Should muslim Americans serve in the armed forces of the United States?
What are the doctrinal and textual rationales and arguments for and against such service? (Qur’an, hadith, rulings, etc.).
Let’s talk about it in detail. Most of you are more knowledgeable than I so I want to tap the Talk Islam braintrust here and have a rigorous debate. We need to listen to what the Deenport/Umar Lee types have to say as well.
Buzz 4:34 pm on November 10, 2009 Permalink |
Can this be reduced simply to: Is there a possible separation of religion and state in Islam?
aziz 5:06 pm on November 10, 2009 Permalink |
technically you can, but in doing so you obfuscate the immediate utility of asking the question. Id prefer we focus on the specific question rather than over-generalize.
Buzz 5:23 pm on November 10, 2009 Permalink |
Yes, you are right.
My opinion then is you can be in the US military to support the state and keep your religion completely separate. I have no cultural ties, no family in the Middle East so it is easy for me to compartmentalize religion and state.
I respect muslim lands and honor the traditions to keep Muslim lands pure. I also recognize that these admonitions have been compromised centuries and Islam, like democracy, in government is deeply corrupted.
Bang Gully 9:59 pm on November 10, 2009 Permalink |
Uhh yeah….but you should also know that when the US military invades these “corrupt, muslim” lands they will almost 99.9% kill innocent Muslims. Killing people unjustly is wrong. If you wanna talk about corruption, then the military-industrial complex is corrupt.
Buzz 10:26 pm on November 10, 2009 Permalink |
Who said any different? I understand killing people is wrong. We pretend there is this presitine Muslim homeland that deserves protection. However the majority of innocent civilian deaths in Iraq for example are not killed by Americans. NO! They are killed by their fellow Muslim.
So we have a HUGE GAP between ideals and practice. Maybe these traditions would mean a little more if they were PRACTICED.
Bang Gully 11:33 pm on November 10, 2009 Permalink
Buzz
I really don’t know what you’re getting at with this.
Killing people unjustly from the point of a view of a Muslim who tries his best to understand Islam through study of Quran and Sunnah, and developing right habits and enough reflection, is wrong. Whether the U.S. Army is doing it or a suicide bomber is doing it.
Therefore, joining the Army knowing all these things about the military-industrial complex and knowing the brutality and savagery that is unleashed upon the invaded people, should be considered wrong.
My statement has a lot of assumptions and that was done purposely. Of course, there are situations where Muslims because of a decision made before converting to islam or made because of tough economic conditions would have to join the Army.
Buzz 1:17 am on November 11, 2009 Permalink
Religion is a practical place to practice absolute values and be uncompromising.
A righteous Muslim, in the world, dunya, will have to live in a cave to absolutely be sure they make no contributions to uncivil or corrupt acts.
Maybe they are in the US military, Maybe the work for high tech and the chip they produce goes into a predator. Maybe they live in the Middle East and fall into some faction that kills or supports sectarian violence.
I have already said that democracy and Islam, in modern government, are equally likely to be corrupt. So what really is the difference which government you “work for?” Is working for Saddam Hussein more Islamically correct than Bush?
They are both corrupt – doesn’t matter which side you soldier for.
So now you have to look for the magic government which has completely clean hands. Saudi Arabia?
Please.
Buzz 1:22 am on November 11, 2009 Permalink
It really means there has to be a Caliph, a real religious ruler and that rule has to be completely righteous by broad Islamic standards.
Otherwise, all Ayat and Hadith don’t necessarily apply. This is probably why Al-Q can attract young idealists. Because of the lack of legitimate Islamic rulers.
johnpi 6:20 pm on November 10, 2009 Permalink |
Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan’s entire 50-page slide show/power point presentation on Islam that he presented in 2007 and which ended with the recommendation that all Muslim soldiers should get the option to become conscientious objectors so that they would not have to fight other Muslims is here.
johnpi 6:28 pm on November 10, 2009 Permalink |
Page 36 is verse “enjoining peace and forgiveness”, pages 37-41 defensive jihad, pages 42-45 offensive jihad, none of which refer to your specific question here, but they are interesting.
On page 12, he cites two Quranic verses that I gather he claimed would mitigate against Muslims serving in action against other Muslims: 4:93 and 17:33.
johnpi 6:32 pm on November 10, 2009 Permalink |
And again, I just have to wonder, how do ulema that support the Taliban and the Pakistani violent groups deal with these same ayas.
It could just as well be argued that we’ve made common cause with non-Muslims to defend Muslims afflicted with hirabah…
Otto Kerner 6:55 pm on November 10, 2009 Permalink |
I think that it is unethical for any person to join the U.S. military if he or she has major objections to American foreign policy or believes there’s a reasonable chance that he or she will have major objections during the term of enlistment. So, in my opinion, this question boils down to what sort of foreign policy opinions a Muslim should have.
aziz 9:45 pm on November 10, 2009 Permalink |
i disagree. As a soldier, your concern is not policy, you are supposed to be volunteering to serve. The question si whether that service on an individual basis conflicts with Islam. Your horizon is your own orders, not teh broad strategy or foreign pollyc meta-levels way above your head (and wihch you cant see).
Len 10:13 pm on November 10, 2009 Permalink |
Spellcheck. It’s teh awesome.
You’re going to have to expand there. How does one decide if military service to their country conflicts with some version of Islam if they don’t have at least some sense of policy?
Why would you get on a boat without knowing where it’s going?
aziz 10:41 pm on November 10, 2009 Permalink |
foreign policy isnt a single direction for TEH boat (ha!), its much more diffuse than that. It evolves over time, it changes in response to events. You cant possibly know what specific conflicts between faith and service you might come across when enlisting no matter how saavy you are.
Len 11:40 pm on November 10, 2009 Permalink
I should have put a smiley there. But I didn’t, so here it is: =P
But given our foreign policy and the state of the world today, it’s hard to imagine many scenarios where the next (real or imagined) enemy of the United States is not some Muslim nation/group. I think most people have a sense of that.
Otto Kerner 7:09 am on November 11, 2009 Permalink
My opinion is that, if you can’t know what conflicts you are likely to be asked to engage in, you had better have a strong confidence that whatever orders you receive will be ethical to comply with. After all, you are signing up to kill other human beings or help others in the military kill them. Once the enemy is dead, “I was just following orders” isn’t going to cut it as an excuse. I wouldn’t go anywhere near that, personally. In my case, that doesn’t have anything to do with fighting Muslims in particular, but it might for somebody else.
null 7:25 am on November 11, 2009 Permalink
I feel the same way as Otto.
While I understand my taxes (if I were old enough to pay taxes heh) – are used to fund wars I don’t agree with, I draw the line at actually enlisting to the army. That’s just too close for comfort.
The chain of command is such, that you don’t know what you’ll be asked to do. But then, I’ve never been too good with patriotism.
Aasem 4:08 am on November 11, 2009 Permalink |
I think Otto has a point because a goal oriented foreign policy has to have a sense of “national interest” as the most important premise. Moreover, it may not be wrong to assert in the paradigm of modern social contract theory that an individual is contractually bound to serve his/her national interest.
Ironically, it becomes hard and hard for an individual to judge whether a particular war is “just” or not because only the notion of “just war” can morally reconcile an individual’s belligerence towards fellow human beings. I think its not merely “volunteering to serve”; its making a resolve that one is ready to sacrifice his life in order to take others’. One needs to have a good sound reason to make such a resolve. Problem arises when you stop having such reasonable basis and the system does not allow you – at least not easily – to relinquish yourself.
tg 9:06 pm on November 10, 2009 Permalink |
so long as the US military has such an intimate relationship, it is impossible for a muslim true to their faith to serve.
The israel issue is black and white. The same argument could be made for iraq and afghanistan, though those are a bit more complex
aziz 9:43 pm on November 10, 2009 Permalink |
i dont follow on either of your assertions. Can you elaborate?
Khalid 10:10 pm on November 10, 2009 Permalink |
Seems that what is missing from this discussion is an understanding of the shar’iah concepts of al wal’aa and bar’aa (loyalty and allegiance). This is rarely if ever addressed by the alphabet soup “American” Muslim organizations, and I believe this is what was/is what contributed in no small part to the internal problems that Mr. Hasan was having.
aziz 10:39 pm on November 10, 2009 Permalink |
well, okay Khalid then please expound on those conceots, your understanding, and how they might apply. Thats the purpose of this thread.
aasem 12:58 am on November 11, 2009 Permalink |
The contended Quranic basis of wala’ / bara’ is understood to be in the verses (e.g, 3:28) that are in the context of believers and non-believers and from there the concept takes off to purport friendship and enmity solely for the sake of Allah.
Unless we discuss the context of each one of those verses, and mind you there are many, it will be hard to apply the concept here. What I mean to say is that the concept is itself questionable in contemporary context.
freek 11:09 pm on November 10, 2009 Permalink |
As I understand, that when a person applies for American citizenship, the authorities take his/her background in consideration, since American people are multinationals.
example: a French/ American soldier must not be sent to a war against France, and so on.
Ever since the tragic incedent, i kept asking myself, WHY they are sending him to Iraq???? They know that he is Arabic, Muslem, and Palestinian background!?
Iam sure he was under a huge pressure.
razib, murtad fitri 1:03 am on November 11, 2009 Permalink |
As I understand, that when a person applies for American citizenship, the authorities take his/her background in consideration, since American people are multinationals.
i took a citizenship test when i was 18. there’s nothing like that. you are supposed to abjure loyalities, etc. you might have noticed that
1) german americans are the largest ethnic group in the USA
2) we fought two wars against germany
anyway, he wasn’t a naturalized citizen. he was born in the states.
razib, murtad fitri 2:05 am on November 11, 2009 Permalink |
to reinforce points 1 & 2, world war i and world war ii were led by generals of german american background, pershing and eisenhower. additionally, during world war i there was a great deal of resistance on the part of german americans to the war effort, as well as a demonization of their culture (by world war ii the german american counterculture had pretty much disintegrated).
Mr Moo 5:27 am on November 11, 2009 Permalink |
Interesting discussion so far. As a point of information, I remembered this article about chaplains in the UK army
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/priests/armychaplains_3.shtml
Abu Noor Al-Irlandee 9:21 am on November 11, 2009 Permalink |
Should American Muslims serve in the American Military? from Muslims for a Safe America.
null 9:27 am on November 11, 2009 Permalink |
A good summary of the different views. Which side makes more sense to you, Abu Noor?
Abu Noor Al-Irlandee 10:25 am on November 11, 2009 Permalink |
I would never advise any American Muslim to join the military.
There may be much that the military does that is permissible or even good by the standards of Islam, but there is certainly much that it does that is not permissible as well, ad if one chooses to join one does not get to pick and choose.
Of course, a similar argument could probably be made about any military force (including ‘muslim’ countries), so that is not an argument necessarily exclusive to the US military. Although I think a military that was not part of a world empire would be conceivably less problematic.
I think there are deeper issues of wala’ and bara’ as mentioned before. These are issues that require serious scholarly ijtihad in our current situation. I have not personally seen a very convincing analysis along those lines with most examinations I have seen seeming to me to be attempts to justify a preordained conclusion (either for or against such participation) rather than a serious attempt to really understand the guidance of Allaah and His Messenger and apply it to our situation.
This is a much needed area of exploration by contemporary scholars and I would appreciate any scholarly examinations of the issue that people come across and find helpful.
Allaah knows best.
Abu Noor Al-Irlandee 10:33 am on November 11, 2009 Permalink |
By the way, this whole issue of wala and bara’ of course relates closely to the question raised by Asra Nomani and apparently earlier Aziz about big U ummah versus small u Ummah. I am not sure I understand what they are saying but I am pretty sure I disagree with them. (not sure if they are all saying the same thing…I know I disagree with Asra Nomani, I think Tariq Ramadan, who was also mentioned by Aziz is saying something different from what Ms. Nomani was saying…I have to read and consider Aziz’s piece more carefully.)
aziz 11:05 am on November 11, 2009 Permalink |
i look forward to it.
Abu Noor Al-Irlandee 10:41 am on November 11, 2009 Permalink |
In short one’s primary loyalty and attachment should be to one’s fellow Muslims. This loyalty and alliance based upon belief and understanding of the universe is a more sound basis for such actions of the heart than incidentals such as the country one was born in or the tribe or family one is a part of. This doesn’t mean that one cannot still be part of a family or tribe or country (these only become impossible if it is understood that such institutions demand complete loyalty. Muslims cannot accept a notion of tribe or nation state belonging that demand complete and undivided loyalty…but can accept other notions of family, tribe, or citizenship.
Of course saying one’s primary loyalty is to Islam and to the ummah of Muhammad (saw) does not mean that one supports Muslims when they do wrong just because they are Muslim. The Prophet (saw) endorsed the old tribal adage of support your brother whether he is the oppressor or the oppressed but when the sahaba asked him Ya Rasul Allaah why is it that we should support our brother if he is the oppressor he (saw) said, in that case you should help him by stopping his oppression.
Allaah knows best.
aziz 10:44 am on November 11, 2009 Permalink |
but then how does this square with two members of the military of different muslim nations who go to war?
if this “primary loyalty” has any pragmatic meaning other than a general feel-good fuzzy, then it would require that no muslim serving in an army ever fight. Iran and Iraq’s war come to mind.
Abu Noor Al-Irlandee 10:59 am on November 11, 2009 Permalink |
Muslims should not fight each other Aziz. If you are surprised that Islam does not justify or encourage Muslims fighting and killing each other than I don’t know what you think the message of Islam is all about.
Of course, within the first generation after the death of the Prophet (saw) there were cases where Muslims who were righteous and knowledgeable did feel they had no choice but to fight each other. Whenever this happens it is an enormous tragedy and those fighting should try to find any possible way out of it. By no means is it better if they just say (well, “my country” commands me to do it so it must be good).
In my mind it would have been better if all the soldiers in the Iraqi army had said we refuse to invade Iran. We honor the orders of God above those of Saddam. Do you disagree?
Abu Noor Al-Irlandee 11:02 am on November 11, 2009 Permalink |
Here is what Allaah says we should do when Muslims do fall into fighting each other.
aziz 11:06 am on November 11, 2009 Permalink |
yes they should not. so the members of Iraq and Iran’s militaries should have.. done what?
null 11:10 am on November 11, 2009 Permalink
What else?
abunoor 11:30 am on November 11, 2009 Permalink
Aziz, I’m not sure I’m following you here. But I don’t claim to know what options were available to individual soldiers in Iraq or Iran at that time.
The original point of this discussion, however, was that here in the United States, American Muslims are not obligated to enter the military and therefore can avoid having to face such a situation, and so it seems to me, they should.
Of course, that does not absolve us completely of responsibility for what the military does, if we are able to stop it.
Abu Noor Al-Irlandee 10:49 am on November 11, 2009 Permalink |
In case, anyone has no idea what we are talking about with wala’ and bara’, here is a listing of some of the verses of Qur’an one has to try to understand and apply to our current situation with regards to this concept.
There are also books on the subject available in English but as I said above I am not confident that such books display a true and convincing understanding of the present reality such that I am convinced by their analysis….but they might be helpful to one interested in understanding what the issues are.
aziz 6:26 pm on November 11, 2009 Permalink |
ok i see the gist of these verses as minimizing relationships with non-muslims and preferring muslim ties to non-muslim ones. But spell out for me why this is equivalent to saying muslim cannot serve.
IBTW, Ive posted on this at COB.
http://blog.beliefnet.com/cityofbrass/2009/11/onwards-muslim-soldiers.html
abunoor 6:42 pm on November 11, 2009 Permalink |
Aziz (and Hussein) : My points at this time are very limited. First, it should be uncontroversial that a general principle of Islam is that Muslims should not fight against other Muslims. Second, perhaps more controversial in our time, but spelled out clearly in the Qur’an there is a general principle that one should not ally politically and militarily with non-Muslims against their Muslim brothers and sisters.
These are general principles….like almost any general principles there are exceptions to these rules in practice. Whether a particular situation constitutes an exception will not appear equally obvious to everyone depending upon various factors. (See Yvonne Haddad “Operation Desert Storm and the War of the Fatwas” in “Islamic Legal Interpretation: Muftis and their Fatwas”)
It is easy for me to scoff at the fatwas of pro-government muftis who justify the alliances of Muslim governments with non-Muslims although these often appear self serving and have profoundly negative effects noticed by all. It is easy for others to scoff at the fatwas of those who sympathize with Islamists or Rebels and who would consider such governments to have apostated. I am not sure how this mutual scoffing helps a great deal.
Indeed one interesting reality we can point to is that actually reaching a fatwa demands not only a deep knowledge of the Islamic source texts and an understanding of the process of fiqh but to reach a fatwa in such contemporary issues demands a deep understanding of the current reality and sometimes the fatwas may differ based on different understandings of the current political reality.
Allaah knows best.
aziz 6:22 pm on November 11, 2009 Permalink |
Hussein has a relevant post up-blog – am copying and pasting here for reference:
abunoor 6:47 pm on November 11, 2009 Permalink |
Hussein, the “Constitution of Medina” actually is very interesting to read in the context of this discussion. I don’t think it actually does label Jews or Christians as “believers” but I could see why you could argue that. It does however explicitly state the following:
Buzz 9:00 pm on November 11, 2009 Permalink |
Our Pir always stesses the difference between Mu’amin (Believer) and Muslim in the Qur’an. There has to be a reason for the difference in Revelation. There are many ayah which define who are Believers. Those who see the unseen, etc.
But for purposes here. 2:213 should suffice.
Buzz 9:01 pm on November 11, 2009 Permalink |