Muslims and the Military

Let us now consider the points that Bryan Fischer has made regarding Muslims in the Military:

1) Islam and Christianity are fundamentally different, based on their founders.

2) The more devoutly someone practices Islam, the more likely they are to go on a killing spree.

3) Members of the Islamic faith who kill other Muslims believe they go directly to Hell. This was  actually a quote from Major Hassan’s powerpoint.

4) Fundamental Islam is itself, a supremacist belief, so if Muslims are allowed in the military at all, it should be the less devout type. However, if the less devout type are allowed to serve, there’s the danger that like Major Hassan, they become more devout and “go Jihad.”

Several things impressed me as I read Fischer’s posts. The first was that a major source for Fischer’s conclusions came from Major Hasan’s own presentation on the matter, not just him making stuff up.

Is Islam different from Christianity? Absolutely. You cannot go to one country on the face of the earth where Islam is dominant where the general rule is that the persecution of religious minorities is, if not practiced by the government, it is accepted by the government.  And it is a rare exception indeed when someone steps in to defend someone being persecuted. I think you can tie much of this back to Mohammad and his conduct. It’s why, in the Old Testament, David was forbidden from building the temple because he’d shed too much blood.

While a Christian or a Buddhist may do something horrible, they do this in contravention of the conduct of Christ or Buddha. When the Muslim does something warlike in the practice of Jihad, he’s following the example of Mohammad, and whatever countervailing quotes you can find in the Quran, it can’t overcome what Mohammad did and the more militant parts of the Quran.  So, you’re going to have a more powerful and vocal militant group within Islam.

In addition, Fundamentalist Islam as practiced by Nadal Hasan is undoubtedly a supremacist belief.

But that said, even overseas most Muslims don’t engage in Jihad.  Maybe, they don’t take the Quran seriously or maybe ignore the more unpleasant parts. But usually stories from overseas indicate that it’s usually a militant band rather than a giant mass that does the persecuting. Most go about their lives, selling goods, and enjoying the normality of their lives.

In addition,  I don’t know if I’d agree with the statement that being a Devout Muslim makes you more likely to commit a terrorist act like this. For example, Hasan was a regular at a local strip club and the 9/11 hijackers went out drinking and going to a strip club. Could it be that rather than being devout, that these individuals knew they were breaking the rules of a wrathful god, and saw one way to avoid doom.

This would be like the Crusaders who were promised absolution by the Pope for all sins in exchange for going on the Crusade. The sort who went needed absolution most and Europe was far better for them being gone.

When we look at the solution of banning Muslims from serving, I see four big problems with it. One I don’t see is the one Bubblehead asked me on Facebook to Address. The “Religious Test” for office requirement under Article VI of the U.S. Constitution and how that relates to Muslims serving in the military. That requirement is properly understood to apply to running for public office, applying it to the military would be a stretch. In addition, most reasonable people would agree that Hasan’s religious belief that infidels should be killed should have disqualified him from serving in the military. The only legitimate question is whether strong Muslim belief in general should disqualify from serving.

The problems with excluding Muslims are fourfold:

First, it would not be an effective. It would not be effective to assume that one would avoid someone going Jihad by keeping Muslims out of the military. Islam is a prosletyzing religions, and some of the most ardent advocates of a religion are going to be the converted as adults. Even if there were no Muslim members of the military, some soldiers have been converted by locals in these Muslim areas. And they would be just as likely, if not more likely than people who entered the military as Muslims, to go Jihad.

Second, the action would be found Unconstitutional, most likely under application of the 1st and 14th Amendments, so this would most likely go nowhere.

Third, I think that it’s important that Muslim American citizens not be cut off from mainstream American society. There will be a large element that will gravitate towards the fringe.  However, the more that number can be mitigated, the better. Even if it proved constitutional, a policy of banning Muslims from the military would be a dream come true for the Jihadists, as they’ll be able to convince American Muslims like they’re not first class citizens, mainly because our government would be presuming guilt.

Finally, we’re not only fighting Muslims over there, we’re fighting over there on the same side as Muslims. How would it look to our Iraqi and Afghan allies if we announced we were banning Muslims? This would strengthen the hand of those who want to turn this into a war on all Muslims, which would lead to losing more American lives.

I think the smart approach is to lessen the environment of political correctness that persisted in the military. The type of behaviors Hasan showed were completely unacceptable and should have gotten him thrown out. That people had to be afraid to report when he made an outrageous statement in support of suicide bombings shows that the military needs to create an environment that’s more open to common sense and not suicidal with slavish adherence to political correctness. I think barring Muslims would be unnecessary.