Michael Carl is a veteran journalist with overseas military experience and experience as a political consultant. He also has two Master's Degrees, is a bi-vocational pastor and lives with his family in the Northeast United States.More ↓Less ↑
A terrorism expert and author is warning of what he perceives as a threat to the U.S. military, and suggesting to lower that danger, Muslims not be allowed to enlist in the ranks.
Gaubatz said a mosque leader in Knoxville, Tenn., reported many Muslims in the military believe that their fellow soldiers are the “enemy.”
“An Islamic leader at a mosque in Knoxville, Tenn., told me that many of the ‘friendly fire’ incidents were actually murders. He advised many Muslims are joining the military for outstanding training and to fight the enemy (their fellow troops),” Gaubatz said.
He said this alarming trend is the result of a reality that he has uncovered in his research: There are no “moderate” Muslims.
“The simple answer is, Islam itself (through Shariah law) mandates a Muslim to follow Shariah law 100 percent, and no man-made law can be placed before Shariah law,” Gaubatz said.
“If a person does not follow Shariah law then they are a non-practicing Muslim and essentially an apostate of Islam,” Gaubatz said.
Shariah law is the Islamic religious law that seeks to control societies, through requirements for secular activities and behavior as well as religious actions.
However, not all defense and national security analysts agree with banning Muslims.
J. D. Pendry, a retired command sergeant major, defense analyst and writer, says that instead of banning groups, we need to ban “political correctness.”
”The acts of some of them are, as with other “identity” groups, a symptom of the disease. The disease is liberal social engineering of the military and its enabler is political correctness,” Pendry said.
“I do not believe that Muslims should be prohibited from the U.S. military. The acts of some of them are, as with other ‘identity’ groups, a symptom of the disease. The disease is liberal social engineering of the military and its enabler is political correctness. ”
Pendry says Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan is an example of political correctness run amok. Hasan stands accused of killing multiple fellow military members at a Texas base where he reportedly shouted “Allahu akbar” when he turned his guns on others.
“Hasan was a known entity. His conduct, including his statements that he made, was ignored by his superiors,” Pendry said.
“Their response – instead of confronting this ‘commissioned officer’ – was to just transfer him. Why? They feared an equal opportunity complaint and subsequent inquiry,” Pendry said.
Center for Military Readiness President Elaine Donnelly agrees. She said the real enemy of effectiveness is liberal social policy.
“I am very concerned about the consequences of ‘diversity metrics’ and political correctness in the military that led to the atrocity at Fort Hood. I do not agree, however, that there should be no Muslims in the American military,” Donnelly said.
Gaubatz, however, says there are legitimate reasons. He said Hassan was a follower of pure Islam and that is ultimately the issue that has to be acknowledged by the defense establishment.
“That leaves only ‘true’ Muslims who follow Islam as dictated by prophet Mohammed 1400 years ago. A ‘true’ Muslim cannot put the U.S. Constitution ahead of Shariah law, and therefore one can’t faithfully serve in the U.S. military if the U.S. Constitution is not their number one priority,” Gaubatz said.
“Numerous Islamic scholars say exactly this. Ahmed Sakr a famous Islamic scholar in the U.S., tells Muslim children all across the U.S. that they can’t be Muslims if they follow the laws of the U.S. Congress and U.S. laws. During my research I have talked with several imams and they have said the same,” Gaubatz said.
Gaubatz says there has to be a “test” to discover the potential enlistee’s loyalties.
“Based on the words of Islamic scholars I believe a person who says they are Muslim should be asked before they are sworn in to the U.S. military if they swear to put the U.S. Constitution ahead of their beliefs of Shariah law. If they say no then they should not be allowed to be the first line defenders of our country. If they agree then they are apostates and apostates of Islam should be allowed,” Gaubatz said.
However, such a test could create legal challenges and at a minimum, equal opportunity complaints. Pendry says government officials are fearful of the administrative inquiries.
“Those are more feared by some so-called leaders than most anything else. Even in the aftermath, the army chief of staff insisted that our Army’s greatest strength is diversity. Politically correct hogwash that was,” Pendry said.
Pendry also says the military’s strength is not diversity, but its unity.
“Army strength comes from being ‘one.’ One in standards, one in conduct, one in focus, one in mission. There cannot be a gender group, ethnic group, religion group, sexual orientation group,” Pendry said.
“It is this mentality that has so divided our country that we may never again be the great melting pot where people of diverse backgrounds and beliefs combine to make one ‘American’ lover of God given freedom,” Pendry said.
Pendry adds that the liberal social experimentation, using the military, is not bringing unity.
“Liberal social engineering is doing to our military services the same thing it is doing in our country – hopelessly dividing it – removing the common focus, the common identity and common culture necessary for survival,” Pendry said.
Pendry says that ultimately, he is opposed to banning certain groups from military service.
“We do not need to ban any group from service. What we need to ban is political correctness that attempts to cater to all identity groups rather than insisting that it is the groups that must conform to one set of standards and one common focus – defense of our nation and its Constitution,” Pendry said.