Is it OK for a Muslim to take the oath of allegiance to the United States to become a citizen?

ask the imam ^ | ask the imam

[RIGHT IN SEATTLE]

Only when the flash of hell lands on mecca!!!!!!

[bootless]

I love these. So, it boils down to "Lie if you have to." How honorable. /sarcasm

[The Grammarian]

That certainly doesn't make them sound very trustworthy as citizens.

On the other hand, we Christians are called to follow God first, not the state. So the potential for a conflict of interests exists for us as well, even if it is vastly less than that of the Muslim.

[dighton]

Swear without reservation, or be damned.

[Coeur de Lion]

Render unto Caesar those things which are Caesar's and render unto God those things which are God's.

[The Grammarian]

Render unto Caesar those things which are Caesar's and render unto God those things which are God's.

Good argument for paying my taxes. Thanks. ;P I had Acts 4:19,20 in mind more than anything. In the New Living Translation, it runs something like this "Do you think that God wants us to obey you rather than him?"

[Terridan]

You see what happened at Guantanamo, with our "own" US Military "muslims"... jailed!!! Should be shot for treason.
PS. Classified docs were confiscated that were headed to Syria... Iran and Syria next cross hairs...
God Bless.

[Salman]

And where exactly does the Jewish 'American's' loyalty lie?

None of my Jewish ancestors had any reservations taking that oath. Nor anyone I know about.

[river rat]

Horrors of horrors....

Must we now assume that there can never be trust between infidels and Muslims?

Does this mean that a Muslim may lie, swear, promise, contract, deceive or commmit any deception to gain entry or trust -- but may revoke any committment to serve directives from some Islamic cleric?

Doesn't sound like a plan for living with these folks...

Semper Fi

[Coeur de Lion]

Good argument for paying my taxes. Thanks. ;P I had Acts 4:19,20 in mind more than anything. In the New Living Translation, it runs something like this "Do you think that God wants us to obey you rather than him?"

I find it rather difficult to believe that Matthew 22:21's original Greek translates into "Do you think that God wants us to obey you rather than him?" This actually seems to be nothing more than a paraphrasing of Acts 4:19.

[Arthur McGowan]

Nabi (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam) said, ‘There is no obedience for the creation by disobeying the Creator.’ (Mirqaat vol.7 pg.217; Imdadiyyah).

So profound.

[Elsie]

On the other hand, we Christians are called to follow God first, not the state.

---

Then how do we explain this?

---

Romans 13
1. Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.
2. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.
3. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you.
4. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.
5. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience.
6. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing.

[Aquinasfan]

So the potential for a conflict of interests exists for us as well, even if it is vastly less than that of the Muslim.

True, although Christians follow the natural law which is universal and intuitive to all people, as opposed to Sharia law. The larger problem that I see, from what little I know of Mohammedanism, is that the religion demands the unity of state and religion. That is, it is the obligation of every Mohammedan to bring about a Mohammedan state until the entire world is Mohammedan.

The old Catholic Encyclopedia summarizes the situation nicely:

In matters political Islam is a system of despotism at home and aggression abroad. The Prophet commanded absolute submission to the imâm. In no case was the sword to be raised against him. The rights of non-Moslem subjects are of the vaguest and most limited kind, and a religious war is a sacred duty whenever there is a chance of success against the "Infidel". Medieval and modern Mohammedan, especially Turkish, persecutions of both Jews and Christians are perhaps the best illustration of this fanatical religious and political spirit.

Has anything changed since this was written in 1911, except for the rise of even more fanatical Mohammedan sects like Wahabism?

[freeangel]

The way the pledge reads now, it IS one nation under God, clearly putting God in the drivers seat. This is what "offends" so many aetheists and cult worshippers such as Islam who insist that the God behind this country and OUR code of laws be dismanteled and His followers be eliminated one way or another.

[Kingasaurus]

"2. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. "

I suppose the American Revolution was against God's will, then?

[CodeMonkey]

And those of us who are just generic monotheists can pledge allegiance to the US without reservation.

[CodeMonkey]

I have seen a few hardliners argue exactly that and that our constitution should be abolished because it doesn't acknowledge God's sovereignty over the US and it is now a "pagan idol" because of how much reverence it has from the people.

[ArGee]

I love these. So, it boils down to "Lie if you have to." How honorable. /sarcasm

I'm not sure I agree. As a Christian, I honestly believe I could answer yes to all those questions (Born in the USA so not a personal issue). However, I also understand there may be circumstances where I may receive a lawful order which I belive G-d commands me to violate. Just, for example, if I were told to go into a peaceful house full of peaceful people and remove a six-year-old child at gunpoint. I might never have thought I would be asked to do such a thing when swearing an oath. But I would not consider myself in violation of that oath when such an unusual order came in and I could not, in good conscience, comply.

Now if Sharia specifically requires that Muslims maintain allegiance to Arab princes, then it is an outright lie.

Shalom.