Ben Carson: U.S. shouldn't elect a Muslim president

Jews follow the OT and they don't go around trying to convert people

He also did not say NO Muslim should be president any more than he said no Christian should be.

 

No they don't follow it or they would be stoning homosexuals. So no they don't follow the OT.

Actually he did say just that:

 

So then no worries

He said he would not elect a Christian either who put their religion above the constitution

 

Yes and he wrongfully assumes ALL Muslims would put their faith above the Constitution. No matter how you try and defend him, Carson is simply ignorant when it comes to other people's religion.

I have no problem agreeing with him that nobody should put their faith above the constitution, but he is wrong in saying ALL Muslims would put their faith above the constitution.

 

Benny is trying to be a politician, and is well aware that he can pander to his potential supporters by Islamophobic utterances - especially abstract ones since no Muslim is running for president.

If he had originally answered that no one should put any religion above the Constitution in matters of governance, Mike Huckabee might have declared a fatwa against him.

 

Unlike nationalist Atheism (which vanquished the Bible belt with five Platonic Philosopher Kings) or Islam, which claimed to be the God of the Books, the Torah was not designed for a conquering religion with unlimited territory potential and absolute dominion of anything gained until all States were for Atheism…I mean Allah.

 

The written text that they claim is the word of Allah does.

Actually he merely stated that he would not advocate electing a Muslim to the Presidency. Much like I wouldny advocate electing a Democrat to the Presidency. You need to make up BS because the facts dont fit your preconceived views.

 

The BS is coming from you. Ben does not think any Muslim should be president. My point has not been refuted by you nor anyone else. Carson may be a brilliant doctor but he sucks at politics and his ignorance is astounding. Your defense of his comments only proves me right as you got schooled in the SSM issues on other threads as well.

 

Only those who follow the Koran . If you dont put Allah above secular law you are no Muslim. Islam means submission to Allah on all matters.

 

Well, we can assume since he would not advocate we elect any Muslim to the presidency we can assume he would prefer not to have any Muslim as President. Much like I would not advocate we elect any democrat to the presidency and would prefer not to have any Democrat as president

 

Islam is not merely a belief, so that it is enough merely to preach it. Islam, which is a way of life, takes practical steps to organize a movement for freeing man. Other societies do not give it any opportunity to organize its followers according to its own method, and hence it is the duty of Islam to annihilate all such systems, as they are obstacles in the way of universal freedom. ...

This religion is really a universal declaration of the freedom of man from servitude to other men and from servitude to his own desires, which is also a form of human servitude; it is a declaration that sovereignty belongs to God alone and that He is the Lord of all the worlds. It means a challenge to all kinds and forms of systems which are based on the concept of the sovereignty of man; in other words, where man has usurped the Divine attribute. Any system in which the final decisions are referred to human beings, and in which the sources of all authority are human, deifies human beings by designating others than God as lords over men. This declaration means that the usurped authority of God be returned to Him and the usurpers be thrown out-those who by themselves devise laws for others to follow, thus elevating themselves to the status of lords and reducing others to the status of slaves. In short, to proclaim the authority and sovereignty of God means to eliminate all human kingship and to announce the rule of the Sustainer of the universe over the entire earth. ... Qutb

Their fascination was arisen after the defenders of democracy and the
defenders of other such false ideologies (who have no religion) defended democracy simply for the sake of it, and they mixed the falsehood with the Truth.
..... They distort the Truth with Falsehood, and mix the Light with the Darkness, and the Polytheism of democracy with the Monotheism of Islam. But we, with the help of Allah, replied to all of these fallacies, and showed that democracy is a religion. But it is not Allah’s religion. It is not the religion of monotheism, and its parliamentary councils are just places of polytheism, and safe havens for paganistic beliefs. All of these must be avoided to achieve monotheism, which is Allah’s right upon His servants. We must destroy those who follow democracy, and we must take their followers as enemies - hate them and wage a great Jihad against them.
Maqdisi

 

Or anyone of either party that espouses progressive ideology in my case

 

I'm sorry what authority do you have to decide who is or who is not a Muslim? Try again my liberal friend.

- - - Updated - - -

Ah so you are for slavery, women not voting, etc. since those were ALL progressive.

 

That post reminds me of the time I posed the following in Nov 2001, with an embedded link, and the forum had this weird alternating color scheme for posts kind of like alternating rows on a spreadsheet, when colored the embedded links wouldn’t contrast, so the “liberal” thought I had come around to their way of thinking:

Again we say that when someone feels that he is unjustly treated, and no one is repulsing or stopping the injustice inflicted on him, he personally seeks ways and means for lifting that justice. Of course, not everyone is capable of finding the best way for lifting the injustice inflicted on him. People resort to what they think is the best way according to their own ideas, and they are not all capable of reaching out for what is beyond what is available to arrive to the best idea or means.
To find the best way, after having found their way to God and His rights, those who are inflicted by injustice need not to be isolated from their natural milieu, or be ignored deliberately, or as a result of mis-appreciation, by the officials in this milieu. They should, rather, be reassured and helped to save themselves, and their surroundings.

Own ideas of justice like that goes over well with “liberal” freedom fighters.

For some one state fits all is freedom, like a Sith lord’s “peace,” a so called “melting pot” where everyone accepts the progressive liberal “multicultural” hypocrisy of a monoculture creed, as if somehow the Tower of Babel is a natural phenomenon, where all peoples seek the same kinds freedom, to have a Bunny Ranch in every hood for their daughters, who the “liberals” would consummate with at 10 years old if they could, but to sustain such homogenized freedom they will have to create the means of losing it. If they can’t ban speech outright, so none but the light of their “liberal” progressive Allah is heard, they test-ban hate speech to the approval of “liberal” professors everywhere:

 

I can read the Koran

Those things were mostly started by Christians who are conservatives

Women Could Vote Before The 19th Amendment
http://knowledgenuts.com/2013/12/11/women-could-vote-before-the-19th-amendment/

In some states they could vote back in the 1700s if they owned land

 

15 of the 19 hijackers were middle or upper middle class Saudis. What injustice was inflicted upon them?
The injustice is the absence of Islamic governance called for by the Koran and Hadiths.

Bin Laden "What America is tasting now is only a copy of what we have tasted. Our Islamic nation has been tasting the same for more than 80 years, of humiliation and disgrace, its sons killed and their blood spilled, its sanctities desecrated....the sword fell upon America after 80 years."

The disolution of the Islamic Caliphate. Although, he would equally be opposed to the Ottoman Empire's faux Caliphate had it continued.

 

Specious, I have given you no reason to believe I do and in fact reason to believe the opposite here and throughout several of our discussions. Please stay on target.

It could in both cases and since as one poll I saw over the weekend showed that 58% of American Muslims would support usurping the Constitution and our laws with Sharia law please explain why we should not at the least be cautious putting Muslims into our government.

As I pointed out, the left was in a tizzy when Pat Robertson ran for President and even Romney and his religious beliefs were called into question by the left. So what is the difference?

 

Well, the GLARING difference is that while Islamic doctrine dictates an Islamic government applying Islamic doctrine as law, the Christian doctrine is "My Kingdom is not of this world", "render unto Caesar, that which is Caesars" "Obey all authorities instituited among men" and all of that. The Islamic Caliphate as it existed from 632 until the 1920s, and again now for a few years, is THE NORM under Islamic doctrine. The 90 years of its absence was the exception.

 

Own ideas of justice, which Saddam supported before and after the serious 1997 national day plan of “justified maneuvers,” such as the attacks of 9/11, don’t need valid justifications. The magical “they” could claim it was the sanctions killing the Iraqi children in the first fatwa, while the liberals claim it was the snub of Saudi Arabia along with “black concerns” and Saddam was their secular enemy when the messengers of their god came to us causing us to die to bring us to Islam, and in the second fatwa add Clinton’s Operation Desert Fox, then when those same children stand in line a decade later to become police they are slaughtered by Al Quacka, because that is what people do when destabilized, they seek to stabilize with own ideas of justice killing until everyone submits to own ideas of justice.

“…when I take a stance on something, all I can talk to you about it how I feel about it and why. And I don't have to justify it, and you don't have to listen to it...” (Whoopi Goldberg on Hollywood Politics Friday, February 02, 2007 Fox News)
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,249899,00.html

The “liberal” thinks, therefore, it must be true.

And that is very well known:

July 1997, South Movement, "the path of Jihad and proper action": "Those who desire to face up to the Zionists conspiracies, intransigence, and aggressiveness must proceed towards the advance centers of capabilities in the greater Arab homeland and to the centers of the knowledge, honesty and sincerity with whole heartiness if the aim was to implement a serious plan to save others from their dilemma or to rely on those capable centers; well-known for their positions regarding the enemy, to gain precise concessions from it with justified maneuvers even if such centers including Baghdad not in agreement with those concerned, over the objectives and aims of the required maneuvers." (On the 29th anniversary of Iraq's national day (the 17th of July 1968 revolution). President Saddam Hussein made an important comprehensive and nation wide address) http://southmovement.alphalink.com.au/countries/Iraq/speech.htm

Oh, wait, I left out the other reason for those attacks, Pepsi, pay every penny save Israel.

"It is the duty of the followers of other religions to stop disputing the sovereignty of Islam in this region," (legitimately elected Palestinian sovereignty)

What is Islam, is it a true faith or government?

Volume 1, Book 2, Number 48:
One day while the Prophet was sitting in the company of some people, (The angel) Gabriel came and asked, "What is faith?" Allah's Apostle replied, 'Faith is to believe in Allah, His angels, (the) meeting with Him, His Apostles, and to believe in Resurrection." Then he further asked, "What is Islam?" Allah's Apostle replied, "To worship Allah Alone and none else, to offer prayers perfectly to pay the compulsory charity (Zakat) and to observe fasts during the month of Ramadan."

“[9.11] But if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, they are your brethren in faith; and We make the communications clear for a people who know.”

[2.43] And keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate and bow down with those who bow down.”

“[98.1] Those who disbelieved from among the followers of the Book and the polytheists could not have separated (from the faithful) until there had come to them the clear evidence:
[98.2] An apostle from Allah, reciting pure pages,
[98.3] Wherein are all the right ordinances…”

If the Liberals say those “right ordinances” are compatible with our Constitution, then they can’t swear an oath for president, if they say they are not compatible, “they are the worst of men.”

 

Sorry, just not picking up any meaning to this jibberish. STILL 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis. What injustice did they suffer?

I did understand this part

Like I said, the only injustice is the absence of the Islamic Caliphate, required by the doctrine.

 

That is okay, I can’t be pithy. The only injustice they suffered was being born into a bastard satanic creed, and that is their parent’s fault.

The rule of law, laws created through society, is not own ideas of justice. Own ideas of justice is the tyrant (large or individual) deciding what the laws are and being judge, jury, and executioner. “Those” pronoun people in the 1997 national day speech of Saddam, which was posted on South Movement, were a “well-known” group. That well-known group was not in agreement with Saddam with regard to the goals. The difference in goals between ISIS (Al Quacka) and Saddam is Islamic Caliphate or Arab Nationalism respectively; not religion vs secular as the liberals say; Hamas is religious, the PLO was Arab nationalist, but the Palestinians weren’t free under the Caliphate either, so they are not exactly going to take to it like a duck to water. The dilemma of Saddam was Clinton’s policy that weapons inspections and sanctions could not end until Saddam was removed, so “if the aim [of ‘those’ pronoun people] was to implement a serious plan to save others from their dilemma,” to end the sanctions by as Al Quacka made clear, “Whenever soldiers start coming home in body bags, Americans panic and retreat. Such a country needs only to be confronted with two or three sharp blows, then it will flee in panic, as it always has,” then certainly it would fit with the Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s “black concerns” of December 1997, posted on South Movement, along with the national day speech call to Jihad and “proper action”: "'If the United Nations fails to respond to the Organization of the Islamic Conference (meeting in Tehran) then the Muslim world must act and defy these sanctions,' Farrakhan told an audience of union representatives in the Iraqi capital." (Louis Farrakhan) Remember the first Al Quacka fatwa claimed “More than 600,000 Iraqi children have died due to lack of food and medicine and as a result of the unjustifiable aggression (sanction) imposed on Iraq and its nation.” Now according to [7.37] of the unholy toilet paper, when their messengers come to us causing us to die, we will humble ourselves and say, “They are gone away from us;” like Obama’s marching buddy Farrakhan said, “Allah (God) knows that the powerful will not heed a warning coming from their ex-slave or from the weak or from the abject, so the Qur’an teaches that Allah (God) then seizes that nation with distress and affliction, that it might humble itself.” So when the Iraqis or anyone is killed today, just like the children waiting to be police were attacked, one simply must understand the code duello cowboy hat mentality, “with the advent of Islåm they could better their condition either by accepting the covenant of Allåh, by which is meant the acceptance of Islåm, or by making a compact of security with such men as could give them protection. This remains true to this day." ( www.muslim.org/english-quran/ch003-123.pdf )
In the absence of leadership by the US, because we have “gone away” to humble ourselves, like Al Quacka and their million man marching buddy expected, too late for Saddam, because of something called leadership, the people of the region simply can either accept Islam or make a compact of security with someone else (Russia?). The 1997 serious plan was right out of [7.37], for own ideas of justice to destabilize us until acceptance of Islam, and in the absence of leadership by US, due to European cowardly peace prizes for stupidity, the plan is working.

 

???? "slavery, women not voting" started "by Christians who are conservatives"? How so? And it was Republicans who were primarily Christians who brought an end to slavery and prohibitions against women voting and primarily Democrats who opposed those reforms.

 

ah another con that equates dem to progressive. You do realize that dens and GOP have switched right? Your comments are quite foolish. Conservatives like to keep things the same.

MOD EDIT - Off Topic

 

I didnt say anything about progressives, YOU DID

Since you are claiming that the Conservatives "started" slavery and women not voting, you are contradicting yourself. And the dens and GOP didnt exist when either of them started. I think we can all see who is the fool.

MOD EDIT - Off Topic

 

So you are claiming the dems now are the conservatives?

It was democrats that opposed womens right to vote. But of course you will claim they switched again

It was the democratic house that shot down womens suffrage in 1915