• Why Jihad Watch?
  • About Robert Spencer and Staff Writers
  • FAQ
  • Books
  • Muhammad
  • Islam 101
  • Privacy

Jihad Watch

Exposing the role that Islamic jihad theology and ideology play in the modern global conflicts

Carson says Muslim shouldn’t be President; Hamas-linked CAIR demands he withdraw

Sep 20, 2015 2:32 pm By Robert Spencer

The Hamas-linked terror organization the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) sent out an email today saying it would hold a news conference tomorrow demanding that Carson withdraw from the presidential race for daring to say these things. “Mr. Carson clearly does not understand or care about the Constitution, which states that ‘no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office,'” said Hamas-linked CAIR top dog Nihad Awad. “We call on our nation’s political leaders – across the political spectrum – to repudiate these unconstitutional and un-American statements and for Mr. Carson to withdraw from the presidential race.”

But the problems with a Muslim being President aren’t religious, they’re political. Islamic law infringes upon the freedom of speech, forbidding criticism of Islam. Islamic law denies equality of rights to women. Islamic law denies equality of rights to non-Muslims. If a Muslim renounced all this, he or she could be an effective Constitutional ruler, but in today’s politically correct climate, no one is even likely to ask for such a renunciation. Instead, no one even acknowledges that these really are elements of Islamic law.

Syrian Islamic scholar: “Democracy runs counter to Islam on several issues”

Saudi Islamic scholar misunderstands Islam, says democracy and Islam not compatible

CARSON SPEAKS TO THE CONSERVATIVE POLITICAL ACTION CONFERENCE (CPAC) IN NATIONAL HARBOR, MARYLAND“GOP candidate Carson: Muslim shouldn’t be elected president,” by Hope Yen, Associated Press, September 20, 2015:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson says Islam is antithetical to the Constitution, and he doesn’t believe that a Muslim should be elected president.

Carson, a devout Christian, says a president’s faith should matter to voters if it runs counter to the values and principles of America.

Responding to a question during an interview broadcast Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” he described the Islamic faith as inconsistent with the Constitution.

“I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation,” Carson said. “I absolutely would not agree with that.”

He did not specify in what way Islam ran counter to constitutional principles.

Carson’s comments drew strong criticism from the country’s largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization, the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

“To me this really means he is not qualified to be president of the United States,” said the group’s spokesman, Ibrahim Hooper. “You cannot hold these kinds of views and at the same time say you will represent all Americans, of all faiths and backgrounds.”

Hooper said the Constitution expressly forbids religious tests for those seeking public office and called for the repudiation of “these un-American comments.”

In a separate appearance on NBC, one of Carson’s rivals for the GOP nomination, Ohio Gov. John Kasich, was asked whether he would have a problem with a Muslim in the White House. “The answer is, at the end of the day, you’ve got to go through the rigors, and people will look at everything. But, for me, the most important thing about being president is you have leadership skills, you know what you’re doing and you can help fix this country and raise this country. Those are the qualifications that matter to me.”

Carson’s comments came amid lingering fallout over Republican Donald Trump’s refusal last week to take issue with a man during a campaign event who wrongly called President Barack Obama a Muslim and said Muslims are “a problem in this country.”

Also speaking on NBC on Sunday, Trump said that a Muslim in the White House is “something that could happen… Some people have said it already happened, frankly.”

In multiple interviews Sunday, Trump tried to draw a distinction between all American Muslims and extremist Muslims in the U.S. and elsewhere.

“I have friends that are Muslims they’re great people, amazing people,” Trump said on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

“You have extremists Muslims that are in a class by themselves,” Trump added. “It’s a problem in this country it’s a problem throughout this world….You do have a problem with radical Muslims.”

GOP candidates have since been split over whether to criticize Trump, who has been a vocal skeptic of Obama’s birthplace and faith. Obama is Christian.

In the NBC interview, Carson said he believes that Obama was born in the U.S. and is Christian, saying he has “no reason to doubt” what the president says.

Carson also made a distinction when it came to electing Muslims to Congress, calling it a “different story” from the presidency that “depends on who that Muslim is and what their policies are, just as it depends on what anybody else says.”…

Share this:

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • More
  • Click to share on Skype (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)

Follow me on Facebook

Filed Under: CAIR, claiming victim status, Featured Tagged With: Ben Carson


Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Comments

  1. Katnis says

    Sep 20, 2015 at 2:39 pm

    Go Carson! God Bless America!

  2. DeMolay says

    Sep 20, 2015 at 2:47 pm

    Laughable from CAIR as ever.
    I’m trying to imagine an Islamic country having a CAIR type organisation that complained when Jews and Christians weren’t given special treatment. Can’t think of one.

  3. PRCS says

    Sep 20, 2015 at 2:50 pm

    “He did not specify in what way Islam ran counter to constitutional principles.”

    Will the article’s author do her own research?

    Does she already know the answers (plural)?

    • Alarmed Pig Farmer says

      Sep 20, 2015 at 6:34 pm

      He did not specify in what way Islam ran counter to constitutional principles.

      Of course he didn’t. Nobody wants to die, not even a retired neurosurgeon. Dr. Ben has somehow wandered dangerously close to telling the forbidden truth. He should hire a consultant to counsel him on how to avoid this PR disaster, or being shot to death in a parking lot by an angry guy wearing one of those funny little white caps.

      • PRCS says

        Sep 20, 2015 at 6:54 pm

        You’ve been on quite a roll, lately.

        Keep ’em coming.

      • TJFreedomjihad says

        Sep 20, 2015 at 8:30 pm

        Very well said, APF. It was incredible to see someone in this political candidate group go head on with courage about the reality. And way overdue. I too agree with your well stated remarks, which I pray Ben or his aides does see..

        We all are dealing with the devil-Baal, whether religious or not. As they don’t have the slightest concern whether we are religious or not, we are kafirs-infidels-total non-believers, no matter. Most of us are well aware in the details, of the devil’s works.

        As a side comment to another here, good to see old martyr Jacque materialize. I knew him well. You have a big role to play. Believe me, little had I imagined I too would take up the cloak and shield, again.

        • DeMolay says

          Sep 21, 2015 at 4:08 am

          In Hoc Signo Vinces

    • voegelinian says

      Sep 21, 2015 at 12:28 pm

      I can think of one small way: Islam implicitly & effectively calls for the destruction of the Constitution (both by hook, violent jihad, and by crook, stealth jihad — the latter by deceiving Americans into thinking that Islam is benign and assimilable like any other religion).

  4. Beagle says

    Sep 20, 2015 at 2:54 pm

    Any Muslim who thinks Islam is the state and vice versa (Din Wa Dawla) cannot take the Oath of Office to become president without committing perjury. Believing sharia trumps the US Constitution is equally disqualifying.

    So yes, a devout Muslim would, by definition, make a terrible US president.

  5. DeMolay says

    Sep 20, 2015 at 2:55 pm

    Enough is enough.
    The West has bent over backwards to appease Islam with its prayer rooms in the workplace, special allowances for holidays etc etc. All they do is throw is back in our face saying it’s never enough.
    Until they are prepared to meet halfway, then this voice weve given them that keeps chipping away needs silencing. By building mosques and giving all the special treatment we’ve said ‘it’s ok not to integrate’ and who couldn’t see the failure of that approach coming?
    Islamic countries would do nothing for us so time to stop letting them tell us how to behave and what to do.

    • Edward says

      Sep 20, 2015 at 7:22 pm

      Enough is enough.” I’m in full agreement on this proclamation of yours!

      Yes, we have to stop this ultra sensitivities crap both here in the US and the entire sensible minded world. For it’s getting unreasonably one sided…for we will no longer need to bow to a single entity that demands unreasonable religious accommodation’s

      First step we must take is to rid of all the scaredy cat lefties that abides to and abets to unreasonable behaviors of others, because of their cowardliness in most situations! They are the ones that introduce political laws as how we should interact with a minority that is hell bent to be dominating over our innate cultural upbringings.

      It has been said: “Liberalism has been described to that of a dog leashed to a moving cart……wherever the cart goes the dog follows!”

      Second we should make it known of our affirmed Courage to implement this stance for the good benefits of all citizens and not to one!

      It goes well when we embrace our Creator’s virtue of COURAGE
      For we regress in our quality of human dignity when we give way to our cowardice.

  6. RonaldB says

    Sep 20, 2015 at 2:56 pm

    Well, is CAIR as stupid as they sound, or do they think Americans are?

    The Constitution says: “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States”.

    For the boneheads/tricksters at CAIR, this means that should the electorate be so stupid as to elect an open Muslim (as opposed to a hidden Muslim) to the White House, the Muslim could not be disqualified through any government rule or mandate. This is true.

    But Carson is simply advising the electorate to not elect a Muslim President. This advice concerns voting and not disqualification, and thus does not come under the purview of article 6 paragraph 3 of the Constitution. But CAIR itself is a strong argument to not allow access to those whose loyalty is to a philosophy directly opposed to the principles of the US government.

    By the way, with the administration jockeying to admit up to 185,000 Muslims into the US in the next two years, I think there is a firm Constitutional basis to impeach the current President on the grounds of damaging the safety, security, and integrity of the United States.

    • TheBuffster says

      Sep 20, 2015 at 6:45 pm

      “Carson is simply advising the electorate to not elect a Muslim President. This advice concerns voting and not disqualification, and thus does not come under the purview of article 6 paragraph 3 of the Constitution”

      That’s what I was thinking. Well said, Ronald.

      • vickie says

        Sep 21, 2015 at 8:34 am

        I don”t usually question the authors of this amazing site but maybe that should be the title – Carson is simply advising the electorate to not elect a Muslim President.

    • voegelinian says

      Sep 21, 2015 at 12:31 pm

      The Constitution says: “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States”

      The exclusion of Muslims from not only the Presidency but any public office would not be on the basis of its being a “religion”, but rather it being a seditious ideology whose goal is to destroy America (and the free world) through a combination of violence and deceit. Only idiots who deserve Islam would want to defend the right of Muslims to participate in Western polities.

  7. Moshe Akiva says

    Sep 20, 2015 at 3:02 pm

    Why would a Muslim, who hates democracy and everything that comes with it, want to be the president or PM of a democratic country? And if we are at this point, why did they come to a democratic country at the first place?
    Goatfuckland provides them with plenty of opportunity to enjoy Sharia, misogyny and pedophilia, why don’t they stay there or go back there?

    • Western Canadian says

      Sep 20, 2015 at 3:18 pm

      So they could take control, and bleed the country and its people of all wealth. So they could rape the women and children without fear of legal repercussion or protest. So they could make slaves of all free people. So they could assure themselves that far from being the most evil, sub-animal filth to ever defile this beautiful planet, they could lie to themselves about being the finest of all peoples…..

      Any other questions?

    • dajjal says

      Sep 20, 2015 at 6:18 pm

      Hijra: conquest by emigration. Isdamnic history begins with Moe’s hijrah to Yatthrib, which he promptly subverted. Hijrah is sunnah, its what they do ‘cuz they obey Allah and emulate Moe. Their doctrine is that the entire world must be turned into GFL.

    • Angemon says

      Sep 20, 2015 at 9:18 pm

      Moshe Akiva posted:

      “Why would a Muslim, who hates democracy and everything that comes with it, want to be the president or PM of a democratic country?”

      In a 2004 raid, FBI agents discovered internal muslim brotherhood documents. Among them was their strategic plan, titled “An Explanatory Memorandum: On the General Strategic Goal for the Group”. According to it:

      “The process of settlement is a ‘Civilization-Jihadist Process’ with all the word means. The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ’sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”

      As the saying goes, if you can’t beat them, join them and destroy them from the inside. Standard Alinskyan fashion:

      https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/15/26/3a/15263ac4588739cc5536dd14f90eb22f.jpg

  8. Ren says

    Sep 20, 2015 at 3:03 pm

    Mister Carson is right. Islam is unconstitutional and against human rights.

  9. somehistory says

    Sep 20, 2015 at 3:13 pm

    islam has a code of conduct…not a set of Laws. They forbid *freedom of speech*…given to us by our Creator. Freedom to speak and think individually, and make choices based on that is Law because it agrees with our being created as Free moral agents.

    islam denies freedom.,,to speak, to dress according to choice, to eat, to drink, to marry according to choice of like and personal preference, to sing, to paint what one chooses. All of these, and more, aspects of life are denied in islam.

    islam is totally against women…only considering them when the male wishes to rape one or beat one or insult one and to kill one. In the Eyes of our Creator, “all people are equal”…there is no one above another. This is Law…that all are created equal. islam denies this, calling women as animals, and others who refuse to bow to their beast all sorts of foul names.

    islam’s code of conduct approves of only evil actions…murder, rape, extortion, abuse of children and women, abuse and murder of all who don’t accept this unholy, unlawful code.

    islam has it’s own dictionary of meanings for such common words as *Love*, *Peace* *Justice* and none of their definitions are in harmony with the Laws of Creation from our Creator.

    Therefore, if for no other reasons…and there are plenty…islam is not of the *same seed* as Judaism and Christianity, both of which recognize God’s Right to make Law.
    islam is not…repeat not…from Abraham.

    The code that is written throughout islam is in direct contradiction to the Constitution which was written to guarantee “Freedom” which islam denies. islam denies Freedom in all aspects of life.

  10. Jack Diamond says

    Sep 20, 2015 at 3:26 pm

    When Ben Carson is asked to explain his “outrageous” statement he could just use Robert Spencer’s 2nd paragraph “Islamic law infringes upon the freedom of speech, forbidding criticism of Islam. Islamic law denies equality of rights to women. Islamic law denies equality of rights to non-Muslims. If a Muslim renounced all this…” (ha ha), or he could, in more detail, refer to something Hugh Fitzgerald wrote years ago when Colin Powell (Prince Bandar’s tennis partner) said in regards to the accusation Obama might be a Muslim, ‘so what?’: “Is there something wrong with some 7-year old Muslim-American kid believing that he or she can be president?” Hugh wrote in the comments section:

    “Islam is not merely a religion. It is an ideology that offers a Total Regulation of Everyday Life and a Complete Explanation of the Universe. It encourages the habit of mental submission. It stunts mental growth. It does harm to, preaches harm against, all non-Muslims. What else are we to make of an ideology that inculcates followers with the belief that they are superior to all non-Muslims, and that ultimately, they have a duty to make sure that Islam dominates, and Muslims rule, everywhere?

    if someone asks me if I have any objection to a Nazi, or a Communist, becoming President of the United States, I can reply without hesitation: yes. Islam carries with it a clear political progam: it divides the world between Believer and Infidel. It incuclates the notion of a permanent state of war (but not necessarily open warfare) existing between Believers and Infidels. It tells Muslims that the world is essentially divided between the lands where Islam dominates, and Muslims rule, and the lands where Infidels still dominate, and Muslims do not yet rule. It demands of Muslims that they take seriously a duty, central and not tangential, to engage in the “struggle” or Jihad to remove, everywhere, any conceivable obstacles to the spread, and then the dominance, of Islam. The American Constitution, and especially the Bill of Rights, constitute such an obstacle.

    Most non-Muslims who have educated themselves about Islam would have no trouble agreeing that were a Muslim to be in a position of power, to be President of this country, for example, as someone who continues to take Islam seriously and thus who believes in the beneficence and rightness of the Sharia, the Holy Law of Islam which flatly contradicts every important principle of the American Constitution, this would be dangerous, this would be intolerable, this would be unacceptable.

    In fact, let’s expand on this: it would be just as unacceptable as would be a President who was the adherent of another Total Belief-System, one of those collectivist and hysterical faiths that, in the last unappetizing century, caused so much damage and destruction and death. Look across space and through time, at the history of Islamic conquest of vast lands once possessed by non-Muslims. Look what happened to those lands, and what happened to those non-Muslims. Like what you see? Impressed with what Islam has meant for art, for science, for intellectual activity and free and skeptical inquiry? Impressed?”
    http://www.jihadwatch.org/2008/10/fitzgerald-colin-powell-and-jihad-a-dereliction-of-duty

    • CogitoErgoSum says

      Sep 20, 2015 at 7:19 pm

      Jack, I hope Ben Carson is able to get all of this across to the American electorate but I’m sure the news media will make it as difficult as possible for him to do that and they will twist every word he says into making him sound like a bigot. I hope I’m wrong but I’m afraid that within a few weeks Ben Carson will be joining Rick Perry on the sidelines. Americans need to take this as an opportunity to learn all they can about Islam and what ultimate goal Muslims are expected to work toward as far as establishing Allah’s religion and rule of law on this planet. Once Muslims are in a position of power to do so they MUST put Allah’s laws into effect. Therefore, Muslims must NEVER be allowed to become the majority in any country which values its freedom because once Muslims do become the majority they will fundamentally change that country. Sound familiar?

      • Jack Diamond says

        Sep 20, 2015 at 7:40 pm

        He has to talk about Islamic law. The problem is sharia is constantly presented as something only extremists believe in or that there is a benign sharia (and many kinds of sharia). The same holds true for jihad. He’s walked into a minefield and better know the terrain.

        • Shmooviyet says

          Sep 21, 2015 at 12:53 pm

          Spot on, Jack D.!
          Sharia is not always a bad thing; jihad is only practiced in violent ways by “extremists”, we are assured by the media dummies, Haroon Moghul-types and the oh-so tolerant ones.
          I do hope Dr. Ben reads up on this site and others.

        • Jeremiah says

          Sep 21, 2015 at 6:27 pm

          Islam is based on three books. This trilogy is the Koran, the Hadith and the Sura. These books provide the values and the examples of such values in the life of Mohammad. Deception is the value of Islam that makes it impossible to trust a Muslim in any political office. A Muslim is encouraged to deceive others to achieve world domination. The trilogy proudly states that Allah is the best deceiver. Even if a Muslim was not lying, the example that Mohammad provides is that of a child molester and a murderer. Women to Mohammad were mere chattels. So whether a Muslim is lying or not, a non-Muslim will always need to fear for his or her life and the lives of the women in their lives. This is the essence of the problem that cannot be sugar-coated. This is fundamental to the teaching of all Muslims. In practice, not even a Muslim is safe from another Muslim as each faction considers the other apostate. Therefore we have a perfectly self-destructive philosophy that, if followed, would end the world.

  11. Jack Golbert says

    Sep 20, 2015 at 3:26 pm

    CAIR surely knows that the Constitution says that the law cannot impose a religious test for office. But the voters can. We can impose any test we want. The Constitution cannot tell the voters what they may or may not consider important as criteria for holding office.

    • PRCS says

      Sep 20, 2015 at 3:50 pm

      That is true.

      And I hope this brouhaha opens the gate to such public questioning.

    • TheBuffster says

      Sep 20, 2015 at 6:58 pm

      Bullseye!

  12. Michael Copeland says

    Sep 20, 2015 at 3:27 pm

    Consider Islam’s rules for non-muslims:

    WHAT ISLAM INSTRUCTS FOR NON-MUSLIMS

    Allah is the ENEMY of non-muslims. 2:98
    Allah does NOT LOVE the non-muslims. 30:45
    Between us and you animosity and hatred forever 60:4
    KILL the non-muslims wherever you find them. 9:5

    The Koran is part of Islamic law.
    Its teachings are “universal and trans-time”.
    One who denies any verse has to be killed.
    The killing can be done penalty-free by anyone.

  13. KnowThyEnemy says

    Sep 20, 2015 at 3:33 pm

    IMO Ben Carson has the best qualities among all the presidential candidates (both Republicans and Democrats) that make a person a ‘Leader’. He is significantly better than Trump and now we also know that he is aware of Islam’s true nature (else why would he say that it is “inconsistent with American principles”).

    I do not like his flat-tax proposal but then tax is not as important an issue as some others. Also….. let’s face it, we would be darn lucky to find a candidate whose views are perfectly aligned with ours on every single issue.

    I saw something in Carson from the very beginning and he has not disappointed. So I know who I am going to vote for 🙂

    Watch this short video (link below). Notice how he can be as much an asshole to those who try to character-assassinate him, yet he does it without being gross like Trump-

    • TheBuffster says

      Sep 20, 2015 at 7:10 pm

      “Watch this short video (link below). Notice how he can be as much an asshole to those who try to character-assassinate him, yet he does it without being gross like Trump-”

      I wouldn’t say that Carson was being an asshole to that guy. The guy was surely being an asshole though, showing off his lack of a frontal lobe. Carson was the opposite of an asshole – he behaved as a calm, rational, patient human being with a fully functioning brain. That’s not being an asshole.

  14. August_West says

    Sep 20, 2015 at 3:33 pm

    Scott Walker backed down to CAIR and is now irrelevant.

    In my view this election is about 1 primary issue: Islam.
    If Ben Carson stands strong and does not apologize or back down, then the Republican Party will have found its candidate.

    It is time to stop talking about “Radical Islamic Terrorism” and start talking about Islamic Military Strategy which uses Terrorism as a tactic.

    • dajjal says

      Sep 20, 2015 at 6:35 pm

      It is past due time for everry aspirant to high office, of every party affiliation, to read, comprehend and base policy on understanding of Brig. S.K. Malik’s “The Quranic Concept Of War”.

      Terror struck into the hearts of the enemies is not only
      a means, it is the end in itself. Once a condition of terror into
      the opponent’s heart is obtained, hardly anything is left to be
      achieved. It is the point where the means and the end meet
      and merge. Terror is not a means of imposing decision upon
      the enemy; it is me decision we wish to impose upon him.

      Terror cannot be struck into the hearts of an army by merely
      cutting its lines of communication or depriving it of its routes
      of withdrawal. It is basically related to the strength or weakness
      of the human soul. It can be instilled only if the opponent’s
      Faith is destroyed. Psychological dislocation is temporary;
      spiritual dislocation is permanent. Psychological dislocation can be
      produced by a physical act but this does not hold good of the
      spiritual dislocation. To instill terror into the hearts of the enemy,
      it is essential. in the ultimate analysis, to dislocate his Faith. An
      invincible Faith is immune to terror. A weak Faith offers inroads
      to terror. The Faith conferred upon us by the Holy Qur’an has
      the inherent strength to ward off terror from us and to enable
      us to strike terror into the enemy. Whatever the form or type of
      strategy directed against the enemy, it must, in order to be effective,
      be capable of striking terror into the hearts of the enemy. A strategy
      that fails to attain this condition suffers from inherent drawbacks
      and weaknesses; and should be reviewed and modified. This rule
      is fully applicable to nuclear as well as conventional wars. It is
      equally true of the strategy of nuclear deterrence in fashion
      today. To be credible and effective, the strategy of deterrence
      must be capable of striking terror into the hearts of the enemy.
      http://wolfpangloss.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/malik-quranic-concept-of-war.pdf#page=50

      Adjectives such as radical and extreme, when prefixed to Islam, are accursed lies. I call upon Senator Cruz and the other GOP aspirants to stop lieing and tell the whole truth.

      They’re Believers, Stupid!
      http://qurancomplex.gov.sa/Quran/Targama/Targama.asp?nSora= 8&l=eng&nAya= 1# 8_ 1

      http://qurancomplex.gov.sa/Quran/Targama/Targama.asp?nSora= 6&l=eng&nAya= 111# 6_ 111

      http://qurancomplex.gov.sa/Quran/Targama/Targama.asp?nSora= 49&l=eng&nAya= 15# 49_ 15

      Radicalization is the process of turning a MINO into a Believer; one who wages Jihad.

    • Lynn says

      Sep 20, 2015 at 6:38 pm

      BFD but I wrote both Carson and Trump campaigns saying they needed to understand the OIC and their 10 year action plan. They need to understand the Cairo islamic Human Rights Agreement. Human Rights has nothing to do with human rights and everything to do with muslim rights everywhere around the world. Understand the agreement between OIC and the state dept’s HRC on 7/15/11 and her shame and peer pressure speech…to get Americans to change the way we speak…thru ‘tests of consequence’. Like Carson saying this and Trump not defending the bamster saying he’s Christian…

      When we hear about Reformed muslims I might take them seriously but ‘moderate’? What’s that, half way cutting off your head?
      Some talking head tried to call John McCain to the rescue of muslims…He’s stupid enough to think there are peaceful muslims…

      “It is the nature of islam to dominate not to be dominated; to impose it’s laws upon all nations and to extend it’s power to the entire planet.” Hasan Al-Banna founder muslim brotherhood.
      What’s not to understand?

  15. Katowice says

    Sep 20, 2015 at 3:56 pm

    Carson will probably be forced to backpedal, sadly. Most of the GOP field is as good as compromised already.

    • PRCS says

      Sep 20, 2015 at 7:06 pm

      Send him a polite, informative note of appreciation.

      https://www.bencarson.com/contact

      • Katowice says

        Sep 20, 2015 at 8:28 pm

        Indeed, good idea. This is a good test of the man. If he backs down to the likes of CAIR, how can we possibly expect him to handle their more kinetic bothers?

  16. Tikvah says

    Sep 20, 2015 at 4:22 pm

    SAUDI ARABIA,EGYPT & the UAE have all declared CAIR a “TERRORIST ORG.”…G-d Bless Dr. Carson…go to hell CAIR.
    http://www.clarionproject.org/analysis/uae-doubles-down-designation-cair-terrorists

  17. pdxnag says

    Sep 20, 2015 at 4:48 pm

    What is CAIR’s tax status anyway?

  18. Angemon says

    Sep 20, 2015 at 5:16 pm

    Carson’s comments drew strong criticism from the country’s largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization, the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

    Where’s Al Sharpton? >There’s money to be made with one of his usuals racial rackets – sweet petrodollars.

    Hooper said the Constitution expressly forbids religious tests for those seeking public office and called for the repudiation of “these un-American comments.”

    Mr. Carson is not prohibiting anyone from running on the account of their religion so can it, Abe.

  19. Nadia says

    Sep 20, 2015 at 5:29 pm

    The first thing that should have happened was a rally organized at the local location of court.

  20. Gary says

    Sep 20, 2015 at 5:32 pm

    Dear Hamas & C.A.I.R.

    This is the United States of America and you do not have say in our political system.

    Sharia Law will not fly here. Butt out!

  21. Bezelel says

    Sep 20, 2015 at 5:47 pm

    Ben definitely told the truth and that is a cardinal sin in islam.

    • DeMolay says

      Sep 20, 2015 at 5:52 pm

      CAIR really are professional offence takers aren’t they?
      These cry babies ought to remember what we were all told as kids…
      ‘Sticks and stone might break my bones, but words will never hurt me’.
      Of course they don’t take offence, they just look for any chance to tighten the grip on the country’s throat a little more.

  22. rubiconrest says

    Sep 20, 2015 at 5:50 pm

    Good for Carson, but, a muslim who wholeheartedly supports the constitution and does not support sharia law’s anti constitutional provisions COULD make a good president. This is the problem with most politicians. They clearly cannot separate the moderate, some might say apostate, muslim from the fundamentalist.
    This important distinction has to be the defining line… a U. S. constitutional Muslim or a Sharia compliant Muslim. We currently have few politicians that can even talk about the difference. All of the intolerance and extremism of Islam stems from the adherence to the Sharia.

    Carson will be defended if he makes this distinction. All he has to say is that no one but an extremist supports blasphemy laws; no one but an extremist supports death for apostasy; no one but an extremist supports pushing gays off tall buildings; no one but an extremist says a woman’s testimony is worth half of a man…. etc. etc… He will not lose that argument.

    • Jack Diamond says

      Sep 20, 2015 at 6:07 pm

      I think you mean no one but an orthodox Muslim supports death for apostasy, blasphemy laws, death for gays, a woman’s testimony half that of a man etc. Unless you want to argue that Allah’s law has nothing to do with ordinary Muslims and ordinary Islam. Can you find me a Muslim who would explicitly renounce or denounce this Sharia? No, you’ll just find Muslims who lie about what Sharia actually says. Jihad and sharia are not extremist doctrines in Islam. And a U.S. constitutional Muslim is an apostate Muslim, according to more scholars than you can shake a stick at. If that’s your idea of a good time.

    • Wellington says

      Sep 20, 2015 at 7:38 pm

      Your attempt, rubiconrest, at a distinction between a moderate Muslim and a fundamentalist Muslim is completely bogus. As Ibn Warraq has noted, there are moderate Muslims but there is no moderate Islam. Or, as Robert Spencer has stated, moderate Muslims are lazy Muslims.

      Frankly, I think you are either an ignoramus or a plant. Yes, this is in sum what I think of your “proposal.” But go ahead and prove me wrong. I dare you, rubiconrest. Particularly risible and unacceptable is your phrase, “a U.S. constitutional Muslim.” This is an oxymoron if ever there were one.

      Your turn. That is if you dare. That is if you can.

      • rubiconrest says

        Sep 20, 2015 at 9:38 pm

        Not a plant nor ignoramus. Rudy Jasser is a perfect example of what the good citizen muslim is. There are millions of moderate muslims who want nothing to do with the religion. There has to be a path for them to leave their faith and feel protected. If we make it very clear that political islam and sharia are in conflict with our constitution and that certain actions will not be tolerated we can clear a path. We can ban the face veil, we require that the islamic institutions teach where islamic doctrine and the US constitution are in conflict and why. We remove ‘orthodox’ imams and outlaw the MB front groups and remove the known members. You reinstate the recently changed oath of citizenship and add that honor killing, forcing FGM daughters etc…. will result in deportation and loss of citizenship. It can be done. We can draw a line in the sand and any muslim wishing to come to the USA will know the ground rules before they come.

        • KnowThyEnemy says

          Sep 21, 2015 at 12:48 am

          You mean Zuhdi Jasser. Tell us something- If these “millions of moderate muslims” want nothing to do with the religion, as you claim, then why do they call themselves “Muslim” in the first place? Zuhdi has listed on wikipedia his religion to be Sunni Islam…. why is that??

          If someone tells you that he is a Nazi, and in the same breath also states that he believes all races to be equal, and that Jews are people just like any other, and that Aryans are not superior or inferior than anyone else, then would you not ask him why he calls himself a Nazi?? Then if you check his Facebook page and notice that he explicitly affiliates himself with Nazism and claims Hitler to be his role model, would you not suspect that he is either lying about his belief of all people being equal, or that more likely he has an agenda and is trying to make Nazism seem harmless!

          If Zuhdi Jasser and others like him living in the west really do not care about Islam then all they have to do is declare that “Look folks, I have a Muslim name simply because I was born in a Muslim family however I want nothing to do with this religion or its poisonous teachings,” …… or simply keep their mouths shut, give their children non-Muslim names and keep them away from devout Muslims and Islamic centers! …… That is all they have to do! If they are not doing this, then it means that either they are deluded, or are doing taqiyya!

          So don’t fall for the deceptions and delusions of the likes of Zuhdi Jasser. Or Tarek Fatah (he is not deluded… he is outright deceiving!)

        • Wellington says

          Sep 21, 2015 at 12:43 pm

          You don’t judge an ideology, in this instance Islam, by the fact that some of the adherents of that ideology don’t fully implement it. To get rid of the inimical elements in Islam you’d have to gut it like a fish and any Muslim who thinks such is possible doesn’t know their own faith. They’re living in a dream world and so who wants such a person to be elected to any office, especially the highest in the land? I think Zuhdi Jasser is a sincere man but I also think he believe in a fantasy version of Islam of his own creation.

        • voegelinian says

          Sep 21, 2015 at 1:11 pm

          Wellington may “think” Zudhi Jasser is a “sincere man” but for that to be possible, Jasser would have to be clinically insane — since Jasser is 1) intelligent, 2) has lived all his life as a Muslim, 3) has studied Islam for fucking decades, and 4) has been interested in the topic of Islam for years, and, last but not least, we already fucking know that Islam is dangerous and evil. There is no way possible for Jasser to defend Muhammad and the Koran and the Sunna (as he does) and be “sincere” in his professions of Western assimilation, unless he was — at motherfucking BEST — a stark-raving schizophrenic. Why Wellington is unwilling or unable to connect these excruciatingly logical dots is baffling.

        • voegelinian says

          Sep 22, 2015 at 3:06 am

          What KnowThyEnemy said (@ September 21, 2015 at 12:48 am).

          I don’t know why it’s so difficult for so many others in the counter-jihad to stand by this principle, articulated with searing clarity by KnowThyEnemy, and apply it wherever, and whenever, any Muslim — any Muslim — comes along “peeing on our head and telling us it’s raining” (in the inimitable words of Judge Judy, Peace Be Upon Her)..

    • voegelinian says

      Sep 21, 2015 at 1:07 pm

      Mainstream Islam is already “extremist” by nature.

      “This is the problem with most politicians. They clearly cannot separate the moderate, some might say apostate, muslim from the fundamentalist.”

      That is incoherent blather. The Counter-Jihad should have moved beyond any consideration of the viability of the “moderate” years ago. Now rubiconrest is trying to fudge the “moderate” with the “apostate”. This is playing Muslim Roulette with the lives of our fellow citizens and loved ones; it is fiddling with the blue and red wires of a ticking time bomb while Rome smokes.

  23. Wellington says

    Sep 20, 2015 at 6:13 pm

    One more step in the right direction, this time courtesy of the good doctor. It is imperative that more and more people in the West comprehend what Islam is really all about and how it is a mortal enemy of liberty and equality under the law. I defy anyone to demonstrate how Islam can be reconciled with true freedom and real equality under the law. I say it cannot be done. Any takers out there among leftists and Muzzies?

  24. duh_swami says

    Sep 20, 2015 at 6:49 pm

    Ben is right…CAIR deserves the middle finger salute and that’s it…

  25. underbed cat says

    Sep 20, 2015 at 7:31 pm

    Dr.Ben Carson is a hero to humanity by speaking out about Islam and a very distingished, humble intelligent candidate. Cair is doing what they always do by calling for Ben to step down for the the offense of truthfulness. Never, I hope Dr. Carson never steps down. Although Cair will call his statements slander, bigoted bla bla bla…and carry on endlessly I am sure most people in the Republican Party will support him, especially when they understand what sharia law means.

    Trump should also stand by his comments, there is a problem with islam ideology and the world will find out upon examination in my opinion.

  26. Northern Virginiastan says

    Sep 20, 2015 at 7:53 pm

    I would not want a Muslim for President, as his first loyalty is to the ummah, or the supranational community of believers.

  27. abad says

    Sep 20, 2015 at 8:29 pm

    Ben Carson should ignore CAIR. Our next president will be dismantling CAIR once and for always.

    • Peggy says

      Sep 21, 2015 at 7:00 pm

      They should outlaw it and any other association with any ties to Islam, including the Mosques but that’s a tall order. There are still plenty of traitors in both parties who will advocate for this evil.

  28. Dave J says

    Sep 20, 2015 at 8:32 pm

    Well the issue has now been raised, at last, in a nation-wide political discussion. Perhaps now we can confront reality instead of making wishful thinking remarks like “Its a Religion of Peace”. The truth is that it is an ideology of hatred, war and invasion and always has been.

    The Imams say it, the Koran says it and the Islamic State says it so we might be well advised to listen.

    • Don McKellar says

      Sep 21, 2015 at 12:46 am

      Well said and 100% correct and verifiable.

    • voegelinian says

      Sep 21, 2015 at 12:03 pm

      Islam is inherently a seditious ideology against all non-Islamic polities. It should be banned by any and all non-Islamic polities, and its members deported. The West will realize this eventually, in about 50 to 100 years from now. The question is not whether, but only when — will it be before Muslims manage to mass-murder a few million of us in various places throughout the West, along with horrific gouges into our infrastructure, not to mention psychological and economic dislocations caused by terror; or will it only be after that point?

      Silly me, but I’d like for the West to wake up to try to prevent the worst case scenario which the mountains of data and oceans of dots screaming to be connected indicate.

      • Angemon says

        Sep 21, 2015 at 1:31 pm

        voegelinian posted:

        “It should be banned by any and all non-Islamic polities”

        Didn’t you said, on several occasions, that outlawing islam wasn’t necessary?

        “and its members deported.”

        Again, where are Western countries supposed to deport native converts to? Or muslims without any other citizenship, for that matter?

        • Peggy says

          Sep 21, 2015 at 7:05 pm

          I really don’t care where native converts go as long as they go. At the moment we are overrun by boat people so why can’t our converts become boat people and ask for refuge in a Muslim country?
          Why should we care for their wellbeing? Really, why should we care about our enemy?

        • Angemon says

          Sep 21, 2015 at 7:36 pm

          Peggy posted:

          “I really don’t care where native converts go as long as they go.”

          That doesn’t really answer my question, does it? You can deport foreign citizens to their country of origin, but how about native citizens? Are you going to deport them o their country of origin, which is where they already are? No foreign nation is under obligation to take in whoever you chose to dump there, muslims or not.

          Foreigners can be deported, nationals can face trial for treason – there are laws in place, start applying them.

          “At the moment we are overrun by boat people so why can’t our converts become boat people and ask for refuge in a Muslim countr/y?”

          If they choose to leave – as the boat people overrunning you – then let them go. But deportation is not voluntary, is it?

          “Why should we care for their wellbeing? Really, why should we care about our enemy?”

          So you’re just going to ignore the laws, and your constitution, and turn into the same kind of totalitarian regimen that punishes people for their professed beliefs, like muslim-majority countries? After muslims, then who?

        • TheBuffster says

          Sep 23, 2015 at 1:56 am

          Whether one cares about the less-than-Muslim Muslims or not, there’s the issue of the Constitution and the rule of law.

          An American citizen, particularly one who was born here and has no other nationality, cannot be forcibly, legally, exiled to some other country, even if he has committed a crime. And why would any other country be obliged to take him?

          Certainly, if a person has not committed a crime he can’t be punished under the law on suspicion because of his religion. If he has never been caught plotting sedition against the government or a terrorist plot, if he has not committed any crime and has in fact claimed to want to live in freedom under the US Constitution as it is, and the only reason he’s to be stripped of his citizenship and sent off to a foreign country is that he considers himself to be a Muslim – that’s not legal. It’s a violation of the rule of law, and a violation of his rights as an American Citizen under the law.

          And we certainly can’t force people onto a boat, a la Boat People, and send them out to risk life and limb, starvation and shark attack at sea, searching for some country to take them in, even if they had committed crimes. That would be deemed under the Constitution a “cruel and unusual punishment”.

          Of course we have to protect ourselves from Islam, but we’ll be in another kind of trouble if we undermine the rule of law and the principles it’s based on to do it, and open the gate to some other kind of dictator that destroys our liberty.

          As to the refugees, the Christians, Yazidis, Jews – all who belong to religions that aren’t at war with our culture – should be welcomed into the West. The Muslims should be welcomed into the countries that are friendly to their respective sects, where they are most likely to be able to live in harmony with the native culture, and not feel offended by uncovered women, robust satire of Mohammed, criticism of Islam, the smell of roasting pork, or Piglet figurines on a co-worker’s desk.

        • Peggy says

          Sep 21, 2015 at 8:09 pm

          So you’re just going to ignore the laws, and your constitution, and turn into the same kind of totalitarian regimen that punishes people for their professed beliefs, like muslim-majority countries? After muslims, then who?
          =======================================
          I have already answered this question once before. My answer now is the same as then, NOBODY. No other religion poses this much danger to us.
          You say that boat people have chosen to come here but our own converts won’t choose to go. I think that many non Muslim refugees have not chosen to leave their homeland but were forced to flee or be killed.
          Upholding the constitution is all very well and decent but does the same constitution say that your enemy (fifth column) should be awarded our protection? Yes, the constitution says that we can’t descriminate on religion but Islam as we know is not a religion but a very dangerous ideology and if classified as that then the constitution doesn’t offer it any protection.
          There are ways to do this if we have the stomach for it.
          We are not dealing with ordinary criminals where our laws are good enough. We are dealing with something a lot more sinister and dangerous that unless we reclassify the enemy or make some drastic changes our laws will only work against us.
          Proof of them using our laws against us is all around.
          Our laws have become our shackles.

        • Angemon says

          Sep 21, 2015 at 8:37 pm

          Peggy posted:

          “I have already answered this question once before. My answer now is the same as then, NOBODY.”

          The you’re incredibly naive or downright dishonest. Are you in a position to assure me that whoever disregarded your Constitution and passed down a law criminalizing freedom of thought wouldn’t abuse it in any way or fashion? Wouldn’t use it to keep themselves in power?

          “I think that many non Muslim refugees have not chosen to leave their homeland but were forced to flee or be killed.”

          Are you not OK with it? Because you proposed to do just the same.

          “Upholding the constitution is all very well and decent but does the same constitution say that your enemy (fifth column) should be awarded our protection? Yes, the constitution says that we can’t descriminate on religion but Islam as we know is not a religion but a very dangerous ideology and if classified as that then the constitution doesn’t offer it any protection.”

          I don’t know of any given Western country whose constitution does not guarantee freedom of thought. You can strip away islam’s official status and benefits as a religion (which is something I said it should be done) and it’s the same scenario: freedom of thought. Any given constitution in Western countries guarantees a set of rights to ALL citizens, no matter what – a Christian standing up for the State and Constitution or a muslim foaming from the mouth and ranting against State and Constitution both have the same rights.

          “There are ways to do this if we have the stomach for it.”

          To do what? Persecute thought? Again, that’s how muslim-majority countries work.

          “We are not dealing with ordinary criminals where our laws are good enough. We are dealing with something a lot more sinister and dangerous that unless we reclassify the enemy or make some drastic changes our laws will only work against us.
          Proof of them using our laws against us is all around.
          Our laws have become our shackles.
          ”

          No, the problem is just the opposite – laws aren’t being enforced due to predominant ignorance of the nature and scope of the threat. If the people making the calls considered islamic state supporters as what they are- traitors who pledged their allegiance to an entity that declared war on Australia – then might prosecute them as they need to be prosecuted. If the general populace knew what islam has in store for them they might not be so eager to jump on the “Coexist” and “islamophobia” band wagons.

        • voegelinian says

          Sep 22, 2015 at 3:12 am

          Peggy’s question to Angemon — “Why should we care for their wellbeing? Really, why should we care about our enemy?” — doesn’t factor in that Angemon apparently doesn’t consider them our enemy, not all of them. Either he has some magical numbers he has determined from out of the whole of the Umma, by which he can determine who are inimical to us and who aren’t, or he is content to play Muslim Roulette with his life, the lives of his loved ones, and the lives of his fellow citizens.

        • Jeremiah says

          Sep 22, 2015 at 3:16 am

          We dont need to export all Muslims. Once the subversive movement is seen for what it is, we just need to confiscate Mosques and Islamic Centers. We just need to export all the religious leaders that have been preaching hate. Jeremy Wright along with them.

        • Angemon says

          Sep 22, 2015 at 7:47 am

          voegelinian posted:

          “Peggy’s question to Angemon — “Why should we care for their wellbeing? Really, why should we care about our enemy?” — doesn’t factor in that Angemon apparently doesn’t consider them our enemy, not all of them.”

          Peggy doesn’t need to factor what I allegedly consider or not to express what she feels, does she?

          “Either he has some magical numbers he has determined from out of the whole of the Umma”

          Can you link to anything I ever posted that supports this assertion of yours or are you just talking out of your ass and setting up a false dichotomy – which, as you should know, is a logical fallacy?

          Also, weren’t you not reading my posts anymore, or trying not to read my posts? Are you going to end the farce and admit you never stopped reading them in the first place?

          “by which he can determine who are inimical to us and who aren’t, or he is content to play Muslim Roulette with his life, the lives of his loved ones, and the lives of his fellow citizens.”

          Ah, so a false dichotomy it was. Your turn, “doctor” – let’s say you consider all muslims as enemies. You take a given individual muslim, present your charges but you can’t provide any evidence to establish guilt – no connection to terror groups, no support of any of the tenets deemed as “extreme”, not even a parking ticket. All you have is their professed religion. What do you do then? Do you convict them for being muslims, even though you said before that you wouldn’t outlaw islam?

          And, of course, the questions I asked Peggy are equally valid to you – where would you deport a native citizen muslim to? Under what laws? What if the country you wanted to deport them to refused to take them in on the account they weren’t citizens?

          I know you routinely like to engage in “lie about Angemon”, but this has to be your weakest attempt in recent memory. And considering the caliber of your previous attempts, that’s saying something.

        • Angemon says

          Sep 22, 2015 at 8:08 am

          Another thing, “doctor“:

          “Angemon apparently doesn’t consider them our enemy, not all of them.”

          Do you consider a 3-month infant born from a muslim father and mother to be your enemy? Yes or no.

          Also, what’s your stance on apostates and former muslims? Can they be trusted or are they just engaging in taqiyya and waiting for us to turn our backs on them so they can stab a knife in it?

          One of two things is going to happen: you’ll conveniently remember that you don’t read my posts anymore or you’ll answer, in which case you won’t give a yes or no to the yes or no question and you’ll show what you call “softness” on the second one.

        • Angemon says

          Sep 22, 2015 at 9:51 am

          voegelinianposted:

          “Angemon apparently doesn’t consider them our enemy, not all of them.”

          Which you obviously do, since you stated how much better you were than us, poor, dirty peons, for saying ALL muslims – in fact, you made it into your war horse. And here’s where you prove your sliminess: you tried to pin Breivik’s actions on Robert Spencer, Fjordman, Bat Ye’or, etc. – you claimed that they, for saying that islam represents a threat to the western world, were somehow to blame for what Breivik did – and yet, here you are, using alarmist rhetoric far exceeding anything the aforementioned freedom fighters ever wrote.

          Your analogy was that the aforementioned freedom fighters cried out “Fire!” and that what Breivik did was simply bringing an axe and and a fire hose, knocking down the door and dousing the house with water. Going by that analogy, you’re not crying “Fire!”, you’re crying “the fire is here and it’s going to kill us all, grab your axes and fire hoses and come with me because we need to do something”. And if tomorrow someone decided to take up arms and start killing muslims, and after being caught said “this one guy in Jihad Watch said it as it is: all muslims are our enemies, they’re plotting to kill us, I just did what had to be done” you wouldn’t take responsibility for it. You wouldn’t go “yes, what he did was right and was the only possible outcome from what I said”, you would go “no, no, I never meant for anyone to take up axes and fire hoses and start putting out the fire – what I meant was that we should pick up the fire and drop it over somewhere else”.

          You are a fraud and you don’t give a rat’s ass about counter-jihad – you just want a platform from where you can pretend to be the “go-to guy” without pouring the time and effort it actually takes to be the “go-to guy” of anything, and you’ll do and say anything and everything to achieve it, consequences be damned.

          “he is content to play Muslim Roulette with his life, the lives of his loved ones, and the lives of his fellow citizens.”

          Lurid hyperbole much? What’s your alternative to what I proposed on several past comments? Oh, yeah, to “push the meme of total deportation so that people 50, or 100, or 150 years from now look around and say ‘well, enough of us want to deport muslims, we should get that started on that’ “. You try to smear the people who propose measures that could be started tomorrow because we, according to you, don’t understand the scope and urgency of the situation (again, “the fire is here and it’s going to kill us all”), but for all your derision and sneer you have nothing better to propose – it’s you who are playing “muslim roulette” when you delay your final solution to take place decades, if not centuries, from now.

          Since you like Voegelin so much, here’s a word you might be familiar with – Gnosticism. Voegelin described gnosticism as “a purported direct, immediate apprehension or vision of truth without the need for critical reflection; the special gift of a spiritual and cognitive elite”. This pretty much sums up how you behave – you demand that anything you say is taken as Gospel, and you smear and deride any opposing views without ever explaining why they’re wrong to begin with – you are the “elite” and everyone else is just an ignorant boor who needs to do what you say lest you piss on them from the top your pedestal.

          I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: you are a detriment to this site and to the Counter-Jihad movement in general.

        • voegelinian says

          Sep 22, 2015 at 3:15 am

          Really, now; isn’t any other Jihad Watch regular going to stand up and shine a light on Angemon’s remarkably soft attitude toward Muslims here? This is the umpteenth time he’s done this, in various permutations, over the months, and I can’t remember ever seeing anyone other than Peggy take issue with him.

        • Angemon says

          Sep 22, 2015 at 8:00 am

          voegelinian posted:

          “Really, now; isn’t any other Jihad Watch regular going to stand up and shine a light on Angemon’s remarkably soft attitude toward Muslims here?”

          First of all, voeg, “softness” is not a magic word you can throw around to hypnotize people and get them to do your bidding. Second, your whole softness shtick? It’s a canard, a red herring – abiding by our laws, values and culture (you know, the things we’re supposedly fighting to protect) instead of adopting the mohammedan lynching mobs is not softness. You may want to live in a totalitarian state (I’m sure in your mid you’d be the supreme leader), but most people don’t.

          Third, you want to talk softness? Fine. If you had your way, muslims who pledged their allegiance to the islamic state and plotted to commit terror attacks would be allowed to live the rest of their lives on whatever islamic hellhole of their choice (or of your choice). If I had my way, they’d stand trial as spies (foreign citizens) or traitors (natives) – crimes that usually carry the death penalty. Who’s being soft, “doctor”?

          “This is the umpteenth time he’s done this, in various permutations”

          Again, claiming I’m “soft” without ever explaining what “softness” is won’t get you any traction around here – like I proved above, if anyone here is “soft” it would be you.

          “over the months”

          And, of course, you’re unable to point to any of these alleged infractions.

          “and I can’t remember ever seeing anyone other than Peggy take issue with him.”

          Huh, I don’t see Peggy saying “soft” anywhere. The truth is, I’ve discussed the notion of total deportation with other users and explained it’s flaws and shortcomings. I even discussed that with you. It’s been a bit over a year now, and I’m still waiting to hear from you on that one – how would you frame your thought police within the constitution? Where would you deport native citizens to? It’s not being “soft”, or whatever new buzzword you proclaim to invent tomorrow – it’s being realistic.

          So, are you ever going to address those questions or do you prefer going around topics slandering and lying about me and my stances?

  29. scott says

    Sep 20, 2015 at 8:40 pm

    The Muslims come in several flavors: radical nuts who behead and blow people up and the others that are trying to change the world one country at a time. Both groups are radicals but what people fail to understand is the Muslims are working towards a Global Caliphate. Wake up people, these radicals need to be stopped. God Bless Carson for expressing his views.

    • gordon miller says

      Sep 21, 2015 at 4:32 am

      Carson made a brave statement about objecting to having a Muslim president. I’m afraid, however, he will suffer greatly for the remark in the Mainstream Media and might even suffer substantially in the polls.

      • Peggy says

        Sep 21, 2015 at 7:08 pm

        He might suffer in the polls because there are still plenty of idiots out there but at least he is starting a discussion on Islam.
        It’s a start. Once we start discussing Islam more and more warts will be exposed and his sacrifice will be well worth it.
        The next candicate who speaks against it won’t suffer as much.
        We need to start somewhere and God bless him for throwing himself on a grenade for us if that is what happens.

  30. Jaladhi says

    Sep 20, 2015 at 9:15 pm

    Finally, somebody with guts and spine!! We won’t expect it from RINOs and Dhimmicrats!!

  31. catherine says

    Sep 20, 2015 at 10:11 pm

    Where does CAIR get off “DEMANDING” anything! Why did we let them get the idea that their views on anything, let alone the presidency, were of any interest whatsoever?

    • underbed cat says

      Sep 21, 2015 at 10:12 am

      It is interesting how CNN has such close ties to CAIR, a muslim brotherhood organization that created Cair, and has ties to terrorism financially…..HMMM interesting….

      I hope Ben Carson can get some from the people who study these issues to defend his comments, and explain his statement.

      The classification of religious identiy should make it clear that a group calling themselves such should not be involved in overthrowing governments killing infidels, which is a nonbeliever in their religion, who is beheading Christians and Jews in the middle east, it isn’t a race it is a belief system.

  32. Jeremiah says

    Sep 20, 2015 at 11:44 pm

    A defining moment in America. The election is going to be between Constitutionalists and Dhimmicrats. First time I heard that term. It fits.

    • Jeremiah says

      Sep 20, 2015 at 11:50 pm

      Genuinely Open Patriots and Dhimmicrats?

  33. Isabellathecrusader says

    Sep 20, 2015 at 11:54 pm

    Time for a major “backlash-against-Muslims” or BAM on CAIR. (BAM,,,ooh, I like that.) I mean, we’re told everyday it’s happening but we’ve never actually had one, have we? Nah, I didn’t think so.

    As for Ben Carson standing up and telling the truth, the time is now. We have no more time. The Muslim hordes are overrunning Europe with their next stop the U.S., thanks to our traitor of a president. Really, who cares whether he is a Muslim, a Dhimmi or a fellow traveler? The results are the same.

    We are at that place in history where the forefathers found themselves. Everyone has to decide, Liberty or death? From where I stand there are no other options.

    • dumbledoresarmy says

      Sep 21, 2015 at 2:00 am

      Isabella – seeing you posting here I just have to take the time to say hi.

      I’d been wondering where you were. You are still engaged with ACT for America?

      Hope all is well with you and yours, even if the world around is looking pretty dark right now.

      Love and God bless.

  34. Marty says

    Sep 21, 2015 at 4:44 am

    Ben Carson is an ideal figure for US President.
    Unlike Obama he champions US values & is wise.
    I trust he does not have the same misinformed prejudices
    against the UK that Obama has.

  35. خَليفة says

    Sep 21, 2015 at 5:31 am

    CAIR probably don’t like Carson because he is a black, Obama only half a black.
    I would vote for Carson.

    On Islamic slavery
    ( you can find a better version of this, but this one is ok)
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pJhSejBDTPI

  36. Plutarchus7 says

    Sep 21, 2015 at 6:52 am

    ISLAM NEEDS EMERGENCY BRAIN SURGERY

    To remove the cancerous tumor of Jihad.

    Ben Carson for President!

    http://www.apollospeaks.com

    • Kaffir007 says

      Sep 21, 2015 at 7:18 pm

      Agree…

  37. duh_swami says

    Sep 21, 2015 at 6:54 am

    Allah you not so magnificent bastard, I read your book’..I would never trust anyone who believes you are God…

    • No Fear says

      Sep 21, 2015 at 8:00 am

      Ditto. Allah is a pimp and a thug.

  38. Andy Halmay says

    Sep 21, 2015 at 7:19 am

    Carson has just picked up support from hundreds of thousands of voters. We need candidates who speak up about the Muslim problem. We’ve had politically correct do-nothings on both sides for far too long.

  39. Jim Fuscaldo says

    Sep 21, 2015 at 7:39 am

    Carson’s reasoning needs to be fully explained so the people understand his comment. A muslim president cannot serve two masters. Why?
    The existence of a western style constitutionally based republic / democracy is not permitted in Islam. Its very existence would make the state, its rulers and laws equivalent to Allah. Islam teaches that the will of Allah, as set forth in the Qur’an and practiced by Mohammad (the Haditha and Sira), is the only law permitted to govern the people. A government that separates civil law from Islamic law and creates a secular power that governs men as an equal with Allah is Islamic heresy. A western style constitutional based republic / democracy in the Islamic world is an unlawful deification of man. Islam teaches that democracy is an infidel religion devised to give the right to man to control the people. In Islamic theology all legislative rights belong to Allah and Allah has no partners. A western style democracy legislates for the masses and therefore becomes a partner with Allah. In Islam there is no greater blasphemy. Sayyid Qutb, a former leader of the Muslim brotherhood, said, “Let not some take others for lords in place of Allah.”
    “We will worship none but God, that we will associate none with him, and that none of us shall set up mortals as deities besides God” (Qur’an 3:64)
    In “Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence”, by Professor Muhammad Hashim Kamali, “Sovereignty in Islam is the prerogative of Almighty Allah alone. He is the absolute arbiter of values and it is His will that determines good and evil, right and wrong.” “It is neither the will of the ruler nor of an assembly of men, nor even the community as a whole, that determines the values and the laws which uphold those values….”
    In summary, a western style democracy is not permitted in Islam. Its very existence would make the state, its rulers and laws equivalent to Allah. Islam teaches that the will of Allah, as set forth in the Qur’an and practiced by Mohammad (the Haditha and Sira), is the only law permitted to govern the people. In a western style democracy legislators are elected from the people to establish the rule of law. The legislators would become partners with the people in place of Allah. According to Islamic teachings whoever obeys their (man made) laws ultimately worship them (an assembly of men) and not Allah.

    • No Fear says

      Sep 21, 2015 at 8:04 am

      “According to Islamic teachings whoever obeys their (man made) laws ultimately worship them (an assembly of men) and not Allah.”

      The Quran was written by man. Muslims obey a man. Allah is Mohammed’s sock puppet.

    • voegelinian says

      Sep 21, 2015 at 12:12 pm

      Yes; or to put the nutshell more pithily, Islam is inherently a political system that is effectively anti-Constitution (since it is anti-all non-Islamic polities).

      “The Constitution is not a suicide pact.” = The Constitution does not require the Nation upon which it is built to allow someone who believes in its destruction (i.e., a Muslim) to preside over it (nor to represent it, nor to adjudicate its laws). What the Constitution does accidentally permit, however (and, alas), is for its citizens to be hoodwinked by artfully deceitful Muslims into thinking Muslims are not seidtiously intending America’s destruction.

  40. Emilio De Luigi says

    Sep 21, 2015 at 7:57 am

    If religions were to be considered an obstacle to becoming President of the United States or any other secular state, we would have very few Presidents in the world.
    The Islamic belief of being the only true message of God is exactly equivalent to the belief of Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Hindus etc. All of them proclaim to be the only ones (separately) to have the real McCoy.
    The pledge to the Constitution stands above any other belief.
    The islamo-fascism is no more threatening than Nazism, Communism or any other dictatorial regimes.
    Hopefully human beings will progress out of these obsolete and ridiculous ideologies. May be in a millennium, if we will not be wiped out by the destruction of the planet.

    • voegelinian says

      Sep 21, 2015 at 12:15 pm

      “The islamo-fascism is no more threatening than Nazism, Communism or any other dictatorial regimes.”

      The Constitution does not require its members to elect someone who believes in the political goal of the destruction of the Constitution (e.g., a Nazi, a Communist, or a Muslim). The other religions you cite do not believe in the political goal of the destruction of the Constitution; so nice try with your tu quoque red herring.

  41. dumbledoresarmy says

    Sep 21, 2015 at 8:41 am

    Dear American jihadwatchers.

    Support this man. Now. Write to him, ring him, email him, tweet him, and make sure he knows that he MUST NOT back down, and that he has supporters, lots and lots of supporters. Get behind him and PUSH.

    And while you’re at it…you could send him copies of the following two articles on Islam. They are pretty good background briefings.

    First, an article by a (now late) very astute Irishman, Conor Cruise O’Brien, from 1995: “The Lesson of Algeria – Islam is Indivisible”.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/the-lesson-of-algeria-islam-is-indivisible-1566770.html

    Here’s how it begins – ”
    “Fundamentalist Islam” is a misnomer which dulls our perceptions in a dangerous way.
    “It does so by implying that there is some other kind of Islam, which is well disposed to those who reject the Koran.
    “There isn’t.
    “Islam is a universalist, triumphalist and political religion. It claims de jure dominion over all humanity; that is God’s will. The actual state of affairs, with unbelievers of various sorts dominating most of the world, is a suspension of God’s will and a scandal to the faithful. The world is divided between the House of Islam and the House of War, meaning the rest of us.

    “For more than two centuries now, the House of War has been in the ascendant, and the House of Islam has been abased. The remedy for this unnatural and intolerable state of affairs is jihad. Jihad is defined as “the religious duty imposed on all Muslims to wage war upon those who do not accept the doctrines of Islam”. The Prophet Mohamed himself not merely preached but waged jihad. God’s word, dictated to the Prophet and preached by him, is binding on all Muslims, and his example is their inspiration.

    “In the glorious centuries of expansion, the jihad carried Islam from Arabia, to the west as far as the Atlantic; to the north as far as Vienna; to the south as far as the Sahara and down the east coast of Africa to Madagascar; and to the east across Persia and the Indian subcontinent into part of China and Indonesia.

    “What is going on today in the Muslim world is not the advent of some aberrant thing called Islamic fundamentalism but a revival of Islam itself – the real thing – which Western ascendancy and Westernised post-Muslim elites no longer have the capacity to muffle and control.

    “The jihad is back….”.

    The other money quote from O’Brien’s piece, is here:

    “The Prophet Mohamed did not offer his followers a chance to live in harmony with their neighbours.

    “He taught them to fight their neighbours, if they were unbelievers, and kill them or beat them into submission.
    “And it is futile to say of those Muslims who faithfully follow those teachings today that their actions are “not intrinsically related to Islam”.
    We are facing an Islamic revival….”

    And here is the other article, also from the early-mid 1990s, by a man of whom I know nothing but the name – “Patrick L Moore” – but who had clearly done his homework, and then some. Just the footnotes are an education in themselves.

    http://www.ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/GUERRA.HTM

    FROM “COLD WAR” TO GUERRA FRIA?
    Patrick L. Moore

    “….There are five especially critical aspects about Islam’s doctrine of jihad which must be brought out to properly understand the significance of Islam as it relates to the United States and the West. In summary, the meaning of jihad in its primary sense is military and coercive; it is central to the universalist doctrine of the Islamic belief system; its operational aim is political domination of non-Islamic territories (i.e. rather than forced conversion); it is offensive or aggressive in nature in the first instance (and not merely “defensive”); and, finally, jihad is continuous in character (i.e. pending the ultimate victory of the forces of Islam)….”.

    Then go to Barnabas Fund, check out their online ‘resource shop, and order a bulk shipment of their very useful, accurate, brief and clear booklet on Sharia – “What is Sharia?” Because for anyone with any common-sense at all, that booklet says it all. It states the ugly facts, unvarnished, in cool, sober language – usefully listing, for example, the five main areas in which sharia collides head-on with universal human rights – and leaves the reader to draw their own conclusions. Once you have your barrowload of booklets…post one to Mr Carson. And for good measure, to your local elected representatives, State and Federal, whoever they are, with a brief and coolly polite covering letter (if you’re not sure of the right tone, go to “Citizen Warrior” and read up a little). You want to make people *curious*,. if they’re undecided or currently in a fog.

  42. awake says

    Sep 21, 2015 at 9:41 am

    Trump has revealed the majority national sentiment against illegal aliens and, rightfully so, Muslims as well. Carson is simply looking for a bump in the polls. Let’s see if he cowers and apologizes. His position on illegals is muddled at best, and yes, illegals include an untold number of Muslims as well, none of which any sane person should ever want in the U.S.

  43. ninetyninepct says

    Sep 21, 2015 at 11:57 am

    It is so obvious that islam will only allow opinions and comments approved by them. Intelligent democratic people who express their own opinions are wrong if we don’t think and act like islam wants us to.

    A comment this AM on the news was that Obama is a Christian. WRONG. HIs father was muslim therefore Obama is muslim. That is what islam dictates and Obama has never renounced islam. He strongly supports it.

    • TheBuffster says

      Sep 22, 2015 at 10:54 pm

      NinetyNinePCT – “A comment this AM on the news was that Obama is a Christian. WRONG. HIs father was muslim therefore Obama is muslim. That is what islam dictates and Obama has never renounced islam. He strongly supports it.”

      I don’t know what the hell Obama is, religiously. Maybe he considers himself a Christian, maybe a Muslim, maybe an atheist. (No atheist is going to admit it if he expects to be elected president.)

      The fact that his father was Muslim may make him a Muslim in the eyes of Islam, but what matters in the eyes of reality is what he actually believes in regard to Mohammad and Jesus and God.

      If he believes that Jesus is the Son of God, that he died on the cross and was resurrected, and that if you believe in him and his claims, then you will be freed of your sins and be saved, then he’s a Christian.

      If he believes that Allah is the only god and that Mohammad was his messenger and the Koran is the direct and perfect word of Allah (and that that Jesus didn’t die on the cross and isn’t the Son of God, but just an important prophet), then he’s a Muslim.

      Or maybe he’s got a mish-mash of both religions – Jesus is the Son of God, died on the cross, was resurrected AND Mohammad is the messenger of God… and he never did all those bad things in the authentic hadiths…

      Or maybe he’s an atheist who claims to be a Christian because you won’t be elected president if you admit you’re an atheist. And he thinks Islam is no better or worse than any other religion.

      I don’t know which it is, and it doesn’t matter. What matters are his political beliefs and the kind of policies he pushes, which are in line with what a lot of non-Muslim progressives believe in, and they go along with him, and if he wasn’t president but one of those non-Muslim progressives was, would they be doing anything much different?

      I doubt it.

      It wasn’t a bunch of Muslims who aimed him at the White House and pulled the trigger. It was non-Muslim members of the Democratic Party. He’s well in line with the politically correct, cut-America-down-to-size group of leftist Americans.

      What would Hillary do? Bernie Sanders?

      What he really believes in regard to religion – that’s not something we have access to. It could be any of the alternatives I named above or something I didn’t think of. But what we *do* know about his political views and policies is enough to oppose him.

      • Angemon says

        Sep 23, 2015 at 11:16 am

        TheBuffster posted:

        “I don’t know what the hell Obama is, religiously. Maybe he considers himself a Christian, maybe a Muslim, maybe an atheist. (No atheist is going to admit it if he expects to be elected president.)”

        My favorite explanation to Obama’s religion (or lack thereof) is this: he was an atheist until he found out he was God. 😀

        • TheBuffster says

          Sep 24, 2015 at 11:09 am

          Oh, that’s good. I like that one.

  44. ninetyninepct says

    Sep 21, 2015 at 12:04 pm

    How many Christians in cair? How many Christian imams?

    Anybody hear any more about those 12 Christians that were thrown off the boat a month ago by muslims? Were the muslims taken out and thrown in the water as well to help look for the Christians?

    OINK.

  45. xxxChurch100 says

    Sep 21, 2015 at 3:02 pm

    God Bless and protect Dr Carson and his family from this enemy !
    May He be used to shed light on to the darkness which is Islam .
    The Bible clearly states: “that the darkness will flee from this light .”
    I pray this through the name which is above all other names , Jesus Christ .
    Amen and Amen .

  46. Ivan Erickson says

    Sep 21, 2015 at 8:15 pm

    Ivan Erickson says

    America is currently over 80% Christian. I say this in spite of the fact that we are rapidly regressing from the true Christian nation that we once were. In answer to Dr. Carson’s comment, to be a Christian, one must believe that Jesus Christ is the only Son of the One True God who Lives. Muslims believe that Jesus is a good man & a Prophet, but they and the Koran deny repeatedly that Jesus Christ was the Son of God. We do not want any more slaves of Satan in our government as president or at any level, including our schools! The following is an extract from a previous article that I wrote in which I challenge all readers to attempt to refute:

    SIX IRREFUTABLE PREMISES ON THE CHRISTIAN VS THE ISLAMIC FAITHS:

    1. The first important premise to address is regarding the belief of the beloved people of the Islam faith – as well as by many people of other faiths – that professes that Allah is the same God as the God of the Jews and the Christians. To prove as succinctly as possible that this is not the Truth, I will ask you the following question, Reverend Ann, that you may seek the answers to this falsity in the heart of your own soul: If Allah is the same God as the One True God of the Christians and the Jews, why does Allah deny repeatedly throughout the Koran that Jesus is the Only Begotten Son of God, when God Himself prophesied 60 times and mentioned over 300 times in the Old Testament the future coming of a Messiah, a Suffering Servant, His Son, who would die on the cross for the salvation of all mankind? Would God prophesy the coming of His Son, a Messiah and Savior, only to deny Him through Mohammed, who professed to speak for Allah? Would this not make God a liar?

    2. The second premise to address is the Islam belief that Jesus Christ was only a prophet – that He was not deity or the only Begotten Son of God. In 1 John, 2:18-23 we read: “Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that the antichrist was coming, so now many antichrists have appeared. Thus we know this is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not really of our number; if they had been, they would have remained with us. Their desertion shows that none of them was of our number. But you have the anointing that comes from the holy one, and you all have knowledge. I write to you not because you do not know the truth but because you do, and because every lie is alien to the truth. Who is the liar? Whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Whoever denies the Father and the Son, this is the antichrist. No one who denies the Son has the Father, but whoever confesses the Son has the Father as well.”iIn 1 John 4, 1-3 we read: “Beloved, do not trust every spirit but test the spirits to see whether they belong to God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. This is how you can know the Spirit of God: every spirit that acknowledges Jesus Christ come in the flesh belongs to God, and every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus does not belong to God. This is the spirit of the antichrist that, as you heard, is to come, but in fact is already in the world.”ii Also, Jesus Christ professed many times in the Gospel that He was the Messiah, the only Son of God the Father. If the Islam faithful sincerely believes that Jesus was a Prophet, how can they at the same time not believe that He was God’s Son? – For a prophet is one who speaks the Truth for God, you see.

    3. The third premise that I wish to address is the Islam belief that Mohammed was the final prophet of Allah, and that he was inspired through the angel Gabriel to change God’s previous words of the Holy Bible in order to bring mankind His final words. After Mohammed’s death, Mohammed’s words were later written in their book called the Koran. The Koran, as you know, professes to contain four God-inspired books: the Torah of Moses; the Zabur (Psalms of David); the Injil (Gospel) of Jesus; and the Koran. In changing, deleting and adding to the Inspired words of God’s Holy Bible, Mohammed and his followers committed a grievous sin against God! In Revelation 22:18, 19 we read: “I warn everyone who hears the prophetic words in this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words in this prophetic book, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city described in this book.”iiiMohammed and his cohorts did not merely add to or take away God’s words of His prophetic Book! They deleted the entire Book of Revelation, as well as most of the other Holy Books of the Bible! I sincerely believe that Jesus was stating that we must not add to, delete, or to desecrate any of the Holy words of the entire Old and New Testaments of the Bible, for He, being the Son of God, certainly knew that Revelation was the last Book of the Bible and was most likely speaking of the entire Bible as “The Book.” And please do not counter by rationalizing that the God changed His own laws and words via the alleged angel Gabriel and Mohammed! Jesus Christ, speaking for God, knew that the Islams, Mormons, and people of other false faiths would attempt to change, delete, or to deny God’s laws, words and Scripture in the future! This is why Jesus stated emphatically that He is the end of the law!

    4. The fourth premise that I will address is regarding the alleged angel Gabriel who purportedly instilled Mohammed with Allah’s messages given to him over an approximate 22-year period with the words that later became the Koran. The alleged angel Gabriel repeatedly denied that Jesus was the Son of God! However, the true angel Gabriel, speaking to Mary the Mother of Jesus in Luke, 1:31-33 states the following: “‘Behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name him Jesus. He will be great and will be called Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give him the throne of David his father, and he will rule over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.’”iv God, in His infinite wisdom, does not have to give two of His angels the same name – He surely has given each of them a personal, special name, as He will do for all those whom enter God’s kingdom. So, how then can one reputed angel Gabriel of the Koran deny repeatedly that Jesus is God’s Son, when the true angel Gabriel that appeared over 5 centuries earlier had called Jesus “Son of the Most High”?

    5. The fifth premise is regarding the utilization by Mohammed and subsequently by the entire Islamic faithful of: the God of the Jews and the Christians; Abraham; the prophets; and a semblance of the One True God’s Holy Scripture in the Koran. Why did not the author of the Koran use his own text and credos, as the Hindus and the Buddhists have done? The reason that the author of the Koran utilized this ploy was so that a semblance of Truth, or a certain credence and correlation would be portrayed to the Muslim-Islams, in order that from that time onward they may more easily be duped and led away from the Truth and the Light when they read or heard the words of the Koran.

    6. The sixth premise, Reverend Ann, is regarding your sincere belief that you can be an adherent of both the Christian and the Islam faiths. This, as you were made aware of in the above premises, is impossible, as the two religions are diametrically opposed to one another. For you must understand that the Christian faith stems from the words of Truth and Light of the One True God who Lives – the One Whom has proven to be the One True God; for He is the only God who is able to prophesy infallibly those many things to come throughout the history of mankind and even until the end of the age. The Islam faith, on the other hand, stems from the antichrist of which was revealed to you above from the words of God in 1 John. Also, in 1 Corinthians, 10:14-22 we read: “Therefore, my beloved, avoid idolatry. I am speaking as to a sensible people; judge for yourselves what I am saying. The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because the loaf of bread is one, we, though many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf.

    Look at Israel according to the flesh; are not those who eat the sacrifices participants in the altar? So what am I saying? That meat sacrificed to idols is anything? Or that an idol is anything? No, I mean that what they sacrifice, [they sacrifice] to demons, not to God, and I do not want you to become participants with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and also the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and of the table of demons. Or are we provoking the Lord to jealous anger? Are we stronger than he?”v

    For the entire article from which this excerpt was extracted please contact ICE at: icerickson@yahoo.com

    Reply

  47. b.C.terry says

    Sep 21, 2015 at 9:40 pm

    Look for cair to proceed with litigation against Carson.

    • Cecilia Ellis says

      Sep 21, 2015 at 11:30 pm

      B. C. Terry, fear not. Let CAIR proceed with litigation; then all Carson has to do is make one phone call to Jay Sekulow, the Chief Counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ). At that point, Jay will simply have his defense team bring in the Qur’an and the germane Hadith as defense exhibits. He might also add “Reliance of the Traveler” or the Muslim Brotherhood’s “Explanatory Memorandum” to his defense, though that is not necessary, given the overwhelming evidence provided by the exhibits.

      In a booklet entitled, “Shari’ah Law: Radical Islam’s Threat to the U.S. Constitution,” [1] Sekulow states:

      “Unlike the West, where separate nation-states are the political norm, Islam ‘assume[s] that mankind constitute[s] one supra-national community, bound by one law and governed by one ruler.’ Because, according to Islam, Allah revealed all laws, religious and secular (in a Western sense), through his prophet Muhammad to the entire ummah (community of Islamic believers), Islam is a divine, universal ‘nomocracy’ – a universal state governed by divine law. Thus, every Muslim is bound by Shari’ah, which ‘binds individuals, not territorial groups.’ Shari’ah ‘is the exclusive source of all law for the Muslims.’ Consequently, to Muslims, Shari’ah supersedes all other law.” (pp. 8-9)

      [1] Booklet was published by ACLJ, but date published not included in pamphlet. A copy of this pamphlet might be acquired by contacting ACLJ, at 757-802-9160 or via http://www.ACLJ.org. Believe pamphlet was published perhaps in early 2011. It is a great reference that provides comparison chart of shari’ah and U.S. law. Well documented, this 43-page booklet is a “must read” for winning – easily – an argument with Islamic apologists like Ibrahim Hooper or Nihad Awad on the topic of Shari’ah vs. the
      U. S. Constitution.

      • Karen says

        Sep 21, 2015 at 11:49 pm

        Thank you for bringing this up. Jay Sekulow and his ACLJ organization are amazing, and winning important victories. I greatly admire both, and would encourage others to take a look at the important topics they are working on.

        • Cecilia Ellis says

          Sep 22, 2015 at 12:12 am

          Agree wholeheartedly!

  48. R Smith says

    Sep 22, 2015 at 1:52 am

    He shouldn’t fear the very vocal that screech to remove him, as the most vocal can easily be just a deranged minority, besides cair is a terrorist support group. Islam a peaceful religion? ya right, and only if you ignore 1,400 yrs of history, and all the current islamic homicidal events that seem to be accelerating in frequency, ever since the election of little o to our White house.

  49. (Dr.) Sandy Kramer says

    Sep 22, 2015 at 7:55 am

    Carson said no Muslim “should” be President. That was a normative statement, expressing Carson’s opinion, to which everyone is this country (as of now) is entitled to express. Dr. Carson did not say that a Muslim “could not” be President. As a matter of law, no religious test for office is allowed. Dr. Carson knows this. Obviously CAIR and their sycophants do not know this, since it’s not found in sharia law.

  50. E says

    Sep 22, 2015 at 9:13 am

    The voters will decide Carsons fate not CAIR.

  51. andrew sapia says

    Sep 22, 2015 at 9:33 am

    Carson’s reply should be. How dare an organization that was an unindicted coconspirator in the holy land trial and a front group for Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood tell me to withdraw. When I am president CAIR will be withdrawing because I am going to make sure they are investigated and prosecuted if any connection to terror groups are discovered.

FacebookYoutubeTwitterLog in

Subscribe to the Jihad Watch Daily Digest

You will receive a daily mailing containing links to the stories posted at Jihad Watch in the last 24 hours.
Enter your email address to subscribe.

Please wait...

Thank you for signing up!
If you are forwarding to a friend, please remove the unsubscribe buttons first, as they my accidentally click it.

Subscribe to all Jihad Watch posts

You will receive immediate notification.
Enter your email address to subscribe.
Note: This may be up to 15 emails a day.

Donate to JihadWatch
FrontPage Mag

Search Site

Translate

The Team

Robert Spencer in FrontPageMag
Robert Spencer in PJ Media

Articles at Jihad Watch by
Robert Spencer
Hugh Fitzgerald
Christine Douglass-Williams
Andrew Harrod
Jamie Glazov
Daniel Greenfield

Contact Us

Terror Attacks Since 9/11

Archives

  • 2020
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2019
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2018
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2017
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2016
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2015
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2014
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2013
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2012
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2011
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2010
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2009
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2008
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2007
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2006
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2005
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2004
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2003
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • March

All Categories

You Might Like

Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Recent Comments

  • gravenimage on Al-Qaeda Calls on Jihadis to Kill Non-Muslims With Poisoned Coronavirus Masks
  • Infidel on Uighur leader: ‘We’re actually quite worried’ about what Biden might let China get away with
  • Infidel on Uighur leader: ‘We’re actually quite worried’ about what Biden might let China get away with
  • gravenimage on Al-Qaeda Calls on Jihadis to Kill Non-Muslims With Poisoned Coronavirus Masks
  • Infidel on Iranian Kurdistan: Muslim brothers behead their sister in honor killing over her romantic relationship

Popular Categories

dhimmitude Sharia Jihad in the U.S ISIS / Islamic State / ISIL Iran Free Speech

Robert Spencer FaceBook Page

Robert Spencer Twitter

Robert Spencer twitter

Robert Spencer YouTube Channel

Books by Robert Spencer

Jihad Watch® is a registered trademark of Robert Spencer in the United States and/or other countries - Site Developed and Managed by Free Speech Defense

Content copyright Jihad Watch, Jihad Watch claims no credit for any images posted on this site unless otherwise noted. Images on this blog are copyright to their respective owners. If there is an image appearing on this blog that belongs to you and you do not wish for it appear on this site, please E-mail with a link to said image and it will be promptly removed.

Our mailing address is: David Horowitz Freedom Center, P.O. Box 55089, Sherman Oaks, CA 91499-1964

loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.