If any of them were slave owners or familiar with slave owners, they likely had set eyes on a Muslim. Since slaves weren't fully human in their eyes, you're likely correct that it was inconceivable to them that a Muslim could be POTUS, and equally inconceivable that an Obama or a Carson could. Thank G-D we live in more enlightened times, at least most(some, a few?) of us.
I'm a issues voter, and I would support any candidate that agreed with me on most of the issues, assuming there was no fatal flaw
1st tier;
Smaller federal government
states rights
fewer regulations
lower taxes
strong national defense
adherence to Constitutional intent
2nd tier
banning on third trimester abortions except to "actually" save the mother's life
welfare reforms, should be a state issue anyhow
education reforms, should be a state issue anyhow
term limits, because American voters have proven we're fucking idiots
3rd tier
abolish federal anti pot laws
abolish federal anti gambling laws
being a conservative actually means wanting to follow the constitution more strictly, some of the issues presently defined as being conservative issues are more so party issues
and since being a conservative means following the constitution more closely, as opposed to it being a living, breathing document to serve one's own causes, that would mean a Conservative politician that was a Muslim could not possibly be an advocate of Sharia Law.
Sunni's are not advocates of Sharia Law, but Shiite's are. I guess a Shiite can never have my support
Conclusion, I can support a Sunni Muslim that agreed with me on most issues and didn't have a fatal flaw, the same standard I have for any politician.
1st tier;
Smaller federal government
states rights
fewer regulations
lower taxes
strong national defense
adherence to Constitutional intent
2nd tier
banning on third trimester abortions except to "actually" save the mother's life
welfare reforms, should be a state issue anyhow
education reforms, should be a state issue anyhow
term limits, because American voters have proven we're fucking idiots
3rd tier
abolish federal anti pot laws
abolish federal anti gambling laws
being a conservative actually means wanting to follow the constitution more strictly, some of the issues presently defined as being conservative issues are more so party issues
and since being a conservative means following the constitution more closely, as opposed to it being a living, breathing document to serve one's own causes, that would mean a Conservative politician that was a Muslim could not possibly be an advocate of Sharia Law.
Sunni's are not advocates of Sharia Law, but Shiite's are. I guess a Shiite can never have my support
Conclusion, I can support a Sunni Muslim that agreed with me on most issues and didn't have a fatal flaw, the same standard I have for any politician.
Here is what you get under Islamic Law
[h=1]Saudi Arabia is preparing to behead and crucify a 21-year-old activist[/h]
Al-Nimr was arrested in 2012, at age 17, in the predominantly Shia province of Qatif, and accused of participating in anti-government protests and possessing illegal firearms. He has repeatedly denied the latter charge, although he was reportedly tortured into confessing the offenses after his arrest. According to Amnesty International, al-Nimr spent a short time in a juvenile detention facility before being transferred to prison when he turned 18, and was sentenced to death in 2014.
==
Now all we need is guesser to assure us that all the people in Saudi Arabia (and Iran & Yemen) are "a few extremists"
[h=1]Saudi Arabia is preparing to behead and crucify a 21-year-old activist[/h]
Al-Nimr was arrested in 2012, at age 17, in the predominantly Shia province of Qatif, and accused of participating in anti-government protests and possessing illegal firearms. He has repeatedly denied the latter charge, although he was reportedly tortured into confessing the offenses after his arrest. According to Amnesty International, al-Nimr spent a short time in a juvenile detention facility before being transferred to prison when he turned 18, and was sentenced to death in 2014.
==
Now all we need is guesser to assure us that all the people in Saudi Arabia (and Iran & Yemen) are "a few extremists"
I am glad CAIR has been exposed. It took a long time for its radicalism to come to light. Another front for destroying Israel is the 'Arab American Anti-Discrimination Committee'. They've managed to stay under the radar because average Americans don't do their homework. Also their false name is rather innocuous.
Nope. Wouldn't vote for a Muslim for Prez, no matter what party. Wouldn't vote for a lot of people for that office based on a boatload of criteria including their religion.
No problem with them running. As long as they fit the requirements, of course they can run. Doesn't mean I'm going to vote for them though.
No problem with them running. As long as they fit the requirements, of course they can run. Doesn't mean I'm going to vote for them though.
Carson Is Right About Muslims
By Tawfik Hamid | Wednesday, 23 Sep 2015 04:50 PM
Presidential candidate Dr. Ben Carson was roundly criticized last week for his comments about Islam.
When asked whether he believes that Islam is consistent with the Constitution, his response was: "No, I don’t. I do not. I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation."
Unfortunately for the critics, ridicule, derision, and condemnation are not arguments.
They are the last refuge of a defeated thought.
As a Muslim — and particularly as a former member of a radical Islamist group — I can state unequivocally that Dr. Carson is correct. Without a single exception, the approved Islamic literature teaches violent principles such as killing apostates, beating women, killing gays, and enslaving female war prisoners for sexual purposes.
If anyone doubts this, or wishes to challenge it, they need to prove this to be wrong. If Carson’s critics could provide a single approved Islamic theological book that would undermine his position.
If they could point to just one treatise that is accepted by the leading Islamic scholars at Al-Azhar University or the religious authorities in Saudi Arabia (the two Sunni religious bodies responsible for approving a printed Koran) that rejects the traditional barbaric principles of Islamic law.
If they could produce a solitary approved Islamic text that stands clearly and unambiguously against killing apostates, beating women, killing gays, and enslaving female war prisoners for the express purpose of raping them — then perhaps the criticism would be justified.
But such a text does not exist.
In fact, until such a reference is found, Ben Carson is correct. These Shariah values and principles, which are so hostile to the American Constitution, are still an integral part of mainstream Islam.
Worse, the aforementioned horrific values are considered “maloom mina aldeen Bil-Darora” (a necessary article of the religion).
So if a Muslim were to reject them, under Shariah, he must be considered an apostate (one who has forsaken his religion), and therefore, under the same law, must be killed.
In other words, any Muslim who rejects killing gays and apostates, or beating and raping women is no longer considered a Muslim under Shariah. Such rules fly in the face of the Constitution.
Dr. Tawfik Hamid is the author of "Inside Jihad: Understanding and Confronting Radical Islam."
By Tawfik Hamid | Wednesday, 23 Sep 2015 04:50 PM
Presidential candidate Dr. Ben Carson was roundly criticized last week for his comments about Islam.
When asked whether he believes that Islam is consistent with the Constitution, his response was: "No, I don’t. I do not. I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation."
Unfortunately for the critics, ridicule, derision, and condemnation are not arguments.
They are the last refuge of a defeated thought.
As a Muslim — and particularly as a former member of a radical Islamist group — I can state unequivocally that Dr. Carson is correct. Without a single exception, the approved Islamic literature teaches violent principles such as killing apostates, beating women, killing gays, and enslaving female war prisoners for sexual purposes.
If anyone doubts this, or wishes to challenge it, they need to prove this to be wrong. If Carson’s critics could provide a single approved Islamic theological book that would undermine his position.
If they could point to just one treatise that is accepted by the leading Islamic scholars at Al-Azhar University or the religious authorities in Saudi Arabia (the two Sunni religious bodies responsible for approving a printed Koran) that rejects the traditional barbaric principles of Islamic law.
If they could produce a solitary approved Islamic text that stands clearly and unambiguously against killing apostates, beating women, killing gays, and enslaving female war prisoners for the express purpose of raping them — then perhaps the criticism would be justified.
But such a text does not exist.
In fact, until such a reference is found, Ben Carson is correct. These Shariah values and principles, which are so hostile to the American Constitution, are still an integral part of mainstream Islam.
Worse, the aforementioned horrific values are considered “maloom mina aldeen Bil-Darora” (a necessary article of the religion).
So if a Muslim were to reject them, under Shariah, he must be considered an apostate (one who has forsaken his religion), and therefore, under the same law, must be killed.
In other words, any Muslim who rejects killing gays and apostates, or beating and raping women is no longer considered a Muslim under Shariah. Such rules fly in the face of the Constitution.
Dr. Tawfik Hamid is the author of "Inside Jihad: Understanding and Confronting Radical Islam."
Never studied this area at all: In the Americas most slaves worked on sugar, coffee, tobacco, and other plantations; the slaves were there for cheap labor. In the Islamic world, however, slaves were captured so that they might become Muslims. So I guess initially there were
a few Muslim slaves that made there way here, but by the time of the Constitution they were converted to Christianity on the plantations,
or retained their tribal religious influences. In other words if a few were Muslims the hold of that religion was not strong.
The fact of the matter is that they never built any Mosques the first Mosque was built in 1915 in Maine.
I doubt slaves were given the option to build Mosques. The number of Slaves that were Muslims are thought to be around 15%. http://www.pbs.org/opb/historydetectives/feature/islam-in-america/
So you are in agreement with Obama's view that Muslims were an integral part of US history from the countries conception.
I don't! Their has been far more revisionist history flowing around these days than there were prayer rugs or muslim gard
prevalent in the slaves quarters of the anti-bellum South.
Remember the Muslim signers of the Declaration of Independence? With Yahya al-Hanqoq’s large signature
front and center, so that the infidel King George III could read it without his spectacles?
Public school textbooks already present a ridiculously rosy picture of Islam. The textbooks have already
departed from reality regarding Islam – what could possibly be the problem with a few more steps into fantasy?
so much for revisonist history
Integral? No. A definite part of it. Yes. Muslims made up about 15% of slaves brought to the US. Thomas Jefferson had a Quran is his study. Muslims fought in the Revolutionary War and the Civil War on the good guys side(the North were the good guys, sad that I would have to say that, but down here, I have to). The same number of Jews signed the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence as Muslims.
Revisionist History is declaring Muslims weren't a part US history because of the disgusting, scary Hatred for that Religion currently in the US. We've seen similar hatred for certain Religions and races in this, and other Country's throughout History, and the results aren't pretty. As a Jew I'm particularly sensitive to it. If certain people attain power, we're headed down that path.
revisionists? c'mon man, it's their life's blood
what party passed the equal rights amendment in Congress? You would never know the amendment doesn't pass if the GOP doersn't drag the Democrats over the 2/3's threshold. That's right, Republicans supported the bill by a far wider margin and it would not be law if only the democrats in Congress voted.
so then they argue that those Dixiercrats who opposed equal rights became republicans, presumably because ONE did.
They all condemned Saddam throughout the 90's and in 2001 / 2002. By 2004 they only did so because W hoodwinked them
Poppy Bush's tax increase was a democratic tax increase, house and senate leaders promised him deficit reduction in return. they never delivered on their promise and they used their tax increases against him.
After the amazing success of the late 90's budget signed by Clinton after Newt rammed it down his throat, democrats like Kerry who opposed the bill took credit for it's successes to the detriment of the party who spilled blood to pass it.
Who got us into our biggest wars again? LBJ even called Goldwater a warmonger as he himself was planning on going into Vietnam bigtime
Our current president waffles every few months from taking credit for a good economy to blaming "his enemies" for a bad economy.
It takes two things to make all that possible.
1) a lying manipulative press that enables democrats to lie
2) an uninformed and ignorant voter base that doesn't know the difference and swallows whole without reflex. At the end of the day, they just want government to do more for them. Some call that "enlightenment", bawawawawaawawawa
