Ben Carson

[shocka khan]

Muslims cannot "renounce" Sharia. They can choose to reinterpret it, in order to distance themselves from something that is built right into Islam, but you can't "renounce" it without becoming an apostate. Those that chose to educate themselves as to why we were attacked on 9/11, already understand full well that Sharia courts/Jihad/Tarqiya(sp?) and a whole host of other core tenets of Islam are exactly why this country is not ready to be led by a Muslim leader.

Why do I keep reading this and thinking about Kim Davis? And what about the whole nullification movement in the south? I don't want our country to become a theocracy whether it's Christians or Muslims. They both have the same traits. Pass a law or judicial ruling you don't like? Instead of trying to do the right thing and find a process that factors you out of the equation, just become an obstructionist and blame it on the bible.

[Kung Wu]

I did not realize you were directly disagreeing with Carson's subsequent statements and substituting your own opinion.

I believe he knows full well that Sharia is a core tenet and that renunciation is impossible. I also believe his commentary was just a clever way to explain his statement without alienating people that don't know a thing about Islam. Basically it's what you were looking for in the original 15 second exchange.

If you'd like to change the argument to whether it is politically palatable to run a conservative (not in the American political sense) Muslim for national office in the U.S. right now, I don't think you're going to get much in the way of opposition.

I don't think that's changing the argument. I thinks that's restating it -- though I don't even think it is politically palatable to run a liberal Muslim right now. I think there is a popular litmus test that says there's no way to support a Muslim candidate right now.

Where I would disagree - and I may be wrong with what I'm reading into your post and apologize if this is incorrect - is the blanket disqualification of a person of any religion, race or otherwise, no matter their personal beliefs and experiences.

Yes, then we have disagreement. An extreme example: If someone runs and states that they are a satanist or witch, I have zero interest in listening to another word they say regarding any other topic. They are automatically on my "do not vote list".

But being way more realistic, I find it nearly impossible to completely separate one's religion from their "personal beliefs". They seem intertwined; so by stating your religion you are, to at least a small degree, explaining your personal beliefs. Obviously there will sometimes be conflicting view points in personal beliefs with one's religion, so it's fair to let one explain their positions. But certainly you are implying your core values (even if you don't do a good job of living by them), so that gives us some insight to see if there is compatibility at the core value level.

Of course, you personally have every right to do so, but I simply disagree with it and instead would evaluate based on that individual's values and policy priorities.

While your religion gives some hints to your "personal beliefs" (with plenty of opportunity for conflicting views), on the other hand it speaks volumes about your "values". Ignoring one's religion but then stating you care about their "values" doesn't make any sense to me. If you ignore their religion, you are ignoring a good portion of their values.

The likelihood of someone who was raised as a Quaker sharing my foreign policy views is probably pretty remote, but you really never know (see, Richard Nixon).

True.

You have no more authority to say that a self-identified Muslim cannot disavow certain traditional tenets of their denomination than I do to say that a person who disagrees with aspects of Episcopal dogma is not truly an Episcopal.

No religion is monolithic no matter how centralized the authority structure may be. Beliefs that get a person labeled as an apostate in Yemen or Afghanistan are acceptable in America. For example, I frequently deal with American Muslims (mostly native born) through my work whose value set is distinctly American - some of them drink alcohol, some support gay marriage, they make comments about the repugnant actions of ISIS, and so on. Others more closely align with the views of their parents who immigrated during the brain drain in the 60s, 70s and 80s. A few are Sufi, some are Shiite, and others are Sunni. An ayatollah or imam might say many of these people are not "real" Muslims, but they would very much disagree while acknowledging that their views do not match the global norms for their group. Using that same standard of exclusion would probably eliminate half (more?) of American Christians from self-identifying as such when you factor in the number of Christmas-and-Easter service folks who haven't dusted off their Bible in a decade and disagree with the Church on political issues. I'll reserve that level of judgment for someone more qualified.

I am not asserting authority to say anything. I'm repeating what I have read that the Quran states. It's built right into Islam. If you deny Sharia, you are then an apostate. That's really not debatable, from my understanding. You're only option, as a Muslim, is to reinterpret what Sharia is. Take a crack at "Islamic apostacy sharia", maybe I'm misinformed.

I think the obvious point to demonstrate that a Muslim cannot renounce Sharia is that the polls don't ask "Do you believe in Sharia?". They only ask how you define it and how far governments should be entangled with it. I believe that's precisely because you would get about a zero percent response from Muslims that would say "No" to that question.

I think, to your point, there is a WIDE difference in how Sharia is interpreted and understood. But it's never, to my knowledge, denied. Neither is jihad, tarqiya, etc.

[Play Angry]

I believe he knows full well that Sharia is a core tenet and that renunciation is impossible. I also believe his commentary was just a clever way to explain his statement without alienating people that don't know a thing about Islam. Basically it's what you were looking for in the original 15 second exchange.

I guess I don't get this. You are calling him a liar, but saying it is okay because he had to for purposes of political expediency? Calling it a clever way to explain his statement without alienating people "that don't know a thing about Islam" while simultaneously saying he knew it was not true is confusing. It is also a little insulting the way you tie it to "what I was looking for in the original 15 second exchange," implying that I don't know a thing about Islam. I am happy to share via PM why this uninformed statement is not true.

While your religion gives some hints to your "personal beliefs" (with plenty of opportunity for conflicting views), on the other hand it speaks volumes about your "values". Ignoring one's religion but then stating you care about their "values" doesn't make any sense to me. If you ignore their religion, you are ignoring a good portion of their values.

I suppose this would depend on the level of orthodoxy of that individual with regard to their religious beliefs, no? Bill Clinton was a southern baptist but I probably would not impute many traits of that belief system to him having been raised in a baptist church myself. Richard Nixon was in many ways antithetical to Quaker beliefs. OTOH, strict adherents probably mirror their denomination's beliefs much more closely.

I am not asserting authority to say anything. I'm repeating what I have read that the Quran states. It's built right into Islam. If you deny Sharia, you are then an apostate. That's really not debatable, from my understanding. You're only option, as a Muslim, is to reinterpret what Sharia is. Take a crack at "Islamic apostacy sharia", maybe I'm misinformed.

I think the obvious point to demonstrate that a Muslim cannot renounce Sharia is that the polls don't ask "Do you believe in Sharia?". They only ask how you define it and how far governments should be entangled with it. I believe that's precisely because you would get about a zero percent response from Muslims that would say "No" to that question.

I think, to your point, there is a WIDE difference in how Sharia is interpreted and understood. But it's never, to my knowledge, denied. Neither is jihad, tarqiya, etc.

Respectfully, I don't think you know what a lot of the terms you are using mean. Again, I am happy to exchange further via PM.

[WuDrWu]

Go to PM if you want, but I find the exchange between 2 posters I have a lot of respect for intriguing and informative.

[Dave Stalwart]

Go to PM if you want, but I find the exchange between 2 posters I have a lot of respect for intriguing and informative.

Yes! Political topics should always be fair game. It's much different from when we tell someone to take their petty stuff out of the basketball forum. In my opinion, politics are inherently "on limits." Everyone's opinion is valid and worth listening to. One of the biggest problems we have in our country today is the way we disrespect each other in politics. The whole point is to get every opinion heard and noted...and then to decide something as a result. When decisions don't go your way, it can feel offensive, but that's just the way it is. But for our population to have created a culture where HAVING an opinion is the part that is offensive, we have gone too far. Exchanging ideas and welcoming others to hear them and possibly form opinions of their own is something to value, not hide.

[Play Angry]

Thanks guys. I did not mean to halt the topic with the PM suggestion. There are a handful of personal details I felt would stray into TMI territory when it comes to the public board.

[Kung Wu]

I guess I don't get this. You are calling him a liar, but saying it is okay because he had to for purposes of political expediency? Calling it a clever way to explain his statement without alienating people "that don't know a thing about Islam" while simultaneously saying he knew it was not true is confusing.

I did not call him a liar, nor disagree with him. He said he wouldn't support making a Muslim a leader of the U.S. That response was twisted into something it wasn't because he didn't (or wasn't given an opportunity to) expand on why. When given the opportunity, he said that Sharia Law would be in conflict with the constitution. I believe that was in his brain when he answered the original question, and I think most people that have spent any time reading about why we were attacked in 9/11 and understanding why terrorists are hunting us also understood it.

When he said he could support a Muslim that renounced Sharia Law, I take him for his word. I think he might. But I also think he knows that is likely to never happen, because Muslims are unlikely to renounce a core tenet such as Sharia, tarqiya, jihad, etc. (that would make them an apostate). That's all I meant by he was "clever".

It is also a little insulting the way you tie it to "what I was looking for in the original 15 second exchange," implying that I don't know a thing about Islam. I am happy to share via PM why this uninformed statement is not true.

Those were two independent thoughts. I didn't mean in any way shape or form to say anything about YOUR knowledge of Islam. I don't need credentials from you, I take you at you word.

I was only responding to the fact that you spent several replies in this thread saying that Carson should have responded in a more politically correct way, in order to prove his worthiness as a Presidential candidate. His follow up response was true enough and clear enough, but I believe he also knows that his "condition" for supporting a Muslim would normally never be satisfied.

I suppose this would depend on the level of orthodoxy of that individual with regard to their religious beliefs, no? Bill Clinton was a southern baptist but I probably would not impute many traits of that belief system to him having been raised in a baptist church myself. Richard Nixon was in many ways antithetical to Quaker beliefs. OTOH, strict adherents probably mirror their denomination's beliefs much more closely.

I agree to an extent. One thing for sure is, I know that Bill Clinton -- because he's a self-proclaimed southern baptist -- almost certainly does NOT espouse any form of Sharia law. ;) Quakers are split down the middle with a serious internal struggle regarding their core values -- it's an interesting dynamic. But that's straying way off topic.

Respectfully, I don't think you know what a lot of the terms you are using mean. Again, I am happy to exchange further via PM.

I'm going off 10+ year old memory so it's entirely possible. Feel free to share how I am misguided, I'll either learn or argue. :)

[wufan]

Yes! Political topics should always be fair game. It's much different from when we tell someone to take their petty stuff out of the basketball forum. In my opinion, politics are inherently "on limits." Everyone's opinion is valid and worth listening to. One of the biggest problems we have in our country today is the way we disrespect each other in politics. The whole point is to get every opinion heard and noted...and then to decide something as a result. When decisions don't go your way, it can feel offensive, but that's just the way it is. But for our population to have created a culture where HAVING an opinion is the part that is offensive, we have gone too far. Exchanging ideas and welcoming others to hear them and possibly form opinions of their own is something to value, not hide.

Recently in this forum @Aargh: stated that he had changed his opinion on PPH funding based some of what he read. I almost fell out of my chair because someone publicly changed their view on an Internet forum. I thought that was the stuff of myths and legends like unicorns and leprechauns.

[Kung Wu]

Recently in this forum @Aargh: stated that he had changed his opinion on PPH funding based some of what he read. I almost fell out of my chair because someone publicly changed their view on an Internet forum. I thought that was the stuff of myths and legends like unicorns and leprechauns.

Lmao!

[shockmonster]

Now that Russia is protecting Assad (and allies with Iran against the US), from being overthrown in Syria by attacking the US backed anti-Assad rebels and called Obama out for his lack of leadership, it comes out that Mitt Romney predicted that Russia was our biggest geo-political rival in the middle east. Obama ridiculed him for it. Russia isn't even concerned with ISIS who they told our government they were going to attack and told our military to get out of Syria because they were there to take over. What a mess.

[Play Angry]

I'm going off 10+ year old memory so it's entirely possible. Feel free to share how I am misguided, I'll either learn or argue. :)

This will be rambling so apologies in advance. When you say...

I think the obvious point to demonstrate that a Muslim cannot renounce Sharia is that the polls don't ask "Do you believe in Sharia?". They only ask how you define it and how far governments should be entangled with it. I believe that's precisely because you would get about a zero percent response from Muslims that would say "No" to that question.

It betrays a particular view of Sharia that many, many Muslims don't hold, particularly in more developed countries and instead reflects a stereotype that is popular in the west because of its ease of application.

It is hard to analogize a lot of this since there is no direct equivalent in Christianity. Sharia is a set of precepts or guidelines (it literally means the path to the water or something similar) informed by the Qur'an, the Hadith (Muhammad's words and actions) and fatwas (input from religious scholars) which govern a believer's public conduct, private life and personal beliefs. There are five main doctrines of Sharia (four for Sunnis and one for Shiites; Sufis operate under a different "system" if you will) which vary considerably. It operates as a sort of divine guidance for how they should live their lives in every way.

There is a split in Islam on how Sharia is viewed. Some think it is literally infallible rules from God, while others view it as being man-made and informed by God's teachings. Unsurprisingly, believers who think it is basically hard and fast rules from God's mouth to their ears also think that their particular doctrine (of the five above) is the only correct one. Also unsurprisingly, these people tend be (i) among the more strict adherents to Islam, (ii) from Muslim-majority countries with lower GDPs on a relative basis, and (iii) less educated from a formal standpoint. This is the view of most hard-liners within their faith. To these people, you could ask the question in your quote above and they would understand it to mean something like "do you believe in God's rules and teachings," to which they would obviously respond "yes." Modernist Muslims would consider these people to be the orthodox or conservative followers of their faith, whereas these folks would consider a lot of Modernist Muslims to not be Muslims at all. Let's call this Group A.

The sizable contingent who believes Sharia is instead man-made rules structured around interpretations of God and Muhammad's language would be confused by the question since it is not really a matter of faith but rather one of scholarship. This group is the majority in Muslim-majority European countries (including Turkey in Europe here) and former Soviet satellites, parts of Africa and maybe certain countries in the Middle East (Lebanon and UAE would be most likely but I really have no proof). Let's call this Group B.

When pollsters (like in the Pew study referenced earlier in the thread) ask questions like "Do you think Sharia Law should be the law of the land?," Group A responds "yes" more often than not for obvious reasons. If you think rules come directly from God, then everyone should follow them. However, even this group is heavily divided on which aspects of Sharia law should be the law of the land. Dive further into those polls and you'll see almost everybody that says yes believes Sharia law should apply to family and property matters - marriage (the haq mer being a big contract issue), divorce, estate planning, etc. After that it gets dicey quickly. Corporal punishment for crimes is less broadly supported, and things like the death penalty for apostates is far less popular even within this group. There certainly are broad pockets who go for the most fundamentalist views on Sharia law, but a quick glance at the legal codes across Muslim countries will show that its total embrace is actually rare (and by total embrace, I mean adoption and enforcement of the full-on set of rules that we in the west most commonly quote when referencing Sharia law - death to homosexuals, death to those who convert from Islam, etc). These countries usually have the lower GDPs and suffer from chronic unrest. Cause and effect can certainly be argued here. There are also certainly sizable minorities in the more developed Muslim-majority countries who embrace the Group A belief system.

Now, among Group B, a lot of these people think law should at least be informed by Sharia, and some of them would prefer to have the family and property aspects of the legal code adapted to Sharia law. But they are far less likely to support the extreme "tenets" of Sharia like forced conversion, death to apostates, etc. The legal codes in places like Turkey, Albania, and the Soviet satellites are reflective of this viewpoint. It is often sort of a "Muslim-lite" legal code that does not tax non-believers or practice most of the things we think of as "typical" or even required in Muslim-majority countries. While Group A would hear "Do you believe in Sharia?" and immediately think "yes, because there is only one true set of guidelines given from God and it is the one I happen to follow," Group B would hear the question be more like to respond "What do you mean? There are different schools of thought on this and a lot of elements at play."

It is a lot more complicated than this but that is an okay beginning point.

Now, when you say....

But it's never, to my knowledge, denied. Neither is jihad

That word has a double-meaning (it translates as the "struggle" or something similar). On one hand, and the use we most popularly hear in the west especially in the context of terrorism, it refers to (usually violent) struggle against non-believers. Let's call this Meaning 1. The other meaning refers to an internal struggle with sin. Let's call this Meaning 2.

Group A above would be likely to answer a poll question as firm believers in jihad in Meaning 1 in a broad context (i.e., from an aggressive standpoint), and they would be relatively likely to answer as firm believers in jihad in Meaning 2 as well. Group B, on the other hand, would be more likely to answer as believers in jihad in a narrow context in Meaning 1 (i.e., from a defensive standpoint) while still responding as firm believers in the context of Meaning 2. So if you ask a Muslim if they believe in jihad, the answer is always going to be yes, but that can still mean many different things. Like the concept of Sharia above, when framed simplistically, it makes for a poor litmus test.

This post is already too long, but here is an illustration. I have an acquaintance (friend of a friend) who is a Muslim. He served in the U.S. military for four years during the apex of the conflict in Iraq. There were about 4,000 other Muslims serving in the military at any given point during that same timeframe. The vast, vast majority of them served honorably. If asked, I am guessing nearly all of them would not unequivocally "renounce" jihad or Sharia for the reasons laid out above. However, it is clear those people certainly do not favor an ISIS-esque theocracy or anything close to it, and instead they risked their lives supporting a country that is founded on the Constitution. I would have a hard time telling this guy his beliefs do not and cannot line up with our country's core principles. Maybe they do, maybe they don't (I do not know his personal beliefs), but an automatic disqualification is unfair.

Don't take this as some broad defense of everything Islam. Horrible, unspeakable crimes are committed in the name of that religion by evil people with great frequency. But grouping the entire demographic into one simple, easily understood silo of beliefs, values and traits is the incorrect approach, and so is painting anyone who might disagree with that viewpoint as too lazy or stupid to fully educate themselves on the threats we face in a post-9/11 environment.

[wufan]

Well said.

[jocoshock]

Really weird, and textbook irrationalism.

And as long as Muslims in this country push for hints of Sharia Law to be implemented, I 100% unapologetically agree with Carson. Carson himself is a little different as he is a Seventh Day Adventist, much like Romney is a Mormon, but I wouldn't have, nor did I have, any issues voting for either one of those guys. That said, the Muslim next door might be a perfectly nice guy in passing and at your cook outs, but at their core that vast majority of Muslims in the world support stuff like 9/11, OBL, and ISIS. That makes them just a little - shall we say - different from other global ethnic or religious groups. You could say it is a red flag, but that may be understating.

You are as irrational as Khan, or maybe just a bigoted, fundamentalist, jihadist Christian. I am glad I dont live next door to you...

[WuDrWu]

When did common sense get replaced by bigotry?

When did the ability of an anomaly become protection for the opposite?

SHOCKvalue doesn't need me to defend him, but he's NOT advocating rounding up Muslims into internment camps.

He's not saying they all need to be deported. He's expressing a belief value based on SUBSTANTIAL and REAL evidence. He's being practical and cautious before he leaps....I GET that people oppose that belief. I really do. I DO NOT get that his belief (one that I share and I HAVE Muslim friends by the way) is so easily characterized as hate and bigotry by so many people.

Common sense application of facts is almost not accepted anymore....and it's so sad.

[SHOCKvalue]

You are as irrational as Khan, or maybe just a bigoted, fundamentalist, jihadist Christian. I am glad I dont live next door to you...

Textbook liberal response. Don't have an intellectual counter, so you resort to calling names and attacking the message deliverer rather than the message. Hilariously predictable behavior from those of your ilk. If you don't have a contextual response for the thread, why don't you go back to your coloring book.

By definition and in the context of SN political discussions, Kahn is FAR more rational than yourself. In the past I might not say that, but look at the threads in this subforum and you'll see him - for the most part - carrying along in civil discourse with those who he disagrees with, which is far more than can be said of yourself.

EDIT: I'll just leave this here joco, in order to add to the richness of your above post: