NATO is not an internal police force
Reader comment on item: NATO Fights the Jihadis

Submitted by trans-parere (Canada), Oct 3, 2006 at 21:13

Muslim fataawa; " It is not permissible to reside in a non-Muslim country and get their citizenship except in dire necessity of life or a considerable religious need."

Fataawa # 1620
There is no doubt that a person who accepts the naturalization of disbelieving countries commits many religious infractions.

Among these infractions is to utter what is not permissible to believe in or abide by, like accepting their regime which is totally different
from Islaam, and uttering an oath to be loyal and friendly with them. This will also oblige him to serve in their army if military service is
obligatory in their country, as well as fight on their side against their enemies even if these enemies are his brothers in religion and
creed, not to mention many more obligations which contradict Islaam.

Fataawa # 1432
First of all you should know that living in a non-Muslim country is forbidden. Imam Abu Dawood narrated on the authority of Jareer Bin
Abdullah (May Allah pleased with him) he said that the Prophet said: "I am exempt from a Muslim who lives among pagans". This is a sound Hadith. So, living among them is forbidden as a general rule, because it has many ill affects on the religion of a Muslim. Those persons who face trials in their own countries or who fear that they may imprisoned or killed in their countries, at that critical moment they may live in
non-Muslim countries and Allah will forgive them, insha Allah. The evidence for this rule is the migration of the weak Muslims from Makkah
to Abyssinia because the King of Abyssinia was a good ruler and did not practice injustice to anyone.

Living in a non-Muslim country or migration to it is permissible only if a person can not find Muslim country where he can earn a livelihood and
can practice his religion freely.
It is also permissible for Muslim scholars live in non-Muslim countries for the purpose of Dawah i.e., calling non-Muslims towards Islam and
teaching the Muslims the rules of Sharia if they do not feel tempted to compromise or leave their religion.

All the mentioned details are related to the rule of Muslims living in non-Muslim countries. But the rule for applying and accepting citizenship of those countries is, much restricted. A Muslim is not permitted to apply for citizenship of non-Muslim countries except in dire need, such as not being able to practice his religion in his own country or fear of oppression or being in danger for his life or he threat of imprisonment or torture in his homeland and there is no Islamic country where he can live. In such circumstances one can apply for citizenship of a non-Muslim country. If it is obliged to take an oath for getting citizenship, at that moment one should try to allude to the words of oath as much as possible to escape their intended point. If he is able to live harmlessly in the non-Muslim country without taking the citizenship then applying for citizenship is not permissible for him. It is forbidden for him to apply for citizenship of a non-Muslim country if he is simply aspiring to material comforts or financial gain.

Allah Says (interpretation of meaning): {And never will Allâh grant to the disbelievers a way (to triumph) over the believers.}[4: 141].
No doubt, the believer who accepts the nationality of a non-Muslim country gives non-believers an advantage over him to force him to follow
their rules and regulations.

Fataawa # 344
So many scholars, past and present, have given the Fatwa that living in non-Muslim countries without any need or necessity is prohibited.
Prophet (Blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: " Fire of Muslims should not be seen with the fire of MUSHRIKEEN". Just imagine
how it would be to live among them. But it is allowed in the time of necessity, such as a business trip, gaining some knowledge not found in
Muslim countries, for treatment, or for the one who fears for his life in Muslim countries. In the above circumstances one may migrate to
non-Muslim country.

So, I give these examples of muslim Fataawa to show that the Nato, or for a fact, any warfare exterior to the rights of democatic nations is not the answer to radical Islamist terror. Islamists living within the free democacies are going against sharia law and therefore have no voice as Muslims. They are leeches suckling on the breast of freedom for an advantage they are not entitled to from their own Muslim rule of law.
They hold no allegiance to country or democracy and are traitors to their host countries. They are false to their obligations and duties as good citizens under law.

Under sharia law they are allowed to treat falsely with us because we are not believers.

There is no further necessity in law to treat with these people with any decency. And our laws under democracy must be strengthened and purified. We can no longer allow any ambiguity in law. Any exception to the rule must be eliminated. Muslim immigration needs to be reviewed by all democratic nations. Democratic rule of law can not be traded away or bastardized to accommodate Islam. I ask again for all citizens of democratic countries to call on their leaders to strengthen democracy through clear, concise expression of law. I like the word "compendious" as a descriptor.

Like "Thou shalt not steal". Theft is theft and there is no need to expand the meaning to cover every circumstance. Get caught stealing and it must be repaid. whether it's 10 cents or 10 billion dollars. Can't repay, do the time equal to the dollar. No further punishment is required.
Muslims can never be honest citizens of any democratic country and I do not believe that it is incumbent upon democracy to make a place for Muslims. I am not pleased that my children are dying in the name of freedom and democracy in Afganistan so some sneak thief Muslim can usurp my democracy here at home.

NATO may be a tool to unite democratic nations, but they must be true democracies. And strengthening democracy must become the method of fighting. And not the kneejerk response we have seen from the Bush republicans. Limiting the rights and freedoms flies in the face of democracy. Make clean, concise law and execute it without prejudice.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened for relevance, substance, and tone, and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome, but comments are rejected if scurrilous, off-topic, vulgar, ad hominem, or otherwise viewed as inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the Guidelines for Comments. For informational purposes, we identify countries from which comments are sent.