There has to be a reason for the difference in [terms used in] Revelation.

But for purposes here. 2:213 should suffice.

A Believer will not kill another Believer, for the sake of an un-Believer. (i.e. even though the un-Believer is his close relative).

No Believer will help an un-Believer against a Believer.

Protection (when given) in the Name of Allah will be common. The weakest among Believers may give protection (In the Name of Allah) and it will be binding on all Believers.

Believers are all friends to each other to the exclusion of all others.

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.

IBTW, Ive posted on this at COB.

http://blog.beliefnet.com/cityofbrass/2009/11/onwards-muslim-soldiers.html

One concrete action we can take is to reach out to Hasan’s student, Duane Reasoner, who believes ““In the Koran, you’re not supposed to have alliances with Jews or Christian or others, and if you are killed in the military fighting against Muslims, you will go to hell.”” He is clearly misguided in his understanding of the Qur’an. The first part he is referring to is verse 5:52, which refers to Christians and Jews who broke a treaty with Muhammad in Medina. The second is verse 4:92, which states a believer shall not kill a believer. According to the Constitution of Medina, a believer can include Jews and Christians. However, even if one accepts Reasoner’s understanding that the verse only refers to Muslims, he still has a problem. The greatest killer of Muslims in the 21st century has been the Taliban and Al-Qa’ida. The Sunni-Shi’ah conflict in Iraq is another violation of the Qur’an. Reasoner must either put himself in the position of deciding who is Muslim, or accept that as problematic as US intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan has been, it has probably also saved a large number of Muslim lives. Reasoner needs help, and he needs it now.

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.