The Muslim community has been thrown into a state of confusion after the terror attacks in the United States in September. The confusion has, apparently, been further compounded by the contradictory fatwas (religious opinions) issued by various muftis (religious scholars who issue fatwas). Every politician has a religious scholar to support him while each issue is interpreted by different muftis in different ways. Certain muftis have also changed their earlier published fatwa under pressure from others.
Five religious scholars in a jointly issued fatwa following the attack on the twin towers in New York and the Pentagon in Washington permitted American Muslims in military service to participate in the war against terror even if it is against Muslims. Their argument was supported by unambiguous religious evidence. The edict was helpful to the US Army to get the support of Muslim soldiers, though their number was small, in the war against terror.
In the face of severe criticism by some other scholars, the signatories of the fatwa changed their earlier stance and released a new fatwa invalidating the first. They said the earlier fatwa did not apply in the current circumstances. They argued that no Muslim was allowed to fight against another Muslim as the Holy Prophet, peace be upon him, had said both the fighter and his opponent would be put in the hellfire. The fatwa should have been given several years ago when Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, Rabbani and Masood, and Taleban started fighting among themselves.
The new fatwa places the Muslim citizens of non-Muslim countries in a very difficult position. Other citizens will question the loyalty and patriotism of all Muslims in that country if they adopt this fatwa. It is not reasonable to keep the citizenship of a country without being willing to defend it against its foes. If you are not ready to serve your country, how can you be entitled for the legal rights and equality like its other citizens?
By refusing to join the defense of their country, the Muslims provide their enemies the opportunity to challenge the loyalty of not only Muslims but also all other citizens with foreign origins. Once a Conservative leader in Britain charged the British citizens of Asian origin, particularly those with Indian and Pakistani origin, with double loyalty. The British leader wondered which team they would support if there was a cricket match between England and Pakistan or India. Soon, such leaders will start accusing the Muslim citizens of espionage or of betraying the trust reposed on them as citizens.
The confusing fatwas are large in number and mutually contradictory. If one fatwa is against violence the other is to support the jihad fighters. While some religious scholars support a particular government, some others will support its rival power. Thus, there were religious scholars supporting the liberation of Kuwait, and some others issued fatwas against striking Iraq. There are scholars supporting US while some others confirm the correctness of the Taleban stand. There are scholars supporting Musharraf while others explain the religious justifications of Bin Laden’s acts. While some scholars condemn the killing of Muslims deliberately, certain others allow it on certain situations. While some scholars vindicate the terror acts on Sept.11 some others justify the Oct. 7 attacks launched against Taleban.
