Should Ben Carson Endorse Sharia Slavery in Islamic Law?
Is a black man supposed to prove his tolerance by endorsing a religion that practices slavery?
September 21, 2015
Daniel Greenfield
After weeks of fuming at Trump, the media types and faux conservatives are fuming at Ben Carson for making a very obvious point. But all they have to do to address Carson's point is prove him wrong.
Here's how.
The Islamic faith isn’t “consistent” with the U.S. Constitution, and a Muslim shouldn’t be president, Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson said.
“I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation,” Carson said on NBC’s 'Meet the Press' on Sunday.
Late Sunday, he doubled down on those comments in an interview with The Hill.
“I do not believe Sharia is consistent with the Constitution of this country,” Carson told The Hill. “Muslims feel that their religion is very much a part of your public life and what you do as a public official, and that’s inconsistent with our principles and our Constitution.”
The only exception he’d make would be if the Muslim running for office “publicly rejected all the tenants of Sharia and lived a life consistent with that,” Carson told The Hill.
“Then I wouldn’t have any problem,” he said.
Instead of whining at a decibel pitch loud enough to deafen dogs, all they have to do is demonstrate that Sharia is compatible with the Constitution.
CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper unintentionally proved Carson's point when he attacked him. Here's what Hooper and CAIR believe.
Hooper stated that if Muslims were ever to become a numerical majority in the U.S., they would likely seek to replace the Constitution with Islamic law (Sharia).
"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 (CAIR)
Sharia says that a Muslim is superior to a non-Muslim. It states that non-Muslims must submit to Muslims. It says there is no separation of mosque and state.
Sharia law says you can kill someone and pay money to their heirs. And the amount of money you pay is determined by whether you killed a Muslim or a non-Muslim... because Muslim lives are worth more. Islamic law states that "When a Jew or Christian was killed, his blood-money was half the blood-money of a free Muslim."
As opposed to a Muslim slave.
This isn't some abstract theory. In countries where Sharia is law, this is how it actually works.
The compensation provided in cases of unnatural deaths is determined by the gender and religion of the victim. Cases involving Muslim men receive the full compensation amount, while those involving Christian and Jewish men receive half of the amount. According to the U.S. government, legal heirs of victims who practiced “polytheistic” religions – such as Hindus, Buddhists, and Jains – receive one-sixteenth of the total compensation amount. The Consulate General of India in Jeddah has reported that in cases of accidental death or murder, the maximum amount of financial compensation “generally admissible” is 100,000 riyals – about $26,690-- for male Muslims; 50,000 riyals for male Christians and Jews; and 6,666.66 riyals – about $1,778 -- for Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, and other polytheistic faiths. Compensation provided to the heirs of women victims of unnatural death receive fifty percent less than their male counterparts in each religious category.
Which of Ben Carson's critics think that this is compatible with the United States Constitution?
Slavery, under Islamic law, is legal. Saudi Arabia only outlawed it because of pressure from JFK. (Yes, JFK. That's how recent this was.) And unofficially slavery continues.
Should Ben Carson retract and claim that the slavery of Islamic law is compatible with the United States Constitution? Is a black man supposed to prove his tolerance by endorsing a religion that practices slavery?
Is this the insane place that political correctness has taken us?
Is Ben Carson supposed to endorse Islam's racial slavery?
Al-Tabari wrote that, “Noah prayed that the hair of Ham’s descendants would not grow beyond their ears, and that whenever his descendants met Shem’s, the latter would enslave them.” This theological justification provided a religious manifest destiny for the Arab conquests and acts of ethnic cleansing in Africa.
The great Muslim historian Ibn Khaldun justified slavery by relegating black people to the rank of animals, writing, “The only people who accept slavery are the Negroes, owing to their low degree of humanity and proximity to the animal stage.”
And this is still viewed as policy in the heartland of Islam today.
Ali al-Ahmed, a leading Saudi scholar and the director of the Institute for Gulf Affairs, put it bluntly in Foreign Policy magazine. "Blacks, who make up around 10 percent of the population, are banned from judgeships -- as are women and Muslims who observe a different version of the faith -- because the monarchy's religious tradition still views blacks as slaves, other Muslims as heretics, and women as half human. There is only one word to describe such a system: Apartheid."
Is this what the media and Ben Carson's "conservative" critics want him to endorse? Islamic Apartheid? Racial inferiority? Sharia slavery?
Is this what tolerance looks like today.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/260200/should-ben-carson-endorse-sharia-slavery-islamic-daniel-greenfield
