Can a devout Muslim be an American patriot and a loyal citizen?

[-Cp]

Muslims' allegiance is to Islam only

Due to the recent events at Tri-State Airport, I know some were thinking "racial profiling." Consider this: I asked a question of a friend who's worked in Saudi Arabia for over 20 years: Can a devout Muslim be an American patriot and a loyal citizen?

His reply: Theologically, no. His allegiance is to Allah. Religiously, no. No other religion is accepted by his Allah except Islam (Quran, 2:256).

Scripturally, no. Allegiance is to the five pillars of Islam and Quran. Geographically, no. Allegiance is to Mecca, to which he turns in prayer five times a day. Socially, no. His allegiance to Islam forbids him to make friends with Christians or Jews.

Politically, no. Some spiritual leaders (mullahs) teach annihilation of infidels (Jews and Christians). Intellectually, no. The American Constitution is based on Biblical principles believed to be corrupt in his view.

Philosophically and spiritually, no. Islam and the Quran do not allow freedom of religion and expression. Democracy and Islam cannot co-exist because every Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic. Declaring "One Nation Under God" refers to a "Heavenly Father," which is never related to as a "Loving God" in the Quran's "99 Excellent Names."

I know this article will upset a lot of people, but not nearly as many as the good folks who waited in line for canceled flights in the United Kingdom and the United States.


http://www.herald-dispatch.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060825/OPINION/608250353/1034

 

[dmp]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=35760

 

[Bullypulpit]

No religious zealot can be an American patriot and a loyal citizen. They adhere only to the law handed down in their religious doctrine...to the exclusion of all others. But America is a nation founded on the rule of law...Man's laws, not God's. For the laws handed down from on high are capricious and dependent upon the whims and vagaries of an unknowable, supernatural entity relying upon a dedicated all too human priesthood for their interpretation. Talk about subjectivism!

 

[LuvRPgrl]

No religious zealot can be an American patriot and a loyal citizen. They adhere only to the law handed down in their religious doctrine...to the exclusion of all others. But America is a nation founded on the rule of law...Man's laws, not God's. For the laws handed down from on high are capricious and dependent upon the whims and vagaries of an unknowable, supernatural entity relying upon a dedicated all too human priesthood for their interpretation. Talk about subjectivism!

:wank: :ali: :69:

 

[Bullypulpit]

:wank: :ali: :69:

So what's yer point dearie? All your response shows is your own intellectual bankruptcy and inability to articualte a rational response. Tch...Tch...Tch...

 

[glockmail]

No religious zealot can be an American patriot and a loyal citizen. They adhere only to the law handed down in their religious doctrine...to the exclusion of all others. But America is a nation founded on the rule of law...Man's laws, not God's. ....

Actually, since the US was founded on Christian principles, any relogious person (other than a Muslim, as pointed out in post 1) can easily be a loyal citizen.

 

[dmp]

I'm a religious Zealot, and I'm a FANTASTIC US Citizen.

 

[Abbey Normal]

Actually, Jesus cleared this up for us 2,000 years ago, when he told us to: "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." Mark 12:17

 

[Abbey Normal]

I'm a religious Zealot, and I'm a FANTASTIC US Citizen.

You are simply marvelous, sweetie.

 

[dmp]

/me bows...

 

[archangel]

/me bows...

Hummm..and did not Paul say this...remembering when Jesus said..."When the cock crows three times you will deny me" ? all three times!...Talk is cheap...actions of responsibility rate high!Don't bow to much it is unbecomming a officer and gentleman...lol:food1: ( Or was that Peter...no matter I am sure ya will correct this humble soul!)

 

[Eightball]

I suppose an ultimate allegiance may supercede one's nation if one's religious doctrine says that their belief in their creator or higher power or god is the final, "say" in all things.

Having said that, one can still be patriotic, and not violate one's religion if the specific doctrine of the religion tells them to respect their fellow man, to obey the laws of their nation(as long as those laws do not violate their god's laws).

Apostle Paul always addressed the Roman leaders of his time with respectful title, and humility. He also emphasized in one or more of his epistles(books) that we/Christians should subject ourselves to the governing authorities as they have received their authority ultimately through God's permission. Therefore whatever God has allowed, is to be respected,......but.....if this ruling authority abuses it's God given authority, (because of the free-will of man to still do as he wants irrespective of his creator..i.e. Hitler, Stalin,), it nullifies or frees the Christian to disobey or give obedience to their God over prevailing earthly or national authority.
*
Sorry about the long sentence.
*
Also Jesus was put to "task" by the Pharisees over the paying of taxes to the Romans, or probably any ruling, governing power over the Jews at that time.

It was a "trick" question in order to prove to all that Jesus was a hypocrite. Jesus, merely picked up or held a Roman coin and asked all there, "Whose face is on this coin?". The reply, was, "Caesar's". Then Jesus said, "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and render unto God what is God's". The man was brilliant!! Why wouldn't God be brilliant?

Paying taxes aren't immoral in a sense yet possibly if they became so extreme that they literally endangerd the existence, of nation as a whole, there maybe something to be said in the area of morality.
*
Now, there is such a thing as civil disobedience. I grew up during the time of much unrest back in the 50's and 60's when many folks traveled to the Southern states to protest against segregation. At the time these states had ordinances/laws that truly divided one race from another. It gave partiality to white over black Americans. Now, those Freedom Riders, and bible Christians that went down there and were beat-up and maligned and even murdered were following a higher law, that superceded the laws of Alabama, Mississippi, Texas, and many other states at that time.
*
Did Jesus come to free slaves from the bondage of the Romans and Jews........No, His ministry covered a spiritual realm of human life that superceded the physical conditions of individuals. He offered a freedom that allowed freemen and slaves to both be free in totality, not in physicality necessarily.
*
He didn't come to lead rebellion against a government, but actually a rebellion/war against a spiritual condition of man that had led to physical human bondage as it's outcome.
*
Jesus humbly walked to His crucifixion. If anyone had a right in human history to rebel, or say, "hell No, I won't go!", it was Jesus. He didn't. He submitted to the governing authorities, and was executed by that authority.

He did not mock Pilate, the governor, or spit back at the soldiers that ridiculed, and spit in his face. He didn't plead his innocence either.
*
I think that this reveals a major chasm between Islam and Christianity. Islam actually promotes a violent type of disobedience in obedience of a higher calling when their doctrine conflicts with prevailing authority. It is more of a Barrabus-type of response to injustice or religious conflict with governing authority.

Jesus had one possible time of release when He and Barrabus were offered before the Jews for clemency from death. They chose Barrabus, the patriot. The man of violence, the one who fought the governing authority with a sword and spear. They rejected the other rebel, that said, "blood just begets more blood. One who lives by the sword will die by the sword". Jesus was calling Jews to look to something greater than the nation or the Roman occupiers. He was trying to raise their spiritual eyes to the ultimate authority, and by doing this all the conflict on the human level would become moot to all submitting parties.

Barrabus's followers were patriots. They were Jewish patriots. They wanted the filthy occupying Romans out of their God given land. They saw only the sword as the answer.

Jesus's Apostles defeated the prevailing Roman occupiers by truth, and love. Roman sensiblities were brought to confusion by the humility of Christians as they walked to death in the colliseum in Rome. This love that the Christians had for the very one's that maligned, and hurt them was totally opposite of the Roman way of strength through force, weapons, discipline and great numbers.

Well, we know what happened to the patriotic jews. Their nation was steam-rolled over by the Romans in roughly 70 A.D.. The conquerers had enough of this upstart, prideful, little nation of monotheists.
*
Christians have been in the service of many nations for thousands of years, in many capacities. Some as soldiers, some as diplomats, actual leaders/presidents/premiers.

Some have risked their reputations and livelihoods to address "wrongs" and "injustices", knowing, and trusting by faith that their ultimate national citizenship would be after death, in their God's kingdom. This gave them courage to face death, rather than bow a knee to dictates or laws that went against their Creator's authorship.
*
Again, can this be said of Islam, if we remove the radical elements from their religion? I don't believe that the Koran encourages respect for people of other beliefs other than their own belief system, and it encourages no respect for governing authorities as long as those authorities are infidels.

Paul was respectful to Roman and Jewish authority as long as it didn't violate his God's laws. He/Paul did not differentiate between converted and unconverted when it came to respect of his fellow human beings. Can that be said of Muslims? Are they taught to live with respect for those that have a differing religious or no religious belief?

It appears to me, that radical Islam is not a sect that's out of balance with Islam, but actually a reflection or revealing of those who embrace Islam and actually live very closely by it's tenents. That means that the bulk or majority of Muslims that don't participate in terrorist acts or other violent acts as exemplified by 9/11 are actually not doctrinally living as Mohammed their prophet has taught them in the Koran.
*
As for Christians, more specifically,.....the ones that bomb abortion clinics, or protest at G.I. funerals, or scream for clemency for serial killers; they are actually living out a non-biblical/non-doctrinal cultic/sect type of Christianity that would bring much scorn from Paul, Peter, John, Timothy, titus, Luke, etc. of the New Testament.
*
It was Christians that promoted and maintained the underground railway that stealthily moved slaves to Canada back in the 1700's from the U.S.. They broke U.S. law. It was Christians that walked hand-in-hand with black Americans in the South when danger of life and limb wasn't far away. It was young and old biblical Christians that took the beatings of sherrif's batons in Mobile, along with their fellow, black Americans.
*
One attribute of God that you will not find in Islam. Try and find, "love". Islam can match eye for eye every Old testament and New testament attribute of God, but one.......and that is "love". Interestingly, love is the capstone of all of the N.T. letters/epistles. Paul says that love trumps every other great human attribute/trait. Without love, anything done or said, in God's name is worthless.
*
Have you noticed that the Islam that you see, revealed in the media, reveals a brotherhood, of love amongst like minded Muslims, but it does not extend beyond that unto God's humanity in total? Thats very revealing. It means in my opinion that ultimately, Islam cannot live in peace with prevailing government authority if it's lead by infidels, and it also means that under those circumstances, those Muslims living under that authority cannot be patriotic, without violating the very tenents of the prophet's teachings.
*

 

[Bullypulpit]

Actually, since the US was founded on Christian principles, any relogious person (other than a Muslim, as pointed out in post 1) can easily be a loyal citizen.

A popular myth promoted by Christian nationalists and Dominionists without a shred of evidence to support it. Unless you have a credible, objective and independent source to support it.

 

[Bullypulpit]

I'm a religious Zealot, and I'm a FANTASTIC US Citizen.

The two are mutually exclusive. Nice try though.

 

[glockmail]

....Unless you have a credible, objective and independent source to support it [that the US was founded on Christian principles].

"Such being the impressions under which I have, in obedience to the public summons, repaired to the present station, it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official act, my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being, who rules over the universe, who presides in the council of nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States.." "...Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation, seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency" From President George Washington's Inaugural Address, April 30th, 1789, addressed to both Houses of Congress.

That was easy.

 

[glockmail]

The two are mutually exclusive[being a religious Zealot and a FANTASTIC US Citizen]. Nice try though.

A popular myth promoted by Liberals and Socialists without a shred of evidence to support it. Unless you have a credible, objective and independent source to support it.

 

[Bullypulpit]

That was easy.

And which "Almighty Being" might that be? Yaweh? Allah? Krishna? Zoroaster? Quetzalcoatl? So solly...You no prove point.

The Constitution is a secular document which makes no appeal to God, Christianity, Jesus or any other supreme being. According to the Constitution, goverment derives its power from the people...not God, or any other deity, for that matter.

At least have the honesty to admit that you're either a Christian Nationalist in favor of overthrowing the Constitution in favor of the Ten Commandments or a Dominionist in favor of said usurpation of the Constitution, as well as the imposition of Taliban style religious law.

 

[glockmail]

[1]And which "Almighty Being" might that be? Yaweh? Allah? Krishna? Zoroaster? Quetzalcoatl? So solly...You no prove point.

[2]The Constitution is a secular document which makes no appeal to God, Christianity, Jesus or any other supreme being. According to the Constitution, goverment derives its power from the people...not God, or any other deity, for that matter.

[3]At least have the honesty to admit that you're either a Christian Nationalist in favor of overthrowing the Constitution in favor of the Ten Commandments or a Dominionist in favor of said usurpation of the Constitution, as well as the imposition of Taliban style religious law.

1. Why Jesus, of course, which is who George Washington was referring to:

"It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible" President George Washington, September 17th, 1796

2. If your statement is true, then who are they referring to in the phrase “the Blessings of Liberty”? Who gave his blessing, if not God?
3. Look, I’ve always been taught that the trait of being “unassuming” is a good one, and one that Liberals like yourself claim to have. So why would you assume that I want to overthrow [sic] the Constitution, a document that I obviously revere, or worse yet, subscribe to some bastardization of religion (Taliban)?

 

[Bullypulpit]

Tell ya what, why don't you check out the 1796 <a href=http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/treaty_tripoli.html>Treaty with Tripoly</a>. Specifically Article 11, which states:

<blockquote>Art. 11. <b><i>As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion</i></b>; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries. - (<i>emphasis mine</i>)</blockquote>

A clear statement that America was not founded on the basis of Christian religious doctrine. The principles laid out in the Constitution have more to do with the Enlightenment than they do with religious doctrine. A little honest and non-self serving research into America history will show this to be true.

 

[glockmail]

That Treaty was re-worked 8 years later and Article 11, which was put in by a mis-translation, was removed entirely.:gang1: