Conflicting Allegiances of the Call to Duty to Serve Freedom

Submitted by M. Tovey (United States), Aug 2, 2011 at 14:05

In what appears to be a situation fraught with redundancy, the intelligent observation is that as already demonstrated from outside and inside the ranks of the American military, issues of incompatibility of Islamic ideologies have never been properly dealt with while 'political correctness' is allowed to pervade the administrative mentality directed towards those who were sworn in to serve the cause of freedom in a military capacity.

Going all the way back to the Revolutionary War, the ranks of the military on land and the sea were engaged in a battle of ideologies of a different, yet similar sort. Religious freedom was one of the critical differences being fought over, but the betrayals within the ranks was for the crown (as head of the Anglican Church) versus freedom from the crown, not over whose version of the Holy Bible was more right.

Today's ideological battles are fronts for a different battle of perceptions of religious superiorities. Both Abdo and Hasan have been filled with the Islamic perception that Muslims have a better handle on ideological supremacy, lacking any sense that imposing religion as they would defeats their understanding of seeking spiritual truth. Religious strife as they pursue it does not achieve what should be the result of spiritual truth: peace.

Now, while there is the 'politically correct' pursuit of recruits independent of religious observations, it is quite apparent to those who understand that permitting practicing Muslims to 'volunteer' for American military service is an antithetical practice, that inducting potential conscientious objectors of the Islamic sort is asking for the enemy to come be at home within the ranks. If the argument is tried to be made that there are Muslims already in the ranks that do not demonstrate the same issues as Abdo and Hasan, it has been amply indicated that those are considered by the fundamentalist Muslim community to be apostate (unless perceived as sleepers).

Dr. Pipes' conclusion is both correct and contradictory; that Islam aggressively attempts to insert 'fifth column' adherents in the American military, for reasons of obtaining information, and as noted above for future use in attacking the troops from within – a Trojan Horse' tactic if there ever was one. We do no favors for the troops who have the proper love of the search for peace, by force if necessary, if we continue in the contradictory notion that embracing the differences of an Islamically based call to duty is the same as serving the will of a people under the rule of freedom and liberty.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".