Comments Posted By Frederick D. Hunt, Jr.
Displaying 1 To 1 Of 1 Comments
ELLISON AND THE OATH: A MATTER OF FAITH
Rick,
The use of Thomas Jefferson's Qur'an is, in the final analysis, a secondary issue. If you would take the time, at some point in your career, to read the Qur'an (not an easy book to read and it may take more than just a few months - it took me three years), some translations of the Sunnah, commentaries on the Sunnah and an honest, scholarly (not hagiography)of the life and career of the Prophet, you will begin to appreciate the seriousness of the matter before us. An orthodox Muslim cannot swear an oath to uphold any body of ideas or form of government that are put above Shari'a and the words of Allah. This is no mere conjecture on my part, since every orthodox, traditional school of Islamic theology upholds the hermeneutic principle that the Qur'an is a divine dictation. Only under the uniquely Islamic doctrine of "taqiyya" may Ellison do this with a clear conscience. He is permitted to deliberately deceive kafirs for the sake of advancing the jihad against dar al Harb.
Thus, we must regard Ellison's oath, regardless of which book he takes it on, as a mere formality. His obligation as a Muslim trumps the U.S. Constitution.
Lastly, my complaint, as a humble citizen, is that those who work in media, government, and education have shown the greatest resistance to doing the hard work of learning Islamic theology, texts, and jihad history. A growing number of humble citizens, like myself, whose degrees are not from the most elite universities, have taken a first principle of Sun Tzu to heart: we are learning about our enemy. I just wish those of you who have a wider audience would do likewise. It would add more depth of insight to your grasp of the scimitar that hangs over our heads.
Comment Posted By Frederick D. Hunt, Jr. On 4.01.2007 @ 11:00
