Bravo. 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. Carson is right, and deserves the gratitude of every free American for refusing to back down before the authoritarian, thuggish forces that work so actively to demonize and marginalize anyone and everyone who speaks honestly about Islam, Sharia, and the jihad threat.
“Carson doubles down on no Muslims in the White House,” by Jonathan Easley, The Hill, September 20, 2015:
Republican presidential hopeful Ben Carson is standing by his view that a Muslim should not be president of the United States, telling The Hill in an interview on Sunday that whoever takes the White House should be “sworn in on a stack of Bibles, not a Koran.”
Carson ignited a media firestorm in a Sunday morning interview with Chuck Todd on “Meet the Press,” in which he said he “would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation.”
“I absolutely would not agree with that,” Carson said.
In an interview with The Hill, Carson opened up about why he believes a Muslim would be unfit to serve as commander in chief.
“I do not believe Sharia is consistent with the Constitution of this country,” Carson said, referencing the Islamic law derived from the Koran and traditions of Islam. “Muslims feel that their religion is very much a part of your public life and what you do as a public official, and that’s inconsistent with our principles and our Constitution.”
Carson said that the only exception he’d make would be if the Muslim running for office “publicly rejected all the tenants of Sharia and lived a life consistent with that.”
“Then I wouldn’t have any problem,” he said.
However, on several occasions Carson mentioned “Taqiyya,” a practice in the Shia Islam denomination in which a Muslim can mislead nonbelievers about the nature of their faith to avoid religious persecution.
“Taqiyya is a component of Shia that allows, and even encourages you to lie to achieve your goals,” Carson said.
Pushing back at the media firestorm over his remarks, Carson sought to frame himself as one of the few candidates running for president willing to tell hard truths.
“We are a different kind of nation,” Carson said. “Part of why we rose so quickly is because we wouldn’t allow our values or principles to be supplanted because we were going to be politically correct. … Part of the problem today is that we’re so busy trying to be politically correct, that we lose all perspective.”
Carson told The Hill that the question of a Muslim president is largely “irrelevant” because no Muslims are running in 2016. He said the question, which Todd is posing to all of the Republican presidential hopefuls who go on his show, “may well have been” gotcha journalism meant to trip the candidates up.
However, he acknowledged the question “served a useful purpose by providing the opportunity to talk about what Sharia is and what their goals are.”
“So often we get into these irrelevant things, because obviously if a Muslim was running for president, there would be a lot more education about Sharia, about Taqiyya,” Carson said….
ich says
if he wins- although he really black not cappucino like Hussein Obama the
democrats will still call him a racist.
I cant see this guy wanting to hang with Will Smith & Oprah
dumbledoresarmy says
I could see him having a quiet beer with Allen West. And with those three guys – one of them the son of a black Baptist pastor – who stopped that would-be jihadi on the train to Paris. And maybe he could spend some time with Simon Deng, who survived being a Christian slave of Muslims, in the Sudan. Or with Meriam Wani, nee Ibrahim, who escaped to the USA with her two babies, after she was imprisoned in Sudan, and threatened with death, because her father had been a Muslim, but *she* chose to be a Christian like her mother, and had married a Christian.
Don McKellar says
I wonder what the polls now say — has he catapulted to the top of the GOP leader board? Or is MSM too afraid to report on this? Maybe this week we’ll see what happens when a would be presidential candidate from one of the major parties actually stands up and actually speaks truthfully and honestly based on facts and logic with regards to Islam.
This man is the only heroic figure now in the race on either side. And the only one who can be trusted.
dlbrand says
Don McKellar stated: “This man is the only heroic figure now in the race on either side.”
Indeed. I pray he stands firm on this. Let all the other cowards, when it comes to dealing with facts on Islam and the adherents to it, and fools show themselves for precisely what they are.
All who, when addressing the Islamic problem, qualify that as hailing from “radical Islam,” the “problematic” Muslims limited to the few “extremist,” they are are as gutless as they charge BHO being, when they assert, he fails to state, “Islamic extremist.”
The Believers, such as those openly or covertly with allegiance to IS, they are not extremist. They are not following a twisted radicalized version of Islam. They are good Muslims. Following the basic tenets of their faith, and that is what their “sacred texts” corroborate and substantiate.
Jack Diamond says
“publicly rejected all the tenants of Sharia and lived a life consistent with that.”
Tenants. I like that typo.
dlbrand says
Jack Diamond says: ““publicly rejected all the tenants of Sharia and lived a life consistent with that.”
“Tenants. I like that typo.”
Yes, indeed, you and your “crap”, you’re out’a here.
somehistory says
dbrand,
What’s your problem with what Jack Diamond wrote?
He was quoting from the article: “Carson said that the only exception he’d make would be if the Muslim running for office “publicly rejected all the tenants of Sharia and lived a life consistent with that.”
Your comment had the right spelling, but he was quoting from the article.
dlbrand says
somehistory, I’ve no problem whatsoever with Diamond’s comment; I, in fact, enjoyed a light moment from it. Sorry you missed it.
I was, in my “you and your ‘crap, you’re out’a here” comment, talking, as it were, to the said “tenants.”
RonaldB says
With all due respect, the United States faces a grave danger from Muslim immigrants, but not only from Muslim immigrants. We face a grave danger from immigration floods from Mexico and other Latin American countries, many of whom (referring to the immigrants) are consciously determined to maintain their own culture.
Donald Trump has been the most courageous and forward-looking candidate, and he merely wants to effectively stop illegal immigration, including the administrative measures that the lawless Obama administration has put into place to prevent the deportation of illegal immigrants.
Now, Trump is committed to stop illegal immigration. Has Carson talked about the dangers of illegals and deporting them? Carson has merely spoken against a Muslim President (not an immediate danger in the next election, although clearly a danger in the last).
You are projecting your own desires to think that because Carson speaks against a Muslim President, that he will pose a sharia test or filter for immigrants.
gravenimage says
Ronald, I’m afraid that Donald Trump is *not* consistently Anti-JIhad. He castigated Pamela Geller for daring to stand up for our right to freedom of speech in Garland, Texas:
“I watched Pam earlier, and it really looks like she’s just taunting everybody. What is she doing drawing Muhammad? I mean it’s disgusting. Isn’t there something else they could be doing? Drawing Muhammad?…They can’t do something else? They have to be in the middle of Texas doing something on Muhammad and insulting everybody? What is she doing? Why is she doing it? It’s probably very risky for her — I don’t know, maybe she likes risk? But what the hell is she doing?”
He believes that we should bow to Shari’ah diktats–or understandably face violence. And interesting that someone who insults almost everybody–including his own allies–believes that Islam should not be insulted.
“Robert Spencer in PJ Media: Donald Trump: Poster Child of American Decline”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/07/robert-spencer-in-pj-media-donald-trump-poster-child-of-american-decline
Mazo says
American culture is best exemplified by Honey Boo Boo, Miley Cyrus, Kardashian and Caitlyn Jenner. Homer Simpson and Peter Griffin symbollically represent the typical American.
The cheeseburger, soda and trans-fat should be classified by UNESCO as America’s “intangible contribution to humanity”.
How can those poor illegal Hispanic migrants possibly threaten such a rich culture.
gravenimage says
Don, Dr. Carson *has* moved way up in the polls:
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/09/22/poll-outsiders-donald-trump-ben-carson-still-leading-gop-race/
Katowice says
There hasn’t been any results from polling done after his comments, though. It’ll be interesting to see those numbers when they’re available.
Roger Gangitano says
FINALLY – Somebody who’s running for office has the guts to speak the truth!! Sharia is NOT consistent with the US Constitution and Ben earns a very large check mark in my good-guy column! He keeps this up, he may get my vote!!
Katnis says
I agree! What a contrast to people like Hillary and our POTUS. I am so impressed with his calm, steady message. Maybe his truth talk will prevent the muslim economic migrants from coming to the US on our dime? I hope. Go Carson!
Angemon says
The mention of taqqiya as a blanket word to the practice of lying to advance islam is a bit of a double-edged blade. It would be much safer to point out the ahadith where muhammad allows lying and to all the islamic clerics who, through the ages, stated that lying to advance islam is permissible if the goal can not be achieved in any other way.
Still, Mr. Carson deserves kudos for grasping the basic concepts of what the West is up against.
gravenimage says
I agree, Angemon–it is a bit unfortunate that Westerners first identified Taqiyya as sacralized Islamic deceit, since this is specifically a Shia practice, and Sunnis and Muslim apologists can hence disavow it (or pretend to disavow it, in the case of Muslims).
But there is a whole slew of terms for aspects of Islamic lying to the Infidels–Muda’rat is the overarching term.
But Dr. Carson shows that he *definitely* grasps this key concept.
Descendantofacrusader says
America desperately needs men and women of such character and heart-felt honesty. I support Dr. Carson 100% in his fierce adherence to the truth of what he just said about Muslims, the presidency, and Islam’s complete incompatibility with the Constitution.
john spielman says
agree!! GO Carson, GO ONTO VICTORY!!
Dave J says
If a Muslim actually renounced all the fascist aspects of Islamic law he would be publicly targeted by other Muslims for murder as an apostate. The cult was designed this way to make it immune from criticism or reform.
Ahmad Mohamad is a perfect example of taqiyya – not a tech whiz, not an invention, just a coached provocation. I wouldn’t want him to be President – but he is going to the White House anyway.
miriamrove says
I tell you, I love this guy. I hope he is not going to back down and I hope he gets to be our next president! M
Joseph says
I am on the same page as you M.
I just hope he stays strong and does not bow to more assaults that will come.
Just watch…..they might try to assassinate his character with allegations of sexual misconduct.
miriamrove says
They are doing everything to do Trump in. Carson is on the list also. m
Everyone Else says
We also have to bring “racism” to center stage.
Charges of racism are used to disarm those who resist Islam.
The best way to defeat this weapon is to keep saying why it’s used.
Islam isn’t a race it’s an ideology.
The racism charges have to be brought to center stage just like Carson’s Islam charges.
Descendantofacrusader says
Watch two CNN PC zombies hound Dr. Carson’s business manager, Armstrong Williams, about Carson’s recent statements. How shamful that the American “Free” Press could have such a truth denying agenda! This is nothing short of discusting.
jihad3tracker says
EXCELLENT — HE SHREDS THE HYPOCRISY OF CAIR. MUST WATCH.
AND REMEMBER THAT BOBBY JINDAL HAS COME OUT WITH SOME MIGHTY RIGHTEOUS TRUTH-TELLING IN THE LAST COUPLE OF HOURS — GOOGLE IT.
BlueHawK says
He did a great job, except for what I think is an important point. He said “… how Islam has become polluted” – as if somehow there is a version of Islam that *wasn’t* polluted That there is a version that doesn’t believe they are going to take over and destroy all other religions and governing systems.
voegelinian says
Yes; invariably there is an asymptotic twitch lurking, even in the best of them…
voegelinian says
Speaking of that twitch in its various permutations, in a recent article on National Review by Andrew McCarthy (who over the years seems to zig-zag in and out of asymptotic tendencies — as he does at least once in the span of this one article), we learn that:
…when asked if he [Ben Carson] would consider voting for a Muslim for Congress, he replied that this would “depend on who that Muslim is and what their policies are.”
McCarthy goes on to palpate — and support — the asymptotic impulse there:
“That makes perfect sense – a pro-Constitution Muslim who accepts Islam’s religious tenets but rejects the imposition of sharia on society would be fine; an adherent of Islamic ideology who seeks to impose sharia on society (i.e., an Islamist or Islamic supremacist) would not.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/424379/ben-carson-and-islam-andrew-c-mccarthy
Thus McCarthy (and presumably Carson, though he seems to be more sensible) with breathtaking glibness sails right through the alarmingly formidable redoubts of the Scylla and Charybdis of the maelstrom of problems of taqiyya and takes for granted the deceptive appearance of calm waters that have destroyed so many others and portend even worse destruction. Why does McCarthy do this? Why does any Softy do it? To assuage their anxiety that threatens their ethical narcissism, as navigate the Twin Peaks of the problem of Islam — the Problem of Islam & the Problem of Muslims — deftly avoiding the latter by simply pronouncing it manageable without a shred of proof other than circumstantial and anecdotal, guided by their lodestar: The problem can’t possibly be ALL Muslims…therefore it isn’t!
Jay Boo says
No voegy
Your analysis is 90% voeg BS
He is not being ass-symptotic
He is being realistic
I am beginning to wonder if you ignore people like Hillary and Morsi as you zero in mercilessly on those who are on our side. The only positive thing that you said was ” though he seems to be more sensible”
PRCS says
Armstrong really blew it in that video.
I was waiting for him to tell those two morons there’s no such thing as “radical” Islam. But, he never did.
And toward the end, it became clear why, when he said “embrace the real Islam, what Islam is really about, instead of allowing others to hijack…”
He’s as ignorant about Islam as they are.
voegelinian says
The entire Western mainstream — including 99% of Conservatives, believe the problem is only “radical Islam”. By now we should stop thinking that people in the mainstream who agree with us about other issues are going to be free of this mass Neurosis called PC MC. But I suppose when the Counter-Jihad cultivates this view that only “Leftists” defend Islam, one will continue to be surprised and disappointed when one non-Leftist after another blurts out such statemnts as Armstrong did.
quotha raven says
To PRCS – The link you provide makes me so frustrated. The two moronic CNN “journalists” and Anderson (was that his name? The guy defending Carson) ALL refer to and address Islam as a “religion”.
If only these people could wrap their minds around the difference between a religion and a theocracy. Islam is a theocracy and, as such, embodies ultimate military, legal, social AND religious power over ALL who subscribe to it. And to disentangle from Islam brings serious repercussions. One becomes an apostate. The punishment for apostasy is prescribed in sharia law. It is death.
Jeez. What’s so hard to grasp? Why is this utterly critical distinction between religion and theocracy never incorporated into coverage by the media or by most who speak about Islam? It’s not rocket science.
Cheers!
Quotha R
quotha raven says
Actually, I guess my comment should be addressed to Descendantofacrusader, who originally provided the link to the obnoxious video of CNN and Armstrong. qr
PRCS says
Yes, I understand your frustration–although it was Dscendantofacrusader who posted that link.
PRCS says
September 22, 2015 at 12:29 pm
Armstrong really blew it in that video.
I was waiting for him to tell those two morons there’s no such thing as “radical” Islam. But, he never did.
And toward the end, it became clear why, when he said “embrace the real Islam, what Islam is really about, instead of allowing others to hijack…”
He’s as ignorant about Islam as they are.
Chris says
The real problem is that the Western, Christian mind can’t fathom what Islam actually is. I have never met anyone, and I have asked many, who has ever read the Koran or books about Islam. They just assume it is another religion like Catholicism where you can take or leave whatever part you want and the crazy radicals beheading people (Saudi Arabia?) are extremists, not like the nice moderate Muslim friends they have. I do not believe that any intelligent person, if they were to read about the Koran, read Robert Spencer, Raymond Ibrahim, and others and follow their website would have the perception that Islam is a religion of peace.
PRCS says
1) It’s not just Christian minds. The RawStory website (at which I’ve been banned) is an example of really hateful Cristophobes who also think Islam is a pick from the plate smorgasboard.
2) I’m reminded of one of my favorite analogies:
Moderate Muslims are like Catholics who use artificial birth control methods. Neither is in compliance with the teachings of their respective belief systems.
One could use the phrase “cafeteria Catholic” as well.
Bernie says
Sharia has no place in Western Society EVER! This Cult of Death is the reason the M.E. is in Flames.
dlbrand says
Bernie says: “Sharia has no place in Western Society EVER! ”
Which means, Islam has no place in Western Society–unless, that is, it is the rule of the land or advancing to that.
As we hear the basic belief of every true believing Muslim, provided here in this assertion of ibn Abbas: “Islam is always superior and never inferior.”
(Bukhari, The Book of Funerals, Intro, Chapter 79, Preface to hadith #1354, P. 250, Vol. 2.)
wildjew says
“You know, the Constitution specifies there shall be no religious test for public office and I am a constitutionalist,” according to Senator Cruz.
I believe this is a cop out. Sorry.
Dave J says
It is a cop out. “No religious test” means you don’t have to be a certain religion to be President. It does not mean that a candidates beliefs cannot disqualify them to be President – that is determined by the People.
I would note that under Sharia law you must be a Muslim to be any kind of leader – other religions need not apply. Nor could you criticize Islam, start or join any other religion, build a church or play a musical instrument.
So, “incompatible” – yes.
wildjew says
This is an instance where the Framers might have specified that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States” unless it is subversive, as Spencer points out sharia is subversive of western values. Could someone whose religion prescribed human sacrifice to their god or gods as Islam does under certain circumstance qualify?
Western Canadian says
Even though I doubt if the founders had sufficient knowledge of islam (RTC) go single it out for exclusion from protection….. Their uncommon level of intelligence and honour did still give the US govt. protection against this file cult.
But only if these protections are used.
Shmooviyet says
Agreed. Is Cruz unaware of muslim leaders who have stated Sharia and the Constitution have no place together in the world?
He’s been so strong on other issues, it is a disappointment to hear him sound mushy on this one.
Don Foss says
The question was whether Islam is compatible with the Constitution. It is not.
Shmooviyet says
LOL–
Chuck Todd was coming at Dr. Ben with what indeed WAS a ‘gotcha’ (and rather odd) question.
Dr. Ben calmly and politely gotcha’d Todd back, by stating the question provided an opportunity to talk about Sharia, and added Taqiyya into the mix!
I say ‘thanks’ to that former BHO worm for bringing it up at all. Do you suppose he’s had a stern call from his former boss?
awake says
“In the time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”
CogitoErgoSum says
I like this Ben Carson. He’s jumped to the top of my list of candidates for President.
dlbrand says
Roger.
wildjew says
Is Islam subversive of Western values?
Spencer:
A Book You’re Not Supposed to Read
Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives Have Penetrated Washington by Paul Sperry; Nashville, TN: Nelson Current, 2005. Sperry details just how bad things have gotten in America: Muslims with clear ties to jihad terrorists have entrenched themselves deeply in our political system and military establishment. This book underscores the urgency of mounting a full and effective resistance to the Islamic jihad—before it’s too late.
“The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (And the Crusades),” by Robert Spencer
Don Foss says
I was back and forth between Fiorina and Carson. Now, unless Fiorina comes up with a better truth and explanation, Carson has my vote.
Descendantofacrusader says
Oh that Dr. Carson’s candid reply about Islam would also be “a teaching point” for the anti-Americanism of our current militantly PC adminstration. Witness the wisdom of past 6th President of the United States John Quincy Adams in his accurat assessment of Islam:
“In the seventh century of the Christian era, a wandering Arab of the lineage of Hagar, the Egyptian, combining the powers of transcendent genius, with the preternatural energy of a fanatic, and the fraudulent spirit of an impostor, proclaimed himself as a messenger from Heaven, and spread desolation and delusion over an extensive portion of the earth. Adopting from the sublime conception of the Mosaic law, the doctrine of one omnipotent God; he connected indissolubly with it, the audacious falsehood, that he was himself his prophet and apostle. Adopting from the new Revelation of Jesus, the faith and hope of immortal life, and of future retribution, he humbled it to the dust, by adapting all the rewards and sanctions of his religion to the gratification of the sexual passion. He poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind. THE ESSENCE OF HIS DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST: TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE.”
http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=7&article=1142
dumbledoresarmy says
Here’s the other passage from John Quincy Adams. Send it to Carson.
“The precept of the Koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God. The vanquished may purchase their lives, by the payment of tribute; the victorious may be appeased by a false and delusive promise of peace; and the faithful follower of the prophet, may submit to the imperious necessities of defeat: but the command to propagate the Moslem creed by the sword is always obligatory, when it can be made effective. The commands of the prophet may be performed alike, by fraud, or by force.”
Highlight that last sentence – “The commands of the prophet may be performed alike, by fraud, or by force.”
Margaret Woods says
“Carson is right, and deserves the gratitude of every free American for refusing to back down before the authoritarian, thuggish forces that work so actively to demonize and marginalize anyone and everyone who speaks honestly about Islam, Sharia, and the jihad threat.”
Finally a Man that has courage, ethics, morals. compassion, strength, knowledge, common sense and a true calling to bring America back to the principles that lead to it’s greatness.
KnowThyEnemy says
Told ya about Ben Carson 🙂 He is not the kind to buckle under pressure.
Contrast him with Ted Cruz who sees a problem only with “radical Islam”. …..And now he is trying to gain favor with the MSM-
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2015/09/21/ted-cruz-excluding-muslims-presidency-unconstitutional/72563352/
dlbrand says
So too, Walker–the kitchen was getting warm.
Alex says
I wish in my country we had only ONE politician that isn’t afraid of the rectal cancer that is political correctness, which is afflicting but every public figure where I live. Good on you, Americans. (Now, we could even forgive you for electing Obama — twice, for crying out loud).
wildjew says
Sean Hannity told his audience earlier a Muslim should be allowed to run for president. If he embraces a “radical” stream of Islam he will be rejected by the voters, that is unless he hides his ideology according to Sean.
Does Mr. Hannity mean the way Barack Hussein Obama hid his ideology from the public? Why is Mr. Hannity so confident in the wisdom and the judgment of the American people, given the election and the re-election of Barack Hussein Obama?
Sean Hannity is going to have Dr. Carson on later in the program, along with Zuhdi Jasser and another ‘moderate’ Muslim he likes to bring on to debate Pamela.
Ren says
Mister Carson has the right to his opinion even though the American Constitution does not mention muslims could not run for presidency. It’s freedom of speech, period.
Gene says
Yes, but the teachings of the religion are completely contrary to the Constitution and Art. I, section one of the Constitution requires the President to take an oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” How do you do this when your religion demands the extermination or enslavement of non-Muslims? How do you do it if you support Sharia? How do you do it when your religion requires you to make it supreme over the Constitution? You can’t and still remain a Muslim. The Presidential Oath disqualifies a devout Muslim.
Ren says
OK then a muslim when run for American presidency ought to renounce his oath to islam! That would make sense.
Wellington says
You make little sense, Ren. Might as well have a Neo-Nazi or a Marxist renounce their oath of allegiance to their respective totalitarian ideology of choice. Would you believe such a person? Yes, theoretically, someone who really was once a Muslim and is no more, and clearly and indubitably no more, might be a good candidate for President (someone like Ibn Warraq if he were a native-born American) but then such a candidate would have a death sentence hanging over his head for renouncing Islam, thus making his candidacy all the more dangerous and problematical.
And this doesn’t mean that a Muslim or a Neo-Nazi or a Marxist is disallowed under the Constitution from running for President but it does mean that only fools or worse will vote for such an individual. After all, the Constitution is not a suicide pact and the American voter need not, should not, vote for an adherent of a totalitarian ideology for President just to show how tolerant they are. In the final analysis, intolerance of intolerance is a key ally of liberty.
wildjew says
Wellington, this isn’t a trick question. What do you think of Dr. Zuhdi Jasser? He is very compelling spokesman for his side of the argument. There are activists (Pamela Geller among them I think) who do not believe or trust him.
Wellington says
Wildjew: I actually think Zuhdi Jasser is sincere (not 100% positive though pretty close to this), but the problem is, as with someone like Irshad Manji, he believes in a fantasy version of Islam that does not exist and for this reason, not because of any mendacity on his part, he is simply unacceptable for high office.
The only really sane thing for any Muslim to do is to leave Islam. It’s a totalitarian ideology, and there is no reforming a totalitarian ideology, and thinking that such can be done is a fool’s errand, and so who wants to support such a person? Daniel Pipes is another good example of this kind of person (though he of course is not a Muslim)——-someone who knowledgeably decries so much that is in Islam but still thinks there is a good Islam lurking out there somewhere. But there isn’t.
wildjew says
“The only really sane thing for any Muslim to do is to leave Islam. It’s a totalitarian ideology, and there is no reforming a totalitarian ideology…”
Well put!
gravenimage says
I agree with Wellington’s take on Zuhdi Jasser.
And even if he is sincere, how many Muslims are there like him? His name comes up so frequently because he is virtually the only one.
By the way, he was hounded out of his Mosque for his views, and has been unable to find another Mosque that will take him. Note: not another Mosque that interprets Islam in the same way he apparently does, but even one that will allow him to join.
Angemon says
That makes us three, GI – I believe that Mr. Jasser’s intentions may very well be sincere. What I doubt is the final outcome – there’s just too much in islam backing up the aspect of islam that contradict what he thinks and what he’s trying to achieve.
It’s good that he’s trying to do it, but I wouldn’t bank the safety of Western nations on it.
Kathy Brown, Esq. says
No Ren: It wouldn’t make sense. Because another key tenet of islam is ‘taqqiyah’.
That means that muslims must lie to infidels, to achieve muslim supremacy. That is unique among ‘religions’, which islam isn’t. It’s a world order ideology which calls for Sharia law to be triumphant over all, over ALL Stephanie.
Did you see the link? That’s what you get in your country when you pretend that all religions are equal. Islam is slime. Notice how muslims NEVER oppose the horrors of ISIS,etc.?
‘Nuff said.
voegelinian says
Sharia is not mere “nconsistent with” or “contrary to” the Constitution — it intends the Constitution’s destruction by violent jihad and by stealth jihad.
There are plenty of things and ideas out there that are “nconsistent with” or “contrary to” the Constitution without also intending its destruction. Sharia (metonymic for Islam of course) is not one of them.
gravenimage says
Good point, Voegelinian. For Dr. Carson to bring up Shari’ah at all, though–and to bring it up in the context of defending our own civilized values–is incredibly heartening.
EYESOPEN says
You are spot-on in your assessment in this post. Agree 100%.
Marisol Enriquqe says
BRAVO!! According to the Quran’s teachings, Islam (and its Sharia doctrine) is ABOVE the Law of the Land (Constitution), and if you are a Muslim, you are SUPERIOR to inferior infidels and we therefore owe Muslims a good living at taxpayers’ expense (call it jizya). That pretty much sums it up!!
Kepha says
It’s Article II, not I. Article I of the Const. is about the Congress.
Don Foss says
The question was whether Islam is capatible with out Constitution, not visa versa. Islam (and Sharia) is not.
Jeremiah says
As we were writing the Constitution, we were at war with Islam. Islam was practicing piracy and extortion then and they continue to do so now. It was not considered a religion then and we should not consider it as a religion now. It is the enemy.
voegelinian says
Good point — which highlights the crucial question whether, looking at it the other way around, is the Constitution compatible with Sharia? The Wellingtons of the Counter-Jihad would say “yes” — because the Constitution must tolerate even that which does not tolerate it. This is true of unpleasant, even pernicious ideas which would even include ideas intolerant of the principles of the Constitution itself. But it does not include ideas which translate into violently and mendaciously seditious action against us in order to destroy America. Muslims following Islam demonstrably have translated their ideas into violently and mendaciously seditious action against us in order to destroy America in the past (yea, back to the founding of the Republic, up to the attack worse than Pearl Harbor, 911, and dozens of planned attacks after that); are doing so now, and we have good reason to believe portend even more horrific attacks in the future.
Leftism may be a suicide pact; PC MC may be a suicide pact; but the Constitution is not a suicide pact. It fully allows for measures to be taken to protect America from those who are trying to destroy it. The only question is whether we recognize that Islam means this, and that Muslims by following Islam are guilty of what Islam means.
One can sense that among the PC MCs in the mainstream, there is a growing, albeit semi-conscious awareness that Islam means this. In desperation, they redouble their Denial not by defending Islam per se — but by invoking two incoherent principles:
1) “most Muslims are not that way” (which really means “most Muslims do not follow this Islam which we are slowly beginning to realize is a bad thing”)
2) “Islam is too diverse to pin down” (which is another way of absolving vast masses of Muslims — the putative “majority” (or even “vast majority”) of Muslims assumed to be harmless are accorded the “varieties” of Islam which are benign, while the putative Tiny Minority of Extremists (sometimes a wee squidge larger than “Tiny”) are apportioned out the part of Islam conceded to be malignant.
This is the incoherent gobbledy-gook by which the entire West is scrambling around trying to deal with this metastasizing problem. When Westerners do it, it reflects their confusion of mind and anxiety to avoid being “bigoted”. When Muslim “reformers” like Maajid Nawaz and Zudhi Jasser do it, it reflects a clever strategy to keep the Counter-Jihad distracted, by exploiting its weak spots of Softness (which lurk wherever and whenever a Counter-Jihadist retains degrees of PC MC in his heart & mind — and wherever and whenever his or her fellows in the movement don’t see fit to school him or her).
Angemon says
voegelinian posted:
“The Wellingtons of the Counter-Jihad”
Oh, boy, this starts well – not even two full sentences and you’re already trying to deride a staunch counter-jihad and JW veteran.
If you’re going to talk about Wellington you might want to let readers know he’s got a background in law – he’s more familiarized with the constitution than you’ll ever be with your background in… well… erm… judging by your track record, deriding and undermining freedom fighters and counter-jihadis.
“would say “yes” — because the Constitution must tolerate even that which does not tolerate it. This is true of unpleasant, even pernicious ideas which would even include ideas intolerant of the principles of the Constitution itself. But it does not include ideas which translate into violently and mendaciously seditious action against us in order to destroy America.”
So, voeg, where in the Constitution says “this applies to everything but ideas that translate into seditious actions meant to destroy America”? Oh, wait, nowhere. And who gets to decide which “ideas translate into seditious actions meant to destroy America” and which don’t? Again, we’ll never hear from you on that one.
What you fail to grasp – and it’s a very simple concept – is that in a free society people can hold ALL kinds or pernicious ideas as long as they abide by the law of the land. When/if they try to put those ideas into practice – breaking the law of the land in the process – they get punished.
The glaring flaw in your, *ahem*, “logic” is that if if you decide that anyone professing a certain idea is to be punished simply for thinking it, people aren’t going to stand in a line like sheep to a slaughter and say “yes, I believed that, now please parachute me over Sudan”. They’re going to DENY they ever held that idea in the first place. And then how are you going to prove they did? Maybe you can read brains and minds but us, poor, dirty, smelly peons (a.k.a., the regular people) can’t. Thus, it happens what has historically happened whenever totalitarian regimes enforce the kind of totalitarian thought police you’re advocating for – season’s open for payback time. You don’t like your neighbour? Just give the police an anonymous tip claiming he’s, in this particular case, a muslim. You don’t like the way your boss talked to you regarding your performance? Let the thought police know that he doesn’t drink and/or refuses to eat pork. Heck, he’s even got a beard – he might as well be called Aboubakar rather than Albert!
No, we’ve seen the end of the kind of policies you advocate for. If you want to live in a totalitarian hellhole move to whatever islamic or communist country strikes your fancy – don’t try to wrap a turd and claim it’s a cupcake because no one is eating it.
“and wherever and whenever his or her fellows in the movement don’t see fit to school him or her”
We get it – you’re all for thought police and you want to have an army of brownshirts more than eager to shout down other people at your request. Dissident views are not to be tolerated but squashed because whatever it is you say should be the law, and anyone disagreeing with you deserves whatever punishment they get.
Western Canadian says
As far as displays of pre-juvenile stupidity and spite go, congratulations!! You’ve topped even yourself! You really are pathetic, i have taught 7 years old who’s maturity leaves yours multiple parsecs in the dust. You whine and bitch about other people who you deride for ‘reading your mind’ (I’ve tried… very light reading), while very obviously thinking you have the ability to read other peoples minds, and eagerly put words into their mouths which have NOTHING in common with their years of posts.
Frankly, your pathetic abuse of the English language (one of my first two loves as a pre-schooler) is as pathetic as it is sickening. Your efforts to inflate the worth of your posts by inserting terminology that does not belong, is childlike, and again, pathetic.
As for your putting words into Wellington’s mouth, that obviously don’t belong there…..
For intelligence, knowledge and class, to be polite (and trust me, you don’t deserve it!) Wellington makes you look like the pathetic mock intellectual that you so obviously are.
You sicken and disgust me, and many, many others.
خَليفة says
A Muslim cannot fulfil the “oath of office” to be president. ( they might “say” it, but in their mind they would not mean it, and to them that would not be a lie ) A Muslim cannot have any allegence other than Islam. A Muslim can make any oath in vain to further the Islamic cause.
Kathy Brown, Esq. says
Thank you says. Bingo.
Marisol Enrique says
BRAVO!! Indeed, Muslims owe their allegiance to Islam and the majority will not switch faiths due to apostacy laws — death for abandoning Islam. Islam is Islam and ALL Muslims follow the SAME Islam–they may not all be violent, but they will NOT publicly denounce ISIS and the Caliphate. Muslims owe their allegiance to Islam, and Islam only!!
dlbrand says
خَليفة says” “A Muslim cannot have any allegence other than Islam. ”
Indeed.
Mr. Bernard Ominyi Ikong Moses says
Well say I so much agree and support what you say.
TheBuffster says
Ren, Dr. Carson did not say that the law can or should bar a Muslim from running for president. He said that he would not vote for a Muslim who ran for president, and that Islamic law is contrary to the protection of our Constitutional rights, which it is. He does not believe a Muslim president would be in the interest of preserving our liberties.
He did not say that the US Constitution forbids Muslims to be president. (But I agree with Gene that that Constitution, while it doesn’t say *explicitly* that a Muslim can’t be president, the very substance of the Constitution, its principles and protections of rights to freedom of speech, press, religion and more, and the oath required of presidents to uphold the Constitution, contradicts Sharia law, thus making it problematic for a Muslim to uphold his oath of office.)
Kenny says
Can you please clone this man and send the clone to be British Prime Minister?
Seriously though, what a breath of fresh air! Let’s hope he wins!
Raja says
That was bright !!!!
May I add?
Clowns can be replaced by clones if the public so desires !!!!!!!!!!!
Steve Kirby says
Dr. Carson is correct with his comment stating that Islam is incompatible with the US Constitution. At my site IslamSeries.org, I have a section of brochures about Islam, based on authoritative Islamic sources, and four in particular that prove Dr. Carson’s point:
Islam and American Values: Equality
Islam and American Values: Freedom of Religion and Speech
Islam and American Values: Slavery
Islam and American Values: Cruel and Unusual Punishment
Each brochure is in a PDF format and can be printed out/downloaded from the site.
Here is the direct link: http://islamseries.org/brochures/.
Don Foss says
Excellent site! Just put into my favs and will direct interested friends to it. Thanks!
Agent of Liberty says
Americans and the west need to be educated on Islam. Most Americans don’t know that they are considered inferior to muslims. And so glad Carson mentioned taquiyya. Muslim deception. I’m always telling people about the hijra, stealth population conquest. And it’s happening here starting with every muslim community.
Islam is unconstitutional and will be banned eventually. No mosques, completely illegal!
DiMu says
This what ALL the candidates ought to have been talking about from the beginning! Instead they fell into it because of Trump’s questioner. Better late than never. I hope Dr Carson really sticks CAIR in the eye and I hope Obama is sweating about the disintegration of his Islamic legacy!
wildjew says
HUCKABEE: ‘NO RELIGIOUS TEST’ TO HOLD OFFICE, SOMEONE SHOULDN’T BE DISQUALIFIED FOR FAITH
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/09/21/huckabee-no-religious-test-to-hold-office-someone-shouldnt-be-disqualified-for-faith/
Woops.
wildjew says
What happened to the Mike Huckabee who defends Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis, a woman who much of the media (including Fox commentators) say is defying the “rule of law?”
Alarmed Pig Farmer says
Mike Huckabee is a vapid, feckless man. A one trick pony who had many ethical troubles as govenor of Arkansas involving $. He is as unsurprising as he is unconvincing. He should go away, but like a bad penny he won’t.
wildjew says
I thought better of him than this.
underbed cat says
That is a problem, Huckabee, freedom to practice one’s religion unless it wants to take over a nation of infiedels..that’s us. The population growth of moslems 4/1 it won’t be long, massive migration, multiple births , and the real relgion of peace is gone to history just as planned but don’t say anything that would be a crime.
wildjew says
I think Carson, Jasser and another ‘moderate’ Muslim will be on the Sean Hannity radio program sometime after the 5:00 PM news break. You can probably listen to him on the Internet if he isn’t syndicated in your area.
I wonder why Sean Hannity did not invite CAIR spokesman Nihad Awad to debate Dr. Carson.
Jack Diamond says
Hannity will tell us again how Islam has been hijacked by Radical Islamic Extremists and bring on some nice Muslims to reinforce that certain interpretations of jihad and certain interpretations of sharia are bad bad bad and those holding such views should not be President, unlike the vast majority of nice Muslims who, thankfully, have nothing to do with Radical Islamic Extremism and who can happily be President.
Dr. Carson will hopefully continue to tell the truth and let facts be submitted to a candid world.
Kathy Brown, Esq. says
I’m sure he did invite him. CAIR won’t come on Fox, ever since Megyn cleaned Hooper’s clock over the yanking of Hirsi Ali’s ‘revoked’ honorary doctorate.
Ghouse doesn’t even come on that much anymore which is a great relief. He’s a grinning taqqiyah muslim liar. But of course, I’m redundant.
somehistory says
Someone with Dr. Carson’s email address or fax number, should send him the url for JW so he can read up on some of the comments of support for his words about islam and its lying ways.
He could be encouraged to read Mr. Spencer’s books and get in touch via email to talk. He should also be encouraged to talk to Andrew McCarthy who prosecuted in Federal Court, the blind sheik and has had much to say about moslem infiltrators in the U.S. government. And esp his information he could share about the infamous cair.
jihad3tracker says
@somehistory —- I did that soon after Carson dropped his nuclear bomb into the public forum (on Meet the Press) and in several JW comments I have strongly urged ALL OF US TO SEND PRAISE AND SUPPORT TO HIM.
So, here we go again: find his campaign website’s page that has a box for your remarks. IT DOES NOT LIMIT THE SIZE OF WHAT CAN BE WRITTEN, BUT BE ON POINT, CONCISE, AND CLEAR. MENTION ROBERT’S CREDENTIALS AS AN EXPERT on Islam — in the top black bar (“About Robert Spencer”).
ALSO, EXTREMELY IMPORTANT: CAIR HAS INVITED CARSON TO “MEET” WITH THEIR TAQIYYA SLINGERS. * * * * * * * SO THAT HE IS NOT SHREDDED BY THEIR LIES AND CHERRY-PICKING EARLY PEACEFUL VERSES, BEG HIM TO CONTACT ROBERT FIRST [ director (@) jihadwatch dot org). Tell him how certain you are that Robert will confer with him privately if Carson and staff ask for that confidentiality.
TIME IS SHORT — CARSON IS IN THE MIDDLE OF A HUGE TSUNAMI. AND HE IS DOING IT FOR AMERICA AND ALL OF US. Write that message of support and advice to get in touch with Robert as soon as you can.
Wellington says
Thanks for all your efforts in this matter, jihad3tracker. You’ve been on it from the outset and so kudos to you for this.
I can only hope that Dr. Carson does not back down. Though I have many reservations about Trump I’ll give him this: He never grovels. We need a President who never grovels.
On a related note, I see where Cruz has come out against Carson and this is a major disappointment no doubt. Actually, what I really want in a President is someone who will give a new Evil Empire speech. After all, whether the totalitarian ideology is Communism, Nazism, Islam, et al., they are all deserving of being called malevolent.
Hope you and yours are doing well. Always good to read your posts here at JW. Take care, jihad3tracker.
jihad3tracker says
Hello again Wellington ! ! ! Yes, from my ancient perspective (67 years on this wacky planet) the U.S. is now — courtesy of Carson’s unprecedented honesty and courage — at a breakthrough point for overcoming our national delusions about the “religion of peace”.
FOR THOSE OF US WHO CONTACT HIS CAMPAIGN AND LEAVE REMARKS: Consider mentioning that September 11th 2001 was astonishingly parallel to December 7th 1941, because on both days America suddenly woke up to discover that a supremacist totalitarian cult (of the Emperor, of the Prophet) was determined to conquer the United States.
Let me also emphasize another remarkable expert’s contribution to reality: David Wood has made a 25 minute meticulously cited (Qur’an, Hadith, Sira) video, “Three Stages of Jihad”. It can be found at his website, www dot answeringmuslims dot com, by using the search box. TELL CARSON TO WATCH THAT WHEN HE IS UNDISTRACTED, TAKE NOTES, AND THEN RUN THEM BY ROBERT FOR ADDITIONAL CONTEXT.
somehistory says
J3T,
I saw your other post after I had written what I had written. Thank you for letting me know personally what you posted.
I also think Dr. Carson would benefit from speaking with Mr. Andrew McCarthy, esp regarding cair…what it is, where it got its start and what it plans to do. He has written about it and was a Federal Prosecutor, so he really knows the legal aspects as well as having dealt with these guys, much like Mr. Spencer has. cair, being part of the moslem brotherhood, intends to do away with the Constitution and replace it with their ungodly, unholy, evil code of barbaric behavior.
Thanks again. It’s so very important to make everyone we can aware of the evil inherent in islam and what lengths cair and others will go to see that all of us submit to it.
jihad3tracker says
@somehistory (again) —- I am dedicating as much time as I possibly can this week to staying on developments. We are in just the first episode of one Hell of a ride.
CAIR’s Nihad Awad is so pissed off that any of his fellow frat boys are likely to get bitch-slapped on a frequent basis. AND ISN’T THAT TYPICAL OF COWARDS WHEN THEY FEEL A MAUVE SNIT DEVELOPING.
Maybe if Reza Poofy-poof Aslan ( “I always carry a mirror” ) did some fabulous disco moves on Ibe Hooper’s office desk, they’d all calm down.
Kathy Brown, Esq. says
You only need to post it on the Dr’s Facebook page. His staff reads and pays attention to that.
Carson’s not unreachable like the politicians running. But we can be forgiven for fearing he is/they are. Please: Let us all pray for these candidates who’ll speak our v. Satan, i.e., islam. They need all the strength that only God can give!
Raja says
Amen !!!
BlueRaven says
Dr. Carson – Number One for Presidency. Go Ben.
Arthur says
Finally, a candidate worth voting for. It looks like I may have to sign up to vote after all!
Alarmed Pig Farmer says
I see the news entertainers on TV, including over on the Fox RINO Channel, are all denouncing Dr Ben as unqualified for prez cuz of his religious test. But Islam is not a religion, per se, it is also a government and a military. Just look at Persia, Pak, Afghan, Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Libya, Algeria, Chechnya and all the rest.
Yet nobody makes this distinction. It’s equivalency, as if Islam is the same as Buddhism, Sikhism, Judeo-Christianity, Hinduism and the rest. It is not. So the argument is lost on its face at the starting gate, by way of Islam’s incorrect reserve status of being a religion.
wildjew says
Fox News has been so disappointing during this campaign. Because of it, I am considering cutting off the television portion of my cable.
duh_swami says
I already cut off pompous Bill and I’m almost ready to dump Megyn if I catch her lung again…
Kathy Brown, Esq. says
I think a lot of us here are right with you! I surely am.
I’m sure Fox’s ratings are dropping; it remains to be seen what Ailes will do. He’s been successful because he knows his audience. Hopefully he still does. But he seems enamored of Megyn which has so far made him blind to her overreaching.
Alarmed Pig Farmer says
I have a buddy who unplugged cable and has gone with one of those chips where he can get movies, documentaries, the works via Internet download from sources like NetFlix and several others. He loves it. To watch the Twins and Vikings, he’s got an HDTV antenna. Did you know that HD over the airwaves is even better than on a cable connection? I’ve seen it at his house, it’s markedly better.
nacazo says
Jamie Glazov said: “You don’t win the culture war by disconnecting from cable”. Instead you have to remain engaged, send letters, emails, respond to falsehoods with the plain truth, tell your friends and family members what they need to know even if they don’t want to hear it, not letting any comments that advance the forces of evil go uncontested, etc, etc, etc
gravenimage says
Agreed, nacazo.
Kaffir007 says
The ONLY requirement for president is to be a natural born American with at least 14 years residency and be at least 35 years old. A person in a comma is “qualified” to be president.
Electing a president that is competent is a separate issue – but not knowing all the classified details of the presidents job means that you can NEVER be sure that ANYONE is truly capable of doing a good job, not even on the endorsement or statements of a past president, since we CANNOT know if they are competent to make such a claim!
Our founding fathers had a lot of insight and our system works. Sometimes we go thru troubled times, but thru new elections we can make corrections and fix things. This is why being president has so few constitutional requirements: so that ANYONE can be elected – this is why America is the greatest country on Earth.
Arthur says
…and you might even be elected if you weren’t a natural born American!
gravenimage says
Electing someone bent on replacing our Constitution with Shari’ah law might be something we couldn’t come back from.
Would you be as sanguine about electing a Nazi or hard-core Communist?
gravenimage says
Carson won’t back down: “I do not believe Sharia is consistent with the Constitution of this country”
……………………….
Bravo indeed!
parousia says
That’s my president for this season. Nothing else matters for now. Only a man who is alive thinks of food or shelter or fulfilment or any kind of dream, American or not.
underbed cat says
I agree “Bravo”, Carson has spoken very directly to the problem. I beleive that Trump also knows and really opened up the problem and Carson unlocked the door to truth.
I was also hoping to see Govenor Walker address these issues, but he has more accountalbilty to his donors…I was concerned that Governor Walker lost support, but thought it would come back but I needed to hear that sharia law does not support our constitution. I support Trump and Carson for telling what hides behind Islamic religion dececption.
abad says
Ben Carson has something called Integrity.
Having Integrity is not the easiest thing but it does mean in standing up for what you believe is right and not backing down.
His theme song for the 2016 presidential campaign should be Tom Petty’s “I Won’t Back Down.”
That is, if Donald Trump is not already using that song.
Jeremiah says
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.
rob774 says
In the context of the war it is no different than a member of Sinn Fein running to be PM of Great Britain in the eighties. We would no more accept Jerry Adams as our leader than General Galtieri.
Islam is at war with us and claiming that the adherents of that faith are neutral is no different to claiming that a man from Schweinfurt in 1942 was neutral and then determining that we shouldn’t wage war on Germany. National politics has never been about individuals.
Alarmed Pig Farmer says
That’s true. And I’m a pure bred Irish American. It was a fine day when John Major put an end to the troubles.
rob774 says
I’d enjoy it more if the Left hadn’t chosen Corbyn to lead them. But I stand by my assertion. Corbyn will never lead Britain.
Katowice says
Even if Corbyn loses, his goals will still be advanced by the media and academia. We’ve seen this kind of thing over and over. Reality and popular opinion be damned. Every debate will be reframed, and every core concept of western thought will be bastardized or demonized. Pardon the amateur forecasting, but I think a Labour defeat will be painted as “the shame of the racist, intolerant Britons”. The Tories will be browbeaten into going even further left, and will be under no pressure to pay attention to the Euroskeptic elements.
Kepha says
Rob, Since you’re apparently a Brit, this Yank feels that then-President Clinton covered my country with shame when he invited that bloody-minded scumbag Gerry Adams to the White House. Please accept my apologies.
Oceanside says
The Qur’an is not consistent. The Hadith are not consistent. The Sira are not consistent.
rob774 says
Anybody who would care to spend five minutes thinking about Islam couldn’t fail to conclude that it is a load of shit.
Edward says
Hey, that’s a reasonable thought…..if we affirm constantly that Islam is coming to an end of POS it will manifest so!
Our affirmed thoughts can very powerful, especially if they are righteous ones!
Alarmed Pig Farmer says
In the Holy Ko-Ran, the Hah-Deaths and the Sunnah Islam is very consistent about one thing: the Cause. The Cause is the destruction or subjugation of everything that it not Islamic, everything that it Infidel. Islam at its core is a corrective belief system, which makes it predatory.
Raja says
Alarmed Pig Farmer,
Spot on !!!!! Your comment says it ALL !!!!!!!!!!!
gravenimage says
While these texts are irrational and have some internal contradictions, they are *very* consistent in crushing freedom and oppressing and murdering unbelievers.
Katowice says
Great news. Maybe we finally have our own Wilders. If he keeps up the principled stance, he’s got my vote.
mortimer says
Finally! A politician who knows the basics of POLITICAL ISLAM.
Shi’ites called ‘taqiyya’, but Sunnis call it ‘mudra’at’. It is the same doctrine of sacralized prevarication.
There are some six DIFFERENT ways Muslims deceive with the blessing of the mullahs:
There are six different ways of deception that are permissible in Islam:
Taqiyya (Shia) or Muda’rat (Sunni): tactical deceit for the purposes of spreading Islam.
•Kitman: deceit by omission.
•Tawriya: deceit by ambiguity.
•Taysir: deceit through facilitation (not having to observe all the tenets of Sharia).
•Darura: deceit through necessity (to engage in something “Haram” or forbidden).
•Muruna: the temporary suspension of Sharia in order that Muslim immigrants appear “moderate.” So through the principle of Hijra (Muslim Immigration), the early Muslims are a “red herring” or a Trojan Horse. The Kafir or Kuffar community gets the false sense that the early immigrants are not a threat, at least until the Muslim community has gained strength.
Matthieu Baudin says
Thanks Mortimer; a brief yet detailed expose.
Raja says
Moritimer,
Hmmm so Islam is all about lies and deception !!!! Who else but Satan is manifested in this.
Satan and this evil religion belong to the hell hole and as such should be sent packing…. period.
Thanks for educating me, hopefully lots of people…
May I add one more thing?
Jesus said to the religious leaders of his time:
15 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you travel around on sea and land to make one proselyte; and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a SON OF HELL as yourselves. Matthew 2315
If Jesus could say such things to the religious elite of a God given system then how much more scorn should there be for the abominable hate mongering religion wherein 1.6 billion followers can easily identify themselves with Islamic state more than any Jizya paying / dollar doling West !!!!!
gravenimage says
Thanks for that list, Mortimer.
I would also add the overarching Muda’rat, with is the Sunni Taqiyya, and concerns any Muslim deceit that furthers the cause of islam.
Ren says
Hasn’t Obama said that the future does not belong to those who slander the prophet of islam? Obama is denying freedom of speech and yet he is the president of the US. American people elected him, did they not?
somehistory says
There was fraud in the election. The first time, the media made people feel like if they didn’t vote for him, it was because they were racists. And his background was totally covered up.
In the second time around, there were more votes for him than there were people registered to vote in several states, and that was besides the fact that some in those states had voted for the other man.
Fraud. Simple as that.
Alarmed Pig Farmer says
One thing that got purposefully overlooked from the start was foreign money that poured into then Sen Barack Hussein’s campaign coffers in 2007 & 2008. This was tens of millions in small donations via credit card and Pay Pal payments. In a nation of laws, Hussein’s campagin committee woulda called the FEC and FBI and frozen the cash. But they didn’t. They rode this illegal pony a second time in 2011 & 2012. The law doesn’t matter anymore. Then FEC official Lois Lerner for some reason chose not to enforce the law, a routine tactic now that we live in a dictatorship. It wasn’t so much about the cash itself, it was about the globalism, a key tenet of globo-socialism, screw the law.
gravenimage says
There were also all too many clueless people who swallowed the “hope and change” rhetoric–this includes a lot of my neighbors here in the San Francisco Bay Area.
For most of them, Islam is barely on their radar at all.
vlparker says
I am so glad Ben Carson said this and hope that it forces all presidential candidates to weigh in on this issue. I see Lindsey RINO dhimmi Graham already condemned Carson. Let’s see where the rest of them stand.
Bezelel says
Ben is doing a good job of getting sharia in the spot light. Is conflict of interest with the oath of office mean anything?
Edward says
Thanks mortimer for your Taqiyya (Shia) or Muda’rat (Sunni) compiled presentation of the religious dissimulation or of legal dispensation list. I always thought it as a novel scheme that the Muslim world were using as a concocted escape parachute.
Going through your list I see of a possible deceptive application that might present a problematic legalize factor that may allow a moderate Muslim to run for the US Presidency. Of which I wish that Dr. Carson would be made well aware of!
That would be the use of “Muruna”: the temporary suspension of Sharia in order that Muslim immigrants appear “moderate.”
In tandem with the use of the deceptive application for the dissimulation of a religion by utilizing the use of the Taqiyah/Muda’rat principle to assure the public of a temporary stealthy incognito religious allegiance by which they may select another then the Islam religion of the running candidates. Thus, making it possible for them to qualify in accordance to all of the US Constitutional laws.
I remember when the Taqiyah principle was first mentioned after 911, but very little was considered of its importance then. I remember writing about this on the WND articles comments section….where I received a reply from a commenter calling this deceptive application as the “taco thing” :-)
Matthieu Baudin says
“… Part of the problem today is that we’re so busy trying to be politically correct, that we lose all perspective…”
The problem is really that we loose sight of our most important values because Political Correctness demands that we treat all human beliefs as just variations in perspective amongst diverse peoples. A PC outlook is radically inclusive to the extent that the right to judge and discriminate between competing values is denied. As an enemy of plain speech Political Correctness acts as a type of intellectual straight jacket which leads us into a totalitarian attitude of acceptance.
Europe is in dire need of leaders and spokesmen like Ben Carson to cut through the wishful thinking and hysteria that is today destroying PC Nation States deluged by human wave formations.
dumbledoresarmy says
Support him. All American jihadwatchers here present *must* support him. Send him brief, clear messages of support. Be very polite. Try to be cool and calm and sober – remember Mr Spencer’s “just the facts, ma’am” style.
If Carson and/ or if his staffers – receive a tsunami of intelligent appreciation and support…with interesting extra nuggets of information – they are more likely to stand their ground, for they will realise that there are VOTES to be had, if one resists Muslim threats.
Jim Fuscaldo says
Ben Carson’s reasoning behind his recent comment needs to be fully explained. A Muslim president cannot serve two masters. Why? The term Islam means “submit”. The concept of free will, free choice and governance by man via elected representatives and man made law is antithetical to Islam.
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.
The idea of a nation state that enforces the separation of secular and civil matters from religion contradicts the ideology of Islam. A separation of religion from secular and civil matters is repugnant to Islam. The constitutions of Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Egypt, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Morocco, Pakistan, Syria, Tunisia, Yemen and other predominantly Arab countries in the Middle East mandate one or more of the following Islamic principles:
Islam is the state religion,
Sharia Law will be the law of the country, and
No law shall be contrary to the beliefs, provisions and tenets of Islam.
The idea of free elections that establishes a parliamentary form of government does not ‘ipso facto’ create a western style democracy, nor does it ensure the existence of a constitutional based civil government. The establishment of functional self-sustaining western style democracies in Afghanistan, Egypt, Iraq, Libya or elsewhere in the Middle East is not probable. We have seen the consequences of attempts at western style democratization in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Yemen. More to follow? Attempts to do so will only facilitate a perpetual state of war? Is this the basis for a New World Order? In 1963 the “Report from Iron Mountain” is commissioned and published in 1966. It is a structural blueprint established by leading intellectuals on the methods to establish a New World Order based on a perpetual state of war and chaos. But, I digress.
Consequently, dictators, military juntas or monarchs have run the majority of Islamic countries. The secular or military dictators with control of the army suspend or ignore Islamic constitutional provisions that call for an Islamic controlled government (exceptions Iran, Saudi Arabia and the emerging Islamic Caliphate). The non Islamic governments may limit the application of Islamic Shari’ah Law to domestic (family and marital) relations and financial matters as an appeasement to the Islamists. The uninformed, namely the media, will call Ben Carson Islamaphobic. Why? The majority of the media (yes that includes Fox) are incapable of rational thought and deductive reasoning. They don’t know enough to know what they don’t know.
Plutarchus7 says
THOSE WHO THINK BEN CARSON IS AN “IDIOT”
on the subject of Islam (which he’s not) should analyze Obama’s muddle headed ideas on who is and is not a true Moslem. On the one hand, Obama says that the radical. murderous, Sunni regime that governs the Islamic State (ISIS) are false Moslems perverting the true teachings of Islam and Prophet Mohammed. On the other hand, Obama refers to radical Shiite Iran as “The Islamic Republic…” as if the radical, murdering (“death to America”) mullahs ruling that nation are true, authentic (“Religion of Peace”) Moslems abiding by the pure, authentic, unvarnished teachings of the Koran.
Adding to this confusion is the traditional Moslem burial Obama ordered for the murdering, “unIslamic” Sunni radical Osama bin Laden-who “unIslamically” ordered the killing of 3000 innocent Americans 14 years ago.
But it gets worse for the president. According to an online survey run by al Jezeera 81% of Moslems support the “perverse” Islamic State (ISIS), and believe that its radical, murdering, Sunni regime is truly, genuinely, authentically practicing the “Religion of Peace.” Who is right about ISIS? Obama? Or the staggering 81% of Moslems in the survey?
http://www.apollospeaks.com
Upananda Brahmachari says
Dr Ben Carson spoke the truth for millions. Why should a Muslim hold a prime post in a Non Muslim Country? [Read here: http://wp.me/pCXJT-56s ]
U.S. shouldn’t elect a Muslim president, says Ben Carson, a republican for Prez race. Though disapproved by the US Muslims, millions greet his vision.
“We should mention only, nothing is unchangeable before crisis of civilization. If the Islamists get a chance to take a shield of Holy constitution of US to harm the Nation, it should be amended properly.”
Read this article at http://wp.me/pCXJT-56s .
sidney penny says
“Part of the problem today is that we’re so busy trying to be politically correct, that we lose all perspective.””
Robert ,why did you not highlight this?
sidney penny says
Apart from that, your introduction, as usual was short,sharp and super.
Keep up your highlights though.(time permitting)
underbed cat says
..I just listened to CNN interview Carson, of course they read the constitution freedom to practice any religion to Carson and use it as a weapon to destroy his correct comment Islam and sharia are not consistent with the Constitution..all true, problem he is sounded as if he is backing away from his ideas.
I wish Carson would explain that muslims are commanded to only follow sharia law, not the constitution which they only hall out when they try to protect facts from coming out to the public. Very sad right now.
dlbrand says
Yup.
Thus, I can all but guarantee you, the net result from Islam forced to the center stage at this “moment” in this campaign will be this: Islam, to take the words of Carly–and others who echoed the same–as is so with any faith, is a good thing. Makes one better.
Islam, thus, we must admit (per the consensus of our Candidates for the Presidency of the U.S. of A), is just like any other religion and, therefore, it is high-time we accept that. Move forward with our Conservative Muslims in making our country great. Deal with real issues—and Islam practiced amongst us is a non-issues. In fact, so the Candidates assert, Islam is a positive, an asset to our great nation.
So move on, get past it–the “misconception” that Islam is other than honorable, venerable, complimentary and beneficial to our nation and world. Let’s build up and not tear down our great nation.
All the while, making it of course more Muslim friendly—that is the benefit we reap from the myth of the “Moderate” adherent to Islamic doctrine.
Thus, it will be they— “the Moderate Conservative American Muslims” – and those who support the illusion, who will be the ones to bring us our first openly practicing Muslim President; so too, our next Nationally honored Muslim holiday. They will see to it, for every church or synagogue standing, we have a mosque to match it, at least for a while.
And for every Christian School or Jewish Day School, a madrassa to counterbalance them, as stated above, at least for a while…
Jeremiah says
Islam is sharia and sharia is incompatible with our Constitution because it seeks to destroy the Constitution. Sharia forces a Muslim President to change the Constitution from within rather than by means of referendum. Islam permits deception. Therefore a Muslim President does not have to disclose his subversive intentions during an election campaign. He could say that he is qualified to be President when he is not. He could say he was born in America when he is not. He could say he was a Christian when he is not. He could say he was defending America when he is, in fact, a traitor. Islam is not a religion in the sense that it looks for moral values. It is bankrupt of moral values. It does not advocate love. It advocates hate. Therefore it is not a religion. It is the antithesis of a religion and it is the antithesis of the Constitution. In modern terms, it is the ultimate virus to a Nation. Watch what is happening all over the world. Most Nations are now infected. Rape is soaring as the crime of choice because the Koran says you may rape infidels. Sharia says that an infidel’s testimony against a Muslim is not permitted.
Roy c says
It is indeed sad and of course he’ll have to cave – even on Fox nobody is going to bat for him. Conservatives, with just a few exceptions are terrified of offending the pc thought police. The highly selective outrage coming from the left never fails to amaze. Remember when uncle Joe during the campaign accused republicans of wanting to put African Americans back in chains. No vice president in history has ever uttered anything so hateful. What was the reaction in our media? Oh that Joe, isn’t he a character! It never ends.
Chris Norman says
Even if a Muslim were to swear that he hold the U.S. Constitution above Sharia law, could one really believe that statement. First of all, if it were true the person is an apostate, which means a death sentence under Sharia law. The principle of taqqiya permits a Muslim to lie or dissemble in the cause of Allah. Becoming President of the U.S would be the greatest victory for Islam in the history of Islam.
Dr. Divinity says
Even if he swore….He’s a Muslim…He would be lying…But it’s coming…You can see it.Because we have too many closed mouth politicians and others who would be heard…If only they would speak up….How sad for America.
dlbrand says
“…. it’s coming…You can see it.Because we have too many closed mouth politicians ….”
And other fools among them who speak out, but do so, seemingly, with zero regard for the easily provable doctrine of “the Prophet of Islam.” Jeb, Carly, Graham, to name a few.
dlbrand says
If a Muslim regarded the U.S. Constitution above Sharia law, unless that Constitution conformed categorically with Islam’s “sacred texts,” that “Muslim” would be no Muslim but rather an apostate of the Islamic faith.
quotha raven says
To DL – Succinctly stated; I don’t think anyone could have boiled down the truth more pithily! It is just that way! Well done.
Cheers!
quotha r
dlbrand says
Thank you, my Friend.
Tom says
As a minister of a church, I was asked to present a week-long study of Islam. This required much study, a purchase of a Koran, and diligent reading. As a result, there is no doubt that there is unresolvable conflict between American values and Islam. The Koran itself defines Islamic faith and requires violence or death to infidels. A Muslim would not agree for an Orthodox Jew to be president, so why be hypocritical about a Muslim candidate. Sharia Law is not compatible with American jurisprudence. Dr. Ben Carson is absolutely correct and naysayers should do their homework. The history of Islam is consistent with modern practices of Islam. It is anti-liberty and anti-freedom.
Shane says
This was a gotcha question from the corrupt liberal MSM to damage Carson and the GOP. Of course, Carson is right that barbaric sharia law is incompatible with our constitution due to its cruelty and misogyny. I also agree that I don’t want a Muslim president. I am a Christian, I don’t vote for Muslims.
Truth Seeker says
Savagery is one of the Pillars of Islam. World had advanced a lot from Savagery. But Jihadi Terrorists fight to bring it back. For them that will bring them Visa to Jannah (Islam’s Paradise).
Jay Boo says
It is the rotten core of Islam exposed.
Islam is essentially savagery and Islam’s so-called Paradise was a wet dream of Muhammad made to entice Muslims to overlook Islam’s shallow carnality.
RT says
“Why you fool, it’s the educated reader who CAN be gulled. All our difficulty comes with the others. When did you meet a workman who believes the papers? He takes it for granted that they’re all propaganda and skips the leading articles. He buys his paper for the football results and the little paragraphs about girls falling out of windows and corpses found in Mayfair flats. He is our problem. We have to recondition him. But the educated public, the people who read the high-brow weeklies, don’t need reconditioning. They’re all right already. They’ll believe anything.”
― C.S. Lewis, That Hideous Strength
“Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone.”
― John Quincy Adams
“Courage and perseverance have a magical talisman, before which difficulties disappear and obstacles vanish into air.” – John Quincy Adams
The precept of the koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God. The vanquished may purchase their lives, by the payment of tribute; the victorious may be appeased by a false and delusive promise of peace; and the faithful follower of the prophet, may submit to the imperious necessities of defeat: but the command to propagate the Moslem creed by the sword is always obligatory, when it can be made effective. The commands of the prophet may be performed alike, by fraud, or by force (Blunt, 29:274)…..John Quincy Adams
http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=7&article=1142
Arthur says
Thanks for those encouraging quotes.
epistemology says
This man has got balls, he’s a true American, somebody who stands for Western values. Sharia is the most barbaric law the world has ever seen. Bravo and cheers to Carson. Hope he makes it
Suzanne says
In a recent poll of 600 Muslims living in the USA over 50% stated that they believed Muslims in the USA should be allowed to follow Sharia rather than Constitutional law. It is clearly stated in the Qu”ran that it is no sin for a Muslim to lie to the Infidel (any non-muslim) in order to further the aims of Islam.
This is not compatible with the Constitution but it also allows one who runs for office to lie when vetting is required.
bullfrogger says
Carson is not a reckless man . He and his people are just the first to openly speak the truth and it is because they sense the worm is turning . When the rest of the lemmings see the numbers support him , they will all do what lemmings do . So thanks Ben for doing a little pulling but don’t let us ever forget it’s only because so many are pushing .
Cindy says
I agree with Ben Carson. He is right, sharia and our constitution do not go together. And they never will. These people need to go back to the middle East if they want to follow sharia. Plain and simple. No one said they can’t practice it just not here in the United States.
Chrisrm says
New article by Andrew McCarthy in National Review. Well done except for thinking a Muslim can accept the religious part of Sharia, exclude the rest and still be a Muslim.
Ben Carson and Islam
Hard on the manufactured controversy over what Donald Trump did not say about President Obama and Islam, we now have a controversy over what Ben Carson clearly did say about Islam – namely, that he does not believe it is consistent with the U.S. Constitution and that he “would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation.”
These assertions would not be nearly as hotly debated if the political class and the media had not sought for decades to suppress all discussion of Islam – other than mindless blather about its being a “religion of peace.” If we had been having the adult discussion we should have been having, it would be well understood by now that Islam is not merely a religion but a comprehensive societal framework with its own legal system.
Why is that important to grasp? Because in the West, we recognize a division between the spiritual realm and political life – a division reflected in our Constitution. Mainstream Islam recognizes no such separation. While Islam unquestionably has tenets that we would recognize as religious in nature (e.g., the oneness of Allah), it is also teeming with rules that control law, governance, the economy, military affairs, social life, hygiene – virtually everything we see as the realm of politics and self-determination.
Islam’s sharia is a code premised on the principles that Allah has prescribed the ideal way for human life to be lived; that people are required to submit to that prescription; and that Islamic governments exist to enforce that requirement. Our Constitution, to the contrary, is premised on the principles that we are free to choose how we will live; the laws we make are not required to comply with the principles of any religion; and that government is our servant, not our master.
The Constitution has nothing to say about Islam’s purely religious tenets. It could not be more obvious, though, that mainstream Islamic ideology and the Islamic law that reflects it are not consistent with the Constitution. As I have repeatedly catalogued, citing an authoritative sharia manual endorsed by, among other prominent Muslims, the scholars at al-Azhar University (the center of Islamic scholarship for over a century), Islamic law rejects the premise that people are free to govern themselves as they choose, rejects freedom of conscience, rejects freedom of speech, rejects equality between Muslims and non-Muslims, rejects equality between men and women, justifies wars of aggression against non-Muslims, and rejects our safeguards of liberty and privacy – prescribing draconian penalties, often including death, for apostasy, homosexuality, sex outside of marriage, and other personal choices.
When we discuss “Islam,” it should be assumed that we are talking about both a religion and a political-social ideology. Clearly, one can accept the religious tenets and not the ideology. But if someone asks a public figure about “Islam,” the term should be understood as conveying a belief system that is not merely, or even primarily, religious. And if that is not what the questioner intends, then the burden should be on the questioner to clarify.
When Dr. Carson said Islam is inconsistent with the Constitution, he meant that Islamic ideology is inconsistent with the Constitution. That is so patently true that a question about whether this is the case should be considered frivolous. Carson was not saying that being a Muslim who accepts the purely religious tenets of Islam is inconsistent with fidelity to the Constitution. In fact, when asked if he would consider voting for a Muslim for Congress, he replied that this would “depend on who that Muslim is and what their policies are.”
That makes perfect sense – a pro-Constitution Muslim who accepts Islam’s religious tenets but rejects the imposition of sharia on society would be fine; an adherent of Islamic ideology who seeks to impose sharia on society (i.e., an Islamist or Islamic supremacist) would not. This, undoubtedly, is why Carson included Muslims within the broad group of people he could support (persons of “any faith”) provided that their statements and actions suggest “things that will elevate this nation and make it possible for everybody to succeed, and bring peace and harmony.”
What Carson said should not be controversial. That it is says more about the state of our politics than it does about Carson.
quotha raven says
To Chrisrm – Absolutely brill. Thank you for taking the time to compose and offer this clear, articulate and enlightening comment. Every now and then I try to post here about the importance of seeing Islam as a theocracy, not a religion, as westerners with their heads in the sand tend to do. There is a profound and critically important difference between a theocracy and a religion, and this theocracy gives rise to the creeping expansion of theocratic little Islamic Nations throughout the West, attesting to the predatory avidity with which Islam will pursue its Global Caliphate. Not what I’d call on any level compatible with our Constitution. I’ve never been able to present the case as compellingly clear as you’ve just done. Thanks again.
Of course, when one considers Islam in the context of taqiyya, things become a little denser, harder to evaluate. I realize that is another entire discussion, but taqiyya in its various cloaks affects the basic credibility of anyone who calls himself a muslim. Cheers! Quotha R
kay says
Thanks. The article is well written. It can be sharpened some.
First, slavery/ sexual slavery are inalterable elements of Sharia and jihad.
Second, a Sharia based legal system would put all the regular lawyers out of work and eliminate jury trials in favor of Sharia courts only.
Third, it becomes necessary under Sharia to kill all the committed atheists and pagans. That means
(3a) indigenous traditionalists like the Iroquois, Hopi, Navaho, Lakota and so forth must be killed.
(3b) All the Hindus and Buddhists and Sikhs and Taoists must be killed.
(3c) All magical types must be killed, incl. Western “neopagan” types, Wiccans, shamans and voodoo practitioners.
Technically, I think the Islamic Sharia requires that I be killed FOUR times for the above reasons. As far as pagan girls, like female Zen teachers or female shamans, I expect the Sharia thing to do is to first rape them a lot, and THEN murder them. In the name of God the “Beneficent and Merciful”.
——————-
http://chersonandmolschky.com/2015/01/26/price-sikh-women-paid-accepting-islam/
Sikh Women Martyrs of Punjab (1752)
“On March 6, 1752 A.D., Muin-ul-Malk, Governor of Lahore (now Pakistan), also known as Mir Mannu, ordered the extermination of Sikhs in his area and had the men-folk beheaded publicly, with the younger unmarried girls sold or distributed among the jihadis. The women and children…were taken captives and kept hungry in the Lahore jail. Starving women were… given the option of conversion to Islam or to suffer the consequences.
“They unanimously chose to remain steadfast to their faith in the face of certain death, upon which the Muslim guards gruesomely massacred over 300 infants and children, IMPALING them on spears. Chopping their limbs, bodies of babies were RIPPED open to take out internal organs which were then garlanded around their mothers necks. One by one many Sikh women suffered such brutal atrocities, but they all chose to remain steadfast to their Sikh faith instead of embracing Islam.
“Incidents like these run in the thousands if not more, and were spread over the entire Punjab region…Mir Mannu killed thousands of Sikhs daily. Once, on the day of a Muslim festival, he beheaded 1100 Sikhs in public.”
———————-
I do NOT consider this kind of cultural genocide to count as “multiculturalism”. Islamofascism is MONOCULTURAL and GENOCIDAL.
Raja says
Kay,
Thank you for reminding us about Islam its barbarity. Your historic reference to Punjab butcher of 1752 is a chilling reminder of what Islamic fanatics are capable of.
May I add some more to your wise comments?
I believe mankind, especially governments have a responsibility of giving “hope” to its citizenry just as we expect the governments to take care of greenhouse effect etc. God expects man to take care of earth , freedom of Choice of men, freedom to choose the path to God and so on.
Islam wipes out ALL hope of all the vanquished. If only we only had the heart and mind for the millions (Armenians, Greeks, Persians, Hindus etc) butchered in the name of the goon religion!!!!!.
Woe to the heartless cowards of the media and Leftists!!!!
kay says
Hi Raja. You’re welcome.
As you say: “Woe to the heartless cowards of the media and Leftists!!!!”
They are heartless, irrational, dishonest and self-contradictory.
I just smashed a Che Guevara oriented leftist on youtube. And I used the same Sikh historical excerpt as here. Plus tons of other stuff.
India / South Asia matters. A lot. The slaughter and genocide there, 80 million total, matter one helluva lot. Same with the gruesomeness, and the cruelty towards women and children. I hate these fascists and I get the job done My social media posts will repeatedly hammer this specific incident home and also push Bill Warner.
I am on the effing political warpath. Am going for the effing Marxist-Leninist “antifas” ( antifascists ) on youtube, directly and indirectly. The antifas use vicious personal tactics to go after Pegida protestors. The antifas are acting like Nazi Brownshirts.
I say we fight them in the street – when they cross personal boundaries.
One of my main priorities is to bring women into counter-jihad. If the narratives I give ( Boko Haram stuff, the Islamic State stuff, the murder of Sikh women and children ) does not light a fire under the chicks, then western civilization DESERVES to go down.
Western chicks should be hopping mad. And politically active. I give them every reason to be hopping mad and active, here and elsewhere. And lots of tools.
Don’t Mourn…ORGANIZE!
Christ, it’s like I’m one of the only REAL feminists around, and I’m a guy.
These European chicks better get it together and fight for their own future. They are all hunting game for these Islamists. To a Muslim guy, it is always open season on chicks not wearing scarves.
I have used this Sikh reference here on JW before. People should grab a copy and propagate it on social media. This can shut up the collaborationists and the Islamists real fast. I get that result and others can too.
Remember, we are fighting for noncombatant girls and women, and we need to break the Nice Islam Narrative and provide a progressive counter-Islam narrative.
Defense of women and girls is progressive. We are not the bad guys. We are doing right by the girls and women. When others fail them.
The girls and women need to step up to the front line and they need to lay into this fight with a will. Otherwise they’re raw meat for the grinder. For chicks, It is fight or be raped. There is NOTHING to negotiate.
Melodysheep – Be Water My Friend (Bruce Lee)
quotha raven says
to Kay – Well, I guess YOU are on fire!!! How can I find your YouTube evisceration of the Che G lefty, etc.?
Good, passionate post. I agree with you. Where are the feminists in all this? Crickets. I simply cannot understand their complete silence in light of the treacherous misogyny that characterizes Islam. Cheers! Quotha R
kay says
to Kay – Well, I guess YOU are on fire!!! How can I find your YouTube evisceration of the Che G lefty, etc.?
———————————–
There is huge set of counter-jihad on this post. It’s a good model and fairly typical of my work. But I had to smash the Che Guevara guy for a couple reasons. See
https://plus.google.com/b/105484973338472780925/114880838901801596227/posts/EempAdaeBE8
It’s way down at the bottom. Posted yesterday. Hmmm. Not showing up there, but here at video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_Qpy0mXg8Y
under justame smith 1 month ago
“ISLAM: THE RELIGION OF PEACE” I see it now. It’s posted. But way harder to find.
The vicious Muslims are always claiming the Nazi/Hirohito genocide and war as “White male Christian”. Which it was not. So I have to take away their weapon. Over and over again. This hurts ’em bad.
wcangel +Che X
Re: “Who started WW2 which killed 60 million people?”
——————————————
The Nazi movement and the Imperial Japanese Empire were not Christian, fool.
The Japanese Empire was Imperial Shinto…Adolph Hitler and Mussolini were not waging crusades. They were nationalists and fascists. Not that you know what that means. Hitler condemned Christianity as weak and he preferred Islam. . .
Hitler did not develop a Christian Europe. He DESTROYED a mostly Christian Europe to raise a Germanic Empire.
“Greater Germany” is not a Christian concept or goal. Neither is killing millions of Christians or Europeans. Early Christianity is PACIFIST. Nazism, Communism and Islam are WAR-MONGERING.
Che Guevara, Mao Tsetung and Castro all favored nuclear war. They were vicious and bloodthirsty murderers by nature.
Che Guevara machine gunned woman and children prisoners who were lined up against a wall because they came from wealthy families.
Che Guevara was criminally insane.
The number three position for genocide is Nazism.
The number two position for genocide is Communism.
The top position, the number one position for genocide is Islam.
The Islamic wars killed between 100 million and 200 million people, more than the Nazis and Communists combined.
—————-
I go for the throat. I am one mean dialectical swordsman.
No mercy for Communists or Islamists. I have the full bloody story on the Commies.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Ht5y1rX2zk
Samurai Fight Scene
Chrisrm says
With all due respect, you seem to condemn every politician and every media person as if the know everything you know about Islam and yet remain politicially correct on Islam. I have a pretty wide circle of social friends and not one of them has any significant knowledge about Islam. I have met no one who has even tried to read the Koran or any other basic Islamic documents. They do not go to jihad watch or other authoratative sites to learn about Islam, yet they are shocked when I post articles on FB or send out articles by email. They are becoming concerned but they haven’t reached the level of belief or knowledge that there is an existential threat. I do believe that most people find it hard to see Islam in any way other than a Christian lens. Even Raymond Ibrahim in his article yesterday on PJ Median said this: “So-called “moderate” Muslims – or, more specifically, secularised Muslims – do not closely adhere to sharia, and therefore have little to dissemble about. On the other hand, “radical” Muslims who closely observe sharia law, which splits the world into two perpetually warring halves, will always have a “divinely sanctioned” right to deceive, until “all chaos ceases, and all religion belongs to Allah” (Quran 8:39)”. If Raymond Ibrahim is dividing Muslims into secular and radical groups, just like the median and Islam apologists, should people without any knowledge of Islam think Islam is monolithic and totally “radical”?
kay says
Re Raja: “you seem to condemn every politician and every media person. .. I have a pretty wide circle. . .and not one. . .has. . .knowledge about Islam.”
———————–
Which is why I teach. On youtube I hammer Chris Cuomo and Alisyn Camerata of CNN, the pro Sharia blasphemy law anti free-speechers. Dave Wood of Acts17 Apologetics has hammered on Camerata and I use his stuff.
I hammer a lot on Ben Affleck The TV Protector Of Islam and his supporters and actual BenA Islamist posters on youtube. I’ve smashed them up pretty badly.
I hammer on youtube bad guys who are vicious and dishonest in other areas. Some say the Dalai Lama is “a false Dalai Lama”, a “tyrant” “destroying the Buddhist tradition”. So I crush those arguments and lay waste to the pseudo-tradition behind their campaign. The Dalai Lama is the critical bridge between East and West.
Anyway, I’ve gone after pro-Islamic State Dr. Noam Chomsky ( NPR transcript 2015 ). And on JW I oppose Pope Francis. He is anti-Charlie Hebdo and pro-Sharia blasphemy law. The Key Problem in Pope Francis’ statement is that the jihadi team who Kalashnikov’ed Charlie Hebdo also went after unarmed Jews that day.
Oh yeah, and the Pope is a Koran Kisser and he views Muslims as co-religionists.
Dave Wood of Acts17 and I say that the Islamic revelation is wholly inconsistent with Christianity. Unlike the Vatican or Canterbury Cathedral. Theology is 100% arguing.
Two days back on youtube I was directly asked whether “the Archangel Gabriel gave revelation to Mohammed”. As theologian and ( Buddhist ) psychologist I said: Hell No. Mohammed was emotionally disturbed and delusional; he was a sociopath who progressed into psychopathy, and IF he actually spoke with a nonphysical entity ( it DOES happen ), it was CERTAINLY a malevolent spirit. Who likes blood sacrifice.
So in Mohammed we have a megalomaniac psychopath whose doctrine is rape ‘n slavery ‘n mass murder, a criminally insane guy who, if talking to spirits, is talking to an evil spirit. His fascist totalitarian cultural system is now a global threat to humanity and civilization, and may eat Europe in ninety years. The jihadis already slaughtered seventy million Hindus and ten million Buddhists in South Asia.
Chomsky ‘n Pope Francis ‘n CNN ‘n Barack Obama ‘n Angela Merkel are okay with Sharia and jihad and with the slaughter of journalists in Paris and Bangladesh. Not I. My ethics are those of Albert Camus and the Free French. “Today Is Not That Day.”
Liberte’. Egalite’. Fraternite’. Laicite’. Authenticite’. Solidarite’. My strategy works.
On social media I build bridges, take bridges, and hold bridges: I push lots of Bill Warner, Andrew Bostom and the whole gang out to the public. Pour la Liberte’. Dig?
Bruce Springsteen – Chimes of Freedom (East Berlin 1988, with speech)
voegelinian says
Chrisrm wrote:
Even Raymond Ibrahim in his article yesterday on PJ Median said this: “So-called “moderate” Muslims – or, more specifically, secularised Muslims – do not closely adhere to sharia, and therefore have little to dissemble about. On the other hand, “radical” Muslims who closely observe sharia law, which splits the world into two perpetually warring halves, will always have a “divinely sanctioned” right to deceive, until “all chaos ceases, and all religion belongs to Allah” (Quran 8:39)”. If Raymond Ibrahim is dividing Muslims into secular and radical groups, just like the median and Islam apologists, should people without any knowledge of Islam think Islam is monolithic and totally “radical”?
Excellent question & observation. I’ve been hammering this point home with analyses here and on my blog for years. This tendency or reflex to whittle down the problem, somehow, some way, I have termed “asymptotic” when it emanates from someone who is not (or should not be) PC MC — i.e., from someone who is in the Counter-Jihad. This comment by Chrisrm is one of the rare times I’ve ever seen anyone else on Jihad Watch or anywhere in the broader Counter-Jihad ever put the scintillating crux so clearly (though I’ve seen plenty of sentiments and analysis erring on the opposing vector…).
Western Canadian says
And again the mouth that roared confirms his status as a pseudo intellectual…. Watching your endless wind baggery, is really a fun time spent. Especially when you mutilate the English language, as your ego so often compels you to do.
Seeing some lout (you) abuse terms I (and others) use in statistical analysis, and delude yourself into thinking you are brilliant (or others so low to be so easily fooled), is really, pathetic, but never tiresome.
Keep up the pathetic work.
voegelinian says
Aside from for some odd reason going out of his way to indulge in a fit of vapid venting without substance (i.e., without providing even the bare bones of an actual counter-argument), Western Canadian accuses me of “abusing” the term asymptotic. If he wanted to be logically consistent, he would also have to accuse former Jihad Watch writer (and Vice-President of Jihad Watch) Hugh Fitzgerald of the same “abuse”, since it was from Fitzgerald that I got my idea to use the term regularly.
Examples:
When Fitzgerald analyzed the Muslim “reformer” Fouad Ajami in his critiques of the problem of Islam getting closer, but never quite getting there:
Perhaps Ajami cannot publicly emulate Ibn Warraq, Ali Sina, Anwar Sheikh, Azam Kamguian, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Irfan Khawaja. No, of course he can’t. It would harm his career, for as an ex-Muslim he will lose “authenticity” as a voice of the Good Arabs, the Good Muslims. And even his generous hosts in Kuwait will no longer be entertaining him. He has to stay quiet on the subject of Islam, because he cannot possibly tell the truth. Asymptotically, allusively, he can try. But it’s not enough. He has his uses: dissecting Edward Said, defending Bernard Lewis. But those uses, as Islam itself becomes, necessarily, the focus of attention, more and more limited.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2006/05/fouad-ajami-and-hugh-fitzgerald-lionize-bernard-lewis
Of another Muslim “reformer” he wrote:
At long last an intrepid Muslim, writing from deep within the Dar al-Islam, a Pakistani named Reza Azmi, has published an article in The Daily Times of Pakistan, “Thinking Aloud: ‘an archaic incongruity’?” that asymptotically approaches the grim truth about Islam.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2006/06/fitzgerald-bush-or-as-well-him-as-another
In response to some JW reader named “eduardo odraude”, Hugh wrote:
“Ecstasy”? I would be more ecstatic if I had time even to correct the typos and tame those writhing anacolutha, the result of posting at Mach-3 speed. But the word is welcome; cf. Updike’s asymptotic-to-the-truth review-remark: “Nabokov writes prose the only way it should be written, that is, ecstatically.” Company to keep.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2006/01/fitzgerald-the-germans-and-the-killer-of-robert-stethem/comment-page-0#comment-197083
Secondly, Western Canadian would have to show, with an actual argument, that the figurative use of the technical mathematics term asymptotic employed by Hugh Fitzgerald and myself constitute an “abuse” of the term. Merely asserting it is so, does not make it so (though when in a corner like this, he could always resort to beating his opponent over the head with a hammer, like Phillip Jihadski used to do). This argument that remains wanting in Western Canadian would have to supply at least two things: 1) an explanation for why its usage by Hugh Fitzgerald and myself constitutes “abuse”; and 2) an additional argument defending the proposition that sociopolitical discourse (or any discourse in the broad field of the Humanities) cannot avail itself of technical terms from any technical discipline used figuratively, poetically, analogically, metaphorically, etc.
Angemon says
voegelinian posted:
“Western Canadian accuses me of “abusing” the term asymptotic. If he wanted to be logically consistent, he would also have to accuse former Jihad Watch writer (and Vice-President of Jihad Watch) Hugh Fitzgerald of the same “abuse”, since it was from Fitzgerald that I got my idea to use the term regularly.”
You realize that he quoquery is a logical fallacy, right? “Oh, I did that? Well, so did someone else, so shut up!”.
Also, just for giggles:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/10/ninth-hagia-sophia-church-converted-into-a-mosque-in-turkey#comment-1129420
On one post alone you use the term “asymptotic” more times than Hugh in your three examples of the alleged “abuse” on his part.
“Secondly, Western Canadian would have to show, with an actual argument, that the figurative use of the technical mathematics term asymptotic employed by Hugh Fitzgerald and myself constitute an “abuse” of the term.”
A little background: voegelinian claimed he coined the term asymptotic. When PJ pointed out the word asymptotic already existed and was used in mathematics, voeg claimed he learned the term from Mr. Fitzgerald but used it in a different way – he claimed he “fleshed out” the term. This begs the question: why is he defending himself from the charge of abuse by claiming that both he and Mr. Fitzgerald used the term in the same way, pointing back to its meaning in mathematics?
Angemon says
voegelinian:
“Secondly, Western Canadian would have to show, with an actual argument, that the figurative use of the technical mathematics term asymptotic employed by Hugh Fitzgerald and myself constitute an “abuse” of the term. Merely asserting it is so, does not make it so”
This reminds me: you never, ever – not even once – demonstrated any anything I wrote is “sophistry”, even though you’ve thrown that accusation at me many times. Unfortunately, having blatant dual standards is not the most repellent part of your personality.
“ This argument that remains wanting in Western Canadian would have to supply at least two things: 1) an explanation for why its usage by Hugh Fitzgerald and myself constitutes “abuse” ”
Huh, no – he just need to explain why you and you alone are abusing the term. Remember? You first assured us that you coined it and later on that you used it in a way that different than that of Mr. Fitzgerald.
I know you like to leech off your betters, but you went out of your way to distance yourself from Mr. Fitzgerald on this particular subject, so it’s pointless to bring him into this argument.
“and 2) an additional argument defending the proposition that sociopolitical discourse (or any discourse in the broad field of the Humanities) cannot avail itself of technical terms from any technical discipline used figuratively, poetically, analogically, metaphorically, etc.”
Again, no – WC only has to explain
a) what he meant by abuse
and
b) why you, under his definition, abused the term
Your cries of “Hugh Fitzgerald” or “WC’s saying we can’t use technical terms” are red herrings, smoke screens and attempts to muddy the waters. All that WC has to say to defend his case is what he meant by abuse (and I’m sure that you, as someone who resorted many times to say something along the lines of “when I said X I meant Y” won’t object to that) and show how you’re abusing the term. No more, no less.
PRCS says
As one cannot know another’s thoughts, for a potential Muslim presidential candidate to declare that the U.S. Constitution will take precedence over the shari’ah cannot be accepted at face value.
IMO, better questions for such a theoretical candidate should force answers to the MORALITY of inflicting Allah’s mandated barbarities on human beings in OTHER countries;
ex:
where on the planet is the Qur’an’s command to amputate a thief’s hands morally acceptable to you?
where on the planet is the Qur’an’s command to amputate a human being’s hand and a foot on opposite sides morally acceptable to you?
And use photos to emphasize the immorality of carrying out those “divine punishments”.
http://tinyurl.com/of6bost
Chrisrm says
And where on this planet where is morally acceptable behead and stone people. I am not talking ISIS. Saudi Arabia beheads and stones hundreds of people each year. The new King is beheading at a greater rate than Abdullah. The videos are all online.
Western Canadian says
“Why is that important to grasp? Because in the West, we recognize a division between the spiritual realm and political life – a division reflected in our Constitution. Mainstream Islam recognizes no such separation”
Sign….. Your constitution does NOT mandate separation of church and state…. I really wish people would quite claiming that it does..
Western Canadian says
Sign = Sigh
quite = quit
Chrismr says
I never said our Constitution explicitly says that there is a separation of church and state. It does, however, prohibit an establishment of religion. What you don’t seem to understand, probably because your knowledge of Islam and Sharia is limited to opinions and not facts, is that Islam is a theocracy, which means the government is controlled by priests (imams) speaking for God. Religion becomes the state, which pretty much voids the Constitution. Further, no Muslim may put any earthly law about Allah and Sharia law. If you study the Koran, the Hadith and the Sura, you will understand the majority of the writing in those documents has nothing to do with religion. It is a supremacist political ideology with a religious element If you read actual fact about Sharia law you will see it controls every aspect of a Muslim’s life, of which the religious part is minor. Further you will see that the laws, punishments, treatment on minorities, women, gays, marriage, and so many other issues are totally inimical with the U.S. Contstitution. Of course the absolute rejection of the concept of free speech by Sharia and Muslim countries would probalby not cause you a problem since Canada does not protect free speech. Perhaps you did not know that Saudi Arabia beheads and stones people to death as a result of Sharia court orders where the crime is speaking out against Islam, against Mohammed, advocating other religions or leaving Islam. A women claiming rape has to provide 4 male witnesses to the rape or else she is judged an adulterer. The sentence is stoning to death. You can Google Saudi Arabian beheadings and stonings and actually see the Saudi police doing it. If you actually care about knowing the truth about Islam I recommend, respectfully, that you go to http://www.politicalislam.com and see what Dr. Bill Warner has to say. Or, like Jack Nicholson said in the movie, “A Few Good Men”, “you can’t handle the truth.
quotha raven says
to CHRISMR – You are exactly right. People err in a critically important way when they cannot differentiate between a religion and a theocracy, which is what Islam is and what you so elegantly describe. Cheers! Quotha R
More Ham Ed says
Time for some tue. evening anti-jihad rock & roll:
Tom Petty And The Heartbreakers
kay says
And this is for the indigenous European girls and women. Since they now face much greater danger of sexual assault. In Sweden, Germany and elsewhere. It’s now open season on the European girls. And it’s gonna get much worse soon.
Tom Petty And The Heartbreakers – Refugee
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFnOfpIJL0M
My favorite of course for “evening anti-jihad rock & roll” is this:
The Rolling Stones – Gimme Shelter – the best version ever.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yGFuX2KDQs
——————–
When Paris was attacked I needed a lot of music therapy. I so hate it when Nazis attack Paris. Also strongly.averse to Nazis ‘n Death Easters in London.
“I wish it need not have happened in my time,” said Frodo.
“So do I,” said Gandalf, “and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us.”
Jack Diamond says
Hi Kay. Personally I prefer the tighter version with Mick Taylor
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7vLY-kZsAI
but I don’t think any live version ever matched the original with Merry Clayton.
all good rock and roll is anti-jihad (like all good jazz and swing music).
Fine comments. Cheers!
Edward says
“In PJ Media today I show how Carson almost literally quoted Islamic doctrine and prominent Muslim leadership, and for this he is labeled a bigot.” – Robert Spencer
Dr. Ben Carson wasn’t lying when he said he had a brain to handle the tasks, during his 1st GOP debate! A turbo charged BRAIN at best.
Here’s Dr. Carson’s Thursday, August 6, 2015 interaction with Fox’s Megyn Kelly GOP debate video.
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4404489370001/dr-ben-carson-takes-on-foreign-policy-mishaps/?intcmp=hpnav&playlist_id=4400878356001#sp=show-clips 1:34 min. vide
The following Carson’s video where he stands by belief that a Muslim shouldn’t be president on recent Fox’s Hannity interview video, where he poignantly stress’ that an individual that is “hell bent” to rule in a theocracy style governance would not be compatible within the US Constitutional laws!
“hell bent”: my emphasis
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4500207939001/carson-stands-by-belief-that-a-muslim-shouldnt-be-president/?intcmp=hpvid1#sp=show-clips 8:19 min. video
With a JW’s Robert Spencer and Dr. Ben Carson team at the helm of the US government administration (2016-2022) will bring SANITY and will HARBOR the truth like no other sitting US presidents before!
These two fearless men with unifying mindsets will light the beacons of many nations to help them rid the dangerous encroachment of evil minded people on their lands. To help timid people learn that fear can be conquered to win our dignity back.
“We call a man a bigot or a slave of dogma because he is a thinker who has thought thoroughly and to a definite end.” – Gilbert K. Chesterton
HARBOR: to keep or hold in the mind; maintai
Arthur says
Carson gets my vote and $5400 for his campaign. I’ll have to get registered for the primary!
As far as I can see, he is the only presidential hope for the future USA — for our economy and our freedoms.
garegin says
There are two major groups that oppose “liberal democracies”, freedom of speech and human rights. The Muslims and the Marxists. The difference is that the later is not ashamed to shout it from the rooftops. I don’t understand why Muslims get offended when others quote he opinions of their scholars. I wouldn’t be offended if people started quoting Jonathan Edwards.
Their scholars have said time and time again that Sharia Law is not compatible with republican forms of government. They even went out to form their own Cairo Declaration.
What Carson has said is extremely offensive. However, people have to begin to accept that not everyone thinks that all religions are true. They teach mutually incompatible things, so a Jew can’t consider Christianity to be not a false religion AND be a Jew at the same time! Since the later has claims contrary to Judaism.
This issue has come up time and time again. Honest adherents call other religions false and get accused of being racist or mean. Remember when a Baptist called Mormonism a false religion during the Romney campaign.
quotha raven says
to Garegin, who sez, “What Carson has said is extremely offensive. However, people have to begin to accept that not everyone thinks that all religions are true.” –
What a silly statement. The second one. Duh, ya think?
As to your response to Carson, you are missing the point entirely. Read more; think more; do SOMETHING! Cheers! Quotha R
Edward says
“What Carson has said is extremely offensive. However, people have to begin to accept that not everyone thinks that all religions are true.” – garegin
Garegin, are you aware that Islam has two components? There is the religious one which is integrated with the legal part called the Sharia. Together they comprise what would be considered the Muslims social governance/religious Theocracy. Here, Dr. Carson would advocate that a Theocracy would never be compatible with the ratified US Constitution….never!
Hear his comments on the video clip below at 2:19 min. run time; he mentions this serious theocracy antithesis between the US Constitution.
He never criticizes the religious legitimacy.
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4500207939001/carson-stands-by-belief-that-a-muslim-shouldnt-be-president/?intcmp=hpvid1#sp=show-clips 8:19 min. video
garegin says
ok. I understand now. He was talking about Sharia law.
kay says
Significant Resources for Sharia ( Islamic Law ) Part 1
—————————–
Sharia – Why Islam concerns us all
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6MiiR9XKAY
Activists Warn US Women of Sharia Law Threat
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVWWoCPLowo
http://www.politicalislam.com/product/sharia-law-for-non-muslims/
http://www.politicalislam.com/about/
http://www.politicalislam.com/trilogy-project/
http://www.politicalislam.com/primary-doctrine-books/
Bill Warner, PhD: Sharia: Necessity and Obligation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4m7FncBSNC8
Bill Warner, PhD: Sharia and the Virtue of Hate
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOWsQ9dM3NI
What Does Sharia Dictate To Non-Muslims?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UU4KEyUwzI
Shariamerica: Islam, Obama, and the Establishment Clause
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErzxOz3Dzv8
Sharia courts conquer UK
kay says
Significant Resources for Sharia ( Islamic Law ) Part 2
—————————————
Sharia Versus Freedom: The Legacy of Islamic Totalitarianism Hardcover – September 18, 2012 by Andrew G. Bostom (Author)
Hardcover: 735 pages ISBN-10: 1616146664
Publisher: Prometheus Books; 1St Edition edition (September 18, 2012)
http://www.amazon.com/Sharia-Versus-Freedom-Islamic-Totalitarianism/dp/1616146664/
http://bansharialaw.com/
Muslims protesting in London streets demanding Britain to convert to Islamic state
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Ay0PQuIXZ4
Sharia Scare Shakes UK: ‘Law of the land go to hell’
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYFzrEIzoHE
Muslim Sharia Law In Australia
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iN7eQyrDt-U
Shariah Law – Islamic Justice – Pure Evil.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgLWcsbOD8k
Muslims Want Sharia Law in Non-Muslim Countries Robert Spencer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0FpDCZdvHk
Ex-Muslim talks about escaping Shariah law
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwtYe0xxC28
Sharia Law is against Human Rights?? Muslims/Atheists Debate!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qg3CoApkLy0
—————————
I can always give more resources for this category. But this is a good set. To do counter-jihad on social media you must have good references like Dr. Bill, Dr. Bostom, and a stack of video references. These make for serious counter-jihad.
—————————-
O Captain, my Captain! | Thank you to Robin Williams (HD)
mortimer says
“Taqiyya is a component of Shia that allows, and even encourages you to lie to achieve your goals,” Carson said.
CARSON IS CORRECT. And Sunnite Islam has the SAME DOCTRINE and calls it ‘MUDA’RAT’. Not many people know about MUDA’RAT outside the circles of the Ulama or the learned scholars of Islam.
Muda’rat is the Sunnite doctrine of deception – taqiyya permeates almost all the activities and dealings of Muslims with non-Muslim societies.
There are six different ways of deception that are permissible in Islam:
Taqiyya (Shia) or Muda’rat (Sunni): tactical deceit for the purposes of spreading Islam.
•Kitman: deceit by omission.
•Tawriya: deceit by ambiguity.
•Taysir: deceit through facilitation (not having to observe all the tenets of Sharia).
•Darura: deceit through necessity (to engage in something “Haram” or forbidden).
•Muruna: the temporary suspension of Sharia to make Muslim migrants appear “moderate.”
kay says
Re: “There are six different ways of deception that are permissible in Islam…”
———————–
Thanks Mortimer. I needed the full set. Islam is a political-social doctrine which relies on deceit much of the time. But the formal source terminology is required to make that argument.
A Buddhist teacher or Mahayana Buddhist practitioner is allowed to lie, but NOT to take advantage of others. Just to do helpful things like saving someone’s life and so forth.
In seventh grade I got into Situation Ethics. Had a short private talk with my pastor Dr. Tucker. He explicitly said he lied to the Imperial Japanese authorities about Japanese Christians, and doing so no doubt saved them from harm. That is considered good karma.
I left Christianity in seventh grade and immediately went existentialist.
I have been doing situation ethics ever since. The idea is to minimize harm.
Islam, however, is about maximizing harm. Massive deceit and aggression are key parts of their program from the beginning. Their goal is of course entirely destructive and contrary to all human values.
On social media discussions what I typically see from the Muslims is a stream of lies and disimulations and deflections and false conflations. Most of what the Muslims say online is garbage, and that can be broken down with critical thinking skills and honest rhetoric. And hard work.
What one learns in online discussions with Muslims is basically this: Never trust a Muslim. They are not all liars, but in general they CANNOT be trusted to be truthful or rational or reasonable. I view Muslim culture as BASICALLY dishonest and aggressive and fascist, and the online discussions show how the Muslims approach matters. Which is basically always the wrong way.
This means that Europe is in HUGE trouble. And matters will get much worse.
Raja says
Kay,
Thanks for your detailed reply to Mortimer, another star on JW.
You have said:
I left Christianity in seventh grade and immediately went existentialist.
The Bible says: No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, so that you will be able to endure it. I Cor 10:13
AND
then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from temptation, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment for the day of judgment, 2 peter 2:9
God is faithful and He will deliver HIS own…
May I add to what you have said?
Massive deceit and aggression are key parts of their program from the beginning.
___________________________________________________________________
Their PROGRAM is meant for POGROM(an organized massacre of a particular ethnic group, in this case non-Islamic groups)
kay says
Re POGROM
————————–
Yes. pogroms. There will be lots of those. It will take more than three centuries.
The Europeans will be like the Jews filing into Nazi railroad cars, going along with the program of co-operation. And they already went thru that effing scenario before!
What will happen to the Europeans will be the same as what happened to the Christians in Egypt and Turkey: genocide. Over centuries.
Genocide is not necessarily a couple big battles or a war over five or ten years. Genocide is a systematic extermination of people.
Islam is ALWAYS war and genocide, specifically cultural genocide.
The Islamists can win Europe. They may do so in the next ninety years. But that cannot bring peace. they must crush all non-Islamic culture and destroy all human freedoms and extinguish any possible adversaries.
That is their approach. It is always the same.
All they have to do is always target those who are most threatening to their fascist strategy. It starts with the journalists. It starts with stealth jihad and informal Sharia law courts. But the final goal is cultural genocide. What people don’t get is that this process is long term.
All of what you call Europe today could be completely gone in three centuries. And that is why Angela Merkel and Pope Francis et. al. are so wrong.
See Did Merkel just “read out Germany’s suicide note”?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_8kc19DL70
We are told the translation into English is legitimate and fair.
( Found this video on http://sheikyermami.com )
It is already starting in London ( 2015 ) and Paris ( 2014 )
Muslims protesting in London streets demanding Britain to convert to Islamic state
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Ay0PQuIXZ4
(2)
Paris burning – Islamische Flüchtlinge randalieren brutal in Paris:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XD-AftsXYyc
War is upon us all. This will be a century of social friction, turf wars, violence, and criminal insanity. Unless we break the bad guy narrative all over the map. I.am not counting on the Christians. I am counting on the free press, social media, and wizard stuff not for public discussion. The picture becomes grim later, so fight now.
Chrisrm says
The 2005 book by Bat Ye’or, Eurabia, provides in-depth analysis as to why the genocide in Europe and the UK will take place.
Raja says
Kay,
Thanks for the detailed reply once again.
I agree with you that EU, US are already in trouble as man in the West has lost all morality, rationality, reason and character by equating other religions with Islam. Now they have to go through the next process/stage of Jihad. Expect more protests, rapes, lies, deception, bomb blasts and so on .
In the light of this, Islamic state is a blessing in disguise. All the “peace loving” Muslims have supported it by stealth. They would rather support IS than US or any Western power as they know heart of heart that IS represents true Islam. Muslims opposing IS are handful-literally. This is also a slap on the face of all leaders who shout from rooftops “these things(violence) have nothing to do with Islam. Pope included.
As IS is remarkably successful the Islamic world has let the cat out the bag prematurely. (that almost all Islamist are on the side of IS)
Now since the battle lines are drawn how is the West going to tackle this nuisance of Satanic proportions?
I am wondering how the Spaniards overcame this cancerous evil some 500 years ago?
Western Canadian says
Others use situation ethics to maximize their own pleasure, profit etc, regardless of harm to others.
kay says
Re: “Others use situation ethics to maximize their own pleasure, profit etc, regardless of harm to others.”
—————————–
You are referring to hedonism. For obvious reasons, hedonism fails. It is short sighted.
In fact the cure for the criminally insane Muslim “ethic” would be to teach the very simple Silver Rule as a baseline.
One can replace religious ( and other ) dogma with philosophical criticism and critical thinking concerning the Theory of the Good. For that we go straight to Socrates and Aristotle. The problem, sez Socrates, is existential ignorance and psychological immaturity ( not religious “sin” per se ). Islam is “faith”, but it is Bad Faith.
Basic patterns of respect, co-operation and reciprocity do not suck. Those are what we need instead of Bad Faith.
That brings in the concept of “good actors” and therefore “character”. Then, with the concept of character development comes the idea of consciousness development.
In any event. a conscious and sane social ethic is needed. We know what failure looks like. And the opposite of Bad Faith is Good Philosophy.
Other approaches work. You can kill religious insanity with Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, going all atheist on their sick medieval garbage.
But I’m very Old School. My stuff works. And I’ll be there. yes I’ll be there.
Steely Dan 2006-Bodhisattva https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZbUaxsB3WQ
MorningStarSr77 says
Hopefully he’s not a hidden muslim
Chrisrm says
He is a lifelong Seventh Day Adventist.