Top Menu

Muslim Americans Must Obey U.S. Laws; Nidal Hasan Disobeyed Islamic Doctrine

Major Nidal Malik Hasan

Major Nidal Malik Hasan

The Islamophobic blogosphere has gone buck-wild.  Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller, and the rest of the goof troop are pretty ecstatic that Major Nidal Hasan, a Muslim American, killed thirteen U.S. soldiers at Fort Hood.  Nothing makes a neo-conservative happier than an attack on American soil; as the family of the victims mourn the dead, the anti-Muslim ideologues gleefully co-opt the situation to market their hate-filled beliefs.

The Islamophobes claim that Major Hasan was simply “being a devout Muslim” when he opened fire on his fellow soldiers.  According to them, this is a part of Jihad, an obligation in Islam.  As such, the enemy is not just extremists, radicals, or terrorists; but rather, it is Islam itself.  It is not then a gross perversion of a religion by zealots that result in such horrific attacks, but rather the exact opposite: it is a faithful understanding of the Islamic religion which results in terrorism.  That’s what they claim at least.

There is, according to these anti-Muslim bigots, a conspiracy by Muslim Americans to overtake the country from within.  The tactics to do so can be non-violent (“Stealth Jihad”) or overtly violent (such as 9/11 or the Fort Hood Massacre), but the goal is the same: to overthrow the U.S. government, rip the Constitution to shreds, and enact Sharia (Islamic law) in the West.  It is for this reason, you–the average American Joe–need to fear your Muslim neighbor.

The Covenant of Security

But experts of the Islamic legal tradition say differently.  The Islamic religion commands believers to obey the laws of the land they live in, even if it be one ruled by nonbelievers.  Muslim jurists consider citizenship (or visa) to be a covenant (aqd) held between the citizen (or visa holder) and the state, one which guarantees safe passage/security (amaan) in exchange for certain obligations (such as obeying the laws of the land); covenants are considered sacredly binding in Islam.  The Quran commands:

And fulfill every covenant.  Verily, you will be held accountable with regard to the covenants. (Quran, 17:34)

The Quran condemns those who break covenants as not being true believers:

It is not the case that every time they make a covenant, some party among them throws it aside. Nay! The truth is most of them believe not. (Quran, 2:100)

The Islamic prophet Muhammad described the religious hypocrite as follows:

When he enters into a covenant, he proves treacherous. (Sahih al-Bukhari)

Citizenship (and visa) is called in Islamic legal parlance as a “covenant of security” (aqd al-aman).  For over a thousand years, Muslim scholars have rigorously affirmed the binding nature of the covenant of security.  This covenant of security can be of two types: (1) a contractual agreement or (2) a customary understanding.

Naturalized citizens in the United States enter into a contractual agreement with the government when they declare the oath of allegiance, as follows:

“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same…”

A Muslim is obliged to keep to his word, and thus this oath is religiously binding upon him.

Natural born citizens, on the other hand, do not utter any such oath, so they fall under the second category under Islamic law.  The covenant of security is considered for them a customary understanding, in the sense that even though they did not physically say an oath or sign a document of loyalty, it is understood that there exists between the citizen and the government a covenant of security; this, i.e. customary understanding, is considered by Islamic law to be just as binding as the contractual agreement.  There is no difference between the two.

Betraying the Covenant is Forbidden

What the 9/11 hijackers did was a violation of Islamic law for multiple reasons.  The most obvious of these is the prohibition of killing civilians, but it should also be pointed out that they violated the covenant of security between them and the United States, which granted them visas to enter the country.  Using Islamic lingo, the U.S. government granted safe passage (amaan) to the 19 hijackers, and thus they entered into a covenant (aqd), which they subsequently violated.

The United States government granted them visas with the understanding that they would come to the country to study, or seek medical treatment, or for sightseeing, etc., but not for waging war within their lands or killing their citizenry.  Even if a Muslim country is at war with a non-Muslim one, it would not be permissible for a Muslim fighter to enter into enemy territory by requesting safe passage (amaan) and then subsequently killing enemy troops once he crosses over.

The classical Islamic jurist, Muhammad al-Shaybani (died 805 A.D.) expounded:

If it happens that a company of Muslims pass through the enemy’s front lines by deceptively pretending to be messengers of the Muslim’s ruler carrying official documents–or if they were just allowed to pass through the enemy lines–they are not allowed to engage in any hostilities with the enemy troops. Neither are they entitled to seize any of their money or properties as long as they are in their area of authority.

Both the 9/11 hijackers and Major Nidal Hasan violated this sacred principle of Islam.  They gained the trust of those whom they considered their enemies, and then when those they consider enemies were caught unaware, they killed them.  In other words, these criminals took advantage of the fact that they had been trusted, and violated this trust.  Such a thing is considered unacceptable in Islam.

(It should be noted that Muslim Americans don’t see themselves as living in “enemy territory,” but the point is that even if Nidal Hasan saw the U.S. in that light, then he still wouldn’t be allowed under the Islamic belief system to do what he did.  Of course, the point applies even more to those Muslim Americans who see themselves as distinctly American and who love the country.)

The Quran does say that if the believers are being oppressed in some land, then the Muslims should come to their assistance.  But it forbids fighting against those with whom a covenant exists.  The Quran says:

If [your coreligionists] ask for your aid in religion, then you must help them, except against people with whom you have covenants with. (Quran, 8:72)

A Muslim American Must Obey the Constitution and Never Rebel Against the U.S. Government

A Muslim must abide by his covenant, which includes obeying the laws of the land he lives in, no matter how he entered into the country, be it by birth, legal (or even illegal) immigration.  (Entering countries illegally with forged documents is considered forbidden in Islam, but if one commits this sin, he cannot commit the further sin of then using it as an excuse to violate the laws of the land.)  Salman al-Oudah, a senior religious cleric, says:

[Islamic] scholars have stated that those who enter non-Muslim countries have to adhere to their respective laws and regulations even if they entered those countries illegally, and they have no excuse for breaking those laws, since they were entrusted to abide by those laws upon entry into those countries…As long as [a Muslim] agrees to live in a non-Muslim country, he is never to rebel against the people living in his choice of residence, even it seems too hard for him to endure.

From a religious angle, Muslim Americans are forbidden to rebel against the U.S. government.  They are not allowed to seek to overthrow the government, rip up the Constitution (which they gave an oath to uphold!), etc.  They are not allowed to cheat on taxes, steal from anyone, kill or harm any of their fellow citizens, etc.  Instead, they should be law-abiding citizens–according to the Islamic religion and the consensus (ijma) of the Muslim clerics since the last 1,400 years, in spite of Al-Qaeda’s reinterpretation (perversion) of religious doctrine.

Even if hypothetically the U.S. law were to stipulate a condition which was against Islamic teachings, the Muslim American would still have to follow it, as the Islamic cleric I quoted above says:

[Muslims] have to avoid whatever contradicts Islamic teachings. In case they are obliged by law to uphold something contrary to Islamic teachings, they have to adhere to the minimum that the law requires of them.

This idea–that Muslim Americans should uphold the laws of the land–is taught in mosques across the country with great unanimity, so the Islamophobic fear mongering is ill-founded.

Conclusion

The actions of Islamic extremists–such as the 9/11 hijackers and Major Nidal Hasan–flout the normative tradition of Islam and the teachings which millions of Muslim Americans follow.  It is therefore inappropriate to conclude that the religion of Islam itself advocates such things, or that these attackers were simply following their religion.  Such a thing is offensive to say and quite frankly inaccurate.

In any case, it is too early to say with any level of certainty what Major Hasan’s motivations were.  Was he an extremist or simply a guy who lost his marbles like so many other shooters?  Whatever the case, one thing is for sure: his actions do not reflect the Islamic teachings nor the millions of law-abiding Muslim Americans.

UPDATE: I recently found a similar article to mine found here, from BBC News.

SECOND UPDATE: Another article that raises some good points can be found here, this one by a Muslim cleric specifically about the Fort Hood Shooting.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

  • Danios

    Proud Loon:

    Thank you for your comment. You’ve gained respect in my eyes; it takes a man to say what you just did…courage which we find lacking in many…something which is in short supply nowadays.

    “But, in the end, I’m honestly glad that Islamic law forbids what Hasan did. If only Hasan himself had been convinced of this.”

    Yes, I agree with you.

    “What are the “other texts” that contextualize the Hadith I quoted to not include oaths to other people? And exactly how well are they known?”

    They are very well known, as this is a heavily discussed topic in Islamic legal texts. For example, if you give a person an oath that you will pay him 50 dinars for a horse after a certain date, and then you take the horse but renege on your oath, then this is completely unacceptable in Islam. And there are detailed legal texts that expound on this issue, with scriptural support of course.

    I will provide a detailed answer in the future…Remind me after a week if I forget. I am busy trying to complete my next article, which should be a really good one.

    Sincerely,
    Danios.

  • Proud Loon

    Danios,

    Thank you for your thoughtful reply and for the fact that there was no name calling.

    I thought I had posted it once before, but now know that you hadn’t gotten it.

    And I honestly thought that quoting Muhammad & the Hadith would be better than a classical scholar, but apparently not. I was, believe it or not, not engaging in fear-mongering, but really thought that there was an exception found in these Hadith.

    What are the “other texts” that contextualize the Hadith I quoted to not include oaths to other people? And exactly how well are they known? I mean, just from reading the Hadith itself, there is no indication of such a limitation. So, regardless of how it’s contextualized elsewhere, it would be a very easy thing to think that Muhammad himself allows such exceptions.

    But, in the end, I’m honestly glad that Islamic law forbids what Hasan did. If only Hasan himself had been convinced of this.

  • Nabeela

    That’s OK Danios, take your time…recharge your batteries, you already do a great job. Meanwhile we had some gems from the other Loon Watch editors, the Daniel Pipes photshop shock for example. Your hammering the Proud Loon was a sight to behold..LOL, I bet he/she is licking his wounds somewhere..

    iSherif,

    I totally agree, isn’t it wonderful when these Proud loons shame themselves and end up writhing about in the webs they themselves have so ignorantly spun, and then find they have no way out, and just keep drawing the net closer around themselves…

    Hey Proud Loon!!

    Please now do the decent thing and rename yourself as “Disgraced Loon”

    and don’t forget to thank Danios and Loon Watch for educating you.

  • iSherif

    Haha, ‘Proud Loon’ just took a terrible tumbling. They are scraping the very bottom of their Islamophobic barrels now, poor souls.

    Thanks very much Danios!

  • Danios

    I apologize to my readers for not publishing an article this week…I was out of town.

    Sincerely,
    Danios.

  • Danios

    Proud Loon:

    [I’m posting this again, because it doesn’t seem to have gotten past your moderation the first time.]

    I did not censor your comment. Either it went to spam or you did not post it the first time around.

    You wrote, “In any case, I extend a challenge to you. And this challenge I extend to all Islamophobes worldwide. Provide me with any quote from a classical Islamic scholar…that would permit a man to do what Major Nidal Hasan did…”

    How about from Muhammad himself?

    …What do I win?

    Nothing, because you did not meet the challenge. Quite clearly, I stated that I wanted you to produce a quote from a classical scholar, so no, you quoting the Prophet Muhammad does not fulfill the challenge at all…no more than it would prove that Christianity permits the killing of civilians by quoting the Bible (i.e. Deuteronomy). I am already familiar with the fact that loons like yourself–and Al-Qaeda types–do in fact quote various Quranic quotes and hadiths to prove that Islam permits what Major Nidal Hasan did…But we all know that even the devil can quote scripture.

    The issue here is: the normative tradition of Islamic jurisprudence has always forbidden the act that Major Hasan did, which is why you will not a find a single classical scholar who permitted it, even though there were hundreds of thousands of such scholars. The reason there is such unanimity on this point is because the scriptural texts–when read in a holistic manner–are quite clear in forbidding it…such that there were no dissenting opinions. But yes, the devil can quote scripture out of context, taking one verse or hadith without looking at the rest of them to give context.

    So I say it again: you failed the challenge.

    Speaking of the devil quoting scripture, you cited two hadiths as a proof for your claim that Islamic law does not forbid what Major Nidal Hasan did. I will deal with both of them:

    1) Plus, there’s a secondary exemption for Muslims…The ‘Prophet said, “It is obligatory for one to listen to and obey (the ruler’s orders) unless these orders involve one disobedience (to Allah); but if an act of disobedience (to Allah) is imposed, he should not listen to or obey it.”

    This is the exact same thing that Christians believe. Read:

    Shall we obey God’s Law or human law?
    Acts 5:29 and Romans 13:1; I Peter 2:13

    1. Obey God
    1. (Acts 5:29) – “But Peter and the apostles answered and said, We must obey God rather than men.”
    2. Obey Man
    1. (Romans 13:1) – “Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.”
    2. (1 Peter 2:13) – “Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority,”

    The simple answer is that Christians are to obey human law except where that human law violates God’s Law. Our supreme duty is to obey God. Since God tells us to also obey human laws, we should. But, when they come in conflict, we are to “obey God rather than men.”

    http://www.carm.org/bible-difficulties/luke-john-acts/shall-we-obey-gods-law-or-human-law

    In fact, the Christian apologist Hugo Grotius (1583-1645)–who by the way is called “the father of modern international law”–writes in his book The Law of War and Peace:

    “Among all good men one principle at any rate is established beyond controversy, that if the authorities issue any order that is contrary to the law of nature or to the commandments of God, the order should not be carried out. For when the Apostles said the obedience should be rendered to God rather than to men they appealed to an infallible rule of action.”

    So will you now fear monger about Christians in America?

    As for Muslims, they believe that it is obligatory to follow the rulers based on various Islamic texts. If, however, the ruler calls on them to do something that is clearly and unequivocally forbidden in the laws of Islam, then this falls under two scenarios:

    (a) If the Muslim is living in the lands of the Muslims–under a Muslim ruler–then he is not to obey the ruler on that particular issue if the ruler calls him to something that is clearly and unequivocally forbidden. (This is exactly the same as the Christian rule I described above.)

    (b) If the Muslim is living in the lands of the non-Muslims–under a covenant of security–then he must obey the ruler based on two reasons: (1) the Islamic command to obey the rulers, and (2) the obligation of the covenant of security, a binding agreement. If the non-Muslim ruler calls on him to do something that is clearly and unequivocally forbidden in Islam, then the first reason is nullified as it was in situation (a); however, the second reason stands…

    In that case–i.e. when the non-Muslim ruler commands the believer to commit a sin, and if failure to fulfill that will result in a violation and nullification of the covenant of security–then the Muslim is given two options:

    “As I mentioned in the beginning, we need to obey the law of the land, as long as it does not force us to commit haram. If that were the case, we should either try to change such laws, or emigrate to Muslim countries where there is no such fear of committing haram.”

    http://usa.mediamonitors.net/Headlines/Strangers-Muslims-Living-Outside-Dar-Ul-Islam-Rights-And-Obligations

    But nowhere is the option available to do what Major Nidal Hasan did. So you have failed to make your case with that hadith. It does not at all prove that what Major Hasan did was permitted in Islam. The reality is that treachery is completely forbidden, even in Jihad. Very clear Islamic texts are available on this topic; for example, there are narrations about the Prophet’s disciple in battle:

    Umar ibn al-Khattaab wrote to the commander of an army that he had sent out: “I have heard that some men among you look for kaafirs (non-Muslims), then when they run to hide in difficult mountainous terrain they say, ‘Do not be afraid,’ then when they catch up with them they kill them. By the one in whose hand is my soul, if I hear that anyone has done that I will chop off his head.”

    And:

    It was narrated that Abu Muslimah said: “Umar ibn al-Khattaab said: ‘By the One in Whose hand is my soul, if any one of you were to point to the sky [i.e., a gesture to imply that he will not harm him] to make a mushrik (polytheist) come down to him and then kill him, I would kill him for that.'”

    http://www.islam-qa.com/en/ref/10138

    In the case of Major Nidal Hasan, his colleagues thought they were safe from him, which is why they were unarmed against him and allowed him to roam freely around them. Hasan used this opportunity–i.e. this false gaining of trust–to kill them. And according to Islamic law, this is forbidden, and he should be tried for murder and executed (as shown in the two narrations above).

    So there are two distinct issues here:

    1) Obeying a law that is against Islam
    2) Engaging in treachery

    If Nidal Hasan felt that obeying the American law by fighting in Afghanistan/Iraq was against Islam, then he could disobey the ruler in that respect and refuse to fight. That is number (1) above. But this does not permit him to do (2), which is a totally different thing! So he could have refused to serve, faced jail time for doing that, renounced his citizenship and emigrated, etc…but he could NOT betray his trust and engage in treachery to slaughter the enemy when they were caught unaware.

    So all of this shows the depth of Islamic law, which really goes out of its way to make warfare honorable, by disallowing treachery, i.e. betraying one’s covenant of security and killing the enemy unaware.

    How is this different than what Christians believe? Ask a Christian if he was living in Germany during World War II…Ask him if in that situation, he–as a German citizen and Christian–would have to “obey Caesar” (which would be Adolf Hitler in that case) and join the Nazi army to round up Jews and occupy lands to kill even more Jews? What would their response be? I wonder if even the Christians would disallow treachery in that case, i.e. killing Adolf Hitler when you gain his trust and then betray him.

    The other hadith you mentioned was as follows:

    2. “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.”

    This is not talking about covenants of security at all, as I have discussed in previous comments above yours. This is talking about oaths that one makes between oneself and God, i.e. I promise to God that I will donate $5,000 to such-and-such charity, but then you realize later that a better charity group exists, then you can give the $5,000 to the better charity.

    The hadith has nothing to do with your promises to other people, which must be fulfilled. This is known because of other texts that contextualize the statement (as opposed to the devil who only quotes texts in isolation). In any case, as for the matter at hand (i.e. Major Nidal Hasan supposedly reneging on his covenant with the U.S.A. and then killing them), it is clearly forbidden in Islam. For example, the Quran says:

    “If [your coreligionists] ask for your aid in religion, then you must help them, except against people with whom you have covenants with.” (Quran, 8:72)

    How much clearer can you get than that verse which prohibits fighting those with whom you have covenants with, even if they (the people whom you have a covenant with) are fighting your fellow Muslims! So you really have no way to go with this argument of yours. And there is also the clear passage which I quoted for GR:

    “Freedom from obligation is proclaimed from God and His Messenger towards those of the idolaters with whom you made a treaty….Except those of the idolaters with whom you made a treaty and who have not subsequently failed you in aught nor aided anyone against you (in war). So fulfill your treaty with them to the end of the term: for God loves those who keep their duty…So long as they are true to you, be true to them. Lo! God loves those who keep their duty…How can there be a treaty with [those] idolaters that when they have the upper hand over you, they respect not in you the ties either of kinship or of covenant? …They respect not the ties either of kinship or of covenant! It is they who have transgressed all bounds…But if they violate their oaths after their covenant, and taunt you for your Faith, fight you the chiefs of disbelief: for their oaths are nothing to them: that thus they may be restrained. Will you not fight people who violated their oaths, plotted to expel the Messenger, and took to aggression by being the first to assault you?” (9:1-13)

    The above passage clearly shows that Muslims can only fight those who violated the covenant first. But those non-Muslims who did not do that are not permitted to be fought at all, because “God loves those who keep their duty,” which means that God loves those who are faithful to their covenants with others…which Major Nidal Hasan clearly was not. According to Islam and the Quran, God does not love Nidal Hasan, because he did not keep his duty.

    Sincerely,
    Danios.

  • Proud Loon

    Danios,

    [I’m posting this again, because it doesn’t seem to have gotten past your moderation the first time.]

    You wrote, “In any case, I extend a challenge to you. And this challenge I extend to all Islamophobes worldwide. Provide me with any quote from a classical Islamic scholar…that would permit a man to do what Major Nidal Hasan did…”

    How about from Muhammad himself?

    From Translation of Sahih Bukhari:

    Volume 9, Book 89, Number 260:

    Narrated ‘Abdur-Rahman bin Samura:

    The Prophet said, “O ‘Abdur-Rahman! Do not seek to be a ruler, for if you are given authority on your demand then you will be held responsible for it, but if you are given it without asking (for it), then you will be helped (by Allah) in it. 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.”

    Elswhere (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 25) Muhammad declares that jihad is the second best deed after belief in Allah and his Apostle.

    This would definitely seem to allow Hasan to break his oath. What do I win?

    Plus, there’s a secondary exemption for Muslims:

    Volume 4, Book 52, Number 203:

    Narrated Ibn ‘Umar:

    The ‘Prophet said, “It is obligatory for one to listen to and obey (the ruler’s orders) unless these orders involve one disobedience (to Allah); but if an act of disobedience (to Allah) is imposed, he should not listen to or obey it.”

  • Nissa

    @Cassidy

    I am not blaming Christianity and anyone who does blame it for what happened in Serbia is clearly misguided. My point was that religion was a part of the the motivations on all sides because it was part of how each side constructed their ethno-nationalism and their concept of masculinity especially….as it definitely is with Hindu nationalists.

    that ‘self promotion’ you mentioned is my point…it is about utilising something to motivate the masses….Mladic may not have done it because of Christianity but the Serb nationalist movement definitely used it when they wanted neighbours and even relatives to turn on the Bosnians…

    also…being anti-zionist does not make someone anti-semitic. That argument has been used to subvert debate on the Palestinian issue.

  • Seductive

    Oh come on iSherif, I hope you find a replacement for here, before you pack off Danios for POTUS, besides, he would have a tough job competing with Obama:)

    Maybe he can run for the GOP, with Palin as is sidekick LOL, what with her new book and all…he would win if only because she is so unpopular.

    Danios

    That’s OK, point taken.

    Regarding the forum, well i’d say wait a few month’s and then you’d know if any of your readers could be a moderator at the forum. I dare say you could leave the forum unmoderated, as a place for readers here to let off steam, but you probably would not want that. It would however greatly increase traffic, as i know from experience that unmoderatated forums are very popular.

    Remember, that all major newspapers on the web, now have forums added too, for readers to debate topics.

    You could leave the main articles here with comments as a quality separate information and news media outlet. It makes sense to keep the articles and commenting as they are now, polished, with on topic only comments as it will encourage interest amongst the mainstream media reporters to use as a source of information.

    Please dont give up on the idea though, as it would increase Loonwatch traffic greatly. I’d also suggest that as your readership builds, put up a notice where volunatary translaters can offer to translate to different languages ie. French, German, Dutch, Arabic, Russian, Hindi, Farsi, Urdu Indonesian, Chinese, Japanese etc.

    Oh and once you’re up and running hopefully some good sponsors could help with expansion costs if you need to pay translaters etc.

    Those sponsers who agree with your mission statement, and site content could be accepted, not those who would seek to change or subvert your goal using their money should be kicked in the butt (you’ll get those too so beware)

  • Cassidy

    “Wrong. Religion was an extremely important factor it was part of the historical tensions…hate propaganda focused on Bosnians being outsiders, people who invaded and tried to supplant Chrisitanity with Islam. Their ‘otherness’ was because of their religion, because they were a threat for ‘Chrisitian Serbia’…”

    If they motivated by Christianity then why didn’t Ratko Mladic mention anything religious at the site of Srebrenica genocide? Why were so many Serb war criminals secular? (Arkan for example was atheist who celebrated a few religious festivals which was nothing more than self promotion and besides I’ve gone to a few Sikh festivals, which of course does not make me a Sikh.) Why did Serb war criminals also attack Croats (who are predominantly Christian)? Also a major factor that contributed towards anti-muslim feelings amongst Serbs were the atrocities committed by the Bosnian muslim Handzar division of the SS which were still very fresh in the memory of Serb nationalists.

    “Hindus nationalists don’t always mention God in their rantings but that doesn’t mean religion isn’t a huge part of their fanaticism…”

    And unless you’re a psionic you have no way of knowing for sure; if the Serb war criminals were motivated chiefly by Christianity I’m pretty sure Ratko Mladic would have said something remotely religious at the site of the Srebrenica genocide, but he didn’t he rambled on about Serbia. Let’s pretend a muslim holds up a gas station, despite the fact that he doesn’t even mention his religion people try to paint the crime as being motivated islam; see how silly that is?

    “The PLO wanted a secular state, their goals were always nationalistic and not based on Islam but being Palestinian…yet everything it ever did came back to them being crazy Muslim fanatics, even the PLFP. One rule for us, another for everyone else eh?”

    Actually that’s kinda my point, anti-muslim bigots try to pin every bad thing in the middle east on islam, yet quite a few muslims do the same thing to Christianity and other religions even when the religion in question has nothing to do with it.

  • iSherif

    Danios for POTUS!!!!

  • Danios

    Seductive, my post was not directed at you when I mentioned taqiya. You weren’t the one who raised the point. You only responded to it, and that’s understandable.

    But yes, we can’t let the Islamophobes derail our conversations, which is what they always try to do. Once one point is refuted, they don’t admit they were wrong but move on to point number 2 and so on and so forth. So we need to keep them focused on one topic and force them to either refute us (impossible!) or concede the argument.

    Notice how they can’t reply at all about the topic of the article so they have to move to another point.

    I totally understand that you felt the need to reply…I think the solution is that next time I should just edit out the off topic points…But then they accuse us of censorship. So we are stuck with this dilemma of how can we force people to stay on topic without heavy censorship?

    I am sure even the Islamophobes will admit that in a debate, it’s important to stay on topic and address issues one at a time.

    About a forum, I have no idea if there is any plans for that. I doubt it though because it will hamper our ability to churn out articles.

    Sincerely,
    Danios.

  • Seductive

    Danios, LOL

    well i’ll begin by saying how awesome you are:) I also apologise for going off topic and talking about Taqiaya, but the alternative is to stew and keep quiet, .so i appreciate your patience and tolerance of fanatic defenders of the Ummah like me:)

    well truly this is a great website and you and your team deserve so much more recognition that you get at present:)

    but this is easily done when people start spin off topics that you know need correcting. As i’ve said before, may i humbly suggest that you have a forum on the website where people can start off topic subjects. You can get free forums off the internet, and it would also increase your topics. You could then be very strict about the comments, ie. only on topics ones, others can go to the forum.

    Cassidy,
    I’m not an anti semite or anti American. just anti neo con. I’d like to continue this debate, but as Danios said, we’re going off topic, and I want to respect the rules, otherwise it’ll be confusing for readers who come here.

    Hopefully Loonwatch will add a forum in the near future, …how about we wait till then?:)

  • Danios

    C’mon guys, let’s try to stay on topic. 🙁

  • Cassidy

    “You took my statements out of context, probably due to your own prejudice. Finklestein is a professor, and don’t exaggerate what he said about Hezbollah.”

    You posted anti-Semitic garbage and yet you call me prejudiced? Hilarious and I couldn’t care less whether Normy’s a prof or not he openly supports Hezbollah and Iran, good to see that you stick up for a guy who’s a fan of a state that hangs people just for being homosexual.

    “Regarding “Zionism destroying the US”, read what i wrote there, i was talking specifically about the right wing extremist ideology, that was behind the fabricated Iraq war evidence. The neo-cons (Christian and Jewish) although they are a minority, they did hijack US foreign policy during the Bush years by exploiting 9/11. That was the Zionism i was talking about, and YES it is a religion.”

    Oh great the good ol’ ‘the Jews got us into Iraq’ conspiracy theory and second of all Zionism is simply a form of nationalism, not a religion. Your rants about zionism reveal your anti-Semitism, in the eyes of anti-Semites Jewish nationalism is ‘evil’ but every other form it’s okay.

    “Are you saying that the ARmageddon/settler inspired right wing zionism is not a religion? OF COURSE IT IS A RELIGION.”

    No it’s a form of nationalism, every type of nationalism has violent and non violent strains, most Basque nationalists are committed to peacefully establishing a Basque nation however there’s a minority that wants to see a Basque homeland established violently.

    “As for Bin Laden, his being a CIA agent will not be a fact until CIA records are released, (fifty years).”

    In other words you admit you have zero evidence to back up your conspiracy theory, better stop prisonplanet as a source. Getting back to the blowback I suggest you read this:

    http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/4471521.html

  • Cassidy

    “However, although I do not think that Bin Ladin was a CIA agent as Seductive said, it is a fact that the United States funded militant groups in Afghanistan, supplying them with weaponry and building them up in order to fight off the Soviets.”

    Of course they did, however I consider ‘seductive to be anti-American because of the conspiracy theory she posted and how she conveniently left out the sheer amount of Saudi funding they also received.

  • Danios

    I ask everyone to not go off topic. Durendal’s posts are on topic (as incorrect as they are), but other posts that talk about taqiya, etc., are off topic. This discussion is about one topic alone, namely the assertion by myself that “Nidal Hasan Disobeyed Islamic Doctrine” which was a response to Durendal’s false claim that nothing in Islam forbids what he did.

    Posts about how awesome I am–or how ignorant Durendal is–are also considered on topic.

    Thank you.

    Sincerely,
    Danios.

  • Danios

    Durendal, I repeat: I asked you to provide me with a single classical scholar who said that it is permissible to violate Aqd al-Aman, which is the Covenant of Security. You failed on both counts.

    Dr. Jamal Badawi is not a classical scholar, o google warrior. But it’s ok, I’ll accept it anyways. Dr. Badawi did not at all say it is permissible to violate the Covenant of Security. In fact, he holds it completely impermissible to do that.

    The example he gave was if someone has a contract to assassinate someone. Once again, this is not a Covenant of Security. It is a contractual agreement to carry out an illegal act. It is therefore null and void. This is exactly like American law. Or do you think that a man can go murder his neighbor and then plead in a court of law that he had a contract to fulfill and he just didn’t want to violate that?

    Covenant of Security is a very special aspect of Islamic law, separately discussed. You seem to think that it is simply covered under covenants in general, which it is not. It has its own special category, and the most explicit proof is not the verse you or he cited, but the one I cited in the article:

    “If [your coreligionists] ask for your aid in religion, then you must help them, except against people with whom you have covenants [of security] with.” (Quran, 8:72)

    This is an explicit verse that acknowledges that certain Muslims might be at war against some people whereas another group of Muslims might be at peace with them and have a covenant of security with them. As such, those at peace are forbidden to aid those at war. How much clearer can it get for you?

    And there are other even clearer examples which would forbid what Major Nidal Hasan did, such as the following two examples from the war ethic of Islam:

    Umar ibn al-Khattab wrote to the commander of an army that he had sent out: “I have heard that some men among you look for disbelievers, then when they run to hide in difficult mountainous terrain they say, ‘Do not be afraid,’ then when they catch up with them they kill them. By the one in whose hand is my soul, if I hear that anyone has done that I will chop off his head.”

    It was narrated that Abu Muslimah said: Umar ibn al-Khattab said: ‘By the One in Whose hand is my soul, if any one of you were to point to the sky [i.e., a gesture to imply that he will not harm him] to make a polytheist come down to him and then kill him, I would kill him for that.’”

    In the above two examples, the Islamic jurists say that Umar forbade this because a customary understanding (Covenant of Security) was formed between the Muslim soldier and the non-Muslim soldier, simply by either saying “Do not be afraid” or even a simple hand gesture.

    Going back to what you said earlier, you had argued that nothing in Islam forbids what Major Nidal Hasan did. But in reality you are very wrong: Islam mandates the death penalty for a Muslim soldier who does what Nidal Hasan did. That’s how off you were.

    Along the same lines, the same Professor Badawi you quoted says:

    “…There are strict ethics of engagement in the battlefield including the impermissibility of killing the POW’s or the injured due to the absence of danger to the life of the defender…This ethic applies to recent incidents [i.e. Ft Hood].”

    Notice the words “the absence of danger to the life of the defender” which is a reference to what I just said above about the example of Umar ibn al-Khattab forbidding what he did. So Major Nidal Hasan caught them unaware when they thought they were safe from him and he betrayed the trust they gave him, which is not permissible in Islam.

    You brought up the example of the Prophet Muhammad and his relationship with polytheists of Mecca. This is actually a very good example and works against you. The Muslims of Medina signed a covenant of security with the polytheists of Mecca which is known as the Treaty of Hudaibiya, in which the non-Muslims made the Muslims agree to a very harsh stipulation, namely that if a Meccan converts to Islam and flees to Medina due to persecution, the Muslims are obligated to return him to Mecca. The Muslims agreed to this grudgingly, and when later that exact situation occurred, a man fled from Mecca to Medina professing his Islam and saying that he will be tortured if he is returned to the Meccans, the Prophet Muhammad told him that they must honor the conditions in the Covenant of Security, and despite the outcry from his disciples to make an exception due to the emergent situation, the Prophet Muhammad refused and sent the man back, telling him to be patient and trust in God.

    So there can be nothing more explicit than that about how closely the Muslims are obligated to follow the Covenant of Security and the conditions in them.

    In any case, the issue here is that I am asking you not to interpret the Quran or the hadiths or the sira of the Muslim’s prophet…The Muslims have already interpreted these things for over a thousand years and they have a legal tradition. I am asking you: in that great and vast legal tradition with so many varying opinions, can you provide any evidence that it would be permissible to violate the covenants of security?

    I could easily look at the Bible and say “it is permissible to kill women and children” based on the numerous verses in Deuteronomy that not only allow that but COMMAND it. But you would reject that as a proof, since it is not MY interpretation of the Bible that matters, but the normative Christian tradition’s understanding that matters. (And I would agree.) So the same applies to Islam. The bottom line is that the normative Islamic tradition has ALWAYS said that it is forbidden to do what Major Nidal Hasan did.

    The amazing thing is that you brought as a proof someone who said it is impermissible to do what Major Nidal Hasan did! That’s how desperate you have become. And in any case, I asked you for a classical scholar from the 1,000+ year tradition of Islam. I am already familiar with the fact that Al-Qaeda does not believe in fulfilling the covenants of security…My entire point was that this understanding clashes with the normative Islamic tradition as practiced since its earliest times.

    Once again, you fail. You keep failing. What will it take for you to be a man for once and admit you were wrong? Or will you continue in your stubbornness?

    As for your whining about moderation, have I censored any of your comments in this thread? Yes or no? If no–and I have not–then it seems that even when you are uncensored, you still cannot prove yourself correct. So the issue for you is not censorship but rather your lack of knowledge and inaccurate understandings of a religion you despise.

    I am wondering how many times you need to get trounced in this thread before you realize you are no match for me.

    Sincerely,
    Danios.

  • Durendal

    “Muslims are supposed to fulfill their contractual obligations (Chapter 5:1). Obligations, however, are conditional on the fact that such contract does not involve disobedience to Allah.”

    Dr. Jamal Badawi
    Profession Member of the European Council for Fatwa & Research

    Now, while he disagrees with the tactics deployed, claiming they violate Islamic ethics in war,(mainly to do with treatment of enemy soldiers and POW’s) he clearly views disobedience to Allah as more important then any man made law or contract.
    As for examples, there are several cases where former Meccan pagans switched sides during the wars between them and the Muslims in Medina.Examples are also provided of Muslims “breaking the law” or beating pagans to death for supposed harrasment of the new Muslim community.
    Your stance on this issue , that citizenship and being in the US military makes a Muslim bound to obey laws which counter Islamic teachings cannot be but wrong and false.
    As for my outburst you are correct and I apologize for using childish insults.
    But the fact you moderate comments and only allow those comments on this site that you want, shows to me you are afraid to have your views challenged and countered.
    Because you get to choose what comments you find acceptable to respond to.
    It’s not for moderation purposes, as you can simply remove comments afterwards if they are shown to be beyond bounds like any other website does.

  • Seductive

    To Lou or LowIQ take your pick:)

    Taqiya means dissumulation. It is for persecution, and those |Muslims under threat simply for being Muslim. In this case you are allowed to renounce your faith to those who may otherwise kill you. Or to stop a believer being murdered on account of his faith only. Not if he has comitted a crime, but if he is an innocent victim of persecution only,

    Islamophobes lie about it’s meaning, by saying it means you can lie to non Muslims. So you make yourself look like a low IQ ignorant stupid fool.. because Taqiya (dissumulation) is permitted in other religons too, Judaism and the Druze practice it too, and didn’t Paul pretend to be join religios groups by pretending to be one of them?

    Here is Daniel Pipes response to an ignoramus like you, who started a debate about how taqiya is lying to the infidel.

    http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/22855
    I disagree with most of this posting. Three corrections are needed:
    1. Taqiya is a Shi`i practice, not a Sunni one. (One can find some grounds for Sunni approval of the practice but I do not know of any instance when taqiya was actually sanctioned by Sunni religious authorities.)
    2. It concerns hiding one’s Shi`i affiliation, pretending to be a Sunni.
    3. It is done only in circumstances of great stress, specifically when one’s life is in danger.
    Taqiya is, thus, a very limited recourse, not a general invitation to Muslims to lie at their convenience.

    ————

    Similar concept in other religions
    Judaism
    http://www.answers.com/topic/taqiyya
    Diana Steigerwald,Religious Studies, California State University:
    “Maimonides’s [or Mosheh ben Maimon] father was a Rabbi and a judge of the
    rabbinical court and he decided to establish his residence for a time in
    Fez. He wrote an epistle encouraging the Jews to hold fast to their faith
    and to practice taqiyya (dissimulating their faith in periods of danger).
    The taqiyya is commonly practiced by minorities in Islam such as Shî‘ites
    and Sûfîs.

    Druze
    The Druze people have practiced taqiyya for generations, concealing the
    tenets of their faith from outsiders in order to avoid persecution.

  • Nissa

    Ah Lou, the Islamic scholar! You have absolutely no clue about abrogation or taqiyya, which are concepts made up by anti-Muslim bigots. Dar al-harb and dar-el Islam are not mandated withing the theology of Islam…they were political and social classifications made for a certain time.

    @Cassidy- The US did fund the Mujahideen in Afghanistan…and many of them later joined the Talian movement. Its not an anti-American lie, its fact. The Pakistani government of Zia also did the same for their selfish interests..and the US supported the Zia dictatorship with money and military aid. Bin Laden was given support by the US…proxy fighting was a tactic in the Cold War. He turned on them well before 9/11 but of course whilst Afghanistan was suffering and imploding the world looked away and let the Taliban take control….they looked away whilst they abused and oppressed Afghanis until 9/11 when all of a sudden the poor women in burkhas became so important. This is something RAWA have pointed out many times…

    @Jay “For that matter, neither have I seen in your piece a call to Muslims to apprehend Bib Laden or to stop funding of terror. If all Muslims are so law-abiding, a simple reference to the Quran shoudl be sufficient to stop terror and as a result the wars in Afghanistan, Irak, Pakistan, etc.”

    Wow. You really are an idiot. Muslims have been fighting and dying to apprehend and fight the Taliban and Bin Laden..the Pakistani army and civilian population has suffered much more then the American army or population, but of course being brown and Muslim they don’t count. I won’t even bother with the latter comment about the wars in those countries you mentioned since it seems to have escaped your attention about who started them….! Yes, you want people to lie down and take being invaded, occupied, civilians attacked using drones and political and economic infrastructures destroyed or manipulated to priviliege the few over the many and needy!

    “Second of all the people that carried out the Bosnian genocide were motivated by an ethnic supremacist idealogy not religion”

    Wrong. Religion was an extremely important factor it was part of the historical tensions…hate propaganda focused on Bosnians being outsiders, people who invaded and tried to supplant Chrisitanity with Islam. Their ‘otherness’ was because of their religion, because they were a threat for ‘Chrisitian Serbia’…Hindus nationalists don’t always mention God in their rantings but that doesn’t mean religion isn’t a huge part of their fanaticism…
    The PLO wanted a secular state, their goals were always nationalistic and not based on Islam but being Palestinian…yet everything it ever did came back to them being crazy Muslim fanatics, even the PLFP. One rule for us, another for everyone else eh?

  • Seductive

    Cassidy,

    You took my statements out of context, probably due to your own prejudice. Finklestein is a professor, and don’t exaggerate what he said about Hezbollah. Regarding “Zionism destroying the US”, read what i wrote there, i was talking specifically about the right wing extremist ideology, that was behind the fabricated Iraq war evidence. The neo-cons (Christian and Jewish) although they are a minority, they did hijack US foreign policy during the Bush years by exploiting 9/11. That was the Zionism i was talking about, and YES it is a religion. Are you saying that the ARmageddon/settler inspired right wing zionism is not a religion? OF COURSE IT IS A RELIGION. They even tried to change the US constitution to make it Christian, before getting kicked out in Nov 08.

    As for Bin Laden, his being a CIA agent will not be a fact until CIA records are released, (fifty years). The United States wanted to be able to deny that the CIA was funding the Afghan war, so its support was funneled through Pakistan’s military intelligence agency. That is why they can now make a convincing case that Bin Laden wasn’t one of theirs at the time, because they can deny it. However, if you choose to ignore that, just because there isn’t hard proof and the CIA will not admit it, that is your choice.

    Bear in mind that the CIA along with other intelligence agencies have to operate covertly, that is their reason d’etre. Why have an intelligence agency otherwise, if all the work is above board?

    Danios, with respect to what you said, (i don’t like conspiracy theories) the CIA could not have funded Bin Laden’s men, or the Muhahidin without Bin Laden being involved. It’s impossible.

    ——

    the CIA and the Saudi government took care to supply money to the anti-Soviet resistance in Afghanistan indirectly through the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence Agency (ISI), a procedure that Pakistan insisted upon. Some of this CIA money went to a project in which bin Laden was deeply involved. In his book Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia, the journalist Ahmed Rashid writes that in 1986, bin Laden “helped build the Khost tunnel complex, which the CIA was funding as a major arms storage depot, training facility, and medical center for the Mujaheddin, deep under the mountains close to the Pakistan border.
    ——-

    Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan and Bin Laden (Paperback)
    http://www.amazon.co.uk/Ghost-Wars-Secret-History-Afghanistan/dp/0141020806/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1258535214&sr=8-3
    The news-breaking book that has sent schockwaves through the White House, Ghost Wars is the most accurate and revealing account yet of the CIA’s secret involvement in al-Qaeada’s evolution. Prize-winning journalist Steve Coll has spent years reporting from the Middle East, accessed previously classified government files and interviewed senior US officials and foreign spymasters. Here he gives the full inside story of the CIA’s covert funding of an Islamic jihad against Soviet forces in Afghanistan, explores how this sowed the seeds of bn Laden’s rise, traces how he built his global network and brings to life the dramatic battles within the US government over national security.
    ———–
    Militant activity of Osama bin Laden: Allegations of CIA assistance to Osama bin Laden, Responsibility for the September 11 attacks, Videos of Osama bin Laden, 1998 United States embassy bombings (Paperback)
    by Frederic P. Miller (Editor), Agnes F. Vandome (Editor), John McBrewster (Editor)
    http://www.amazon.co.uk/Militant-activity-Osama-Laden-Responsibility/dp/6130066090/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1258535214&sr=8-5
    ———

  • Danios

    Hey Cassidy,

    Thanks for your comment. I actually agree with much of what you said. Sometimes the counter-reaction by Muslims to Islamophobes can be overboard, so it’s important to tone down on that.

    However, although I do not think that Bin Ladin was a CIA agent as Seductive said, it is a fact that the United States funded militant groups in Afghanistan, supplying them with weaponry and building them up in order to fight off the Soviets. As soon as that was accomplished, the United States bailed, leaving behind tens of thousands of fighters with militant and radical ideologies. These were the ingredients necessary for the creation of Al-Qaeda and resulted in the civil war that led to the formation of the Taliban.

    The point here is not to be anti-American. Rather, it is incumbent on Americans (which obviously includes Muslim Americans) to recognize that they had a major role in creating this demon, and therefore it is not wise to point all the fingers at Muslims or Islam.

    And for the record, I am an American, and I think America is one of the greatest countries ever created, if not the greatest. I just differ strongly with the foreign policy which I think actually is opposed to the ideals that this great nation was founded upon. The Founding Fathers broke away from the imperialistic British empire in order to create a nation state that did not occupy other lands. I think we should stick to this great ideal of being a peace loving country.

    Sincerely,
    Danios.

  • Cassidy

    “Bin Laden was a CIA agent and was supported by the USA during the war with Afghanistan against Russia.”

    Pure fiction, don’t get me wrong I don’t support the CIA but that’s an outright anti-American lie.

    “The Taliban were put in place, groomed and armed by the USA to fight Russia. They would never have achieved prominence otherwise. Bin Laden only became an enemy later.”

    Once again more fiction.

    “Today, a new “blowback” thesis is in the works. The Washington Post, Time magazine and the Associated Press are just a few of the news outlets that have asserted the U.S. is arming the Sunnis in Iraq. This is simply not true, Gen. David H. Petraeus insisted in congressional testimony Monday. But it’s no surprise that so many people are leaping to that conclusion because the familiar “blowback” story line is the only plausible one for millions of people who’ve made up their minds that the war is, was and forever shall be hubristic folly.”

    http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-goldberg11sep11,0,3372352.column

    “As for your other queries about only Muslims being attacks on the west, that is a very ignorant and juvenile comment. You show a lack of historical and current affairs reading.”

    Oh that’s rich given the anti-American myths you spout.

    “Read and learn here, I can also bring you many links about how Buddhists are killing Christians, and how Muslims are being persecuted and killed in parts of the world, and what about the Muslim genocide in the Balkans in the last decade by Christian fanatics?”

    All that proves is that religion in inherently negative, also speaking of the Balkans what about the atrocities committed by Bosnian muslims (ie Nasser Oric) or is having a balanced perspective too much for you? Second of all the people that carried out the Bosnian genocide were motivated by an ethnic supremacist idealogy not religion. If you doubt watch the video of Ratko Maldic after he captures Srebrenica, he says that he claims the town in the name of Serbia and rambles on about Serb nationalism, he never onces mentions God, Jesus or anything remotely religious. The IRA and ETA are also not religious terrorists (contrary to popular mythology the unionist vs. republican sectarianism is not about religion) read Eire Nua which clearly laws out the IRA’s goals which was to establish a secular socialist state, not a catholic theocracy they were a secular ethnic nationalist socialist terrorist group.

    “ead the links in the comments that i posted here, i won’t post them again, you read them here”

    I read them, and you posted links to anti-Semitic websites, one site uses Norm Finklestein as a source; Norm happens to be a Hezbollah supporter they call him a ‘noted educator and author’, you made the false statement that zionism is a religion and you claim that ‘zionists’ destroyed the US, so thanks for posting hate speech unoriginal hate speech at that.

  • Danios

    Lou: please take your pills.

Powered by Loon Watchers