05-14-2019 01:57:15 PM -0400
05-09-2019 05:01:30 PM -0400
05-09-2019 01:41:48 PM -0400
04-18-2019 10:46:35 AM -0400
04-18-2019 10:18:40 AM -0400
It looks like you've previously blocked notifications. If you'd like to receive them, please update your browser permissions.
Desktop Notifications are  | 
Get instant alerts on your desktop.
Turn on desktop notifications?
Remind me later.


Should Christians Vote for Muslim Candidates?

Keith Ellison walks down the House steps

National Public Radio just recently published an article about the many Muslims who are running for office in America this election year.

Some 80 Muslims are running for office in 2018, from Abdul El-Sayed (a Democrat candidate running for governor in Michigan) to Keith Ellison (who is running for attorney general in Minnesota). (Ellison and André Carson of Indiana are the only two Muslim members of the U.S. House of Representatives).

Of course the U.S. Constitution prohibits any sort of religious test to hold office. Article VI, clause 3 states: "...but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust..." That means no one can be forbidden by law from running for an elected office or being appointed to office on the basis of their religion.

However, as a voter and as a Christian, should a person's religion (or lack thereof) be a factor in casting a vote for a particular candidate? Normally, I would say "no," and I have voted for candidates who do not share my faith. But what if their faith dictates that our constitutional law MUST be supplanted and/or replaced by their religious law code, thus stripping all of us of our constitutional freedoms? More specifically, should I as a Christian vote for a Muslim? There are several things to consider:

1. There are many kinds of Muslims.

Just like there are many different "brands" of Christians, Jews, Buddhists, atheists, and the like, not all Muslims fit into the same box. Most people realize that Islam is divided up into two main sects: Sunni and Shia. Both have quite a bloody history, taking their cues from the jihadist passages in the Quran and Sharia and subjugating everyone they can to follow their brand of Islam — or keep quiet.

In the past 20 years or so we have clearly seen this form of Islam invade western Europe, terrorize the local populations, establish "colonies," suppress any opposition (usually by calling it "islamophobia"), and ruthlessly carry out Islamic law in their areas.

There are Muslims who want nothing to do with violent jihad. They may believe in some form of Sharia for themselves, but they say they do not believe in imposing it on anyone else. Dr. Zuhdi Jasser and his organization (the American Islamic Forum for Democracy) would fall into this category.

Ahmadiyya Islam is a rather pacifist sect. In denouncing jihad and terrorism, they believe only in a defensive "just war" theory much like many Christians do. This sect is generally regarded as heretical by most Sunni and Shi'ite Muslims, and is quite a minority (about 20 million worldwide).

There are "mainstream" Muslims who do take their faith seriously, yet disavow violence in conquering "infidel" lands and subjugating unbelievers. For example, General al-Sisi of Egypt, King Abdullah of Jordan, and many of the Kurdish fighters profess to be devout Muslims, yet are some of our staunchest allies in fighting ISIS, the Muslim Brotherhood, and other jihadist terror organizations.

2. Sharia.

We must find out where a Muslim candidate stands on the issue of Sharia. Sharia is Islamic law, based on the Quran, the Hadith (traditions of Muhammed), and the decisions of Muslim jurists down through the centuries. Although there are four main branches of Islamic law, the differing forms of Sharia still agree about 75 percent of the time. The best translation of Sharia into English is found in the book "Reliance of the Traveller." If you want to know what Islamic law teaches, get this book.

What does Sharia teach? Sharia covers everything from marriage and divorce to apostasy to banking and finance to warfare and more. But here is what it does not teach that I find so objectionable: Sharia does not teach freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, freedom of religion.

For proof of that, simply read the book... or go to any Muslim-dominated country (or "colony" in the western world) and try to hand out gospel tracts on a street corner. Try to publicly tell people in Cairo, Baghdad, or Jakarta that Muhammed was a false prophet, that the Quran leads to hell, and that Jesus is the crucified, resurrected sinless Son of God and the only way to heaven. Try that. You will be able to measure your life in seconds.

What happens to someone who converts from Islam to any other belief system? According to Sharia (in any school of Sharia), they are to be put to death. Consider the second-class status of women in Islam. Consider that homosexuals are executed. Consider that girls as young as NINE are given in marriage. Is any of this compatible with a constitutional republic that guarantees such ideas as freedom of speech and freedom of assembly and the right to vote?

The Jewish and Christian faiths are completely compatible with a constitutional republic. Most of the men who wrote the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution were professing Christians — members in good standing in orthodox Christian churches. (A few, like Franklin and Jefferson, were deists, of course.)

Since Jesus and the apostles never forced their faith upon anyone, and Christians did not subjugate anyone for the first 300 years of the faith (yes, I know that professing Christians in the Medieval and Renaissance eras at times turned the Church into an oppressive institution), it is clear that the biblical religions (Judaism and Christianity) easily work within the framework of a free government that secures the freedoms for all. Islam, however, is at its core steadfastly against the freedoms of a constitutional republic. It is noteworthy that not one Islamic-dominated government in the world has a population with freedom of speech, conscience, and religion.

3. Taqiyya.

This is the practice of "deception" sanctioned by Islam. Muslims generally believe that deception is allowed during times of persecution or warfare (Sura 3:28; 16:106). Another term for taqiyya is "kitman," which essentially means and act of covering. The basic idea is that of "smiling" at your enemy while hiding your true intentions.

Here is an excellent balanced and factual explanation of taqiyya:

4. Jihadists are at war with us.

Do I really need to say that? Yes, because so many people in the West want to lull themselves to sleep with false assurances that "Islam is a religion of peace" and that the "bad Muslims" who want to slit our throats will eventually get tired and just go away. Wake up, people! How many jihadist terror attacks (either by hijacked passenger planes, bomb vests, buses and trucks in crowded cities, gunning people down at concerts, or just by beheading people in the streets) do we have to see before we realize that these people are serious and want to subjugate or exterminate us?

"But that's just the violent jihadists! Most Muslims are peaceful!" That may be so. However, have you ever heard of "lawfare"? We know what warfare is. "Lawfare" is a bit trickier. It is using the laws of a particular western country to promote Islam and to suppress all opposition. Here, here, and here are great articles outlining the tactics of CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) in using the law to silence opposition to the truth about Islam:

It is not just by bullets and bombs that jihadists plan to destroy the free western world. It is also by using our own system of laws to sue and shut down all who would dare say a word against their prophet.

Therefore, taking these things into consideration, if I see a Muslim candidate running for office in the U.S., ostensibly taking a vow to uphold the U.S. Constitution, I must ask the question of where they stand on obeying Sharia.

Do they believe that the U.S. Constitution is completely compatible with Sharia? Do they believe that Muslims have the right to convert to other faiths without fear of reprisal? Do they believe that Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, and atheists can and should live as equals alongside Muslims, or should they be reduced to "dhimmi" (second class) status and be forced to pay the "jizya" (a special tax on Jews and Christians in Islamic lands)?

And even if their answers perfectly line up with other freedom-loving, U.S. Constitution-obeying Americans, can you trust them? Remember that "taqiyya" (deception). It is the tactic to outwardly smile and pretend that the infidel is your friend while inwardly despising them and plotting their destruction.

Personally, if I cannot be reasonably assured that anyone is going to faithfully uphold and protect the U.S. Constitution, then I will have to vote against them. Their worldview counts a lot in my decision.