Tag: Agree

The Muslim Islamophobes Who Agree With Ben Carson (Robert Spencer)

The Muslim Islamophobes Who Agree With Ben Carson – Robert Spencer

.

.
By now it’s clear: even fellow Republican candidates Ted Cruz and Lindsey Graham have piled on, the mainstream media is in an uproar, the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is demanding he drop out of the race, and the only people who agree with Ben Carson’s statements about a Muslim president, Sharia, and the Constitution are racist, bigoted Islamophobes.

“I do not believe Sharia is consistent with the Constitution of this country,” said Carson, and hatemongers everywhere applauded.

The Islamophobes even piled on with hateful statements of their own:

Let’s face the grim truth… There is no evidence whatever that Islam in its various political forms is compatible with modern democracy. From Afghanistan under the Taliban to Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, and from Iran to Sudan, there is no Islamist entity that can be said to be democratic, just, or a practitioner of good governance.

Oh, the Islamophobia! Ibrahim Hooper and Nihad Awad of CAIR are no doubt gearing up for another press conference to denounce that one, but they’re coming so thick and fast that those guardians of the Constitution may not be able to keep up.

Here’s another:

The first basic difference between the political system endorsed by Islam and democracy is that in democracy, the ultimate authority lies with the people. In Islam, however, the ultimate authority doesn’t belong to people; it belongs to God alone. That means that both the ruler and the ruled in Islam are subject to a higher criterion for decision-making, that is, divine guidance.

That would mean that the Constitution would have to give way to Sharia wherever the two conflict, as another Islamophobe makes clear when he says:

Democracy runs counter to Islam on several issues… In democracy, legislation is the prerogative of the people. It is the people who draw up the constitution, and they have the authority to amend it as well. On this issue we differ.

Supposedly, in Islamic thought only Allah legislates. There is no shortage of Islamophobes who spew this hate.

Another howled that in Islam, “democracy, freedom, and human rights have no place.”

Still another yelped that in Islam, “democracy is evil, the parliament is evil and legislation is evil.”

One Islamophobe went Carson one better, saying not only that a Muslim should not be president, but that Muslims shouldn’t even participate in elections. He had the audacity to claim that “electing a president or another form of leadership or council members is prohibited in Islam.”

These Islamophobes have even tried to convince people that because Islam is a “comprehensive system of governance,” many Muslims reject democracy as “a system whereby man violates the right of Allah and decides what is permissible or impermissible for mankind, based solely on their whims and desires.”

One complained that some Muslims even assert that they can only participate in politics in Western societies “on Islam’s terms.”

These must be the kind of Islamophobic statements Carson was reading when he formulated his hateful, bigoted opinions. Shameful.

So who said the awful statements above? Pamela Geller? Geert Wilders? Some other hatemongering profiteer whom all decent people must shun?

Oh.

In order, the authors of the Islamophobic statements I quote above are:

* Hisham Melhem, the Washington bureau chief of Al-Arabiya,
* Renowned moderate Muslim and Islamic apologist Jamal Badawi,
* Syrian Islamic scholar Abd Al-Karim Bakkar,
* The leader of Iran’s Shia Taliban, Mesbah Yazdi,
* Australian Muslim cleric Ibrahim Siddiq-Conlon,
* Saudi Islamic scholar, Sheikh Abdul Rahman bin Nassir Al Barrak,
* A Muslim group in Wales that plastered Cardiff with posters denouncing democracy and exhorting Muslims not to vote, and
* A Muslim group in Denmark that likewise urged Muslims to boycott elections.

Carson’s detractors would no doubt dismiss all these Muslims as “extremists.” All they have to do to make their case, after all, is point to all the thriving Constitutional republics that have Muslim majorities and guarantee freedom of speech, equal rights for women and non-Muslims, and other aspects of traditional Islamic law that Islamophobes claim contradict the Constitution.

Hmm.

In reality, there is not a single country to which they can point. There is no democratic tradition in the Islamic world. There is no history of secular republics, no concept of the equality of all people before the law.

People often invoke Turkey as an example of how Islam and democracy are fully compatible. In reality, the secular Turkish republic was established in an atmosphere of war with Islam, with explicit restrictions placed upon political Islam that were considered necessary so as to rein in its authoritarian, supremacist, anti-democratic tendencies. Now, the Erdogan regime is reasserting Islam’s political aspects. Turkish secularism has been severely weakened, and may not be long for this world.

The absence of Constitutional republics in the Islamic world is no accident. It comes from: Islam’s sharp dichotomy between believers and unbelievers, retarding the development of the principle of equality of rights for all; its blasphemy laws, which hinder the freedom of speech and intellectual development; and its vision of Allah as a solitary and all-powerful despot whose will is absolute – hardly an ideal model upon which to build the idea of parliamentary give-and-take in order to discover the truth or determine the best path.

In Islam, Allah alone reveals the truth and marks out the straight path: Islam.

“We are a different kind of nation,” Ben Carson said as the controversy raged over his remarks. “Part of why we rose so quickly is because we wouldn’t allow our values or principles to be supplanted because we were going to be politically correct… Part of the problem today is that we’re so busy trying to be politically correct, that we lose all perspective.”

Indeed. Lost in the Carson firestorm is the question of whether or not he was right about Islam and Sharia. He was.

Whatever becomes of his presidential ambitions, Americans owe him a debt of gratitude for, even for a brief period, breaking through the media fog of obfuscation about Islam and allowing for some honest discussion of these all-important matters. Even as he stands on the firing line, that may be the most valuable service this good man performs for his country.

.
————————————————————————————————
.

Related article:

.
Liberal Outrage Over Ben Carson’s Muslim Comments Just Backfired In A BIG way – Western Journalism

The controversy stirred by Ben Carson’s response to a question whether he would support a Muslim for president has worked to his campaign’s benefit, at least in two important ways.

According to ABC News, both donations and the candidate’s following on Facebook have increased significantly since he announced on NBC’s Meet the Press Sunday that he would not support a person adhering to the Muslim faith to be President of the United States. Carson’s campaign relayed that the candidate’s Facebook page has picked up more than 100,000 new “likes” in the 24 hours since the interview.

As reported by Western Journalism, the host of Meet the Press, Chuck Todd, asked Dr. Carson: “Should a President’s faith matter?”

“If it’s inconsistent with the values and principles of America, then of course it should matter. But if it fits within the realm of America and consistent with the Constitution, no problem,” he explained.

.

.

*VIDEOS* Even Noted Leftist Douchebags Agree That Obama’s SOTU Foreign Policy Claims Were Bogus


CHRIS MATTHEWS & ANDREA MITCHELL

.
JAKE TAPPER & WOLF BLITZER

.
BRIAN WILLIAMS & RICHARD ENGEL

.

.

House Democrats Unanimously Agree That Obama Should Be A Dictator

House Votes To Defund Obama’s Immigration Action – The Blaze

.

.
The House voted Wednesday to defund President Barack Obama’s executive action on immigration, a step Republicans promised to take after Obama said in November he would provide legal protection for up to 5 million illegal immigrants.

Members voted 237-190 in favor of a defunding amendment brought by Rep. Bob Aderholt (R-Ala.). All but seven Republicans supported it, and it was opposed by all Democrats.

Republicans voting against it were Reps. Carlos Curbello (Fla.), Jeff Denham (Calif.), Mario Diaz-Balart (Fla.), Bob Dold (Ill.), Renee Ellmers (N.C.), Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (Fla.) and David Valadao (Calif.).

With that vote, Aderholt’s language was attached to a Department of Homeland Security spending bill, which the House then passed shortly after noon in a 236-191 vote.

Aderholt’s language would block funding for Obama’s executive action, even those funds that agencies collect on their own through fees. It would prevent enforcement of memos DHS released in 2011 and 2012 that allow agencies to halt immigration enforcement on various classes of illegal immigrants.

It would also block any effort to carry out similar policies, and prevent the executive branch from giving any benefit to illegal immigrants that aren’t prescribed under law.

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) promised to fight Obama’s action “tooth and nail,” and attaching the defunding language to the DHS spending bill is one of the stronger steps the GOP could take. Many conservatives feared the House might pass a defunding bill as a separate item, which would have made it much easier for Obama to ignore.

Attaching it to the DHS spending bill sets up an immediate challenge to Obama, who has said he would veto the bill if it defunds his immigration plan.

It also raises questions about how the Senate will handle the bill. It’s possible that Republicans may have to consider tweaking the language in order to find the 60 votes needed to start work on the bill, and failure to do so could effectively kill the bill in the upper chamber.

But this week, at least, House Republicans were holding firm, and were led by Boehner himself in the effort to fight back against Obama’s attempt to go around Congress.

“We do not take this action lightly, but simply, there is no alternative,” Boehner said, making one of his rare appearances on the House floor to speak about specific legislation. “This executive overreach is an affront to the rule of law and to the Constitution itself.”

“Enough is enough,” Boehner added. “By their votes last November, the people made clear that they wanted more accountability from this president, and by our votes here today, we will heed their will and we will keep our oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.”

Democrats used the debate to warn that Obama’s actions were legal, and that the defunding language threatens to create a fight that could lead to the partial shutdown of DHS. Several Democrats have noted that Congress should not put at risk DHS funding, especially after the attacks against Charlie Hebdo in France last week.

“I am deeply disappointed that Republicans insist on making Congress play out this farce at the expense of our Nation’s security,” said Rep. Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.), the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, on Tuesday. “It has taken less than two weeks for the Republican Congress to prove that it cannot govern responsibly.”

Members considered two other substantive amendments to the bill. One from Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) would prohibit the use of any federal funding to consider new applications under Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. That program, known as DACA, has given legal protection to hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants who came to the country with their parents.

That amendment narrowly passed in a 218-209 vote, as 26 Republicans voted against it along with every Democrat.

.

.