Can Moslems Serve?

Sergeant Assan Akhbar. Sergeant John Allen Muhammad. Sergeant Ali Mohamed. Captain James Yee. What do all of these men have in common? They all served in the US Army, they are all Moslems, and they are all traitors. Akhbar killed several of his fellow soldiers in a grenade attack during the Iraq War. Muhammad was an unreliable solider who, after leaving the Army, killed ten people in a series of sniper attacks. Mohamed set up the terrorist cell which eventually bombed the US Embassy in Nairobi. The latest man on the list, Captain Yee, is a Chinese-American who converted to Islam in the mid 1990’s. Eventually he became an Islamic Chaplin and was regularly hailed in the media as an effective illustration of a loyal practitioner of the religion of peace. Oh yes, and was a terrorist too- that part is a little hard to forget. Given all of this, the question must be asked: can Moslems continue to be allowed to serve in the American Armed Forces, or does their presence constitute a security risk?

There will be those who will accuse me of racism for even raising such a question. How dare I question the loyalty of Islamic soldiers serving on the front lines? But events now leave us with no choice. Moreover, it is clear that al-Qaeda is deliberately infiltrating the US Army- Yee suddenly rejoined the Army after living in Syria for four years, Mohamed came to the US Army by way of the Egyptian one. A good first step would be to forbid the service in the US military of anyone who has lived in an Islamic country for an extended period of time and was not on government business of some sort. This might sound unfair to some- but allowing someone to join the US Army after a half-decade sojourn in Araby is like allowing someone just back from a six-year stint as a Factory Worker in the USSR to join the Marine Corps circa 1953.

Whether we like it or not the War on Terrorism puts us up against people who claim to be fighting on behalf of the Islamic religion. The Islamist creed is strong, especially among new converts to the religion (which a majority of Moslems in the US Army are) it is hardly unexpected that some will take seriously the calls for Jihad and attack their fellow soldiers. This problem is made much worse when these men are deployed to the Middle East where they are subjected to a constant stream of Islamist propaganda and called upon to fight their fellow Mohammedans.

Some have advocated the immediate discharge of all Moslems in the Armed Forces. I would not, perhaps, go that far. The discharge of those practicing the Islamic faith would unfairly punish actually loyal Americans simply upon the basis of their religion. Rather, a through investigation of the backgrounds of all Islamic soldiers must be undertaken and those whose loyalty might be even considered somewhat suspect must be immediately removed from the service. Many will call such investigations ‘McCarthyism’ and they’re right if, by ‘McCarthyism’ they mean ‘investigations that remove disloyal individuals from the government.’ Still, these investigations will find that only a minority of Moslems have terrorist ties or suspect loyalties- so what shall be done with the rest?

I think that we ought to look to history for a solution to this problem. In the Second World War Japanese-Americans, while forbidden from serving in the regular army, were allowed to join the 442nd Regimental Combat Team, which became one of the most distinguished units of the entire war. Deployed for service in Italy, members of the unit fought with fanatical and suicidal bravery thereby proving that they were as loyal as any other Americans.

This would be an excellent model to follow today. Most estimates suggest that there are somewhere between five and ten thousand Moslems in the US Army, the majority of them black converts. These men could be reassigned to a new ‘Islamic Brigade’, which could then be deployed to some theatre where they would be unlikely to have to fight against their fellow Moslems and where they might be kept away from the influence of radical Islamists. The men could be carefully monitored, with those showing radical tendencies being speedily discharged. They could be placed under the spiritual guidance of extremely carefully vetted moderate Islamic clerics and guided towards a peaceful and ‘Americanized’ form of Islam.

Whether it's 90%, or 99.95% (and it's probably somewhere in between), the ugly reality is that any that go to the spiritual/doctrinal roots of their "religion", immediately become part of the murderous, infidel-hating group. This is "fundamentally" different than the case with any other significant religious group.

Ignoring and whitewashing reality will not protect you from the conseqences of ignoring reality.

I'm not blind to the fact that there is a radical core that must be fought and destroyed, I support this fight whole-heartedly. What I don't support is the ugly undercurrent on FR that holds that Islam is an ilegitimate, inherently violent blood-cult. This is not the case, and it insults hundreds of millions of good people who might be our allies.

...the ugly reality is that any that go to the spiritual/doctrinal roots of their "religion", immediately become part of the murderous, infidel-hating group.

Just how many Muslims do you know and interact with on a daily basis?

Do you have any suggstions on how to rid the world of that 500,000 (by your count) Islamofascists? I suggest getting the support of the "peaceful" muslims who claim that these radicals share no principles of the "true" muslim faith. If they really believe that these violent extremists are not muslims then they should have no qualms about helping us rid the world of them.

Part fo the answer is to kill as many of the radical core as we can find, but that's only a temporary measure. The situation is akin to the violence in N. Ireland: You had a situation where a large number of people felt oppressed and wanted change. This produced a number of hard-core IRA members who carried out bombings in the Belfast, the UK, and various other places. The initial British response was to arrest or kill as many of the IRA members as it could find, but while this decreased the number of the attacks it didn't (and couldn't) stop them completely. The situation was only resolved (and is still being resolved) when the UK sat down at the negotiating table and came to an accomodation that the people of N. Ireland could accept.

This is roughly the same situation that Isreal faces in the West Bank and that India faces in Kashmir (I can't comment on Indonesia out of ignorance of the conflict); military force is definately an option, but the real war can only be won by addressing the grievances of the people.

Exactly how much examination of the underpinning doctrine of this religion have you done?

I didn't know any Communists, and knew they were dangerous. They still are, as far as that goes, but they hold much less power today than, say, 25 years ago.

Ideas matter. If you know some secular Muslims, that's nice. The only good Muslims are bad Muslims.

>>addressing the grievances of the people.

OK, here's a grevance for you. I will become tolerant of Islam when there are churches and synagogues in Mecca, Medina, Riyadh, Islamabad, Karachi, Cairo, Khartoum, and similar locales, and the locals aren't trying to burn down the structures and kill the attendees.

We'll talk about my tolerance level for Islam after that happens.

"...used to think this kind of thing was the way to go, but have dropped that idea for at least a couple of hundred years in regards to other Christians, more recently in regards to others. The Islamic world still operates as if that's an OK way to think. In fact, they think we're idiots for not thinking that way and for believing them when they talk about peace, or Islam as a "religion of peace." "

Anyone who researches islam will see the repeated claim that they follow islamic law and that nothing has happened to change islamic law. This is why slavery is still legal (provided the slaves are captured in jihad and doled out by the warlord) and other practices are tolerated.

Until there is a reformation to defuse Islamofascism, it will continue to pose a threat.

There is no central religious order which gives advice. Different Imam will say different things. Some the statements aren't too reassuring:

The fatwa made one exception to American policy, saying the perpetrators ``must be brought to justice in an impartial court of law'' and then given appropriate punishment to deter future terrorism.
Nonetheless, the fatwa said U.S. Muslim soldiers can serve, even though in combat ``it's often difficult - if not impossible - to differentiate between the real perpetrators who are being pursued, and the innocents who have committed no crime.''

Some have asked that the "perpetrators" be brought to a court of Islamic Law, some of what we find "illegal" is quite legal there.

Also this talk of "real perpetrators" is hazy. There are some who insist that it was America "Timothy McVeigh"-types or Da Jooz who had a hand in the 9/11 hijackings.

I do believe that there are some who can honorably serve and do see America as their home. I am also aware that there are those who do not feel this way and they pose a safety threat.

I didn't know any Communists, and knew they were dangerous. They still are, as far as that goes, but they hold much less power today than, say, 25 years ago.

I wouldn't be so sure that they hold less power today. Internationally maybe, but domestically I would say that their power has increased (or their communist ties more open).

We won the Cold War but are losing (lost?) the war against Socialism.

There is no central religious order which gives advice. Different Imam will say different things.

Correct...and that's why I object to grouping all Muslims as some here do, as 100% subversive and treasonous and guilty into proven innocent. Those that are, are....and should be imprisoned and/or run out the country, as applicable.

There are those who are not, and they should not be held accountable for the behavior of their disloyal co-religionists any more than honest pro-lifers should be held responsible for Eric Rudolph/Paul Hill/Neal Horsely et al. Keep in mind that one of our greatest domestic victories in the "War on Terrorism" was brought about not by the misnamed "Patriot Act", but by the Buffalo area Muslims who tipped off authorities about the Al Qaeda cell in their area.

-Eric

I'm not denying that Islam is not a fundamentally peaceful religion, and that their doctrines approve of violence as a means of conversion. But before we start excluding people from the army for their religious convictions, we need to make sure what their intentions really are.

Now, the statistic someone else pointed out to me (100% of the treason cases in the army in recent years) is definitely food for thought. (Plus, given our commander-in-chief's pro-Islam statements to the public, it's not fair to assume that it's simply because people are more aware of the true nature of Islam now than they were a few years ago.) But I'm not sure we should automatically ban Muslims from joining the army.

Do you deny that there were reformations in the Church?Islam has had no such reformation movement and is why it still poses a threat today.

American society has had no such reformation movement either. This is why we kill one-third of our babies. It is not for nothing the Pope calls this the Culture of Death.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.