Editor, Times-Union: 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." According to the Webster Dictionary one of the definition of AD’VO-CATE is “to plead in favor of; to support, vindicate, or recommend publicly. (in other words: I could not support or vote for that person.) More to the point, it should be observed that the ban on a religious test is a ban on government, not on voters. While the federal government cannot apply a religious test, voters can use any religious test they want to. Unfortunately for the critics, ridicule, derision, and condemnation are not arguments. They are the last refuge of a defeated thought. Words from a Muslim and not just any Muslim, but Dr. Tawfik Hamid. These Shariah values and principles… are so hostile to the American Constitution. If that’s not in support of Dr. Carson, I don’t know what is! What more evidence do you need people, unless of course your head is still…. “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.” Edith Bauer Warsaw, via email
