Shariah law is Islam's system of authoritative jurisprudence. Muslim organizations have repeatedly stated that their goal is to bring the entire world under the rule of Shariah law, and Muslims work relentlessly wherever they can to establish societal pockets governed by Shariah law in the West.
Already in Great Britain, entire communities are now governed by Shariah, and the goal of Muslims in America is to establish an Islamic state within the U.S. that will be governed by Shariah. They are well on their way in places like Dearborn and Hamtramck, Michigan. In Hamtramck, the entire city is now forced to listen five times a day to the call to Islamic prayer, just as once upon a time the city heard the pealing of church bells.
The problem here is that Shariah law compels Muslims to kill any infidel invaders who enter Muslim lands.
As Thomas Snodgrass points out in The American Thinker, the "Reliance of the Traveller," which is the "Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law," says the following:
"o9.3 - Jihad is also personally obligatory for everyone able to perform it, male or female, old or young, when the enemy has surrounded the Muslims on every side, having entered our territory, ... for non-Muslim forces entering Muslim lands is a weighty matter that cannot be ignored, but met with effort and struggle to repel them by every possible means."
It can't get any clearer than that. If "non-Muslim forces" (that is, American infidel soldiers) "enter...Muslim lands," "jihad is...personally obligatory for everyone able to perform it."
As you remember, this is what tortured Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, a dilemma he was eerily eager to share with his military colleagues in his PowerPoint presentation at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in 2007.
In that presentation, he pointed out that Muslims have a sacred duty to side with their fellow Muslims and kill any infidels who come against Muslim peoples anywhere at any time.
This is why he argued that American Muslim soldiers should be allowed to claim conscientious objector status anytime the American military takes up arms against an Islamic foe.
This is why he was consumed by his moral duty to murder his fellow American soldiers in cold blood at Ft. Hood. It was incumbent upon him, as a devout Muslim, to fulfill his sacred duty of jihad against his comrades before they shipped out to Afghanistan where they might shed Muslim blood.
(The military does, of course, allow for conscientious objector status to those Americans who object to killing anybody. The difference here is that American Muslim soldiers have no problem killing people unless they happen to be Muslim people.)
We obviously cannot have a functioning military in which soldiers instead of generals decide which wars they will fight. We cannot allow soldiers to decide when they will destroy America's enemies and when they will destroy American soldiers instead because they have an allegiance that supersedes the one they swore to the Constitution and to the United States.
It's folly to count on the fact that a Muslim soldier has taken an oath of allegiance to the Constitution, for the simple reason that Shariah law, according to the doctrine of taqqiya, allows Muslims to tell flat-out lies in a time of war if it will advance the cause of Islam.
Bottom line: let's not get stuck on stupid. No more Muslims in the military. Shariah law says so.