Originally Posted by Diaz89
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.
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)
When he enters into a covenant, he proves treacherous. (Sahih al-Bukhari)
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.
Just a quick note, I would not bother listening to anything Suhaib Webb has to say, when he disassociates himself from the suffering of the Ummah and only sees american mozlems as his problem.
Secondly, have you read the oath, how many counts of kufr akbar are found in it? More than can be counted on a hand. And you think this is a binding covenant.
Even if we were to humour that farce for a second. Are you forgetting that a covenant is a two way process, and can be violated by the other side?
As for operations involving deceit, people like Webb would have you believe it is haraam.
Are we forgetting:
Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah's Apostle called,: "War is deceit". - Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 268
Also, if we were to follow this flop logic, then you would have to conclude that the assasinations carried out by the Sahaba were haraam, and that RasulAllah(saws) disobeyed Allah(swt) by allowing them to lie, deceive, curse Islam and the Messenger, and falsely gain the trust of their target in order to carry out the operation.
This false fiqh falls to pieces in light of the true fiqh of Islam, and examples from the seerah.