by Nicholas Papanicolaou
Trump has caught a lot of heat after his criticism of Mr. and Mrs. Khan.
Is he right? Are the facts being presented fairly?
Let us begin by the waving of a pocket-sized copy of the Constitution at the DNC by Mr. Khan. Great performance.
But does Mr. Khan really believe in the U.S. Constitution?
As a practicing Muslim, which he claims to be, he would have to admit that the Constitution is man-made law, and therefore inferior to the God-given law set forth in the Koran and Sharia.
Did anyone in the media ask him about this?
Waving the Constitution is a vacuous misrepresentation when one's religion teaches that it (and other man-made laws) are to be removed and superseded by the Koran.
So let us look to the Koran and what it teaches Muslims: "you shall rule among them (i.e. Christians and Jews) in accordance with God's revelation given to you." (Sura 5:49)
Does this confirm that God's law, in other words (to a Muslim) Allah's law set forth in the Koran, supersedes U.S. law? So why doesn't anyone in the media ask Mr. Khan if he places the U.S. Constitution, which he so vigorously waived around at the DNC, above the Koran?
This is a dilemma faced by every practicing Muslim. Which comes first? The Koran or the Constitution?
By the way, Christians do not face the same dilemma. Why? Because the Constitution is based on biblical Judeo-Christian principles, from the Ten Commandments to the principle of God-given rights to every human being. Our Constitution is the child of the Old and New Testaments.
So, it appears to me that the media should not be criticizing Trump for continuing to advocate a temporary ban on Muslim immigration into the United States. Rather, the media should be focusing on exposing the contradictions between the Constitution and the Koran. That is how the media should fulfill its duty to inform the public.
One more point: it is not realistic to use the "Gold Star" parents of a Muslim officer of the Armed Forces to make a generalization as to the admissibility of Muslim immigrants into the U.S.
How many Muslims who live in the U.S. are parents of servicemen or women who served the U.S. in Muslim countries? What is the percentage of such parents out of the whole of Muslims living in the U.S.?
My point is that using a very rare example of "Gold Star" Muslim parents to make a generalization about all Muslims trying to come into the U.S., including un-vetted Syrian "refugees," is not a convincing argument at all.
Lastly and while we are on the subject of "Gold Star" parents of servicemen killed in action, let us not forget how Hillary has treated the mother of one of the Navy Seals killed in Benghazi. She has pretty much called this mother a liar. So, according to our biased media, Mr. Khan can justifiably accuse Trump, without any proof at all, of never reading the Constitution and of not having empathy for anyone, while Hillary gets a free pass at calling the mother of the fallen Navy Seal a liar.
What hypocrisy here!
Trump has caught a lot of heat after his criticism of Mr. and Mrs. Khan.
Is he right? Are the facts being presented fairly?
Let us begin by the waving of a pocket-sized copy of the Constitution at the DNC by Mr. Khan. Great performance.
But does Mr. Khan really believe in the U.S. Constitution?
As a practicing Muslim, which he claims to be, he would have to admit that the Constitution is man-made law, and therefore inferior to the God-given law set forth in the Koran and Sharia.
Did anyone in the media ask him about this?
Waving the Constitution is a vacuous misrepresentation when one's religion teaches that it (and other man-made laws) are to be removed and superseded by the Koran.
So let us look to the Koran and what it teaches Muslims: "you shall rule among them (i.e. Christians and Jews) in accordance with God's revelation given to you." (Sura 5:49)
Does this confirm that God's law, in other words (to a Muslim) Allah's law set forth in the Koran, supersedes U.S. law? So why doesn't anyone in the media ask Mr. Khan if he places the U.S. Constitution, which he so vigorously waived around at the DNC, above the Koran?
This is a dilemma faced by every practicing Muslim. Which comes first? The Koran or the Constitution?
By the way, Christians do not face the same dilemma. Why? Because the Constitution is based on biblical Judeo-Christian principles, from the Ten Commandments to the principle of God-given rights to every human being. Our Constitution is the child of the Old and New Testaments.
So, it appears to me that the media should not be criticizing Trump for continuing to advocate a temporary ban on Muslim immigration into the United States. Rather, the media should be focusing on exposing the contradictions between the Constitution and the Koran. That is how the media should fulfill its duty to inform the public.
One more point: it is not realistic to use the "Gold Star" parents of a Muslim officer of the Armed Forces to make a generalization as to the admissibility of Muslim immigrants into the U.S.
How many Muslims who live in the U.S. are parents of servicemen or women who served the U.S. in Muslim countries? What is the percentage of such parents out of the whole of Muslims living in the U.S.?
My point is that using a very rare example of "Gold Star" Muslim parents to make a generalization about all Muslims trying to come into the U.S., including un-vetted Syrian "refugees," is not a convincing argument at all.
Lastly and while we are on the subject of "Gold Star" parents of servicemen killed in action, let us not forget how Hillary has treated the mother of one of the Navy Seals killed in Benghazi. She has pretty much called this mother a liar. So, according to our biased media, Mr. Khan can justifiably accuse Trump, without any proof at all, of never reading the Constitution and of not having empathy for anyone, while Hillary gets a free pass at calling the mother of the fallen Navy Seal a liar.
What hypocrisy here!
No comments:
Post a Comment