Bryan Fischer
December 7, 2006
Voices of tolerance demand ouster of Dennis Prager
By Bryan Fischer

Jewish columnist Dennis Prager, who argued in a recent column that newly-elected Congressman Keith Ellison should use the Bible rather than the Koran in his ceremonial swearing-in (or both), has now predictably been branded "bigoted, intolerant, and divisive" for exercising his freedom of speech.

Further, not content with knee-jerk name-calling, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is now demanding his ouster from the governing board of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum.

Ellison's constituents knew he was a Muslim when they voted for him, and few of them will be surprised that he will take his ceremonial oath on the Koran, his holy Scriptures.

But Ellison should be expected to answer a few questions. The Bible has historically been used in swearing-in ceremonies because of its insistence on the sacredness of promises made in public oaths. It is better, the Bible says, not to make an oath before God at all than to make an oath and then not keep it.

A legislator who swears on the Bible is calling the God of the Bible as his witness that he will faithfully uphold the duties of his office to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. He is essentially asking God to hold him accountable to such a promise, to bless him if he keeps his word and to judge him if he does not.

But in Islamic theology, it is permissible to lie to infidels if it will provide strategic advantage for the Islamic cause. Treaties with infidels can be broken with impunity when they no longer serve the Muslim cause.

Islamic theology, according to expert Robert Spencer, contains what is called the doctrine of kitman, or mental reservation, which is "telling the truth, but not the whole truth, with the intention to mislead." This is the Islamic version of crossing your fingers behind your back when telling a lie.

American citizens have a right to know if Ellison adheres to this tenet of Islamic faith. This is directly relevant to his swearing in, for the oath requires him to swear allegiance to the Constitution "without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion."

The Koran declares to Muslims, "Let not the believers take for friends or helpers unbelievers rather than believers. If any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah." A distinguished Koranic commentator explained that in this verse, "Allah prohibited His believing servants from becoming supporters of the disbelievers, or to take them as comrades with whom they develop friendships, rather than the believers."

Ellison should be asked if he believes these doctrines of Islamic faith, because the answer is relevant to his duty as a servant of the American people. Does he accept the teaching of his faith that he should maintain no friendships at all with either Christians or Jews in Congress, and show no support for Christians or for a Christian nation?

Further, Islam regards Jews as the descendants of apes and pigs, and does not accept Israel's right even to exist. Exterminating the Jewish state is a declared goal of virtually every Islamic state and organization in the world. Does Ellison share this view with his fellow Muslims, and if not, why not? If he does not believe that Jews are the descendants of apes and pigs, why is he taking an oath on a sacred book that says they are? If he believes Israel has a right to exist, why is he taking an oath on a sacred book which calls upon Muslims to hunt down Jews and kill them?

© Bryan Fischer

 

The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)