Letter to the editor

Anti-Islam tattoos should be banned in U.S. Military

A recent rise in anti-Islam/Muslim tattoo sub-culture in the U.S. military has stirred debate about its permissibility. Anti-Islam/Muslim tattoos, particularly “infidel” and “kafir,” should be considered racist and extremist, and therefore, prohibited under Army Regulation 670-1.

Military opponents argue that tattoos are the most intense form of self-expression; permanent statements etched into one’s skin, and have no effect on their ability to perform their duties. Though this might be true, it does not change the fact that the U.S. military must uphold an appearance of strict uniformity and the highest standards of behavior, and has no need for tattoos that incite distrust and an image of anti-Islamism in broader populations.

In the works for over a year, strict new rules governing tattoos have been approved by Secretary of the Army John McHugh, and are only awaiting a final signature. Before this policy is signed, anti-Islam/Muslim tattoos should be regarded as racist and extremist and, therefore, prohibited.

Ultimately, this regulation should be extended to all branches of the U.S. military, which all have standards of honor and respect to uphold.

“Infidel” is mistakenly translated by the West as a translation of “kafir;” nevertheless, both terms carry negative associations, most of which are offensive and promote feelings of intolerance in Arab and Muslim populations around the world. Historically in the Qur’an, and more generally, a “kafir” is a disbeliever, someone who rejects the existence of God (Allah) and the Islamic religion. More specifically in Islamic history, a “kafir” was used as a reference for the non-believers in Mecca that actively aimed to bring harm upon the Prophet Mohammed and his followers. In the structure of Islamic thought, “kufr,” the cognate of “kafir,” represents all things unacceptable and offensive to God (Allah). For example, a Muslim can become a “kafir” is they fail to maintain their Islamic duties to Allah.

“Infidel” and “kafir” tattoos have the potential to be regarded by Muslims and Arabs as a blatant expression of an extreme view, and do not serve any constructive purpose to members of the U.S. military. I believe these tattoos are no different and no less offensive than a Nazi swastika is to the Jewish population.

More importantly, what are service members trying to communicate by wearing an Arabic tattoo. After speaking with military members who have the aforementioned tattoos, supporters of the term usually speak in broad generalizations, such as, “That’s what we are to them, infidels. So it’s not like we’re saying anything offensive. It’s just a fact.” The problem is that when people say “them” they are usually referring to “jihadists” or “terrorists,” i.e. more problematic terms. These enthusiasts also seemed to give little thought, or care, as to how their tattoos were perceived by Muslim populations, which leads me to believe getting the tattoos was simply an act of rebellion. Regardless, the Arabic work “kafir” means a number of things to different people, all of which carry varying degrees of intensity. Just like there is no such thing as “one” Islam just as there is no universal Christianity, there is no one way in which the idea behind the term “infidel” or “kafir” is understood or used.

My concern about the prevalence of “kafir” and “infidel” tattoos in the military is simple: I consider it to be a direct form of incitement. Whether service members intend to or not, the tattooed words and images bring about a conflict in religious terms. Even more so, these tattoos are worn to be antagonistic in nature, and not simply factual. Neither of which should be permissible in our military. Both terms are completely wrapped in religion and do not belong in our discourse on war, officially or unofficially, seriously or as a joke.

Beyond how these tattoos are perceived by civilians, what about the 20,000 Muslims that serve in the U.S. military? Or perhaps more importantly, all of the Arab and Muslim service members that work alongside the U.S. military on the ground in other Arab countries? Does the U.S. government want to further its foreign policy objectives in Arab and Muslim nations by military members wearing symbols of what is often perceived as the enemy? The U.S. government is often accused of foreign policy objectives that promote a “War on Islam,” and these tattoos do nothing more than reinforce that generalization. For a country that has invaded two Muslim nations, continues drone strikes in several more and suffers from an extreme deficit of trust with the Muslim population of the world, the United States should take more seriously the appearance standards of its service members.

Anna Burns

Graduate student, public diplomacy

Former member, U.S. Army