(www.the-idler.com)

"Read All About It In The Idler"

Muslim Soldiers in the U.S. Armed Forces in Afghanistan: To Fight or Not to Fight?

By the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI)

Air Force 2nd Lt. Abdullah Hamza Al-Mubarak with Deputy Defense Secretary John J. Hamre and Vice  Admiral Vern Clark, at Pentagon Iftar ceremony marking Ramadan. (Department of Defense photo by L.D. Kozaryn)

As soon as the U.S. geared up for the war against the
Taliban regime in Afghanistan, Muslim military personnel in
the American armed forces began to deal with the question
of the religious permissibility of their participation in
battle. Army Chaplain Capt. Abd Al-Rasheed Muhammad, the
Imam of Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C.
sent an inquiry on the matter to the North American Fiqh
(Islamic Jurisprudence) Council, which in turn referred the
matter to clerics in the Arab world. The clerics issued a
Fatwa permitting Muslim soldiers to take part in the
fighting if there was no alternative, and the council
delivered the ruling to Capt. Muhammad. But on October 30,
the editor of the Arabic London daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat
reported that the clerics who signed this Fatwa had changed
their minds and abrogated their previous Fatwa with a new
one prohibiting participation of Muslim soldiers in the war
in Afghanistan.

The Unfolding of Events

Following the attacks of September 11 and the subsequent
preparations for war, Capt. Muhammad sent his inquiry to
the council. Seven years earlier, when he was asked by the
Arab weekly Al-Majalah following his appointment in 1994
about his opinion on American forces fighting in Islamic
countries, he said, "We are soldiers, not politicians.
Obeying orders is a fundamental part of the work of the
military, but I hope that America's relations with Islamic
countries and with other countries will be always good, and
if we are forced to intervene, the intervention will be
positive. I pray to Allah every day that we will not be
forced to fight our Muslim brothers, although Muslims kill
each other in their civil wars here and there, which
saddens me."(1)

Nevertheless, in 2001 Capt. Muhammad felt that on such a
momentous matter, it was best to consult with external
Islamic authorities. In his letter to the council, he
outlined the goals of the prospective war and concluded
that more than 15,000 Muslim military personnel serve in
all three branches of the U.S. armed forces, and that if
they refuse to participate in the fighting, they would have
to resign, which might have other consequences. Finally, he
asked whether it is permissible for those able to transfer
to serve in capacities other than direct fighting.(2)

Capt. Muhammad first sent his inquiry to Dr. Taha Jaber
Al-'Alwani, president of North American Fiqh Council.
Al-'Alwani passed it on to several well-known clerics in
the Arab world. He told Al-Sharq Al-Awsat why he did this:
"When a question is referred to us, we often consult with
our brothers, colleagues, and teachers in the Islamic
world. We send the question to several experts among the
clerics, and when we receive their answers, we [usually]
adopt their Fatwas as they are written, and back them up
with proof and explanations - because the Western mind, as
you know, cannot accept anything if it is not proven and
explained. Sometimes, we introduce changes in the Fatwa..."

"Many Fatwas [on the matter] were issued at the time of the
Gulf War," said Al-'Alwani, "and we tried to gather and
study them. At the same time, we sent [Capt. Muhammad's
inquiry] on to a group of clerics in the Muslim world,
asking that they advise us about the new catastrophe."

"[There were] instances during the Gulf War when many
Muslim military personnel were advised to [transfer] to
auxiliary corps such as supplies and transportation. It
appeared that several Muslim military personnel's refusal
to serve in the war against a Muslim nation led to Muslim
American soldiers being looked at askance... Therefore, we
made sure that the matter did not reach the Arab or Western
media, and that it would remain between us and the Muslim
chaplains in the U.S. Department of Defense. But to our
surprise, some Arab and European media, and afterwards
American media, addressed this matter, and we found
ourselves facing a fait accompli. So we issued an
announcement in which we declared that we respect the
Fatwas of all clerics, and primarily the position of Sheikh
Al-Qaradhawi and his colleagues, but we stress to all
Muslim American military personnel that they must not
relinquish the rights granted them by the American
constitution and legislation. The American constitution
defends anyone who is uneasy about participating in
[military] activities with the concept of 'conscientious
objection.' Anyone who is not uneasy can fight like the
others. Within the U.S., if it is attacked from its seas or
its skies, Muslims in the U.S. armed forces must defend
them, because this is self defense and defense of their
home."(3)

Dr. Al-'Alwani himself had doubts as to whether Osama bin
Laden is responsible for the attacks on the U.S. In an
article that appeared in the Saudi daily Al-Watan,
Al-'Alwani implied that Israel is behind the attacks, with
the aim of "bringing about a merger between Israeli and
American security theory [strategies]." He wrote, "Britain
has released many documents on World War II; some of them
indicate how the British fox Churchill dragged America into
WWII by, among other things, arranging an Axis attack on
the American Navy in the middle of the ocean. This
operation [i.e. Pearl Harbor] is considered the most
dangerous intelligence operation of that generation.
America swallowed the bait and the cowboy entered the area
and tipped the scales... in favor of the Allies... The
events of Black September 11 are nothing more than the
beginning of the merger between two security theories
[strategies], the Israeli and the American."(4)

Three Arab clerics received the inquiry: Dr. Yussuf
Al-Qaradhawi, one of the leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood,
UNESCO representative Dr. Haytham Al-Khayyat, who was
presented in the Fatwa as an Islamic scholar from Syria,
and Dr. Muhammad Salim Al-'Awa. These three also brought in
Judge Tareq Al-Bishri and known Islamist columnist Fahmi
Huweidi.

 Al-Qaradhawi's stance on this question is surprising,
because only two weeks earlier, on his television program
on the Qatar channel Al-Jazeera, he issued a call to Arab
and Islamic countries not to assist the U.S. in its war in
Afghanistan, and stated that should the Taliban declare a
Jihad against the U.S., "Muslims must help as best they
can." Al-Qaradhawi also said that although he condemns the
attacks against civilians in the U.S., "we must fight the
American army if we can."(5)

Another key figure behind the Fatwa is Dr. Muhammad Salim
Al-'Awa, who drafted it for the others. In 1998, Al-'Awa
stated in an interview with Al-Istiqlal, the Palestinian
Islamic Jihad mouthpiece in Gaza, "I believe that it is the
duty of the Muslims to act in all possible ways in order to
obtain weapons of mass destruction, beginning with nuclear
weapons and including biological and chemical weapons... We
want the State of Israel to cease to exist, and the State
of Palestine to arise in its place..." In the same
interview, Al-'Awa expressed support for Palestinian
suicide bombers, calling them "the most sublime martyrs in
our generation, who should be a model for our boys and
girls."(6)

The Fatwa

The Fatwa Al-'Awa now drafted was quite different than his
past statements. Following are excerpts of the official
English translation:

"All Muslims ought to be united against all those who
terrorize the innocents, and those who permit the killing
of non-combatants without a justifiable reason. Islam has
declared the spilling of blood and the destruction of
property as absolute prohibitions until the Day of
Judgment. Allah said: 'Because of that We ordained unto the
Children of Israel that if anyone killed a human being -
unless it be in punishment for murder or for spreading evil
on earth - it would be as though he killed all of humanity;
whereas if anyone saved a life, it would be as though he
saved all humanity... (Koran 5:32)'"

"Hence, whoever violates these pointed Islamic texts is an
offender deserving of the appropriate punishment according
to their offence and according to its consequences for
destruction and mischief."

"It is incumbent upon our military brothers in the American
armed forces to make this stand and its religious reasoning
well-known to all their superiors, as well as to their
peers, and to voice it and not to be silent. Conveying this
is part of the true nature of the Islamic teachings that
have often been distorted or smeared by the media."

"If the terrorist acts that took place in the U.S. were
considered by Islamic Law (Shari'ah) or the rules of
Islamic jurisprudence (Fiqh), the ruling for the crime of
Hiraba (waging war against society) would be applied to
their doers. Allah said: 'The recompense of those who wage
war against Allah and His Messenger and do mischief on
Earth is only that they shall be killed or crucified or
their hands and their feet be cut off from opposite sides,
or be exiled from the land. That is their disgrace in this
world, and a great torment [awaits them] in the Hereafter.'"

"Therefore, we find it necessary to apprehend the true
perpetrators of these crimes, as well as those who aid and
abet them through incitement, financing or other support.
They must be brought to justice in an impartial court of
law and be punished appropriately, so that it serves as a
deterrent to them and to others like them who easily slay
the lives of innocents, destroy properties and terrorize
people. Hence, it's a duty on Muslims to participate in
this effort with all possible means... (Koran 5.2)"

"On the other hand, the source of the uneasiness that
American Muslim military men and women may have in fighting
other Muslims, is because it's often difficult - if not
impossible - to differentiate between the real perpetrators
who are being pursued and the innocents who have committed
no crime at all. The authentic saying by the Prophet
states: 'When two Muslims face each other in fighting and
one kills the other, then both the killer and the killed
will end up in the hell-fire.' Someone said [to the
Prophet]: 'We understand that the killer is in hell; why
then the one who's being killed? The Prophet said: Because
he wanted to kill the other person...'"

"The noble Hadith mentioned above only refers to the
situation where the Muslim is in charge of his affairs. He
is capable of fighting as well as capable of not fighting.
This Hadith does not address the situation where a Muslim
is a citizen of a state and a member of a regular army. In
this case, he has no choice but to follow orders, otherwise
his allegiance and loyalty to his country could be in
doubt. This would subject him to much harm..."

"The Muslim [soldier] must perform [his] duty in this fight
despite the feeling of uneasiness of 'fighting without
discriminating [between criminals and innocents].' His
intention (niyya) must be to fight for enjoining of the
truth and defeating falsehood. It is to prevent aggression
on the innocents, or to apprehend the perpetrators and
bring them to justice. It is not his concern what other
consequences of the fighting might result to his personal
discomfort, since he alone can neither control it nor
prevent it. Furthermore, all deeds are accounted (by Allah)
according to [their] intentions. Allah does not burden any
soul except what it can bear. In addition, Muslim jurists
have ruled that what a Muslim cannot control, he cannot be
held accountable for, as Allah says: 'And keep your duty to
God as much as you can (Koran 64:16).'"

"The Prophet said: 'When I ask of you to do something, do
it as much as you can.' The Muslim here is part of a whole;
if he absconds, his departure will result in a greater
harm, not only for him but also for the Muslim community in
his country - and here there are many millions of them.
Moreover, even if fighting causes him discomfort
spiritually or psychologically, this personal hardship must
be endured for the greater public good, as the
jurisprudence (Fiqh) rule states."

"Furthermore, the questioner inquires about the possibility
of the Muslim military personnel in the American armed
forces to serve in the back lines - such as in the relief
services sector and similar works. If such requests are
granted by the authorities, without reservation or harm to
the soldiers, or to other American Muslim citizens, then
they should request that. Otherwise, if such request raises
doubts about their allegiance or loyalty, cast suspicions,
present them with false accusations, harm their future
careers, shed misgivings on their patriotism, or similar
sentiments, then it is not permissible to ask for that."

"To sum up, it is acceptable - Allah willing - for the
Muslim American military personnel to partake in the
fighting in the upcoming battles, against whomever their
country decides has perpetrated terrorism against them.
Keeping in mind to have the proper intention as explained
earlier, so no doubts would be cast about their loyalty to
their country, or to prevent harm from befalling them as
might be expected. This is in accordance with the Islamic
jurisprudence rules, which state that necessities dictate
exceptions, as well as the rule that says one may endure a
small harm to avoid a much greater harm."(7)

The Opposition

As might be expected, the Fatwa prompted opposition: Sheikh
Muhammad Al-Hanooti, a member of the North American Fiqh
Council (headed by Al-'Alwani), stated at an October 12,
2001 press conference of the American Muslim Council:
"Muslims can fight provided that they get legitimacy [by
religious ruling] for what they are going to do, if a
certain people... or country are judicially indicted."

"Up to this moment, I don’t see any evidence or proof
[against the Taliban or bin Laden]... We cannot take action
without judicial indictment [of bin Laden]. I know there is
a crime done. The people who did it are criminals, but who
should decide about their indictment? A judge. I disagree
with anyone who gives support to the action taken by the
President of the United States without this kind of
indictment."(8)

"Therefore, we cannot participate as American soldiers in a
war whose legitimacy in Islamic religious law has not been
established, regardless of whom we fight against, Muslims
or non-Muslims."(9)

Dr. Ahmad Al-Raysouni, professor of Shari’ah at the
University of Morocco, said: "It is not permissible to
launch any attacks against Muslims, to fight them or to
carry out any transgression against them. In a show of
respect to Muslim creed and [the Muslim American soldiers']
feelings, the American administration I think, will
appreciate the attitude of Muslims and will avoid pushing
Muslims forward to kill their fellow brothers. The U.S.
administration may also consider the issue through
strategic perspectives with the aim of preserving
discipline and stability in the American army. However, if
Muslim American soldiers are called upon to participate in
a war launched against their fellow Muslim brothers, then
they should decline and apologize."(10)

Dr. Ali Jum'ah, professor of the Principles of Islamic
Jurisprudence at Al-Azhar University, saw Muslim American
soldiers' refusal to participate in the American offensive
as a form of Jihad: "Fighting in the Cause of Allah is an
obligation upon Muslims. It's worth stressing here that
Jihad has a wider meaning, which is related to man's role
on earth, rather than being confined to defending one's
country, honor, property, and worldly riches. A Muslim is a
brother of another Muslim. So he should neither oppress him
nor hand him over to an oppressor..."

"Now, it is not allowed for a Muslim who is currently
recruited in the American army to fight against Muslims,
either in Afghanistan nor anywhere else... If a Muslim is
forced to participate in the military campaign, then he
should take care not to kill [another] Muslim, under any
circumstances. [He must not offer] help or [give] clues
that might help capture his fellow Muslim brothers or ease
killing them..."

"The Prophet [Muhammad]... deemed that the demolition of
the sacred Ka'bah [in Mecca]... is less [serious] in
Allah's sight than killing a Muslim. Now what do we think
of killing tens and hundreds of Muslims?..."(11)

A Hamas leader, Bassam Jarar, called Al-Qaradhawi to ask
for a copy of the ruling, and then sent his response to the
Palestinian daily Al-Quds. Jarar addressed the claim that
"necessity permits things that are prohibited," a phrase
appearing in the Arabic version of the Fatwa but missing
from the English version. "It is known that the necessity
does not permit murder," he said. According to Jarar, since
Al-Qaradhawi sees participation in the fighting as a
"necessity," such fighting is clearly forbidden by Islamic
religious law. Jarar also said that the penalty for
soldiers in the American army who refuse to fight is in any
event only a few months in jail. He concluded by saying
that a Muslim soldier who refuses to participate in the war
in Afghanistan for the reason that it is forbidden by
Islamic religious law is actually in a very strong position
when he faces the American judicial system.(12)

However, the most important opposition seems to have come
from the same clerics who issued the Fatwa. On October 30,
2001, the editor of the Arabic London daily Al-Sharq
Al-Awsat reported that the clerics have abrogated their
position with a new Fatwa which invalidated the former one
and prohibited the participation of Muslim soldiers in the
U.S. armed forces in the war in Afghanistan. The text of
the Fatwa has not been made public yet.(13)

Endnotes:

(1) Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), October 6, 2001.
(2) Authorized English translation of the Fatwa issued
September 27, 2001, by Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, Judge
Tareq Al-Bishri, Dr. Muhammad Salim Al-'Awa, Dr. Haytham
Al-Khayyat, and Fahmi Huweidi.
(3) Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), October 14, 2001.
(4) Al-Watan (Saudi Arabia), September 22, 2001.
(5) Al-Jazeera Television (Qatar), September 16, 2001.
(6) Al-Istiqklal (Palestinian Authority), October 28, 1998.
(7) Authorized English translation of the Fatwa issued
September 27, 2001.
(8) Ibid.
(9) Al-Sha’ab (Egypt), October 19, 2001.
(10) www.islamonline.com .
(11) Ibid.
(12) Al-Quds (Palestinian Authority), October 15, 2001.
(13) Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), October 30, 2001.