House rejects proposal to study terrorist’s use of Islamic doctrines, Muslim congressman celebrates

Rep. Keith Ellison D-Caliphate

Source: House rejects controversial study of Islam – POLITICO

The House on Friday rejected a controversial GOP proposal identifying “Islamic religious doctrines, concepts or schools of thought” that could be used by terrorist groups — something opponents say is unconstitutional and will lead to the targeting of Muslims.

More than 20 centrist Republicans joined with Democrats to defeated the amendment, 208 to 217. Drafted by conservative Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), the proposal called for the Pentagon to identify Islamic leaders who preach peaceful beliefs versus those who espouse extremist views.

The proposal has drawn heavy criticism from Muslim lawmakers serving in Congress, Muslim interest groups and the American Civil Liberties Union, who say the proposal would unfairly target Muslims. They don’t trust the Trump administration to conduct the analysis.

“If you have an amendment that says we’re going to study one religion and only one, we’re going to look at their leaders and put them on a list — only them — and you are going to talk about what’s orthodox practice and what’s unorthodox, then you are putting extra scrutiny on that religion,” said Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), who is Muslim.

Ellison, who met with Franks to try to persuade him to withdraw the proposal, added: “You are abridging the free exercise of that religion. This is the wrong way to do what he’s trying to do.”

He cheered the amendment’s defeat on Friday on Twitter: “Good happens – even in Congress! Franks Amendment singling out Muslims rejected; Congress declines to ‘abridge free exercise’ of religion.”

Franks defended his idea during an interview Thursday evening and said Friday he would work with his colleagues to try to modify it so it will pass eventually.

“Right now, there is a certain spectrum within the Islamist world that is at the root of the ideological impulse for terrorism,” Franks said. “Ironically, Muslims are the prime targets of these groups. To suggest that this is anti-Muslim is a fallacy, and I think that anyone who really understands it knows that.”

Franks also took issue with Ellison’s suggestion that the amendment infringes on the First Amendment’s protection of religious freedom, pointing out that he is the chairman of the International Religious Freedom Caucus.

“We’ve worked very hard to protect the religious freedom for everybody,” he said. “But it is important that we empower America to identify those heroic Muslims within the world that will help us begin to delegitimize this ideology of global jihad.”

The amendment would require the Defense Department to conduct “strategic assessments of the use of violent or unorthodox Islamic religious doctrine to support extremist or terrorist messaging and justification.”

The proposal requires the assessment to identify religious doctrines and concepts that extremists use to recruit potential terrorists, radicalize them and ultimately justify their heinous acts.

It also asks Pentagon officials for “recommendations for identifying key thought leaders or proponents.”

The proposal also requires the Pentagon to identify Islamic schools of thought that could be used to counter jihadist views, as well as leaders who are preaching these sorts of doctrines.

Ellison said he understands that Franks wants to “promote national security.” But Ellison said the proposal is “wrongheaded.”


It’s only wrongheaded if you are a Muslim…and it saves Muslims from the reality that there are no legitimate Islamic schools of thought that can be used to counter jihadist views. h/t Jihad Watch who concludes:

There is nothing “unorthodox” about jihad violence in Islamic law and doctrine. But even this tepid recommendation was too much for the short-sighted 217 cowards of the House, who have passed up an opportunity to strengthen our defense against the global jihad.

Politico didn’t link to the actual proposal or vote count. If anyone finds it please post a link. Reader’s provide links below.

14 thoughts on “House rejects proposal to study terrorist’s use of Islamic doctrines, Muslim congressman celebrates

  1. Studying the causal link between a socioreligious party and violence and conquest in no way abriges the free exercise of religion. Moreover, crimes committed by religiously-motivated actors are still crimes and should be prosecuted. If Satanists sacrifice a baby, it is murder all the same. And if a Muslim commits an honor murder, it is still murder.

  2. I’m a broken record on this but look up the Reed Smoot hearings concerning weather or not a Mormon, who held polygamy and other beliefs inconsistent with the American values, were able to hold a seat in Congress. Here is the precedent. For Reed Smoot, he was permitted to stand served faithfully.

  3. Amendment Number 068 to H.R. 2810, the Fiscal Year 2018 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).

    Found that through a google search, led to a CAIR Action Alert :(

  4. Politicians who pretend to be concerned, and actively seeking solutions to ending suffering and deaths from acts of terrorism yet they claim the Mosque-ito perpetrators motivations have nothing to do with Islam, would be like physicians who’s stated goal is to eradicate malaria deaths, but fear incriminating mosquitoes as having anything to do with those deaths. Fear of offending moslems will override common sense, facts, and truth, every time.

  5. If Islam was a religion like other religions then I would say “That’s fine that they rejected the bill.” But, Islam is not the same as any other religion. It is a tyrannical theocracy with its own set of political, legal, social, cultural and religious doctrines and it lives within its own communities within the country it occupies until it has built a large enough community that it can take over by force, through terror, intimidation, war. How else do you think it has spread over the last 1400 years? It certainly wasn’t from religion alone because, as a religious doctrine, Islam falls flat on its face.

  6. Meaning ellison or so know very well that the quran teaches hatred, so he is afraid….he has spoken opposite

If sharia law continues spreading, you'll have less and less freedom of speech - so speak while you can!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s