Diary

A Muslim president actually IS a bad idea, according to the Koran

carson_620x538

On Sunday, a Muslim cleric declared that Fantasy Football is considered “haram”—that means forbidden by Islamic law.  That’s only the latest thing found to be off-limits for followers of Islam.  Islamic State clerics famously forbid the practice of pigeon breeding because “sight of the birds’ genitals as they fly overhead is offensive to Islam.”

(Leading to perhaps the greatest headline in the history of publishing: “Allah Hates Pigeon Penises,” by Jonah Goldberg.)

You might think these religious decrees are funny, or even quaint, but they’re dead serious, and form the strongest defense of Ben Carson’s statement on NBC’s Meet The Press, “I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that.”

While liberals react with outrage that Carson—or Trump, for that matter—would dare suggest that it would be bad to have a Muslim president, the Constitution itself upholds that view.  Article VI states:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

A Muslim taking office must swear to support the Constitution, but that would be considered a false oath in Islam—a sin.

The oath which is Harām under all circmstances and which one can never take is that of dissociating with Allah (S.w.T.) and His religion. For example a man says;

“If I do not perform this particular action, I shall be dissociated with Allah (S.w.T.) and His religion.” Such an oath is certainly Harām.

In the same way if one says:

“If I do not do this, I would have disbelieved in the Holy Prophet (S), or I would have rejected the Mastership of ‘Ali (a.s.), or I would become a disbeliever.” Such a vow is also Harām. It is Harām whether one wishes to prove the truth or to lay emphasis upon a fact.

The Holy Prophet (S) heard a person taking such an oath. He (S) said, “Woe be unto you, if you leave the religion of Muhammad (S) then which religion would you follow?”

The narrator says that the Holy Prophet (S) did not speak to this man till the end of his life.

I am not an Islamic scholar, but I really don’t need to be.  The fact that all these laws and prohibitions are contained in Islamic holy books is proof enough:  Islam is a political-religious system.  This isn’t even in dispute by Muslim scholars.  And even in a democracy, Islam’s precepts are very different from our Constitution provides.

In Western democracy the people are sovereign, in Islam sovereignty is vested in Allah and the people are His caliphs or representatives. In the former the people make their own laws; in the latter they have to follow and obey the laws (Shari‘ah) given by Allah through His Prophet. In one the Government undertakes to fulfil the will of the people; in the other Government and the people alike have to do the will of Allah. Western democracy is a kind of absolute authority which exercises its powers in a free and uncontrolled manner, whereas Islamic democracy is subservient to the Divine Law and exercises its authority in accordance with the injunctions of Allah and within the limits prescribed by Him.

There is no religious test in America, and that’s just fine with Christians and Jews (and Hindus, Baha’i, Buddhists, and just about all other religions), but it’s not fine with Muslims.

This is where the left jumps in and says “But the BIBLE prohibits all kinds of things, like gay marriage, and bestiality, and working on the Sabbath, punishable by DEATH!” (Yes, the ALL CAPS are necessary to convey the flying spittle and raw outrage.)

But no.

Those Biblical laws apply to the Hebrews, the children of Israel, under God’s covenant in the Old Testament.  They never applied to ancient Babylon.  They never applied to the Aztecs, or the Assyrians, or anyone except Israel.  And even today, they don’t apply to the secular state of Israel, except to the degree that state has chosen to be the “Jewish state” and recognize Halachic law (Jewish religious law).

Christians believe that a new covenant was made when God’s son Jesus came to usher in a time of grace.  And that new covenant superseded the old, both in dispensation (time) and in relationship (the world versus just Israel).  And the Apostle Paul wrote in the New Testament “All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful, but not all things edify.” (1 Corinthians 10:23).  The democracy practiced in America is fully compatible with Christianity, and therefore no religious test is necessary.

But Islam requires a religious test, thereby automatically violating Constitutional principles.  In order to take an oath supporting the Constitution, an observant Muslim will have to renounce his own commitment to Sharia Law, which, in Islam, is a sin.

And in Islam, sin really matters (ask the cigarette smokers who were beheaded–you can’t because they’re dead).

Ben Carson is not a legal scholar, but he’s absolutely right that a Muslim should not be president.  It’s the leftist media and Democratic talking point pundits who ignore reality in the name of “tolerance.”  I wonder how tolerant Sharia Law would treat them?