Ben Carson is Right: A Muslim Should Never Be the POTUS (Part 4)

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 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.3

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 conclude our series by further examining 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.4

In prior posts, 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. In our last post we observed that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment could also be added alongside Federer’s enumeration of incompatibilities between Islam and the United States Constitution. Since 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 this week’s post, which will constitute our final post in this mini-series, we highlight yet 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.

Yet, another area of incompatibility in between the United States Constitution and Islam relates to the treatment of women. On the basis of the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the government must meet the burden of proof of establishing an important state interest when it promotes laws or policies that treat similarly situated people differently on the basis of gender. Once again, such a legal tenet is foreign to the teaching of Islam. For example:

Qur’an, surah 2:182 equates two women as substitute for one man, in matters requiring witnesses. “O ye who believe! When ye contract debt with each other for a fixed period of time, reduce them to writing. Let a scribe write down faithfully as between the parties: let not the scribe refuse to write: as Allah has taught him, so let him write. Let him who incurs the liability dictate, but let him fear His Lord Allah, and not diminish aught of what he owes. If the party liable is mentally deficient, or weak, or unable himself to dictate, let his guardian dictate faithfully, and get two witnesses, out of your own men, and if there are not two men, then a man and two women, such as ye choose, for witnesses, so that if one of them errs, the other can remind her. The witnesses should not refuse when they are called on (For evidence). Disdain not to reduce to writing (your contract) for a future period, whether it be small or big: it is juster in the sight of Allah, More suitable as evidence, and more convenient to prevent doubts among yourselves but if it be a transaction which ye carry out on the spot among yourselves, there is no blame on you if ye reduce it not to writing.”…”And those who accuse chaste women then do not bring four witnesses, flog them eighty strips and don’t accept their testimony forever. Indeed, they themselves are disobedient” (Qur’an 24:4)…Historically, this principle that the testimony of a man had twice the strength of a woman, was applied in financial, civil as well as criminal matters such as rape (Zina). In modern practice, several Islamic countries presently treat a woman’s testimony as half of a man’s, in their Sharia courts. For example, since 1979, Pakistan courts have accepted the principle that a woman’s testimony is half as reliable as a man’s per Islamic guidelines, and adopted it in practice. Similarly, the law in many Arab countries gives a woman’s testimony half the weight of a man’s.5

Even beyond these areas of incompatibility between Islam and the principles of the United States Constitution, one wonders how any Muslim politician can be believed when they swear to protect and uphold America’s governing document. After all, lying is permissible in Islam when such deception furthers the cause of Allah. Commenting on the Islamic practice of taqiyyah, noted scholar Babu Susilan writes:

Under the Islamic concept of Al-Takkeya, it is legitimate for Muslims to lie, cheat, murder, deceive and violate non-Muslims. According to Takkeya, Muslims are sanctioned to communicate with fake sincerity. In reality, they may have just the opposite agenda in their hearts. It is clear that Islam permits the Muslims to lie anytime, anywhere to promote the cause of Islam…The concept of Al-Takeyya (lying) for the cause of Islam bears gross implications for freedom loving, law abiding non-Muslims. Muslims can negate any agreement, cheat, deceive, lie, and absolve from any permanent commitment. When a Muslim says “Islam is peace”, watch out. When a Muslim shout “Allah loves you”, he mean “Allah hates you” unless you are a Muslim…There are many incidences in the life of Mohammed where he often lied and instructed his followers to do the same. A good example is the assassination of Kaab Ibn Ashrf, a member of the Jewish tribe, Banu al-Nudair. Mohammed ordered his assassination by deception, lying and tricks. Mohammed also ordered the murder of Shaalan by deception and lying. Islamic history is replete with incidents of murder and assassination by deception.6

Photo Credit to Habib M’henni / Wikimedia Commons

“Quran” Photo Credit to Habib M’henni / Wikimedia Commons

It is for reasons such as these that Ben Carson publicly expressed his unwillingness to vote for a Muslim President. Recall Carson’s response that touched of the firestorm: “CHUCK TODD: So do you believe that Islam is consistent with the constitution? DR. BEN CARSON: No, I don’t, I do not. … I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that.”7 As we have seen, Carson’s point is entirely valid.

Some seem to think that Ben Carson, an African-American himself, must be a racist in expressing such a sentiment. Did Carson make an anti-Arabic statement? This argument is refuted by noting that Islam constitutes a religion and a political ideology while being Arabic comprises a racial group. Although many Arabs are Muslims, not all Arabs are Muslims and not all Muslims are Arabs. In fact, Islam came into existence in the seventh century A.D. long after the Arabic race was already in existence. Thus, Carson was not criticizing Arabs or other of Middle Eastern ethnicity but rather the religious doctrine and ideology that influence some of these people groups, as well as many other racial groups.

Some might argue that there are many Muslims who do not subscribe to the aforementioned teachings thereby making it possible for them to serve in American public life. However, if such individuals are not following Islamic doctrine, then such individuals are no longer following the teachings of Islam regardless of what they label that they may give to themselves. The more someone deviates from the teachings of Islam, the more they become non-adherents to Islamic doctrine. At that point of such a departure they then possess the beliefs and worldview that are more in line and consistent with the United States Constitution. Ben Carson readily conceded this point in the very interview where he made his “controversial” remarks.

CHUCK TODD: Let me ask you the question this way: Should a President’s faith matter? Should your faith matter to voters? DR. BEN CARSON: Well, I guess it depends on what that faith is. If it’s inconsistent with the values and principles of America, then of course it should matter. But if it fits within the realm of America and consistent with the constitution, no problem…CHUCK TODD: And would you ever consider voting for a Muslim for Congress? DR. BEN CARSON: Congress is a different story, but it depends on who that Muslim is and what their policies are, just as it depends on what anybody else says, you know. And, you know, if there’s somebody who’s of any faith, but they say things, and their life has been consistent with things that will elevate this nation and make it possible for everybody to succeed, and bring peace and harmony, then I’m with them.8

However, as has been demonstrated, it remains improbable, if not impossible, to consistently adhere to the doctrines of Islam and remain in harmony with the general beliefs and philosophy of the United States Constitution.

The controversy surrounding Ben Carson’s expressed reluctance to support a Muslim Presidential candidate has enhanced three widespread myths in our society that must be debunked. Thus, in this brief series, I have argued that Article VI, paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution has no bearing on a private citizen’s decision to not vote for a Muslim presidential candidate. Furthermore, the United States Federal government can continue to operate within the meaning of the Constitution should it opt to create religious tests for office relating to adherence to the generic and denominationally neutral principles of Christianity of potential office holders. Finally, the religious principles of Islam are incompatible with the political philosophy expressed in the United States Constitution. Naturally, the more an individual holds to the teachings of Islam the more they become disqualified for the highest office in the land.


(…End of Series)



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

Leave a reply and please keep it professional:)