Posted on 09/21/2003 7:12:43 PM PDT by adamyoshida
Can Moslems Serve?
Sergeant Assan Akhbar. Sergeant John Allen Muhammad. Sergeant Ali Mohamed. Captain James Yee. What do all of these men have in common? They all served in the US Army, they are all Moslems, and they are all traitors. Akhbar killed several of his fellow soldiers in a grenade attack during the Iraq War. Muhammad was an unreliable solider who, after leaving the Army, killed ten people in a series of sniper attacks. Mohamed set up the terrorist cell which eventually bombed the US Embassy in Nairobi. The latest man on the list, Captain Yee, is a Chinese-American who converted to Islam in the mid 1990’s. Eventually he became an Islamic Chaplin and was regularly hailed in the media as an effective illustration of a loyal practitioner of the religion of peace. Oh yes, and was a terrorist too- that part is a little hard to forget. Given all of this, the question must be asked: can Moslems continue to be allowed to serve in the American Armed Forces, or does their presence constitute a security risk?
There will be those who will accuse me of racism for even raising such a question. How dare I question the loyalty of Islamic soldiers serving on the front lines? But events now leave us with no choice. Moreover, it is clear that al-Qaeda is deliberately infiltrating the US Army- Yee suddenly rejoined the Army after living in Syria for four years, Mohamed came to the US Army by way of the Egyptian one. A good first step would be to forbid the service in the US military of anyone who has lived in an Islamic country for an extended period of time and was not on government business of some sort. This might sound unfair to some- but allowing someone to join the US Army after a half-decade sojourn in Araby is like allowing someone just back from a six-year stint as a Factory Worker in the USSR to join the Marine Corps circa 1953.
Whether we like it or not the War on Terrorism puts us up against people who claim to be fighting on behalf of the Islamic religion. The Islamist creed is strong, especially among new converts to the religion (which a majority of Moslems in the US Army are) it is hardly unexpected that some will take seriously the calls for Jihad and attack their fellow soldiers. This problem is made much worse when these men are deployed to the Middle East where they are subjected to a constant stream of Islamist propaganda and called upon to fight their fellow Mohammedans.
Some have advocated the immediate discharge of all Moslems in the Armed Forces. I would not, perhaps, go that far. The discharge of those practicing the Islamic faith would unfairly punish actually loyal Americans simply upon the basis of their religion. Rather, a through investigation of the backgrounds of all Islamic soldiers must be undertaken and those whose loyalty might be even considered somewhat suspect must be immediately removed from the service. Many will call such investigations ‘McCarthyism’ and they’re right if, by ‘McCarthyism’ they mean ‘investigations that remove disloyal individuals from the government.’ Still, these investigations will find that only a minority of Moslems have terrorist ties or suspect loyalties- so what shall be done with the rest?
I think that we ought to look to history for a solution to this problem. In the Second World War Japanese-Americans, while forbidden from serving in the regular army, were allowed to join the 442nd Regimental Combat Team, which became one of the most distinguished units of the entire war. Deployed for service in Italy, members of the unit fought with fanatical and suicidal bravery thereby proving that they were as loyal as any other Americans.
This would be an excellent model to follow today. Most estimates suggest that there are somewhere between five and ten thousand Moslems in the US Army, the majority of them black converts. These men could be reassigned to a new ‘Islamic Brigade’, which could then be deployed to some theatre where they would be unlikely to have to fight against their fellow Moslems and where they might be kept away from the influence of radical Islamists. The men could be carefully monitored, with those showing radical tendencies being speedily discharged. They could be placed under the spiritual guidance of extremely carefully vetted moderate Islamic clerics and guided towards a peaceful and ‘Americanized’ form of Islam.
If US attacks Iraq what is the job of the muslim countrys in this reguard?
It will be their Fardh duty to fight the US.Moulana Imraan Vawda
FATWA DEPT.CHECKED AND APPROVED CORRECT: Mufti Ebrahim Desai
Is the Jihad in Chechny and Palestine a ligimit Jihad ?
Answer:I have heared people say that the Jihad in Chechnya an Palestine are land issues as they have started out as land Issues.
2. Is it permissable for Chechens to attack Russia to make the people feel what they are going through ?
3. Please explain this ayat "wa qaatilul mushrikeena khaaffatan kama yuQatillunakum Kaaffa"Answer:
1. The two Jihaads are legitimate Jihaads.
2. The Mujahideen of Chechnya have proven that their aim is to establish Islam, not simply to acquire land. In Palestine, there are many groups. Those fighting to establish Islam are undertaking a correct Shar’ee Jihaad. Those who do not have Islam as their aim are Munafiqeen. Their harm to Islam is even greater than that of Israel.
3. The Aayaat means that when the Kuffaar are hostile to you than fight them completely, just as they fight your completely. You should not hold back anything and put all your resources behind the Jihaad.
Moulana Imraan Vawda
FATWA DEPT.
Just as a matter of interest, I'm curious to know how exactly the "billion" could express themselves thus collectively in a manner which you would find acceptable? What process would you envisage which would might gradually secure the trust, or at least moderate the distrust, of the rest of the world's population?
Given that one is constantly told that Islam has no heirarchical structure, and therefore no means of disseminating a central authority, it does seem to me that any peacable Muslim majority, assuming for a moment that it exists, would find it extremely difficult in the current climate to moderate the prejudices now established against it.
It's not 10%, it's more like .05% that make up the radical core. But if you'd like to see that number increased, then by all means keep treating every Muslim like he's got a bunch of dynamite strapped to his chest.
Is that the number of violent muslims in Palestine? A handfull of bad eggs throwing stones and blowing themselves up?
Is that the number in Indonesia? India? Pakistan?
Sure is a lot of work from that 0.05%.
I will say that the sure way to increase that number is to set in motion schemes to outlaw islam; that is the muslim trigger for physical jihad (when it is outlawed in a land, it becomes all out war). I can point you to more links from Ask The Imam but you seem to have ignored my previous posts from that site.
Do you have any suggstions on how to rid the world of that 500,000 (by your count) Islamofascists? I suggest getting the support of the "peaceful" muslims who claim that these radicals share no principles of the "true" muslim faith. If they really believe that these violent extremists are not muslims then they should have no qualms about helping us rid the world of them.
wrong analysis. Islam has declared the intent to wipe out all other cultures and peoples. Catholicism has now rejected that course in the last 300 years, after centuries of assuming that was it's mission. Judaism has only ever asked to be left alone, not looking to convert or "save" anyone else. They've got their deal and they want to keep it that way.
the better analogy is to ask would it be OK to exclude NAZIs from service during WW2, or Communists during the cold war?
Tsk, tsk. Your anti-Catholicism is showing.
I assume you're being ironic, because I don't think my statements were anti-Catholic. I think they represent simple historical fact, particularly when considering the actions taken by such self described "defenders of the faith" (Catholic faith) as the Conquistadors. Those wars of conquest in the new world were expressly chartered to wage war in order to spread the faith (and get some gold on the side). The Vatican now denounces those actions. They do not condemn the missionary work of folks like the Society of Jesus (Jesuits), which lots of radicals today consider even worse than the actual wars. I'm not one of them, though I do recognize some of the excesses practiced against non-Christians and non-Catholics in the new world by folks like the Jesuits. This doesn't even begin to get into the numerous wars and atrocities committed in the name of the Catholic Church in Europe. They didn't call Mary, Queen of Scots, "Bloody Mary" for how kindly she treated non-Catholics (or heretics, as she refered to them). All of that was once officially blesses by the Catholic Church. Protestants have had their own "blessed" wars as well.
I do not include the Crusades in this litany, even though it is sited by most as the classic example of this sort of Christian "holy war." I think the Crusades were far more about reacting to invasion and conquest by the Muslim armies than it was an action taken to conquer "someone else's land." Although they were clearly corrupted, in places, by unscrupulous warlords, the Crusades were originally a defensive reaction to invasion of Christian lands by non-Christian agressors.
My original point was that Christian Churches, chief among them Catholics (because they have the longest history of this sort of thing - the Orthodox Churches I'm not as familiar with in this regard) used to think this kind of thing was the way to go, but have dropped that idea for at least a couple of hundred years in regards to other Christians, more recently in regards to others. The Islamic world still operates as if that's an OK way to think. In fact, they think we're idiots for not thinking that way and for believing them when they talk about peace, or Islam as a "religion of peace."
Never trust someone who says "I'm from the government and I'm here to help." Likewise never trust a Muslim who says "I'm here to negotiate peace with you."
Mufti Muhammad KadwaWho?? This guy has a lot more credibility:
Muslim Ruling Endorses U.S. Action
By Richard Ostling, The Associated Press, October 12, 2001
NEW YORK -- An international Muslim religious ruling endorsed the morality of the U.S.-led military effort against terrorists, a statement important because of the prominence of one of its authors.
The ruling, or fatwa, also said American Muslims can participate in the military response to the Sept. 11 attacks.
``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,'' the five Muslim scholars declared.
The ruling, released Thursday, was written by Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the widely respected chairman of the Sunna and Sira Council in Qatar, along with three colleagues in Egypt and one in Syria.
Suspected terrorist Osama bin Laden has issued his own fatwa authorizing terrorist murders of American civilians, but an edict led by al-Qaradawi carries vastly more weight for believers who adhere to Islam's traditions and procedures.
Al-Qaradawi had also condemned the attacks on New York and Washington in a Sept. 13 fatwa, but he is no predictable ally of the West. For instance, last April he told The Associated Press in the context of Palestine that ``a suicide bombing is an act of martyrdom, not an act of suicide.''
The new fatwa cited the words of God in the Quran and authoritative Hadith, traditions of the teachings and practices of the Prophet Muhammad.
``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,'' the fatwa said.
The text was dated Sept. 27 and released in Washington by the Fiqh Council of North America, an 11-member panel formed in 1986 under auspices of the Islamic Society of North America to offer legal rulings for Muslims in the United States and Canada.
The ruling was requested by Army Capt. Abdul-Rashid Muhammad, the first Muslim chaplain in the American military. Muhammad asked whether it was proper for the 15,000 American Muslims in uniform to participate in retaliation against those thought to have planned and financed the terror attacks and to eliminate their safe haven in Afghanistan and elsewhere.
The fatwa made one exception to American policy, saying the perpetrators ``must be brought to justice in an impartial court of law'' and then given appropriate punishment to deter future terrorism.
Nonetheless, the fatwa said U.S. Muslim soldiers can serve, even though in combat ``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.''
A Muslim citizen serving in the regular army ``has no choice but to follow orders; otherwise his allegiance and loyalty to his country could be in doubt,'' the fatwa said.
The five jurists also said Muslims have a duty to speak up about the faith's anti-terrorism stand.
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.