XPost: alt.politics.radical-left, alt.drugs.heroin, alt.journalism.criticism   
   XPost: alt.arguments   
   From: black.lies.matter@abc.com   
      
   Ben Carson’s comment that he would not support a Shariah-   
   compliant Muslim for president because Islamic law is   
   incompatible with the U.S. Constitution led to the former brain   
   surgeon’s roasting among media talkers and politicians of all   
   stripes.   
      
   He has been excoriated as “anti-Muslim,” “bigoted,” even “anti-   
   American” and unfit for office.   
      
   “For any candidate to suggest that someone should not be elected   
   president because of what he or she may believe is nothing short   
   of religious bigotry,” said Rep. Andre Carson, D-Ind., one of   
   two Muslim congressmen.   
      
   But what do American Muslims believe?   
      
   The Council on America-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, which has   
   been most vocal in its calls for Carson’s withdrawal from the   
   GOP presidential race, claims to speak for American Muslims. The   
   organization has a long history of ties to terrorists, as   
   documented by WND’s “Rogues gallery of terror-tied leaders,” but   
   it is still treated by most U.S. media as the Muslim equivalent   
   of the American Civil Liberties Union.   
      
   According to a local newspaper report, Omar Ahmad, a founder of   
   CAIR, told a conference hall packed with California Muslims in   
   July 1998 that Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other   
   faith, but to become dominant.   
      
   The reporter paraphrased Ahmad saying, “The Quran … should be   
   the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted   
   religion on earth.”   
      
   When CAIR issued a statement in 2003 denying Ahmad made the   
   remarks and claiming the paper had issued a retraction, WND News   
   Editor Art Moore talked to the reporter and two of her editors   
   and found that they stood by the story. Moore then spoke with   
   CAIR national spokesman Ibrahim Hooper, who repeated the claim   
   that the paper had issued a retraction. When Moore informed   
   Hooper that the reporter and the editors stood by the story, the   
   CAIR communications director ended the call. But he called back   
   a few minutes later saying he wanted to amend CAIR’s statement   
   to say that the Muslim organization was seeking a retraction.   
   Three years later, however, when the issue came up again, CAIR   
   still had not contacted the paper.   
      
   On April 4, 1993, Hooper told a reporter for the Minneapolis   
   Star-Tribune: “I wouldn’t want to create the impression that I   
   wouldn’t like the government of the United States to be Islamic   
   sometime in the future.”   
      
   Hooper appeared on Michael Medved’s radio show in October 2003   
   and stated: “If Muslims ever become a majority in the United   
   States, it would be safe to assume that they would want to   
   replace the U.S. Constitution with Islamic law, as most Muslims   
   believe that God’s law is superior to man-made law.”   
      
   In May 2015, WND reported that an informal survey of Somali-   
   American Muslims on the streets of Minneapolis showed widespread   
   support for Islamic law as preferable to U.S. law.   
      
   Other CAIR leaders also "express their contempt for the United   
   States," reports Middle East scholar Daniel Pipes.   
      
   Ihsan Bagby of CAIR's Washington office has said that Muslims   
   "can never be full citizens of this country," referring to the   
   United States, "because there is no way we can be fully   
   committed to the institutions and ideologies of this country,"   
   Pipes reported in his 2006 article, "CAIR Islamists Fooling the   
   Government."   
      
   Pipes also noted that Parvez Ahmed, who followed Ahmad as CAIR   
   chairman, touted the virtues of Islamic democracy in 2004 by   
   portraying the Afghan constitutional process as superior to the   
   U.S. Constitution. Ahmed was quoted in the Orlando Sentinel as   
   saying:   
      
   "The new Afghan constitution shows that the constitution of a   
   Muslim nation can be democratic and yet not contradict the   
   essence of Islam. During my meeting with a high-ranking Afghan   
   delegation during their recent visit to the United States, I was   
   told that the Afghan constitutional convention included Hindu   
   delegates despite Hindus accounting for only 1 percent of the   
   population. Contrast this with our own constitutional convention   
   that excluded women and blacks."   
      
   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.   
      
   SPLC says 'no worries'   
      
   Along with CAIR is another organization, the Southern Poverty   
   Law Center, which makes great strides to assure the American   
   people that Islamic law, or Shariah, is not something they   
   should be concerned about.   
      
   In its online document titled "Teaching Tolerance: What is the   
   Truth About American Muslims," the SPLC says Shariah is   
   essentially no different than any other religious code of   
   conduct and compares it to Judaism and Christianity.   
      
   SPLC asks: "Do American Muslims want to replace the U.S.   
   Constitution with Sharia?" And then provides the following   
   answer:   
      
   "No. American Muslims overwhelmingly support the U.S.   
   Constitution and do not seek to replace it with Sharia or   
   Islamic law. The vast majority of American Muslims understand   
   Sharia as a personal, religious obligation governing the   
   practice of their faith, not as something American governments   
   should enforce."   
      
   The American Catholic magazine delved into the issue in 2010   
   when it asked, "Is Sharia compatible with the U.S. Constitution?"   
      
   "The simple answer is of course, 'no,'" the magazine stated and   
   then listed 13 reasons why.   
      
   Number 4 on the list stated: "Instead of precedents and codes,   
   Sharia relies on medieval jurist’s manuals and collections of   
   non-binding legal opinions, or fatwas, issued by religious   
   scholars (ulama, particularly a mufti); these can be made   
   binding for a particular case at the discretion of a judge."   
      
   What do Muslim scholars say about 'democracy'?   
      
   Yusuf al-Qaradawi, a Sunni Muslim cleric and head of the   
   European Council for Fatwa and Research, is quoted in "The   
   Islamization of the West" by Patrick Sookhdeo, as saying:   
      
   "Islam entered Europe twice and left it. ... Perhaps the next   
   conquest, Allah willing, will be by means of preaching and   
   ideology. The conquest need not necessarily be by the sword. ...   
   Perhaps we will conquer these lands without armies. We want an   
   army of preachers and teachers who will present Islam in all   
   languages and in all dialects."   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)