Today, the mind-numbing disease of political correctness has so infected the American military leadership that it is a threat in itself. The political correctness mentality was the principal reason why Fort Hood’s alleged murderer, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, was not cashiered out of the Army after a shocking June 2007 PowerPoint presentation he gave as part of his psychiatric residency program. In that presentation, he reportedly warned his Army colleagues and supervisor at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center of “adverse events” that would occur if the Army did not accept the precepts of Islamic Shariah law and grant Muslims serving in the Army conscientious objector status.
He went on to describe what he meant by adverse events, citing previous
cases of Muslims murdering their fellow soldiers, spying against the
United States, deserting their units and refusing to deploy. None of his
fellow doctors or his supervisor reported his remarks, most likely out
of fear of being labeled a bigot or racist, which in today’s military
could end one’s career.
Now it seems the Army has embraced Maj. Hasan’s position in an
incredible decision made last month by the secretary of the Army to
grant conscientious objector status to Pfc. Naser Abdo. He is a
21-year-old soldier, a member of the 1st Brigade Combat Team, 101st
Airborne Division at Fort Campbell, Ky., who refused to deploy to
Afghanistan, claiming that Shariah law prevented him from killing other
Muslims.
The fact that Shariah law is totally incompatible with the U.S.
Constitution and has no legal basis in the United States was somehow
overlooked in the Army’s decision process. Shariah is a totalitarian
legal-military-political system that is designed to control every aspect
of an individual’s life and is antithetical to our concept of freedom
and democracy. By its dictates, Shariah is seditious.
By acceding to the dictates of Shariah, the Army has tacitly endorsed an
absurd position that in effect sanctions Muslim service members to kill
non-Muslims but forbids them to kill Muslims. Further, it is an
unbelievable basis on which to classify them as conscientious objectors.
When Pfc. Abdo enlisted, he stated he initially believed that he could
be a soldier and a Muslim at the same time. What changed his vision? He
stated that his understanding of Islam “changed” as he went through
training ahead of a planned deployment to Afghanistan. He worried
whether going to war was the right thing to do.
This would indicate that someone in the Army training process for an
overseas deployment in the 2009-10 time frame was indoctrinating Pfc.
Abdo and other Muslim soldiers. Could it have been one of the Muslim
chaplains personally selected by Abdurahman Alamoudi, who currently is
serving a 23-year sentence in a federal prison? He was convicted of
terrorism-related charges and was proved to be a senior al Qaeda
financier as well as a strong supporter of the terrorists groups
Hezbollah and Hamas.
As a result of his close connections in the Clinton White House,
Alamoudi had the lead role in establishing the Muslim chaplain program.
He nominated and approved which Muslim chaplains could serve in the U.S.
military. The chaplains have never been vetted. This, together with a
review of how Muslim military personnel currently are being
indoctrinated, needs to be examined on an expedited basis.
Who helped the Army come to this inconceivable position on classifying
Pfc. Abdo as a conscientious objector? My guess would be the Army
received “guidance” from its Muslim “outreach partners,” who it believes
are operating in America’s best interest. This would be classic stealth
jihad at its finest.
By granting conscientious objector status to Pfc. Abdo, the Army is
tacitly accepting a key tenet of the Islamic doctrine of jihad, as
embraced by al Qaeda and other terrorists groups, which states that any
incursion by non-Muslims into the Islamic lands makes it the duty for
all Muslims to fight the “occupiers.” This view is shared by Afghan
President Hamid Karzai, who has challenged American efforts in
Afghanistan as “unwelcome outsiders,” in effect, occupiers.
The U.S. military is the finest in the world. It represents the best of
America. We have many Muslims serving honorably in the U.S. military and
their service should not be tainted by Pfc. Abdo’s conscientious
objector designation. His discharge from the Army is currently on hold
because he has been charged with possession of child pornography. That
should not be surprising: Shariah sanctions marriage of girls 9 years
old and younger, in effect, legalized pedophilia.
Retired Navy Adm. James A. Lyons was commander in chief of the U.S.
Pacific Fleet and senior U.S. military representative to the United
Nations.
(c) Copyright 2011 The Washington Times, LLC
I’m not sure why a Muslim should not be allowed conscientious objector status. Religious belief has always been considered a valid reason for this status under U.S. law.
Also, the author of this piece lies several times about what Sharia law is (which is not surprising, given that the Washington Times has never met a minority group it didn’t hate, lie about and try to take away rights from). There is no one body of law referred to as “Sharia law;” every Muslim believes in Sharia law in some form, even the ones that don’t believe it’s OK to “kill non-Muslims.” Many, including Imam Rauf, believe that Sharia is already perfectly compatible with the Constitution. When the author says that “By its dictates, Shariah is seditious,” he is in effect saying that all American Muslims are guilty of sedition. This dangerous fringe view is becoming ever more popular among conservatives; Herman Cain, considered one of the top GOP candidates for 2012, has said he will refuse to hire Muslims on his cabinet and has argued that a mosque being built in Tennessee violates religious freedom, both statements that reveal prejudice against Muslims as well as a deep lack of understanding of the U.S. Constitution.
This article does nothing but spread irrational bigotry and hatred against a religious minority.
“Sharia Law” is no more dangerous than “Christian Law.” It means simply a religious way of living. Right Wing media like the Washington Examiner like to use the term to confuse (and scare) their readers into thinking it means codified law. This is incorrect.
Many people actually live as Christians. For example, Quakers are routinely granted CO status. The military was correct to rule the way they did. The military has for a long time acceded to CO status for religious reasons.
It sounds as if the author has a problem with granting CO status to someone of a different faith This is not unusual. He should be glad the fellow won’t have a gun!!!
Most Americans do not understand Sharia. If you do not understand Sharia, you do not understand Islam, you cannot understand Islam. Islam is unlike any other religion on earth although you can draw a few parallels. It simply cannot be described as merely a religion. It is a complete civilization that defines political, judicial, social, and religious orthodoxy.
“Shariah is a totalitarian legal-military-political system that is designed to control every aspect of an individual’s life and is antithetical to our concept of freedom and democracy. By its dictates, Shariah is seditious.”
That is as precise a description of Sharia as I have ever read.
This week the Ground Zero Victory Mosque won a court fight clearing the way for the Cordoba group to build. This was to be expected. There is no legal nor constitutional grounds to prevent the establishment of the Victory Mosque. The only thing that could have stopped it would have had to take the form of a city zoning restriction.
The building was originally titled Cordoba House but was changed to Park51 after the controversy erupted.
“Cordoba” is for Cordoba Spain where a Visigothic Christian church was converted to a triumphal mosque after 8th century Muslims spreading Islam by the sword invaded and conquered large areas of Europe including Spain. Four centuries later The Great Mosque Of Cordoba was turned back into a Christian church after the Spanish Reconquista and Muslim rule was brought to an end.
The spiritual leader of the Cordoba group seeking to build the Ground Zero Victory Mosque, Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf, has stated on more than one occasion his desire to make the United States more Sharia compliant.
After the controversy erupted Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf began posing as a reformer announcing “Just as the Constitution has gone through interpretations, so does Shariah law.”
Yet at the same time he insists repeatedly the same message of submission to Islam he has always preached, “What Muslims want is a judiciary that ensures that the laws are not in conflict with the Quran and the Hadith.”
Sorry Mr. Rauf, that is not what America and American justice is all about.
There are many American Muslims who came to this country to embrace Democracy and flee the oppression and brutality of Sharia as it is practiced in Islamic states.
You can find some of them here at the American Islamic Forum For Democracy —
http://www.aifdemocracy.org/
“the Washington Times has never met a minority group it didn’t hate, lie about and try to take away rights from”
And after that vile canard you have the gall use the words “fringe”, “bigotry” and “hatred” against people with whom you disagree in the same post?
Wow.
Re: There is no one body of law referred to as “Sharia law”
Correct. It is simply called Sharia and it is one body of codes and guidelines for political, social, religious and judicial behavior as directed by the three major books of Islam.
Sharia is interpreted and applied in different manners in different Islamic nations. Interpretation and application of Sharia is done under the exclusive scrutiny and sanction of Islamic Imams. In all those Islamic nations it is consistently oppressive, tyrannical, brutal, sexist, depraved, and totalitarian.
Of course this state of affairs in Islamic nations is brushed off mere cultural differences and Western misunderstanding by people like Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf. Or it brushed off as fringe conservative bigotry and hatred by ignorant and vile people like Chris.
Once you understand Sharia there is no need to fear it. Fear is the mind killer. What you do is study it, understand it, fight it, and try to transform it, which is precisely what some American Muslims are trying to do.
Obviously Chris has never had to live under Sharia, has never even studied Sharia, nor has he tried to educate himself about why Muslims have fled from it and came United States.
Other Muslims wish transport and spread Sharia and graft it into US law and the laws of other countries.
By the way, Sharia is no more like the U.S. Constitution than a jackass is like a codfish.
Perhaps Chris might begin his education on Islam and Sharia here —
http://www.cspipublishing.com/
And here —
http://www.aifdemocracy.org/
From the American Islamic Forum for Democracy home web page —
“Help us build capacity in AIFD’s programs that help to reform those ideologies in Islam that create radicalization which in turn threaten our liberty, freedom, and democracy.”
Very thoughtful comments. It must be pointed out that some of our contributors refuse to acknowledge the darker faction. In their minds all Muslims are peace loving and Sharia is always consistant with the peace and love message…sounds like the same old hippy song.
All they are saying…………………..
Jack the most obvious difference is his selective unwillingness to kill. Red flags go up when a person is only conscientious about fellow Muslims. I can understand that anyone might have some timidity in these circumstances but if so he should not have joined the military at all.
The remainder of the piece is troubling but unfortunately it also represents a reality we all must be to prepared to face. All of the latest intel indicates we willcontinue to be attacked from within.
The Christian religion does not have a system of law that it imposes unilaterally. It doesn’t even have a system of law it imposes without consent or embrace on an individual. It certainly doesn’t demand political or legal authority in this country.
Re: “In their minds all Muslims are peace loving and Sharia is always consistant with the peace and love message…sounds like the same old hippy song.”
I happen to know a surgically altered transsexual, hippie, Christian. He (or rather she, now) is also a brilliant and accomplished physicist.
How long to you think she would last in, oh say, Iran? Saudi? Lebanon? Syria? Sudan? Or any other Islamic state?
I wonder if Chris knows the guidelines for how homosexuals are treated by Sharia, much less transsexual hippie Christians.
I wonder if Chris knows how a Christian (or the member of any other religion) caught proselytizing to Muslims is treated. Does he have a clue as to the Sharia guidelines for treating people who have managed to convert a Muslim to some other religion?
People in this country go ballistic if some attention seeking Christian pastor announces he is going to burn the Koran, but how many people know that Christian Bibles are burned by the hundreds (if not thousands) every year in Saudi Arabia and other Islamic nations?
It saddens me that there are so many ignorant fools in our country who turn a blind eye to the facts of life under Islamic totalitarianism.
Pie: “People in this country go ballistic if some attention seeking Christian pastor announces he is going to burn the Koran…”
Some people in this country go ballistic if a person merely expresses his personal Christian religious belief…some people can’t stand religion…except for Muslims and Sharia. In that case tolerance and acceptance is a must!
“how many people know that Christian Bibles are burned…”
Not to mention churches and Buddhist shrines.
The threat is real. Hiding from it won’t make it go away and it won’t create an atmosphere that supports freedom loving Muslims.
Pie you bring an interesting perspective to PS…I suspect you have an equally intersting background and sphere of influence. Thanks for joining us in these discussions.
Pie Guevara:
“It simply cannot be described as merely a religion. It is a complete civilization that defines political, judicial, social, and religious orthodoxy.”
Islam is obviously not a “complete civilization.” There are many different civilizations that have Islam as their dominant religion, and many of those civilizations despise each other due to their differences in belief.
“The spiritual leader of the Cordoba group seeking to build the Ground Zero Victory Mosque, Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf, has stated on more than one occasion his desire to make the United States more Sharia compliant.”
False. He has stated that the United States already IS Sharia compliant. His understanding of Sharia is nothing like the violent totalitarian regime promoted by the likes of Al Qaeda.
“Yet at the same time he insists repeatedly the same message of submission to Islam he has always preached, “What Muslims want is a judiciary that ensures that the laws are not in conflict with the Quran and the Hadith.”
Sorry Mr. Rauf, that is not what America and American justice is all about.”
Pie, I may not agree with Imam Rauf on this issue, but there are plenty of Christians who want to ensure that our laws are not in conflict with their interpretation of the Bible and Christianity…yet you seem to have no problem with them.
“There are many American Muslims who came to this country to embrace Democracy and flee the oppression and brutality of Sharia as it is practiced in Islamic states.
You can find some of them here at the American Islamic Forum For Democracy —
http://www.aifdemocracy.org/”
Pie, I appreciate your recognition that there are many peaceful Muslims who are interested in reforming their religion. Some conservatives won’t even admit that these days. However, I believe Imam Rauf has proven to be one of these reform-minded Muslims.
“Of course this state of affairs in Islamic nations is brushed off mere cultural differences and Western misunderstanding by people like Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf.”
Not true. Imam Rauf has harshly criticized interpretations of Sharia which permit oppression of women and non-Muslims.
“Once you understand Sharia there is no need to fear it. Fear is the mind killer. What you do is study it, understand it, fight it, and try to transform it, which is precisely what some American Muslims are trying to do.”
So you admit that some American Muslims are trying to transform Sharia. What exactly is our disagreement here?
“Obviously Chris has never had to live under Sharia, has never even studied Sharia, nor has he tried to educate himself about why Muslims have fled from it and came United States.”
It really seems like you’re contradicting yourself here, Pie. In one breath you admit that Sharia is not considered a constant force of brutality across all interpretations of Islam, and in the next you speak of it as if it is. Which is it?
Tina: “It must be pointed out that some of our contributors refuse to acknowledge the darker faction. In their minds all Muslims are peace loving and Sharia is always consistant with the peace and love message…sounds like the same old hippy song.”
Tina, if I am one of the contributers you are referring to here than you are lying, and you’re doing so after I’ve asked you to stop several times in the past. I have never said anything close to “all Muslims are peace loving,” or that “Sharia is always consistent with the peace and love message.” I also don’t recall Quentin, Libby, or anyone else on this site ever saying anything like this.
What I have said is that MOST Muslims are peaceful, and that Sharia is interpreted differently by different Muslims.
I do acknowledge the threat that radical Muslim extremists pose to our country, and I support efforts to put those terrorists down. Keep in mind that the leader of the most powerful Islamic terrorist cell in the world was killed under the leadership of a Democratic president.
This article’s primary argument seems to be that Muslims should not be granted conscientious objector status. I don’t see how such an argument helps the fight against the radical Islamic terrorist threat.
“Jack the most obvious difference is his selective unwillingness to kill. Red flags go up when a person is only conscientious about fellow Muslims. I can understand that anyone might have some timidity in these circumstances but if so he should not have joined the military at all.”
I actually agree with this, however if my understanding is correct, none of this makes him ineligible for conscientious objector status.
No one is turning a blind eye to the reality of life under totalitarian Islamic regimes. All I’m saying is that, while these countries do practice a form of Sharia law, that does not represent the totality of what Sharia law is or can be.
Chris: “He has stated that the United States already IS Sharia compliant.”
Notice the United States takes second position in his mind. The US is Sharia compliant rather than Sharia is already compliant with the US Constitution. This is, or should be, a big clue into the mindset of this man. EVERYTHING bends to Sharia. According to Websters:
Compliant 1: ready or disposed to comply: submissive 2: conforming to requirements
He is saying the US is already well positioned to be submissive to Sharia or to conform to Sharia. He is a very clever man, Chris.
Reminds me of the President using the term “transform” when speaking about America. It sounded so wonderful but the meaning was clear to those with knowledge of the word.
“I have never said anything close to “all Muslims are peace loving…”
In case you are too young to get the implied joke, during the Vietnam era hippies were certain that all American soldiers were war mongers and baby killers. They refused to acknowledge the validity of the communist threat to free societies. They believed that and end to war and thus peace could be achieved by singing songs, putting a daisy in the barrel of a rifle, or painting their faces with rainbows and other drug addled nonesense. Some were so convinced that love and tolerance would do the trick they willingly gave aid and comfort to our enemy. I think your dismissal of the threat of Sharia is sometimes quite similar, without the daisies, of course.
“Keep in mind that the leader of the most powerful Islamic terrorist cell in the world was killed under the leadership of a Democratic president.”
I would hope so since it was his job to take action at the time the Islamic leader was found. Right place, right time, right decision.
“All I’m saying is that, while these countries do practice a form of Sharia law, that does not represent the totality of what Sharia law is or can be.”
What form would be acceptable to you?
Tina you are sooooo brilliant – thank you! I enjoyed reading every word you wrote to Chris.
Tina, I don’t have time to reply to everything right now, but the form of Sharia law that would be acceptable to me is the form that is currently practiced by millions of law-abiding Americans in the United States. These Muslims follow Sharia like most Jews follow Halacha, or like Catholics follow the Catechism. That is how I beleive Rauf is using the term.
Tina: “He is saying the US is already well positioned to be submissive to Sharia or to conform to Sharia. He is a very clever man, Chris.”
OK…let’s assume for a moment that he actually does want the U.S. to change its laws to conform to Sharia. So what? He has no power to make this happen. He is not running for Congress or president, he is building a community center. His religious beliefs have no effect on our lives. I am sure I disagree with this man on a number of things. However, so far from what I’ve seen he has done mostly good work around the world. The Bush administration trusted him enough to send him around the world to give speeches on reformig Islam, and I don’t think they would have done so if there were reason to believe that he had a more radical agenda.
As for the hippie comparison, they may not have been right that all problems can be solved with a poem or a song. But in the case of the Vietnam War, history sides with the hippies. The U.S. had no business being there and intervention only made the problem worse, resulting in a lot more dead Americans and Vietnamese and seriously damaging the moral foundation of our country. This is settled history.
Re: Pie, I may not agree with Imam Rauf on this issue, but there are plenty of Christians who want to ensure that our laws are not in conflict with their interpretation of the Bible and Christianity…yet you seem to have no problem with them.
Excuse me, Chris, but both Christians and Muslims have every right to work through the political process established by our Democracy to bring about legislation.
I seem to have no problem the Christians who “who want to ensure that our laws are not in conflict with their interpretation of the Bible and Christianity”???
Gfy Chris and your suggestions of hypocrisy on my part. I pick my battles in this forum, you pick yours. Sheesh, you are such an incredibly snotty little jerk.
What do you think Muslims would do with your precious law to educate young, innocent children about gay sexuality?
Idiot.
Pie, I read your post and my eye brows went up and then I burst out laughing…I’m still laughing…its hard to type, but I had to say thanks! Wow…double wow…I hope your words of great wisdom will sink in.
I’m sorry, Pie, how do you not see the glaring contradictions that keep popping up in your various statements? First you wrote this:
“Yet at the same time he insists repeatedly the same message of submission to Islam he has always preached, “What Muslims want is a judiciary that ensures that the laws are not in conflict with the Quran and the Hadith.”
Sorry Mr. Rauf, that is not what America and American justice is all about.”
Now you say this:
“Excuse me, Chris, but both Christians and Muslims have every right to work through the political process established by our Democracy to bring about legislation.”
You started out by arguing that Rauf’s (alleged) desire to change American laws to more closely resemble Sharia was somehow nefarious, and now you have no problem with it? What changed?
“What do you think Muslims would do with your precious law to educate young, innocent children about gay sexuality?”
Depends on the Muslim. I know two Muslim girls that are very liberal when it comes to promoting gay rights. Also, there’s not really a whole lot about “sexuality” that these young children are learning, at least not in schools.
Chris, you really are an idiot. You never think things through. Hell, you I am begining to believe you do not think at all.
Yes, I am against Muslims changing American law for make it fit Sharia.
Yes, Sharia is NOT what America is all about. Duh. Get an education about Sharia and then get back to me. Get a clue on political Islam and Sharia. At least give it a try. What are you afraid of? Information and education is empowering.
No, I am not against Muslims’ rights as American citizens to try and influence legislation and politics within the precepts, guidelines and confines of the legislative process and the free marketplace of ideas as protected by our Constitutional Democratic Republic.
Muslims are no more second class citizens than Christians.
In fact, confronting Islam and Sharia in the intellectual, political, social, religious, and cultural spheres is precisely how to deal with it. Are you getting it yet? Hmmm? Is any of this getting through?
Do you see the distinction at all now? Or are you so keen on falsely calling me a hypocrite that it makes you dumber than a bag of doorknobs?
Well, well, well, Chris personally knows two Muslim girls that are very liberal when it comes to promoting gay rights.
While this sounds like shaggy dog story I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and presume it is true. I would have to say those are two very courageous Muslim girls. But I don’t find it hard to believe that you would apply this extremely limited experience of yours to Islam as a whole because, frankly, you are so utterly ignorant on the subject.
Like I previously stated, gfy Chris. You are a fool and an ass.
Re: You started out by arguing that Rauf’s (alleged) desire to change American laws to more closely resemble Sharia was somehow nefarious, and now you have no problem with it? What changed?
One last note just in case this cretin is still not quite getting it.
What I don’t have any problem with is Mr. Rauf’s right as an American citizen to try and make US law more Sharia compliant. Mr.Rauf has a right to engage in politics and try to influence people just as any other American citizen has.
To reiterate, all citizens should have unfettered access to a free and open marketplace of ideas.
I do have a problem with Rauf’s aims, Sharia, and political Islam.
Rauf’s (and others) mission to make US law more Sharia compliant is a problem. It is a very serious problem. One Chris refuses to acknowledge. Sharia jurisprudence is completely at odds with American jurisprudence. Any reasonably intelligent, thoughtful, and informed American citizen should have a problem with it. Nothing has changed, I haven’t changed my position at all you incredible moron.
Is it sinking in yet Chris? Knock, knock? Anyone home in that thick skull of yours?
Pie, you have been nothing but rude to me since you started posting here, and I don’t appreciate it. I have not resorted to name-calling and personal attacks with you, and I demand the same courtesy in return.
“What I don’t have any problem with is Mr. Rauf’s right as an American citizen to try and make US law more Sharia compliant. Mr.Rauf has a right to engage in politics and try to influence people just as any other American citizen has.
To reiterate, all citizens should have unfettered access to a free and open marketplace of ideas.
I do have a problem with Rauf’s aims, Sharia, and political Islam.”
Thank you for clearing that up, Pie; your statements earlier were phrased in a way that I found confusing.
I hope I have not also stated my position in a confusing manner, because you don’t seem to understand what I am saying at all. For instance, you wrote:
“But I don’t find it hard to believe that you would apply this extremely limited experience of yours to Islam as a whole because, frankly, you are so utterly ignorant on the subject.”
I don’t think I deserve this, Pie. When have I ever applied ANY assumptions to “Islam as a whole?” My main point all along has been that one cannot apply ANYTHING to Islam as a whole, because there are so many different sects and interpretations, many of whom practically consider themselves at war with one another. I have acknowledged multiple times that many of these sects are dangerous and seek the destruction of the United States, and that these groups must be stopped. So why do you continue to act as if I see all Muslims as a bunch of peace-loving hippies? I’ve never indicated that I think this way and I’ve said the opposite plenty of times.
I don’t know why my anecdote sounds like a “shaggy dog story” to you. Did you know that there are actually Muslim gay rights activist groups? They are certainly in the minority of Muslims now, of course, but who knows how soon that could change.