Posted on 09/27/2015 9:52:49 AM PDT by RoosterRedux
Ben Carson insisted Sunday that for a Muslim to become president of the United States, "you have to reject the tenets of Islam."
"Yes, you have to," the retired neurosurgeon and Republican presidential candidate said Sunday in an interview with CNN's Jake Tapper on "State of the Union."
His latest criticism of Islam came the week after he'd said he "would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation."
"I would have problems with somebody who embraced all the doctrines associated with Islam," Carson said. "If they are not willing to reject sharia and all the portions of it that are talked about in the Quran -- if they are not willing to reject that, and subject that to American values and the Constitution, then of course, I would."
He argued, though, that the controversy surrounding his comments last week has been overblown.
"Is it possible that maybe the media thinks it's a bigger deal than the American people do?" Carson said. "Because American people, the majority of them, agree and they understand exactly what I am saying."
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
The producer most likely saw the Tapper was beginning to look bad.
Jake “Doing my best to create an issue to make a Republican candidate look bad” Tapper. He’s a moron.
Carson was patiently taking Tapper apart! I happen to catch the end of it. WooHOO Carson. Love when media gets a little smack-down!
I believe Trump has taught our side that
1) You have to fight back, right away, on the spot, now!
2) The opponent is very beatable
Very few on our side get that. The ones that do have been fighting their entire lives.
I Agree with you and said from the get go...Trump CRUZ and wow,now Carson smoothly taking care of business.
Watch the video. Carson is making ground breaking progress in getting the truth out there about islam.
Tapper was just not getting it. He was dumbfounded by Carson’s very precise logic.
Tapper was not even attempting to get it.
Yep. Or you might say Tapper was doing everything he could to NOT get it.
I think Carson exposed the basic flaw in the Left's thinking about islam. The Left keeps pushing the idea that those who mention the fanatical parts of islam are cherry picking. And Carson was basically saying that's not true...real islam is itself deadly.
WARNING: F BOMBS and some profanity in this otherwise common sense rant.
Two issues with Gavin:
It’s NOT a “religion” and, as I and many others have pointed out concerning those who call themselves “muslims” and follow ALL OF THEIR KORANIC COMMANDS, it’s ALL RADICAL.
And how DOES the koran COMMAND muslims to deal with the “kafir” (non-believers)? Only 3 ways: FORCED conversion of kafirs to islam OR if the kafir has temporary utility to islam, he may pay a jizya ( a heavy tax as a reminder of his inferior status) and, when that utility ends, the kafir may THEN be killed AND, of course, killing outright the kafir who refuses conversion.
(There IS another way: They could just — or be forced to — LEAVE IS THE HELL ALONE! But, until we have a top to bottom cleaning in D.C. and do a 180, that’s not going to happen!)
Since the doctrines of “political correctness/tolerance/diversity” are every bit as insane as those koranic commands, many of us have been attacked by over-educated imbeciles who would certainly be among the first to fall beneath the beheading sword should islam gain dominance in the West. Sort of brings “The Suicide of The West” down to where it belongs doesn’t it? The INDIVIDUAL LEVEL!
StandWithAhmed: “The whole family is stupid and they duped us”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2R5peL26L-U
I like Cruz, but I always have had the greatest amount of respect for those that are putting out the truth and challenging the establishment. Carson isn’t perfect and Trump isn’t perfect, but they’re saying things that need to be said. Hopefully, more will wake up.
If the MSM media keeps pushing a PC meme that forbids criticism of Muslims, they are going to get the truth, and that’s not something that they can afford to do. All it takes is a cursory review of the Koran and Sharia law. Look for the sleazy media to drop this approach before more sheeple wake up.
Tapper is as dumb as a box of rocks. Dr. Carson was talking in simple, cogent phrases (like a parent talks to a child when explaining something to them), and by Tappers's comebacks, you could tell that those ideas just went "Whoosh!", right over his confusedly muddled head.
Whether that thickness is real or feigned, Tapper is still dumb as a box of rocks, because he is either knowingly or unknowingly missing the truth, and either knowingly or unknowingly working doggedly to get his audience to miss the truth too (if he has an audience).
God bless Dr. Carson.
Yep. Or you might say Tapper was doing everything he could to NOT get it.
I think Carson exposed the basic flaw in the Left’s thinking about islam. The Left keeps pushing the idea that those who mention the fanatical parts of islam are cherry picking. And Carson was basically saying that’s not true...real islam is itself deadly.
Progressives like Tapper give the benefit of the doubt to the very people who would not give it a second thought to slitting their throats.
Progressives are so indoctrinated that even their own self preservation is clouded.
That was a disgusting performance by Tapper.
its funny, all the rhetoric.
Everyone debating a muslim as a leader in the future....
We HAVE a muslim in our White House, Dang it!
Now fix it!
Carson has figured out what to say to get republican votes in a primary. He’ll back away from these statements if he makes it to the general election.
The man is growing in political intelligence. Finances, illegal/foreign invaders, US Constitution. Now WTP would like to see his comments on our right to bear arms. Sen. Ted a few more lessons and he’d be right there with you, sir.
Thnx for the ping
Soft-spoken is O.K., as long as he carries a big stick. (That’s according to Teddy Roosevelt).
How is Carson on the Military and not taking crap or rolling over for our enemies?
Stole that.
Christianity and Islam in History
MSGR. WALTER BRANDMULLER
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/history/world/wh0110.html
On the same day when the Vatican made public Benedict XVI’s message for the World Day of Peace next January 1, cardinal secretary of state Angelo Sodano sponsored a meeting at the Pontifical Lateran University the grand chancellor of which is the pope’s vicar, cardinal Camillo Ruini. The meeting focused on a topic crucial for the Church’s geopolitics: “Christianity and Islam, Yesterday and Today.”
In his message, Benedict XVI pointed to “nihilism” and “religious fanaticism” as the two deep sources of Islamist terrorism.
But the analysis at the December 13 meeting at the Lateran concentrated above all on the history of the relationship between Christianity and Islam. The occasion for the meeting was the fifth centenary of the birth of saint Pius V, the pope of the battle of Lepanto in 1571, at which a league of Europe’s Christian states inflicted a decisive defeat upon the Turkish fleet.
The topic was explored by an authoritative specialist in Church history, monsignor Walter Brandmüller, president of the Pontifical Committee for Historical Sciences.
The biggest difference between Christianity and Islam concerns the crucial issue of understanding the human person. This is shown by the fact that many Islamic countries have not accepted the declaration of human rights promulgated by the United Nations in 1948, or have done so with the reservation of excluding the norms that conflict with Qur’anic law which means practically all of them.
CHRISTIANITY AND ISLAM IN HISTORY
by Walter Brandmüller
I will address the topic of Christianity and Islam by limiting myself to a brief presentation of historical facts, without entering into the specifics of religious and theological dialogue.
This seems useful to me, because the celebration of the fifth centenary of the birth of Pius V was a bit muted, especially in academic circles. The victor at Lepanto in 1571, this pope who had the courage and the energy to construct an alliance of almost all the Christian kingdoms against the Ottoman empire which was advancing to threaten Europe and had already established dominion over the Balkans today, precisely on account of the unhappy restoration of hostility between the two worlds one formerly Christian, and to a certain extent still Christian, and the Muslim world seems to many to be an obstructing presence best left in the shadows.
Those who maintain that understanding jihad as a holy war constitutes a sort of deviation from the true Islamic tradition are therefore not telling the truth, and history sadly demonstrates that violence has characterized Islam since its origin, and that Mohammed himself systematically organized and led the raids against the tribes that did not want to convert and accept his dominion, thus subjecting the Arab tribes one by one.
Since their very beginnings, there have been differences in how Christians and Muslims think of conversion and the use of violence.
For the Christians, conversion was something that must be voluntary and individual, obtained primarily through preaching and example, and this is how Christianity did in fact spread during its first centuries. Obviously, we must immediately note that this conception of early Christianity underwent changes in later eras, connected with the diffusion of a spirit of religious intolerance in Western culture. John Paul II himself acknowledged that in this regard the Church’s children “must return with a spirit of repentance [for] the acquiescence given, especially in certain centuries, to intolerance and even the use of violence in the service of truth.” (Tertio Millennio Adveniente, 35).
But on the part of the Muslims, from the earliest times, even while Mohammed was still alive, conversion was imposed through the use of force. The expansion and extension of Islam’s sphere of influence came through war with the tribes that did not accept conversion peacefully, and this went hand in hand with submission to Islamic political authority.
Islamism, unlike Christianity, expressed a comprehensive religious, cultural, social, and political strategy. While Christianity spread during its first three centuries in spite of persecution and martyrdom, and in many ways in opposition to Roman domination, introducing a clear separation between the spiritual and political spheres, Islam was imposed through the power of political domination.
It therefore comes as no surprise that the use of force occupies a central place in Islamic tradition, as witnessed by the frequent use of the word “jihad” in many texts. Although some scholars, especially Western ones, maintain that jihad does not necessarily mean war, but instead a spiritual struggle and interior effort, Samir Khalil Samir again clarifies that the use of this term in Islamic tradition including its usage today is essentially uniform, indicating warfare in the name of God to defend Islam, which is an obligation for all adult Muslim males.
Those who maintain that understanding jihad as a holy war constitutes a sort of deviation from the true Islamic tradition are therefore not telling the truth, and history sadly demonstrates that violence has characterized Islam since its origin, and that Mohammed himself systematically organized and led the raids against the tribes that did not want to convert and accept his dominion, thus subjecting the Arab tribes one by one. Naturally, it must also be said that at the time of Mohammed warfare was part of the Bedouin culture, and no one saw anything objectionable about it.
But the biggest difference between Christianity and Islam concerns the crucial issue of understanding the human person. This is shown by the fact that many Islamic countries have not accepted the declaration of human rights promulgated by the United Nations in 1948, or have done so with the reservation of excluding the norms that conflict with Qur’anic law which means practically all of them.
The interpretation that Muslims today try to make of the crusades an interpretation that finds many followers among Western historians also fails to correspond to historical reality.
According to this representation, Western Christians were invaders in a peaceful region that was respectful of the different religions the Holy Land, which back then was part of Syria using religious motives to disguise imperialist ambitions and economic interests.
But the idea of the crusades emerged, above all, as a reaction to the measures that the Fatimid caliph Hakim bi-Amr Allah took against the Christians of Egypt and Syria. In 1008, al-Hakim outlawed the celebrations of Palm Sunday, and the following year he ordered that Christians be punished and all their property confiscated. In that same year of 1009, he sacked and demolished the church dedicated to Mary in Cairo, and did not prevent the desecration of the Christian sepulchers surrounding it, or the sacking of the city’s other churches.
That same year saw what was certainly the most severe episode: the destruction of the Constantinian basilica of the Resurrection in Jerusalem, known as the Holy Sepulcher. The historical records of the time say that he had ordered “to obliterate any symbol of Christian faith, and provide for the removal of every reliquary and object of veneration.” The basilica was then razed, and Ibn Abi Zahir did all he could to demolish the sepulcher of Christ and any trace of it.
Today in many intellectual circles there is a lot of talk about the religious tolerance shown over many centuries by the Islamic authorities, because while in terms of the pagan populations the saying “embrace Islam and your life will be spared” held true, and the pagans who did not convert were killed the “people of the book,” the Jews and Christians, were able to continue practicing their religion.
In reality, the situation was much less idyllic: the Christians and Jews could survive only if they accepted Muslim political dominion and a situation of humiliation, which was aggravated by the obligation to pay increasingly burdensome taxes. So it’s no wonder that most of the Christians, even though they were not constrained by force, converted to Islam on account of the constant economic and social pressure. This led to the total disappearance of a form of Christianity that had flourished for more than half a millennium, as in the part of Africa ruled by the Roman empire, the land of Tertullian, saint Cyprian, Tyconius, and above all saint Augustine.
But the biggest difference between Christianity and Islam concerns the crucial issue of understanding the human person.
This is shown by the fact that many Islamic countries have not accepted the declaration of human rights promulgated by the United Nations in 1948, or have done so with the reservation of excluding the norms that conflict with Qur’anic law which means practically all of them. From an historical point of view, therefore, it must be recognized that the declaration of the rights of man is a cultural fruit of the Christian world, even though these are “universal” norms, in that they are valid for all.
In Islamic tradition, in fact, the concept of the equality of all human beings does not exist, nor does, in consequence, the concept of the dignity of every human life. Sharia is founded upon a threefold inequality: between man and woman, between Muslim and non-Muslim, and between freeman and slave. In essence, the male human being is considered a full titleholder of rights and duties only through his belonging to the Islamic community: those who convert to another religion or become atheists are considered traitors, subject to the death penalty, or at least to the loss of all their rights.
The most irrevocable of these inequalities is that between man and woman, because the others can be overcome the slave can be freed, the non-Muslim can convert to Islam while woman’s inferiority is irremediable, in that it was established by God himself. In Islamic tradition, the husband enjoys an almost absolute authority over his wife: while polygamy is permitted for men, a woman may not have more than one husband, may not marry a man of another faith, can be repudiated by her husband, has no rights to the children in case of divorce, is penalized in the division of the inheritance, and from a legal standpoint her testimony is worth half as much as a man’s.
In Islamic tradition, in fact, the concept of the equality of all human beings does not exist, nor does, in consequence, the concept of the dignity of every human life. Sharia is founded upon a threefold inequality: between man and woman, between Muslim and non-Muslim, and between freeman and slave.
So if Islam implied, and still implies, not merely religious membership, but an entire way of life, sanctioned even at the political level a way of life that naturally involves and prescribes how to act with other peoples, how to behave in questions of war and peace, how to conduct relations with foreigners it is very easy to understand how the victory of Lepanto guaranteed for the West the possibility of developing its culture of respect for the human person, for whom equal dignity regardless of his condition came to be guaranteed.
If this characterization of Islam is destined to remain unchanged in the future, as it has been until now, the only possible outcome is a difficult coexistence with those who do not belong to the Muslim community: in an Islamic country, in fact, the non-Muslim must submit to the Islamic system, if he does not wish to live in a situation of substantial intolerance.
Likewise, on account of this all-embracing conception of religion and political authority, the Muslim will have great difficulty in adapting to the civil laws in non-Islamic countries, seeing them as something foreign to his upbringing and to the dictates of his religion. Perhaps one should ask oneself if the well-attested difficulties persons coming from the Islamic world have with integrating into the social and cultural life of the West are not explained in part by this problematic situation.
We must also recognize the natural right of every society to defend its own cultural, religious, and political identity. It seems to me that this is precisely what Pius did.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.