Weeping Keith. Several articles over the weekend exposing Congressman Keith Ellison’s defense of the ummah at Peter King’s Congressional hearings on radicalization of Muslims in America. Some worthy quick links, read them all.
Don’t Cry for Mohammad Hamdani Rep Keith Ellison – Ethel C. Fenig
Realizing the election of the nation’s first black president and his election as a black representative to Congress from Minnesota makes playing the perpetual black victim card difficult, Rep Keith Ellison (D-MN) has chosen to play the Muslim victim card.
Rep. Keith Ellison’s Bigotry – Matthew Shaffer
The belief that Mohammed Salman Hamdani was a victim of anti-Muslim bigotry was never based in reality. It was manufactured by the Left as a rhetorical prop, exploited as a bludgeon against people who want to talk seriously about terrorism. If Hamdani was singled out for his faith, it would appear he was singled out for especially high honors. Most 9/11 victims were not half so celebrated as he was. Rather than suffering from apocryphal American anti-Muslim bigotry, Salman Hamdani appears to have benefited from America’s eager inclusiveness.
Americans have long seen Mohammed Salman Hamdani as a hero. Too bad Representative Ellison saw him only as a prop.
Keith Ellison’s Taqiyya – Andrew G. Bostom
…it is reasonable to conclude that Keith Ellison’s deceitful pronouncements at Thursday’s Homeland Security Hearings, 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.
The aforementioned Raymond Ibrahim, Weeping and Other Hysterics Have Muslim Apologists Nothing More to Offer?:
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…
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.
And some bonus background material, Understanding Keith Ellison – Power Line
…we still don’t know much about Ellison’s Islamic beliefs. Which branch of Islam is it that comports with the Democratic Party’s articles of faith on abortion, gay rights, female equality, and all the rest? Some day an enterprising reporter might ask him, but I doubt it will be any time soon.
Ellison campaigned on behalf of Malcom X’s daughter, arguing publicly that Qubilah Shabazz was innocent of murder, and that the FBI was trying to kill Farrakhan.
Two years later, Ellison added the surname “Muhammed” to his repertoire, serving as a local Nation of Islam spokesman. During a brief controversy regarding Minnesota Initiative Against Racism official Joanne Jackson’s comment that “Jews are among the most racist white people [she] knew,” Ellison declared that “we stand by the truth contained in the remarks attributed to [Ms. Jackson], and by her right to express her views without sanction.”