Professional Soldiers ® - View Single Post

Warrior-Mentor · 06-06-2009, 20:19

It’s the Law, Stupid.
Thomas Paine
5 June 2009

Yesterday, President Obama said “…America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition.”[1] Human rights and freedom of speech issues aside, I’d like to raise a couple legal issues with the President’s speech yesterday.

As a graduate of Harvard Law, a former Constitutional Law Professor, and as the President of the United States preparing to give a speech on Islam, you might expect that he’d be interested in at least a cursory investigation of Islamic Law before making proclamations in front of a world audience about that religion. Perhaps he’d even want to ensure his statements were supported by the very Constitution he has sworn to uphold.

The President continued: “Freedom of religion is central to the ability of peoples to live together. We must always examine the ways in which we protect it. For instance, in the United States, rules on charitable giving have made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation. That is why I am committed to working with American Muslims to ensure that they can fulfill zakat.”[2]

Zakat.

By Islamic law, Zakat means “growth blessings, an increase in good, purification or praise. In sacred law it is the name for a particular amount of property that must be payed [sic] to certain kinds of recipients under the conditions below.”[3]

Sounds a lot like charity right? More like a religious tax – because zakat is a mandatory annual payment required of every free Muslim man woman and child.[4] “It is obligatory to distribute one’s zakat among eight categories of recipients, one-eighth of the zakat to each category.”[5]

The categories?

1. The poor,
2. Those short of money,
3. Zakat workers,
4. Those whose hearts are to be reconciled (including those “…who fight an enemy for us at considerable expense or trouble to themselves.”[6])
5. Slaves who are purchasing their freedom,
6. Those who have debts…
7. THOSE FIGHTING FOR ALLAH. “H8.17 The seventh category is those fighting for Allah, meaning people engaged in Islamic military operations for whom no salary has been allotted in the Army roster. They are given enough to suffice them for the operation, even if affluent; of weapons, mounts, clothing, and expenses.”[7]
8. the traveller in need of money.

Keep in mind that it is a sin for a Muslim not to pay the zakat.[8] So by Islamic law, every Muslim is religiously obligated to financially support Jihad – and the President of the United States just announced that he’s going to help them do just that.

Does it bother you that the President of the United States just promised to help fund Jihadis?
As a Citizen, a Patriot and a Service Member whose friends are in the line of fire, it disturbs me deeply.

But wait, didn’t the President just swear an oath in January to "…solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”[9]?

Did he get the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make this Treaty? Maybe he didn’t need it.

If “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,”[10] can the President do so by executive proclamation? Should he? Did he even stop to ask this question?

Since when do we “…consider it part of [his] responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear."[11]?

Is he going to fight negative stereotypes of Christianity? Judaism? Hinduism? Buddhism? Mormonism? The Church of Scientology?

Is this insanity? Or is he leading us towards dhimmitude[12]?

And while he’s off fighting negative stereotypes, who is going to be performing the duties of the President?

Would it be a negative stereotype to quote the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) from Islamic Law?

“I have been commanded to fight people until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Mohammed is the Messenger of Allah, and perform the prayer and pay zakat. If they say it, they have saved their blood and possessions from me, except for the rights of Islam over them.”[13]

“Fight those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day and who forbid not20what Allah and His messenger have forbidden – who do not practice the religion of truth, being those who have been given the Book – until they pay the poll tax out of hand and are humbled.”[14]

As a graduate of Harvard Law, a Constitutional Law Professor and someone who has received a daily threat briefing for at least the last six months – he’s either naïve to the point of professional negligence, or he’s subversive to the point of impeachment.

I don’t know. But from someone who has promised us unprecedented transparency in his administration,[15] we should find out.

Perhaps it’s time the President take look around the White House Office of Legal Counsel and figure out whose head needs to roll.

If he won't do that, then maybe he needs to go back and re-read Article II, Section 4:

“Disqualification: The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

Because unless he's secretly amended our Constitution, Article VI still commands that:
"This Constitution...shall be the supreme law of the land."[16]

________________
Thomas Paine, author of Common Sense, the Rights of Man and The Crisis, is the inspiration for this piece.

[1] President Obama; Cairo, Egypt; 4 June 2009.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Nuh Ha Mim Keller, Reliance of the Traveler: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law (Beltsville, MD: Amana Publications, 1994) p246.(h1.0)
[4] Ibid, p246.(h1.1)
[5] Ibid, pp266-267. (h8.7)
[6] Ibid, p271. (h8.14(2))
[7] Ibid, p272. (h8.17)
[8] Ibid, p247. (h1.3)
[9] U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1.
[10] U.S. Constitution, Amendment 1.
[11] President Obama; Cairo, Egypt; 4 June 2009.
[12] http://www.dhimmitude.org/ the legal and social conditions of Jews and Christians subjected to Islamic rule. Dhimmi was the name applied by the Arab-Muslim conquerors to indigenous non-Muslim populations who surrendered by a treaty (dhimma) to Muslim domination.
[13] Keller, p599. (o9.0(3))
[14] Koran 9:29
[15] http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_...penGovernment/
[16] U.S. Constitution, Article VI

06-06-2009, 20:19	#1
Warrior-Mentor Quiet Professional Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: America, the Beautiful Posts: 3,193	It's the law, Stupid. It’s the Law, Stupid. Thomas Paine 5 June 2009 Yesterday, President Obama said “…America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition.”[1] Human rights and freedom of speech issues aside, I’d like to raise a couple legal issues with the President’s speech yesterday. As a graduate of Harvard Law, a former Constitutional Law Professor, and as the President of the United States preparing to give a speech on Islam, you might expect that he’d be interested in at least a cursory investigation of Islamic Law before making proclamations in front of a world audience about that religion. Perhaps he’d even want to ensure his statements were supported by the very Constitution he has sworn to uphold. The President continued: “Freedom of religion is central to the ability of peoples to live together. We must always examine the ways in which we protect it. For instance, in the United States, rules on charitable giving have made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation. That is why I am committed to working with American Muslims to ensure that they can fulfill zakat.”[2] Zakat. By Islamic law, Zakat means “growth blessings, an increase in good, purification or praise. In sacred law it is the name for a particular amount of property that must be payed [sic] to certain kinds of recipients under the conditions below.”[3] Sounds a lot like charity right? More like a religious tax – because zakat is a mandatory annual payment required of every free Muslim man woman and child.[4] “It is obligatory to distribute one’s zakat among eight categories of recipients, one-eighth of the zakat to each category.”[5] The categories? 1. The poor, 2. Those short of money, 3. Zakat workers, 4. Those whose hearts are to be reconciled (including those “…who fight an enemy for us at considerable expense or trouble to themselves.”[6]) 5. Slaves who are purchasing their freedom, 6. Those who have debts… 7. THOSE FIGHTING FOR ALLAH. “H8.17 The seventh category is those fighting for Allah, meaning people engaged in Islamic military operations for whom no salary has been allotted in the Army roster. They are given enough to suffice them for the operation, even if affluent; of weapons, mounts, clothing, and expenses.”[7] 8. the traveller in need of money. Keep in mind that it is a sin for a Muslim not to pay the zakat.[8] So by Islamic law, every Muslim is religiously obligated to financially support Jihad – and the President of the United States just announced that he’s going to help them do just that. Does it bother you that the President of the United States just promised to help fund Jihadis? As a Citizen, a Patriot and a Service Member whose friends are in the line of fire, it disturbs me deeply. But wait, didn’t the President just swear an oath in January to "…solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”[9]? Did he get the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make this Treaty? Maybe he didn’t need it. If “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,”[10] can the President do so by executive proclamation? Should he? Did he even stop to ask this question? Since when do we “…consider it part of [his] responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear."[11]? Is he going to fight negative stereotypes of Christianity? Judaism? Hinduism? Buddhism? Mormonism? The Church of Scientology? Is this insanity? Or is he leading us towards dhimmitude[12]? And while he’s off fighting negative stereotypes, who is going to be performing the duties of the President? Would it be a negative stereotype to quote the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) from Islamic Law? “I have been commanded to fight people until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Mohammed is the Messenger of Allah, and perform the prayer and pay zakat. If they say it, they have saved their blood and possessions from me, except for the rights of Islam over them.”[13] “Fight those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day and who forbid not20what Allah and His messenger have forbidden – who do not practice the religion of truth, being those who have been given the Book – until they pay the poll tax out of hand and are humbled.”[14] As a graduate of Harvard Law, a Constitutional Law Professor and someone who has received a daily threat briefing for at least the last six months – he’s either naïve to the point of professional negligence, or he’s subversive to the point of impeachment. I don’t know. But from someone who has promised us unprecedented transparency in his administration,[15] we should find out. Perhaps it’s time the President take look around the White House Office of Legal Counsel and figure out whose head needs to roll. If he won't do that, then maybe he needs to go back and re-read Article II, Section 4: “Disqualification: The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Because unless he's secretly amended our Constitution, Article VI still commands that: "This Constitution...shall be the supreme law of the land."[16] ________________ Thomas Paine, author of Common Sense, the Rights of Man and The Crisis, is the inspiration for this piece. [1] President Obama; Cairo, Egypt; 4 June 2009. [2] Ibid. [3] Nuh Ha Mim Keller, Reliance of the Traveler: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law (Beltsville, MD: Amana Publications, 1994) p246.(h1.0) [4] Ibid, p246.(h1.1) [5] Ibid, pp266-267. (h8.7) [6] Ibid, p271. (h8.14(2)) [7] Ibid, p272. (h8.17) [8] Ibid, p247. (h1.3) [9] U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1. [10] U.S. Constitution, Amendment 1. [11] President Obama; Cairo, Egypt; 4 June 2009. [12] http://www.dhimmitude.org/ the legal and social conditions of Jews and Christians subjected to Islamic rule. Dhimmi was the name applied by the Arab-Muslim conquerors to indigenous non-Muslim populations who surrendered by a treaty (dhimma) to Muslim domination. [13] Keller, p599. (o9.0(3)) [14] Koran 9:29 [15] http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_...penGovernment/ [16] U.S. Constitution, Article VI Last edited by Warrior-Mentor; 06-06-2009 at 20:26.
Warrior-Mentor is offline