Can a devout Muslim be an American patriot and a loyal citizen?

email ^ | March 2006 | email

[Louisiana]

Can a devout Muslim be an American patriot and a loyal citizen?

Consider this:

Theologically, no. Because his allegiance is to Allah, the moon god of Arabia.

Scripturally, no. Because his allegiance is to the five pillars of Islam and the Quran (Koran).

Geographically, no. Because his allegiance is to Mecca, to which he turns in prayer five times a day.

Socially, no. Because his allegiance to Islam forbids him to make friends with Christians or Jews.

Politically, no. Because he must submit to the mullah (spiritual leaders), who teach annihilation of Israel and destruction of America, the great Satan.

Domestically, no, because he is instructed to marry four women and beat and scourge his wife when she disobeys him (Quran 4:34).

Religiously, no. Because no other religion is accepted by his Allah except Islam (Quran, 2:256)

Intellectually, no, because he cannot accept the American Constitution since it is based on Biblical principles and he believes the Bible to be corrupt.

Philosophically, no, because Islam, Muhammad, and the Quran do not allow freedom of religion and expression. Democracy and Islam cannot co - exist. Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic.

Spiritually, no, because when we declare "one nation under God," the Christian's God is loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred to as our heavenly father, nor is he ever called love in the Quran's 99 excellent names.

Therefore after much study and deliberation....perhaps we should be very suspicious of ALL MUSLIMS in this country. They obviously cannot be both good Muslims and good Americans. Call it what you wish...it's still the truth. If you find yourself intellectually in agreement with the above, perhaps you will share this with your friends. The more who understand this, the better it will be for our country.

[philetus]

I meant to put the link in too

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5024

While you're at it

The Ultimate Goal of Islam

http://answering-islam.org.uk/Authors/Arlandson/ultimate_goal.htm

[ARealMothersSonForever]

In contrast, Muslims who slashed and burned and forced conversions did not wander off from the origins of Islam, but followed it closely. It is a plain and unpleasant historical fact that in the ten years that Muhammad lived in Medina (622-632), he either sent out or went out on seventy-four raids, expeditions, or full-scale wars, which range from small assassination hit squads to the Tabuk Crusade, described above (see 630). Sometimes the expeditions did not result in violence, but a Muslim army always lurked in the background. Muhammad could exact a terrible vengeance on an individual or tribe that double-crossed him. These ten years did not know long stretches of peace.

Some will choose to make peace with the barbarians at the gate. I choose to be called the bigot and Islamophobe, xenophobe, and hegemonist. Tough t!tt!e said the k!tt!e, but the mitten fits fine.

[marron]

there is no moral equivalence between Islam and Christianity

I think you've nailed it.

The problem isn't that a muslim would put his religion first, the problem is that the religion is Islam.

The problem isn't that a muslim might put God ahead of country; we all do that. Thats what this country was built for. The problem is that the more devoted he is to Islam, the more certain it is that he doesn't know God. The religion he follows allows no room for conscience, no room for freedom, and ultimately no room for people.

When I was in the middle east I made it a point to read the Koran, and to re-read the Bible. At a certain level there are similarities between the Koran and the Old Testament. But the Koran was written during wartime, and its scriptures are mostly exhortations preparing the men for battle. By taking those pre-battle speeches and making them into "holy scripture" you guarantee endless, eternal warfare. Its legitimate to tell your men to destroy the enemy as you march into battle. Take those instructions, and turn them into "scripture", thus making them universal, and you have what we see, a prescription for endless strife and bloodshed.

Christians sometimes fall short of "loving their enemies"; but in Islam there is no such call to love your enemy. It isn't there. From small differences come huge differences. If you can't love your enemy, you can never live at peace with him. You can never respect him enough to respect his rights or to admit that he has rights. You can never stop being enemies.

Compare the way Islam treats subjugated people, and the way we treated, say postwar Japan or Germany. Or Afghanistan.

A religion that understands God as being both source and object of love, versus one that sees God as being the object only of slavish obedience; from that small difference comes all the rest.

[Jeff Gordon]

All Muslims are liars just because they are Muslims.

Of course not. Muslims can only lie under specific circumstances:

Rasulullah [sallallaahu alayhi wasallam] said, ‘Lies are only permitted in three instances, for a man to make his wife happy, in war and for reconciliation between people.’ Whatever Rasulullah [sallallaahu alayhi wasallam] says is a revelation from Allah.

Knowing this, how can one ever trust a Muslim?

[ARealMothersSonForever]

Lies are only permitted in three instances, for a man to make his wife happy, in war and for reconciliation between people

This explains everything. Especially for the dhimmi inclined, and they will howl about being called upon this.

[Pelham]

Somehow, I will find a way to refute your claim that there was not one single Japanese national that was loyal to the Emperor anywhere on the US west coast.

The whole point of the West Coast Relocation camps was to break up a spy ring of some 100 people. We had broken the Japanese naval and diplomatic codes and knew the identity of the spies. But if we rounded up just the spies then we would have tipped our hand, and Japan would have changed their codes. So the arrest of the spies was masked by implementing the Relocation Camps. This was revealed when the MAGIC information was declassified but apparently it isn't widely known. Ron Lewin's book 'THE AMERICAN MAGIC' may be a source for you.

[ARealMothersSonForever]

The whole point of the West Coast Relocation camps was to break up a spy ring of some 100 people. We had broken the Japanese naval and diplomatic codes and knew the identity of the spies

Wonderful. Since we know the identity of each and every "Islamic spy", I can rest easy. Is it wrong to inter people that hold a basic tenet for the destruction of the United States of America? This is a very simple yes or no question. Interpretation of arabic will not be considered.

[ARealMothersSonForever]

The whole point of the West Coast Relocation camps was to break up a spy ring of some 100 people,

Your attempt to go from "nobody" to "100" is blatant. You support the destruction of our country. A pox upon you and yours. I knew you when you trashed my father, cousins, and uncles returning from Korea and Viet Nam. May your family name be cursed for all time and eternity. This is not as harsh as what we have gifted your women into.

[Cruz]

Awesome post

[Question_Assumptions]

Pay your tax, and enjoy your subservient position. My progeny and I will fight you to the death. Guess who will be triumphant.

Have fun in the bunker.

[Question_Assumptions]

Of course not. Muslims can only lie under specific circumstances:

And if they don't lie under those circumstances or lie under any other circumstance, Muhammed is going to ring their doorbell and decapitate them?

Rasulullah [sallallaahu alayhi wasallam] said, `Lies are only permitted in three instances, for a man to make his wife happy, in war and for reconciliation between people.' Whatever Rasulullah [sallallaahu alayhi wasallam] says is a revelation from Allah.

Not true. Muslims believe that what he said while being spoken to by the angel/Allah is a revelation from Allah. That's not everything he said. The quote you cite is from a Hadith, not the Koran. While Osama bin Laden would like all Muslims to treat all of those works as having equal authority, only the Koran really has the authority, according to Muslims, that you are claiming for this quote. Should I assume that this means that you personally also believe that the war justifies lies, exaggerations, and misrepresentations, too? Or are you simply trusting someone else willing to lie, exaggerate, and misrepresent Islam because they believe they are at war with Islam? Check the quote and it's source.

Knowing this, how can one ever trust a Muslim?

As I've pointed out, a Muslim friend and his wife have no problem making distinctions between what is in the Koran and what isn't, even if you won't. I should also point out that the ethics you detail are not that different from those followed, in practice, by a lot of non-Muslims, including a lot of Christians and a lot of Freepers. I've been embarassed quite a few times by the organized pro-life movement, with whom I often agree, saying things that were not true because they felt the importance of their battle justified it. I've seen Christians and conservatives do the same thing on a variety of other issue, including this one. Knowing this, how can I ever trust a Christian, a conservative, or a Freeper? The answer is that I assess each person by what they say and do, not what they are or what I imagine is secretly going on in their head.

[Question_Assumptions]

This explains everything. Especially for the dhimmi inclined, and they will howl about being called upon this.

And these three reasons differ from the reasons why plenty of people lie in practice, Freepers and Christians include, how, exactly? I would argue, for example, that plenty of Freepers are taking liberties with the truth when it comes to Islam because they feel they are at war with Islam. Is this wrong? Yes, you can criticize Muhammed for not setting the bar higher and I'd probably agree with you. That said, all this quote does is condone the situational ethics that I think large majorities of people follow in practice in those situations.

[Question_Assumptions]

Somehow, I will find a way to refute your claim that there was not one single Japanese national that was loyal to the Emperor anywhere on the US west coast.

So if one Japanese person was guilty of being a traitor, all were and anything we wanted to do to any Japanese person from that point on was justified?

[The Toll]

I don't care.

[FBD]

Below comments and links are by experts on Islam, Dr Ali Sina, and author of "Leaving Islam", by Ibn Warraq.

They warn of Islams dangers to a free society. They document the testimonies of Muslims who have left Islam, and had their lives threatened. According to them, the penalty for leaving Islam (apostasy) is death. Both Sina and Warraq are EX-Muslim Arabs, so you cannot honestly accuse them of racism, or bigotry.

---

Why I Left Islam, By Dr Ali Sina

Dr Sina:
"I vehemently reject any recognition of Islam as a legitimate religion and call for its total denunciation and ban. If seventy years ago someone called for total denunciation of Nazism, he probably would have been called an extremist, yet a decade later everyone adopted that view. Should we not learn from history? Evil must be rejected completely and without reservation."-Dr Ali Sina:
"The penalty of apostasy in Islam is death. Here is my own testimony.":

http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina/why_i_left_islam.htm

---

Ex-Muslim testimonial book by Ibn Warraq:

---

Testimonials by ex-Muslims about leaving Islam

---

.

[MrLee]

It's your back, but their Koran says they are to kill you when the time comes. The Bible doesn'y say that!

[muawiyah]

Depends to some degree on where they lived and what brand of Islam they're leaving.

It's simply not a monolithic system.

[pissant]

True. But Turks are muslims, and I'd feel safer in Turkey than in many parts of the non-muslim world.

[righttackle44]

"To prove to the Armadillo that it can be done?"

As good an answer as any I've ever seen.

[FBD]

>"It's simply not a monolithic system."<


-Well, I don't know, as I'm ony relying on the expert testimony of Dr. Sina, who claims:
http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina/WhyILeftIslamp3.htm

"Thus we have two Islams. One that makes strives to attribute mystical significance and otherworldly meanings to the inane teachings of the Quran, as is professed by Sufis, and the other that rejects any interpretation of these verses beyond their literal meanings, as is practiced by the majority of Muslims with their hub in Saudi Arabia among the Wahhabis. And of course there is a myriad of sects that go in between these two extremes, each interpreting the Quran according to their own whims and caprices, each calling others mortad or heretics and constantly making war among themselves to impose their own "right" version of the pure Islam on others.

However, the real Islam is not what its philosophers and mystics have inferred but what is in the Quran and that is the Islam of the fundamentalist and the terrorist. The real Islam is the Islam that abuses women, that allows men to beat their wives, that imposes penalty tax on the religious minorities, that wants to dominate the world by subduing all the non-Muslims, that calls for Jihad and killing the non-believers until Islam becomes the only dominant religion of the World.

My rejection of Islam is not based on the bad deeds of the Muslims but on the bad teachings of its holy book and on the bad deeds of its founder."- Dr Sina

http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina/WhyILeftIslamp3.htm