the fatwa that governs muslim soldiers fighting in iraq and afghanistan ... make that, the fatwa that governs american muslim soldiers, and points "the way" ...

odd, the little things one discovers while reading for himself, and not just repeating other blogs. 

whilst reading and scribbling away here in what some (me) describe as my well deserved obscurity, "... unnoticed and unremarked upon ... ," i came across an interesting little tidbit in imam feisel abdul rauf's book, "what's right with islam: a new vision for muslims and the west," harper collins 2004, isbn 0-06-058-272-3, not to be confused with "what's right with islam is what's right with america" harper collins 2005, and not to be confused with the same book published as "a call to islam from the world trade center rubble: islamic dawa from the heart of america post 9/11" in malaysia in 2007.

drum roll, please.  it is an appendix at pp. 287-291.

it seems that one muhammad abdur al-rashid, the "ranking muslim chaplain" in the u.s. military very shortly after september 11, 2001 anticipated american muslim troops fighting in afghanistan, so he fired off a request for a legal ruling from islamic authority, in the person of sheik yusuf al-qaradawi, as to whether american muslim would be permitted under islam to fight against their co-religionists there.  for more on sheikh yousef al-qaradhawi, as he is also known, and his long standing relationship to imam feisel abdul rauf, please see atlas shrugs's article, "... ground zero mosque imam's ... extremism exposed."

mr. muhammad abdur al-rashid asked for a fatwa on whether it was permissible under islamic law and religious doctraine for american muslim troops to fight in afghanistan, or whether they should refuse order to do so, and refuse to fight against their fellow muslims.  it is as fucking simple as that.

muhammad abdur al-rashid, and american army officer, is asking a qatari sheik whether islam will permit american troops to fight in a war as directed by their chain of command.  do you understand that?  an american army officer.

do you get that.  and american army officer is asking an islamic religious authority if islam permits american troops to fight as ordered.  please consider, if you are capable of the mental gymnastic, if major malik nadal hasan, a medical doctor, a psychiatrist, and an officer in the united states army had been aware of the document which follows.  or, please consider that perhaps he was, and saw this fatwa for what it is.

now, i am going to print the whole thing, as it is, without a whole lot of comment.  i have, however, taken the liberty of interliniating in the document several [explanatory words underlined and in brackets, followed with my initials: jj] brief words & phrases which i feel add the proper conjunctive structure to the document, in order to help parse the text, and in order to help you understand what is really being done here.

but, follows the document which more than several muslims feel governs the conduct of american soldiers.  well, you say, that's a bit far fetched, ain't it.

to which i can only reply, apparently not to muhammad abdur al-rashid, the then highest ranking muslim chaplain in the united states military service.

john jay @ 08.27.2010

p.s.  i recommend to you that you read my post, "the ultimate comment on the issue of self defense, from an excellent post at the gates of vienna" and also follow the following hyper-link to another article there by "baron bodissey" entitled "islam, mischief and the right to kill," on how to read a fatwa recently issued by the highest saudi religious council as it pertains to "terrorism" and "innocents."  in short, there are no "innocents" to muslims among the infidels, e.g., that's you and me, and so when you read muslims proscribing harming "innocents" it means other than what you think.  please read the "baron's" excellent post, and use it to understand the below.

.................................................................

appendix

from, "what's right w/ islam: a new vision for muslims and the west," by feisel abdul rauf. 

 

fatwa permitting u.s. muslim

military personnel to participate in

afghanistan war effort

 

in the name of god,

the compassionate,

the merciful

 

legal fatwa

this is the reply to the (religious) inquiry presented by mr. muhammad abdur-rashid, the most senior muslim chaplain in the american armed forces.  it concerns the permissibility of the muslim military personnel within the u.s. armed forces to participate in the war operations and its related efforts in afghanistan and elsewhere in other muslim countries.

in his question he states that the goals of the (war) operations are:

1.  retaliation against those ‘who are thought to have participated’ in planning and financing the suicide operations on september 11^th, against civilian and military targets in new york and washington (he then detailed the consequences of those operations.)
2. eliminating the elements that use afghanistan and elsewhere as safe haven, as well as deterring the governments which harbor them, sanction them, or allow them the opportunity for military training in order to achieve their goals around the world.
3. restoring the veneration and respect to the u.s. as a sole superpower in the world.

furthermore, he concludes his inquiry by mentioning that the number of the muslim military personnel, in the three branches of the american armed forces, exceeds fifteen thousand soldiers.  hence, if they refuse to participate in fighting, they will have no choice but to resign, which might entail other consequences.  finally, he asks if ti is permissible, to those who can transfer, to serve in different capacities other than direct fighting.

the reply:

praise be to god and peace and blessing be upon the messengers of god.

we say:

this question presents a very complicated issue and a highly sensitive situation for our muslim brothers and sisters serving in the american army as well as other armies that face similar situations.

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.  god (glory be to he) said:

‘because of that we ordained unto the children of israel that is anyone killed a human being—unless it be in punishment for murder or for spreading mischief** 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 the life of all humanity.  and, indeed, there came to them our messengers with clear signs (proofs and evidences), even then after that, many of them continued to commit mischief on earth.’ 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’s 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 [my emphasis: jj] considered by the islamic law (shar’iah) or the rules of islamic jurisprudence (fiqh), the ruling for the crime of ‘hirabah’ (waging war against society) would be applied to their doers.  god (glory be to he) said:

‘the recompense of those who wage war against god and his messenger and do mischief on earth is only that they shall be killed or crucified or their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides, or be exiled from the land.  that is their disgrace in this world, and a great torment is theirs in the hereafter.  except for those who (having fled away and then) came back with repentance before they fall into your power; (in that case) know that god is oft-forgiving, most merciful.”  5:33-34

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 punish them appropriately, so that it could act as deterrent to them and to others like them who easily slay the lives of innocents, destroy property and terrorize people.  hence, it’s a duty of muslims to participate in this effort with all possible means, in accordance with god’s (most high) saying:

‘and help one another in virtue and righteousness, but do not help one another in sin and transgression.’  5:2

[but,: jj] 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.  [hence, it does not apply here.  rules of expediency applying to when a muslim is not in charge of his affairs, apply therefore …: jj] 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 since he would not enjoy the privileges of citizenship without performing its obligations.

the muslim (soldier) must perform his duty in this fight despite the feeling of uneasiness of ‘fighting without discriminating.’  his intention (niyya) must be to fight for enjoining of the truth and defeating falsehood.  it’s to prevent aggression on the innocents, or to apprehend the perpetrators and bring them to justice [in that instance in which he is in charge of his affairs].  [but, where he is not in charge of his affairs,] it’s not his concern what other consequences of the  fighting that might result in his personal discomfort, since he alone can neither control it nor prevent it.  furthermore, all deeds are accounted (by god) according to the intentions.  god (the most high) 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 god (the most high) says:

‘and keep your duty to god as much as you can.’  64:16

the prophet (prayer and peace be upon him) said:

‘when I ask of you to do something, do it as much as you can.’

the muslim here is a 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 (fiqhi) 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 the 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’s not permissible to ask for that.

to sum up, it’s acceptable—god willing—for the muslim american military personnel to partake in the fighting in the upcoming battles, against whomever, their country desires, 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 to befall 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.  [in short, we rule that american muslims must fight in this situation, because it serves the greater long terms interests of islam that he do so, in this instance.: jj]

and god the most high is most knowledgeable and most wise.  [and, we say, in this instance and for the interests of islam, god so ordains, so it to be.:  jj]

                                                                                                rahib 10, 1422 ah/

                                                                                                september 27, 2001

 

signatories:

/s/________________________

sheikh yusuf al-qaradawi

[grand islamic scholar and chairman of the sunna and sira council, qatar]

 

/s/________________________

jJudge tariq al-bishri

[first deputy president of the council d’etat, ret., egypt]

 

/s/________________________

dr. muhammad s. al-awa

[professor of comparative law and shari’a, egypt]

 

/s/________________________

dr. haytham al-khayyat

[islamic scholar, syria

 

/s/________________________

mr. fahmi houaydi

[islamic scholar and columnist, egypt]

 

this english version was translated from the original arabic, authorized and approved by the authors of the statement.” 

 "what's right with islam: a new vision for muslims and the west," by imam feisel abdul rauf, harper collins 2004, isbn 0-06-058-272-3, at page 287-291.

 

Comments

[Chris]

Hi. I have read this artical and thank you for writting it. I had wondered what the Muslim position was on them fighting w/ the Taliban or others.

Thanks

[john jay]

chris:

thanks for the read!!

and, now you know. quite frankly, i had never heard of this fatwa until i read rauf's book. i am glad that i picked it up.

interesting, isn't it, that rauf would be privy to this information, and the rest of us were not.

john jay

[ugg bailey button]

I knew tiny on this element prior to, thank you for you personally details! Very best wishes for you personally and happiness all through the every day.

[buy arginine]

Bear in mind that each medicine, whether natural or man-made, has its medicinal properties.

[justin bieber shoes]

He is a good friend that speaks well of us behind our backs.