Shariah law in Department of Defense

Shock: Dept. of Defense Vindicates Fort Hood Killer

Posted By Patrick Poole On June 21, 2011 @ 10:11 am In Uncategorized | 50 Comments

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 that “adverse events” would occur if military officials didn’t accede to shariah principles.

The subject of the Fort Campbell case is PFC Nasser Abdo, who was granted conscientious objector status last month, only to be brought up on charges [1] last week — two days after being informed of the secretary of the Army’s decision — after child pornography was found on his government-issued computer. The news reports about Abdo’s arrest were the first to mention the Army recognizing him as a conscientious objector. After his arrest, Abdo is now claiming [2] that the child porn charges are the Army’s way of retaliating

against him.

Abdo’s case has been championed by a number of media outlets, including Al-Jazeera [3] and CNN [4]. According to the Associated Press [5], in his claim for conscientious objector status, Abdo cited a umber of Islamic scholars and Koranic verses in his defense:


I realized through further reflection that God did not give legitimacy to the war in Afghanistan, Iraq or any war the U.S. Army would conceivably participate in.

>Abdo told Al-Jazeera [6]:


I don’t believe I can involve myself in an army that wages war against Muslims. I don’t believe I could sleep at night if I take part, in any way, in the killing of a Muslim.

>He also told ABC News [7]:


A Muslim is not allowed to participate in an Islamicly unjust war. Any Muslim who knows his religion or maybe takes into account what his religion says can find out very clearly why he should not participate in the U.S. military.

>In a perverse twist, the ABC News report noted that a website dedicated to his >cause operated by his friends claimed that Abdo:


… will be at danger of harassment and even death from his fellow soldiers, many of whom will be resentful of PFC Abdo’s religious beliefs and his desire to be

discharged from the military.

>No mention was made by ABC News of the potential of harassment and death for

>non-Muslim soldiers if Abdo wasn’t granted conscientious objector status, as was >the case at Fort Hood with Major Nidal Hasan.

In Major Hasan’s case, the Washington Post reported [8] just days after the Fort

Hood massacre that he had warned his Army colleagues and supervisor at Walter Reed of “adverse events” if Muslims were not granted conscientious objector

status. The warning occurred during a June 2007 Power Point presentation that was part of his psychiatric residency program. Major Hasan cited previous cases of Muslims murdering their fellow soldiers, spying against the U.S., deserting their units, and refusing to deploy as examples of the kinds of “adverse events” that would follow if the Army didn’t bow to the precepts of Islamic law.

Some Muslim groups have disagreed with Major Hasan and PFC Abdo, such as the American Islamic Forum for Democracy [9], run by retired Navy Commander Zuhdi

Jasser. And Muslim soldiers at both Fort Hood and Fort Campbell, as well as in Iraq and Afghanistan, are serving without any qualms.

But as veteran Pentagon reporter Bill Gertz reported in the Washington Times [10] in March 2010, groups such as the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of

America (AMJA) have issued fatwas prohibiting Muslims from even serving as military contractors aiding U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. And the notorious Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) even went so far as to write a letter [11] to Defense Secretary Robert Gates on behalf of another Muslim Army soldier stationed at Fort Hood claiming conscientious objector status on the same grounds as Hasan and Abdo.

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.

But they have also created a greater problem. By bowing to the dictates of Islamic law, which defines the killing of a Muslim by another Muslim without

right as terrorism, the U.S. Army has tacitly endorsed a religiously bigoted position that it is perfectly fine for Muslim service members to kill

non-Muslims, but killing their co-religionists is totally out-of-bounds and is grounds for an honorable discharge. Is any other religion granted such

accommodation? Will this decision help or discredit those Muslims serving honorably with both their fellow soldiers and the Muslim community?

Despite years of protestation by the U.S. government to the contrary, this decision vindicates all of these who have claimed that America is engaged in a

war against Islam (including Osama bin Laden [12]). The position that the Army now takes would also appear to acknowledge the classic Islamic doctrine of jihad that states that any incursion by non-Muslims into the lands of Dar al-Islam makes it an incumbent duty upon all Muslims everywhere to resist the “occupiers” — the position taken by al-Qaeda and every Islamic terrorist group on the


How did the Unites States Army arrive at such a convoluted, ill-informed, contradictory, and self-defeating policy? By listening to the very Islamic

“outreach” partners they have falsely assumed are operating in America’s best interests.



Article printed from Pajamas Media:

URL to



URLs in this post:


[1] brought up on



[2] now



[3] Al-Jazeera:

[4] CNN:

[5] the Associated



[6] told Al-Jazeera:

[7] told ABC



[8] Washington

Post reported:


[9] the American Islamic Forum for


[10] reported in the Washington



[11] write a


[12] including Osama bin



2 responses to “Shariah law in Department of Defense

  1. What makes Muslims different from other religions? There is not one religion I know that advocates killing anyone as it is one of the Ten Commandments “Thou Shall Not Kill.”

    If these Muslims cannot kill other Muslims, then what are they doing serving in the US Military? Are they just spys getting military secrets to pass on to their Jihad or Al-Qada counterparts.

    At least our military kill in wars, while these Muslims kill anyone, any age, any sex, just because they do not belong to the Muslim religion. So, in my book they are mercenaries that kill for the purpose of subjecting people to their religion rather than fighting to preserve freedom.

    U.S. Military and our Government should wise up and return these so call “religious Muslims, who kill for Allah,” back to their nomadic way of life.

    In the United States, IN GOD WE TRUST!

  2. Jesus Mano, is this guy getting a total wall? Whiskey Tango Foxtrot over perhaps I read it wrong. I can’t believe I missed this story. If he isn’t tried you can bet Holder and Obama are in the middle of the cease and desist arrangement if this guy doesn’t go to trial. Meanwhile Pfc Corey Clagett and others rot in prison for doing the right thing while our PC government prevents them from fighting a war or wars they can win. This sickens me. Jim

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s