Ben Carson is Right: A Muslim Should Never Be the POTUS (Part 2)

Ben_Carson_by_Gage_Skidmore_4Recently, Republican Presidential hopeful Dr. Ben Carson has come under severe attack due to a question posed to him from the press. In his response, Carson articulated his personal reticence that he would never vote in favor of a Muslim to occupy the Oval Office. Responding to a question on “Meet the Press,” the retired neurosurgeon noted, “I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that.”1 Consequently, in order to demonstrate the unconstitutionality of Carson’s position, Article VI, paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution has been endlessly invoked over the last couple of weeks by Carson’s detractors.2 Some conservatives have also articulated that Carson’s response contradicts the United States Constitution. Note the reaction of Republican Presidential hopeful Carly Fiorina. Responding for the first time to Ben Carson’s comment that he would not advocate for a Muslim president in an interview on NBC’s “The Tonight Show,” Republican presidential contender Carly Fiorina said Carson’s position is “wrong.” “I think that’s wrong,” Fiorina told Jimmy Fallon in an interview on Monday. “You know, it says in our Constitution that religion cannot be a test for office. It is also true that this country was founded on the principle that we judge each individual and that anyone, of any faith, is welcome here.”3


In response to Carson’s assertion, Republican Presidential hopeful Ted Cruz similarly opined: “’You know, the Constitution specifies there shall be no religious test for public office and I am a constitutionalist,’ Cruz said on Iowa public television.”4 Even basketball legend and Muslim Kareem Abdul Jabbar has contributed to the dog piling on Carson.5 The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) was similarly swift in its denunciation of Carson:

Mr. Carson clearly does not understand or care about the Constitution, which states that ‘no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office,’ said CAIR National Executive Director Nihad Awad. We call on our nation’s political leaders – across the political spectrum – to repudiate these unconstitutional and un-American statements and for Mr. Carson to withdraw from the presidential race.6

This invoked constitutional provision says, “But no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” Because of the relentless propaganda war now being waged to discredit Carson, three widespread myths are now being disseminated and gaining further traction in our culture. The goal of this mini-series is to dispel each of these distortions. In our last post we noted and responded to the first two of these myths.


The first myth is that Article VI, paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution somehow places a limitation upon private citizens examining the Islamic background of a candidate when deciding who they should vote for. This point becomes obvious by noting the words of John Jay. As a co-author of the Federalist Papers as well as America’s first United States Supreme Court Chief Justice after having been appointed to that position by President George Washington, there are probably few people in world history who understood the true meaning of the United States Constitution better than John Jay. Note Jay’s own words: “Providence has given our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as privilege and interest, of a Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.”7 Such a statement becomes non-sensical if the true meaning of the Constitution was to limit the private citizen’s consideration of the religious viewpoint of those who seek public office when entering the voting booth.


The second myth is that Article VI, paragraph 3 prevents any limitation whatsoever by the national government concerning the religious beliefs of any potential officeholder. We saw that this second myth represents an anachronistic interpretation of the word “religious” found in Article VI, paragraph 3. Consequently, in our last post we documented that a required oath or inquiry into the generic, non-denominational or non-sectarian, universally accepted Christian beliefs (or lack thereof) of any candidate for the Presidency of the United States is acceptable and well within the original meaning of the United States Constitution. In other words, even if Ben Carson was advocating that Muslims should be legally barred from serving as President of the United States, his remarks, while not conforming to today’s politically correct orthodoxy, would in no way violate either the wording or spirit of the United States Constitution. We now move on to the third myth.


The third myth is that the principles of Islam are compatible with the United States Constitution. According to this widespread cultural myth, it remains perfectly acceptable for a consistent and committed Muslim to serve in American government and in no way violate the original intent of the American Constitution. After all, it is argued, we already have a Muslim serving in Congress today:

Keith Maurice Ellison (born August 4, 1963) has been the U.S. Representative for Minnesota’s 5th congressional district since 2007. He is a member of the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party (DFL), the Minnesota state Democratic Party affiliate. The district centers on Minneapolis and surrounding suburbs. Ellison is a co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and a Chief Deputy Whip, also notably serving in the House Committee on Financial Services. Ellison is the first Muslim to be elected to Congress.8

However, historian William Federer provides a clause by clause analysis explaining why the teachings of Islam violate the Constitution’s most basic tenets and amendments.

President Barack Obama stated in Cairo, Egypt, June 4, 2009: “When the first Muslim American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the … Holy Quran.” The dilemma is: How can one swear to defend something upon a book that promotes the opposite? The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion, yet the Quran states in Sura 4:89, “Those who reject Islam must be killed. If they turn back (from Islam), take hold of them and kill them wherever you find them.” In Hadith Sahih al-Bukhari (Vol. 9, Book 84, No. 57), Muhammad said: “Whoever changes his Islamic religion, kill him.” Islamic law relegates non-Muslims to “dhimmi” status, where they are not to propagate their customs amongst Muslims and cannot display a Cross or a Star of David. The First Amendment states Congress shall not abridge “the freedom of speech,” yet Islamic law enforces dhimmi status on non-Muslims, prohibiting them from observing their religious practices publicly, raising their voices during prayer or ringing church bells. The First Amendment states Congress cannot take away “the right of the people to peaceably assemble,” yet Islamic law states non-Muslims cannot build any new places of worship or repair any old places Muslims have destroyed; they must allow Muslims to participate in their private meetings; they cannot bring their dead near the graveyards of Muslims or mourn their dead loudly. The First Amendment states Congress cannot take away the right of the people “to petition the Government for a redress of grievances,” yet Islamic law states non-Muslims are not to harbor any hostility toward the Islamic state or give comfort to those who disagree with Islamic government.

The Second Amendment states, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” yet Islamic law states non-Muslims cannot possess arms, swords or weapons of any kind. The Third Amendment states one cannot be forced to “quarter” someone in their house, yet Islamic law states non-Muslims must entertain and feed for three days any Muslim who wants to stay in their home, and for a longer period if the Muslim falls ill – and they cannot prevent Muslim travelers from staying in their places of worship. The Fourth Amendment guarantees “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures,” yet Islamic law states if a non-Muslim rides on a horse with a saddle and bridle, the horse can be taken away. The Fifth Amendment states that “no person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime … without due process of law,” yet Muhammad said, “No Muslim should be killed for killing a Kafir (infidel)” (Hadith Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 9, No. 50). The Sixth Amendment guarantees a “public trial by an impartial jury” and the Seventh Amendment states “the right of trial by jury shall be preserved,” yet Islamic law does not give non-Muslims equal legal standing with Muslims, even prohibiting a non-Muslim from testifying in court against a Muslim. The Eighth Amendment states there shall be no “cruel and unusual punishments inflicted,” yet the Quran states: “Cut off the hands of thieves, whether they are male or female, as punishment for what they have done – a deterrent from Allah” (Sura 5:38). A raped woman is punished: “The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication – flog each of them with a hundred stripes” (Sura 24:2). Women can be beaten: “If you experience rebellion from the women, you shall first talk to them, then (you may use negative incentives like) deserting them in bed, then you may (as a last alternative) beat them” (Sura 4:34). Honor killings of wives and daughters who have embarrassed their families have been reported by the United Nations in Muslim populations of Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Pakistan, Syria, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Yemen and increasing in Western nations.

The 13th Amendment states there shall be no “slavery or involuntary servitude,” yet the Quran accommodates slavery as Muhammad owned slaves. The 14th Amendment guarantees citizens “equal protection of the laws,” yet the Quran does not consider Jews, Christians and other non-Muslims as equal to Muslims before the law. Referring to Jews as “the People of the Book,” Muhammad said: “They are those whom Allah has cursed; who have been under his wrath; some of whom were turned into apes and swine” (Sura 5:60, 7:166, 2:65). The 15th Amendment guarantees “the right of the citizens … to vote shall not be denied … on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude,” yet the fundamentalist interpretation of Islamic law does not allow voting, as democracy is considered people setting themselves in the place of Allah by making their own laws….The 19th Amendment allows women to vote, yet in strict Islamic countries women cannot vote. The 21st Amendment allows for the sale of liquor, yet Islamic law prohibits non-Muslims from selling or drinking wine and liquor openly.

One would assume that to swear upon a book implies believing what is in that book. As Muhammad was not just a religious leader, but also a political and military leader, Islam is not just a religious system, but also a political and military system. Since no one has the authority to demand Muslims worldwide cease imitating the political/military example of Muhammad, when Muslims bow in prayer they are also pledging political/military allegiance to Mecca. Swearing to defend the U.S. Constitution upon a Quran that promotes different values is a dilemma worthy of a presidential explanation.9

In our next post, we will observe further inconsistencies between Islam and the principles of American self-government as enshrined in the United States Constitution.


(…To Be Continued)



  1. []
  2. []
  3. []
  4. []
  5. []
  6. []
  7. John Jay, The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, ed. Herny P. Johnston, 4 vols., vol. 4 (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1890-93), 393, October 12, 1816. []
  8. []
  9. William Federer, “Quran vs. Constitution: Why They’re Incompatible,” online:, accessed 23 September 2015, 1-3. []

Leave a reply and please keep it professional:)