Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

U.S. Army Muslim chaplain questions duty: Captain gets mixed signals from foreign Islamic leaders
WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Wednesday, November 7, 2001

Posted on 11/06/2001 9:31:27 PM PST by JohnHuang2

WND Exclusive
U.S. Army Muslim chaplain questions duty
Captain gets mixed signals from foreign Islamic leaders



© 2001 WorldNetDaily.com

As the U.S. geared up for military action in Afghanistan, Army Chaplain Capt. Abd Al-Rasheed Muhammad began questioning the permissibility of a fight against fellow Muslims.

Muhammad, the imam of Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, sent an inquiry on the matter to the North American Fiqh Council, which deals with matters of Islamic jurisprudence. In turn, according to reports published in the Arabic-language press, the matter was referred to clerics in the Arab world.

At first, the clerics issued a Fatwa, or edict, permitting Muslim soldiers to take part in the fighting if there was no alternative. The council delivered the ruling to Muhammad. But on Oct. 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, according to reports translated by the Middle East Media Research Institute.

The text of the new edict has not yet been released, according to MEMRI. Meanwhile, Muslim soldiers facing duty in Afghanistan or other Muslim countries have no clear religious guidance from Islamic clergy.

Seven years earlier, according to MEMRI, when he was asked by the Arab weekly Al-Majalah following his appointment as chaplain in 1994 about his opinion on American forces fighting in Islamic countries, Muhammad 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."

But, following the Sept. 11 attacks, Muhammad decided it was best to consult with external Islamic authorities. In his letter to the council, he outlined the goals of the coming war and said he believed there are more than 15,000 Muslim military personnel that serve in all three branches of the U.S. armed forces. He wondered if they should resign or request other duties under the circumstances.

Taha Jaber Al-Alwani, president of the North American Figh Council, explained last month to London's Al-Sharq Al-Awsat why he consulted other Islamic clerics in the Arab world following Muhammad's request: "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," he explained, "and we tried to gather and study them. At the same time, we sent [Muhammad's inquiry] on to a group of clerics in the Muslim world, asking that they advise us about the new catastrophe."

Al-Alwani said there were instances during the Gulf War when 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," he added. "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."

Al-'Alwani also expressed doubts as to whether Osama bin Laden was responsible for the attacks on the U.S. In an article that appeared in the Saudi daily Al-Watan, Al-'Alwani implied that Israel was actually behind the attacks.

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

Two weeks earlier, reports MEMRI, on his television program on the Qatar channel Al-Jazeera, Al-Qaradhawi issued a call to Arab and Islamic countries not to assist the U.S. in its war in Afghanistan. He 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."

But the resulting Fatwa appeared to starkly contrast with earlier statements by some of those who drafted it.

"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," it said. "Islam has declared the spilling of blood and the destruction of property as absolute prohibitions until the Day of Judgment. … 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."

It continued: "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," concluded the Fatwa.

But the edict prompted immediate opposition.

Sheikh Muhammad Al-Hanooti, a member of the North American Fiqh Council, stated at an Oct. 12 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."

Al-Hanooti concluded: "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."

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."

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, neither 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."

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.

Later, opposition to the Fatwa came from the same clerics who issued it.

On Oct. 30, the editor of the Al-Sharq Al-Awsat reported that the clerics 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.


If you'd like to sound off on this issue, please take part in the WorldNetDaily poll.

For Education And Discussion Only. Not For Commercial Use.



TOPICS: Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-45 next last

1 posted on 11/06/2001 9:31:27 PM PST by JohnHuang2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
I guess Muslim members of the US Armed Forces have a decision to make.
2 posted on 11/06/2001 9:44:23 PM PST by Mike Darancette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
If they refuse or in any way slow down or shirk their duty, they MUST BE SHOT.
3 posted on 11/06/2001 9:45:37 PM PST by ikka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: *taliban_list
Clearly, many nominally American moslems do not have loyalty to this nation, but to any "brother moslems", even Osama Bin Laden.
4 posted on 11/06/2001 9:45:38 PM PST by Travis McGee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IronJack; Ron C.; Common Tator; dennisw; zion_ist; Thinkin' Gal; The Sword; Sabramerican...
FYI
5 posted on 11/06/2001 9:49:31 PM PST by JohnHuang2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
wait till they get drafted... and their women
6 posted on 11/06/2001 9:51:34 PM PST by GeronL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ikka
At least make them pay back every dime spent on training, feeding, housing and paying them. If they don't have the money, let them work it off at $2 a day in jail. A deal is a deal.
7 posted on 11/06/2001 9:52:05 PM PST by LarryLied
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee
many nominally American moslems do not have loyalty to this nation, but to any "brother moslems", even Osama Bin Laden

BUMP!

8 posted on 11/06/2001 9:52:40 PM PST by Cool Guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ikka
Muslims (and anyone else) in the American armed forces are allowed to BELIEVE in any religion they elect. However, their ACTIONS are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice which in time of war can exact a death penalty for disloyal disobedience to lawful orders.

If I were the Commander in Chief I would administratively discharge all Muslims immediately to avoid the risk of divided loyalties.

9 posted on 11/06/2001 9:54:11 PM PST by NetValue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
During wartime, traitors should be shot. If one's alligance to religion, is greater than their alliganace to their country, then they have absolutely no business joining the military. Round up ALL Muslims , deport all aliens ( legal or therwise ) and stick the rest of them in camps ! They are a far worse problem , to this nation, than the Japanese Americans ever were.
10 posted on 11/06/2001 9:57:43 PM PST by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nopardons
I think we are not officially at war; I wonder what rules would apply.
11 posted on 11/06/2001 9:59:46 PM PST by mvonfr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
This "chaplain" is an Army OFFICER!

This silly bastard - took an oath to defend the Constitution "against ALL enemies, foreign or domestic".

He does NOT now have the option to not fight against any son of a bitch in the world --- included freaking "muslims".

If this silly bastard feels he needs some rag headed "cleric" to give him permission to fight -- he should be driven from the service, at the very LEAST.
Semper Fi

12 posted on 11/06/2001 10:00:20 PM PST by river rat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
HOGWASH!!! If they can't denounce events of September 11th then they're NOT with us!
13 posted on 11/06/2001 10:01:10 PM PST by BunnySlippers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mvonfr
We were no longer " at war " when we fried the Rosenburgs. Fry 'em, I say.
14 posted on 11/06/2001 10:07:12 PM PST by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: nopardons
I have no problem with it; I just wonder if this is an option.
15 posted on 11/06/2001 10:10:00 PM PST by mvonfr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: mvonfr
I really don't know, and what's more, I don't care if it " legal " or not.
16 posted on 11/06/2001 10:11:40 PM PST by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: nopardons
If it is not legal, it is not likely to happen. Unfortunately, but so.
17 posted on 11/06/2001 10:15:01 PM PST by mvonfr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: nopardons
They are a far worse problem , to this nation, than the Japanese Americans ever were.

Not difficult, since there was not one instance of a Japanese American causing any problems what so ever, AFAIK. By Japanese American I mean a citizen, natural born or naturalised, not an alien. Thousands of them did fight for their country, even as their parents and siblings rotted in the camps.

18 posted on 11/06/2001 10:18:20 PM PST by El Gato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee
Loyalty to Mohammedism trumps all else in this or any other senario.
19 posted on 11/06/2001 10:19:51 PM PST by RLK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
During Vietnam, I served in Personnel. We had a few cases, claiming "Conscientious Objector" status, for soldiers on active duty--in Germany. Two I recall were an enlisted man and an officer.

The entire process in rigorous, and takes a long time. I recall that if one's religion forbade ALL war, and attendant participation, it might qualify for such status. I similarly recall that objection to only a "specific" war, eg. Vietnam, clearly DID NOT qualify.

In that respect, I doubt these Islam first, America second claims would qualify. Just my two cents. I wasn't and am not a lawyer, military or otherwise.

20 posted on 11/06/2001 10:23:00 PM PST by truth_seeker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-45 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson