Posted on 01/05/2026 2:04:23 PM PST by MtnClimber
Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) said it succinctly on Wednesday, commenting on the news that New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani intended to be sworn in on the Qur’an: “The enemy is inside the gates.”
Newsmax reported Thursday that in saying this, Tuberville had “ignited a fresh political firestorm.” It was just over two weeks ago that he ignited the last one, writing that “Islam is not a religion. It’s a cult. Islamists aren’t here to assimilate. They’re here to conquer. Stop worrying about offending the pearl clutchers. We’ve got to SEND THEM HOME NOW or we’ll become the United Caliphate of America.”
According to Newsmax, Mamdani’s use of the Qur’an for his three (yes, three) oath-takings was indicative of the ever-widening divide in American politics. Mamdani’s “supporters said the moment reflects the city’s diversity and a ‘turning point’ for Muslim representation in civic life,” while his critics “argued the symbolism underscores how radically New York politics has shifted away from America’s Judeo-Christian roots.”
Many, if not most, Americans today would likely side with Mamdani and his supporters on this one. Many don’t see any problem with it in light of the fact that the custom of having elected officials be sworn in on the Bible is just a custom, not a matter of law. So why shouldn’t people who aren’t Jews or Christians be able to be sworn in on the holy book of their choice? Opposition to this idea is routinely dismissed as bigotry: aging white Christian Americans desperately trying to maintain their cultural and political hegemony, futilely fight against the inexorable, relentless march of history.
After all, if Islam is a religion of peace, as all elected officials everywhere in the U.S. still take for granted, what could possibly be wrong with having Muslim elected officials be sworn in the Qur’an? Since virtually all Muslim elected officials at all levels are Democrats, many believe it’s solely a partisan controversy. Barack Obama even lamented in March 2016 that “the Republican base had been fed this notion that Islam is inherently violent.” If Islam is not inherently violent, it must be pure chauvinism that leads people to object to the Qur’an being used to swear in elected officials. Some see the use of the Qur’an in swearing-in ceremonies as a necessary antidote to the “Islamophobia” that allegedly swept the nation in the wake of 9/11.
At a cursory glance, swearing in on the Qur’an doesn’t seem to present any problems. One primary reason, however, why many people object to American officials being sworn in on the Qur’an is because the Islamic holy book teaches values that are vastly different from American and Judeo-Christian values, particularly the necessity for Muslims to wage war against non-Muslims and subjugate them under the hegemony of Islamic law.
The Qur’an directs Muslims to “kill them wherever you find them” (2:191 and 4:89), and to “kill the idolaters wherever you find them.” (9:5) It quotes Allah saying “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve” (8:12) and tells Muslims to “make ready for them all that you can of force and of warhorses, so that by them you may strike terror in the enemy of Allah and your enemy.” (8:60) It tells Muslims to fight non-Muslims until “persecution is no more, and religion is all for Allah.” (8:39)
The Qur’an tells Muslims to fight against “the people of the book until they pay the jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued” (9:29). The “people of the book” is the Qur’an’s designation for the two primary religious groups in the United States, Christians and Jews, as well as other monotheists such as Zoroastrians who have a book Muslims consider to be divine revelation in its original, unaltered form. In Islamic law, the people of the book have a special status: while polytheists, atheists, and others who are not people of the book must ultimately be compelled to convert to Islam or die, the people of the book have a third option: submission to Islamic hegemony and acceptance of a second-class status marked by the payment of a tax (jizya) and various humiliating and discriminatory regulations designed to ensure that the people of the book “feel themselves subdued.”
There is much more, including the justification for suicide bombing in the promise of Paradise to those who “kill and are killed” for Allah (9:111) and for beheading: “When you meet the unbelievers, strike their necks” (47:4).
Even more important for the concept of taking an oath to serve faithfully and honestly is the fact that the Qur’an sanctions lying to unbelievers under certain circumstances. The Qur’an teaches that deception is allowed: “Let not the believers take unbelievers for their friends in preference to believers. Whoever does that has no connection with Allah unless you are guarding yourselves against them, taking security.” (Qur’an 3:28).
The renowned Sunni commentator on the Qur’an Ibn Kathir says that the phrase “unless you are guarding yourselves against them” means that “believers who in some areas or times fear for their safety from the disbelievers” may “show friendship to the disbelievers outwardly, but never inwardly. For instance, Al-Bukhari recorded that Abu Ad-Darda’ said, ‘We smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them.’” Abu Ad-Darda’ was a companion of Muhammad.
Of course, it is forbidden today, on pain of charges of “Islamophobia,” to discuss the actual contents of the Qur’an and their possible relevance to the question of officials being sworn in on the Qur’an. Still, it is jarring to think of American officials pledging to uphold the U.S. Constitution on a book that calls for warfare against non-Muslims and allows lying to them. It is not only a blow against our cultural unity and spiritual heritage to allow oaths on the Qur’an; it’s also unwise for a non-Muslim city that Qur’anic imperatives directly threaten, and have struck in the past, to pretend that those imperatives do not exist or that no Muslims in the U.S. take them seriously.
For while Americans may ignore these unpleasant passages of the Qur’an, Islamic jihadis are not ignoring them. To allow such a book to be used by American officeholders is to imply that loyalty to this nation and its principles is meaningless, or that Islamic scripture is meaningless, or both. A wiser path would be to respect what the Qur’an says, and take it seriously, and accordingly disallow the use of the book for swearing in American officials. Tuberville, in the final analysis, is right again.
Hmm. This very item is mentioned in an old “chick tract gospel comic” from 2012. If one wishes to read it, here is the link:
Camel’s In The Tent
Description: Islam is trying to take over! See where it came from, and where it is going.
Dimensions: 5 x 2.75 inches (24-pages).
https://www.chick.com/products/tract?stk=1081&ue=d
Most certainly. If someone coming to order other citizens about cannot at least symbolically affirm complete support of the Judeo-Christian ethic upon which this country's legal system and correlated culture is based, he/she should never be allowed to take any government office whatsoever from dog-catcher (which is also a truly significant ASPCA service) to Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (which being a life term is above the Presidency),
lest those high eternal principles be compromiseg and we descend into--rather than being separated from--the muck of the surrounding heathen, barbarian pigpen
which has not abandoned allegiance to Satan, the Enemy of decent life and reverend passing on..
WRONG!
As long as it is Baker Creek.
fruser1 wrote:
“
My only consolation is that he had to put his left hand on the book.
“
Who’s gonna tell him he just desecrated it 😁
(sorry, once again a stupid mistype not caught in #22)
.compromiseg. compromised
Correct! It would be more offensive and a desecration if they were to swear upon something they don’t believe in. In that sense, better to swear upon something of value (”on my mother’s/father’s/childrens’ life”; “hope to die”: etc.) but if what you’re swearing upon promotes immoral values then why bother.
mamdani said very clearly it is
individualism v collectivism
IT CERTAINLY MATTERS TO ME........
AT LEAST INSIDE THE USA
-PJ
The greater issue is that vows and oaths now mean nothing to post-modern Americans and Europeans
IMO the majority of Americans didn’t have any thoughts or opinions about Muslims until after 9/11/01 unless there were headlines worldwide like the attack on the school in Beslan and several attacks in Moscow itself....Events were pretty much isolated before 2001...hijacked airplanes/ships - Entebbe, Rome airport etc.
I well remember at the time after Beslan that I thought - Russia will take care of them, we have nothing to worry about their proliferation.. WOW - couldn’t have been more wrong.
I can’t imagine anyone in OUR country NOT taking exception to anyone in the US taking an oath of office on anything but the Bible. They take an oath to defend and support the US and state Constitutions and Muslims support nothing but their OWN BELIEFS!! They have only one purpose in life..and that’s certainly not to assimilate with the rest of the world.
Is the world going to get even crazier this New Year? Gotta take a big dose of OPTIMISM to get through it!!!
“”IT CERTAINLY MATTERS TO ME...AT LEAST INSIDE THE USA””
You are not alone!!!!
No...because there was never a religious test for any office.
Our Book says it's not okay but it also says not to swear by the stars or the heavens or other such things. Let your yes be yes and your no be no.
It is not so much a cult as it is a socio-political system masquerading as a religion.
You only need to look at the UK. Accepting the “morally relative” mindset allows a legitimate claim of multi-culturalism being “diversity is a strength” bullsh*t. Diversity is divisive, erodes unity, and creates distrust between communities. Allowing the Quaran to be a legitimate book to swear on means we’re falling for the same garbage. Its value system is completely contrary to Christianity.
It is absolutely anti-American.
They don't use it. They use the left hand.
So that all here can get up to speed on just which Presidents did not use a Bible here is a link to well researched and explained article.
There are idiots out there that think Thomas Jefferson swore the oath on a Quran (the Fact is that there are those sworn into Congress and other offices of importance, on the original copy of Thomas Jefferson’s Quran, which had his voluminous notes handwritten in the margins, and from which the decision was taken to eliminate the Barbary Pirates and destroy the trade of human slavery by their sponsoring Muslim countries).
Jefferson rewrote his Bible to concur with his belief in the separation of the State and any religion, his being Deist Christianity. He took his oath on that Bible.
Here ya go (not even Calvin Coolidge swore on a Bible!):
https://www.mentalfloss.com/history/presidents/has-every-president-been-sworn-on-a-bible
>Of course, it is forbidden today, on pain of charges of “Islamophobia,”
That *is* the ‘feeling oneself subdued’ part which has been in effect for far longer than people admit. Good news is that the expiration date on all the ‘isms’ and ‘ists’ and ‘phobias’ has passed for a majority of the US and a plurality of the people.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.