New Blog Post

Obama Alters U.S. Oath of Allegiance in Compliance with Islamic Law

Reblogged from Raymond Ibrahim on August 6, 2015

The Obama administration recently made changes to the Oath of Allegiance to the United States in a manner very conducive to Sharia, or Islamic law.

On July 21, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced some “modifications” to the Oath of Allegiance which immigrants must take before becoming naturalized.

The original oath required incoming citizens to declare that they will “bear arms on behalf of the United States” and “perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States” when required by the law.

Now the USCIS says that “A candidate [to U.S. citizenship] may be eligible to exclude these two clauses based on religious training and belief or a conscientious objection.”

The new changes further add that new candidates “May be eligible for [additional?] modifications based on religious training and belief, or conscientious objection arising from a deeply held moral or ethical code.”

These changes serve incoming Islamic supremacists especially well.  For, while Islamic law allows Muslims to feign loyalty to non-Muslim “infidel” authorities, it bans Muslims from living up to the pretense by actually fighting or killing fellow Muslims on behalf of a non-Muslim entity, such as the United States.

The perfectly fitting story of Nidal Hassan—the U.S. army major and “observant Muslim who prayed daily” but then turned murderer—comes to mind and is illustrative.

A pious Muslim, Hasan seemed a “regular American,” even if he was leading a double life—American Army major and psychiatrist by day, financial supporter of jihadi groups and associate of terrorists by night.  However, when time came for this American soldier to “bear arms on behalf of the United States”—to quote the original Oath of Allegiance—against fellow Muslims, things got ugly: he went on a shooting spree in Fort Hood, killing thirteen Americans, including one pregnant woman in 2009.

Much of Hasan’s behavior is grounded in the Islamic doctrine of Loyalty and Enmity.  According to this essential teaching, Muslims must always be loyal to Islam and fellow Muslims while having enmity for all non-Islamic things and persons.

However, whenever Muslims find themselves under the authority of non-Islamic institutions and persons, they are permitted to feign loyalty—even to the point of cursing Islam and pretending to have abandoned it—with one caveat: Muslims must never take up arms on behalf of “infidels” against fellow Muslims.  In other words, their loyalty to non-Muslims must be skin deep.

Many are the verses in the Koran that support this divisive doctrine (3:28, 4:89, 4:144, 9:23, and 58:22; the latter simply states that true Muslims do not befriend non-Muslims—“even if they be their fathers, sons, brothers, or kin”).

Most germane is Koran 3:28: “Let believers not take for friends and allies infidels rather than believers: and whoever does this shall have no relationship left with Allah—unless you but guard yourselves against them, taking precautions.”

The words translated here as “guard” and “precaution” are derived from the Arabic word taqu, from the trilateral root w-q-y—the same root that gives us the word taqiyya, the Islamic doctrine that permits Muslims to deceive non-Muslims whenever under their authority.

Ibn Kathir (d. 1373), author of one of the most authoritative commentaries on the Koran, explains taqiyya in the context of verse 3:28 as follows: “Whoever at any time or place fears … evil [from non-Muslims] may protect himself through outward show.”  As proof of this, he quotes Muhammad’s close companion Abu Darda, who said, “Let us grin in the face of some people while our hearts curse them.”[1]

Muhammad ibn Jarir at-Tabari (d. 923), author of another standard commentary on the Koran, interprets verse 3:28 as follows:

If you [Muslims] are under their [non-Muslims’] authority, fearing for yourselves, behave loyally to them with your tongue while harboring inner animosity for them … [know that] God has forbidden believers from being friendly or on intimate terms with the infidels rather than other believers—except when infidels are above them [in authority]. Should that be the case, let them act friendly towards them while preserving their religion.[2]

And therein lies the limit of taqiyya: when the deceit, the charade begins to endanger the lives of fellow Muslims—whom, as we have seen, deserve first loyalty—it is forbidden. As al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri puts it in his treatise on Loyalty and Enmity, Muslims may pretend to be friendly and loyal to non-Muslims, so long as they do “not undertake any initiative to support them [non-Muslims], commit sin, or enable [them] through any deed or killing or fighting against Muslims” (The Al Qaeda Reader, p. 75).

Thus the idea that Nidal Hasan might be deployed to a Muslim country (Iraq or Afghanistan) was his “worst nightmare.”   When he realized that he was about to be deployed, he became “very upset and angry.”  The thought that he might injure or kill Muslims “weighed heavily on him.” He also counseled a fellow Muslim not to join the U.S. Army, since “Muslims shouldn’t kill Muslims.”

Hassan is not the only Muslim to expose his disloyalty when pushed into fighting fellow Muslims on behalf of the United States.

Asked by the judge about his oath upon being sentenced for the attempted May 2010 Times Square car bombing, naturalized U.S. citizen Faisal Shahzad replied, “I sweared [sic], but I didn’t mean it.”

In 2010, Naser Abdo, another Muslim soldier who joined the U.S. Army, demanded to be discharged on the claim that he was a “conscientious objector whose devotion to Islam has suffered since he took an oath to defend the United States against all enemies.”  The army agreed, but while processing him, officials found child pornography on his government-issued computer and recommended that he be court-martialed.  Abdo went AWOL and later tried to carry out a terrorist attack on a restaurant with the use of weapons of mass destruction.

And in April 2005, another Muslim serving in the U.S. Army, Hasan Akbar, was convicted of murder for killing two American soldiers and wounding fourteen in a grenade attack in Kuwait: “He launched the attack because he was concerned U.S. troops would kill fellow Muslims in Iraq.”

In short, the first loyalty of any “American Muslim” who follows the Koran is to fellow Muslims, regardless of their nationality—and not to American “infidels,” even if they be their longtime neighbors whom they daily smiled to (see here for examples).  Hence why American Muslim Tarik Shah, who was arrested for terrorist-related charges, once boasted: “I could be joking and smiling [with non-Muslims] and then cutting their throats in the next second”—reminiscent of the aforementioned quote by Muhammad’s companion.

Now, in direct compliance with Islamic law, the Obama administration has made it so that no Muslim living in America need ever worry about having to defend her—including against fellow Muslims or jihadis.

Notes:

1. ‘Imad ad-Din Isma’il Ibn Kathir, Tafsir al-Qur’an al-Karim (Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiya, 2001), vol. 1, p. 350, author’s translation.

2. Abu Ja’far Muhammad at-Tabari, Jami’ al-Bayan ‘an ta’wil ayi’l-Qur’an al-Ma’ruf: Tafsir at-Tabari (Beirut: Dar Ihya’ at-Turath al-‘Arabi, 2001), vol. 3, p. 267, author’s translation.

Killing U.S. Softly

I don’t know when America is going to wake up to reality. The underlying truth regarding political correctness is that all truth is relative!

We the people are NOT getting it quickly enough–we are afraid someone will challenge us, call us a bigot, homophobe, islamaphobe, a misogynist, or even . . . mean– so we don’t fight the evil in our system.

Many of us have been decrying for over a decade our open borders, but we let the government thrust full body pat downs of our little 3-year-old girls and boys, and eighty year-old grandmas in wheelchairs. But someone in hijab or even a full burqas go right by TSA agents.

Our country is under attack from within and without. Yet we do nothing. I have schooled myself on the intricacies of Muslim terrorists–I thought. But I was not aware of this until a friend sent me a link to the following video on Economic Warfare via arson. This is real. This is NOW!

WATCH IT!

What Real Immigration Reform Would Look Like

Real Immigration Reform

An assessment of what a true immigration reform package would include

1. Real reform would prioritize securing the border.

More than 70% of Americans want to see border security before anything else happens. As of right now, the amnesty bill does not require any real border security measures. The bill only requires a plan to do so. An amendment by Sen. Ted Cruz was defeated in committee by all of the Democrats and two Republicans – Jeff Flake (R-AZ) and Lindsay Graham (R-SC) – that simply would have added a guarantee that the border be secured before any legalization. It was voted down.

Real reform wouldn’t pay lip service to border security or treat Americans like naive little children; it would secure our borders before any other steps are taken.

2. Real reform would represent the people’s voice.

The Senate amnesty bill cedes so much authority to unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats, much like Obamacare does. Agencies and bureaucrats are untouchable by the people, and therefore free to make decisions without the consent of the governed because they never have to stand for elections. Additionally, the bill was written behind closed doors with special interests, while the rest of us were shut out – Chamber of Commerce, AFL-CIO, and La Raza were all intimately involved in the writing of this bill, while ICE, border agents, and all the rest of us were excluded.

Real reform would be written and implemented by people accountable to voters.

3. Real reform would be fair and Constitutional.

This point refers to the unfairness of rewarding people who broke the law while punishing those that have followed the law and are waiting to enter the country legally. Whatever reform ultimately occurs, it must be fair. After all, people come to this country hoping to live in a place where the rule of law prevails and the law is equally applied to all.

Real reform would uphold the rule of law and justice rather than mocking it.

4. Real reform would be understandable.

This point refers to DC’s addiction to “comprehensive” legislation, i.e. giant bills that are written behind closed doors in confusing legalese and code, released with little time to review and analyze the bill, with so much complexity that regular Americans have no chance of understanding all of the implications and ramifications. Congress also uses these enormous bills to hide unpopular provisions and crony, corruptive deals because they know they will pass it before we can see what’s in it.

Real reform would be broken into pieces that are manageable and understandable to the American people – no more comprehensive bills.

5. Real reform would benefit the economy.

This point refers to the logical and obvious requirement that policies and legislation should be good for our economy, our fiscal & debt situation, and jobs. To push for any legislation that does otherwise is unacceptable. According to the Heritage Foundation’s recent report, this bill will cost us $6.3 trillion – at a time when we are already almost $17 trillion in debt.

Real reform would be a boon to our economy, the jobs situation, and wouldn’t add a penny to our debt.

 6. Real reform would promote American values.

This point refers to the necessity that those who come here and want to become citizens should understand what makes America exceptional and the founding principles of our nation. They should understand the philosophy behind our Constitution and Declaration of Independence. They should understand our three core values of fiscal responsibility, constitutionally limited government, and free markets. The amnesty bill currently contains provisions that would give taxpayer dollars to anti-American groups like La Raza to teach these new citizens about American values. Which version of America do you think La Raza will teach?

Real reform would promote and instill the American values that made our country so great.

The Lefts Immigration Insolence

Marco Rubio was interviewed yesterday on the Rush Limbaugh show. Senator Rubio is a bright, articulate, perspicacious conservative. He is able to assert his position potently and with forthrightness.

Rush declared in the interview, “I’ve never agreed with Senator Schumer about anything.”

I would agree energetically with Rush, and I would add, if rubber-hips John McCain is for it . . . it’s probably a bad thing.

Like Mr. Limbaugh, I think there are points in Senator Rubio’s argument that are problematic.

First, Homeland Security is the primary Federal agency spearheading this. When George W. Bush initiated DHS after 911 my initial thought was “Why?” Why do we need to expand government? We already had the F.B.I. and the C.I.A..

But the Bushs are big government “moderates” (I am being very generous calling them moderates), not conservatives!

The Department of Homeland Security has not been, in my estimation, too successful at anything it was designed for. Under Obama and his appointee Napolitano it is a tool for the left.

In the interview Rubio bulleted a number of “triggers” that had to happen before other things happened, but my question is,

“How is this to be executed in real life; in real time, especially under this regime?”

I do not doubt Senator Rubio’s integrity, but perhaps he is being a bit naïve, I hope not, I hope Marco is reading the opposition correctly. Time will tell.

In a post-interview, post-broadcast piece, Rush came up with, what I believe, is a sagacious analysis of that instructive dialogue. You can read it below or click on the link.

Marco Rubio. I know a lot of people are hammering Senator Rubio, understandably so. People are hammering Senator Rubio because they think the bill wouldn’t go anywhere without a Republican in this Gang of Eight propelling it. There are some who say that this bill wouldn’t have a prayer if, for example, the front man were Senator Schumer — and therefore, Senator Schumer isn’t.

This is Rich Lowry’s theory today in Politico, that Senator Schumer has pulled a masterful maneuver here by securing a Republican to go get what he wants (i.e., in this immigration bill). I happen to like Senator Rubio very much. He’s a force of nature. He’s a force of energy. Folks, he is a genuine conservative and full-throatedly, full-heartedly, wholeheartedly believes in it. He really does. The bill itself, however? I’m never gonna understand it. I’m never gonna understand the thinking here.

He says that he’s not motivated politically, and that’s fine. But (chuckles) most of the Republican Party is motivated totally, only by politics. They’re buying hook, line, and sinker — from the Democrats and the media — “You guys better reach out to Hispanics or you’re never gonna win anything! You better make the Hispanics like you.” So they’re doing that. Well, okay. If you do that, if everything you do is “outreach” to Hispanics, how do you ever tell ’em no?

If the objective is to make Hispanics like you and you turn yourself into Santa Claus, then how do you turn yourself into Scrooge someday when you have to? You can’t. Also, the idea that the 11 million or whatever the number is will be quote/unquote legalized, but they won’t be able to vote for a while? We all know what Senator Schumer and the Democrats are going to do. Let’s say that this happens exactly as Senator Rubio spells it out.

Within two months, Senator Schumer and the Democrats are gonna run to the microphones and cameras and they’re gonna start tugging at people’s heartstrings by saying, “How in the world can we be so cruel as to not let them vote? We’ve just legalized them. We’ve just welcomed them to our country. We’ve just created a pathway to citizenship for them. They are paying taxes, and they’re working. It’s unconscionable that they can’t vote.” And — voila! — they’ll be able to vote.

Then, the fact that 70% of them vote Democrat becomes relevant. The fact that after the ’86 amnesty… There’s no doubt. There’s a correlation. We passed the ’86 amnesty, and the Republican Party lost California. Some of you are not old enough to recall it. The Republican Party used to own California. The Republican Party used to define it. Politically they used to own it, very close to it. The ’86 amnesty was the beginning of the end, and it’s gone now. It’s literally gone.

Republicans are simply outnumbered. It can be birth, it can be any number of things, but regardless. They lost, and there are legitimate fears that the same thing is gonna happen to the country, that Republicans/conservatives are gonna end up just be outnumbered. Regardless the birthrate, it’s mathematics. It’s not even ideology or politics. It’s just mathematics, and there are people scratching their heads and looking at the Republican leadership and asking, “Why in the world…?”

It goes to the thing I was asking him about. When Democrats propose something, why do we have to accept it and then offer alternatives? Why can’t we just say, no? Why can’t we just opposed it? What would have happened if we’d really tried to oppose Obamacare? I mean, we opposed their gun control efforts. The NRA does that, not the Republican Party. The NRA does that. But we get to the point that, after all the efforts they make, only 4% of the American people support Obama and Obama wants.

Only 4% support immigration the way Obama wants. I mean, the Republican Party is sitting on two gold mines here. They’re sitting on two great, tremendous opportunities. Ninety-five to 96% of the American people oppose “path to citizenship,” amnesty, or what have you. The Republican Party is sitting on a golden opportunity to define itself, to demark itself, to contrast itself with the Democrat Party — with 96% of the people already on their side before they do anything!

All they’ve gotta do is agree with what 96% of the people already think. Instead, the Republican leadership has bought into the idea — and, by the way, this is not an anti-Hispanic point of view at all. People that vote Democrat, I don’t care who they are, they vote Democrat. Why in the world do you think you’re gonna…? Chuck Schumer wants something. He wants it so bad he can taste it. So why should we? I don’t get it. I’ve never agreed with Chuck Schumer on anything. Why should I on this?

The Democrats are salivating over this, just like they’re salivating on gun control. The answer is, as I was told Tuesday night, “We’re never gonna win unless we reach out to Hispanics! We’re never gonna win another election if we don’t reach out to the Hispanics!” Well, they’re 7% of the electorate. “Yeah, but that’s gonna grow, Rush! That number’s gonna grow.” Well, but they’re only 7% now, so people just don’t understand. They look at the Republican leadership and do not understand.

“Sen. Jeff Sessions warns that passing the Senate immigration reform bill would have devastating effects on the US job market and fiscal outlook.” Senator Sessions, a Republican from Alabama, says that the immigration reform bill “opens up citizenship to recent arrivals and, remarkably, millions who overstayed their visas. It even opens up citizenship to those who have been deported from the country,” meaning they can qualify.

Because of that, because of the opening up of citizenship, “The bill would, thus, increase the unfunded liability of Obamacare by $2 trillion and of Medicare/Social Security by $2.5 trillion,” because all of these people will qualify as being covered by Obamacare. Senator Rubio said, “We would never keep somebody who could throw the baseball 99 miles an hour out of the country.” True. The New York Yankees would be the first team trying to get whoever that would be.

But that’s not who we’re talking about here. That kind of immigration we do need to increase.

Our immigration system is so whacked, those are the people who are limited. What is that, the H-1B visa or what it is? The visas for the equivalent of the guy that can throw a 99-mile-an-hour fastball or the high-tech geniuses, the high-tech grads, those are the people having trouble getting in. That’s where the relaxation needs to be taking place. But you can’t discount the role of Big Business. Big Business is seeing a huge pool of unskilled and therefore cheap labor in bad, questionable economic times.

So there are a number of different forces arrayed here, and the forces arrayed to oppose this on ideological grounds seem to be vastly outnumbered and overwhelmed. The fact that what happened to California could happen to the country doesn’t seem to matter to a lot of people. “Who cares if they’re Republicans or Democrats? I don’t care what they are. What’s the difference anyway? We just need these low-skill workers,” or whatever is the reason they support it.

“It’s outreach to Hispanics so they don’t hate us, so they don’t dislike us.” The Republican Party’s made up of a lot of people who think that way as well.