Obama ‘Modifies’ U.S. Oath of Allegiance According to Islamic Law

Raymond Ibrahim ^ | 8/6/15 | Raymond Ibrahim

[markomalley]

The Obama administration recently made changes to the Oath of Allegiance to the United States in a manner very conducive to Sharia, or Islamic law.

On July 21, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced some “modifications” to the Oath of Allegiance which immigrants must take before becoming naturalized.

The original oath required incoming citizens to declare that they will “bear arms on behalf of the United States” and “perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States” when required by the law.

Now the USCIS says that “A candidate [to U.S. citizenship] may be eligible to exclude these two clauses based on religious training and belief or a conscientious objection.”

The new changes further add that new candidates “May be eligible for [additional?] modifications based on religious training and belief, or conscientious objection arising from a deeply held moral or ethical code.”

These changes serve incoming Islamic supremacists especially well. For, while Islamic law allows Muslims to feign loyalty to non-Muslim “infidel” authorities, it bans Muslims from living up to the pretense by actually fighting or killing fellow Muslims on behalf of a non-Muslim entity, such as the United States.

The perfectly fitting story of Nidal Hassan—the U.S. army major and “observant Muslim who prayed daily” but then turned murderer—comes to mind and is illustrative.

A pious Muslim, Hasan seemed a “regular American,” even if he was leading a double life—American Army major and psychiatrist by day, financial supporter of jihadi groups and associate of terrorists by night.

However, when time came for this American soldier to “bear arms on behalf of the United States”—to quote the original Oath of Allegiance—against fellow Muslims, things got ugly: he went on a shooting spree in Fort Hood, killing thirteen Americans, including one pregnant woman in 2009.

Much of Hasan’s behavior is grounded in the Islamic doctrine of Loyalty and Enmity. According to this essential teaching, Muslims must always be loyal to Islam and fellow Muslims while having enmity for all non-Islamic things and persons.

However, whenever Muslims find themselves under the authority of non-Islamic institutions and persons, they are permitted to feign loyalty—even to the point of cursing Islam and pretending to have abandoned it—with one caveat: Muslims must never take up arms on behalf of “infidels” against fellow Muslims. In other words, their loyalty to non-Muslims must be skin deep.

Many are the verses in the Koran that support this divisive doctrine (3:28, 4:89, 4:144, 9:23, and 58:22; the last simply states that true Muslims do not befriend non-Muslims—“even if they be their fathers, sons, brothers, or kin”).

Most germane is Koran 3:28: “Let believers not take for friends and allies infidels rather than believers: and whoever does this shall have no relationship left with Allah—unless you but guard yourselves against them, taking precautions.”

The words translated here as “guard” and “precaution” are derived from the Arabic word taqu, from the trilateral root w-q-y—the same root that gives us the word taqiyya, the Islamic doctrine that permits Muslims to deceive non-Muslims whenever under their authority.

Ibn Kathir (d. 1373), author of one of the most authoritative commentaries on the Koran, explains taqiyya in the context of verse 3:28 as follows: “Whoever at any time or place fears … evil [from non-Muslims] may protect himself through outward show.” As proof of this, he quotes Muhammad’s close companion Abu Darda, who said, “Let us grin in the face of some people while our hearts curse them.”

Muhammad ibn Jarir at-Tabari (d. 923), author of another standard commentary on the Koran, interprets verse 3:28 as follows:

If you [Muslims] are under their [non-Muslims’] authority, fearing for yourselves, behave loyally to them with your tongue while harboring inner animosity for them … [know that] God has forbidden believers from being friendly or on intimate terms with the infidels rather than other believers—except when infidels are above them [in authority]. Should that be the case, let them act friendly towards them while preserving their religion.

And therein lies the limit of taqiyya: when the deceit, the charade begins to endanger the lives of fellow Muslims—who, as we have seen, deserve first loyalty—it is forbidden. As al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri puts it in his treatise on Loyalty and Enmity, Muslims may pretend to be friendly and loyal to non-Muslims, so long as they do “not undertake any initiative to support them [non-Muslims], commit sin, or enable [them] through any deed or killing or fighting against Muslims” (The Al Qaeda Reader, p. 75).

Thus the idea that Nidal Hasan might be deployed to a Muslim country (Iraq or Afghanistan) was his “worst nightmare.” When he realized that he was about to be deployed, he became “very upset and angry.” The thought that he might injure or kill Muslims “weighed heavily on him.” He also counseled a fellow Muslim not to join the U.S. Army, since “Muslims shouldn’t kill Muslims.”

Hassan is not the only Muslim to expose his disloyalty when pushed into fighting fellow Muslims on behalf of the United States.

In 2010, Naser Abdo, another Muslim soldier who joined the U.S. Army, demanded to be discharged on the claim that he was a “conscientious objector whose devotion to Islam has suffered since he took an oath to defend the United States against all enemies.” The army agreed, but while processing him, officials found child pornography on his government-issued computer and recommended that he be court-martialed. Abdo went AWOL and later tried to carry out a terrorist attack on a restaurant with the use of weapons of mass destruction.

And in April 2005, Hasan Akbar, another Muslim serving in the U.S. Army, was convicted of murder for killing two American soldiers and wounding fourteen in a grenade attack: “He launched the attack because he was concerned U.S. troops would kill fellow Muslims in Iraq.”

In short, the first loyalty of any “American Muslim” who follows the Koran is to fellow Muslims, regardless of their nationality. It is not to American “infidels,” even if they be their longtime neighbors whom they daily smile to (see here for examples). Hence why American Muslim Tarik Shah, who was arrested for terrorist-related charges, once boasted: “I could be joking and smiling [with non-Muslims] and then cutting their throats in the next second”—reminiscent of the aforementioned quote by Muhammad’s companion.

Now, in direct compliance with Islamic law, the Obama administration has made it so that no Muslim living in America need ever worry about having to defend her—including against fellow Muslims or jihadis.

[Unam Sanctam]

Question, can conscientious objectors be required to “perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States”?

[jughandle]

Why does the left not have their panties twisted with “separation of church and state”?

[Cowboy Bob]

That’s what conscientious objectors used to do. Now, I guess, they will hand out in front of the welfare office while American citizens give up their lives protecting them.

[ozdragon]

The responsibility to defend the country is fundamental to citizenship. I had a close friend who was a real religious conscientious objector. When drafted he went to Vietnam as a medic and severed honorably. He said it was the only way he could be true to both his religious obligation and that of being an American citizen.

[eartick]

Muslim Obama- Arrest, try, and if found guilty of treason hang by the neck until dead.

Our only recourse to heal America.

[Pearls Before Swine]

He’s a Muslim. Is there any doubt? For a while I thought he only worshipped himself. Not any more.

[tacticalogic]

The original oath required incoming citizens to declare that they will “bear arms on behalf of the United States” and “perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States” when required by the law.

The swearing of an oath is symbolic. If it's required by law they're still legally required to do it.

[Tennessee Nana]

I am both a naturalized American citizen and a veteran of the US military..

When I swore this oath and became an American citizen in 1975, I wore my USAF uniform, and cried in awe and gratitude and pride...

The rest of the group in the naturalization ceremony that day would not have understood or accepted this treason, including the 80 yo Jewish lady who escaped with her family from Poland during the war, and had to prefect the English language before she qualified to be an American citizen, and the judge who presided over the ceremony and told us his father had come from the Eastern Block as a young child, and that he always felt privileged to be called upon to attend ..

I had already sworn an oath when I entered the military, as an immigrant, a Registered Alien with a green card, and this further oath was no hardship nor did it go against any religious or personal belief or creed for me...

If the Oath of Allegiance is a stumbling block for a candidate for citizenship, then why are they not asked why ??? Can it be thy have already determined to support and fight for another country or ideology ???

It seems that the Islamic terrorists who this travesty is designed for have sworn to defend a previous homeland, and are not prepared to change their allegiance to America..

In that case, let that be a deciding moment..take the Oath or don’t become an American citizen..it is a requirement, keep it..

One month before I became an American citizen, I went for an interview where I was tested orally on American history, government, the Constitution, etc and I had to denounce my previous country..for the next month I was a woman without a country..I couldn’t use my old country’s passport any more and I was not yet eligible to apply for an American one..I couldn’t leave the country..My Alien Registration Card became he most important legal document I possessed..

Are these Islamic terrorists not required any more to denounce their allegiance to the country of their birth ??? By not taking an oath to defend the new country the allegiance to the old is still valid..this is more about staying true to their old and current vows of loyalty an able to act on those with impunity.. than any difficulty in caring about America..

These characters are not qualified to be American citizens..the main part of the ceremony has been guttered if the oath is not taken..these people are not American citizens in theory nor in loyalty and allegiance..

[Joe Boucher]

anyone that doesn’t believe this half breed is a mooselimb is a moron.

[Liz]

Mmmmm.......that move in obeisance to Islam...... oughta get Obama and the Mrs multi-million donations to Obama's Muslim Foundation, million dollar honoraria, consultancies, and insider business deals that reap hundreds of millions from Muslim countries' untapped resources.

OBAMA's KENYAN HALF-BROTHER HEADS THE
OBAMA MUSLIM FOUNDATION--named for their father

Kenya-resident, Malik Obama in Muslim dress, holds up
photo of his half brother Obama in Muslim dress, taken
during an earlier visit.

MORE HERE http://shoebat.com/shoebat-foundation/obamas-wahhabist-fundraising-empire

BACKSTORY---The Barack H. Obama Foundation (BHOF) is run by Malik (in Kenya)---to honor Malik and Obama's late dad. It was fast-tracked by Lois Lerner for IRS tax-exempt status.

The BHOF is based at a Virginia UPS store, according to its website. The organization’s IRS filings list another Virginia address that is actually a drug rehab center where the foundation does not appear ever to have been based.

As first reported by The Daily Caller, the foundation was speedily approved for IRS exemption by Lois Lerner, the self-same IRS senior official at the center of the targeting of conservative organizations that have waited over two years to receive tax exempt status. The IRS thoughtfully gave the Obama Foundation retroactive fund-raising status.......which it stupidly never applied for.

To get tax-exempt status, the foundation cooked-up a mission statement: “to provide people everywhere with resources to uplift their welfare and living standards in memory of dad---Barack H. Obama: in the region of his birth, Kenya, and beyond.” Its guiding principle is “the inherent belief that no one can truly enjoy the riches he has reaped if his neighbor suffers....."We seek to elevate the human condition so that everyone can live in dignity and truly enjoy having one another as neighbors.”

(waiting for hysterical laughter to die down)

Despite raising more than $250,000, the alleged charity doesn’t seem to have done much. Its website claims the organization has built a madrassa and was building an imam’s house as well as some “proposed latrines,” but there is no other evidence that the nonprofit was working to “mitigate social-shortcomings in areas of education and literacy, health and well-being, poverty, and lack of community infrastructure in such basic needs such as water, electricity, shelter and sustenance,” as the site says.

Alton Ray Baysden, a former Dept of State employee, allegedly a registered Republican, who helped start the Barack H Obama foundation, declined to comment before seeing copies of a reporter’s passport and govt ID, along with a description of the article’s “motivation” and “slant.”

Repeated reporters' phone calls went to the organization’s voicemail and were not returned.

===================================================

US TAXPAYERS PAY NOW---Obama collects later.

There's multi- million dollar Obama Foundation donations, six-figure honoraria, consultancies, wealth-producing insider business deals w/ oil-rich African countries.

Obama's federal outlays (that we know of).:

<><> $150 billion to Iran in the nuclear deal,

<><> $2 billion funding to Malik's organization---the Muslim Brotherhood,

<><> $50 million to Malik/Barack's tax-exempt foundation in the form of a grant to Kenya.

<><> While the Muslim Brotherhood was in charge in Egypt, Obama (and Hillary) showered them w/ praise.....and billions of US dollars in aid, arms, tanks and planes.

<><> Obama gave $90 million US tax dollars to wealthy oil-rich African countries.

<><> the billions missing from Obamacre?

[Sacajaweau]

In our earliest years, objectors paid a fine. If they didn’t pay, their property was confiscated.

[ponygirl]

This is not our country anymore. Question is...why are we still funding it?

[DaveA37]

“This is not our country anymore. Question is...why are we still funding it?”.....

Interesting question. Just imagine what might happen if indeed, every tax payer in this country decided to NOT pay their taxes, repeat EVERYONE. Can you imagine the chaos?

Might not be the worse thing to ever happen.

[TomGuy]

I posted this comment recently:

Dr. Ben Carson Asked a 'Gotcha' Question: Does the Bible Have Authority Over the Constitution?

Monday, August 03, 2015 11:20:21 AM · 66 of 94
TomGuy to SeekAndFind


That question is even more volatile than might be indicated at first read.

If it elicits a 'yes' response, that could open the door for the basic book of any religion could be said to trump The Constitution. Of course, that would feed into the rapid expanse of Islam in this and other western countries. If The Bible trumps The Constitution, so would The Koran and Sharia law.

That is not as innocuous of a question as it might seem at first read. It is extremely loaded.

[ROCKLOBSTER]

Does the Bible Have Authority Over the Constitution?

Yes...and only the New Testament. Because Jesus is mentioned in the Constitution.

[ROCKLOBSTER]

Directly above the signatures.

[MarvinStinson]

As of now this is acting president Valerie Jarrett’s country and military.

Jarrett was born in Iran.

Jarrett is retarded Obama’s handler.

[Slyfox]

The swearing of an oath is symbolic.

Actually, it is not symbolic but a serious mark, based on Scripture, to bind people to their promises.

Swearing an oath was taken very seriously by our Founders. It was known at the time that it was an act that called down blessings or curses depending on the demeanor of the swearer.

This is why the libs have been so happy to get rid of the "so help me God" part.

Sadly, we have lost the collective understanding of what our Founders did for us regarding oaths.

When George Washington instituted the solemn presidential oath he understood that when he raised his hand and swore to protect and defend the Constitution, he was actually asking God to witness his words. That is a very serious thing to do because God cannot be witness to a lie, and when a person taking such an oath calls on God he better make dang sure he is telling the truth or else he immediately brings down curses upon his head.

So, for Obama to change an oath means one thing for sure - he knows exactly that he is giving God the middle finger through oaths.

Obama cursed himself every time he took his oath, even the mistakes that needed to be repeated.

[sport]

I do not like anything that the son of a bitch does. But from time to time I have to remember back to the fact that he was put in the White House two times to date by a majority of voters that call themselves Americans. I call them something else, but this is not about me. Then, I have to further remember that everything he does to destroy the United States is what those who voted for and elected him wants. Both he and they share a rabid hatred of the United States of America and wish to see her destroyed. And in that, they have succeeded.