Muslim private granted conscientious objector status
Patrick Poole writing at Pajamas Media reports:
A shocking decision made by the secretary of the Army last month—in the case of an U.S. Army soldier with the 101st Airborne at Fort Campbell who refused to deploy to Afghanistan claiming that Islamic law prevented him from killing other Muslims—vindicates Fort Hood killer Major Nidal Hasan. He made identical claims and threatened [as Hasan did] that “adverse events” would occur if military officials didn’t accede to shariah principles.Poole continues:
By granting PFC Abdo’s conscientious objector claim, the Army may have created trouble for themselves in the court martial of Major Hasan for the murder of his thirteen fellow soldiers at Fort Hood. Hasan’s attorney can now claim that by refusing to acknowledge Major Hasan’s claims under Islamic law as a conscientious objector and granting him an honorable discharge, the Army created irreconcilable conflict that prompted the Fort Hood massacre. And they can use the secretary of the Army’s decision in the Abdo case as proof.Now of course I believe, along with Major Hasan and PFC Abdo, that no Muslim soldier should be in the United States military if it is fighting in a Muslim country or against Muslims. However, I also believe, for exactly the same underlying reasons, that no believing Muslims should be in the United States, period.
Hasan’s and Abdo’s position is logically consistent: they recognize that Islam is eternally at war with non-Muslims, and therefore Muslims should not serve in an infidel military when it is at war with Muslims.
But my position is also logically consistent: I recognize that Islam is eternally at war with non-Muslims, and therefore Muslims do not belong in significant numbers in America or any non-Muslim country, period.
It’s everyone else, everyone who occupies the middle ground on these issues, the people who want Muslims to serve in the U.S. military notwithstanding the eternal Islamic jihad against infidels, the people who think Muslims can be safely a part of America and the West notwithstanding the eternal Islamic jihad against infidels, who are mired in hopeless intellectual confusion.
Furthermore, my consistent approach to the issue would eliminate the problem that Patrick Poole is concerned about. He says, correctly, that the Army, by recognizing that requiring a Muslim U.S. soldier to fight against Muslims creates an irreconciliable conflict in the conscience of that Muslim, is potentially creating an excuse for Nidal Hasan’s act of mass murder, since Hasan was subject to such an irreconcilable conflict. But Poole, since he strongly disapproves of the granting of conscientious objector status to PFC Abdo, presumably wants Muslims to serve in the military notwithstanding the evident threat that they pose to their fellow military personnel. So that’s no solution either.
The solution to this dilemma, the only solution, is (1) to remove all Muslims from the United States military, and (2) to remove all Muslims from the United States.
Step One of my solution, removing all Muslims from the U.S. military, eliminates the problem of Muslim soldiers with a dangerously divided conscience. But if we stop there, we will still have a Muslim population to whom we are applying different rules than to the rest of the population by not letting Muslim U.S. citizens serve in the military, which contradicts the American belief in a single rule of law for all citizens. The only way to eliminate the contradiction is through Step Two of my solution, removing all Muslims from America.
This is not rocket science, and it is not unfair. Islam prohibits its adherents from being loyal to a non-Islamic government. Any loyalty Muslims do appear to profess to a non-Islamic government is provisional and fake, part of the strategy for Muslim conquest laid out by Muhammad in the Koran. Therefore Muslims do not belong in a non-Islamic country which intends to remain non-Islamic.
Of course, the Muslims have their own proposal for eliminating the contradiction: Islamize America and subject it to Islamic law.
One way or another, the contradiction will ultimately be resolved. The only real choice we have is to resolve it on Islamic terms, or on non-Islamic terms.
It’s over, Mr. Auster. The rot’s set in completely. Fighting is pointless. What are we fighting for?LA replies:
Instead of giving up, how about seeing it this way? We are living in very interesting times. :-)James P. writes:
Why did the SOB join the Army in the first place? It is not a secret we are fighting and killing Muslims.Michael S. writes:
According to the Fox News report, Private Abdo joined the Army LAST YEAR. It’s obvious, but I’ll say it anyway: Did it never occur to him that he might be deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan? He’s either stupid, or a troublemaker.LA replies:
I’ll bet the official Army body that decided the case didn’t even consider that. Under modern liberalism, nothing is expected of the individual, not even minimal rationality or responsibility for his acts. All he has to do is claim his rights.June 22
Mark L. writes:
Continuing on your post concerning the Muslim refusal to serve in the military, I recall hearing from a student at a local elementary school here in Minnesota: “I am not an American I’m a Muslim.”
Aditya B. writes:
Aditya B. writes:Hope springs eternal in the human breast;I remain a theoretical pessimist but operational optimist. One hopes that no future Oscar Wilde has to compose these lines for our era:
Thank you, Mr Auster. I read that poem when I was but a child and even then affected me profoundly.June 23
Christopher B. writes:
Wilde was echoing Milton:
Posted by Lawrence Auster at June 21, 2011 05:58 PM | Send