Ben Carson and Muslim Presidents

The Muslim Islamophobes Who Agree With Ben Carson

One of these religions is not like the others.

Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth.

-Omar Ahmad, founder of the Council on American-Islamic Relations

It’s ironic that Progressives who reference Jefferson’s “wall of separation between church and state” to bolster their case supporting abortion should consider Ben Carson’s rejection of sharia discriminatory.

The Constitution’s Article Six prohibits a religious test as a qualification for any public office, but that same document contains a First Amendment forbidding the federal government from establishing a national religion. An Islamic president would, by definition, either be an apostate (i.e., a lapsed Muslim according to main-stream Islamic theologians) or refuse to enforce the entire Bill of Rights.

Appealing to the Constitution when you deny its primacy in American law is not merely hypocritical, it’s taqiyya for the dhimmi.

Why did France allow these thugs in the country?

Why did France allow the tabloid to provoke Muslims?
-by Anjem Choudary, may his name be well known.

Mr. Choudary has risen in defense of the murderers in the Charlie Hebdo massacre:

Contrary to popular misconception, Islam does not mean peace but rather means submission to the commands of Allah alone. Therefore, Muslims do not believe in the concept of freedom of expression, as their speech and actions are determined by divine revelation and not based on people’s desires.

Anjem Choudary obviously feels quite strongly about the 12 people murdered at Charlie Hebdo. How else to explain defending the murderers by saying Islam sanctions murder via divine inspiration? He portrays Muslims as mind numbed robots, in thrall to an interpretation of the supernatural unchanged since the 7th century, and which can apparently justify any imaginable atrocity.

How can Muslims be expected to behave about a drawing? Well, badly, but that is their duty. And, anyway, it’s France’s fault.

Although Muslims may not agree about the idea of freedom of expression, even non-Muslims who espouse it say it comes with responsibilities. In an increasingly unstable and insecure world, the potential consequences of insulting the Messenger Muhammad are known to Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

Although?? As in, “Although Muslims are commanded by their religion to kill those whose speech they dislike, some non-Muslims agree speech you don’t like should be limited?” What does this sentence even mean? It’s peculiar nonsense as a justification for murder by a farrow of fanatics.

Choudary assures us, as a matter of principle, that Muslims CAN NOT agree that freedom of speech should be tolerated, and your exercise of that freedom is justification for killing you. The responsibility of Muslims is to kill you, sooner rather than later, unless you observe your responsibility to shut up.

Muslims consider the honor of the Prophet Muhammad to be dearer to them than that of their parents or even themselves. To defend it is considered to be an obligation upon them. The strict punishment if found guilty of this crime under sharia (Islamic law) is capital punishment implementable by an Islamic State. This is because the Messenger Muhammad said, “Whoever insults a Prophet kill him.

The religion of psychotic overreaction.

However, because the honor of the Prophet is something which all Muslims want to defend, many will take the law into their own hands, as we often see.

The religion of honor killing.

To what secular law does one hew when commanded by Mohammed to honor him with murder? This is not “taking the law into their own hands.” There is no such law to take into one’s hands, and there can be no such penalty prescribed by it.

Within liberal democracies, freedom of expression has curtailments, such as laws against incitement and hatred.

Some liberal democracies don’t have such laws, and even those who do have this quaint notion of “justice” to contend with. Those liberal democracies with thought crime laws are reaping what they sowed, both in blood and in giving encouragement to Islamofacist apologists such as Mr. Choudary.

The truth is that Western governments are content to sacrifice liberties and freedoms when being complicit to torture and rendition — or when restricting the freedom of movement of Muslims, under the guise of protecting national security.

Such as the freedom of movement to fly airliners into the Twin Towers? Perhaps Choudary has confused cause and effect.

So why in this case did the French government allow the magazine Charlie Hebdo to continue to provoke Muslims, thereby placing the sanctity of its citizens at risk?

Umm, because the French government, so far, and in spite of your efforts, is not an Islamofascist state? Because they still can’t quite believe how unhinged you are?

It is time that the sanctity of a Prophet revered by up to one-quarter of the world’s population was protected.

It is time that the murderous thugs who believe in the sanctity of this particular “Prophet” were prevented from committing murder so that one-quarter of the world’s population no longer suffers under their yoke. It’s time Mr. Choudary realized what he has written is protected by the same principles he would like destroyed.

The wages of appeasement, the fruits of hypocrisy

What Did You Say About Muhammad?!

RTWT, here’s a sample:

…the West has perpetuated a vicious cycle wherein Muslim sensitivities are ever heightened and outraged at the slightest slight, and Western freedoms of expression are correspondingly diminished and trampled upon…

…if you voluntarily act like a dhimmi — a subjugated non-Muslim who must live in debased humility — you will be treated like a dhimmi…

Emphasis mine. It’s why former President Carter is known around here as Dhimmi Carter.

Also please note the “Support South Park” widget is removed from this site. Comedy Central caved to an Islamist blogger and then announced they are considering launching a series titled “JC,” mocking Christ.

I have no problem with mocking religion, or God, but such selective mocking is a disgusting appeasement perpetrated by the vertebrally challenged. How do the hypocrites in charge of Comedy Central even stand upright?

Confronting Islamist fanatics over their exquisite and false sensitivities is important, and bringing the Comedy Central cell to heel would be a good start.

Pedal extremism

I think Debbie Schlussel knows that “separation of church and state” is not Constitutionally mandated the way the UofM administratskiiy think it is. This decision actually does violate the establishment clause, as well as liberals own flawed interpretation of it. So how do they justify it? I’m quite sure the word “diversity” appears somewhere in their explanation.

And, BTW, we have a budget crisis in this state. The next time you hear the University of Michigan complain about funding, you will want to remember how they spend your money.

EXCLUSIVE: So Long Church/State Separation: University of Michigan to Fund Muslim Footbaths

Forget about the Constitutionally mandated separation of church and state … at least when it comes to mosque and state.

When students return in the fall, the University of Michigan-Dearbornistan is set to have Muslim footbaths in at least two locations.

And your tax funds are paying for it.

Schlussel supplies several links to assist you in protesting this dhimmitude. Read the rest, she deserves the traffic.

Why Minnesota?

These Powerline updates on attempts by the Muslim American Society, aided and abetted byThe Minneapolis Star-Tribune, to institute sharia on the backs of Somali immigrants in Minneapolis is worth a read.

Sharia in Minnesota

It has not been a long time since these Islamist initiatives were kicked off, but it has certainly metastasized rapidly. Check the dates on TOC commentary:

Sunday, October 15, 2006
If I’m driving, you can’t drink

Monday, October 16, 2006
Daniel Pipes update on MN Islamo-cabbies

Tuesday, November 14, 2006
As American as Apple fatwa

Tuesday, November 28, 2006
Fly US Airways, it’s safer

Saturday, December 02, 2006 (mainly about the grounded imams)
Minneapolis Airport plot moves forward

Sunday, December 03, 2006
A speculation confirmation and How the West will be lost

Sunday, December 10, 2006
Raging and Braying, Identity politics around the world

Monday, December 11, 2006
There’s certainly smoke

Wednesday, December 13, 2006

Thursday, January 04, 2007
Fomentation in Minneapolis

Monday, January 08, 2007
Apropos of recent TOC posts

Saturday, January 20, 2007
Can’t we all just get along?

Monday, January 22, 2007
Creeping Islamism

Sunday, February 25, 2007
Attack on the 21st Amendment

Sunday, March 11, 2007
Sharia vs. the Constitution?

Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Minneapolis. Muslims. Again.

Saturday, March 17, 2007

Wednesday, March 21, 2007
American Islamic Forum for Democracy – Cheers!

Creeping Islamism

Here is an old lefty criticizing a younger righty. There is also a response to the criticism. Both are civil and constructive, very unlike the rhetoric we get in the daily round of sound-bites from the second and third tier thinkers. The phrase “Classic Liberal” springs to mind.

Christopher Hitchens writes a thoughtful review of Mark Steyn’s America Alone (highly recommended).

This bit of Hitchen’s piece should be read aloud by those cabbies in Minnesota and especially by the Muslim American Society of Minnesota fatwa apologists.

…Steyn is much more definite about the cultural side of his argument, in other words, than about the counterterrorist dimension. If I wanted to sharpen both prongs of his thesis, I would also propose the following:

1. An end to one-way multiculturalism and to the cultural masochism that goes with it. The Koran does not mandate the wearing of veils or genital mutilation, and until recently only those who apostasized from Islam faced the threat of punishment by death. Now, though, all manner of antisocial practices find themselves validated in the name of religion, and mullahs have begun to issue threats even against non-Muslims for criticism of Islam. This creeping Islamism must cease at once, and those responsible must feel the full weight of the law. Meanwhile, we should insist on reciprocity at all times. We should not allow a single Saudi dollar to pay for propaganda within the U.S., for example, until Saudi Arabia also permits Jewish and Christian and secular practices. No Wahhabi-printed Korans anywhere in our prison system. No Salafist imams in our armed forces.

There are 7 more specific suggestions. If you read the whole thing, you’ll better understand Mark Steyn’s response:

Christopher Hitchens has a somewhat critical review of my book. I disagree with him strongly about a common “Euro-Muslim identity”. I think there is one, and that it transcends differences between German Turks and French Algerians, and that there are already signs that it’s more authentically pan-Continental than ersatz EU “Europeanness”. However, his criticisms in this and other matters are worth pondering.

TOC commentary on the Minneapolis Islamo-cabbie controversy can be found here
here and here, .

Sanctimonious Malignant Narcissist – lusting after himself

H/T LGF Idiotarian Gets Defensive

Dhimmi Carter notes that he has been called liar, anti-Semite, bigot, plagiarist, and coward.

Not only has he been called these things, they’re all true. To the list should be added hypocrite, dupe and traitor.

Treason is a serious charge. Here’s why I make it: In 1991 Carter privately lobbied Arab leaders to withdraw from the Gulf War coalition. In time of war, an ex-President attempted to subvert our alliances. There are other examples, but this one is straightforward and it predates Bush Derangement Syndrome.

Joshua Muravchik has a nicely written examination of Carter’s slimy trail here: Our Worst Ex-President Recommended..