Ben Carson Exposes Islamic ‘Taqiyya,’ But There’s Even More You Should Know

Of all the points presidential hopeful Ben Carson made in defense of his position ^[1] that he “would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation,” the most poignant was his referencing of taqiyya, one of Islam’s doctrines of deception.According to Carson, whoever becomes president should be “sworn in on a stack of Bibles, not a Koran.” “I do not believe Sharia is consistent with the Constitution of this country,” Carson said, referencing the Islamic law derived from the Koran and traditions of Islam.

Read more at PJ Media
(Hat tip: KimR)

Diana West points out the contradictions between the U.S. Constitution and the tenets of Islam... Diana West: Your question: Do I support Dr Carsons comments on a Muslim in the presidency? Yes, I do, and resoundingly so as I assume anyone familiar just with the intractable differences between the U.S. Constitution and the tenets of Islam would agree. Lets look at just a couple of the basic contradictions. 1) We have freedom of religion under the Constitution. Under Islamic law (sharia), there is no freedom of religion. Jews and Christians live as dhimmi," without equal rights (and with many burdens which may include the jizya tax and other humiliations). Also, renouncing or leaving Islam (apostasy) is a capital crime according to Islamic law (sharia). 2) We have freedom of speech under the Constitution. Under Islamic law (sharia), there is no freedom of speech: indeed, criticizing Islam constitutes apostasy, which, again, is a capital crime in Islam. To take another stunning example of the differences between Islamic and American law, women and non-Muslims {dhimmi) are not equal to Muslim men before Islamic law (sharia). Thus, if by Muslim we mean someone who has not renounced Islamic teachings and laws (sharia), we are describing a person who would be unable to fulfill his presidential oath to preserve, protect and defend" the U.S. Constitution without simultaneously betraying his faith. And, more importantly for the country, vice versa. Its a little like considering the qualifications of a committed pacifist as leader of the armed services; or a vegan as steak-taster. The creed and the mission are diametrically opposed. Dr. Carson is correct because the teachings of Islam, which define being a Muslim, are not compatible with the presidential oath of office. The simple fact is [and this is logically incontestable] , Islam outlaws the very liberties the president is sworn to protect.

Diana West's post is a comment to Richard Fernandez's article on Belmont Club entitled The Subhumanization of Muslims.