Abdul-Jabbar Versus Carson

The erstwhile basketball player formerly known as Lew Alcindor has weighed in on presidential candidate Ben Carson’s statement that he would think twice before putting a Muslim in charge of our country. In so doing, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar has in a way confirmed the reason why Carson made such a statement in the first place. At least, that’s my take on what Abdul-Jabbar said.

You be the judge of Abdul-Jabbar’s riposte: [emphasis added]

Sharia law is for Muslims. So if there is a Muslim majority state then it has to be run by Sharia law. But I live in a very diverse country and I have to respect everyone else’s beliefs — the Koran says that…That’s the only criteria that Muslims have in being a minority in the country. We have to respect the laws and traditions of America.

Okay. So what if, as predicted by one Muslim woman when speaking to a school board recently, Muslims should become a majority in this country (or in a city, county, or state), something not beyond the realm of possibility, considering the progressives’ intent to import as many “immigrants” and “refugees” as possible?

Can Kareem Abdul-Jabbar please clarify for us, as Carson has clarified his own remarks?

Speaking of Carson’s clarification, he states that if a Muslim candidate promises to put the Constitution ahead of religion, then voters may rightly decide to support that Muslim candidate.

But how can any thinking person believe a Muslim candidate, when Islam allows for taqiya and kitman, most particularly under political circumstances?

Muslims are understood to be proscribed from lying to each other. However, taqiya and kitman are the two permissible, indeed laudable, forms of lying to infidels (non-Muslims).  Such lying typically is encouraged, allowed, and approved if the lies advance the cause Islam, especially if the goal is to defeat infidels by gaining their trust.

You see the conundrum? So if I were Ben Carson, I’d ask Abdul-Jabbar to explain what happens when/if Muslims should become a “majority” and not a “minority” in any political domain.  According to his statement, a Muslim majority state “has to be run by Sharia law.”

Has to be. MUST be run by sharia law. What, then, is Abdul-Jabbar’s definition of state? It matters.

Does Abdul-Jabbar have to “respect the laws and traditions of America” only so long as Muslims are a minority within a specific political domain? What of minority rights if Muslims become a majority?

What of all the rights protected by our Constitution, rights endowed by our Creator–the very rights that sharia law does not recognize, such as freedom of religion, speech, assembly, the press?

Does Abdul-Jabbar conceive of a time when Muslims are a simple majority here and therefore can do away with the Constitution and to hell with the system set up to ensure that our God-given rights are protected from government infringement, especially by a state religion? If Muslims become a majority, does Abdul-Jabbar expect that Christians and other infidels will go to their sharia-assigned places as second-class dhimmis?

Does the Muslim woman at the school board meeting similarly imply that when Muslims become a majority, sharia law will prevail, despite the Constitution of the USA?

Mr. Abdul-Jabbar, does the switch-over to sharia law happen as soon as Muslims become 51% of any political demesne?

I’m just wondering, because it matters.

#####