Tuesday, July 13, 2010

Citizenship Guide for Muslims

United States Citizenship Guide for Muslims.

Purpose



The purpose of this document is to serve a source of information regarding the laws and structure of the United States Federal Government that Muslims may find relevant.

Citizenship Struggle

In basic terms, U.S. Citizens, whether they care to admit it or not, are engaged in an agreement with the U.S. Federal Government. This agreement promises the Citizen benefits and rights but also demands in return certain duties and obligations. For example, U.S. Citizens enjoy the right to live within the United States territory and conduct business and to be protected by laws and police and military protection. In exchange, U.S. Citizens agree to uphold the Constitution, to take up arms for the U.S. Federal Government if required by law. Importantly, U.S. Citizens also agree to pay income tax to the Federal Government if they earn more than a certain amount of money in a given year. These are serious obligations and there is no freedom to escape these obligations. If you failed to pay income tax that is owed you would likely go to jail. If you avoid responding to a draft that may come into effect, you would likely be punished.

The U.S. Constitution guarantees U.S. Citizens certain rights, although what exactly of these rights are is not exactly clear. Also, experience and history demonstrate that in reality these rights are not universally respected or enforced especially with respect to certain groups of citizens. The rights of non-citizens and non-permanent residents with respect to the U.S. Federal Government is even less clear. Without getting into an unnecessary discussion of who are what controls the U.S. government, and what agenda/interests are being pursued by its policy, I will instead mention several facts. The U.S. government is currently, through its military engaged in military confrontations with a number of nations, groups or other types of entities. Some of these entities are made up of Muslims, some are not. I will not comment on whether any of these conflicts are justified, either in the Islamic moral system or in other moral systems. These military operations require resources and while I do not have any figures(if someone could provide a reliable source with these figures it would be helpful), it is my impression that some portion of the income taxes or other tax sources collected by the federal government are used to fund these operations.
By living within the U.S. both citizens and non-citizens enjoy a relatively peaceful zone that is made possible by the military and police presence. This peace and security is not evenly distributed however and certain areas are relatively unprotected by the federal or local authorities and so parallel and “illicit” law systems develop in this areas. These systems are often violent and harsh and harm the inhabitants of these areas more than anyone else. Despite this, the relative security in the nation at large allows for sophisticated trade, contractual, and property relationships and transactions to take place. While I also do not have empirical data to demonstrate this, it is my impression that the united states(through its citizens) enjoys a share of resources from the world outside of its borders which are gotten through means which may violate the norms of Islamic moral system as well as other moral systems. For example. if representatives of the United States engage in agreements with representatives of foreign nations using force, threat of force or bribery or a combination of such means, this may violate the guidelines of Islamic moral values as well as the moral values of other systems. While I believe the U.S. government does in engage in such practices at least in some degree through the research I have done, I will not attempt to persuade the reader that this is the case, and will leave it up to them to decide
Also, The United States federal government has engaged in a number of practices historically that might violate the moral values and rules of the Islamic moral system or other moral systems, and the benefits of these practices have passed on through succession to the modern day recipients, i.e. U.S. citizens. A well documented and well known example is the theft of land and other aggressive practices towards the various groups of people that are commonly and collectively referred to as “American Indians” or “Native Americans”.
In conclusion, I assert that we as Muslims should thoroughly examine whether the benefits and duties that come along with U.S. citizenship conflict with what Islam requires and demands of us. And we must consider whether the consequences of losing or otherwise limiting our citizenship outweighs the punishment of hellfire if these demands and benefits of citizenship indeed conflict with the demands and benefits of being a Muslim.



U.S. Citizenship Oath:

“If your application is approved, you will be scheduled for a public oath ceremony at which time you will be required to take the following
Oath of Allegiance immediately prior to becoming a naturalized citizen. By signing, you acknowledge your willingness and ability to take
this oath:
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;
that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law;
that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law;
that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and
that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, so help me God.”

Legitimacy of Title


The following is an excerpt from Johnson’s Lessee v. McIntosh (21 US 543) – a Supreme Court case from 1823

Conquest gives a title which the Courts of the conqueror cannot deny, whatever the private and speculative opinions of individuals may be, respecting the original justice of the claim which has been successfully asserted. The British government, which was then our government, and whose rights have passed to the United States, asserted a title to all the lands occupied by Indians, within the chartered limits of the British colonies. It asserted also a limited sovereignty over them, and the exclusive right of extinguishing the title which occupancy gave to them. These claims have been maintained and established as far west as the river Mississippi, by the sword. The title to a vast
portion of the lands we now hold, originates in them. It is not for the Courts of this country to question the validity of this title, or to sustain one which is incompatible with it.

Although we do not mean to engage in the defence of those principles which Europeans have applied to Indian title, they may, we think, find some excuse, if not justification, in the character and habits of the people whose rights have been wrested from them.

The title by conquest is acquired and maintained by force. The conqueror prescribes its limits. Humanity, however, acting on public opinion, has established, as a general rule, that the conquered shall not be wantonly oppressed, and that their condition shall remain as eligible as is compatible with the objects of the conquest. Most usually, they are incorporated with the victorious nation, and become subjects or citizens of the government with which they are connected. The new and old members of the society mingle with each other; the distinction between them is gradually lost, and they make one people. Where this incorporation is practicable, humanity demands, and a wise policy requires, that the rights of the conquered to property should remain unimpaired; that the new subjects should be governed as equitably as the old, and that confidence in their security should gradually banish the painful sense of being separated from their ancient connexions, and united by force to strangers.

When the conquest is complete, and the conquered inhabitants can be blended with the conquerors, or safely governed as a distinct people, public opinion, which not
even the conqueror can disregard, imposes these restraints upon him; and he cannot neglect them without injury to his fame, and hazard to his power.

But the tribes of Indians inhabiting this country were fierce savages, whose occupation was war, and whose subsistence was drawn chiefly from the forest. To leave them in possession of their country, was to leave the country a wilderness; to govern them as a distinct people, was impossible, because they were as brave and as high spirited as they were fierce, and were ready to repel by arms every attempt on their independence.

What was the inevitable consequence of this state of things? The Europeans were under the necessity either of abandoning the country, and relinquishing their pompous claims to it, or of enforcing those claims by the sword, and by the adoption of principles adapted to the condition of a people with whom it was impossible to mix, and who could not be governed as a distinct society, or of remaining in their neighbourhood, and exposing themselves and their families to the perpetual hazard of being massacred.


Receding

Assume the following:

The conditions of an agreement between a U.S. Citizen and the U.S. Federal Government conflict with the duties and obligations ordained upon Muslims. (The duties and obligations of Muslims are not asserted here, as I am not qualified, but based upon the discussion here, the author encourages readers to ask a scholar or reflect upon it themselves whether or not such is the case).

Some possible options:

1. Leave the United States official borders and officially renounce Citizenship at a U.S. embassy.

  • This is the safest option. One can rest assured that they have no actual or principled relationship or agreement with the U.S. Federal Government.
  • This may prove difficult or impossible for those without the means. It may also involve tremendous sacrifice with regards to standard of living, family ties and other factors. Also, recent regulation known as the "exit" tax may impose severe tax penalties on certain individuals as well. A lawyer should be consulted before taking this step.


2. Leave the United States official borders and, without renouncing Citizenship, live life in such a way that does not violate duties and obligations of being a Muslim.

  • This assumes that the contract between a Citizen and the U.S. Federal Government is not an oath that one must sincerely believe in one's heart. For example one is not in violation of the agreement if they do not believe in "upholding the Constitution."
  • This requires a dedicated and committed effort to ensure that one is complying with all laws and regulations of the U.S. Federal Government while one is still a Citizen and yet living life in such a way that does not also violate the duties of being a Muslim. For example, one who purposely limits their income so that they do not earn an amount within a year that will be liable for income tax. For those who live outside of the U.S. the current

3. Remain within the United States official borders and unilaterally renounce Citizenship.

Case study, Republic of Lakota


4. Remain within the United States official borders and denounce Citizenship.

5. Remain within the United States official borders and without unilaterally renouncing or denouncing Citizenship, nonetheless live life to the extent possible in a way that does not violate the duties and obligations of being a Muslim.

The above options are passive in nature and may be categorized as avoidance of support and contribution to the United States Federal Government.

Actions

Assume further that Muslims must do whatever is in their power to end injustice and oppression.

Some possible options:

1. Retain U.S. Citizenship and engage in treasonous or violent activity in order to further the cause of ending those activities and conditions of the U.S. Federal Government which are objectionable to Muslims.

2. Officially renounce U.S. Citizenship and engage in violent activity in order to further the cause of ending those activities and conditions of the U.S. Federal Government which are objectionable to Muslims.

3. Unilaterally renounce or denounce U.S. Citizenship, while remaining within the United States official borders, and then engage in violent activity in order to further the cause of ending those activities and conditions of the U.S. Federal Government which are objectionable to Muslims.

4. Retain U.S. Citizenship and engage in activity that does not violate U.S. Federal Law in order to further the cause of ending those activities and conditions of the U.S. Federal Government which are objectionable to Muslims.

5. Officially renounce U.S. Citizenship and engage in activity that does not violate U.S. Federal Law in order to further the cause of ending those activities and conditions of the U.S. Federal Government which are objectionable to Muslims.

Unilaterally renounce or denounce U.S. Citizenship, while remaining within the United States official borders, and then engage in activity that does not violate U.S. Federal Law in order to further the cause of ending those activities and conditions of the U.S. Federal Government which are objectionable to Muslims.

The author reiterates the stance that those who are engaged in an agreement should not violate that agreement and so long as one holds U.S. Citizenship, treason, violence and other acts or omissions that are illegal should be avoided unless one is prepared to accept the potential consequences.

Note this should not be viewed as a "radical" or "extremist" document and the advice applies to those who are may consider themselves "liberal" Muslims or "conservative" or "orthodox" Muslims equally. This document is not concerned with the flexibility of the Islamic law in any direct way.
Share

No comments:

Post a Comment