Ben Carson is Right: A Muslim Should Never Be the POTUS (Part 3)

Recently, 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 ever 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 Caron’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 began articulating and exposing the third myth. In this post, we will further expose this 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.7

In our last post, we drew attention to historian William Federer’s clause by clause analysis explaining why the teachings of Islam violate the Constitution’s most basic tenets and amendments. The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment could also be added alongside Federer’s enumeration of incompatibilities between Islam and the United States Constitution. Our Founders wanted to create a government that respected the separate sovereigns of government and church. The Constitution’s First Amendment reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” Although the ACLU and other radical secularists have twisted this expression to mean that the Christian worldview should have no influence over how the state should function, the notion that the church and the government are essentially different and separate institutions is a Constitutional concept. Thus, the United States functions quite different from Middle Eastern Islamic theocracies, which merge church and state into a single entity and consequently impose Sharia Law upon their citizens in the name of Allah.


This separate sovereigns concept is foreign to the teachings of Islam. Note the following expert opinion. “Jaafar Sheikh Idris, PhD, Chairman of the Founding Council at the American Open University, in a Mar. 3, 2004 essay titled ‘Separation of Church and State,’ wrote”8 :

So how are Muslims to approach the modern trend of separation of religion and state? The basic belief in Islam is that the Qur’an is one hundred percent the word of Allah, and the Sunna was also as a result of the guidance of Allah to the Prophet. Islam cannot be separated from the state because it guides us through every detail of running the state and our lives. Muslims have no choice but to reject secularism for it excludes the law of Allah…No Muslim could become president in a secular regime, for in order to pledge loyalty to the constitution, a Muslim would have to abandon part of his belief and embrace the belief of secularism — which is practically another religion. For Muslims, the word ‘religion’ does not only refer to a collection of beliefs and rituals, it refers to a way of life which includes all values, behaviours, and details of living. Secularism cannot be a solution for countries with a Muslim majority or even a sizeable minority, for it requires people to replace their God-given beliefs with an entirely different set of man-made beliefs. Separation of religion and state is not an option for Muslims because is [sic] requires us to abandon Allah’s decree for that of a man.9

Similarly, “Jamil Hamami, a Hamas leader and lecturer at Al Quds University, in a May 29, 1999 seminar posted on the Palestinian Academic Society for the Study of International Affairs (PASSIA) website titled ‘Political Islam in the Arab World,’ wrote”:

Some people think that talking about political Islam implies that there is a separation between religion and state. An in-depth look at the way and spirit of Islam would show that this is not true. Islam is state, religion and a way of life — which includes all aspects of the daily life of the Muslim — combined.10

Democracy FailedSince Islam seeks to impose a Theocracy in the name of Allah against unsuspecting nations, this primitive religious system knows nothing of the separate sovereigns of government and church as expressed in the United States Constitution. In next week’s post, which will constitute our final post in this mini-series, we will see a further divide between Islam and the United States Constitution as it relates to not only Islam’s mistreatment of women but also its authorization of deception.


(…To Be Continued)



  1. []
  2. []
  3. []
  4. []
  5. []
  6. []
  7. []
  8. []
  9. []
  10. []

Leave a reply and please keep it professional:)