Fatwa - Part Two
According to the authors of the fatwa, a Muslim who lives
in a state where he or she is a member of a regular army:
"has no choice but to follow orders, otherwise his
allegiance and his 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."
Aside from the fact that it is better to lose the world
and all its attendant privileges and allurements than it
is to lose one's soul, and aside from the fact that it
is better to, possibly, spend a few years in prison than to live
an eternity in hell, it is unfortunate that the ideas
of loyalty, allegiance, and obligations should be
limited - as the authors of the fatwa urge - to doing
what the purveyors of hegemony demand rather than to
serving the principles and purposes for which the
United States came into existence ... which certainly
was not to embrace tyranny, injustice, immorality,
and the destruction and terrorizing of innocent human
beings.
We all have an absolute obligation to truth and justice.
If anything, our loyalty and allegiance - as citizens of
the US - are to the principles through which the United
States was conceived and not to the grotesque, sordid
soiled version to which the architects of hegemony wish
to call citizens. There is no virtue in enjoying the
privileges of citizenship which are predicated on the
death, destruction and oppression of others who are
innocent.
The harm to which one is exposed through blind taqlid (unquestioning
adherence) to immoral, unjust, and ill-conceived orders is not loss of the
enjoyment of the privileges of citizenship, it is
loss of one's way in life. At one point in A Man for
All Seasons Thomas Moore is cross-examining one of the
people who have perpetrated false witness against him and Thomas Moore asks the man what the medalion is which the individual wears around his neck. The man explains that it is emblematic of being the Chancellor of Wales, to which Thomas Moore responds with: "Whereas Holy Scripture tells us that it would not profit a man if he were to gain the whole world yet were to lose his soul ... but for Wales Richard?" Should we really encourage people to exchange the integrity and spiritual well-being of the soul for this or that worldly trinket - no matter what the hype or glitter surrounding that trinket may be?
According to the authors of the fatwa: "The Muslim
(soldier) must perform his duty in this fight
despite the feeling of uneasiness of "fighting
without discriminating". His intentions (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. It's not his concern
what other consequences of the fighting that might
result in his personal discomfort since he alone
can neither control nor prevent it. Furthermore,
all deeds are accounted (by God) according to the
intentions."
This notion that "It's not his [the soldier's] concern what other consequences of the fighting that might result in his personal discomfort" resonantes all too closely with a constant refrain of the people being prosecuted at the Nuremberg trials 'I was only following orders'. One of the principles arising out of those trials and which became a precedent of modern international law is this: one cannot use the excuse of following orders to justify participating in crimes against humanity.
Furthermore, one should take issue with the contention of the authors of the fatwa that one person "alone can neither control nor prevent" such events. Each person can control and prevent his or her own participation in whatever acts are repugnant to one's moral and spiritual commitments, and, as well, are in contravention of international law.
Unfortunately, the authors of the fatwa seem to be intent on instilling a sense of learned helplessness in people. They are saying that if one individual cannot prevent such things from happening, then, one should just permit oneself to be carried along by the flow of forces and not concern oneself about such matters - as if such matters were not encompassed by one's spiritual and moral responsbilitiy as a human being to seek the good and avoid the evil.
Furthermore, if I am a soldier and, therefore, I know how
war works - in theory, if not in practice, then,
I know that the way modern warfare is conducted
will almost certainly lead to the killing of
innocents, the destruction of the propery
of innocent people, and the terrorizing of
innocent people. Given this knowledge, how does
one form the intention that one will be fighting
for truth and the defeating of falsehood, when
the very first casualty of war is, often, truth
itself.
The plans for the invasion of Afghanistan had
already been drawn up prior to 9-11, and 9-11
became a convenient justification or pretext for carrying out a
plan which was in the works independently of
9-11. Afghanistan is today, as it has been for hundreds
of years, a critical piece of the puzzle in the game of
geo-politics.
For instance, because Iran cannot be trusted by
the US government to do the right thing for the
hegemony of the latter, the 'best' - although not
the shortest - route for the oil pipeline which has
been on the drawing boards for quite some time is
through Afghanistan and over to Pakistan. The object
all along has been to gain control of the oil
discoveries in the Caspian Sea region. The permanent
military bases which are being built by the US are
all along the route of the proposed pipeline, and, in addition,
such bases give the US a ready set of staging areas
to launch attacks on many places in that part of
the world, which is also why the US forces are
being set up in, among other places, Uzbekistan. The quid pro
quo of these arrangements is that Russia is given a free hand
to do what it will with Chechnya and its resources - where oppression, wholesale slaughter, and the violation of basic rights are permitted as long as they do not impact on the agenda of certain dimensions of US government economic and foreign policy - a policy which is steeped in the selfish, imperialistic, exploitive oils of hegemony with respect to the rest of the world.
How is one fighting for truth and the elimination
of falsehood when one seeks to stop the Taliban
but does nothing to stop the opium trade going
on in Afghanistan which supplies 90% of the raw
resources for the heroin which ends up on the streets
of, among other places, the United States? How is one fighting for truth and the elimination of falsehood when the vast majority of innocents outside of Kabul still live in terror and uncertainty, both because of, as well as, inspite of a US military presence? How is one fighting for truth and the elimination of falsehood when the policy of the US government is to protect its interests rather than the interests of the average citizen of Afghanistan, or to suppose that its interests and needs are one and the same with the needs and interests of most of the inhabitants of that country?
If God judges us according to out intentions, then,
how does one expect to fare when one knows
that - propaganda aside - one is, in many respects, not fighting for truth and the elimination of falsehood but, rather,
one is fighting for the industrial-military complex's
desire to control the world and its resources? Does
one not have an obligation to seek for the truth with
respect to what one is being told? Are there not
numerous sources via the Internet, DVDs, books,
magazines, and people like Noam Chomsky, Howard, Zinn,
Edward Herman, Robert McChesney, Nafeez Ahmad, Ralph
Nader, Peter Monague, and others through whom to
discover the evidence which discloses what is going
on all around the world, as well as within the
United States?
Can we bury our minds and hearts in the toxic
soil which is euphemistically called education
in the United States and say: my intentions are
pure and clear? Does God not see every little
fleeting bit of evidence which we allow to slip
through our consciousness unchallenged which
suggests that the truth is something other than
what we are being asked to digest as the "official"
line on things?
Niyat is not something which forms in a vacuum. It
is rooted in experience, and when the heart plays
fast and loose with the truth of experience, then,
no matter what the superficial form of the intention
may be, there is sub-text which flows in our heart
of hearts and something of the truth registers with
us - and it is this which is our true intention, not
that which is given for public consumption, and it is
this for which we will be held accountable.
The authors of the fatwa in question maintain: "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."
One's duty to God does not consist in enabling the
military-industrial complex to acquire hegemony over
the world. One's duty to God does not consist in
killing innocent people, destroying their propery,
or terrorizing non-combatants.
In addition, the Prophet hasn't asked one to do any of these
things either. So, contrary to what the authors of the
fatwa are suggesting, we are not obligated to do as
much of these things as we can.
Moreover, one might ask the question: what does
'doing as much as one can' entail? Isn't it ironic
that in a country which claims it is democratic
and based upon principles of justice, fairness,
truth, and liberty, one is not free to exercise
one's conscience without running the risk of
suffering considerable punitive damages. Yet,
irrespective of whatever these damages may be,
just as one is prepared to risk hardship in battle,
one should be prepared to risk hardship in the
cause of truth and justice. This is what we can
do. This is an essential part of what it means to
be a human being.
The aforementioned fatwa says: "even if fighting
causes him discomfort spiritually or psychologically,
this personal hardship must be endured for the
greater public good, as the jurisprudence (fiqh)
rule states." And, how does one calculate the
greater public good? What values does one use?
What methods does one apply? What criteria are
to be consulted?
According to the fatwa, "the Muslim here" - that is,
the one who is a soldier - "is part of a whole, if
he absconds, his departure will result in great harm,
not only for him but for the Muslim community in his
country - and here there are many millions of them."
What is this "great harm" which will accrue to the
soldier of conscience and his community? Very little
is said in this regard, but mention is made that if
a person does not sell his or her soul to the military-
industrial complex, then, it could be that the
allegiance and loyalty of Muslims will come into doubt.
Allegiance and loyalty to what? To someone's warped
way of dealing with the world? To someone's burning
greed? To someone's indifference to the suffering of
innocent people who are in the way of some geo-political
objective? To someone's desire to proceed through life
in an immoral, illegal way that violates the norms
of decency which have been established by many countries
and many billions of people?
Are the authors of the fatwa suggesting that in order
not to have to deal with the unpleasantness of someone
having doubts about where one's loyalties and allegiance
lie, that one should betray the ideals of the Declaration
of Independence and the Constitution - not to mention,
one's relationship with God and the truth? Is it really
okay to destroy innocent people by the thousands, to
destroy their property, to destroy their means of
livelihood, so that Muslims in America won't have to
deal with someone questioning their loyalty and allegiance?
Is this the greater good?
The authors of the fatwa go on to say: "the questioner [a
Muslim military chaplain] 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's 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 a 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."
Who and what is necessitating that it is not permissible
to do this? Is it God? Is it the Prophet? Well, actually,
it isn't - it is a group of five jurists who are
saying this is impermissible. Moreover, they are saying
it is impermissible on the basis of dubious interpretations
of what the Qur'an and Hadith have said.
And, why are they saying it is impermissible? Well, as
everyone knows, the threat of harsh words, suspicions,
doubts, false accusations, future careers, and the like
are far more important than a few thousand lives over
in Afghanistan. This is the calculus of their jurisprudence.
Whether the lives of the innocent people in Afghanistan
whose lives will be destroyed by a US invasion are
Muslim or not Muslim is immaterial. The Qur'an
does not say: "if anyone killed a Muslim 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" [5:32]. The Qur'an states the prohibition
against killing without qualification as far as the
identity, race, ethnicity, gender, religion, or beliefs of
the individual being killed are concerned.
The fatwa being examined here ends with: "This is in
accordance with the Islamic jurisprudence rules which
state that necessities dictate exceptions, as well as the
rule which says that one may endure a small harm to
avoid a much greater harm." The authors have stated
things incorrectly by claiming that the principles of
jurisprudence which they consider to be applicable
actually demand what they are claiming.
First, the much greater harm in the issue before the
authors of the fatwa is the killing of innocent people,
rather than not having to endure the suspicions,
doubts and false accusations of others concerning
one's loyalty, allegiance, duty, and patriotism which
they have identified as the greater harm. In addition,
the greater harm is in enabling Muslims to kill others -
whether those other human beings are Muslim or
non-Muslim - without just cause and due process and just
because someone who has a hidden agenda says they
should.
Secondly, the principle that "necessities dictate exceptions"
presupposes that it is necessary to kill innocent human beings,
and the authors of the fatwa have not established this, nor
will they ever be able to establish this. The killing of innocent
human beings is never necessary except in the schemes and
machinations of those who lust after what does not belong
to them and who have a pathological need to control the
rest of the world.
| Part 1 | Return to Menu |
|
