Talk:Allegiance

The original was offensive in its nationalism

The original assumed that states own those they declare as citizens, and assumed that an actual "duty" of some sort is "owed" to the state. I changed the wording in an attempt to achieve neutrality, but I think it is clumsy and welcome alternative suggestions. --Silverback 10:28, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I tried a new wording. Tom Haws 02:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The issue is that this will depend on your individual belief. If you believe in natural law and agree with edward coke, allegiance is due to God by the law of nature, and there are then sovereigns under god to whom gentle folk owe allegiance, because they are not fit to fight for themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:7A3C:9100:B810:19B6:64AC:5FFD (talk) 03:36, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Link suggestions

An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Allegiance article, and they have been placed on this page for your convenience.
Tip: Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add {{User:LinkBot/suggestions/Allegiance}} to this page. — LinkBot 10:33, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Removed "some think" from the first line

It might seem offensive or nationalistic to put it the way it was put, but as rephrased it appears to un-define the word altogether.

Perhaps a paragraph about international recognition of the right to emigrate, and to renounce allegiance would make more sense, somewhere in the body of the article?

Latin

The legal latin, whilst acceptable in the context, must be (at least) translated brackets. If the House of Lords can do this to latin legal maxims, Wikipedia can as well! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.106.119 (talk) 19:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguous page

This page should really be a page to clarify exactly what the user wants to find. I came here looking for information about the Allegiance computer game...even though there is a link at the bottom of this page for the computer game I should not have seen this page at all. Flyerhell 09:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

The disambiguation link, though, is at the top of the page... --badpazzword 15:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The concept of Bay'at/Allegiance

This needs to be looked at more clearly, i do not think it is entirely correct as there are differing opinions on this amongst sunni muslims (cant speak for Shia/Sufi).

Some believe it is fine, while others believe swearing allegiance to anyone other then God and the Prohet is incorrect, please refer to the article on Bay'ah

Also the translation provided is incorrect or does not provide the entire translation, Which translation is this done from?

Here are a few:

Yusuf Ali: "Verily those who plight their fealty to thee do no less than plight their fealty to Allah. the Hand of Allah is over their hands: then any one who violates his oath, does so to the harm of his own soul, and any one who fulfils what he has covenanted with Allah,- Allah will soon grant him a great Reward. "

Pikthal "Lo! those who swear allegiance unto thee (Muhammad), swear allegiance only unto Allah. The Hand of Allah is above their hands. So whosoever breaketh his oath, breaketh it only to his soul's hurt; while whosoever keepeth his covenant with Allah, on him will He bestow immense reward"

This needs to be looked at more clearly, however stating that it is sanctioned in the Quran generally is incorrect, it was sanctioned in the Quran for Muahmed (PBUH). The verse in question most likely refers to the practice of Shaada, i.e confirming your belief in God and the Prophet and does not condone anything else.

Also, i am wondering if this should even be here???? Can anyone provide clarity, as i have looked at several different translations of the particular verse some authors translate it as 'Allegiance' while others do not. The arabic word and meanings also need to be looked at, and i am wondering if the concept is the same as that set out in this article?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.174.15.116 (talk) 22:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Needs citations for EVERY assertion of fact

This article needs citations for EVERY assertion of fact, almost none of it is cited. Words also lack definitions, when used in a legal context, and the meaning is different from common usage, it needs to be expressly defined. 24.24.151.13 (talk) 19:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)