An Oath Violated?

[Warrior-Mentor]

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]

And We still will not wake up. The PC crowd will drown this out as a bigoted rant.

[Sigaba]

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.

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]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

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.

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?

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by Warrior-Mentor

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]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

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.

[Warrior-Mentor]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

My point is that the Muslim world does not have a monopoly on oath breaking and deception.

Agreed, however...

Originally Posted by Sigaba

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...

Originally Posted by Sigaba

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?

[greenberetTFS]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

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 ..................

Big Teddy