Fitzgerald: Islam's credibility and the Pentagon

"'The deputy secretary's office has thoroughly reviewed the issues of concern raised by a few members of Congress and the media and has concluded there is no reason to question Cmdr. Hesham Islam's credibility or his allegiance to his country,' Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell told Inside the Ring." -- from this article

No reason to question his [Islam's] credibility?

Then what about the matters raised in the paragraphs below, which are taken from the same article:

Miss Rosett noted that Mr. Islam claimed to be in Cairo when it was bombed by Israel in 1967, but there are no records of bombing the Egyptian capital, only the airport near Cairo.

Mr. Islam also claimed to have been on board a freighter sunk by an Iranian torpedo in the Persian Gulf, but that could not be verified.

Does the Defense Department have a satisfactory answer as to why "Mr. Islam claimed to be in Cairo when it was bombed by Israel in 1967" though "there are no records of bombing the Egyptian capital"? Does the Defense Department have a satisfactory explanation as to why "Mr. Islam also claimed to have been on board a freighter sunk by an Iranian torpedo in the Persian Gulf"?

We have a right to detailed answers about both of those questions.

And of course, the Pentagon -- that is, Gordon England's office -- hasn't touched on whether or not Mr. Islam acted as an apologist for Islam, someone well-versed in dissimulation, through omission or sly misstatement and misrepresentation, in the office of....Gordon England.

Gordon England then, finds Gordon England entirely free of any charge of dangerous naivete.

As far as Gordon England and his supporters and friends and fellow naifs are concerned, there is no need to offer a detailed explanation and convincing rebuttal of the charges made. It is enough that they declare to the world that they have not merely reviewed the "issues of concern" but, to allay any fears, have "thoroughly reviewed" them, and have concluded that there is nothing in them that need worry anyone. There is "no reason to question Commander Islam's credibility."

None? Then tell us a bit more about those claims about being bombed in Cairo, and about being on an Iraqi ship sunk by Iran, and how they have been explained, or explained away.

And furthermore, the report states, in a little extra touch of self-righteousness, there is "no reason to question...his [Islam's] allegiance to his country."

Of course there is. Any informed person who continues to call himself a Muslim is thereby saying, semaphoring, that he accepts the texts -- including the immutable text of the Qur'an, the Hadith, the Sira -- of Islam, and that he accepts the tenets of Islam.

Consult the writings of any legitimate scholar of Islam -- no, not Esposito and not Armstrong, but the real ones, the many hundreds of Western scholars who wrote on Islam before the Great Inhibition, the ones who are now dead and thus free from any kinds of pressure, or career calculation, or desire to please, and find out from them, or from the many articulate apostates, or from Muslim websites themselves, what Islam teaches about loyalty. It does not teach Muslims to be loyal to an Infidel nation-state. It inculcates another idea: the idea that all loyalty of members of the Umma, the community of Islam, is owed to Islam itself, to the cause of Islam (protecting it, ensuring it is safe from attack, the better to enhance the position of Muslims and their ability to conduct the campaign, a slow one or a fast one, to remove all obstacles, in the end everywhere, to the spread, and then to the dominance, of Islam).

Was Mr. Islam questioned about this aspect of Islam? Was he asked if he considered himself to be a true believer in Islam, who did not question or quarrel with its doctrines? Was he then read certain parts of the Qur'an, and asked what he made of them -- say, all of Sura 9? Was he asked if he believed that Islam inculcated the idea of loyalty to Islam, above all other loyalties, or instead of any other loyalty, with appropriate textual citation and citation as well of authorities, including Muslim authorities?

No? That never happened as part of this "thorough" review of the matter? Why didn't it? Oh, we know why. The fearless internal Pentagon investigators, such as they were, were too scared to touch that issue. They thought if Islam had been in the military, and Islam's son was in the military, why -- what better proof did one need of loyalty? It never occurred to them that indeed, such service was exactly what Islam might be able to use as "proof of such loyalty" when in fact such service proves no such thing. See the case of Ali Mohammed, or of Hassan Akbar, or of the Muslim Marine still hiding out in Lebanon, or other cases known and unknown.

What were they afraid of? That Islam would contact CAIR? Afraid he'd go to the press? Afraid that he would charge them with “Islamophobia”? If he did, all kinds of uninformed but ready with attitudes and posturings at the drop of a hat politicians, and holier-than-thou editorial writers for major papers, equally uninformed about Islam, and about Islam, would start talking about a "climate of hysteria" and, bien entendu, invoking lynch-mobs, and Joseph McCarthy, and perhaps even, for the cinematic buffs among them, Spencer Tracy braving the wrath of the sinister townfolk (typical small-minded Americans, all of them) in that 1950s classic, "Bad Day At Black Rock."

Posted by Hugh at April 11, 2008 7:04 AM
Print this entry | Email this entry | Digg this | del.icio.us