I have some thoughts about muslims serving in the armed forces.
UPDATE: The Fort Hood Family Fund is taking donations on behalf of the victims of Fort Hood and their families.
Defending the liberal tradition in history, science, and philosophy.
Defending the liberal tradition in history, science, and philosophy.
I have some thoughts about muslims serving in the armed forces.
UPDATE: The Fort Hood Family Fund is taking donations on behalf of the victims of Fort Hood and their families.
{ 1 trackback }
{ 25 comments }
Apparently your friends will need to pass a koranic sniff test to swear an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic.
Your quotations seem to indicate muslim military personnel will need to consult their scriptures before shooting an enemy. That seems a bit inconsistent with a sworn oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign or domestic.
your griping about a post in which I defend the right of muslims to serve? And provide ammunition for them to use against extremist freaks who try to tell them they are violating their religion by following their heart?
okay then.
Welcome to the pain in the arse that is McK, Aziz.
No one has a right to serve in the US military. If, however, one is in the military then they have the duty and obligation to follow ALL lawful orders.
If they cannot do that, they have no business being there in the first place.
muslims should be barred outright from serving
Huh? the article linked under that fragment says nothing of the sort. In fact it contains this language:
Obviously, it is unfair to tar all muslims in the military through association with this short, yet impressive, list of muslims who have betrayed their uniform and their country. There is no doubt that many muslims serve this nation in uniform and do so honorably.
So again I ask: Huh? Is your reading comprehension equal to or less than your ability to reason logically? The author of that piece is merely asking a question. A question formulated in a way that, I admit, makes you uncomfortable. But an important question nonetheless: if there are Muslims who (at best) will refuse to fight and defend their military comrades if they are facing Muslims on the battlefield, or (at worst) turn on their fellow soldiers after taking a military oath what do we do?
I answer that question by saying: once the ones (like Nidal) who turn are convicted (yes, and “if”) show them the efficiency and humiliation of a battlefield treason execution: No consulting with a cleric, executed without appeal or notice, and dumped into an unmarked grave. I don’t bring those consequences up because I’m angry and just want to lash out at Nidal; I suggest them because among the subset of Muslims who would turn (of the set of all Muslims serving) there should be a horror at the idea of the final resting place of the body of the traitor to dissuade them from turning (and maybe just leaving if they are Muslims who have trouble fighting fellow muslims).
BTW, I would guess that loyal Muslim soldiers (and there are many) would want an ignoble death for Nidal and would call him traitor; he just smeared their image as Muslim soldiers. Any good soldier, including Muslims, put’s “honor, duty, loyalty, service, dignity” (to the military) at the very top of their list of values
No one has a right to serve in the US military. If, however, one is in the military then they have the duty and obligation to follow ALL lawful orders.
If they cannot do that, they have no business being there in the first place.
well, as my post made clear, I agree 100%.
the problem is that people are arguing that muslims who have indeed done their duty and who will uphold their oath of service are now being told that they arent loyal enough, because they are muslim.
Id have thought the injustice of that would be of interest to you, McK. I assume you just misunderstood my point because i find it hard to believe youd be unsympathetic to a muslim soldier who WANTS to serve but is being told by mullahs on one side and by right wimgers on teh other that the military is not for him.
Kevin, McK is a big softie :) he’s like a mama bear. You just gotta grok him.
I’m in a very big hurry but will return later today. Please refer civilian muslims to the UCMJ or send them this:
http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/militarylaw1/a/obeyingorders.htm
Thats a great summary McK and I learned something by reading it. ut im not sure it applies to the case of muslim soldiers. The role of a soldier in the military is incredibly diverse and variable; only a tiny fraction of the time will a muslim soldier find themselves in the position of having to actually kill another muslim. But in that specific case, its a stretch to assume that when ordered to kill another muslim, the muslim soldier can reluy on the “it was an unlawful order” argument. It will most certainly be lawful – “take point as we clean out this house”, or “cover us as we go in” or “stop the bandits harassing teh town”. Perfecttly lawful, but will involve killing muslims.
The muslim soldier needs a response to the mullah who says that such orders (while certainly lawful) violate the quran. I tried to give that.
The muslim soldier needs —to park his allegiances to the mullah elsewhere while he wears his uniform. That’s the point.
of course they do, and if they didnt there wouldnt be muslims in the military righgt now. But the existence of hardliners means there is a high barrier to entry. lowering that barrier means more soldiers and more effective ones who arent harboring any guilt over having “abandoned” their faith. People are human, not robots.
Aziz,
That sounds dirty. I don’t wanna “grok” him.
I just looked up how what “grok” means. Now I know I don’t wanna grok him!
There isn’t a muslim soldier category in the US Army, Navy or Marines that comes with the authority to dictate to Commander -in-Chief, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the DOD or the Secretary of the Army, Navy or Air Force.
There isn’t a muslim soldier category in the US Army, Navy or Marines that comes with the authority to dictate to Commander -in-Chief, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the DOD or the Secretary of the Army, Navy or Air Force.
Serving in the military is not a negotiable union job.
And that’s why Aziz described a possible barrier to entry, as well as a possible way to lower that barrier. He’s not talking about what behavior we accept from Muslims in the ranks. He’s talking about reasons they may choose never to join the ranks, and he’s shooting those reasons down.
Suppose an honorable Muslim read what you just wrote, and agreed with it. He agreed that if he joined the military, he would be honor bound to follow lawful orders, whether they agreed with them or not; but he is not honor bound to join in the first place.
Now suppose an imam said to that honorable Muslim, “If you join the military, they are going to order you to do things forbidden by Islam, including the killing of believers.”
If that honorable Muslim is also a devout Muslim and he has no other authority than that imam (and his own judgment as to what Islam means), then the only conclusion he can reach is that he cannot join the military, even if he supports America and America’s goals. His faith as interpreted by that imam forbids it.
Now along comes Aziz, with arguments why that imam’s interpretation does not apply. He’s providing reasons why an honorable Muslim can indeed join the military.
My understanding of Islam is that it is radically non-hierarchical. The authority of any counselor or imam is only as great as the individual’s trust in and understanding of his teachings. And when the individual hears contradictory teachings, he is responsible for weighing the arguments and deciding for himself.
If the only voices heard are those who argue that joining the US military is against Islam, then we will have dishonorable Muslims in the military, and Muslims who are conflicted about their faith, and perhaps even renegades who want to wreak havoc from within. But without someone making the argument for why and how it is proper for a Muslim to join the military, we will have no honorable Muslims within the ranks. Someone has to make the argument that Islam allows service in the US military.
Suppose an honorable Muslim read what you just wrote, and agreed with it. He agreed that if he joined the military, he would be honor bound to follow lawful orders, whether they (HE) agreed with them or not; but he is not honor bound to join in the first place.
Precisely. He would be duty and honor bound to make that decision.
The US soldier and the US the military man makes their committment to this nation.
If the only voices heard are those who argue that joining the US military is against Islam, then we will have dishonorable Muslims in the military, and Muslims who are conflicted about their faith, and perhaps even renegades who want to wreak havoc from within. But without someone making the argument for why and how it is proper for a Muslim to join the military, we will have no honorable Muslims within the ranks.
You really need to re-write that one.
Someone has to make the argument that Islam allows service in the US military.
No, they don’t. Islam is not the decider of whom and under what conditions, a US citizen makes the decision to join the US. military ?
Think about it.
Joining the service a difficult, complex decision for each man and woman in the military. They all hear arguments for and against, and have to ultimately decide where their own principles lie.
But for some reason, if they’re Muslims, you object to anyone answering the Muslim arguments against service. That means they’ll only hear the arguments against, not the arguments for. Is that your goal? To keep Muslims out of the military? If so, then why not just say so?
Martin,
I have nothing whatsoever against muslims, nor their joining the military.
Doing so isn’t an engineering problem nor is it rocket science.
It’s a matter of loyalty and committment, not religion.
All this hand-wringing and theorizing is nonsense.
This is where I’m coming from:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oiZSgUCWJ74
My tribute to Veterans Day 2009. They were nineteen in number and they died 28 June 2005. I met the parents of two of them at our local newly constructed Veterans Memorial (2007) and again yesterday along with some military personnel. I was able to shake hands with the keynote speaker Brigadier General Robert Hipwell and listen to a talk by one of the Navy Seals from the same outfit who was responsible for retrieving the bodies of their fallen comrades.
It was quite poignant.
No one asked who were or were not muslim.
Wake up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4kfH7QDeNU
I wonder if there are any muslim Seals ?
Anyone know ?
Here is the Navy Seal Creed:
The Navy Seal Creed
I am a Navy SEAL.
I am a Warrior and a member of a team.
I serve the people of the WORLD.
I will always place the mission first.
I will never accept defeat.
I will never quit.
I will never leave a fallen comrade.
I am disciplined, physically and mentally tough, trained and proficient in my warrior tasks and drills.
I always maintain my arms, my equipment and myself.
I am an expert and I am a professional.
I stand ready to deploy, engage, and destroy the enemies of the WORLD in close combat.
I am a guardian of freedom and the way of life.
I am a Navy SEAL.
I will NOT fail!
And many of those Navy SEALs are Christians and Jews. And at some point in their training, they had to decide if killing in the name of peace and freedom and love of country violated the 6th Commandment (or 5th, if you prefer). Since they’re highly intellident people and not robots, they had to think through the arguments for and against this position. And if they remained in the SEALs, they judged that there’s a difference between murder and warfare.
If you don’t think that many of them have gone through that internal debate, you lack a basic understanding of human psychology. But I know you don’t.
Yet somehow, the fact that Muslims might face a similar internal debate, and might benefit from hearing arguments why it’s not inconsistent to love their faith and their country… Somehow that offends you.
But rather than explain how that offends you, no doubt you’ll once again just urge me to “think about it”. Maybe you need to take that advice yourself.
Martin,
You may declare victory if you wish and you may announce your psychological analysis of myself as factual.
All I know at this stage is that there is certain U. S. Army Major Hasan in the hospital at Fort Sam Houston in San Antonio that found the solution to his muslim problem by slaughtering by gun fire 13 innocent individuals some of who he chased down and shot in the back at Ft. Hood as well as shooting 31 others.
And, I don’t have to apologize nor explain where I’m coming from. I’ve stated my case, well.
By the way, have you ever served in the US military ?
No. Next question?
I know you’re trying to be understood, but you’re failing. Please explain why it offends you that someone would make an argument that military service is compatible with Islam.
My point is that national defense is not contingent on accommodating itself to Islam, nor whether it is compatible with Islam. If loyalties to Islam take priority over military service don’t join.
What is interesting is that last year 155,000 young men and women enlisted in the Armed Services, the majority of which were between 18 and 24 years of age. All of them were aware that they most likely can or will be deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan. That’s called loyalty, committment and courage, one suspects.
Okay, I apologize for all the nasty things I may have said.
It was a marketing scheme not an argument.
P.S.
The Recruiting Offices will be open again Monday Morning.
Comments on this entry are closed.