Muslim CO

Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | Muslim reservist loses Iraq legal case: "The high court was today told the 25-year-old held a 'genuine and deep belief' that the approaching war was both wrong and contrary to his religion.
He said he did not want to be asked to fight against fellow Muslims, and felt he could not condone any military action against another state that had not come by way of 'self-defence'."

You know I wish Christians would take the same view, that it would be wrong to make war against other Christians, that would be a good start. Actually it was such a view that led to the formation of the Fellowship of Reconciliation. And that likewise the 'only in self-defence' clause was invoked by people who are supposed to believe in the just war theory. I seem to recall that one of the main purposes of army chaplains is to explain just war thinking -so what happened? I'm now curious to know what the army chaplains' views were/are? Are they able to to stand up and say that they think that a particular conflict is not consonant with Christian or at least Church principles and advise the troops likewise or is that treasonable? I accept that there is a pastoral job to do regardless of their agreement or otherwise with the context in which they may operate , but ... These are genuine questions. I think that it is sad that it takes a Muslim CO to raise them.

Now here's another interesting bit: "Mr Khan "would have been fully entitled to apply for discharge" under the Queen's regulations on the grounds of conscientious objection. Lord Justice Rix said it was "mysterious" why Mr Khan had not invoked the procedure, even when he knew about it because of an information leaflet."

Which misses the point of the grounds of the objection: it's not "mysterious" at all. Mr Khan was not objecting to service in the military per se -which is what the CO regs are designed to cover, it would appear- but to that particular conflict. He doesn't mind killing non-Muslims in appropriate circumstances. So it may be that he felt the only course of action was to go AWOL given that he didn't want to leave [?] the military, simply not be involved in killing fellow Muslims.

A tough one for the military, because if the possibility of selective CO'ing is recognised it could make discipline harder. In principle, I suspect, international law would support this since people care culpable for crimes carried out under orders and there is freedom to manifest ones religion under European human rights legislation.