Posted on 01/12/2004 12:21:59 PM PST by Aquinasfan
To become a citizen of US one has to take an oath of allegiance. Is it ok to take the oath?
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.
and Allah Ta'ala Knows Best
Mufti Ebrahim Desai
Yes, but this isn't. "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."
Sharia law is Mohammedan law and is not the same thing as natural law. My understanding is that, under Sharia law, Jews and Christians are treated as dhimmini (second class citizens whose freedom of worship is severely restricted) and members of other religions are treated even worse.
Yes. Their timing was off when they pulled 9/11. They should have done it under Clinton. They also bit off more than they can chew when they attacked the US. They should have been satisfied with getting away with their violence in Nigeria, Chad, the Sudan, Ethiopia, Israel, Yugoslavia, Chechnya, India, Thailand and the Philipines.
To quote my co-worker: "Don't show me, I don't want to know."
I'm not sure who or what "Deen" is, but overall that sounds just about like what (former) Justice Roy Moore believes: he'll obey the Constitution and laws of the country so long as they do not interfere with his religious beliefs. In fact most religious persons would place their obedience to their religion above their obedience to the government.
One reason why Israel drives some of them them mad. They believe it is against the will of God that Jews should govern Muslims.
See #42.
Yeah. What a guy.
"He studied the principles of issuing Fatwas for two years in Dabhel under Mufti Ahmad Khanpuri Saheb, a renown and leading Scholar in India, and another year under the grand Mufti of India,"What the world needs now is more fatwa issuers.
Bad example. For decades the bishops chose to ignore civil laws regarding child molsters and handle the offenders according to canon laws. Only last year Cardinal Mahoney refused to hand over subpoenaed documents, citing pastoral privilege.
The imam is saying that the person who asked the question should break his vow to obey the civil law if the civil law contradicts Sharia law. Sharia law is not comparable to the natural law, which is the basis of civil law for Christians and the basis of civil law in our country. Sharia law is more analogous to Levitical law, a perverse Levitical law. One of the aspects of Sharia law that is inimical to our form of government is the fact that Jews and Christians are to be "tolerated" as long as they pay a special, punitive tax and refrain from public religious displays. Members of other religions are treated more harshly. Under Sharia law, Mohammedan converts to Christianity are to be executed.
Now how can anyone who believes that Sharia law should supersede American law take an oath of allegiance to uphold the Constitution of the United States, which prohibits the establishment of a State religion and authorizes free exercise of religion?
The imam seems to be sayng that the questioner may take an oath to obey the U.S. Constitution and laws, reserving the caveat that the law of Allah is supreme. Now I certainly don't agree with the principles of Islam, but many Christians think that God's law is supreme and would feel justified in breaking a government law if it directly contradicted a biblical commandment. The fact that Muslims consider Jews and Christians to be unequal to themselves is a different issue.
No, that's Sharia law. When you think "Sharia law," think Saudi Arabia or the Taliban. Or you can do a search and see what fun the Mohammedans are having in Nigeria in attempting to impose Sharia law on the Christians there.
Mohammedanism and religious tolerance are simply inimical. There's a reason why there are no democratic Islamic countries. Islam is fundamentally linked to the State, and the world is divided between the "world of peace" (the Mohammedan world) and the "world of war" (the non-Mohammedan world).
I don't know about the ancient history, but in recent decades the bishops did everything they could to keep criminal molestation cases from coming to the attention of the police and prosecutors.
Both by custom and law the churches are privileged communities in our society.
Other than the secrecy of the confession I'm not aware of any privileges churches have regarding criminal law.
If during the performing Wadu one passes gas should he repeat the wadu or continue it?
Correct. In other words, obey your government unless doing so will force you to sin. Nothing wrong with that (assuming that one has a decent idea of what sin is -- a more troubling question w/ regard to Islam).
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.