View Full Version : An Oath Violated?
Warrior-Mentor
11-17-2009, 15:50
An Oath Violated?
November 17, 2009
By Bill Warner
Center for Study of Political Islam (CSPI)
There is a very big problem that goes beyond the dead and wounded at Fort Hood. The jihadist "broke" his oath of service, but what was the oath worth before he started killing kafirs, unbelievers? Major Hasan swore:
I, Nidal Hasan, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God.
The value of an oath is determined by someone's ethics. So, what are Islamic ethics? Like all aspects of Islam, its ethics are found in the Koran, the Sira (Mohammed's biography) and the Hadith (his traditions). The Golden Rule is not in these texts. Instead, Islam has dualistic ethics, one set of rules for Muslims and one set for kafirs (non-Muslims). This means that Islam dictates brotherhood between Muslims, but not Muslims and kafirs.
The Koran defines kafirs. The word "unbeliever" does not remotely carry the meaning of kafir. A kafir is less than human. The word "kafir" is the worst word in the human language. Kafirs can be hated, assassinated, deceived, enslaved, robbed, plotted against, raped, tortured, mocked and demeaned in every way.
Mohammed repeatedly advised Muslims to deceive the kafir in order to advance Islam. Deceiving kafirs is Sunna, in the way of Mohammed, the perfect Muslim. A Muslim is to tell the truth to another brother Muslim, but, if it will advance Islam, they can deceive the kafir. Does this mean that a Muslim deceives kafirs all the time? Of course not, but if it advances Islam, deception is ethical.
Mohammed said: war is deception. Who is the war with? Kafirs are the only enemy of Islam. Mohammed was at a state of permanent war with them. During the last 9 years of his life, he launched and led a violent event on the average of every 6 weeks. He employed deception against the kafirs again and again. Deception is Sunna.
Jihad against the kafir is Sunna. Jihad is also successful. In brief: Mohammed preached the religion of Islam for 13 years in Mecca. He was driven out of Mecca and went to Medina. In Medina he became a politician and a warrior. Islam then grew from a religion to a political force, and Mohammed died without an enemy left standing. Jihad brought him total success.
Jihad can be any action or word that brings pressure against the kafir. Jihad is by the sword, pen, speech and money. A jihadist does not have to kill kafirs. This means that deception, jihad, can be practiced in many areas to advance Islam. For instance, a Muslim translator or FBI agent can "shade" their work to conceal facts from the kafirs.
And what if a Muslim in his role of translator or agent is caught concealing or deceiving, what will our leaders do? Nothing. Why? There is no one in leadership capacity that knows the doctrine and history of political Islam that has shown any knowledge to the public. Our leaders are willfully ignorant about Islam.
The question is: what is the worth of an oath of office from anyone who practices deception when it advances his agenda?
Let us look further at his oath: "all enemies, foreign or domestic". Major Hasan is a Muslim and a Muslim is a brother to all other Muslims and an enemy of the kafir. Why would any Muslim defend America from an Islamic threat? His true allegiance forbids this. Muslims owe their alliance to the umma, the Muslim community, not to a kafir nation.
Why would Hasan protect the Constitution? The Bill of Rights offers all peoples freedom of religion and freedom of speech. Islamic law, Sharia law, denies these rights to any human. An apostate of Islam can be killed and freedom of speech is specifically denied. For instance, Mohammed or the Koran may not be criticized.
Major Hasan, as a Muslim, is not a friend of any kafir soldier since there are 14 verses in the Koran that command a Muslim not to be a friend of a kafir. As a Muslim, he does not protect the Constitution, swore a meaningless oath, believes that his fellow soldiers are kafirs (less than human), serves the umma before our civilization and deceives kafirs when it advances Islam. He also believes that jihad, in all of its forms, is the true relationship between Muslims and kafirs.
So far we have only examined the military side of Islamic service, but this applies to FBI, police, Homeland Security, fire department, any other government service and citizenship. The doctrine of Islam makes a Muslim's oath meaningless when made to kafirs.
Houston, we have a problem.
Bill Warner, CSPI
http://www.politicalislam.com/blog/an-oath-violated/
longrange1947
11-17-2009, 22:11
And We still will not wake up. The PC crowd will drown this out as a bigoted rant.
At times, it seems as if no one remembers The Prince by Nicolo Machiavelli and the role that work has played in the development of modern politics. Or maybe that's just my public school education speaking.
Source is here (http://www.constitution.org/mac/prince18.htm).Therefore it is unnecessary for a prince to have all the good qualities I have enumerated, but it is very necessary to appear to have them. And I shall dare to say this also, that to have them and always to observe them is injurious, and that to appear to have them is useful; to appear merciful, faithful, humane, religious, upright, and to be so, but with a mind so framed that should you require not to be so, you may be able and know how to change to the opposite.
Warrior-Mentor
11-18-2009, 18:09
At times, it seems as if no one remembers The Prince by Nicolo Machiavelli and the role that work has played in the development of modern politics. Or maybe that's just my public school education speaking.
Source is here (http://www.constitution.org/mac/prince18.htm).
Well aware of the Prince, but confused by your comment.
Are you advocating what MAJ Hasan did? Or his act of deception?
In short, what's your point?
Well aware of the Prince, but confused by your comment.
Are you advocating what MAJ Hasan did? Or his act of deception?
In short, what's your point?My point is that the Muslim world does not have a monopoly on oath breaking and deception.
My point is that, if one were so inclined, one could take any text out of every context except the one that proves one's point.
As an example, one could set out to prove that the United Stats is a bastion of the West's unreliability. One could start with a selective--and limited--reading of U.S. history, then look at the popularity of a board game like "Risk", popular reality shows like "Survivor" and "Big Brother", throw in sales figures of America's most popular video games, college syllabi, the careers of certain political figures (on the left and the right), mosh it all together and argue "See, Americans immerse themselves in a culture of deception! Americans are treacherous!"
And if people don't agree with this interpretation, one can probably find more and more and more and more examples until one has incontrovertible proof of a corrupt and decadent American civilization. And if this second revised edition doesn't resonate, well, one can then excoriate the audience for not "getting it."
Or one could go back and (re)read the comments offered by one's professional peers, engage in some dialog with established experts in the field (and not just the one's you agree with), reassess the utility of one's sources, reanalyze the data, and, if necessary, do yet more research.
Slightly off topic. The search engine at Amazon.com is designed to maximize sales, not knowledge. There's nothing quite like walking up and down the aisles of a library or a book store, looking in every related subject, and putting eyes on every title on every shelf. And then selecting titles that expand the limits of one's own knowledge. And then doing it again and again.
(And again...God, I so need to get digital cable. I missed Castle on Monday.:()
frostfire
11-18-2009, 20:23
My point is that the Muslim world does not have a monopoly on oath breaking and deception.
My point is that, if one were so inclined, one could take any text out of every context except the one that proves one's point.
I agree with your first sentence. IMHOO, deception is human nature stemming from the drive to seek pleasure and avoid point. A good example is when toddler lie without having been taught to lie.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but the rest of your arguments suggest that the highlighted portion or even the entire article is taking out of context Islamic teaching and only cherrypicking parts that support the author's message.
Well then, please provide info that's contrary to the article. No, not such and such muslim is a good person, noble, loving and all that. I mean, please show parts of Islamic teaching that mandate love for Jews, Christian, Hindus, forgiveness, honorable service to an infidel country, and so on.
longrange1947
11-18-2009, 20:50
Along a similar line you have this.
Can a Muslim be a real American?
In light of the murders at Ft. Hood by a Muslim Officer (who had sworn to
defend the people, our Constitution and the United States) this article
becomes more timely and real than ever;
Can a good Muslim be a good American?
This question was sent to a friend who worked in Saudi Arabia for 20 years.
The following is his reply:
Theologically - no. Because his allegiance is to Allah, the moon god of
Arabia .
Religiously - no. Because no other religion is accepted by his Allah
except Islam.
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.
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
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.
I too learned from a Saudi officer that these are the reasons why a good Muslim can not live in the US.
So far we have only examined the military side of Islamic service, but this applies to FBI, police, Homeland Security, fire department, any other government service and citizenship. The doctrine of Islam makes a Muslim's oath meaningless when made to kafirs.
If this is in fact the case, then I've worked with some of the worst Muslims in the US Government; all of which have sworn the same oath, are US citizens, and have gone into overdrive when the "911" has been sent out. Many of these "American bad Muslims" have assisted in the ensuring several of the "good Muslims" got their wish to become shahids.
I assume the author is ONLY speaking from the Wahabbi viewpoint and the Shi'a & Sufi are kuffar as well?
Perhaps I'm mistaken, but it seems as if the author is implying that only Sunnis are the "correct" sect of Islam. How is that any different than making a general statement such as declaring that Southern Baptists are the only true Christians and the Pentecostals, the Presbyterians, the Lutherans, etc. are all heretics?
Can our Government operate as effectively during this Long War without Muslims serving in the other Agencies?
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but the rest of your arguments suggest that the highlighted portion or even the entire article is taking out of context Islamic teaching and only cherrypicking parts that support the author's message.FF--
My broader argument is as it was and shall be. First, there is more to the history of a people than just religion, politics, nationalism, education, war, economics, culture, or gender, or any of another dozen or more 'causal factors.' Before we engage in a war of all versus all, I think it would be prudent to cover at least some of the bases and in greater depth.
Second, even if one were to say "we're only going to talk about religion," I would hope for a higher degree of rigor. This rigor would include the enumeration of assumptions and tests of their validity. From there, on to other questions:
Is what is written what is read?
Is what is spoken what is heard?
Is that what is preached actually practiced?
Can we find the answers to these questions based upon selective reading of sources and anecdotal evidence?
(Statistically speaking, what is an acceptable sample size for over a billion people?)
Can our Government operate as effectively during this Long War without Muslims serving in the other Agencies?
This is a really interesting question. Lindy, I get the impression that you have some experience in this regard and I for one, would like to hear your opinion.
I mean, please show parts of Islamic teaching that mandate love for Jews, Christian, Hindus, forgiveness, honorable service to an infidel country, and so on.
You can’t- really…From purely a theological standpoint, those propagating moral equality will undoubtedly enumerate the following Surah (5:32) as evidence Islam teaches love, peace, kindness, and tolerance – “…Whoever kills an innocent, it as if he has killed all mankind…” – yet fail to do so in context, leaving out Surah 5:33 entirely – “…the punishment of those who wage war against Allah and his messenger…..is execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides…”
Who is considered by Islam to be innocent, or guilty?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maHSOB2RFm4
(Surah’s 5:51, 9:29, 4:91, 33:60, 23:97, 3:28, 6:45, 8:12, 47:4, 25:77, 40:35, etc., etc…)
First, there is more to the history of a people than just religion, politics, nationalism, education, war, economics, culture, or gender, or any of another dozen or more 'causal factors.
What exactly is the driving force which causes one to self detonate and become Istishhad/Shahid?
It is my hope, humans will turn away from Islamic teachings if exposed…expose it for what is.
Along a similar line you have this.
Can a Muslim be a real American?
In light of the murders at Ft. Hood by a Muslim Officer (who had sworn to
defend the people, our Constitution and the United States) this article
becomes more timely and real than ever;
Can a good Muslim be a good American?
This question was sent to a friend who worked in Saudi Arabia for 20 years.
The following is his reply:
Theologically - no. Because his allegiance is to Allah, the moon god of
Arabia .
Religiously - no. Because no other religion is accepted by his Allah
except Islam.
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.
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
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.
I too learned from a Saudi officer that these are the reasons why a good Muslim can not live in the US.
Would you be willing to tell this soldier he wasn't a good American?
Let me guess... he was just a bad Muslim, right?
DbeforeD
11-19-2009, 09:30
Would you be willing to tell this soldier he wasn't a good American?
Let me guess... he was just a bad Muslim, right?
In all honesty, according to the radical Muslim context, yes. I read that one fifth of the world wide Muslim community lives buy these radical views. I know that’s only one in five, but from a pool of billions of people, that number is plenty to make an impact. The Quran does not preach the freedom that our country was founded on.
I am in no means an expert on the subject of Islam. As an enlisted man, I have never been deployed to the desert. In my career so far, I’ve done two tours in Korea, where Muslims are few and far between. But even there, I was hated, sworn at, assaulted, and had garbage thrown on me. They didn’t hate me because on my race, religion, income status, or sex. They hated me because I was an AMERICAN. They didn’t have religious doctrine to guide them.
This is one of the reasons why I hold a huge amount of respect for the Quiet Professionals. One of their missions is go into a country where the feeling and policy of hatred for America has been stewing for decades, and assemble a fighting force. As an LEO you probably know the feeling of being disliked just for the fact you were an LEO. But even then, you were respected for your position, with some exceptions. There are always the few that don’t have any respect for anyone in the American community.
I wish you luck in getting to be one of these few. But keep in mind that you will be/are hated for the simple fact that you are an American. And in coming into the service, your chances of being shown the hatred increases tenfold, if not more. Just like these Quiet Professionals, other service members, myself, and this dead soldier. May he rest in peace.
In all honesty, according to the radical Muslim context, yes. I read that one fifth of the world wide Muslim community lives buy these radical views. I know that’s only one in five, but from a pool of billions of people, that number is plenty to make an impact. The Quran does not preach the freedom that our country was founded on.
I am in no means an expert on the subject of Islam. As an enlisted man, I have never been deployed to the desert. In my career so far, I’ve done two tours in Korea, where Muslims are few and far between. But even there, I was hated, sworn at, assaulted, and had garbage thrown on me. They didn’t hate me because on my race, religion, income status, or sex. They hated me because I was an AMERICAN. They didn’t have religious doctrine to guide them.
This is one of the reasons why I hold a huge amount of respect for the Quiet Professionals. One of their missions is go into a country where the feeling and policy of hatred for America has been stewing for decades, and assemble a fighting force. As an LEO you probably know the feeling of being disliked just for the fact you were an LEO. But even then, you were respected for your position, with some exceptions. There are always the few that don’t have any respect for anyone in the American community.
I wish you luck in getting to be one of these few. But keep in mind that you will be/are hated for the simple fact that you are an American. And in coming into the service, your chances of being shown the hatred increases tenfold, if not more. Just like these Quiet Professionals, other service members, myself, and this dead soldier. May he rest in peace.
Why are you allowing Radical muslims to define what a "true muslim" is?
By doing that, don't you think you are helping them with their ideological goals?
We should be looking for ways to boost support for the moderates and promote them as the norm, not the exception.
Warrior-Mentor
11-19-2009, 09:44
My point is that the Muslim world does not have a monopoly on oath breaking and deception.
Agreed, however...
My point is that, if one were so inclined, one could take any text out of every context except the one that proves one's point.
Can you show us where we have deception as a doctrine in our Constitution? Or any other LAW?
Because the discussion is about the law - the doctrine - where is it REQUIRED in our LAW?
The ad hominem below hardly meets the threshold of being a law - requirement for all citzens...
As an example, one could set out to prove that the United Stats is a bastion of the West's unreliability. One could start with a selective--and limited--reading of U.S. history, then look at the popularity of a board game like "Risk", popular reality shows like "Survivor" and "Big Brother", throw in sales figures of America's most popular video games, college syllabi, the careers of certain political figures (on the left and the right), mosh it all together and argue "See, Americans immerse themselves in a culture of deception! Americans are treacherous!"
With respect to Islamic Law, you imply that the doctrine of deception is taken out of context. Can you show how this is the case?
Not likely. Maybe for a while, until war or despair breaks their cycle of satisfaction.
As far as understanding the US Oath of Office one commissions into, a Muslim can never understand the meaning of our constitution, much less our Christian spirit found in each American community. When they utter their oath on the day of their commission (i remember mine well), they have no clue what it really, trully, spiritually means. Many prolly wonder why its such a big deal and why women (mothers, daughters, grandmothers, sisters) are even allowed in to the ceremony.:confused:
Though the ACLU has split religious hairs in the courtroom with regards to the context/spirit of the US Constitution, it is not that difficult. It will provoke the wicked, as they try to apply it to their convictions, eventually. Crazy how it works for lovers and against haters. I love the US Constitution, more than any man that wrote it. It is living and breathing, 250ish years later:lifter
American forefathers/mothers, living and forging the US Constitution are whom many of us are today. Our forefathers were not perfect and utterly brutal upon their fellow man.....at times out of need and at times out of greed.
But in the end, when you boil us down to the soul and bones of a people, we are peaceful, loving, family oriented citizens of a larger community. We choose to live on this continent and share and compete with our neighbors under the spirit of our constitution. (This competition is another story, and currently driven by a high level of greed and gaudiness, but NMAPs scenario or another will be around shortly to straighten us out.)
We are of many bloodlines, but only one religion. We do not word-force our religion upon our fellow non-Christian Americans (though many of my Christian brethren feel 'called' to try). We hope they see it in our lives as neighbors, peers, etc. If they reject it with words/actions, we move ahead hoping they change or never turn to violent actions (:rolleyes:). Always watching and never forgetting.
We should never under understand or forget their religious views. The Muslim will eventually have to choose his/her path. Now, in 2009, the Muslim American most know that the choice is coming their way. It is a matter of life and death to our nation and they are not going to quietly get by and ride the fence. Our constitution will leave no stone unturned......so to speak.
Muslims don't get it because they are not Christian. I hope many convert, because I can't tolerate their judgemental ways for much longer. Plan and simple.
It is statements such as this that show to the rest of the world what a bunch of hypocrits we are. IMHO
Your post is nothing but judgement against Muslims, yet you fault them for the same.
I understand how upset everyone is about what some Muslims are doing. I agree wholeheartedly with the statement that "Not all Muslims are terrorists, but it appears all terrorists are Muslim"
When we say things such as "bad Muslim" to describe a moderate Muslim, are we not turning them away from the things we want them to ascribe to? Who here would like to be called a "bad Christian" and then have someone try to tell them it's actually a good thing. So the Muslims in our military that have given the ulitmate sacrifice to our way of life can be thought of in terms of being a "bad Muslim". Can't we think of something else that describes them in a positive light? You all may say I am being PC, I grew up in a world where words meant something, and the word bad, has negative conotations, even if it is meant in a positive light. I would think that as intelligent as many on this board are, a different phrase could be found.
I am really and truly interested to hear what your opinions are on what should be done about Muslims in the military, given the Ft Hood shooting. Should they be prevented from joining? Should we dismiss the ones that are already in? Should we do a little more investigation into their private lives?
I don't have an answer, other than I think we need to start calling a spade a spade. If we see someone in our command, no matter what religion/sex/color, that shows any of the signs that the bastard in Ft Hood did, we do something about it, instead of being scared of the PC police.
I think that there are Muslims in the military that are here for the exact same ones you and I are. Are there ones here for the wrong reason, of course there are, just as there are gang bangers in for the wrong reasons, right wing fundamentalists/skin heads'etc etc that are in it for the wrong reason.
Lets start weeding out the ones that need to be weeded out, and leave those that are serving honorably to do the job we are paying them to do.
Why are you allowing Radical muslims to define what a "true muslim" is?
The Qur‘an, Hadith, and the Sira, are what defines a true Muslim.
"It is not for any believer, man or woman, when Allah and His Messenger have decreed a matter, to have the choice in the affair. Whosoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger has gone astray into manifest error." (al-Ahzab, 33.36)
The Qur‘an, Hadith, and the Sira, are what defines a true Muslim.
"It is not for any believer, man or woman, when Allah and His Messenger have decreed a matter, to have the choice in the affair. Whosoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger has gone astray into manifest error." (al-Ahzab, 33.36)
The words in the texts are not what is in conflict.... it's the differing interpretations that are.
Warrior-Mentor
11-19-2009, 11:03
r14.0 EXPLAINING THE KORAN BY PERSONAL OPINION
r14.1 The Prophet (PBUH) said,
"Whoever speaks of the Book of Allah from his own opinion is in error."
It goes on to state that the above is equally true of the hadith. (r14.3)
From Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law
Agreed, however...
Can you show us where we have deception as a doctrine in our Constitution? Or any other LAW?
Because the discussion is about the law - the doctrine - where is it REQUIRED in our LAW?
The ad hominem below hardly meets the threshold of being a law - requirement for all citzens...
With respect to Islamic Law, you imply that the doctrine of deception is taken out of context. Can you show how this is the case?Some of the questions about my post that you raise were initially asked in post #6 of this thread and addressed in post #9 in this thread.
In post #9, I (again) clarify the broader context.
greenberetTFS
11-19-2009, 13:10
My point is that the Muslim world does not have a monopoly on oath breaking and deception.
My point is that, if one were so inclined, one could take any text out of every context except the one that proves one's point.
As an example, one could set out to prove that the United Stats is a bastion of the West's unreliability. One could start with a selective--and limited--reading of U.S. history, then look at the popularity of a board game like "Risk", popular reality shows like "Survivor" and "Big Brother", throw in sales figures of America's most popular video games, college syllabi, the careers of certain political figures (on the left and the right), mosh it all together and argue "See, Americans immerse themselves in a culture of deception! Americans are treacherous!"
And if people don't agree with this interpretation, one can probably find more and more and more and more examples until one has incontrovertible proof of a corrupt and decadent American civilization. And if this second revised edition doesn't resonate, well, one can then excoriate the audience for not "getting it."
Or one could go back and (re)read the comments offered by one's professional peers, engage in some dialog with established experts in the field (and not just the one's you agree with), reassess the utility of one's sources, reanalyze the data, and, if necessary, do yet more research.
Slightly off topic. The search engine at Amazon.com is designed to maximize sales, not knowledge. There's nothing quite like walking up and down the aisles of a library or a book store, looking in every related subject, and putting eyes on every title on every shelf. And then selecting titles that expand the limits of one's own knowledge. And then doing it again and again.
(And again...God, I so need to get digital cable. I missed Castle on Monday.
Sigaba,
My only point here is "Castle" sucks,however the lady detective (Kate Beckett)Nicky Heat is real sexy ..................:D;):D
Big Teddy :munchin
Warrior-Mentor
11-19-2009, 13:18
Some of the questions about my post that you raise were initially asked in post #6 of this thread and addressed in post #9 in this thread.
In post #9, I (again) clarify the broader context.
I disagree that they were answered by post #9.
But then again, what could ever answer your epistemological pessimism?
And I'd prefer not to argue religion (although can do that too), better to dicuss the law,
which is a better (and hypothetically less emotional) platform for debate/discussion and comparison.
This is a really interesting question. Lindy, I get the impression that you have some experience in this regard and I for one, would like to hear your opinion.
Dennis,
Without trying to hijack this thread: there are many American citizens who are Muslims (both Sunni and Shi'a) are they are doing amazing work to protect this Nation. Are they "bad Muslims" or kuffar? I don't know. I'm glad they're out there doing what they do. The irony is that I'm fairly certain that some of them have helped ensure many men at Group, the Regiment, and other units have returned home to their families. In the end, isn't that what we all want to do? I prefer to judge a man by his actions & words.
Returning to the Colonel's intent to discuss Islamic Law: I am not an Islamic scholar and I do not speak Arabic therefore, I must rely on translations of the Qur'an or conversations with Muslims about their religion. (Do all Muslims read Arabic? Do all Muslims UNDERSTAND the Qur'an? Why are there so many Imams, Muftis, Qadis, Mujtahids, etc? Probably because Islamic Law is so DIFFICULT to understand!)
I do know a little about the Bible and, using my knowledge of that as a basis, I understand how an author can cite a verse to justify a point of view. A Christian cites biblical verses when justifying the bombing of an abortion clinic or killing an abortion doctor. Christian or terrorist?
The doctrine of Islam makes a Muslim's oath meaningless when made to kafirs.
The author cited some examples and even rambled by adding a little history of Muhammad. I don't know what the doctrine of Islam states about swearing an oath to kuffar. Again, using the Bible to demonstrate the spin and NOT to argue right or wrong BUT...what does the Bible say about Christians swearing an oath? Matthew 5:34-37
Back to Islamic Law...
I found this interesting.
THE SIGNIFICANCE FOR A MUSLIM OF SWEARING OR REFUSING TO SWEAR AN OATH ON THE QUR’AN by Hajj Ahmad Thomson
http://www.wynnechambers.co.uk/pdf/Swearing_an_Oath.pdf
The Qur’an stresses the importance of keeping one’s word: Qur‘an : 16.90-92
The Qur’an warns those who do not keep their word: Qur‘an : 3.76
The Qur’an gives good news to those who keep their word: Qur‘an : 23.1-11
Hasan made an oath before Allah. He violated that oath. I'm unable to find a Qur'anic verse that justifies breaking an oath to Allah in order to follow the words & actions of Muhammad.
I do appreciate what I believe was the author's intent: trying to highlight indicators in order to prevent this type of terrorism again. I didn't buy into his logic however. In my opinion, there have been more mass killings in the US caused by non-Muslims so I would argue that Islam is not an indicator. Is Islam an indicator of terrorist willing to attack the US? It would appear so.
I'm unable to find a Qur'anic verse that justifies breaking an oath to Allah in order to follow the words & actions of Muhammad.
Edited to add - being Allah’s messenger, the Prophet Mohammed did everything upon the order of Allah, therefore, he is perfect and noble example of what Muslims are to be, and an example to follow… like Christ is for Christianity…Buddha for Buddhists, etc..
Islam can only be truly known by understanding all three texts - The Qur’an, the Hadith, and the Sira - it is a trilogy…of texts…which comprise the religion…
Muhammad said: "If I take an oath and later find something else better, I do what is better and break my oath." - He admits he's a liar when it suits him and he advises it is acceptable for Muslims to do likewise:
“If you ever take an oath to do something and later on you find that something else is better, then you should expiate your oath and do what is better."
http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/bukhari/089.sbt.html#009.089.260
“By Allah, and Allah willing, if I take an oath and later find something else better than that. then I do what is better and expiate my oath.”
http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/bukhari/067.sbt.html#007.067.427
“The Prophet said, "Who is ready to kill….(a Jew)…."Do you like me to kill him?" The Prophet replied in the affirmative. Muhammad bin Maslama said, "Then allow me to say what I like." The Prophet replied, "I do (i.e. allow
you)”
http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/bukhari/052.sbt.html#004.052.271
So far as I am concerned, by Allah, if He so wills, I would not swear, but if, later on, I would see better than it, I (would break the vow) and expiate it and do that which is better.
http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/muslim/015.smt.html#015.4044
He who took an oath and (later on) found something better than that should do that, and expiate for (breaking) his vow.
http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/muslim/015.smt.html#015.4052
"He should expiate for (breaking) the vow and do that which is better."
http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/muslim/015.smt.html#015.4055
Allah - in the Qur’an, is described as being the best "deceiver"- "Khayrul-Makereen"
http://www.wikiislam.com/wiki/Allah_the_best_Deceiver#Literal_meaning_of_Makr
Islamic warfare with non-Muslims is eternal, “until all chaos ceases, and all religion belongs to Allah (Qur’an Surah 8:39, 2:193, 61:9, 9:29-30, 9:5, 8:71, 5:49-51, 4:89, 3:4).
Surf n Turf
11-19-2009, 20:46
epistemological pessimism
WM,
OK, I had to look it up.
You, sir, have been in D.C. to long – all them lawyer fella’s an such :D
SnT
longrange1947
11-19-2009, 21:31
Would you be willing to tell this soldier he wasn't a good American?
Let me guess... he was just a bad Muslim, right?
And I rest my case on the bigoted rant.
Now if I were your subordinate and I knew your views I would be hesitant to bring forward information.
A Good Muslim and a bad Muslim is set by the radicals. A Good Muslim is that Muslim that follows the tenant as shown in my other post. So yes, he was a bad Muslim and I welcome him into my Army.
In Saudi the individual that told me that a Good Muslim could not live in the US was a Major in the Royal Guard. Go figure. :munchin :rolleyes:
frostfire
11-19-2009, 23:19
FF--
My broader argument is as it was and shall be. First, there is more to the history of a people than just religion, politics, nationalism, education, war, economics, culture, or gender, or any of another dozen or more 'causal factors.' Before we engage in a war of all versus all, I think it would be prudent to cover at least some of the bases and in greater depth.
Second, even if one were to say "we're only going to talk about religion," I would hope for a higher degree of rigor. This rigor would include the enumeration of assumptions and tests of their validity. From there, on to other questions:
Is what is written what is read?
Is what is spoken what is heard?
Is that what is preached actually practiced?
Can we find the answers to these questions based upon selective reading of sources and anecdotal evidence?
(Statistically speaking, what is an acceptable sample size for over a billion people?)
Sigaba,
at this point my knowledge and experience pale in comparison with yours and most members on this board, so I can only throw rhetoric with some quote from a prominent historical figure to add flavor.
The idealist/engineer/scientist side of me agrees with the due diligence you propose. That would be the perfect solution. In a near-MAD-scenario-as-from-Sum-of-All-Fears type of situation, your level-headed counsel would probably save millions. However, right here and right now, not only the execution of those due-diligence will take a long time, when all the information is in it is unlikely that the picture would be clearer. If anything, it would muddle it worse. Information overload/TMI is counter productive more often than not. I don't really like the book, but Malcolm Gladwell's Blink illustrations come to mind. I see the good old agreeing to disagree is on the way.
“A good plan, violently executed now, is better than a perfect plan next week.”
“Take calculated risks. That is quite different from being rash.”
~General Patton
The soldier/patriot side of me agrees with what GratefulCitizen posted in a different thread:
"Whoever watches the wind will not plant;
whoever looks at the clouds will not reap."
-Ecclesiastes 11:4
Nuances can be debated forever.
The actions may be imperfect, but action is required now.
Errors will be made, injustices will occur.
Those can be redressed later.
Inaction will result in graver consequences than imperfect action.
However imperfect, I'll take an "us vs. them" mentality and let history judge.
GratefulCitizen
11-19-2009, 23:39
(Statistically speaking, what is an acceptable sample size for over a billion people?)
A rather vague question.
A few vague answers:
Given a population of 1 billion:
For a 95% confidence level and a margin of error of +/- 3 percentage points: 1067
For a 99% confidence level and a margin of error of +/- 3 percentage points: 1849
Number of crazed gun-wielding persons within range yelling "allahu akbar" required for me to shoot first and ask questions later: 1
frostfire
11-19-2009, 23:50
Number of crazed gun-wielding persons within range yelling "allahu akbar" required for me to shoot first and ask questions later: 1
that reminds me of when I was in charge of running the EST 2000. One shoot-don't shoot scenario involves an approaching vehicle at dusk so it was rather dark. ROE dictates spotting weapon and imminent threat first. Well, at the first shout of "allahu akbar," without clear view of the AK's, one trainee started blasting away :D Then the bad dudes started blasting as well. Needless to say, that was amusing
afchic posted:
I don't have an answer, other than I think we need to start calling a spade a spade. If we see someone in our command, no matter what religion/sex/color, that shows any of the signs that the bastard in Ft Hood did, we do something about it, instead of being scared of the PC police.
I think that there are Muslims in the military that are here for the exact same ones you and I are. Are there ones here for the wrong reason, of course there are, just as there are gang bangers in for the wrong reasons, right wing fundamentalists/skin heads'etc etc that are in it for the wrong reason.
Lets start weeding out the ones that need to be weeded out, and leave those that are serving honorably to do the job we are paying them to do.
I believe this is the dilemma. I do not believe anyone has a problem with a Muslim who can live and let live and adopt an American attitude. I mean that it's not our race or political affiliation that gives us freedom, but it's our belief in the constitution and our willingness to defend it that provides our freedom. It's also providence.
How do you weed out the problem folks? I agree that if someone evidences the behavior of the bastard at Fort Hood, he should be kicked out of the military. Once that is done, then what? Do we allow him to stay in this country?
I believe if the clergy of a church or imam of a mosque etc. is teaching the overthrow of our government or killing folks that are not of a particular religion, the leadership of that church needs to leave the country. If this is occurring and the folks who attend the church do not leave the church or the mosque, then they have put themselves at risk of having the same treatment applied. Of course, it immediately brings to mind the pastor Obama listened to for some number of years.
As afchic points out, this is a difficult problem and one where the solution is not obvious, at least not to me.
lindy posted
Without trying to hijack this thread: there are many American citizens who are Muslims (both Sunni and Shi'a) are they are doing amazing work to protect this Nation.
I do not believe elaborating on this subject is stealing the thread. I believe it would be good for all of us to know what these American/Muslims are doing to protect us. I'm not saying that you disclose details to put these folks at risk, but how are we to know, unless someone discloses it in general terms.
Rangertab1 posted
but good Muslims should be willing to open up their lives and social ties. Why not?
I'm not sure what this means. When you say open up their lives and social ties what are you saying? I think an example would assist me here.
The Reaper
11-22-2009, 10:45
"All" Japanese-Americans were not rounded up and interned.
TR
"All" Japanese-Americans were not rounded up and interned.
TR
Only about 10% of the Japanese Americans were interned from HI.
Around 120,000 Japanese Americans were interned during the war, mostly from along the west coast. Also it was very spotty on the picking up. Some areas everybody, other areas one or two here and there.
Warrior-Mentor
11-22-2009, 12:19
PS Any Christian/American woman should have long, loving conversations with a Muslim woman. Learn her theological views and how it applies to her and her children and her family and her husband and her neighbors and other men and other woman and other religions and heaven and how God/Allah views her as woman.
Pick up one of these by Nonie Darwish. Her father was a shahid (islamic martyr in support of violent jihad).
Cruel and Usual Punishment: The Terrifying Global Implications of Islamic Law
http://www.amazon.com/Cruel-Usual-Punishment-Terrifying-Implications/dp/1595551611/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1258913816&sr=8-1-spell
Now They Call Me Infidel: Why I Renounced Jihad for America, Israel, and the War on Terror
http://www.amazon.com/Now-They-Call-Infidel-Renounced/dp/1595230440/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1258913816&sr=8-2-spell
The Reaper
11-22-2009, 12:25
"Many" were 'rounded up'. Simply, "all" were controlled and monitered. Whether and how they were 'rounded up' is open to interpretation.
Would it work today if "many/all" persons fitting the profile of said groups were 'rounded up'?
Hell, I may be in one of the groups fitting a profile that needs to be 'rounded up'.:munchin
Pete is correct.
However, if you tried to detain a single person today without probable cause and due process, 50 lawyers and the ACLU would be filing petitions within minutes of the arrest in courts favorable to their cause, the AG would support them, and Congress would immediately demand their release. We have truly lost our will to win, as well as our balls.
I would say that the way to go would be to immediately place suspected extremist leaders and religious figures under electronic and physical surveillance, and develop a fast track for detention and deportation (with an imbedded microchip) once their contacts have been identified. Track the donors and their money flow back to the source, and take appropriate action. Members of their inner circles and any potential recruits for terrorist causes should be surveilled and apprehended as they show any signs of going active. Muslim immigration, especially from radical countries should be extremely thoroughly scrutinized. No good reason to come here or any indication of anti-US sentiments and no visa. Actively track down and deport immigrants from Muslim countires who are in violation of their visas. Honestly, I suspect that you could roll up 100,000 people who mean us harm and who are in this country right now pretty quickly. Whether you could try and convict them is another matter altogether.
Alternate plan would be to see if we could go after them under RICO, sue their front organizations (like CAIR), and bankrupt them with government legal actions. Hey, it worked against the Klan and the Nazis here.
TR
When we say things such as "bad Muslim" to describe a moderate Muslim, are we not turning them away from the things we want them to ascribe to? Who here would like to be called a "bad Christian" and then have someone try to tell them it's actually a good thing.
I am a bad Christian. I take great satisfaction in hurting people and breaking stuff when it benefits the security of my nation. I feel absolutely no remorse for the recipients of my attentions, either.
I understand that circumstances have been set aside for Christians to serve in the military and do the things we do without finding damnation for their efforts. I simply don't possess the requisite desire to seek forgiveness for snuffing the current scum we are eradicating.
So be it.
I don't have an answer, other than I think we need to start calling a spade a spade.
I very much agree.
So let's start by knocking off the illusion of persecution of poor muslims in this country and around the world.
As I recall, as I was standing in the barber shop with my MCT students, getting their haircuts before they graduated, and I looked up at the television on the morning of September 11, 2001, in time to see the second aircraft hit the WTC, we didn't start this war. No more than we provoked the Japanese to bomb Pearl Harbor.
We have muslims currently serving in uniform. Dandy. If they are performing their duties, then they meet the standard, and should be commended. But they don't deserve special "snowflake" status just because they are serving. And to even begin to conceive that they might have a grievance because someone is talking about vetting them more thoroughly is laughable. They are in the military/FBI/.gov what have you. When you sign on for government service, you hold the public trust, and have no claims to a personal life that the government doesn't bestow out of trust. The Nisei that signed on after Pearl Harbor knew what they were getting into and put up with far worse. And they gave far more in return.
Until we see a similar level of selflessness and dedication by the muslims currently serving, AS A WHOLE, they should be monitored, evaluated, investigated, and counseled. Until our trust is earned. That goes double for the muslims living in the civilian sector in this country.
The Reaper is absolutely correct. This nation has lost its balls. You can either politic with your enemy, or you can make war on him. Pick one. They are mutually exclusive and cannot coexist.
And if you're going to make war: War to the knife, and knife to the hilt. No quarter, and no compromise.