If immigrants to the U.S. seek citizenship but are reluctant to take an oath of allegiance because it requires a commitment to help defend the country, what is the solution?

If the immigrants in question are Muslim and you have a pro-Muslim U.S. president, the solution is simple — just change the oath to accommodate them.

For years, the oath for citizenship included a requirement the declarant agree to “bear arms on behalf of the United States” and “perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States” when required by the law. But the U.S. Customs and Immigration Service (USCIS) now says, “a candidate may be eligible to exclude these two clauses based on religious training and belief or a conscientious objection.”

The quandary for U.S. citizen candidates who are Muslim is this: Just like America’s first two wars as a new nation were against Muslims, so too have its last two been. However, Islamic law — sharia — prohibits Muslims from fighting fellow Muslims. While this prohibition seems somewhat hypocritical in light of extensive Muslim-on-Muslim violence running rampant in the Middle East today, the concern of would-be U.S. citizen Muslims is that a non-Muslim U.S. could require they fight other Muslims.

To accommodate this concern, President Obama now gives Muslim immigrants wishing to become U.S. citizens a free pass: they no longer are required to undertake a responsibility which even he has relinquished — defending our nation against any Islamic threat.

Raymond Ibrahim’s August 6th article “Obama Alters U.S. Oath of Allegiance to Comply with Islamic Law” explains another important aspect of sharia that is at odds with Muslims taking an allegiance oath to America.

While sharia imposes the above prohibition upon Muslims gaining U.S. citizenship, it also prohibits them from giving fidelity to any non-Muslim government. The act of taking such an oath and not really meaning it is permissible in Islam under the concept of “taqqiya” — feigning loyalty to non-Muslims when necessary to do so to gain their confidence.

This was why naturalized U.S. citizen Faisal Shahzad — convicted of attempting the May 2010 Times Square car bombing only to have the fuse to his device, and his hope of killing infidels, fizzle—when asked by the judge about having taken an oath of allegiance to America said he swore it “but I didn’t mean it.”

As authority for taqqiya, Ibrahim cites Prophet Muhammad’s close companion Abu Darda, who said, “Let us grin in the face of some people while our hearts curse them.”

This is why Muslim immigrants refuse to assimilate in a host country. While retaining one’s identity is not a concern in and of itself, it is the Muslim’s purpose in doing so that is. His purpose is to use his increasing numbers to eventually wield enough influence to replace the host nation’s fundamental laws with those of sharia.

Among those who discourage assimilation by Muslim immigrants in order to support what is known as “creeping sharia” within a host nation is Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. In February 2011, he addressed thousands of Turkish immigrants in Germany, challenging them to turn Germany into Turkey by refusing to assimilate.

Years earlier, as mayor of Istanbul, Erdogan boldly proclaimed democracy was but a temporary vehicle on the journey to establish global Islam. He said: “Democracy is merely a train that we ride until we reach our goal. Mosques are our military barracks, minarets are our spears, and domes are our helmets.” The goal of Islamists, like Erdogan, is to use non-assimilation to eventually claim non-Muslim lands as Muslim.

Erdogan made the mistake of revealing his intentions at a time Turkey was still very much secular, resulting in his arrest. However, today, his efforts to take the train of democracy back to the days of the Ottoman Empire are very obvious.

Erdogan is not alone in defending non-assimilation by Muslims. As Ibrahim cites, numerous verses from the Koran support it including:

Koran 3:28: “Let believers not take for friends and allies infidels rather than believers: and whoever does this shall have no relationship left with Allah—unless you but guard yourselves against them, taking precautions;” and

Koran 58:22: True Muslims do not befriend non-Muslims “even if they be their fathers, sons, brothers, or kin.”

Lest we simply ignore the above sharia mandate in the interests of political correctness, we should reflect upon incidents in which Muslims have chosen the loyalty of religion over that of country — with deadly consequences for U.S. citizens. While there are several, among them are:

– The April 2005 grenade attack by U.S. Army soldier Hasan Akbar, prompted by his concern over U.S. troops killing his fellow Muslims in Iraq. He killed two and wounded 14.

– The November 2009 Fort Hood shooting by Major Nidal Hasan, prompted by his concern he would be deploying to the Middle East. Rather than doing so, he turned his weapon upon his true enemy—fellow U.S. soldiers—killing 13 and wounding more than thirty.

Ibrahim observes of the former incident: “In short, the first loyalty of any ‘American Muslim’ who follows the Koran is to fellow Muslims, regardless of their nationality. It is not to American ‘infidels.’”

Of the latter incident, he adds: “Much of Hasan’s behavior is grounded in the Islamic doctrine of Loyalty and Enmity. According to this essential teaching, Muslims must always be loyal to Islam and fellow Muslims while having enmity for all non-Islamic things and persons.”

It is chilling to reflect on statements by Islamist supporters such as Tarik Shah who, residing in the U.S., sought to assist al-Qaeda establish training camps here. Arrested in 2005, he boasted, “I could be joking and smiling (with non-Muslims) and then cutting their throats in the next second.”

The two observations above by Ibrahim should cause us to ask a question which, due to political correctness, never will: Where do the loyalties of two current Muslim members of Congress lie?

The Koran forbids allegiance to non-Muslim authority, preventing these congressmen from serving two masters at once. As the Koran dictates Islam is in a perpetual war against all infidels until a sharia-dominant world is established, which master do they then serve in this conflict?

Either these two congressmen are true Muslims serving Allah and, therefore, unable to serve America, or, they are true patriots serving the U.S. and, therefore, unable to serve Allah. The latter, incidentally, would make them apostates under sharia — a crime punishable by death.

Any issue concerning America’s national security on which these two vote thus raises concerns as to whether their motivation is America’s best interests or not — the latter for fear of a death warrant by doing so. Of course, asking such a question of them directly, we would never know the truth as they can claim in good (Islamic) faith, based on taqqiya, their motivation is in America’s best interests.

It is ironic the change to the oath of allegiance relieves Muslims from joining in the fight against Islamic extremism without extracting a similar demand they not join in the fight for jihad against us — a tendency for which a track record already exists. Of course, such a commitment to do so would ring hollow anyway as taqqiya again comes into play.

What is more disturbing than Muslim candidates for U.S. citizenship being excused from military service is knowing, by easily granting same, Obama is helping to breed a domestic army loyal to Islam that will turn on us when moved to do so.