|
|
Posted on 01/25/2005 2:14:08 PM PST by Mark Felton
This is from a Muslim website. The website explains Islam and answers questions for Muslims and potential new Muslims about their religion.
Unlike Christianity, Islam is a religion and a political system. Shari'ah law is the Islamic law which replaces and supercedes the US law and the US Constitution.
Faithful Muslims must be faithful to Shari'ah and seek implentation of Shari'ah over people of all faiths.
|
|
|
Ask-Imam.com > Islamic Politics > Question 8471 from United States |
The oath of allegiance is as follows: I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God. They also ask on the citizenship form the following questions: If the law requires it, are you willing to bear arms on behalf of US? If the law requires it, are you willing to perform noncombatant service in the US Armed Forces? If the law requires it, are you willing to perform work of national importance under civilian direction? My question is can we answer yes to these questions? is there anything wrong in doing that. what should the answer be: yes or no? could you please kindly give an urgent answer. jazakallah.
| Answer 8471 |
2003-04-25 |
As Muslims, we are duty bound to follow our lives strictly according to Shari’ah. Whatever Shari’ah allows us to do, we will abide by that and whatever Shari’ah has restricted us from, we will refrain from it. Hence, we are not allowed to obey anybody if it is resulting in the disobedience of the Creator, Allah. Nabi (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam) said, ‘There is no obedience for the creation by disobeying the Creator.’ (Mirqaat vol.7 pg.217; Imdadiyyah).
Hence, keeping this in mind if one is forced to sign the above in order to become a citizen or the only way of attaining citizenship is by acknowledging the above, then one may sign it with the intention that Shari’ah and Deen will always be his yardstick and that he will never sacrifice any of the teachings of Deen.
LOL!
Yeah, I suppose some people didn't realize how frightened and stupid bigots are and have their "eyes opened" by YOU.
Let's see: anything American Moslems say that sounds good is a lie, anything they say that sounds bad is the "truth" ROFLMAO!
Reminds me of the old days when conspiracy kooks haunted FR.
I cautiously agree with the likelyhood that we are not there yet. However, the dividing line is hard to identify.
I think we seriously ought to consider ending new visas for the time being, that we ought to be hardnosed in the evaluation of the loyalty of current visa holders, we should increase our scrutiny of those that belong to groups that support terrorism, and it is perfectly appropriate for us to expect condemnation of anti-American sentiments from current visa holders and even naturalized citizens.
Read later ping
I agree that a cautious approach is in order.
I think the reason why nothing has been done about the Visa issue is that citizens of other countries oppose it so. The problem isn't big enough yet to overcome the screaming.
I do think that anyone who applies for entry should be looked at VERY closely. If he/she hasn't done anything wrong, they have nothing to fear from that. There's nothing unconstitutional about being particular about who we allow in.
The matter of truthfulness regarding willingness to comply with Constitutional Law as a citizen or legal resident of the United States is a serious and critical matter.
I disagree with your position and hold that any direct or roundabout directive by any person Imam or not that any applicant for citizenship may lie in their oath of citizenship for the purpose of violating Constitutional Law is a crime.
It is ludicrous to hold that the Constitution requires the US to facilitate those that would assemble a fifth column within America and engage in conspiracy to violate Constitutional Law. All these people are violent anti-American extremists, and should be identified and targeted for neutralization no matter where in the world they are, as should trolls.
The British were doing the same thing at the time. It's why we ended up in the War of 1812.
OK. I would agree that people shouldn't lie when they take the oath.
Now, the real question is - how do we determine if they're lying or not?
Is it a religious test? If you're Muslim, you're automatically lying?
How to we filter out everyone else who lies when they take the oath (and some do)?
Actually I think you may have it backwards, don't you see it is Islam that will tell him to indeed commit murder of that neighbor.
Well, if your religion allows you to lie to promote that religion, and your religious leader(s) directly or indirectly advises you that it is permissible to lie, might be criteria that would stand as evidence that you are untrustworthy.
The thing that you conveniently avoid is that Islam is a political system as well as a religion that seeks to overthrow the Government of the United States and Constitutional law and has already used violence to further it's ends. That makes it illegal, the government and Constitution may only be brought down or changed peacefully by law. Violence effectively brings on a state of war and combatants are no longer allowed to change anything to their liking unless they prevail in the violence. If they fail to prevail then the laws of treason, insurrection, collaboration, sabotage, murder, UCMJ, Nuremberg, and Geneva apply as applicable, all not generous to those classified as spies.
That would be true if every Muslim wanted to take over and destroy the US government. They don't.
We have a whole lot of Muslims living here, yet not a lot are out standing on a soapbox and saying we need to implement Sharia (which they are allowed by law to do). You might say they're reluctant to be condemned by the public, but if that were true, EVERY SINGLE MOSQUE IN AMERICA would be privately inciting the overthrow of America. Except for a very few that the FBI is dealing with, they're not. In fact many have come out in our defense.
Why?
I think it's pretty risky to label ALL muslims as people who lie, terrorists, and people who want to destory the US Government. That's clearly not the case.
Even in the midst of WWII, not all Germans were Nazis. Not all Christians babtize their children or go to church on Sunday.
The only way you could justify what the Imam said as a reason to keep a specific muslim out is if you could prove that he read what the Imam had to say and agreed with it. That could get tricky.
Like Christianity, Islam has a whole lot of interpreters.
Some would say Islam and Jihad are compatible.
Some would say it's not.
Keep out those who believe in Jihad, and allow in those who don't. That's pretty much what Visa screening is supposed to do (although they screw it up at times).
SCUM!
My view (which is becoming clearer and clearer) is that the Islamists that don't believe in Jihad are either backsliders, liberals or low believers, because it is certanially called for in the Koran and reioterated by hundreds and hundreds of the Imams (sp), and therefore the "true believers" are the Jihadists.
I agree on all points. It's mind boggling to me how little scrutiny has been applied, and the current state of affairs is only slightly improved. I guess there's some institutional reluctance since the borders are essentially wide open to illegal immigration anyway.
It's been a pleasure to exchange ideas with you. Welcome to FreeRepublic.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
