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.
The enemy is inside the gates and making plans.
The Koran
The Book of Mormon
Scientology Dianetics
Three made up books of three made up religions.
It does to me.
The democrats swear on a book but most the time they’re lying
In truth, they are all pledging allegiance to Saul Alinsky and placing their hands on his book: Rules For Radicals.
Alinsky dedicated the book to Lucifer.
Can one be sworn in on a seed catalogue?
“...The democrats swear on a book but most the time they’re lying...”
Hard to imagine any of these demon-possessed, anti-American communist basstids could lay a hand on the Holy Bible witout bursting into flames.....
My only consolation is that he had to put his left hand on the book.
Well, when the muslim holy book specifically allows, and infacts demands, muslims lie to the infidel to spread jihad, it is a problem.
Greater is He that is in me than he that is in the world.
We should not have any Muslims in the country in the first place
Liars have power ONLY if it is supported AND enforced.
I suggest we pay attention to the wording of anything that is proposed henceforth by a non-American, and I don't mean a non citizen , , , , , There's no empirical evidence Obama is American . . . . think that through with all the others
Mamdani is telling you that he is not of you.
Hakeem Jeffries was sworn into the Senate on the Koran and nobody in DC said anything about that. It’s indicative of this country’s founding Lon Christian principles losing ground to the Islamists. Personally, I’ve had enough of that. When I joined the US Military in 1968 and swore an oath, this is not what I had in mind for my country.
"Can one be sworn in on a seed catalogue?"
Jefferson wasn’t sworn in on a bible either.
What does Tommy have to say about that?
Congressman Robert Garcia used a Superman comic book
If they do, it does.
If they don't, it doesn't.
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.