Still persists in such turmoil among Muslims around the fatwa issued in late September last (September), on the position of the Muslim military personnel armed forces of America. True that those who fought in various locations of the subject agreed to reject and denounce the attack on New York and Washington and led to the loss of lives of about six thousand of innocent people, but differences arose on the position of the military Muslim Americans, totaling 15 thousand people, from participating in a campaign to prosecute Terrorism waged by American forces in particular, although the opinion in question, which was signed by Sheikh Youssef Al-Qaradawi and Tariq human Chancellor Dr Mohammad Al-Awa, Dr. Haitham Al-Khayyat, the author of this article, the last of this fatwa had been issued prior to the war in the (9 / 27), but while translated and went into the hands of many, the war was declared, which understood from him that the fatwa was in favour of the war and the killing of Afghan Muslims, which is far from the truth, not only because they are issued by the eleven days of the start of the war, but also because the signatories declared their position Those rejecting the unjust war, in statements declared that the involvement of the advisory opinion in the context of war in other places its original context, and hurts Vicohaa understand, and recall in this connection that any opinion to be understood correctly, it should not be placed in the context of its time, but also be read as an answer to specific questions, in a particular case, it does not answer other questions may be found in the minds of the ordinary audience, no room for circulation, so apply only to the charge, for example legitimacy of the war outside the theme question, and that what applies the United States does not apply to Muslims in Germany or Turkey for example. As long as each country's privacy and context, the case have its own situation, because if he were a fatwa download judged fact, it is natural that change depending on the differing realities of the place and time.
When the fatwa was issued after the war, to the right of the signatories to the questions and queries, and Sheik Yusuf Qaradawi most vulnerable to those questions, not only because it is at the head of the fatwa signed, but also because of his authority considered, and the wide range of doctors audience butane, who pursued in a speech and meetings and television programs Reputation.
At the Al-Qaradawi wrote an opinion illustration of the advisory opinion, in an attempt to raise the confusion surrounding the express misunderstood and hurrying to read. And the text on: that Islam has been denied for a Muslim to face fellow Muslim weapons, and he considered it of blasphemy and the work of ignorance. He said peace be upon him «verbally abused Muslim market, or Kafr». He said: «not enlivening dimensions infidels, strike some of you subjected». He said «if met Amusliman Bsevehma Valqatl and killed in the fire» said: O Messenger of God that the killer, what Pal killed? Said: «that he was keen to kill Her» These are all valid chatter agreed. But denied the Prophet peace be upon him for a Muslim to refer to the Muslim brother arms to signal not just a serious or jokingly.
Here, the question is who is enlisted in the army, but it does not have to obey his superiors and implement their orders they issue him, and not the right to say: No, or: Why? According to military regulations, known in the world today, if an army that is fighting a Muslim, a soldier in this army, what makes? Is compelled to move the movement of the army, since it is simply in a deposition considerably.

The head of the doctrinal here: that is, if it could defaulted on a leave of this war or its members from this war, because his conscience did not agree with it, or so duty to do so, so as not to become involved in the face of Muslim unjustly. As well as if they were able to request work in the back rows for the army, not only in direct fighting is lighter. Unless this position consequent harm him or his group, which is the Islamic part of it, it is classified in the square and brothers living in the country, and loyalty to others, may be in danger of this classification on the minority Muslim and determination, and presence of religious and the case, could lead efforts advocacy and educational tremendous made to dozens of years in order to strengthen the presence of Islamic fire, and as part of the Muslim community, we must merge it civilized, in Ivopon it religiously, it may behave or act makes them suspects in doubt, according to the general community deems fifth column.
Nor should individuals be clear conscience underdevelopment of the war if it will harm the whole Islamic Group, the rule legitimacy: that the damage has to pay the minimum damage higher, and the damage has to pay private damage year, the group submitted to the right of the right of individuals, and the jurisprudence of the incompatibility between the interests and harm of the most important types of jurisprudence, which toxicity (jurisprudence budgets), a doctrine lacks many of the Muslims, it may be subject to scientists jurisprudence Floater, who opt jurisprudence phenomena purposes.
If forced to fight Muslim conviction under the pressure of the circumstances in which it should be mentioned that as much as it can away from direct killings, and to participate in war if involved, which Karah denier them wrong, as if the insurer was unable to change his evil or wetting, it change any heart with hatred and revulsion by the weakest of faith.
During the period following the issuance of the fatwa was endorsed by some, and kept it in some other indexes, and other opinions issued contrary to them, as they become the target of attack and exposure Kateboha indictment and defamation by the lack of muftis, who are accustomed to publicize both generations.
Although the multiplicity of opinions is not the concept of harm in it, especially among the scholars who are committed politely difference, but it is sometimes a source of bewilderment and confusion, especially when it comes to the situation such as we are. That would inherit some opinions that some soldiers Muslim Americans feel guilt if obeyed orders issued to them to participate in the war, possibly forcing some of them to resign if they refused the implementation of those orders, which is the view of some muftis who said that the resignation in this situation better than participating in killing Muslim.
Of those who did not disagree much with the opinion already mentioned Sheikh Faisal Mawlawi from Lebanon, which denied involvement of the American Muslim soldier in military missions that may be assigned to in Afghanistan, and then concluded that: If the consequent results of this position other harmful not affordable for him personally or the whole Muslim community, the necessities allow taboos, and therefore the balance between the two, and choose the least damaging, a unit which is responsible choice. Have found that what Sheikh Faisal outlined in the three lines, which is done controversial fatwa, which built on the idea of necessity and duress.
Among those who opposed the principle of participation in military operations, Dr Ali Juma, Professor of Jurisprudence at Al-Azhar University, and Dr. Ahmed Risoti, professor of Sharia in Morocco, Dr. Salah Sultan, President of the Islamic University, United States, said Dr. Ali Gomaa, issued his fatwa after the war, he : The Muslim soldier in the American army to apologize for the war, could not let the administrative apparatus for example, could not anyone resignation, is forced to leave and was not killed between rows arms to the Muslim murderers real mistake parents and Atonement, and that the killers deliberately commits example of the deliberate killing of Muslims.
As Dr. Ahmed Risoti and Salah Sultan Igiza not participate in the launch of the war, despite the fact that Dr. Risoti permitted for a Muslim to pay regular taxes to a non-Muslim under which holds its nationality, based on the rule of necessity and duress.
While I was able to review, evidence and the evidence was unreliable of every team, and after heard and participated in discussions on the subject attended by some who fought on the subject, found that the reason for the difference is not only the fact that the fatwa issued by the first war, while not known for example, that they will Afghan civilians bombed, or after the beginning of that war, but the differences in attitudes arose as a result of differences in perception, priorities and angle of view. There are those who did not find the damage is not necessary and that Muslims can discharge disposal and lack of participation in the tasks entrusted to them, even if resigned from the military life (note that the 15 alpha) will suffer or cause substantial harm the Muslim community as is thought, and thus will not affect on the future of Islam in this country, and perhaps the difference in assessing this issue arises from those who gave religious opinions because they are non-Muslim Americans, did not agree on the true magnitude of the damage which the suspect reversed their country themselves, and these people said that the war is unjust and they do not have to participate, because «not in obedience to the creature in the sin-Khaliq», which raises two questions, one whether that applies to the non-Islamic governments, or Islamic governments alone, and second whether that applies to the military also does not have as «creature» them in this case will in the Islamic states, let alone other Islamic?
Which appeared blurred in the minds of all is the meaning and responsibility of the Muslim citizen in the country of a non-Muslim, to do with the laws and customs of Islam, to what extent has it recognized that the obligations of a citizen of Sharon, especially if the soldiers could only comply with orders issued to him , which is an issue in regard to the limits and the nature of the relationship between religious affiliation and national affiliation, and how it can reconcile the religious affiliation of the group and the national community in the homeland itself, a subject which had so long controversy interlocutors realized that it needed to further deepening and enrichment, as it reaffirms the experience Islamic mentality, the idea of citizenship Jeddah and accessories.

Ironically notice to consider here, that such discussions have not found them in situations where Muslims are fighting with each other, Iraq and Iran, for example, or the current conflict between Afghan factions, as if Muslims fighting with each other acceptable and possible, if either of arms others congratulated the problem It is prohibited from: that «injustice» kinship with the most painful, let alone them if they killed