Tag Archives: Islam

It’s Jihad, Stupid

Islam 0

Israel is experiencing a sharp increase in terrorist activity in the form of rock-throwing, Molotov cocktails and live ammunition aimed at Israeli vehicles, which began to be noticeable several months ago and has escalated rapidly over the last few weeks. It is happening in Judea and Samaria, but the focus of the violence is in Jerusalem, where any incident involving the Temple Mount – el Aksa in Arabic – draws regional and even world attention.

Are we witnessing an organized set of terror attacks or an ongoing continuum of spontaneous events?  Is this the harbinger of a third Intifada? And if not, what is it? The jury seems to be out on the question.

The undecided internal debate about the significance of the violence is expressed by the media’s selective choice of words. Should young people’s actions be labeled acts perpetrated by “youths,” a word emphasizing their age, but not claiming that they are minors? Should they instead be called “activists?” “terrorists?” “militants?” “hooligans?” It goes without saying that the choice of term makes a statement about the speaker’s position regarding the violence as well his opinion on the punishment the perpetrators should receive if and when they are apprehended. There is a great deal of difference between “driver killed by rock thrown by youths” and “driver killed by rock thrown by terrorists.”

It is sad to see the lack of real understanding on the part of Israelis and the rest of the world as to what actually is happening out there, because there is only one word that describes the truth about what the other side sees as reality – that is, the side that screams about Jews ascending the Temple Mount, throws rocks, hurls boulders and Molotov cocktails, stabs and shoots. That word, and it is the only applicable word, is “Jihad.” This, to many Israelis, is the word “that must not be said” because it tells us is that what we in Israel are experiencing at the present time is an Islamic religious war.

Denial won’t change anything, however, because there are at least seven different ways to prove that Israel is, as it always was, a “Jihad” target.

First and foremost, the struggle today, as in the past, is over the religious supremacy issue. According to Islam, the Jewish religion is passé, Din al-Batil, while Islam is the true religion, or  Din al-Haqq. According to Islam, Jews may live under Islamic rule if they cooperate and accept the lowly role of “dhimmi”, protected ones, sans sovereignty, arms and citizens’ status. The situation today where Jews rule “Palestine,” a land Islam considers holy to Muslims alone, and are able to tell Muslims what they are allowed and not allowed to do, contradicts the most basic Islamic tenet: “Al-Islam Ya’lu wala yu’la ‘alayhi” – Islam is supreme and nothing can be above it.

A situation where another religion, and certainly Judaism, controls Muslims and an Islamic land, mandates a “Jihad.”

Second, according to Islamic doctrine, “Jihad” can assume various forms depending on prevailing circumstances. Screams, curses, blows, rocks, boulders, firecrackers, firebombs, knives, shots – all are weapons, each chosen after assessing the particular situation. Cameras are also weapons, especially for the media, which acts as the preferred Jihadist arena. The photographer and journalist are fighters in the “Communications Jihad.”

“Legal Jihad” continues the struggle in the halls of international courts and institutions, while “Economic Jihad” is waged in BDS calls to boycott Israel, pull out of financial investments in the Jewish state and lay on sanctions.

The Bedouin in the Sinai have been carrying on a Jihad against Israel by smuggling infiltrators – many of them Muslim (surprise!) – and weapons into Gaza and into Israeli territory. The leader of the infiltrators in Israel is a Muslim, and his activities against the state, its citizens and laws can be lumped together as “Migrant Jihad.”

A Muslim MK who defames Israel from the Knesset podium is a “Political Jihadist.” The UN podium is no different.

Mahmoud Abbas’ speech at the United Nations and other world forums and the Palestinian Authority’s attempt to receive international recognition as a state, are a kind of “Political Jihad” whose goal is the establishment of Muslim State No. 58 on the ruins of the one and only Jewish State. These efforts are camouflaged as legitimate political activity through which, by presenting a false image that depicts them as “peace lovers,”  the Muslims living both in Israel and outside of its borders are attempting to persuade the world to agree to destroy the Jewish State. The doctrine of Islamic Jihad mandates the inclusion of an element of deceit, and Mahmoud Abbas is a master of deception.

Make no mistake, all of the above are different types of Islamic Jihad.

Third is the increasing involvement of the Islamic Movement, particularly the northern branch led by Raed Salah (aka the el Aksa Sheikh) in staging incidents, incitement, financing the al-Murabitoun  and  al-Murabitat organizations and in its growing coordination with Hamas.

Each of these organizations carries on its anti-Israel Jihad to the best of its abilities, but all share a common religious goal: transforming all of “Palestine,” stretching from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, into a part of the Islamic Caliphate, with its capital in Al Quds (Jerusalem). The first religious leader of the Arabs in the area designated as the Jewish Homeland – the Mufti Haj Amin el Husseini – was involved in Military Jihad against the Jews of Israel but was also actively involved in the annihilation of a half million Hungarian Jews in 1944.

Fourth is the meaning of the the historically and religiously significant names of the above-mentioned organizations. They refer to the entire land and especially to the areas bordering it, where Muslims battle infidels in order to strengthen Islam and establish its rule over them and their countries. There have been organizations with similar names outside of Israel, all of them Islamic Jihadist in character.

The fifth indication is the expression used for anyone killed in anti-Israel incidents. Today, as well as in the past, the term employed is “shaheed”, a religious term meaning someone who dwells in Paradise near Allah and receives the reward for martyrdom for the sake of Islam from Allah’s hand.

And the sixth proof? Just look at what is going on in the Muslim world. All the Muslims living west of the Jordan River, in Israel and the Palestinian Authority are well-informed about the developments in Syria, Iraq and the Sinai. They are privileged to see in real time how original, fundamentalist, pure and unadulterated Islam is going about a bold and successful Jihad – including beheadings on camera – against Alawite, Yazidi, Druze and Shiite infidels, as well as foreigners like the Americans, whom they  do not fear in the least.

Everyone knows what is happening in the Jihad-land that has blossomed in the Sinai Desert, and how the Jihadists are successfully fighting an all-out war against Egyptian military forces, the largest army in the Middle East. Joy at Jihad successes in the countries surrounding Israel has found its way into the hearts of the Muslims living West of the Jordan and motivates them to join the Jihad against the Jews, the “enemies of Allah and Islam,” and become part of the wave of Islamic successes that have the entire world trembling in fear.

Seventh, the illegal Arab construction going on all over Israel west of the Jordan River is a kind of Jihad known as “Construction Jihad.”

Not coincidentally, that is the name of the construction company owned by Hezbollah, no problem because the idea of a joint Jihad against Israel is an integral part of Islam to both Sunnis and Shiites and is one of the few points of agreement between them.

The multi-pronged Jihad against Israel described here is not announced publicly (or explained in detail as I have done), because the Muslims know full well that the world will not support Jihad if its fighters are openly attempting to destroy Israel.

That is why Israel’s leaders, spokespersons and media, every last one of them, must begin to pull their heads out of the sand, call the “Jihad” by its name and talk about what is happening here in real terms, that is, religious ones. It is time to say from morning to night that what we – and not only we – are facing is a Jihad, nothing else, and the fighters – women, children, adults and youth – are Jihad fighters. That is what they identify with, that is why they are enlisting.

Rock, boulder, firebomb, knife and gun, along with the camera, courts, boycott and migration – are all weapons in the hands of Jihad fighters, all are meant to topple Israeli security, society, economics and standing. Israel must take them seriously – and remember that in war as in war. Our media people, who are still dreaming about a new Middle East as postulated by their delusional leader and Pied Piper of Hamelin, Shimon Peres, are afraid of Jihadism, because they, like all liberals, have no tools to fight a religious war against soldiers who have Allah’s praise on their lips.

Every time I try to tell Israeli media that Israel is fighting Jihadists, the interviewers quiet me fearfully and tell me not to change the nationalist Israeli-Palestinian conflict into an Islamic-Jewish religious war. I make an effort to tell them that with or without my saying it and whether or not they admit it, the war is a religious one. In fact, I add that even if they do not allow me to say it, the roots of the entire conflict are Islamist and religious.

It may be presented as a nationalist, territorial, legal, political or any other kind of struggle, but that is an exercise in self-deception. The conflict stems from a source of Islamic religious fire, one that burns in the hearts of men and inside  the firebombs. In the War of Independence, the Arabs shouted “Idbah al-Yahoud – butcher the Jew.” Note that they did not say Israeli or Zionist, but Jew. It is the Jews that they want to be rid of.

Shimon Peres, Yossi Beilin, Alon Liel and the other hallucinatory figures tried to convince us that there is a difference between the bad Jihadists of Hamas and the “charming”, “pleasant’ PLO ones, those true lovers of peace and tranquility, those whose arch-Jihadist leader Yasser Arafat was awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace. Even Abbas’ incendiary UN speech will not change their minds.

Theirs was an unfounded and utterly delusionary point of view, but it cost the lives of over 1500 very real Israelis, because the only difference between Hamas and the PLO is that Hamas declares openly that it is a Jihad fighter organization, while some PLO members hide the fact that they are as well.  Some of them – those in the el-Aksa Brigades – don’t bother to hide it and their president, Mahmoud Abbas, finances them.  Those of us who are battle-weary attempt to kosher the Jihadist PLO vermin just as they attempted to gloss over Haj Amin al Husseini’s part in the Holocaust of European Jewry.

Let’s wake up and tell the truth – to ourselves and to the world. Only the truth can help us understand reality and deal with it properly. The truth is that we are a Jihad target for Hamas and the PLO, each one using its own methods of trying to dissemble and pull the wool over our eyes, and if we fall – thanks in part to the European money pouring into the arteries of the PA Jihad – Europe will be the next objective of that very same Jihad, which is already in the midst of exporting itself to Europe by means of massive Muslim immigration to the aging and deteriorating continent.

This is a Jihad. Our enemies, no matter what else they are, are all Jihad fighters. We have to adapt our way of talking about this situation and deal with it accordingly. The faster we do so the better it will be for us and the world.

by Dr. Mordechai Kedar

Obama Frees 20th 9/11 Hijacker

Today it’s Osama bin Laden’s aide; tomorrow it could very well be the Blind Sheikh.


​The Obama administration quietly shipped Osama bin Laden’s bodyguard back to the Wahhabist Kingdom of Saudi Arabia last week despite warnings that the Muslim terrorist remains a serious threat to the United States.

The newly released terrorist detainee is Abdul Shalabi, 39, who trained to be the 20th hijacker for the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Shalabi was set free even though military officials deemed him too dangerous to be unleashed on the world and too valuable as an intelligence asset to be released from U.S. custody.

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) said last week that the liberation of Shalabi, whom he referred to as a “dangerous detainee,” is “another example of President Obama playing politics with national security and putting campaign promises ahead of U.S. national security interests.” Shuttering the terrorist detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba has long been a goal of President Obama, going back at least to the campaign trail in 2008.

Shalabi’s unshackling should have Americans wondering which bloodthirsty jihadist is next to be released by the soft-on-Islamism president of the United States. Could it be the “Blind Sheikh,” a.k.a. Omar Abdel-Rahman, who orchestrated the deadly bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993? News reports that the Obama administration is working on releasing the deadly fatwa-issuing cleric linked to the assassination of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat go back years. The sheikh is a hero to his followers, including deposed Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi, and a spiritual leader of al-Qaeda and other jihadist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood.

The process by which Shalabi won his freedom offers disturbing insights into the system that determines if a terrorist detainee should be held indefinitely in wartime as allowed under the laws of war.

In May 2008 when George W. Bush was president, Rear Admiral David M. Thomas Jr., then the commander of the Joint Task Force at Guantanamo, recommended in a since-unclassified memo that Shalabi’s detention be continued.

Spelling the word high in block capitals and boldfacing it for emphasis, Thomas warned that Shalabi was “[a] HIGH risk, as he is likely to pose a threat to the U.S., its interests and allies[,]” “[a] HIGH threat from a detention perspective[,]” and “[o]f HIGH intelligence value.”

Born Dec. 4, 1975 in the Muslim holy city of Medina, Saudi Arabia, Shalabi is a man of many aliases. He has also been known as Abdul Rahman Shalabi, Abdul Rahman, Abd al Rahman Shalbi Isa Uwaydah, Abdul Haq Rahman, Saqr al-Madani, and Mahmud Abd Aziz al-Mujahid.

Shalabi, who had been on a hunger strike for years at Guantanamo, is a member of al-Qaeda who began working as one of Osama bin Laden’s bodyguards in 1999, the memo stated. Shalabi “received advanced training at multiple al-Qaida camps” and “received specialized close combat training for his role as a suicide operative in an aborted component of the 11 September 2001 al-Qaida attacks.”

“Detainee attended an elite commando course run by al-Qaida operative Salah al-Din Abd al-Halim Zaydan aka (Sayf al-Adl) at the Mes Aynak Training Camp in 1999,” Thomas wrote. “This course was offered to select trainees who had already received al-Qaida’s basic training.”

Shalabi was involved in “hostilities against U.S. and Coalition forces and was captured with a group referred to as the Dirty 30, which included UBL [Osama bin Laden] bodyguards and an assessed 20th 11 September 2001 hijacker.” Shalabi, who has “familial ties” to bin Laden, “will likely reestablish ties to al-Qaida and other extremist elements if released.”

Thomas argued that Shalabi was far from rehabilitated (assuming rehabilitation is even possible for a jihadist). His behavior while confined was atrocious.

Thomas reported:

His overall behavior has been mostly noncompliant and hostile to the guard force and staff. He currently has 95 Reports of Disciplinary Infraction listed in DIMS with the most recent occurring on 27 February 2008, when he was reported spitting on the guard force. Detainee has 11 Reports of Disciplinary Infraction for assault with the most recent occurring on 27 February 2008, when he was reported spitting on the guard force. Other incidents for which he has been disciplined include inciting and participating in mass disturbances, failure to follow guard instructions and camp rules, inappropriate use of bodily fluids, unauthorized communications, damage to government property, attempted assaults, assaults, provoking words and gestures, and possession of food and nonweapon type contraband. On 7 August 2005, detainee was reported to be in possession of broken glass (shank).

“Does that sound like someone who is going to be rehabilitated in Saudi Arabia?” Investor’s Business Daily editorialized. “Or someone who will be returning to the terrorist battlefield to wage jihad against America?”

Even if Shalabi does not return to terrorism, his release provides a morale boost for those who support the jihadist cause, the newspaper opined. “He was also on a partial hunger strike for nine years at Gitmo, and will undoubtedly be used in Islamist propaganda against U.S. detention policies once he returns to his home.”

Some commentators accused the Obama administration of releasing Shalabi suddenly and without warning on Sept. 22 while the public and the media were distracted by the first-ever visit of Pope Francis to the United States.

While the timing of Shalabi’s deinstitutionalization may be suspect, the process that led to his repatriation began at least two years ago.

Following the great American journalistic tradition of undermining U.S. national security to sell newspapers, the Miami Herald set in motion the events that led to Shalabi’s low-key exfiltration from U.S.-held territory.

In June 2013, the U.S. Department of Defense released a list of detainees held at Guantanamo in response to a lawsuit filed by the newspaper. The media outlet then reported that Shalabi was one of 48 Guantanamo detainees “deemed too dangerous to release but ineligible for trial.”

An unclassified transcript of an April 21 hearing of an Obama administration-controlled detention review board indicated its unnamed “presiding member” said Shalabi behaved badly in detention and “has refused to respond to substantive questions.” That board, established under Executive Order 13567 (issued March 7, 2011 by President Obama), convened to hear evidence about whether Shalabi’s continued detention at Guantanamo “remains necessary to protect against a continuing significant threat to the security of the United States.” The panel, according to the U.S. military, “consists of one senior official from the Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, Justice, and State; the Joint Staff, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.”

In a little-noticed development, the board determined June 15 that “continued law of war detention of the detainee is no longer necessary to protect against a continuing significant threat to the security of the United States.” The board recommended Shalabi be returned to his native Saudi Arabia.

At the April hearing, Shalabi’s private counsel, Julia Tarver Mason-Wood, told the board that she had “represented Mr. Shalabi on a pro bono basis for almost a decade.” She said her client “wants to make clear that he harbors no ill will to the United States, the American people, and non-Muslims.”

The ethically challenged Mason-Wood told the board:

As he will explain to you, Mr. Shalabi is a teacher of Islam, which he believes is a religion of peace, not war. Mr. Shalabi will tell you that he does not support terrorism or the killing of innocent people; he steadfastly believes that such acts are contrary to the Quran and to the teachings of the Prophet Mohammed.

Manhattan-based Mason-Wood is a partner in the Paul, Weiss law firm, which represents many Muslim terrorist detainees. She clerked for leftist U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor when the jurist sat on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Richard Pollock previously reported at PJ Media that Mason-Wood was banned from the Guantanamo facility by the base commander and the U.S. Department of Justice in 2006 “for secretly passing on anti-American propaganda and operational detention details to her ‘client.'”

The detainee was Majeed Abdullah Al Joudi, a Saudi who belonged to the Taliban and al-Qaeda. In 2004 a status review tribunal heard that he was “was captured with al-Qaeda surveillance evasion reports and after-action reports.”

Pollock continued:

The anti-American propaganda Mason secretly passed on to Mr. Al Joudi was a slick, inflammatory 18-page color brochure — written entirely in Arabic — that slammed American detention policy as “that of anti-Arab, anti-Islamic, and other racist abuse.” It was filled with pictures of masked, bound, and kneeling prisoners, and according to the Wall Street Journal, “included pictures of what appeared to be detainee operations in Iraq.”

Mason-Wood had been surreptitiously forwarding “incendiary materials to her client through a system called ‘legal mail,’ which is supposed to be strictly legal correspondence between a lawyer and the enemy combatant.” This appears to contravene “a 2004 protective order by federal Judge Joyce Hens Green [that] forbids the lawyers to give out any information on political news, current events, or the names of U.S. government personnel.”

Mason-Wood brings to mind Lynne Stewart, the since-disbarred radical lawyer who was briefly imprisoned for providing material support for terrorism by illegally passing on a message from her client, Omar Abdel-Rahman. The communiqué was “the blessing of a return to violence from a terrorist leader,” prosecutor Anthony Barkow said during Stewart’s 2006 trial. In it, the sheikh urged disciples to abandon a ceasefire with the government of Egypt and resume terrorist operations.

According to Debra Burlingame and Thomas Joscelyn, Mason-Wood is one of several legal counsel to Guantanamo detainees who “went far beyond vigorous representation of their clients.” (Burlingame, a former attorney, is the sister of the late Charles F. “Chic” Burlingame III, pilot of American Airlines flight 77, which was crashed at the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001. Joscelyn is a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.)

Mason-Wood, Burlingame and Joscelyn wrote in the Wall Street Journal,

inflamed tensions with the hunger strikers during a visit to Guantanamo in October 2005. She told one of the detainees, Yousef Al Sherhri, that the U.S. Government had no court authority to feed him using a nasal tube, according to Justice Department documents. As a result Al Sherhri pulled out his feeding tube, persuaded detainees in his cell block to do the same and exhorted them to physically resist. [Department of Justice] lawyers would later argue that Ms. Mason’s advocacy “resulted in a disruption of camp security and a potential threat to the health of eight hunger-striker detainees.”

After being banned from Guantanamo for breaking the rules, attorneys sued the government to regain access to detainees. The ban on Paul, Weiss lawyers that was enforced for part of 2006, was later rescinded “as part of a private settlement containing a variety of stipulations.”

Mason-Wood’s client, Majeed Abdullah Al Joudi, was sent back to Saudi Arabia in February 2007. In 2009 the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency confirmed Joudi had “reengaged in terrorism.”

Freeing Omar Abdel-Rahman would be a logical enough choice for the Obama administration which has shown a willingness to release the worst of the worst among Muslim terrorists.

Remember that Obama freed five Islamist generals in exchange for Taliban collaborator U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl.

Releasing the Blind Sheikh, whose list of U.S. targets overlapped with the targets Obama pal Bill Ayers and the Weather Underground Organization bombed or plotted to bomb in the 1970s, would delight the president’s Islamist allies.

From the time since-overthrown Egyptian President Morsi took office, he promised to pressure the U.S. government to free the sheikh, the Washington Post reported in early 2013

In October 2012 al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri called on Egyptians to kidnap Americans to force the sheikh’s release. Muslim terrorist Mokhtar Belmokhtar, who attacked U.S. and European oil workers in January 2013, put the sheikh’s freedom on his list of political demands.

The sheikh “was the godfather of all Islamic movements,” Zawahiri’s younger brother, Mohamed al-Zawahiri has said. “Maybe if he was not going through such injustice, 9/11 would not have happened. [The sheikh’s imprisonment] was one of the reasons that the people felt so strongly about the American offenses against the Islamic people.”

The sheikh has long been a revered figure is Islamism but after Hosni Mubarak, who kept Egypt’s Islamist problem under control, was ousted as the Arab republic’s president, demands for the sheikh to be returned to Egypt have grown progressively louder.

In 2001 before the 9/11 attacks Osama bin Laden himself reportedly demanded the sheikh’s release from U.S. custody. Author Peter Bergen described the sheikh as the “spiritual guide of 9/11” because he wrote an edict in prisons requiring Muslims to take up arms against their enemies and “kill them in the sea, on land and in the air.”

The sheikh is reportedly very popular among Egyptian Salafists who view him as a legitimate religious and political leader railroaded by the U.S. justice system. Some call him the “Emir of Jihad.”

Militants who attacked the In Amenas gas facility in southeastern Algeria offered to swap American hostages for the sheikh. Algerian authorities didn’t pursue the offer and instead conducted a raid that left at least 29 terrorists and 37 captives dead.

A Libyan group known as the Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman Brigade took responsibility for  assaults on Western targets in Libya in 2012, including the Sept. 11 attack on U.S. facilities in Benghazi that left four Americans dead including Ambassador Chris Stevens. The sheikh’s son, Abdallah, said the killers “were acting in the name of Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman.”

In a video message earlier this month, al-Qaeda’s Zawahiri reminded his followers that the sheikh and his brethren remain in custody and, according to MEMRI, “urged all groups to include them in their deals when negotiating for the release of any of their hostages.”

In recent years media outlets have reported that the U.S. Department of State “is actively considering negotiations with the Egyptian government for the transfer of custody of Omar Abdel-Rahman, also known as ‘the Blind Sheikh,’ for humanitarian and health reasons.” Obama administration officials deny that there have been any such negotiations but the administration isn’t exactly known for its honesty.

The Arabic language newspaper al-Arabiya reported previously that the Obama administration offered to send Abdel-Rahman to Egypt as part a prisoner swap. Now well into his seventies, Abdel-Rahman was convicted of “seditious conspiracy” in 1995 in connection with the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center.

Abdel-Rahman’s terrorist organization, Jamaa Islamiya (Islamic Group), is a “radical offshoot” of the Muslim Brotherhood, according to the Council on Foreign Relations. Jamaa Islamiya also tried to assassinate Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in 1995. To try to force the release of Abdel-Rahman from the U.S., Jamaa Islamiya murdered 62 people in Luxor, Egypt, in 1997.

Shalabi’s lawyer, Julia Tarver Mason-Wood, should be getting a telephone call from the Blind Sheikh’s people any day now.

Correction: This article has been updated to remove a statement that asserted that President Obama has the authority to pardon Mumia Abu-Jamal and Assata Shakur. 


Ben Carson and Islam

keith ellison 1
by Andrew C. McCarthy// Does Charles Krauthammer get Islam wrong because he gets the Constitution wrong? Or does he get the Constitution wrong because he gets Islam wrong?
This conundrum comes to the fore — and not for the first time — after Dr. Krauthammer’s serial denunciations of Dr. Ben Carson. In a Sunday Meet the Press interview, Carson opined that Islam is inconsistent with the United States Constitution and, therefore, that he “would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation” — meaning he would not recommend that voters elect a Muslim president. Dr. K decries Dr. C’s remarks as “morally outrageous,” albeit “sincerely felt.” With Democrats in distress, the columnist fears Republicans are undermining their golden 2016 opportunity: “It is certainly damaging to any party when one of its two front-runners denigrates, however thoughtlessly, the nation’s entire Muslim American community.” But what loseth a man if he denigrates a tiny community — a large percentage of whose members are Islamists reliably aligned with Democrats — but gains the esteem of a vast political base convinced that Washington is insane on matters Muslim? My great respect for Charles Krauthammer having been oft expressed, I will refrain from the usual throat-clearing. Precisely because he is so influential, and we are in such perilous times, I must dissent from an argument that is constitutionally wayward and, on Islam, willfully blind. To his credit, Krauthammer does not flatly misstate the Constitution, as did some of Carson’s rivals in the GOP nomination chase. Making like a CAIR echo chamber, they frivolously accused Carson of violating the Constitution’s prohibition against establishing a “religious test” for holding public office. (CAIR, the Council on American–Islamic Relations, is a Muslim Brotherhood–created press agent for Islamic supremacism masquerading as a civil-rights group. It predictably called on Carson to withdraw.)

Of course, Carson did not call for the enactment of a law disqualifying Muslims from serving in public office, which is what the religious-test clause actually forbids. He merely offered his personal opinion that it would not be wise for Americans to elect a Muslim president. Krauthammer’s argument is more sophisticated and more dangerous — a bellwether of how progressive constitutional jurisprudence corrupts the thinking of even brilliant conservative analysts. He writes: The Constitution is not just a legal document. It is a didactic one. It doesn’t just set limits to power; it expresses a national ethos. It doesn’t just tell you what you’re not allowed to do; it also suggests what you shouldn’t want to do. Nonsense. If the Constitution is a “didactic” document, it is a damned poor one, since its objective is to limit government and maximize individual liberty. Despite the Constitution’s clarity in this regard, government has exploded in size and scope over the last century. Why? Because the “national ethos” — actually expressed by progressive scholars and jurists, not by the Constitution itself — has obscured a central truth: If the Constitution is in the business of making “didactic” suggestions, the “you” to whom they are addressed is the government, not the people.
keith ellison 5
The Constitution is not a pedagogical tool, teaching us values. It is a legal and political limitation on government’s intrusion into the realm of free thought and action. It is in that realm that we acquire values, knowledge, and common sense. Thus armed, Americans have been taking the belief systems of candidates for public office into account since the Constitution took effect in 1789. There is, moreover, a cottage industry of scholarship on how the religious beliefs of the framers and of presidents have shaped the course of American history. It would defy logic to ignore the patent connection between a candidate’s convictions and how he is likely to govern.
Andre Carson 1

Ben Carson did not say Muslims are unfit to hold public office. He said he does not think a Muslim should be president. “Congress,” he elaborated, “is a different story.” He might very well vote for a Muslim to serve in the legislature, with the caveat that it would depend on “who that Muslim is and what their policies are” — same as with anyone “of any faith.” If we are to explore the Constitution as a didactic document, the distinction Carson draws between the presidency and other high offices is worth pondering. It reflects the actual reasoning of the framers — which had nothing to do with keeping faith out of the voting booth.
keith ellison 7
Neither literally nor in spirit does the Constitution forbid automatic disqualifications for the presidency based on an American’s status. Recognizing that they had created a uniquely powerful office the abuse of which could gravely damage or even destroy the republic, the framers took pains to limit eligibility to “natural born” citizens. Is the Constitution trying to teach us that naturalized citizens cannot love our country every bit as much as those fortunate enough to be born here? Of course not. It is drawing a common-sense line. Because of concerns that apply singularly to the presidency, the Constitution spares the American people the fear that the office could fall into the hands of a person who still feels bonds of loyalty to another sovereign. As related in the Heritage Foundation’s invaluable Guide to the Constitution, John Jay wrote George Washington during the Philadelphia convention to urge that the Constitution “declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born citizen.” Another iconic American jurist, Joseph Story, later explained that this eligibility requirement “cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office.”
Andre Carson 2

By contrast, there is no such restriction against naturalized citizens’ serving in Congress, on the federal bench, or in other high offices. The list of those who have done so with patriotic distinction is too long to catalogue. Notice, though, that this fact has never been thought to require removal of the prudential limitation on presidential eligibility. When questions were raised about whether John McCain, Barack Obama, and Ted Cruz were natural-born citizens, they took pains to prove that they were. They did not attack the constitutional requirement as outdated. We don’t get to choose where we are born. One’s belief system, by contrast, is a personal choice by the time one is an adult. Islam is not a foreign nationality, but it is a foreign belief system, core tenets of which are counter-constitutional. So consider this: A person may not be president if he was born in Canada, brought here two weeks later, naturalized as a child, and loves America as the only country he has ever known. Is it really “morally outrageous,” then, to opine that a person should not be president if he has made an adult decision to adhere to a belief system that, in its classical interpretation, runs afoul of the Constitution — even if he is an authentically moderate, pro-American Muslim who, in his own mind, has bleached away these offensive aspects of Islam?
keith ellison 6
Here we arrive at political correctness: the verbal gymnastics by which Krauthammer, like most Washington pols and pundits, consciously avoids Islam’s ills. In condemning Carson on Bill O’Reilly’s Fox News program, he inveighed: Unless you fancy yourself an Islamic scholar, which I assume Dr. Carson doesn’t, you have to concede that in any religion — Christian, Jewish, Islamic, or whatever — people bring their own interpretation and understanding of that. And again I say, there are a lot of Muslims in America — I don’t know whether it would apply universally — but there is nothing intrinsic in the religion that would make a believer — and there are all stripes of believers in the U.S. and around the world — [inimical] to the Constitution. And if you think that’s true, then I think you’re making a pronouncement on a religion that you are not an expert on. This is wrong on several levels. Most significantly, it highlights the key error about Islam that American commentators have been making throughout the quarter century of jihad waged against us: Pace Charles, Americans are under no obligation to figure out what is “intrinsic” in Islam — to divine the “true” Islam, if there actually is one. There are sundry interpretations of Islam. Yet, for our limited national-security and liberty-preserving purposes, it is undeniable — except to those who are in terminal denial — that a mainstream interpretation of Islam rejects the foundations of our Constitution, beginning with our core premise that the people are sovereign and may govern themselves irrespective of the totalitarian dictates of sharia. It makes no difference to us whether this mainstream interpretation of Islam is a faithful rendering — much less the faithful rendering.
keith ellison 8
For our purposes, what matters is that many millions of Muslims, rightly or wrongly, adhere to this construction. One need not fancy himself an Islamic scholar to see that it derives from Islamic scripture, although Dr. Krauthammer must know that there is no shortage of globally influential Islamic scholars who vouch for this literalist fundamentalism — see, e.g., Reliance of the Traveller, the classic sharia manual endorsed by the faculty at Cairo’s al-Azhar University (the seat of Islamic learning since the tenth century) and the International Institute of Islamic Thought (the Muslim Brotherhood’s American think tank, whose self-proclaimed mission is “the Islamization of knowledge”).
Islam 0
Krauthammer thus makes another rudimentary error in addressing Islam as if it were a mere “religion,” like any other one. Throughout this column, I have used the term “belief system,” rather than “religion,” advisedly. Islam, in its classical interpretation, is a comprehensive sociopolitical system with its own legal code. Yes, it has some strictly theological tenets (e.g., the oneness of Allah, the conceit that Mohammed is the final prophet). These, however, comprise but a small percentage of Islamic belief, which covers the full extent of political, economic, and social life — from warfare to hygiene, in exacting rules resistant to change. That is why in virtually every Islamic society — i.e., wherever sharia is incorporated into law — the separation of spiritual and political life is rejected; it is why we find misogyny, anti-Semitism, homophobia, ruthless discrimination against religious minorities, hostility to freedom, suspicion of reason, and backwardness in economics and education. No one is denying that there are millions of Muslims, including scholars, who are repulsed by this interpretation. We are fortunate to have many of them living in our country as solid American citizens — some even serving in the armed forces. But this does not change the facts that (a) many Muslims living in our country adhere to supremacist Islam and (b) those who do not are rightly seen as reformers and modernizers — which is welcome but only underscores that mainstream Islam needs reform and modernizing. What most cries out for reform and modernization are those aspects of Islam that defy the principles of liberty and equality safeguarded by our Constitution. The job is perilous because those who seek to change ingrained aspects of Islam take their lives in their hands. The reformers merit our admiration, and it is in our interest to help them try to succeed. It is also in our interest, though, to realize that they may not succeed, and that we must protect our country in any event. The presidency is also unique because it is the only office for which the Constitution prescribes an oath. The president must swear to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Given that a mainstream interpretation of Islam requires Muslims to follow sharia, and that classical sharia is antithetical to our Constitution, there is no moral outrage in recognizing the dilemma the oath could pose for a devout Muslim. There is wisdom, not shame, in concluding that we’d rather not have to worry about the potentially divided loyalties of a Muslim president, just as the Constitution relieves us of worry over the potentially divided loyalties of a foreign-born president. Like naturalized citizens, Muslims can be extraordinary Americans. But until Islam is reformed in such a way that a pluralistic, pro-liberty Islam is the world’s dominant Islam — and Islamic supremacism is the marginal exception, not the all-too-familiar rule — it is perfectly reasonable for Ben Carson, and any other American, to oppose the idea of a Muslim president of the United States. — Andrew C. McCarthy is a policy fellow at the National Review Institute. His latest book is Faithless Execution: Building the Political Case for Obama’s Impeachment.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/424379/ben-carson-and-islam-andrew-c-mccarthy