BEN CARSON's Comments relooked. Is Islam compatible with the Constitution of the United States?

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 24 Sep 2015 02:30:31 -0400

http://www.billionbibles.org/sharia/sharia-law.html

Sharia Law which is the Law of Islam is complete counter indicative of the United States Constitution, SEE BELOW:
Sharia law is the law of Islam. The Sharia (also spelled Shariah or Shari'a) law is cast from the actions and words of Muhammad, which are called "Sunnah," and the Quran, which he authored.
The Sharia law itself cannot be altered, but the interpretation of the Sharia law, called "figh," by imams is given some leeway.
As a legal system, the Sharia law covers a very wide range of topics. While other legal codes deal primarily with public behavior, Sharia law covers public behavior, private behavior and private beliefs. Of all legal systems in the world today, Islam's Sharia law is the most intrusive and strict, especially against women.
According to the Sharia law:
• Theft is punishable by amputation of the right hand (above).
• Criticizing or denying any part of the Quran is punishable by death.
• Criticizing or denying Muhammad is a prophet is punishable by death.
• Criticizing or denying Allah, the moon god of Islam is punishable by death.
• A Muslim who becomes a non-Muslim is punishable by death.
• A non-Muslim who leads a Muslim away from Islam is punishable by death.
• A non-Muslim man who marries a Muslim woman is punishable by death.
• A man can marry an infant girl and consummate the marriage when she is 9 years old.
• Girls' clitoris should be cut (per Muhammad's words in Book 41, Kitab Al-Adab, Hadith 5251).
• A woman can have 1 husband, but a man can have up to 4 wives; Muhammad can have more.
• A man can unilaterally divorce his wife but a woman needs her husband's consent to divorce.
• A man can beat his wife for insubordination.
• Testimonies of four male witnesses are required to prove rape against a woman.
• A woman who has been raped cannot testify in court against her rapist(s).
• A woman's testimony in court, allowed only in property cases, carries half the weight of a man's.
• A female heir inherits half of what a male heir inherits.
• A woman cannot drive a car, as it leads to fitnah (upheaval).
• A woman cannot speak alone to a man who is not her husband or relative.
• Meat to be eaten must come from animals that have been sacrificed to Allah - i.e., be Halal.
• Muslims should engage in Taqiyya and lie to non-Muslims to advance Islam.

SHARIA LAW - Islamic Sharia Law Explained

Sharia Law - What is Islam's Sharia law and why is it becoming popular? Here is aneasy-to-understand explanation of the Sharia law. As you can see, Sharia law actually pretends ...

Response by Cpl James Waycasie made Sep 24 at 2015 2:42 AM

Cpl James Waycasie — Thu, 24 Sep 2015 02:42:39 -0400

No, Islamic people and our people cannot co-exist. They won't allow it. Either convert or die the death of an infidel is their belief. Our laws and their laws cannot co-exist in the same nation. If they want Shariah law then move to a country that is governed by Shariah law.

Response by Capt Seid Waddell made Sep 24 at 2015 2:47 AM

Capt Seid Waddell — Thu, 24 Sep 2015 02:47:52 -0400

Dr. Carson was right.

Response by Cpl Jeff N. made Sep 24 at 2015 6:18 AM

Cpl Jeff N. — Thu, 24 Sep 2015 06:18:47 -0400

Anyone that would embrace Sharia Law as a reasonable set of laws for free people either doesn't understand what freedom actually is or is disingenuous at best.

I have no issue with muslims practicing Sharia law in their countries. I think it is backward,abusive, restrictive, excessively harsh and based upon only religious leaders interpretation as to it's application so it is very arbitrary too.

Anyone that thinks this law is compatible with our Constitution is operating in a clue free environment.

We should not allow it to be practiced here even on a voluntary basis. It takes away rights from citizens that are unalienable (they cannot be given away). Also, women would be brow beaten into accepting/submitting to Sharia or else (it would not really be voluntary). It is the absolute worst set of laws for any freedom loving society and few, outside of devout muslims would want any part of it.

Response by PO1 William "Chip" Nagel made Sep 24 at 2015 8:01 AM

PO1 William "Chip" Nagel — Thu, 24 Sep 2015 08:01:40 -0400

"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" His comments sure seem to spit on Article 6 of the US Constitution.

Response by SGT Damon Walton made Sep 24 at 2015 8:04 AM

SGT Damon Walton — Thu, 24 Sep 2015 08:04:35 -0400

our constitution doesn't allow for any religious tests for federal offices i.e. president and is part of separation of church and state. Moot point ..there isn't any Muslims running for president whether they are democrat or republican.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 24 at 2015 8:09 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 24 Sep 2015 08:09:35 -0400

I'm not a muslim but I've had the opportunity to study the culture and teachings. The radical people who are spreading Wahabism are not following the true intent of the teachings of Islam. They are following the teachings of a MAN who's name is Muhammad ibn Abd al Wahhab a reformist from the 18th Century. It is unfortunate that some misinterpet religious scriptures and use it for their own purposes, this has happened throughout history to justify the actions of men often with evil intent.

The following are some examples of true Quranic teachings:
1- For a young boy/girl they should obey their parents who have authority over them during their young dependent years.
2- For a wife, she must obey her husband (in righteousness) as God decreed in the Quran.
3- For an employee, he/she must obey their boss who has authority over them, but only within the framework of the profession.
4- For citizens, they must obey the established authorities (e.g. the courts, the police, etc). They must obey the law of the land as long as it does not violate God's law.

http://www.quran-islam.org/main_topics/misinterpreted_verses/authority_(P1246).html

True Islam - Authority

True Islam is derived from the Quran and not from the traditions or cultures of Muslim people

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 24 at 2015 8:15 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 24 Sep 2015 08:15:12 -0400

The thing to remember, is that Judaism and Christianity *also* have old laws on their books that we would find incompatible with modern society. Punishments for violating the Sabbath; wearing clothing of mixed materials (ie, cotton and wool together); even early Jews and Christians were able to own slaves and keep multiple wives and concubines. The only difference is that while Jews and Christians mostly just treat those old laws as interesting cultural relics, modern Shariah extremists want this stuff to be enacted *now*.

What is important to remember is that a lot of Muslims are *not* Shariah extremists. It appears to be that the current "Islamic State", Daesh, has reached its peak and is not gaining new territory by the leaps and bounds it was a year ago. A lot of people who joined are quitting, slipping away and coming back with tales of corruption and abuse. People living under Shariah law seem to mostly end up disenchanted with it.

Shariah law is definitely incompatible with American values, but it would be wrong to presume every Muslim wants it. Those that do, well, we're just going to have to disappoint them.

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 24 at 2015 9:01 AM

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 24 Sep 2015 09:01:36 -0400

I'll be generic, but no religious law can come before the laws of the country for an elected president. Separation of church and state is critical to continued religious freedom. Islam is the current focus, but the same can be said for just about any relgion when taken to extreme. Does this mean a Muslim could never be president? It depends on how you define Muslim and Islam. Again the same could be said for Christianity. There are sects of Christians who also could not uphold the constitution.

Dr. Carson's comments were extremely inflammatory and he did a poor job of communicating what he meant, but he's also been repeatedly taken out of context so that others can prove a point. This has been happening all election on both sides. Bernie Sanders and Jeb Bush have also been victims of a similar tactic (albeit not with Islam).

The problem is that we lump Islam into one sack right now that it doesn't fit in. It's convenient for us to do partly out of ignorance, partly out of fear. However, marginalizing an entire religion (a massive one) is idiotic and counter-productive, not to mention illegal in the US and most of Europe.

Response by SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S. made Sep 24 at 2015 9:57 AM

SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S. — Thu, 24 Sep 2015 09:57:04 -0400

Based on Dr. Carson's comments Catholicism is also incomparable with the US Constitution due to owing filiety to the Pope.

Response by SrA Edward Vong made Sep 24 at 2015 10:14 AM

SrA Edward Vong — Thu, 24 Sep 2015 10:14:03 -0400

No religious law is compatible with the US Constitution.

Generally speaking, someone of faith would be holding their faith above all else, however, an elected member still has a job to do whether they agree with it or not. This goes back to Kim Davis not granting marriage licenses because of her beliefs.

That being said, according to the Muslim "lore", Sharia law is man-made by the prophet based on how he interpreted the Quran. It was a combination of his interpretation and the culture which led to what it is today. As a former Muslim, I did not follow Sharia law, but my devotion was ultimately to my interpretation of the Quran.

Response by PO3 Steven Sherrill made Sep 24 at 2015 10:19 AM

PO3 Steven Sherrill — Thu, 24 Sep 2015 10:19:36 -0400

1SG Private RallyPoint Member while it seems like a simple straight forward question, it is neither. From a constitutional standpoint, yes it is. I say that because the constitution guarantees the right to freely worship: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." So by that alone, yes Islam is compatible with the US Constitution, or more correctly worded, the US Constitution is compatible with Islam.

That is also what makes it a convoluted issue. The Constitution guarantees freedoms to all Americans. This means that a religious tenet that involves the eradication of other beliefs defies the Constitution. In a CIVILIZED society, the tenets pertaining to elimination of alternative beliefs are tempered so as not to interfere with individual rights. Strict Sharia Law as stated infringes on women's rights, the rights of non Muslims, human rights, and (for a bit of humor) bacon lovers everywhere. Furthermore it is complicated by the tenet that Sharia Law cannot be altered. So unless American Imams wish to interpret that Sharia Law can only be applied within the Muslim community, then the Sharia Law is not compatible with the US Constitution.

So my answer to the question is Islam is compatible with the US Constitution, but Sharia Law is not compatible with the US Constitution. The fact that it allows for human rights violations, crimes against children, and the subjugation of women (which when asked a local Imam inferred that Islam puts women on a pedestal) makes it something that is incompatible with humanity, let alone the US Constitution. That being said if a Islam wishes to be a part of American culture, instead of telling all people that they must be Muslims and follow Sharia, Islam needs to evolve beyond out dated tenets. Pope Francis illustrates this. He is little by little dragging the Roman Catholic Church kicking and screaming into modern times. He has made getting an annulment simpler so divorced Catholics are not prevented (spiritually) from remarrying. He has stated in regards to homosexuality "Who am I to judge." He has washed the feet of prison inmates. He has gone and walked among the people (even in a dangerous neighborhood in Rio). He is leading by example, and making changes with the times to keep the church relevant to the next generation. If Islam could grow in this way, rather than living in the medieval ages, it would be both less susceptible to radicalization and more acceptable to the cultures they intermingle with.

Rant is over.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 24 at 2015 10:24 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 24 Sep 2015 10:24:10 -0400

I remember very well the questions asked of Mitt Romney, a Mormon, regarding his faith. Some were curious how it shaped his worldview; others were shamelessly attempting to drive a wedge between Romney and Evangelical Christians.
Before my time, questions were asked of JFK regarding subservience to the Pope.
Welcome to politics. There are many people out there whose whole job is to troll every word a candidate says to create doubt in the minds of voters. There is also no shortage of unpaid volunteers who will do it for free in places like this very forum.
How religion shapes a candidate's worldview is a perfectly legitimate question. Candidates, if they are smart, will stay on message and detail what they intend to do in elected office. Dr Carson gave his political rivals some free red meat with which to club him over the head and more precisely, to attempt to drive a wedge between Dr Carson and some of his donors. Let's not confuse the issue, people. The folks that cry "outrage!" are the very ones who are just fine accepting donations from their own band of unsavory characters. In fact, they appreciate that the spotlight is on Dr Carson right now so they can quietly see their own donors while the media is distracted.

Sharia is a way of life, informed by centuries of culture and tradition. To my modern, Christian, and educated view, many of the tenets listed by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member (there are many more) seem backward and do not fit the culture of our great nation. That doesn't mean I hate Muslims. It doesn't mean I am scared of them. It doesn't mean that I don't respect their religion. It does mean that in a nation such as ours, founded on liberty and freedom of thought, speech, and religion that they can practice their beliefs, but not impose them on others.

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 24 at 2015 10:29 AM

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 24 Sep 2015 10:29:21 -0400

No religion respects or follows our Constitution. The sooner the world wakes up and stops believing in fairy tales, the better.

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Sep 24 at 2015 11:38 AM

CPT Jack Durish — Thu, 24 Sep 2015 11:38:31 -0400

This is not a rehash of the argument that arose in the 1960 election: "Should a Catholic be elected President of the United States?" I remember that one well. That was my random topic in a contest of extemporaneous speaking at American University in Washington, D.C. A professor who also happened to be a nun was the judge of the event. I spoke for almost all of my three minutes spouting every invective and pejorative I had ever heard (my father hated Catholics with an unbounded passion) while the nun fairly lit up the room with the color rising in her face. Then I stopped, smiled, and concluded, "...or so I've heard." Yes, there were many who feared that the Pope would have an undue influence on a Catholic President. Or that the Catholic disdain for all other Christian groups would make them second class citizens (this was prior to Vatican II). But essentially, there was never any question of Kennedy's patriotism (he served with distinction in WWII) and his love of America. The Islamic faith is intolerant of Western philosophy and culture in all its variations and seeks to replace them with their own (for example, Muslims living in Germany - not those involved in terrorism - want to eliminate Oktober Fest). Shari'a Law is contrary not only to cultural aspects of Western civilization but also to civil as well as criminal codes, and Muslims are commanded by Allah and his prophet Mohammed to replace all with Shari'a. No, it's not quite the same as Catholics struggling to accept American abortion laws while their church preaches against it. Western Civilization has evolved with the ages while Islam remains rooted in the Stone Age. Those who argue that Muslims have contributed greatly to the arts and sciences tend to ignore the fact that those contributions came from the Persians who practiced a form of Islam that is greatly reviled among the majority of Muslims. The Golden Age of Islam was limited to a couple of centuries among the Shiites. None of this would concern me except that the philosophy of multiculturalism that is prevalent among America's intelligentsia preaches that all human institutions are equal and should be tolerated. Sadly, they fail to recognize that their tolerance is not reciprocated from the Muslim community...

Response by CPL Brian Clouser made Sep 24 at 2015 2:01 PM

CPL Brian Clouser — Thu, 24 Sep 2015 14:01:04 -0400

I think most people wouldn't vote for a Muslim for president. I know I wouldn't. Being a Muslims is to follow the teaching of Muhammad, which includes following Sharia Law. Sharia law goes against the U.S.Constitution and the law of the land. It also mean to convert, kill or make into a 2nd class citizen all non-believers.

Response by TSgt Kenneth Ellis made Sep 24 at 2015 10:39 PM

TSgt Kenneth Ellis — Thu, 24 Sep 2015 22:39:13 -0400

But when they get someone from CAIR they say our constitution is the most sharia complient. Go figure.

Response by Maj William Gambrell made Sep 25 at 2015 12:48 AM

Maj William Gambrell — Fri, 25 Sep 2015 00:48:24 -0400

Not true, look at Indonesia. Most are not married under civil law but are married under Islam. I know this for a fact. Separation of Church and State exists in the largest Muslim country in the world.

Response by LCpl Mark Lefler made Sep 25 at 2015 2:26 AM

LCpl Mark Lefler — Fri, 25 Sep 2015 02:26:50 -0400

Dr. Carson is very wrong.. seriously? you show this as if somehow it represents all of Islam? how about picking up a college level book on world religions or read the Koran instead of this bullshit. Oh and if you think Muslims shouldn't be in government, tell that to the ones buried in Arlington.

Response by SA Harold Hansmann made Sep 25 at 2015 8:17 AM

SA Harold Hansmann — Fri, 25 Sep 2015 08:17:38 -0400

That's a bit harsh.

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 25 at 2015 11:06 AM

Sgt Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 25 Sep 2015 11:06:15 -0400

Off course it's not compatible. On a side note, I am sick of all of the political correctness surrounding current events. In order to be a faithful, devoted Muslim, we can't be considered equals in their eyes, can we? I mean, not just from practical experience... This is just a surface of a deeper, not so pleasant issue.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Sep 25 at 2015 12:44 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Fri, 25 Sep 2015 12:44:10 -0400

It is not the national charter for religion to create laws. How do you argue against god?

Response by PO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 25 at 2015 3:00 PM

PO3 Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 25 Sep 2015 15:00:55 -0400

To answer this question one must understand the different between a Muslim and an Islamist. By understanding that, the answer will appear by itself.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 25 at 2015 4:13 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 25 Sep 2015 16:13:15 -0400

yay Ben.... stick it to em...

Response by SPC Andrew Griffin made Sep 25 at 2015 4:19 PM

SPC Andrew Griffin — Fri, 25 Sep 2015 16:19:52 -0400

From What I just read about Sharia Law! NO!!!! It does not line up with the Ideals of the Constitution!

Response by SN Greg Wright made Sep 25 at 2015 7:49 PM

SN Greg Wright — Fri, 25 Sep 2015 19:49:15 -0400

1SG Private RallyPoint Member MSG, there aren't any religions that I know of that are compatible with the Constitution. A radical president that tried to impose his/her own religious law on the country would run smack into the face of the 2nd Amendment, and would not be in power for very long. So. I have no probably with a president of any religion, as long as they're not trying to enforce their views as secular law.

Response by Sgt Sherry Taylor-Bruce made Sep 25 at 2015 7:58 PM

Sgt Sherry Taylor-Bruce — Fri, 25 Sep 2015 19:58:53 -0400

Dr Carson makes valid points, active Muslims share ideals that are contrary to the ideals and principles that America was founded on. He was in ROTC while in school, so he understands chain of command and will consult experts when he makes decisions. Of the 56 signers of the declaration of independence 5 were physicians, 25 were lawyers and 17 served in the military during the Revolutionary War. None wanted to kill people that didn't share their values.

If you look up the origin of political correctness it was associated to the Marxist regime where people were indoctrinated to their way of thinking, who decides what is correct?

Response by 1SG Nick Baker made Sep 25 at 2015 8:04 PM

1SG Nick Baker — Fri, 25 Sep 2015 20:04:47 -0400

Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all have a common starting point, Abraham.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 25 at 2015 9:22 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 25 Sep 2015 21:22:12 -0400

1SG Private RallyPoint Member -
Let me start by saying I am an atheist who has studied the culture and the religion in depth while learning Arabic for operational purposes at the Defense Language Institute, and through further study on my own. I tend to gravitate toward the cultural studies and religious studies moreso than the language itself, which unfortunately doesn't help my foreign language proficiency pay, but I make up for it by understanding the target better.

I agree with your overall premise in the same way I would view evangelical Christians (especially one who takes Leviticus literally) who can't separate church and state, it would be completely incompatible with the constitution. I like shellfish, poly-wool blends, and pork, and I would hate the idea of killing witches. We've grown past that as a society.

The first part I wanted to mention was just a single letter.
...called "figh,"...
It's more closely pronounced "Fiqih" (with a Q, not a G...it's like a k sound pronounced at the back of the throat instead of the mid-back of the tongue) with the accent on the first syllable and the second "i" almost nonexistent, but more necessary for a native English speaker to not just ignore the "h" altogether when trying to pronounce it. The h is almost silent, but still barely audible. The word means "jurisprudence," which is basically, as you said, an interpretation of Shari'a law. There is no g sound unless you're talking to an Iraqi, who often (but not always) can pronounce the letter Qaf as a Gaf. As in English, everything in Arabic has an exception in one place or another, since the dialects are so vastly different.

I disagree with some of your points for a few main reasons.
A fatwa is a religious "decree." It's not something everyone will pay attention to. If you go to church and your pastor says, "everyone should get a leather bible case with a zipper, since leather is a good material to protect the word of God," that is a suggestion which people at other churches won't heed. Likewise, a radical Muslim cleric issuing a "fatwa" to destroy Americans, for example, will be largely ignored by the population of Muslims who do not subscribe to his ideology (and likewise don't attend his mosque).
Women driving cars is one such fatwa, but it grabbed the ear of the Saudi Royal Family many years back, so it was decreed in Saudi Arabia that women driving cars was "haram," or forbidden. Last I heard, they are taking steps to overturn that ruling.

• Girls' clitoris should be cut (per Muhammad's words in Book 41, Kitab Al-Adab, Hadith 5251).
A hadith is basically something someone who isn't Muhammad, saying "this is what Muhammad said." There are a ton of hadith that are largely ignored because they are not believable or accurate. In fact, when it comes down to it, many Muslims ignore hadith altogether and only focus on the writings in the Qur'an itself. The truth of the matter is, female circumcision is a gruesome practice that is carried out in a small part the Arab world, primarily in Egypt and Sudan. It has been outlawed in Egypt, but the practice continues under the table.

It isn't religious, it's cultural. Female circumcision has nothing to do with the Qur'an or Islam. It's (obviously different and way worse, but in a way) similar to the practice of piercing a baby girl's ears in the South. The South is part of the bible belt. Piercing girl's ears when they're too young to consent happens in the South. Ergo, piercing baby girls' ears must just be a Christian practice.

• Muslims should engage in Taqiyya and lie to non-Muslims to advance Islam.
This is a tenet in Shi'a Islam. It does not refer to denying being a Muslim to try to throw anyone off (which was brought up in another conversation I had about al-Taqiyya on RP). This would be violating a religious rule very similar to the Christian theology of "If you deny me before man, I will deny you before the Father." Aside from that, yes, many Shi'a do in fact practice al-Taqiyya in other contexts. Shi'a are supposedly on "our side" in Iraq, since ISIS claims to be Sunni (and has a lot of high ranking members from the old Ba'ath party from Saddam's era), but then the whole of Iran is Shi'a, so no one group is entirely our friends.

• Criticizing or denying Allah, the moon god of Islam is punishable by death.
Moon God? Really? "Allah," the God of Islam, first revealed himself to Abraham, according to the Islamic faith. There are some differences in the stories. In the bible, Abraham was supposed to sacrifice Isaac, the legitimate son of Abraham and Sarah. In the Qur'an, Abraham was supposed to sacrifice Ishmael, the true firstborn. Isaac's descendants are the Israelites, Jews and later Christians. Ishmael's descendants eventually became Muslims. Statements like the "moon God" myth tend to be misrepresentations set about by people devout to other Abrahamic faiths, I suppose because there's 'no way they have the same God I do.'

I don't have time to pull up primary sources for you, but there's a quick once-over on the fallacy, courtesy of Wikipedia, at the bottom.

• Theft is punishable by amputation of the right hand (above).
True. Very true. In Saudi Arabia, and now in ISIS-controlled areas. Saudi Arabia doesn't get a pass on this, but at least there it makes sense culturally (despite being incompatible with our society). During the Hajj, there are thousands of vendors with millions of dollars' worth of gold and precious gems for pilgrims to purchase to take home as mementos. 5 times a day, there's a call to prayer. Everyone leaves and goes to pray. Nobody steals.

I don't want to refute all of your points, obviously. On some I agreed, and added more information. I can't speak to some of them. Some are absolutely true. Some aren't worth the effort. The point is just to look at each one individually. It applies sometimes, depending on what group you are talking about.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allah_as_Moon-god

Allah as Moon-god - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Allah as Moon-God is a claim put forth by some critics of Islam that the Islamic name for God, Allah, derives from a pagan Moon god in local Arabic mythology. The implication is that "Allah" is a different God from the Judeo-Christian deity and that Muslims are worshipping a "false god". The claim is most associated with the Christian apologist author Robert Morey, whose book The moon-god Allah in the archeology of the Middle East is a widely...

Response by SFC Wade W. made Sep 25 at 2015 9:51 PM

SFC Wade W. — Fri, 25 Sep 2015 21:51:36 -0400

Yes, we should be worried. They are one of the fastest growing populations Iin the world an have no interest in staying in their own lands but instead, want to spread worldwide and destroy all those who oppose them. Take time out to read the Qu'ran to get the truth. Dint ask your neighbor because they will lie until their numbers are too big to fight against.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 25 at 2015 9:59 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 25 Sep 2015 21:59:31 -0400

You can worry when they have 2/3 majorities in both houses of Congress and 3/4 of state legislatures. At which point they can amend the Constitution. Absent that, it is fear-mongering. Muslims that immigrate to the United States are coming here to enjoy the opportunities this great nation affords - often leaving Sharia behind. I sincerely doubt they really want to return to that way of life.

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 25 at 2015 10:01 PM

Sgt Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 25 Sep 2015 22:01:12 -0400

Absolutely. Shariah law is not acceptable to the non-Muslim Americans that understand the tenets of Shariah Law. I do not think it would replace our Constitution, but I do not want Shariah Law used in our country.

Response by SFC Everett Oliver made Sep 25 at 2015 10:01 PM

SFC Everett Oliver — Fri, 25 Sep 2015 22:01:35 -0400

Hate to think I would have to pick up arms ever again. But these extremist Muslims are the reason I carry where ever I go these days.... I'm not worried about a store hold up or being robbed or car jacked. But I don't want to need a gun when it might be needed...And any more you just never know, when or where one of them will decide it's his day to meet Allah. And Yes I would take up arms again to fight Sharia Law.

Response by SMSgt Tony Barnes made Sep 25 at 2015 10:04 PM

SMSgt Tony Barnes — Fri, 25 Sep 2015 22:04:44 -0400

I don't know...do you think not allowing women to drive, executing homosexuals and making woman walk 4 paces behind men is supported by the Constitution?

Response by LTC Stephen F. made Sep 25 at 2015 10:12 PM

LTC Stephen F. — Fri, 25 Sep 2015 22:12:35 -0400

Yes, SSG Ryan R., since for Islam to be complete the government must adhere to Islamic principles as laid out in the Koran. The Freedom to worship freely as laid out in Bill of Rights specifically is in direct opposition to what Islam stand for.

Response by CPT Ahmed Faried made Sep 25 at 2015 10:16 PM

CPT Ahmed Faried — Fri, 25 Sep 2015 22:16:07 -0400

Sure worldnetdaily is a credible source..

Response by Maj William Gambrell made Sep 25 at 2015 10:19 PM

Maj William Gambrell — Fri, 25 Sep 2015 22:19:25 -0400

People need to understand the difference between Islam and what you see on TV and ISIS. The practices of Islam don't match what you see in the middle east now. Those are not the teachings of Islam. They are the teachings of the corruption in the Middle East.

Response by Maj William Gambrell made Sep 25 at 2015 10:44 PM

Maj William Gambrell — Fri, 25 Sep 2015 22:44:17 -0400

Not sure who they polled, but my wife (Indonesian Muslim) says no.

Response by SSgt Alex Robinson made Sep 25 at 2015 11:14 PM

SSgt Alex Robinson — Fri, 25 Sep 2015 23:14:25 -0400

51 percent of U.S. Muslims prefer Shariah

There are now an estimated 3 million Muslims residing in the United States as citizens or with permanent legal status, and more than 250,000 new Muslim residents enter the U.S. per year as refugees, on work visas and student-based visas, according to the Center for Immigration Studies.

A poll commissioned in May 2015 by the Center for Security Policy showed that 51 percent of American Muslims preferred that they should have their own Shariah courts outside of the legal system ruled by the U.S. Constitution. And nearly a quarter believed the use of violent jihad was justified in establishing Shariah.

"That would translate into roughly 300,000 Muslims living in the United States who believe that Shariah is 'The Muslim God Allah's law that Muslims must follow and impose worldwide by Jihad,'" writes Frank Gaffney Jr., president of the Center for Security Policy

Response by SSgt Alex Robinson made Sep 25 at 2015 11:37 PM

SSgt Alex Robinson — Fri, 25 Sep 2015 23:37:56 -0400

SSG Ryan R. good post brother...

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 26 at 2015 12:03 AM

1LT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 26 Sep 2015 00:03:56 -0400

America needs to separate what is terrorism and what is Islam. What about all the bankers that stole from Americans in the sub prime mortgage? Jesus said to give to the poor. But, those bankers were not being Christians no matter what they claimed. It the same in Islam where you have people doing bad things and religion.

Response by Sgt Packy Flickinger made Sep 26 at 2015 12:21 AM

Sgt Packy Flickinger — Sat, 26 Sep 2015 00:21:22 -0400

Sad, isn't it. I'd vote for Carson. Really wish Allen West would have run.

Lookie there, backing the busdrivers.

Response by SCPO Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 26 at 2015 1:06 AM

SCPO Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 26 Sep 2015 01:06:24 -0400

Absotively Posilutely!!!

Response by PO1 William "Chip" Nagel made Sep 26 at 2015 3:47 AM

PO1 William "Chip" Nagel — Sat, 26 Sep 2015 03:47:36 -0400

Nope, More concerned that some Christians would replace it with Parts of Leviticus.

Response by LCpl Mark Lefler made Sep 26 at 2015 11:08 AM

LCpl Mark Lefler — Sat, 26 Sep 2015 11:08:30 -0400

thats like saying "should we worry that right wing conservative christians think jesus wrote the constitution."

Response by PO2 Skip Kirkwood made Sep 26 at 2015 11:57 AM

PO2 Skip Kirkwood — Sat, 26 Sep 2015 11:57:21 -0400

As a society, we have the memory and attention span of gnats. We speak before we think, and we take positions that are contrary to the positions that we took 10 minutes, or 2 weeks ago. Or we just want to be "outraged" at anything that is convenient.

We have lost our collective minds.

Response by TSgt Dave Beem made Sep 27 at 2015 1:06 AM

TSgt Dave Beem — Sun, 27 Sep 2015 01:06:12 -0400

Well, not to bring our current president into the fight here, but when he applied for a scholarship to the Chicago School of Law, he first applied as a Christian black student (US citizen). He was denied. He reapplied as a foreign, black, MOSLEM, and got a free ride. So, since he apparently went over to Christianity (though, judging from his "spiritual adviser" from his first term as senator on back leads one to believe "not god BLESS America, but god DAMN America" might have been just as bad as what radical Moslems think) FROM the Moslem faith, according to the Que'ran, he should be killed. Huh. I wonder why so many Moslems in our country voted for him then, since he was the antithesis of the Moslem Faith, a traitor to the cause, etc?

Mr Obama certainly wouldn't have been elected president as a Moslem, would he? So was it expedience that had him switch religions, or was it a change of heart, or faith, or what?

We've seen several general officers get "retired by force" or canned for being evangelical Christians. I myself got one unit commander orders after he started saying prayers before commander's call. NOT because of the prayer itself, mind you, but because it made EVERYONE uncomfortable. And those who did not bow their heads were sort of obvious.

So we had a Leadership Climate Assessment soon after myself, leading a sort of a coalition of officers and enlisted to the IG to try to put a stop to it. He was ballsy enough to, at the next commanders call AFTER he got talking to from the Wing King, to open the commander's call with the following statement. "Since some of you apparently did not like the fact that I start every commander's call with a prayer (he also put one of the base chaplains up to it too), those who don't wish to pray may leave the auditorium for the prayer, and return after it is finished".

Let's see, and HOW would you identify those folks who narc'd you out? I could care less what my commander did on personal time, even if he was going door to door bible thumping. As long as he did not do it in uniform, nor mention his connection with the military, at least. But when you start bible thumping on company time, I take exception to this. As we ALL know (even you commanders out there), commander's call, to nearly all of us, in this electronic age, is a waste of time as far as disseminating information. Let us attend remotely. (we're talking base OR unit level here).

But do NOT moralize, or proselytize on military time. I can do a lot of work in 48 hours (figuring the time spent walking to and from commanders call along with the time wasted listening to things we already know), and this does not include BASE commanders calls, which, if monthly, waste about 3 to 4 hours each. Seems some of the more rabidly religious folks forget the prime movers of the military.

Give me the resources, training, authority, manpower, and budget to do what you want done, and then get the hell out of the way and let me do my job! We have the UCMJ. Those are OUR laws folks! We get held to a higher standard than the rest of our society to begin with. We can get shitcanned for adultery, but it's not illegal for a civilian. The UCMJ equates SODOMY as anything from your wife giving you a hummer in the privacy of your bedroom to boinking a sheep. (though I wonder what they're doing to change that now that gays and lesbians are allowed to serve openly. Because if it was NOT modified, you can SAY you're gay, but you still can't do gay sex. I'd hate to the the legal team trying to figure that mess out! But hey, that's both a MORAL AND RELIGIOUS issue for many people. Just like Gay Marriage is.

The KEY here folks, is MODERATION! ACCEPTANCE. Like it or not, Moslems are here to stay. Ask any Army commander how many DIFFERENT chaplains they have (branding wise). If they even know. We had a group chaplain for a while in my unit, since we were basically deployed somewhere in the world nonstop since I came in back in 1983 and we still are today. Rough on famiies, finances and tempers. I think we might have had THREE Jewish folks in our group. We had a Rabbi for our Chaplain. Nobody complained, other than the poor guy was continually rumpled. He was cursed that way. He'd even demonstrate for us. He'd make a show of putting on a new, crisp, starched to hell uniform and in an hour it would look like he slept in it for a week. We ALL liked him. Nobody accused him of being part of a Zionist Conspiracy (something the Wahabbi's seem to think EVERY jewish person is neck deep in).

He was well educated, witty, and eminently practical. Then, on a particularly hectic, bad day you'd hear the famous OY VAY! echoing down the hall, and we'd all laugh and tell ourselves that we wouldn't want his job at ANY pay scale.

HE was our chaplain and NOT our commanding officer. He was familiar with nearly every religion that has a single diety (god), and he could have easily been ordained in any of them due to his encyclopedic knowledge of them all. (yes, Christian wives are supposed to follow their husbands two paces behind and to the right of them, I think, and NEITHER a "true Christian, nor a true Moslem can charge interest on a loan. The Saudis call it a "handling fee", but banking IS the traditional realm of Jews since before the old testament, I imagine.

If I need professional advice, I'd go thru my immediate chain f command, on up as far as I needed to go. For spiritual advice, we go to our unit chaplain (in the field at least) or our minister, or whatever your head honcho is in YOUR religion. Separation of Churth AND STATE.

To me, issues of religion and sexual orientation are pretty much the same. Don't come onto me, don't try to convert me, and don't punish or retaliate against me when I tell you to back off, or worse if you do NOT back off. What you think in your own mind is your business, not mine. Considering how much blood has been spilled on BOTH sides of the "Christian-Moslem-Jewish-all other religions front", I prefer being a Jedi....and equate the FORCE with God. If he exists, then he's all around us, all the time (that or he got totally fed up with the free will clause and took his marbles and went to play somewhere else in the galaxy and tried again)

One good thing the military DID teach me was to TAKE PEOPLE AS THEY COME. As INDIVIDUALS. Anyone who says he never judges people is lying thru his teeth, after all. We can't control it. We can but try, but we ARE HUMAN, after all, and to err, IS HUMAN.

There are European countries (Denmark is one, I think and there are more) who ALLOW the Moslem slums to self rule under Shariah law., Mainly because they don't obey the laws of the country they're in (unless it's convenient for them) and since a Moslem male can marry and divorce simply by saying "I divorce you" three times in front of some number of male witnesses, he can populate those same low rent districts (slums again) with dozens of kids, and the state pays to raise them because it's usually far EASIER for the state to pay for raising the kid than trying to even FIND the father. Much less get him to pay child support.

In those areas, that are not just primarily but EXCLUSIVELY Moslem, many local police forces don't DARE go into them. Because ANYTHING they do there will be newsworthy.

I still marvel at how WE, as AMERICANS, allow MOSLEM TERRORISTS to be under the Geneva Convention when they are TRULY illegal combatants, yet whenever they capture one of OUR troops, they behead him on internet TV and drag his corpse thru the streets? REALLY? What jackass made that ruling? I've been to GITMO, and believe me, a cell and the facilities THERE are HEAVEN compared to how most of them live at home. Remember the Wahabbis want to live back in the stone age. Rural Afghanistan should suit them all just fine.

So does ISIS. Or ISIL, or whatever it is this week. WHY do we allow this? If they want to be considered lawful combatants, let them put on uniforms or even an armband or something. Yet they are COWARDS. They hide behind women and children. They kill far more of their own than they'll ever manage to kill from our side (americans). I remember in the Green Zone, one enterprising car bomber figured out that we weren't really stopping cars that had women and children in them like we would a single male driver or a group of males (yes, PROFILING, DO IT!). So he carjacked a vehicle, shot the male driver, the man's wife and kid in the back seat. He promptly loaded the car up with explosives, drove it in, locked the car with the woman and kid in it and blew it up remotely using a cell phone.

I don't think the "disciplining a wife for insubordination" clause covers blowing someone ELSE'S WIFE up, does it?

Anyway, there isn't a snowball's chance in hell of Sharia law becoming imbedded in our constitution. I've also heard of a few jurisdictions (including the one in Michigan mentioned here) allowing Shariah law, but to deal with up to misdemeanors, not felonies. I think that is a stupid idea as well. NO other country caters to immigrants, legal or illegal, like we do here. But our constitution DOES say that we're founded on the idea of religious freedom, or at least tolerance. I remember the backlash on Iranian students when the Shah's regime fell. 90% of them that I was around considered themselves PERSIAN, NOT Iranians, and did their level best to distance themselves from that regime. And rednecks still beat the crap out of them here anyway, even though they had nothing to do with the embassy takeover and were horrified of what they would have to RETURN to when they finished up school..

I'm all for that slogan from the 60's made by the "establishment man" (Alfred E. Neumann was a communist, after all, right?). America, love it or LEAVE it. (or at least stop your whining and bitching and keep it to yourself)

Hope this made you folks think a bit. And by the way, my first, and ONLY girlfriend since my wife passed away in 2009 (from lung and brain cancer at 40 years old, went in for an earache and went out in a box a week later) WAS MOSLEM, Raised in Jakarta, Indonesia, and went to the same HIgh School as, yes, you guessed it, BARRY OBAMA! She had never even HEARD of Shia vs Sunny (like mad magazine's spy vs spy) until she came here for college. She married a Christian. (not me) and while her parents weren't happy about it, they dealt with it. She was a great gal too, just not for me.

But I do have a rather intimate knowledge of Islam from that 17 month education she gave me. I've read the english translation of the Que'ran and had HER read the arabic version to me when I had questions (that supersession thing really sucks, trust me) . Never once tried to convert me either. Her parents liked me a lot as well. So like I said, please TAKE EACH PERSON AS THEY ARE. Don't do the PREJUDICE thing (that's pre-judging a person before meeting them and finding out who they really are, for those of you who still don't understand what it means)., If they're bad people, then don't befriend them. Do a background check on the internet (15 bucks is cheap to vet a friend who can be trusted, believe me)

Nuff said!

Now, where'd I put that hyperdrive relay at? LOL

Dave

Response by Cpl Mark McMiller made Sep 27 at 2015 1:50 AM

Cpl Mark McMiller — Sun, 27 Sep 2015 01:50:48 -0400

The problem with Islam is that it is a religion that comes with its own judicial system, Sharia, that does not recognize individual freedoms. Sharia is Islam and Islam is Sharia; they are inseparable. The literal translation of the word Islam is "Submission to Allah" and Sharia is Allah's legal system. Those that say otherwise are either clueless or liars. Sharia and, therefore, Islam are incompatible with our Constitution.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Sep 27 at 2015 12:54 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Sun, 27 Sep 2015 12:54:56 -0400

I hate to be the 5 year old who steals a piece of candy.

Response by SGT Robert Zuniga made Sep 27 at 2015 5:46 PM

SGT Robert Zuniga — Sun, 27 Sep 2015 17:46:11 -0400

Wait a second, I thought it was a religion of peace. Tell that to the families of our fallen brothers and see what they think.

Response by CPO Andy Carrillo, MS made Sep 27 at 2015 9:22 PM

CPO Andy Carrillo, MS — Sun, 27 Sep 2015 21:22:03 -0400

Islam chooses to be incompatible with the U.S. Constitution. But hey, don't take my word for it...

Response by 1LT Aaron Barr made Sep 28 at 2015 4:50 PM

1LT Aaron Barr — Mon, 28 Sep 2015 16:50:46 -0400

No, mohammedism isn't compatible with the Constitution in particular, nor Western civilization nor any other civilization and, if what I see on the news is any indication, completely incompatible with itself. Everywhere mohammedism is contact with another civilization, there's bloodshed and violence and now we have ISIS claiming that al Qaeda isn't muslim enough.....

Response by SSG John Jensen made Sep 29 at 2015 1:53 AM

SSG John Jensen — Tue, 29 Sep 2015 01:53:15 -0400

they used to say the same thing about Catholics -

Response by SPC George Rudenko made Sep 29 at 2015 2:05 PM

SPC George Rudenko — Tue, 29 Sep 2015 14:05:09 -0400

Sharia, which I equate to an Islam version of dispute resolution, does not fit or work in the USA. BUT, it is a dispute resolution method, similar to mediation. Meaning: if two parties AGREE to an Imam sharia hearing, they would be bound by it.... maybe.... the dispute resolition still has to be lawfull under local state and federal law. That is the civil side, no need to mention criminal side.

Response by MAJ Matthew Arnold made Sep 30 at 2015 7:27 PM

MAJ Matthew Arnold — Wed, 30 Sep 2015 19:27:45 -0400

I have posted an excerpt from a quote from Bridgette Gabriel before saying "The peaceful [Muslim] majority is irrelevant". Since several posts in this forum continue to mention the peaceful Muslim majority I post the full quote below, hoping to persuade all that the peaceful majority is irrelevant.

"There are 1.2 billion Muslims in the world today. Of course not all of them are radicals. The majority of them are peaceful people. The radicals are estimated to be between 15-25% according to all intelligence services around the world.
"That leaves 75% of [Muslims being] peaceful people. But when you look at 15-25% of the world's Muslim population, you're looking at 180 million to 300 million people dedicated to the destruction of Western civilization. That is as big as the United States," said Gabriel.

"So why should we worry about the radical 15-25%? Because it is the radicals that kill. Because it is the radicals that behead and massacre," Gabriel said.
"When you look throughout history, at the lessons of history, most Germans were peaceful. Yet the Nazis drove the agenda. And as a result, 60 million people died, almost 40 million in concentration camps. 6 million were Jews. The peaceful majority were irrelevant," Gabriel said.
"When you look at Russia, most Russians were peaceful as well. But the Russians were able to kill 20 million people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant.
"When you look at China for example, most Chinese were peaceful as well. Yet the Chinese were able to kill 70 million people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant.
"When you look at Japan prior to World War II, most Japanese were peaceful people too. Yet, Japan was able to butcher its way across Southeast Asia, killing 12 million people, mostly killed by bayonets and shovels. The peaceful majority were irrelevant," Gabriel said.
"On September 11th in the United States we had 2.3 million Arab Muslims living in the United States. It took 19 hijackers - 19 radicals - to bring America to its knees, destroy the World Trade Center, attack the Pentagon and kill almost 3000 Americans that day," Gabriel said.
"So for all our power of reason, and for all us talking about moderate and peaceful Muslims, I'm glad you're here. But where are the others speaking out?" Gabriel asked. The people in attendance began to applaud.
"And since you are the only Muslim representative here, you took the limelight instead of speaking about why our government - I assume you're an American [Ahmed responded yes.] As an American citizen, you sat in this room, and instead of asking a question about the four Americans that died [in Benghazi] and what our government is doing to correct the problem, you stood there to make a point about peaceful, moderate Muslims," said Brigitte Gabriel.

Response by TSgt Kenneth Ellis made Sep 30 at 2015 11:50 PM

TSgt Kenneth Ellis — Wed, 30 Sep 2015 23:50:43 -0400

I don't know if I responded to this. Islam is a political system, disguised as a religion. And I've heard Muslims say that our constitution is the most shariah compliant . And I can't understand that.

Response by CPT Norman Pickett made Oct 13 at 2015 7:51 PM

CPT Norman Pickett — Tue, 13 Oct 2015 19:51:12 -0400

Sure. No more restrictive or counter than any other religion.

Response by SGM Bill Frazer made Nov 22 at 2020 1:50 AM

SGM Bill Frazer — Sun, 22 Nov 2020 01:50:37 -0500

It is if they would concentrate on the years after Mohamad stopped being chased around the desert. What folks have to understand is the radicals only look at the Koran parts written when he was fighting everyone to survive. Once he get control- he mellowed down. The Koran like the Torah has no New Testament. No Peacemaker. Nothing but the old eye for an eye.

Response by FN Randy Bohlke made Nov 22 at 2020 4:06 AM

FN Randy Bohlke — Sun, 22 Nov 2020 04:06:16 -0500

Sharia Law is non-compatable with the Constitution of the United States of America. Some Muslims say they are moderates but all that means is they won't cut you're head off but they would hold you down while someone else does.

When we stop looking at Islam as a religion and see it for what it is we can move past the stigma of the 1st amendment protecting it and rid our Country of this Cancer.

I'm not saying all Muslims are bad people, I just believe their teachings are barbaric and they should leave all this hate behind like we did. Anyone who has read the Old Testimony knows Christianity has a dark past but God taught is how to love and forgive someone.

If the Muslims could stop killing people who don't worship their god, treat women with some respect and stop dismembering people then they would have a chance at being compatible with our Constitution.