Ben Carson

Ben Carson Is Worried About Secret Muslims Running for President

Seventh Day Adventist's "Taqiya" paranoia shows a disturbing if familiar lack of faith in U.S. institutions.

|

You shall not pass, Taqiyaists! ||| Baltimore Sun
Baltimore Sun

By now you have probably heard the news that Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson said on Meet the Press yesterday that "I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that." You may have also read the oh-yes-he-did-say-that defense from Carson campaign spokesman Doug Watts: "He did not say that a Muslim should be prevented from running, or barred from running in any way…He just doesn't believe the American people are ready for that."

But for my money the most interesting comments came later in the day when the most prominent Seventh Day Adventist to ever run for president further explained his thinking to The Hill:

"I do not believe Sharia is consistent with the Constitution of this country," Carson said. "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 "Taqiya," a practice in Shia Islam in which a Muslim can mislead nonbelievers about the nature of their faith to avoid persecution.

"Taqiya is a component of Shia that allows, and even encourages you to lie to achieve your goals," Carson said.

Inevitable. ||| Alltherightsnark.org
Alltherightsnark.org

Taqiya is indeed a thing (here's the Wikipedia entry), albeit a thing you are most likely to read about at anti-Islamic sites like American Thinker and FrontPage Magazine. But like the heartland revolt against a would-be Sharia takeover, what's striking about the Taqiya paranoia is how little faith it exhibits in the Constitution, U.S. law, and the myriad of public and private institutions that have successfully kept all minority-religion coups at bay in the Land of the Free.

To put it another way, close your eyes and picture A) a Muslim candidate for president, who B) satisfies Carson's requirement of rejecting Sharia, although C) he's lying about it, D) never gets caught despite all the scrutiny placed upon him, then E) manages to win the major-party nomination and F) the White House, after which he G) unleashes Sharia, or at least Sharia-lite, on the unsuspecting country. All despite a Constitution, a set of laws, and a culture that are about as anti-Sharia as you can get. This dark fantasy doesn't pass even a preliminary WTF test.

Unless, of course, all of the above has already happened, minus the admitted-Muslim part. Yes, ladies and germs, President Barack Hussein Obama might well be our first Taqiya-er in Chief.

Just think about it. ||| Daletoon
Daletoon

Some Obama-Taqiya headlines out there:

Raymond Ibrahim, FrontPage Magazine: "Obama Alters U.S. Oath of Allegiance in Compliance With Islamic Law."

Lowell Ponte, Western Journalism: "The Reason Obama Has It Out For Netanyahu May Be More Terrifying Than You Thought Possible."

Martin Sherman, Jerusalem Post: "Empowering Islam: 'Taqiya' in the White House?"

To be clear: Even though his concerns about American politicians practicing Taqiya are shared mostly by anti-Islamist obsessives, Ben Carson is not implying that President Obama is a secret Muslim. That's a job for the GOP frontrunner. Here's Donald Trump from yesterday's Meet the Press:

CHUCK TODD: Can you imagine supporting or being comfortable if a Muslim ever became president of the United States?

TRUMP: I can say that, you know, it's something that at some point could happen. We'll see. You know, it's something that could happen. Would I be comfortable? I don't know if we have to address it right now. But I think it is certainly something that could happen.

TODD: You said you'd have no problem putting a Muslim in the Cabinet

TRUMP: I mean, some people have said it already happened, frankly. But of course you wouldn't agree with that. And I—

TODD: Well, no, but actually let's get to that. Why won't you concede that the president is a Christian and that the president was born in the United States?

TRUMP: Because I don't talk about people's faith. Now in all fairness, he said he was a Christian and he said he is a Christian. He attended the church of Reverend Wright. And so, you know, I'm willing to take him at his word for that. I have no problem with that.

TODD: Well, why not take the birth certificate at its word?

TRUMP: Well, I just don't want to discuss it. 

Related: "The GOP's Trump-Carson 1-2 Punch in the Nuts."

NEXT: Even Batman Addresses Police Brutality in Latest Issue

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Are you trying to say that you find his lack of faith… disturbing?

    1. The horror…the….horror….

    1. He’s a Racist!!!

      Oh wait Carson is black so he can’t be racist…

      But wait he’s a republican so YES he is a Racist!!!

      / thought process of every prog in the country

      1. They won’t call him a racist; they’ll reach into that shallow bag of proggie tricks and call him an “Uncle Tom”….which is much worse.

        “Yeah, he may have an M.D. but he’s still a house nigger” – Tony

  2. is how little faith it exhibits in the Constitution, U.S. law, and the myriad of public and private institutions that have successfully kept all minority-religion coups at bay in the Land of the Free.

    The only true religion is government!

    1. Because the Constitution and U.S. law have kept the President and congress in check, right?

      1. seriously. And Carson says he is not in favor of a Muslim being president, which is a bit different from banning it. Anyway, at least one member of Congress is Muslim and the earth has not changed direction.

        1. “I let my boyfriend fuck me bareback once and didn’t get pregnant. That proves it’s a good idea!”

        2. You really think 300 Keith Ellisons in Congress would leave the U.S. recognizable as a free country?

          1. Why…I like the way you think.

          2. I doubt that a congress composed of 300 copies of just about any congress critter would leave little hope for freedom in thos country. You think 300 Dianne Feinsteins or 300 Lindsey Grahams would be better than 300 Wllisons? Or worse? Or in any way distinguishable?

            1. Yeah, that’s the same as a wacko like Ellison.

          3. You really think 300 Keith Ellisons in Congress would leave the U.S. recognizable as a free country?

            Maybe….maybe not; however, I prefer dangerous freedom to peaceful slavery. You start pushing this populist shit and you set a dangerous constitutional precedent.

            1. Where did I in any way advocate reducing freedom? I’m not saying Muslims should be banned from Congress or the Presidency. I’m saying it would be stupid to vote for them, just like it would be stupid to vote for a Nazi. That’s called “freedom of speech” or “participating in the free exchange of ideas.” In exactly what bizarro world is that anti-freedom?

              1. Cloud, you’re not going to get through to them. They have to play this false equivalency game.

  3. Could this group of potential GOP nominees be any better for the dems? The Democratic Party is utterly incompetent yet they’re going to win the Presidency again next year because of how stupid Team Red is.

    1. Never underestimate the Stupid Party. Or overestimate it. Either one.

    2. The GOP lineup pretty strongly shows why sycophants are bad.

    3. There’s a reason they’re not doing debates.

    4. You think? The Dems certainly need the help. Who have they got? The wildly unpopular Hillary Clinton? Bernie Sanders, who is not going to play well with the American center? Or, uh…name one other Democratic candidate with any real visibility. Joe Biden doesn’t look like he’s even going to run. The other remaining candidates are polling around 1% each.

      My prediction: in the end, the party insiders will shut down their parties’ respective fringes, and nominate somebody relatively mainstream. For the Democrats, that means either Clinton or some party-warhorse stuffed shirt. Either way, the Democrats lose unless the Republicans spectacularly self-destruct.

      1. They will…

        1. We are at the end game of the FED funny money cycle, I say keep the dems in charge so they properly own the institution they created

          1. Yep. Just look at how much turmoil there was last week over the possibility of one small Fed rate hike. It doesn’t bode well.

    5. At this point it goes far beyond the opposition being stupid. Assuming fair elections, the majority of voters have to be really fucking stupid to vote Clinton versus another choice.

  4. “I do not believe Sharia is consistent with the Constitution of this country,” Carson said. “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.”

    Just like we learned from Kim Davis…

    1. She’s just following natural, truly American law. It’s only because of our Muslim-in-Chief that the US now recognizes… uh… gay marriages.

    2. Kim Dqvis didn’t actually violate any law. Kentucky has not revised their marriage law since the SCOTUS decision. But there is no more rule of law in the US so go head and go with feelz and intentionz.

  5. Better a Muslim than a Jew. Them people killed our Lord.

    1. I thought it was the Romans, and therefore, Catholics.

      Hamburgers…this is always so confusing.

      1. No, the Romans just taught him how to properly conjugate Latin.

      2. No, the Jews just contracted the hit out to the Italians. Amazing how some things stay the same after 2000 years.

        1. We have a long and mutually beneficial relationship with the wops. They aren’t the brightest folks, but they have excellent food and are reliable at wet work.

          1. Yeah, but too many family events.

            1. Hazard of Catholicism. Mormons, ditto.

          2. Also beautiful, but temperamental cars.

    2. “Better a Muslim than a Jew. Them people killed our Lord.”

      Obviously. They never could have got in power if He was still in charge of things.

    3. Nah, Jesus just regenerated into his new body a few days later. Then he travelled to the 18th century, where we better know him as ‘Benjamin Franklin’. Once there he taught humanit how to channel electricity as a means to fend off an invasion of extraterrestrial vampires.

  6. Set pants-shitting over Muslims to maximum ass yield, Mr Sulu! Depends at full power!

    1. Ah cannae gie ye th’ power yi”ll need captain! She’ll blaw th’ engines fur sure!

      1. Dammit Jim, I’m a doctor, not a Crusader!

        1. The needs of the faithful outweigh the needs of the dog-like infidel.

          1. Captain, captain although your Jesus’ abilities intrigue me he is quite honestly inferior. Morally, prophetically.

      2. KHAAAAAAAAAAANNNNNNNNNNNNN

        That sounds vaguely Muslim, right?

        (shits pants)

        1. Look, all he wants to offer the world is order. None of this Sharia stuff. Just nice, friendly order.

          What’s so bad about that?

        2. That part of the world could use another Khan. Thin out their ranks a little.

          1. the part about him blowing up Iran?

        3. Sikh, actually. Well, Mexican-Sikh, but close enough.

          “There’s your bomber right there. Beardsley McTurbanhead.”

          1. “Mexican-Sikh”

            That’s it! Roll em up!

          2. Oh, so if he’s not a Muslim, he just gets a pass? That’s called profiling, GMSM, and I don’t do it.

    2. It’s not exactly pants shitting. It’s just an observation. And a good one.

  7. Well, not to fan the flames, but:

    (1) Has Obama ever renounced the Muslim faith he was born and raised into? Huh? HAS HE?

    (2) What, exactly, would Obama have done differently if he really were the Muslim Manchurian candidate?

    [adjusts tinfoil hat, double-checks prepper supplies]

    Nah. Obama is the Pontiff of the Church of Obama. He isn’t Muslim, Christian, or anything else but a self-absorbed semi-sociopathic megalomaniac who has spent his entire life marinating in proggy derp.

    1. And by all accounts, Obama is a terrible golfer.

      1. I heard he shot an 18 the last time he went golfing with his pet unicorn. Or was that someone else?

        1. what did he shoot on the other 17 holes?

      2. No comrade. Premier Obama make hole in one very time. Is party rule.

    2. Agree with all points. Obama has never officially renounced his family’s faith. I don’t think he even pretends to go to a Christian church any more.

      1. I don’t think he even pretends to go to a Christian church any more.

        If he ever went to a Christian Church it hasn’t been made public. Trinity isn’t a church, it’s a political center.

        But Obama isn’t Muslim, he’s a secularist.

        1. Because there are churches out there that aren’t political centers.

          1. Most of them in fact.

            1. Nevertheless, there are many churches which are also political centers.

              1. I’ve been to a lot of different churches and I’ve never been to even one single church that gave a political message from the pulpit. So I’m sure “many” depends on your definition of “many.”

                1. In the mainline Protestant denomination churches people would not tolerate political preaching.

                2. I didn’t say anything about preaching politics from the pulpit. Churches do more than Sunday services. And a lot of those mainline Protestant denominations are quite firmly situated on the political left. I think “many” is accurate.

                  In any case, there only needs to be one for it to be a real thing.

                  1. “From the pulpit” doesn’t just mean Sunday services. I meant “speaking as an official representative of the church.” Of course, people in the church — pastors, deacons, members, etc. — have political opinions and may discuss them at social gatherings, and of course it’s true the people of compatible social and political opinions tend to gravitate toward each other. All of the official church communication I’ve ever heard has been oriented toward moral instruction, Bible study and interpretation, etc. Then again, I never went to one of those “God damn Amerikka” type churches Obama did.

                    In any case, there only needs to be one for it to be a real thing.

                    Oh, in that case, “many” Americans are pedophiles with a particular interest in chickens.

                    “Many” Americans are convinced that Bozo the Clown is the messiah and will come down from the clouds and deliver is to paradise in the Holy Clown Car.

                    “Many” Americans think dog shit tastes great and is less filling.

                    1. What the hell point are you trying to make here? Do you honestly believe that what I said was that only one example of a thing has to exist for it to be accurate to say that many exist?

                      Do you deny that a lot of Protestant denominations have gone full left-tard? Yes, they avoid being explicitly political both to keep their special tax status and to avoid alienating parts of the congregation. But that doesn’t mean they aren’t also political centers in many cases.

                      All I’m trying to say is that a lot of churches are political and that it is possible to be both a church and a political center. This is all in response to someone saying that the church Obama attends is not a church. Do they have Sunday services? Do they talk about Jesus and shit? Then it’s a fucking church.

                    2. All I’m trying to say is that a lot of churches are political and that it is possible to be both a church and a political center.

                      It is possible but it doesn’t describe Trinity. What sets Trinity apart from your description is its subversion of the religion it claims to espouse in order to further its political goals. Effectively they invented an entirely new religion (Black Liberation Theology) to give their politics a religious cover.

                      Your pointing out that sometimes churches deal with political events doesn’t encompass what Trinity does.

                3. Every church is potential political center. In all the years to church growing up, there was one time the father gae us a political sermon. Which was about how sometimes you just got to go and start a war with somebody, nothing else for it.

            2. It’s true. I tried t get a pastor that works out at my gym to give a sermon that explains how voting for progressives undoes salvation. Like each proggy vote applying acid to the protective shell around one’s soul until it is consumed and they become a progressive.

              He refused. He told me political sermons were strictly forbidden.

        2. Like Frank Marshall davis

  8. Fine, let’s make every president-elect eat a porkchop before the swearing in while watching The Innocence of Muslims.

    1. The Mesopotamian Candidate

  9. “what’s striking about the Taqiya paranoia is how little faith it exhibits in the Constitution, U.S. law, and the myriad of public and private institutions that have successfully kept all minority-religion coups at bay in the Land of the Free.”

    To be fair, Matt, this current administration’s total disregard for the Constitution and US law doesn’t instill in me the greatest amount of confidence in just disregarding the fact that a candidate who is a known believer in a certain religion might just make an attempt to subvert the Constitution and US law in order to further their religious agenda. It’s the same reason I would never vote for a candidate like Mike Huckabee, who shows a definite potential to let religion skew his judgement.

    1. the myriad of public and private institutions that have successfully kept all minority-religion coups at bay

      Well, not counting the Church of Progtardation, anyway.

      1. The cult of the church of warming.

    2. “Well, Chuck, would you be in favor of an Evangelical Christian being president?”

      Because, as Bernie Sanders pointed out, what they think and where they stand is what is important – and for many people, that is determined by their religious affiliations and level of faith.

  10. “Seventh Day Adventist’s ‘taqiya’ paranoia”

    If there’s anything weird about his Adventism, it’s about why an Adventist would be seeking political office. It’s not as weird and hypocritical as, say, an Amish guy using computer guided drones to survey his and direct his tractors, but it’s up there like that.

    Last official position I heard from the Adventist church on abortion was that the church “doesn’t condone” it, which is about as weak a condemnation as you’ll ever hear coming from fundamentalists. Most Adventists are so wary of the government that they’d rather not use the government to weigh in on that–because then the government might use that as an excuse to weigh in on other things.

    An Adventist running for President is like an anarcho-capitalist running for emperor–only more so.

    1. You gotta get to the top before you can start dismantling it. Or something.

    2. “What’s striking about the Taqiya paranoia is how little faith it exhibits in the Constitution, U.S. law, and the myriad of public and private institutions that have successfully kept all minority-religion coups at bay in the Land of the Free.”

      That may derive directly from his Adventism.

      Adventism is a reform of what was left of the Millerite movement in the 1840s (Second Great Awakening) Their belief in the apocalypse is central.

      The government is going to turn against all true believers and persecute them–as sure as the sun will rise tomorrow. Adventists have faith that the First Amendment protects them here in the U.S., better than they would be protected elsewhere, but the government is going to turn against them and good people in every other religion on earth–Adventists know that in their bones, and it makes them seem very libertarian to other fundamentalists. They’re extremely reluctant to sanction any infringement on individual rights by the government.

      Some Adventists would probably seem very libertarian to you, Matt. Ever hear of Desmond Doss, the first conscientious objector to win the Medal of Honor?

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desmond_Doss

      1. Chances are you’ll be hearing a lot more about Desmond Doss in the near future.

        http://www.hollywoodreporter.c…..ond-812094

        Adventists are the kind of people that stick it out as conscientious objectors when they’re drafted and won’t touch a gun but also stick up for the Second Amendment because they don’t want the government having that kind of power.

        You’ll find bad apples everywhere, but if there’s a fundamentalist religion whose precepts are more in harmony with libertarianism, I don’t know what it is.

      2. The government is going to turn against all true believers and persecute them–

        They’re not wrong.

    3. So…um, this election for Emperor…can, uh, anybody get in on that?

      /Asking for a friend

      1. You’re too late, I’ve already claimed emperorhood. However, there’s still time to sign up for the trial by combat to claim one of my coveted lucky positions.

        1. Apparently my phone thinks you would be lucky to be a lackey.

          1. I was trying to think up a way in which “Coveted luck positions” wasn’t dirty. I have not been successful.

      2. I hear Palpatine has the inside track. Just ignore all those ‘Dark Lord of the Sith’ rumors.

    4. An Adventist running for President is like an anarcho-capitalist running for emperor–only more so.

      I’m not surprised.

      I had some Seventh-Day Adventist relatives (they’re dead now, hence my use of past tense). The ends justified the means among the Adventists I knew. Many disliked government but I think only because they are the minority and thus the majority can easily run over them.

  11. Hey, at least he’s concerned about big government, because you don’t get any bigger government than a president whose religion might dictate legal ramifications for those who don’t follow it. Whether it’s Sharia law or simply some idiot not doing her job because of her mother-in-law’s spiritual influence, it’s a valid concern when deciding on Election Day.

  12. It’s a good thing there is no religious requirement for political office.

    1. Tell that to the voters. Do you think a proclaimed atheist could win on anything except maybe a local level?

  13. “The Reason Obama Has It Out For Netanyahu May Be More Terrifying Than You Thought Possible.”

    And it’s not okay.

  14. Out of curiosity, are there countries with Muslim Presidents that our commenters would feel comfortable with relocating to, and living their lives under that President and his government?

    Any candidates?

    1. Oh, I see. Trick question!

      1. I know.
        Like we’really all going to slap our collective foreheads and say “He’s right!! A Muslim president would totally ruin America! “

    2. So….if a Muslim were elected POTUS, that would completely transform the Uniteday States’ way of life (standard of living, economy, local/state/federal laws, customs, pop culture, etc)??? If the answer is no, then I don’t see the point of your post. If the answer is yes, then I would suggest you get acclimated to reality before trying to post “witty” comments.

      1. Are you suggesting that KevinP didn’t actually read and consider Matt’s argument, and instead rushed to the comments to defend Carson?

        Please, sir.

      2. Hate to contribute to paranois stupidity, but take a closer look at Turkey and where things are headed there before you say never.

        1. Turkey is hardly parallel either. They are a Muslim country that was governed for a while by a secular government. In the US, Muslims are a small minority with very little political power.

          You still need a whole lot of paranoia to get to the point where there is any danger of Sharia law being imposed in the US.

          1. No. All it takes is a war or an attack and president with enough political capital to consolidate power even more. I don’t think it will happen, but never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups, esp. when they can vote.

            1. I think it would take a lot more than that to impose Sharia. Political capital only gets you so far. Voters may be stupid, but in the particular case we are discussing, US voters aren’t that kind of stupid. The merest suggestion of Sharia and all that political capital is gone.

              1. No no. I imagine am much more malevolent and dastardly individual. Plus, probably, a change of hands.

                Hypothecailly:
                We are at war. China, Russia, Iran, all three, or someone else, it doesn’t matter. To better fight the way the President demands, and the legislature gives, increased power to the president, and decreased oversight. Said president, now with the power of the FYTW laws passed, to protect our Great Nation, begins with the draft and rationing.

                Then, as the war drags on, he president demands more and more power, including, likely, the power to appoint his successor (because you don’t change horses mid-stream or some such shit.) It gets even worse if we start losing.

                Before you know it, we have Sharia law, or something like it, for the good of the country. A well heeled media? Police state? Disarmed citizens? This isn’t so far off…

                Let me be clear, I don’t think this is likely, but I DO think it is possible, and, more importantly, I belive that IF someone is intending to do this, it wll be much more thought through than “Vote for me and hooray Sharia!”

      3. Well, while Obama hasn’t said he is a muslim (except for that one time with George S.) he has spouted off about the fundamentally transform stuff quite a bit….

      4. You could elect a cannibalistic serial-killer President and it wouldn’t immediately transfor the U.S. way of life, standard of living, economy, etc., etc.

        That doesn’t mean it wouldn’t be wrong and harmful to the republic to do so.

        1. Tell me more about the policies of this cannibalistic serial killer. If he is otherwise good, can we elect him but keep him in a cage or something so he doesn’t kill and eat any more people?

          1. From what I read of his campaign statements, he believes that children are fine eating up to 18 and can be home-butchered with no mandatory FDA inspections necessary. Post 18, all corpses must be buthered in approved facilities and pass a mandatory FDA inspection process. He plans to implement this entirely through “executive orders” and the FDA’s regulatory powers.

            He demands weekly sacrifices of tender young victims to feed him and his family at the Whitehouse. No antibiotics, growth hormones or GMO humans, please!

            You should hear his innovative solutions for ending world hunger and third-world over-population!

            Isn’t the President already kept in a cage, effectively?

            1. Well, I’m not interested, then.

              Isn’t the President already kept in a cage, effectively?

              I wish. Or if he is in a cage, they should just leave it in one place. In the internet age, why should the president ever leave the Whitehouse? It’s too expensive and too much of an imposition on other people to have him traveling.

              1. Good point.

        2. It wouldn’t “immediately,” gradually, or ever happen.

          How does the religion of the POTUS harm the repulic again?

        3. The worst serial killer in American history, Gary Ridgway, killed as many as ninety innocent civilians.

          Clinton, Bush, and Obama all beat that record handily.

      5. It would if they were subservient to Sharia Law over the constitution. So only Jack Muslims?

    3. There are lots of countries with Non-Muslim Presidents that I would no sooner set foot in.

  15. Taqiya is indeed a thing (here’s the Wikipedia entry), albeit a thing you are most likely to read about at anti-Islamic sites like American Thinker and FrontPage Magazine.

    Well, duh. Do you go to pro-Islam sites to learn about the darker side of Islam? I don’t go to leftist sites to learn about the darker side of the left. Not to say that it’s always to be trusted, but generally negative information about a viewpoint is best found in sources opposed to it.

    But like the heartland revolt against a would-be Sharia takeover, what’s striking about the Taqiya paranoia is how little faith it exhibits in the Constitution, U.S. law, and the myriad of public and private institutions that have successfully kept all minority-religion coups at bay in the Land of the Free.

    But not all religions are the same. One in particular is more political, more totalitarian, and more violent than the others.

    1. The Aztec blood cult?

    2. I read the H&R comments to learn about the dark side of libertarianism.

      1. I don’t recommend reading the comments here.

    3. the Constitution, U.S. law, and the myriad of public and private institutions that have successfully kept all minority-religion coups at bay in the Land of the Free.

      Maybe the paranoid noted how ineffective these institutions were at maintaining their original purposes against a committed group of ideologues?

      1. They sure were a lot more effective than anything anywhere else in the world.

    4. Of all the things to criticize about Islam, Taqiya is hardly one of them. It says it’s ok to lie about your religion when you or other Muslims are at risk of persecution. How exactly is that reprehensible? It’s not saying it’s ok to lie about your religion to launch a stealth campaign to become president of America. Also, it’s a Shiite concept, which constitutes a minority of Muslims around the world and in the US.

      “Do you go to pro-Islam sites to learn about the darker side of Islam?”

      To get an accurate account of Islam, I would not advise going to pro-Islam sites, but I also definitely wouldn’t recommend WND or Jihadwatch.

      1. I read around, pro and con.

      2. Regarding whether taqiya is reprehensible, I’d say yes. The Christian lesson from Peter’s betrayal of Christ was that it showed Peter had profoundly mixed priorities at that moment: that he didn’t truly trust God and that his life was more important than his faith. That’s why Christian doctrine is to never lie about your faith and to never recant, even in the face of death.

        If you are a believer, there are worse things than death.

      3. To get an accurate account of Islam, […]

        Read the Quran. It pretty much speaks for itself.

      4. ” It says it’s ok to lie about your religion when you or other Muslims are at risk of persecution. How exactly is that reprehensible? It’s not saying it’s ok to lie about your religion to launch a stealth campaign to become president of America. ”

        Lying about religion in order to attain to positions of power was done quite often by muslims in reconquered Spain. For what it’s worth, it was done habitually and nigh compulsively by English Catholics for several hundred years, starting some time before Cranmer’s shenanigans and persisting into the nineteenth century.

        1. Islam has no problem with lying to infidels. Period.

    5. Do you go to pro-Islam sites to learn about the darker side of Islam? I don’t go to leftist sites to learn about the darker side of the left.

      But I also don’t read leftist sites to find out about the darker side of the right, or political atheist sites to learn about what’s wrong with Christianity because they make shit up and distort facts to fit their narrative.

      1. Everybody distorts, intentionally or not. I just think that only by reading people on all sides can you get a good sense of where the truth lies. I think leftist sites are a good source of “what’s wrong with the right,” even if you have to wade through a lot of b.s. to find it.

        I’ve read one pro-Islam book, one anti-Islam book, and probably hundreds of articles on all sides. I think I have a better understanding of Islam than the average non-Muslim. And while there is some hysteria and exaggeration on the anti-Islam side, I generally find them more convincing.

        1. I’ve read one pro-Islam book, one anti-Islam book, and probably hundreds of articles on all sides.

          Just read the Quran; it pretty much speaks for itself. Ditto for the Old Testament.

    6. I’m sure the Vatican will be updating its “Pedophile Priests and You: A Guide for Altar Boys” page on its website any day now.

      1. Well Obama has invited the gay bishop to meet with the pope. Can we presume he will lobby for the admission of more gay men to the priesthood, considering how well it has worked so far?

        1. Calling gay chums to the priesthood is unsupportable. But not particularly moreso than would be calling heterosexual fornicators to the priesthood. Calling pederasts to the priesthood is probably worse.

    7. So I shouldn’t go to Sith Lord sites to learn about the darker side of the Force?

  16. I wouldn’t make fun of Carson too much. Why if it weren’t for the vigilance of that school in Texas that Mohammad kid might have gone on to become President.

    He’s a member of the terrorist group Al-Gebra.

    1. This whole election season is really encouraging me to take solace in al-Cohol.

    2. They hate us for our vectors!

  17. All candidates must be required to draw a picture of Mohammed.

    1. A stick figure will do for the more retarded candidates who never learned how to handle a pencil.

    2. Is a stick figure with a beard good enough? How about if they eat a bacon-wrapped pork chop while drawing a terrible picture?

      1. That disqualifies vegetarians.

        Of course, you know who else was a vegetarian…

        1. You? I’m still having trouble digesting it.

          1. You? I’m still having trouble digesting it.

            You’re a fucking cannibal.

        2. I once told Dom bitchy chick at my office that she ate like Hitler. She had no response.

          They never do.

        3. Count Duckula?

  18. Yeah, more like CUCK TODD, Amirite?

  19. I will say this.

    If there were a Muslim Presidential candidate, I think asking about his (or her) belief in the separation of church and state would be a legitimate question.

    I think it’s a legitimate question with Catholics, too.

    Our modern conception of separation of church and state ultimately derives from Martin Luther’s “two kingdoms” doctrine. It’s a protestant thing–like the priesthood of believers and righteousness by faith.

    I’m not saying that we shouldn’t vote for Muslim or Catholic candidates, but it’s a legitimate question to ask them–if their religion doesn’t have separation of church and state as a prominent feature. If it’s a legitimate question to ask southern evangelicals who have come to ignore the separation of church and state when it suits them, why wouldn’t it be a legitimate question for candidates of other religions that historically haven’t had any reverence for the separation of church and state at all?

    1. It’s a legitimate question because Islam does not recognize the difference between church and state. And it’s not something that can be explained away: Allah said it, Muhammad wrote it down, The End. To be a Muslim and you must believe the Koran. Period.

      1. There have been secularists.

        Ataturk was one.

        My understanding is that Tunisia has a centuries long history of wine making.

        I’m sure there are ways around these things–because people have been finding ways around them for centuries.

        But it would be a legitimate question to ask. You’re not a bigot or a racist for asking about a candidate’s commitment to the separation of church and state–no matter what his religion. And if all I know about somebody is that he’s Muslim, then there is a good reason to ask that question. The credibility of the answer may/can also be a legitimate question–it depends on the candidate and his or her credibility.

        1. The trouble is, “secular” Muslims can be considered, by other Muslims, to not really be Muslims. Islam is inherently “fundamentalist” in ways Christianity is not. Plus, the more moderate versions of Islam have been losing ground to the extremist core for decades now.

          1. I think my Turkish colleagues would have a problem with you questioning either their secular-ness OR their Muslim-ness..

          2. Why would that be relevant to this hypothetical Muslim candidate? Electing a Muslim president doesn’t mean we’d be electing the entirety of the global Muslim community president.

          3. The trouble is, “secular” Muslims can be considered, by other Muslims, to not really be Muslims.

            And they can consider them to really be Muslims too. They could also consider them to be giraffes or Martians.

            I really don’t think it’s anyone’s business to go around defining what someone else’s religion really is.

            Seems to me that we should be encouraging the Muslims who reject the more violent and offensive parts of the religion, not lecturing them on what a real Muslim is.

            1. I really don’t think it’s anyone’s business to go around defining what someone else’s religion really is.

              But if someone religion’s says: “Everything in this book is the direct, perfect, eternal, unaltered, untranslated word of Allah, and should be followed,” then I have a perfect right to point out when someone is not following it, and that many, many people who claim to be following it are mass-murdering, sex-slaving, and tossing gays off of buildings.

              And it’s only sensible to be suspicious of people who tell me I shouldn’t be worried, because most of them aren’t really following the holy book they supposedly follow. This strikes me as being along the lines of: “Don’t worry, he says he’s a Bolshevik, but he doesn’t really believe all the stuff Marx wrote.”

            2. I really don’t think it’s anyone’s business to go around defining what someone else’s religion really is.

              If you tell me you’re a Muslim, or a Catholic, or a Mormon, I’m going to assume that you subscribe to the stated political, social, and ideological beliefs that go along with that, just like I would for a socialist, communist, fascist, or progressive.

        2. Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijian, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran…all have had winemaking to one extent or the other. Turkey actually produces a huge amount of wine (and beer – hooray for Efes!) despite being 99% Muslim. Rak? (nearly identical to ouzo) is pretty much its national drink (after ?ay).

          1. OK, but tell me, what’s been the religious trend in all those countries over the last 50 years? They have all become more fundamentalist, not more secular.

            1. Armenia? Not really. Azerbaijian? Nah, mostly just despotic. Lebanon? It’s regressed more to the mean from the bad old days of the 70s and 80s.

              Turkey has mostly just bifurcated based on the strength of a Erdogan’s personality cult the past 25 or so years (back to his time as mayor of Istanbul) into more fundamentalist areas of rural central and eastern Anatolia (which also skew older) and more secular urban areas of Ankara, Istanbul, Bursa, Ismit, Eski?ehir, etc., and the Aegean region from the Marmara coast through Izmir, down to Antalya (which happen to skew younger).

            2. They have all become more fundamentalist, not more secular.

              And what do you think we should do with that information? Serious question. You seem to be quite keen on making the case that Islam is bad. And I agree on a lot of it. It is a particularly violent religion with world domination as one of its basic aims. But it’s also still a large potion of the world’s population. I just don’t see a permanent adversarial stance toward 1/4 of the world’s population helping to move them back in a more secular and tolerant direction.

              1. It’s a good question, and I don’t have much in the way of answers. It’s a huge conundrum that I predict will get much, much worse in the coming decades. But I would always advocate for the truth, whether or not there are solutions.

                One thing I’d advocate: end (or at least drastically restrict) Muslim immigration to the US and the West in general. Another: undermine the authority of the Koran. That’s the linchpin of the whole religion. There is plenty of evidence that it has prior sources and was heavily edited and written by regular old humans. If we can shift the perception of the Koran (“the eternal and perfect word of Allah”) to be more like the perception of the Bible (“Inspired by God, but there are many things in it we should just ignore these days”) then much of the steam would go out of radical Islam.

                The core problem is that as “liberal” Westerners, we want to consider all religions “equal.” Unfortunately, one religion believes it is their destiny to take over the world, and subjugate (or destroy) all the other religions. Google “Dar al-Harb.”

                1. Welcome to Sufism.

                  1. Sufis are a tiny, persecuted minority within Islam. If they were the leading sect, I wouldn’t worry as much.

                    1. So are Wahabis.

                      They only make up 23% of the population of Saudi Arabia.

                      And they’ll be happy to claim they’re persecuted.

        3. Well, if the subject’s religion condones him lying in such a situation, it does indeed call into question the credibility of any Muslim who says he is committed to first amendment principles preventing an establishment of religion and guaranteeing free exercise. It’s one’s of those situations where saying the right thing is exactly what someone who was committed to implementation of sharia would say, so how do you know? You can only tell if there have been previous incidents in the candidate’s life that would bolster or contradict the statement. In other words, actions speak louder than words.

        4. Given Islam’s fundamental, doctrinal, moral failings, I have a hard time understanding why anyone who is a credible, decent person would want to be associated with it.

          1. Especially after 9/11. “Wow, these religious nuts just killed 3,000 people? So, what’s that religion all about, anyway? I’m interested!”

          2. I have trouble understanding how a person with two reasoning brain cells to rub together can adhere to religions like islam or mormonism, which are far, far beyond the pale with regards to unbelievable, crasy bullshit compared to most religions. And yet, I have known several seemingly intelligent, reasoning souls that adhered both to islam and to mormonism (though, in the latter case, it was always members of the non-Youngian sects; all the LDS mormonites I’ve known were dishonest, thugly, and less than ingenious.). There is no way that a mainstream Mormonite, Hasid, Muslim, Freemason, or Pentecostal could hold a position of power and not abuse it or at least bend the rules to favour correligionists. There are offbeat doglegs under each heading (excepting maybe pentecostals–I don’t know), however, that include people who would not act dishonorably.

            A devout Adventist or a Jehovah one could probably trust in a position of power. But any adventist or jehovah that actually sought a position of power is obviously not very faithful to the philosophical tenets of his faith and so is probably just another lying politician and should be rejected on his face just for that–no further analysis necessary.

          3. Xtian ethics pretty much universally condemn subversion of a community’s political institutions, so in theory we should be able to trust any Christian man to political office. Yet, somehow, whenever it comes to practical applications, the Xtians forget any unwieldy ethical hindrances to brutalising everyone.

        5. And then there all those Muslim majority countries that are secular. Oh wait……..

    2. ‘Our modern conception of separation of church and state ultimately derives from Martin Luther’s “two kingdoms” doctrine. It’s a protestant thing–like the priesthood of believers and righteousness by faith’

      Nonsense. The original principals are found in the writings of the earliest doctors of the church. Rome got entangled all up with imperium and gradually slid away, bit by bit, from early tradition. Just reviewing the councils of Chalcedon and Cornstantinople, one finds it very difficult to admit the Western implication of the church into the state without some very strong condemnation or imprecations.

      And in fact, progressivism might be traced back to the system of rationalisations employed by the bishopprinces of the West to reconcile their use of state power with their religious mission and the traditions which condemned it.

      There’s a reason that the staff of episcopal authority often bears the face of the dragon in the East while in the West bishops wield the cane of auspicy. There’s something to it.

  20. “I do not believe Sharia is consistent with the Constitution of this country,” Carson said. “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.”

    Keep in mind, this is coming from a guy that wants to rewrite the tax code based on biblical tithing.

    1. A ten percent flat tax would be an improvement.

      1. I concur

        1. Yes. But not because it says so in the Bible. Though if that was the only place he wanted to insert his religion, I might vote for him.

          1. If we held elected officials to their enumerated powers, we wouldn’t have to worry about the religious views of one man, because the legislature makes the law, the executive just faithfully carries out that law.

            However, out here in the real world….

      2. A 10% flat tax would likely generate a lot less revenue than the current tax code. The theory is that some (much?) of that would be made up in growth, but that’s not the kind of thing you can know with any certainty.

        Tax reform has to go along with government spending reform. Or people are going to be acting “shocked, shocked, I tell you” when there is an enormous surge in deficit spending.

        1. Well obviously spending is out of control and needs to be dealt with. I’d prefer completely replacing the income tax with a national sales tax but I’d take either that or the 10% flat.

    2. So? How is Carson’s tax plan unconstitutional? Just because something is derived from the bible doesn’t make it unconstitutional. I know a lot of you try to draw false equivalencies between Islam amd Christianity, but come on.

  21. a disturbing if familiar lack of faith in U.S. institutions

    What a bizarre comment from a libertarian.

  22. Obama’s Muslim Childhood – for your reading pleasure.

    http://www.danielpipes.org/119…..-childhood

    1. Is clicking that going to get on some sort of list? Fuck it, I’m sure that I’m probably on all of them anyways.

      1. Nothing visiting Reason didn’t already.

        1. All the cool kids are on the Reason list. Early adopters got their subpoenas before they all came with pre-approved gag orders!

  23. He was specifically asked a question that he wasn’t prepared for and flubbed it then found himself stuck in the news cycle hell of having to clarify himself on an issue he never brought up in the first place. Would I vote for Carson? No. Do I think “No Muslim Presidents” is a tenent of his platform. No, that’s just disingenuous. It’s sad I have to constently defend people I don’t like from strawmen arguments.

    1. I think that’s half of why people like Trump. He very rarely falls for the “mandatory apology penance” routine we’re all so tired of.

      1. I think is definately true

      2. Now the media is going full-tilt on the “How dare you not condemn someone who attacks Obama in a way we consider unacceptable?” The whole “Failure To Condemn” thing rarely gets applied to Democrats, of course.

        1. Not a single peep fro the progtard end over the whole BLM thing where they chanted about killing cops. Hell, the DNC endorses them.

      3. A frnd of mine was come round snivelling about some great tragedy in his life–woman troubles if I recall correctly. He’s getting all weepy and pussified and generally making an embarrassment of everything and himself. So I tell him not to be such an arsehool. I remind him of what my mother used to always say to me, a man never cries and he NEVER apologises (Though I see nothing wrong with a man apologising to a woman, in private, if he is willing to deny it if it ever comes out.).

        That pushed him over the edge. “Well, I’m sorry!” he shrieks, “But I do both!” and starts crying.

        1. ‘ (Though I see nothing wrong with a man apologising to a woman, in private, if he is willing to deny it if it ever comes out.). ‘

          And provided he doesn’t really mean it.

    2. He was specifically asked a question that he wasn’t prepared for and flubbed it then found himself stuck in the news cycle hell of having to clarify himself

      Maybe if Carson wasn’t such an incompetent and ignorant nincompoop, he would (1) not fall for such simple political traps, and (2) would actually have something intelligent to say.

    3. “He was specifically asked a question that he wasn’t prepared for and flubbed it then found himself stuck in the news cycle hell of having to clarify himself on an issue he never brought up in the first place. ”

      Do we want anybody that stupid in charge of anything?

  24. “Taqiya is indeed a thing (here’s the Wikipedia entry), albeit a thing you are most likely to read about at anti-Islamic sites like American Thinker and FrontPage Magazine.”

    Wait, you think you just rebutted anyone concerned about this phenomenon? By saying “oh, well, it’s mostly in American Thinker and FrontPage Magazine?”

  25. As I see it, there are plenty of excellent, qualified Muslims who would be excellent adornments for the White House.

    But I doubt those are the kinds of Muslim candidates who would actually run.

    1. To be fair, i’d not consider anyone who wants the job to be fit to get it.

  26. I’m not sure it is fair to say Carson is “worried” about a secret muslim president. He was asked a specific question – one which had no basis other than perhaps “gotcha” journalism – and he answered it accordingly. Anyone with a layman’s knowledge of Islam and Sharia who put a moment’s thought into the question might reasonably answer in the same way.

    Then his answer was attacked as racist, so he expanded his thoughts on Sharia and Taqiya (which I’m betting almost none of us have ever heard of). It isn’t unreasonable to ponder the implications of some of the basic tenants of a belief system with respect to the system of government a candidate would be heading. We certainly don’t shy away from criticizing conservative christians like Cruz for their adherence to a belief system that might be at odds with the guarantees of the constitution.

    I’d say the more interesting thing from a “is this candidate ready” point of view is the fact that he didn’t have the savvy to deflect the question. But that’s just inside baseball.

    The other bit of interest here is the question of the question. To whit… why ask that question in the first place? Since when has that been an issue on this campaign trail? Where are the muslim candidates that we are discussing here? The obvious answer is that this is in no way a legitimate question – it is a think-tank designed question designed to feed a narrative, just like the war on women questions last time.

    1. To whit… why ask that question in the first place?

      Yeah, the better answer would have been:

      “I wasn’t aware there were any Muslims running for President. When there are, I will be happy to discuss that candidate’s views.”

    2. “I’m not sure it is fair to say Carson is “worried” about a secret muslim president.”

      That’s putting it nicely. It’s a bullshit fabrication is what it is. Only 14 more months of this nonsense to go.

    3. The obvious answer is that this is in no way a legitimate question – it is a think-tank designed question designed to feed a narrative, just like the war on women questions last time.

      You’re just bitter because we know all about the rape camps /feminist

      1. Rape camps? Are they hiring?

    4. To whit… why ask that question in the first place?

      are you seriously asking that? The question is asked precisely for what has followed. Same reason George S asked The Trump whether Obama was born in the US. Again. At least Donald had the good sense to say ‘who gives a shit?’ and talk about other things.

  27. What I find disturbing is that voters require their candidates to have “faith”.

    To me that means that they are gullible and naive and make decisions based on unfounded feelings rather than hard facts.

    1. I find your lack of faith…

  28. This reminds me of the question (well, meandering statement disguised as a question) given to JFK about “mental reservation” at his famous Houston Speech. This was the speech that addressed concerns about his Catholic faith.

    Quoting: “However, we are also under an obligation to keep secrets faithfully and sometimes the easiest way of fulfilling that duty is to say what is false or tell a lie” (Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 10, page 195). “When mental reservation is permissible, it is lawful to corroborate one’s utterances by an oath if there be an adequate cause”

    And so on.

    1. Except that countless thousands of Catholics aren’t murdering people in their quest to establish a worldwide totalitarian theocracy, with the support of tens (if not hundreds) of millions of other Catholics.

      1. Except that countless thousands of Catholics aren’t murdering people in their quest to establish a worldwide totalitarian theocracy, with the support of tens (if not hundreds) of millions of other Catholics.

        Not anymore, but they sure used to be, and in a really bad way. And the Catholic church didn’t stop voluntarily either.

        1. It’s been hundreds of years since, though.

          1. Well, depends on how you count. The Catholic church was instrumental in bringing Hitler to power, and they supported fascist regimes even after WWII.

            Furthermore, what difference would a few centuries make to an organization that claims to represent God on Earth? The Catholic church and its deity should be judged by the entirety of the Old Testament, the New Testament, and 2000 years of Christian history, no do-overs or “we have changed our minds”.

            1. Yeah…….that’s the same.

              Call me when the Catholic League starts hijacking planes and crashing them into skyscrapers. And when they start their own nuke program and rant about using them on infidels.

        2. “Not anymore, but they sure used to be, and in a really bad way. And the Catholic church didn’t stop voluntarily either.”

          No. Catholics assassinated huge numbers of people (consider the Albigensian genocide–perhaps the most successful ever performed, a sure sign of god’s favour) in their quest for TREASURE. It’s very different to the muslim lunacy. Furthermore, this fact only strengthens the position of Catholic philosophy, as one of its basic premises is the innate incompetence of men to tell good from evil or to direct themselves wisely in the smallest of endeavours. It’s not like Mormonism or Islam, whose philosophies claim to elevate adherents to an exalted state of perfectness.

          I don’t know if the prods whacked more people in their various pursuits of treasure or not (offhand, I’d guess less), but they certainly were more customarily brutal and shockingly inhuman whenever they got going.

  29. I understand that CNN thinks this is dangerous talk but tap away I must-

    Muslim leaders are fantastically endowed with a deep understanding of the pluralism that composes collective human nature and this is reflected in all their open societies and freedom-embracing states so I don’t see the problem at all with embracing blindly one of these wonderful dudes to manage a country founded on escape from tyranny.

    1. Fuck, Marxists are even more excellent

  30. Way to go Matt. Twist someone’s words into something they didn’t actually say and argue against that mischaracterization. I don’t particularly like Carson as a politician but you’re full of shit here.

    1. That’s the game. Scott Walker wants a wall on the Canadian border, Trump thinks Obama’s a Muslim because he didn’t correct the planted question, and Carson’s bad because of this.

    2. The headline is bullshit, but I don’t really see where he does that in the actual article.

  31. I heard something about this on BBC radio last night and wondered “why the fuck is this international news?” Seems pretty unsurprising and not terribly unusual.

  32. To me, the interesting question isn’t “How did Carson answer?” Its “Why was this even asked?”

    But, of course, even considering the notion that large swathes of the media, academia, etc. might be firmly in the grip of politically weaponized leftists makes me a some kind paleo nutter, so never mind.

    1. And “How did Hillary answer?” You know, if she took questions…

    2. Chuck Todd is a good SJW and progtard. In lockstep with progressive groupthink. That’s why that question was asked.

  33. Why is “Reason magazine” defending taqqiyah — the practice of Islamic lying? Are you guys not in the least moral? Drop Islam; support Israel (especially the works of Meir Kahane, zt”l,) and do not preach the evil of holocaust denial anymore.

    “There’s no need to fear. Underzog is here.”

    1. Oh, good, I was waiting for Underzog to weigh in…

      1. Where’s MNG? It seems like old home week.

    2. VuReason Schurnal geshribn a farteidikung fun ‘taqqiyah’? Du bist du bist mushuggah, mein teier Underzog?

      1. Wow, the squirrels had fun with that…

        Vu Reason Schurnal geshribn a farteidikung fun ‘taqqiyah’? Du bist mushuggah, mein teier Underzog?

        1. Now you’re speaking my language. It was good enough for Jesus, it’s good enough for me.

    3. Why is “Reason magazine” defending taqqiyah — the practice of Islamic lying?

      Everybody who believes that they could bring peace, prosperity, and salvation to the world if only they had enough power lies and deceives. Muslims are no different from Christians, fascists, progressives, or communists.

  34. Isn’t there a rule in Islam that once Muslims run a country, they’re morally entitled to use any means at their dispose to retain or retake power there? I sort of vaguely recall that, though I’m sure some people here are more versed in Islamic law than me. So, my question: does a Muslim winning an election count as “Islamic rule”, or is democracy a separate thing for that purpose?

    1. Since there is no central authority definite Islamic law, I would imagine there are differing opinions on the subject.

      1. Maybe so, but if even 20% of Muslim scholars or authorities said yes, that would present a legitimate reason for rejecting a Muslim for president on account of his religion.

        1. I agree it would be a legitimate concern. I’d want to see a lot of evidence of real commitment to secular government and explicit rejection of the nastier parts of the religion.

          1. The thing is, it doesn’t matter how nice or liberal the person in question is. The problem is what his co-religionists will feel emboldened to do indefinitely into the future on account of his religion, at least until their religion is liberalized or destroyed.

            1. You’ve made an interesting point. I hadn’t considered that angle.

    2. “Isn’t there a rule in Islam that once Muslims run a country, they’re morally entitled to use any means at their dispose to retain or retake power there?”

      The mainstream muslim cults promote such an understanding, yes, and I think it’s demanded by any honest reading of the texts. There are, however, squishdown offshoots that understand differently.

  35. We already have a President who thinks the Constitution is a buffet where he can pick and choose which parts of it are relevant or controlling.
    We certainly don’t need someone who would deny the supremacy of the Constitution to sectarian law (Shariah).

  36. Video – Texas Muslims: Mandating Respect For Constitution And Texas State Law Is Offensive Islamophic Rhetoric | ConstitutionRising.com
    A resolution which just passed the Irving, TX City Council has some local Muslims up in arms. They are collectively claiming that not being allowed to have their own separate judicial system and being required to follow the same laws and Constitution which every other person in the United States must adhere to is somehow discriminatory against them..
    One Muslim activist, Omar Suleiman, labeled the action as the “most disgraceful as a citizen in Irving.” Of course, he wouldn’t be allowed to practice his own variety of law under a totalitarian Sharia Muslim country, but that factor doesn’t seem to enter into consideration. It’s only disgraceful when he’s not allowed to bend the will and the traditions of the American people to his rigid way of thinking.

    What also lies at the root of the contrived outrage is the de facto declaration of the illegality of a Muslim tribunal which has been operating in the city.
    http://www.rickwells.us/texas-…..-rhetoric/

    1. If being subject to the tribunal was truly voluntary (which is doubtful), I don’t think the city has any proper power to ban it. They’d still be subject to the regular laws too.

  37. “Taqiya is a component of Shia that allows, and even encourages you to lie to achieve your goals,” Carson said.

    That’s a really retarded description of Taqiya. But hey, what the heck. Let’s put on our tinfoil hats and pretend it is accurate.

    So what that tells us is… Shiite politicians will lie to achieve their goals. Scary! Thank goodness Christian, Jewish, and atheist politicians never do that sort of thing here in America.

  38. “”Taqiya,” a practice in Shia Islam in which a Muslim can mislead nonbelievers about the nature of their faith to avoid persecution.”

    The stereo type that Arabs are liars is true

    With the covet that every race religion and creed are liars

    And the the other covet that because of white mans guilt and PC stupidity MSM tends to overcompensate for the stereotype and try to pretend that Arabs never lie.

  39. If we are going to cherry pick stupid shit…..

    “My Muslim faith”

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKGdkqfBICw

  40. Because majority Islamic countries have demonstrated themselves to be totes in line with “free minds and free markets.”

    Christ Welch, could you be any more a tool of the progressive groupthink?

    1. ?

      Did he say that they were?

      1. ThomasD is just pointing out a contradiction. Libertarians, coming from the Western liberal tradition, believe that all religions should be equal before the law, which sounds nice, until you have one religion that doesn’t believe in church/state separation, and believes it is following God’s will to conquer the world.

        1. Or you have one religion that holds itself as the supreme law.

          I’d invite everyone to actually read what Carson said in the initial interview. Then contrast that with what Welch paraphrases him to have said.

          One of them is not being honest, and it certainly was not Carson.

      2. I’ll answer that when you tell me if Carson actually said what Welch’s headline states.

  41. So you’d be okay with them molesting young boys in the White House?

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09…..-boys.html

    Not saying every Muslim does it (many like the late Yasser Arafat prefer goats on occasion), but it’s a part of their culture

  42. “Taqiya is a component of Shia that allows, and even encourages you to lie to achieve your goals,” Carson said.

    I’m sure Carson has first hand knowledge.

  43. Carson is quite correct in his concerns, as sharia is just as nasty and abhorrent as Marxism and fascism.

    And of course, a Muslim president would have as his fist allegiance to the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and would see it as his duty to implement sharia law as the only law of the USA.

    But of course the USA already has a Muslim president.

  44. Is it just me or does the interchangeability of Islam, Statism and Christianity make Carson’s point moot?

    1. I wouldn’t call them interchangeable. Both halves of Judeo-Christian culture have a fair bit of literature supporting separation of church and state, and cynicism about secular power. From Judaism, there is the long succession of corrupt human kings, from Christianity, there is “Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s”, “The Law was made for man, and not man for the Law”, and of course Christ’s explicit rejection of what was presumably a valid diabolical offer of all-encompassing secular power. And culturally, there is the diaspora and the persecution of the early Christian church.

      Islam’s narrative is that it was born in war, spread by the sword, and always wed secular and religious authority. Certainly all religions have the potential to become theocratic or militaristic, but Islam has theocracy and militarism as part of its identity/cultural narrative.

      1. All three are based on altruism through collectivist / socialist mysticism. There is nothing secular about Statism as it requires your mind and soul on a platter.
        Once one abandons reason then everything becomes interchangeable.

  45. Carson thinks it is proper for Christian armies to invade and occupy Muslim countries.

  46. I am amazed that anyone would asume thatObama’s “birth certificate” is valid. It has not been validated by any documents experts and the circumtsances of its apearance hardly makes anyone confident that its not a phony. As to whether he’s aMuslim, I don’t know, but his actions speak loudly that this is certainly no Christian. – he pays no attention to the mass murders of Christians but invites some Muslim gradeschooler to the White House because he brought to school something which looked like a bomb.

  47. Welch is an idiot – everyone knows that Islam is hardly “just another religion, you know like Baptists.” Devoted Muslims cannot be defenders of the Constitution, which implements a constitutional representative democracy, since they must abide by the theocracy demanded by their religion.It’s a simple as that.

  48. 214 comments and counting… libertarians, wake up! Fuck, what a waste of air! Meanwhile armies of ignoramuses are sucking up the venoms of HRC, Bernie Sanders and their ilk, people who are AVOWING the final revocation of what remains of our natural liberties. Gads, man! What the fuck ever happened to the idea of an alternative media?

    1. OMG, you’re right! What was I thinking?

      Hillary & Bernie: bad!

      (Glad I got that taken care of).

  49. What site was it that linked here?

  50. Oh, for the love of God.

  51. Seems like the criticism here of Carson’s comment is contradictory to Reason’s principles. Islam is the only major religion that explicitly rejects the separation of church and state. The fact is that Islam has theocracy as its primary goal. An adherent of Islam, if he is true to his faith, can not uphold the Constitution.

    You should be agreeing with Dr. Carson, not sneering at him.

  52. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…
    http://www.homejobs90.com

  53. I’m amazed more Republican candidates haven’t picked up and used Samuel Johnson’s quote regarding this precise issue. ?See, Elliot’s Debates, Vol. IV, pp 198-199.

    So, I offer the following response any Republican candidate is welcome to steal: “On the topic of a Muslim becoming President, I don’t think that hypothetical question is worth discussing here, especially as I fully intend to become the next President of the United States and (couple variations here: that question would be irrelevant when I am elected// that question would not be an issue if I am elected//I am not Muslim//I am a Christian – pick 1 or draft a variant). I would also note that this issue has been debated at length before, including by our Founding Fathers. Personally, I happen to agree with the opinion expressed by Samuel Johnston when he spoke to this exact issue in the convention in North Carolina to ratify our Constitution back in 1788. Next question.”

  54. Well, what proof do we have that he isn’t our first Taqiya-in-chief? His former pastor, Rev. Wright, a former Muslim himself, said he counseled Obama on how to ‘reconcile’ his Muslim background with Christianity. Taqiya? We don’t know, but his actions over the years might give us a clue.

    He told an Islamic dinner – “I am one of you.”
    He was on ABC News and referenced – “My Muslim faith.” The host corrected him to “my Christian faith” but this slip of the tongue made absolutely no sense in context if he meant to say “my Christian faith.”
    He gave $100 million in U.S. taxpayer funds to re-build foreign mosques.
    He wrote that in the event of a conflict -“I will stand with the Muslims.”
    He exempted Muslims from penalties under Obamacare that the rest of us have to pay.
    He said that NASA’s “foremost mission” was an outreach to Muslim communities.
    He funneled $900 Million in U.S. taxpayer dollars to Hamas.
    He ordered the USPS to honor the MUSLIM holiday with a new commemorative stamp.
    He directed our UK Embassy to conduct outreach to help “empower” the British Muslim community. Not our business.
    Obama’s actions tell the truth about him.

  55. I make up to $90 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $40h to $86h? Someone was good to me by sharing this link with me, so now i am hoping i could help someone else out there by sharing this link… Try it, you won’t regret it!……

    http://www.HomeJobs90.Com

    1. Not relevant to the article.

  56. what’s striking about the Taqiya paranoia is how little faith it exhibits in the Constitution, U.S. law, and the myriad of public and private institutions that have successfully kept all minority-religion coups at bay in the Land of the Free.

    Not true. The Constitution and America’s civic institutions did not keep Mainline Protestant principles, such as social justice, from becoming the guiding light for American politicians. According to Wikipedia:

    The term mainline Protestant was coined during debates between modernists and fundamentalists in the 1920s.[24] Several sources claim that the term is derived from the Philadelphia Main Line, a group of affluent suburbs of Philadelphia; most residents belonged to mainline denominations.[25] Today, most mainline Protestants remain rooted in the Northeastern and Midwestern United States.”

    and

    The mainline denominations emphasize the biblical concept of justice, stressing the need for Christians to work for social justice, which usually involve politically liberal approaches to social and economic problems. Early in the 20th century, they actively supported the Social Gospel.

    The rise of government spending in the 20th Century shows that religious doctrine can become the law of the land provided the people holding those beliefs are wiling to avoid any mention of religion while advocating for them during political debates.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.