Make No Mistake, Ben Carson’s Comments About A Muslim President Were Intolerant, And Wrong

Ben Carson, a retired neurosurgeon and a presidential hopeful

Ben Carson, a retired neurosurgeon and a presidential hopeful

Source: The Daily Caller

By QASIM RASHID; Spokesperson, Ahmadiyya Muslim Community

“I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation … I absolutely would not agree with that.”

Replace “Muslim” with Catholic, or Jew, or woman — and ask if you feel any differently about the above statement. Because historically speaking, each of these demographics have had to suffer through this exact form of public discrimination, and in each case the intolerant voice ended up on the wrong side of history. Thus, hopefully you understand why it is unacceptable for GOP presidential candidate Dr. Ben Carson to promote such narrow-mindedness against American Muslims.

Dr. Carson provided the above response when he was asked whether Islam is consistent with the United States Constitution. Let’s pause. Dr. Carson is not a Muslim, let alone an Islamic theologian. Likewise, Dr. Carson is not a lawyer, let alone a Constitutional scholar. With two strikes against him, the safe bet would’ve been to recite the First Amendment protection of religious freedom, and likewise America’s strong commitment to a separation of religion and state. One need not be an Islamic scholar or a Constitutional scholar to provide this basic answer.

But with two strikes already against him, Dr. Carson struck out when he instead advocated against a Muslim becoming President because of their faith. Dr. Carson did not hold fast to foundational Constitutional principles, but instead demonstrated his ignorance of both Islam and the Constitution.

Of course, the Constitution is explicitly clear in Article VI, paragraph 3 that, “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” America’s founding fathers sought to escape religious persecution, not create a nation with more religious discrimination. None other than George Washington wrote, in a letter, that he would welcome “Mahometans” to his estate, provided they were “good workers.” Thomas Jefferson likewise incessantly demanded recognition of equal religious freedoms and rights of the “Mahamdan, the Jew, and the pagan.” American history records that Benjamin Rush, the Pennsylvania signer of the Declaration of Independence and friend of Adams and Jefferson, applauded Islam, asserting that he would “rather see the opinions of Confucius or Mohammed inculcated upon our youth than see them grow up wholly devoid of a system of religious principles.”

America’s founders saw no conflict between Islam and the United States Constitution. Who then, is Dr. Carson to disagree?

And should Dr. Carson study the Qur’an, he would discover that Islam does not specify any specific form of government, other than a beneficent government based on absolute justice. In 4:59 God declares, “Allah commands you to give over the trusts to those entitled to them, and that when you judge between men you judge with justice.” This is a critical point. Dr. Carson should take note that the Qur’an commands that justice — not religion, gender, or race — is the standard by which a government must run. In complete cohesion to this Qur’anic teaching, the United States Constitution likewise seeks to rule with justice and rejects religion, gender, or race as the determinative factor to govern. Accordingly, the U.S. Constitution is in fact the most Shariah compliant Constitution in existence today.

The fact is, religion should not be the business of the state, a view to which the overwhelming number of American Muslims adhere. As one prominent example, as Muslims who believe in the Messiah, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian, the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community has a clear vision that religion should not legislate in the domain of man’s relation to God. Islam offers guiding principles in matters of man’s relation to man. These principles can easily be translated into secular laws based on justice, tolerance, and love for all humanity. It is under these principles that the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community USA has launched the Muslims for Life, Muslims for Loyalty, and Muslims for Peace campaigns.

Yes, as true Shariah is based on absolute justice and freedom of conscience, it is conducive to a system of government that is beneficent, ensures universal human rights, and protects minority rights. And undoubtedly, Islam teaches that should a conflict exist between religion and state, the secular law of one’s country of residence has predominance over all other laws.

But if Dr. Carson expects to become President by behaving counter to the pluralistic examples set forth by America’s founding fathers regarding religious freedom, then all I can say is, “I would not advocate that we put Dr. Carson in charge of this nation…I absolutely would not agree with that.”

Qasim Rashid is an attorney, author, national spokesperson for the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community USA, and Visiting Fellow at Harvard University. Follow him on Twitter @MuslimIQ.

Reference

 

7 replies

  1. Just like there are right wing Christians, who want Bible above US constitution and constantly erode our secular values, ignoring its success, we have proponents of Shariah law, in every country and every Muslim community, even in USA, whose myopic vision would want to see the so called Shariah law, above the US constitution one day.

    If there is any silver lining to the intolerant expression of Ben Carson, which he has back tracked some since, is that it has brought to focus the beauty of our Constitution and shown to the Muslims also that it is the Constitution that saves us in this world and not any personal understanding of Shariah, which we do need for our salvation in the hereafter.

    Any US President has to uphold the Constitution above his or her personal understanding of religion or any Shariah, otherwise the the 225 year success story of the Constitution will fall apart.

    The US constitution is what binds the 315 million Americans today, in the past history and towards a glorious future.

    Suggested Readings

    Ben Carson is right; A Shariah promoting Muslim cannot be the President of USA, with its wonderful Constitution

    Hilary Clinton: Can a Muslim be President? Yes

    Shariah and Constitution: A Personal Journey

    Shariah and Constitution by Zia H Shah

  2. Zia,
    Three or four times I have asked for proof that a muhammadan president will uphold the Constitution more than his belief and each time that question has gone unanswered. The latest instance is that the post has been deleted.
    You see how easy and hypocritical it is to call Dr Carson a bigot for speaking his mind when you have done worse than he has.
    The question still remains, as liberal and liberated as you claim, would you or a muhammadan president allow your/his daughter to marry a non muhammadan man?
    One major problem I have with muhammadans is their practice of taqiyya or deceit and you tend to play it well.

    • A good Muslim President would not only uphold the Constitution but govern in full justice. Anyway, your past Christian Presidents have by-passed the Constitution numerous times. Is it necessary to list all the war crimes they committed?

  3. That does not answer the question. Will you allow your daughter to marry a non muhammadan against the dictates of the religion?

  4. I will get out of her way and trust that I have trained her well during her childhood and now she is a smart and a wise lady.

    Incidentally, I have only sons.

    Namelee, if you are in USA, in keeping with the Constitution, when would you stop discriminating against the Muslims and start practicing human equality. We are waiting for the bigots and Islamophobes to put these lines from Declaration of Independence into practice, as these pertain to the Muslims:

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

  5. Zia,
    Why simple and straight forward replies to your comments are so unwelcome to the point of not being published goes to confirm my charge of prejudice.
    I replied to your comment above but it has been ‘moderated’ out.
    You see what I mean?

Leave a Reply to Zia ShahCancel reply