the amount they would pay as their required tithe ('zakat') as Muslims, most chose to remain faithful to their faiths - with no penalty, and certainly no death.

In fact, in his book "God's Crucible", historian Davis Lewis noted that the Jews living in Spain at that time actually encouraged the Muslim rulers in Morocco to come to Spain, to save them from violent persecution at the hands of their Christian (Visigoth) rulers, who had ordered all Jews to leave Spain or be executed. This is not opinion - this is historical fact.

And it is also fact that when the Spanish Christians under King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella re-united Spain under a Christian monarchy, they ordered all Muslims and all Jews to either convert to Christianity, leave Spain or be killed. Most Jews went to North Africa - where (contrary to what the other commentators would have us believe) they were welcomed as fellow People of the Book, and allowed to establish Sephardic Jewish communities that thrived for over 5 centuries.

When Muslim traders went to Indonesia, Malaya and other Asian countries, they established communities that became a model of probity and integrity - and planted the seeds for an eventual peaceful acceptance of Islam there. By contrast, when the Spanish arrived in America, they forced the indigenous population to become Christian, but also enslaved those local natives and carried out policies that would today be described as ethnic cleansing.

Again, this is not opinion - it is historical fact. I do not deny that some (actually, many) Muslim world governments today are brutal dictatorships, but they can be called Muslim only by name, and certainly not by their adherence to true Islamic values. However, there are an equal number of ostensibly Christian governments that are equally brutal and tyrannical (think Zimbabwe). The 20th Century's worst cases of genocide were done by Christian nations like Germany and Soviet Russia.

Let us consider facts - not opinions based on ignorance of the historical record.

Garak

If you hate Jews for being Jews, then why argue against hating Muslims for being Muslims? Where is your credibility? or had you ever even thought of that?

Thanks for the info dastubbs! Keith Ellison sounds like an honorable man at least compared to his racist tea party opponents and Islamophobes who have been after him ever since he got elected. I heard tea party is handing out letters in Ellison's constituency calling him a secret Hamas operative and a Terrorist just because of his religion. The first question Glen Beck asked him on CNN after he won his election was "Sir, Prove to me you are not working with our enemy" while referring to his religion. The only correct answer to such a racist, ad hominem attack should have been a slap across Becks face But Ellison responded like a gentleman he is. The question was obviously meant to provoke an angry response and paint all muslims in a bad way but as always it was the bigot who ended up looking like a retard he is. Here's the clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JegKCAO6N7I

People: the "religious test" refers to appointed positions, not elected ones. People can vote for or against anyone for any reason, including their religion.

I'm not saying they SHOULD or that it's a good idea to vote based on a candidate's religious ideology, but there is absolutely NOTHING illegal or unconstitional about it and it has nothing at all to do with the "religious test" clause.

Thank you, Representative Ellison, for your service and for your defense of religious freedom and tolerance. These are true American values worth defending.

Depending on the Muslim, aspect of his religion may spill over into the realm of "state" as viewed from the Western mind. That is the problem.

For all you Constitution lovers:

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; BUT NO RELIGIOUS TEST SHALL EVER BE REQUIRED AS A QUALIFICATION TO ANY OFFICE OR PUBLIC TRUST UNDER THE UNITED STATES." --Article VI

This is in the ORIGINAL text of the Constitution, and predates even the First and Second Amendments. That's how central it is to who we are as Americans.

Not long ago, the same offensive language was used to argue against Jews and Mormons serving in Congress. Even as late as 1960, Americans were wary about electing a Roman Catholic, since he would presumably be beholden to the Vatican.

Same offensive rhetoric, different religious minority. This too will pass.

thank you for your blog, jamalstrom

Another take on the same thing:

On Oct 28, 4:56 am, "Singanas@Texasgulfcoast" wrote:
> American Muslims today occupy the same
> role as the Japanese Americans
> during W.W. II. > David H
> ~~~~~~

Actually, the Japanese were real/actual victims
of American racism: The Italian-Americans
and the German-Americans were not interned
in camps "for their own protection." NOTE:

The Japanese Shinto religion does not advocate
the murder of those who do not practice Shinto;
nor does it demand that anyone become a
follower of Shinto (who doesn't want to) under
penalty of death. And, like the Japanese,
neither the Italians nor the Germans were
under any religious duty to murder Americans
simply because of who/what they were. In this
sense, they were nothing like Muslims today:

Islam, the Islam that every Muslim MUST
follow under penalty of death, demands that
non-Muslims either be forced to become
Muslims or that they be slaughtered.

http://islamisbad.com

YOU WILL NEVER EVER SEE ANY MUSLIM
CONDEMN OR OPPOSE any of the passages
in the Koran demanding Muslims murder non-
Muslims: NEVER. Such a condemnation would
draw an instant/automatic sentence of death
which is the duty of EVERY (other) Muslim
to administer (and that includes that Muslim's
parents and/or children, friends and/or family
members, and/or any/every casual Muslim
at hand).

This is what most non-Muslims do not
understand/appreciate, as they ask why more
Muslims do not condemn "terrorism" ...
Muslims perpetrate against non-Muslims:

What non-Muslims call "terrorism" (against
non-Muslims) the Koran calls the duty of
every Muslim.

The only "terrorism" condemned by Muslim
authorities & others (is the terrorism carried
out against them or that which damages
their standing in the West, or their pockets).

But, again, not ONE Muslim will condemn
the passages in the Koran advocating
Terrorism (of non-Muslims) themselves.

That should tell you all you need to know
about Islam... and your Muslim neighbors.

S D Rodrian
http://gotopoems.com

.

Just yesterday someone was arrested for plotting to blow up the Washington Metrorail. His name... Farooque Ahmed.

Faisal Shahzad, Hasan Nidal, Hosam Smadi...

The terrorists are fighting us with Political Correctness and Diversity.
POSTED BY: WMARKW | OCTOBER 28, 2010 7:21 AM
___________________________________________
But let's not forget Timothy McVeigh who blew up an entire building and killed two of my shipmates. Sorry, all religions breed their extremists who make life miserable for the rest of us.

I don't know that what Phillips said was right because I don't know much about Mr. Ellison but I do know that the idea of holding "faith" above criticism is DANGEROUS NONSENSE!

A religion is a philosophy, nothing more and nothing less. It is a set of beliefs, rituals and rules for living to which certain people ascribe. A religion is EVERY BIT as liable to criticism as ANY OTHER philosophy and it there is NOTHING "bigoted" about criticizing a "faith", provided the criticism is rooted is facts and reason.

It is no more "bigoted" to criticize Islam, or certain interpretations of it, than it is to criticize Christianity or Stoicism or Liberalism or Nazism or any other philosophy or ethos! Furthermore, when someone says "I am a Muslim" or "I am a Christian" they are laying claims to certain BELIEFS and affiliating themselves, willy-nilly, with others who do the same.

That said, it must also be acknowledged that there is a tremendous variety of opinion within Islam and any other faith. I don't understand why some people can't see this or why others insist on seeing criticism of Jihadism as a criticism of any other Muslim citizen.

Theists themselves are constantly criticizing each other's beliefs. I routinely see Christians taking wildly divergent stances on various issues and justifying those stances by citing scripture or their particular interpretation of it. I mean, the single biggest group of religions in this nation is called "Protestant".

In fact, one could almost say that all three Abrahamic Religions not only criticize but ARE themselves "criticisms" of other religions. Judiasm is a criticism of Bronze Age Paganism and various practices, such as human sacrifice, associated with it. Christianity is a criticism of Judaism and Islam is even more obviously a criticism of both of THEM.

Why, then, is it apparently so hard for so many of us to believe that different Muslims think and act in different ways? The Koran is a long, complicated and often vague book and, leaving aside the West's own religious disputes, we can't even always agree on the Constitution, which is a few pages long!

We really need to quit looking at this world through the false dichotomy of “left and right” and see it for the place of infinite nuance that it is. While there are no doubt Christian chauvinists in this country, one can criticize Islam or any other philosophy without being a “bigot” and, in this day and age, we NEED to criticize these politicized “religious” groups whether Islamic, Christian or other and we can no longer allow people to spew any kind of nonsense, attach a “god” to it and then call it “faith” and hold it above criticism!

Yes, and we need to start taking a much closer look at how many Pakistanis, Jordanians, and Palestinians we allow to become Americans.

Posted by: WmarkW

...and let's include the Irish who are known to hide pervert priests, the Jews who follow Deuteronomy 17:12, all Asian Buddhists, all people with darker skin and those who speak Spanish...

"I see faces white, white roses too
I see them free for me and you
And I think to myself, what a teabagger world

I see crosses lit, lighting up the night
The hateful days, the Fox New fright
And I think to myself, what a teabagger world

The colours of the white folk, so pretty in the sky
Are also on the faces of people going by
I see scared shakin' hands, sayin' "No soup for you!"
They're really saying "I hate you"

I hear babies cryin', I watch them grow
They'll hate much more than I'll ever know
And I think to myself, what a teabagger world
Yes, I think to myself, what a teabagger world"

(with apologies to Louie)

Putting together the facts about Islam such as advocacy for killing unbelievers, forbidding the lending of money at interest, the acceptability of wife beating and the resistance to change embodied in the doctrine of the final prophet, why is it not reasonable to ask whether those tenets are something that you want a member of Congress to hold? If he doesn't believe them, why is he a Muslim and isn't he violating the edict about the final prophet?

Next we will be told it's wrong to vote for candidates who are not Glenn Beck Christians.

The MN-5 comprises the City of Minneapolis and most of its first ring suburbs. There has been only one republican mayor of Minneapolis since 1945 (not counting Dick Erdahl, who served one day as mayor on Dec 31 1973.)

The MN-5 is heavily democrat (72% of registered voters) and the seat has been held by democrats since 1963. No republican challenger has received more than 26%.

Judson can urge defeat of Ellison all he wants but it's not going to have any effect.

The voters in the MN-5 know their representative better than racists in the Tea Party do.

Congressman Keith Ellison: "an American's religion is their own business"

Yes, and we need to start taking a much closer look at how many Pakistanis, Jordanians, and Palestinians we allow to become Americans.

"This coming from a man who identifies himself first and foremost as a devout follower of ISLAM."
------------------------
No, he has never done so. He identifies first and formeost as an American citizen. He just happens to be an American who is muslim. Just like his opponent who happens to be a christian (so he says).

Just yesterday someone was arrested for plotting to blow up the Washington Metrorail. His name... Farooque Ahmed.

Faisal Shahzad, Hasan Nidal, Hosam Smadi...

The terrorists are fighting us with Political Correctness and Diversity.

THAT'S FUNNY; THAT'S HILARIOUS; THAT'S RICH!

Keith E. writes:
"Religious tolerance is a deeply rooted American value, and regardless of political persuasion, it's a value we must protect."

This coming from a man who identifies himself first and foremost as a devout follower of ISLAM.

ISLAM: It is unquestionably a supremacist and intolerant religion. To equate the claims of exceptionalism and supremacism inherent in Islam with the tolerance in America is a joke.
Keith Ellison believes and proudly proclaims the following:
(lâ ilâha illallâh, Muḥammadur rasûlullâh)
There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. All else are infidels.

So Keith, where is the tolerance and mutual respect?
How is your belief system even close to the tolerance you want others to show?
The bloody borders and ubiquitous violence associated Islam is undeniable, and there is no evidence of "deeply rooted religious tolerance" that you squeal about to Americans.

If, if you really want a tolerant society with people living together in peace, you need to focus every ounce of your energy on your fellow muslims in America and the world, especially when you go every year to Saudi Arabia for Hajj. Since this is how you define yourself, you have the burden to address the inherent intolerance in Islam that leads to violence.

So please don't call reasonable people who are truly trying to build peaceful and tolerant societies bigoted, hateful, or fear-mongers. We see the truth of the ugly violence due to the Koran and Islam not just at 9/11, but at countless examples throughout the world.

Ellison appears to be a decent congressman. I don't care at all what religion he is.

I will never vote for a candidate that hold irrational beliefs. How there can be a just supreme being creator of earth - among other things -, considering that earth's tectonic plates are the cause of so many random sufferings and casualties?

Keith,

The Muslim American Society of Minnesota has on its site under Freedom Foundation: "Muslims must continue to build a grassroots movement that supports an all-encompassing approach of total integration into American Society for the express purpose of fulfilling the mandate of Allah (SWT) 'to enjoin that which is good and forbid that which is bad,' in a quest to make a better America for ourselves, our children, and all Americas."

Now what does "total integration" for fulfilling the mandate of Allah (SWT) 'to enjoin that which is good and forbid that which is bad,' mean?
*****************************
Allah says
Koran 003.110
YUSUFALI: Ye are the best of peoples, evolved for mankind, enjoining what is right, forbidding what is wrong, and believing in Allah. If only the People of the Book had faith, it were best for them: among them are some who have faith, but most of them are perverted transgressors.

It was narrated that Abu Bakr al-Siddeeq (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: “O people, you recite this verse (interpretation of the meaning):

“O you who believe! Take care of your ownselves. If you follow the (right) guidance [and enjoin what is right (Islamic Monotheism and all that Islam orders one to do) and forbid what is wrong (polytheism, disbelief and all that Islam has forbidden)] no hurt can come to you from those who are in error”

[al-Maa’idah 5:105]

But I heard the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) say, ‘If the people see an evildoer and do not take him by the hand [to put a stop to his evil], soon Allaah will punish all of them.” Narrated by Abu Dawood, 4338; al-Tirmidhi, 2168; and al-Nasaa’i – with a saheeh isnaad. Also classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh al-Tirmidhi, no. 2448.

From Adwa’ al-Bayaan, 2/169.
****************************

Keith, according to Islam what is "all that Islam orders one to do", and that would be disastrous for the Kafirs in America. It has been disastrous for the Kafirs in muslim countries. The laws of the muslim countries, the Islamic Sharia, treats the Kafirs as second class citizens.

Please tell what is it that is meant by "what is right" and "what is wrong"? Right and wrong by which standard? Are you for right and wrong by the standard of the Sharia or are you for right and wrong by the standard of the American Constitution?

Keith,

You took $13000 to go to Mecca from CAIR an organisation whose office holders on record saying that they would like to see Sharia in USA. For that I hope you are defeated, not because you are a muslim. We do need more American Muslims elected but those who are willing to challenge the supremacist view of Islam and speak up against the Sharia laws prevalent in Islam against the non-muslims. I hope,for example Asra Nomani, a muslim, runs and wins a seat in Congress. I hope Irfan Khawaja, a muslim runs and wins a seat in Congress. But I think you will win because you are running as a democrat from a very safe democratic seat and most Kafirs there do not know enough about Islam and the role of CAIR and its support of Hamas yet.

America deserves better than racist ignoramuses like abrahamhab1.

Can Jews serve in Congress when they owe their first loyalty to Israel?

Just askin'.

Ellison is not just an American who happened to subscribe to the Muslim faith. Reading his previous blog on WAPO you get the impression that he either knows next to nothing of Islam or he is deliberately trying to sell his religion by false misrepresentations assuming that the readers are ignorant and/ or idiots. In either case Americans deserve better representatives with no hidden agendas.

Congressman Ellison is a much greater American than the bigots who judge him based solely on his religion, which they probably know absolutely nothing about anyway. www.killingmother.blogspot.com.