US Army major behind Fort Hood murders expressed sympathy for Islamic terrorists


Nidal-Malik-Hasan.JPG

Major Nidal Malik Hasan.

An Army major behind the murders of 13 US soldiers at Fort Hood, Texas, expressed sympathy for suicide bombers and support for terrorists waging war against US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Police shot and wounded Major Nidal Malik Hasan, a psychiatrist, after he went on a killing spree outside a readiness center for troops preparing to deploy to Iraq. Hasan, a Muslim American, opened fire with handguns on soldiers at the center.

Eleven US soldiers were killed and 31 more were wounded before Hasan was shot by members of a SWAT team and detained by police.

Initial reports indicated that Hasan had support from other soldiers. Two soldiers were detained by police but have subsequently been released.

The shooting spree caused a lockdown at Fort Hood, the home of the 1st Cavalry Division and the largest base in the US. Residents were instructed to lock their doors and turn off air conditioning units in case of a terrorist attack. The lockdown was lifted later in the evening after police ensured the situation was safe.

Major Hasan has made several controversial statements over the past several years that indicate he is sympathetic to suicide bombers and supportive of Islamist terrorists.

Six months ago, the FBI investigated Hasan for statements purportedly made by him on the Scribd website that equated suicide bombers with a US soldier who sacrificed himself to save his fellow soldiers:

"He inentionally [sic] took his life (suicide) for a noble cause i.e. saving the lives of his soldier. To say that this soldier committed suicide is inappropriate. Its [sic] more appropriate to say he is a brave hero that sacrificed his life for a more noble cause. Scholars have paralled [sic] this to suicide bombers whose intention, by sacrificing their lives, is to help save Muslims by killing enemy soldiers. If one suicide bomber can kill 100 enemy soldiers because they were caught off guard that would be considered a strategic victory. Their intention is not to die because of some despair. The same can be said for the Kamikazees [sic] in Japan. They died (via crashing their planes into ships) to kill the enemies for the homeland. You can call them crazy i [sic] you want but their act was not one of suicide that is despised by Islam.

Hasan also was vocal in his opposition to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and praised Muslims who attacked US troops in the US, according to Colonel Terry Lee (Retired), a former coworker who served with Hasan at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, DC.

"'We shouldn't be over there,'" Hasan told other officers, Lee said during an interview with FOX News. "'Muslims should stand up and fight against the aggressors,'" Hasan would continue, according to Lee, referring to US forces.

Hasan also praised the murder of two US soldiers who were killed outside of a recruitment center in Little Rock, Arkansas.

"'This is what Muslims should do, stand up to the aggressors,'" Hasan said, according to Lee. "'Maybe we should have more of these, people should strap bombs on themselves and go into Times Square.'"

According to Lee, Hasan "made his views well known." This sparked acrimony with other officers, who called him derogatory names during arguments.

Nader Hasan, Major Hasan's cousin, claimed the Army officer was being harassed by his fellow officers for his beliefs and sought a way out of the military after trying to get out of a deployment overseas.

"He was mortified by the idea of having to deploy," Nader Hasan told The New York Times. "He had people telling him on a daily basis the horrors they saw over there."



Advertisement:


READER COMMENTS: "US Army major behind Fort Hood murders expressed sympathy for Islamic terrorists"

Posted by Tathagata Mukherjee at November 6, 2009 12:36 AM ET:

NRP reported he was earlier found converting people to Islam.

I hope US Army will now start close scrutiny of things happening inside army bases, hospitals and who are involved in these radicalization process.

Tabligh Jamat could be involved, though its too early to say. They are present in campuses in many european countries, particularly in UK.

The world is increasingly becoming a dangerous place.

Its an awful tragedy and my heartfelt condolences to families of fallen hero.

Posted by captainjohann at November 6, 2009 1:16 AM ET:

MUSLIM UMMA. Americans are slowly learning this word which is what Osama by force or OIC under Saudi arabia is preaching peacefully. A Muslim is loyal to Allah only and for him nationalism,country, democracy are anathema to his faith. The Deoband clerics of India have issued a fatwa not to sing a song which inspired Indian freedom movement.
The killiing of British soldiers and now this, Americans have to do lot of soul searching and face Saudi wahabism forcefully.

Posted by steven timm at November 6, 2009 3:05 AM ET:

how did this guy ever stay in the army after making these kind of remarks?

Posted by ward at November 6, 2009 7:45 AM ET:

I wish the MSM would STOP refering to this murderer as a MAJOR- I'm pretty sure that what he did constitues an instant courts marshall

Posted by runningsore at November 6, 2009 8:07 AM ET:

The irony is staggering. The son of immigrants, Hassan joins the Army out of high school to defend his country. The Army educates him from undergraduate through medical school to be a psychiatrist responsible for counseling soldiers returning from war, an ordeal for which he has no direct experience. There seem to have been numerous indications of social retardation during this time, but nobody acted on it. The New York Times 6 Nov notes he failed to find a religiously observant bride; chances are good he never had a stable relationship with the opposite sex. Finally, this socially mal-adjusted mental health clinician lashes out at the institution that nurtured him.

Posted by zotz at November 6, 2009 8:48 AM ET:

Why doesn't the military use polygraph tests to weed these people out? I heard that he got a poor evaluation but then he was promoted. How did this happen?

Posted by Xavier at November 6, 2009 9:47 AM ET:

I can only imagine the lethality of the virus that made this person kill the people from an institution that nurtured/supported/fed him all these years. Ironic when a psychiatrist becomes a mental patient.

If only the army had a better manner to screen out the people affected with the virus. Apparently he did on many occasions speak of his wish to see US soldiers dead. If the army wants to be political correct to such an extent that they fail to act against an open traitor in their ranks, then who will save the country?

Posted by Abheek at November 6, 2009 9:57 AM ET:

My condolences to the victims' families. It is schoking news.

This act raises many questions:
1) What would be reaction of American people to this incidence?
2) How would they tend to see Muslims now? This is a big incidence. So would it impact the way Muslims are looked at by general US public?
3) How (and what) would US change to safeguard itself from such incidences in the future?
4)Would Muslims be still welcome in Military profession ?
5) What about the current Muslims in the Military?
Who knows what would be the number of disgruntled islamic characters are out their, ready to trigger similar mayhem?

As Indians we have gone through similar situation - Islamic charcters killing innocent collegues on behest of LeT / ISI.

Posted by Moorthy Muthuswamy at November 6, 2009 10:07 AM ET:

As I have discussed in my new book, 61% of the contents of the Koran either speaks ill of unbelievers or call for their violent subjugation. But only 2.6% of the verses of the Koran speak for the overall good of humanity.

These overwhelming statistics negate the spin of "interpretation" issues of Islamic doctrines.

There is no question that Islamic doctrines are behind Islamic terrorism - plain and simple.

Here is something to ponder:
Would people belonging to Ku Klux Klan be put in charge of administering civil rights?

Posted by Dan Carrison at November 6, 2009 10:50 AM ET:

I agree with Steven: why was this powder keg allowed to stay in the Army after his comments?

It's ridiculous--and suicidal--how politically correct our country has become.

To hear the news media, the "soldier" was upset because of a recent poor performance evaluation.

Thank God for Talk Radio.

Big Dan

Posted by steve at November 6, 2009 11:15 AM ET:

This nation needs to start vetting who we let in, not just the military(they certainly should do so). Every time one of these 'people' (islamic folks) all you hear what a good person he is from the islamic community. Good for what? If this is their version of a good person, then we need to evaluate if we need any more good people of this pursation in our country.

Posted by Glenmore at November 6, 2009 12:10 PM ET:

Does anyone know what his selected victim group was? We've heard it was deploying soldiers, but I wonder if it was just generic soldiers or a specific group - perhaps the unit he was to have deployed with? Or some other specific group?

Posted by Raven at November 6, 2009 12:53 PM ET:

My sympathies with victim families.

I do think that the tipping point here was Arab imperialism and Jihad ideology that this Major followed. The same person of another religion but with same sociological and moral objections to war probably would have dealt it differently including desertion and its aftermath, if he felt that strongly.

Posted by Spooky at November 6, 2009 3:09 PM ET:

I find it sad that the guy tried to get out of the army beforehand too, to prevent his deployment and the army, with all they knew, did not let him go.

Of course, had this guy had a different name and religion, people would have been quicker to realize that the army failed to screen the guy properly and actually act on its results. Instead, people focus on the fact that he was a muslim to mean something significant.

Yes, he spoke out against US operations and yes he liked that felow members of his religion fought against something he disapproved of. Thats no different from the anti-war radicals who secretly liked the rising death toll of American soldiers because it played into their agenda.

I disagree that the guy would have done something different had he been of another faith. Indeed, one only has to look to the Virginia Tech massacre (which was conducted by a Korean American) to understand that mental problems, when left untreated, could lead to catastrophic consequences, regardless of faith.

So rather than scapegoat Islam, which is part of the reason why we are hated so much in the middle east (vicious cycle being what it is), one should focus on mental health problems and what it does to individuals, especially those serving in the military.

My sympathies go to the victims. They also go towards Muslim (regardless if they are converts or born into it) American soldiers who have served their country faithfully. They're in for a rough time in the near future.

Steve-

The Islamic community in this country has been henpecked since 2001. The fact that the guy initially tried to serve his country and only later lost his mind doesn't negate the fact that the man wanted to serve, and as such, they will highlight that fact. If you feel disenfranchising an entire religious group is good for this so-called (and I say that with great regret) melting pot of a country, then you'd be no better than the terrorists who preach hate based on faith.

Moorthy-

You should probably focus on the percentage of Muslims world over who actually act on the divise verse of the Koran (assuming you're even correct on that matter), rather than simply say the guy did what he did because he was Muslim. That totally disregards mental health.

Abheek-

I'd like to know those answers too.

That said, how many muslims already serve the military, and how many have gone insane within said military. I strongly urge people not to generalize an entire people over the acts of one or a few.

Xavier- They'd have to get rid of alot of people is the reason. There are quite a few soldiers (more than is covered by the press) who are quite against the war and there are even some who only joined the military for entirely mercenary monetary reasons as opposed to any real sense of patriotism.

Posted by Max at November 6, 2009 3:44 PM ET:

As far as I'm concerned, Muslims cannot be trusted with a gun when Americans are at the other end, period. That goes for the policemen in Afghanistan, Iraq or anywhere else.

Posted by Moorthy Muthuswamy at November 6, 2009 5:59 PM ET:

"You should probably focus on the percentage of Muslims world over who actually act on the divise verse of the Koran (assuming you're even correct on that matter), rather than simply say the guy did what he did because he was Muslim."

Spooky

"Act" is a very general term. In my view, it needs to include those who support (through various means) actual jihadists who carry out jihad (both violent and stealth variety).

The point is, without a broad support base, it is impossible for extremists to sustain their foothold in many many Muslim communities. Existing data supports that the majority of Muslims in many communities identify themselves with some form of jihad directed at unbelievers. Of course, only a very few percentage of them are actual activists or jihadists themselves.

Not every one can become an activist. People simply have other prioriries such as feeding their families. This is why single men become active jihadists in Muslim communities.

In my new book I have discussed these issues extensively.

Posted by Jack at November 6, 2009 8:26 PM ET:

The Taliban and al Qaeda aren't crazy and neither is this guy. They know what they are doing and believe they are righteously correct in their killing of others.

Posted by Armchair Warlord at November 6, 2009 8:35 PM ET:

Sad day for America.

Before we go off on an Islamophobic witch hunt we should remember that maniacs with guns come from diverse religious and cultural backgrounds and that muslims in the military, like servicemembers of other religions or none at all, are pretty much uniformly heroes of justice.

Remember McVeigh? White guy, Christian, veteran, maniac with a vague ideological justification for his crimes. Hate the radicalization, not the religion.

Posted by TLA at November 6, 2009 10:36 PM ET:

One way of preventing this might be to automatically kick anyone who's performed such acts relatives out of the country.

Posted by Xavier at November 6, 2009 11:31 PM ET:

Spooky,

I don't know if you read my post and others posts well. There is difference between soldiers opposing these wars and its whole another thing when a soldier wants another fellow soldier dead, supports suicide bombers and wishes more fellow soldiers had been killed.

Also don't you think the suspect shouting "Allahu Akbar(God is great nonsense again)" before shooting means something. Around the world, people from every religion are getting persecuted, in one place or another. Can you think of people of any other religion shouting such things before mass murder?. Only the religion of pieces can do so.

If you want to know how Islam is different from other religions read Prof. Huntington's "The Clash...". Also think about this: Islam spread by violence as opposed to Xianity(which initially spread by conversion of Romam emperor and later spread by "strategy" and violence). Islam spread has been violent almost everywhere(very few (inconsequential) exceptions exist). In 7th century as Islam was spreading there were wars in its path all the way to (current) India and east. So history does give some indications.

Next point: Finding similarity between Steve's post to terrorists strategy of hatred based on faith - Again look at history. Common sense should prevail at all times. If a person is a risky recruit then screen him out. It's a matter of probabilities and economics. Steve did not even touch on disenfranchising anyone.


About mental problems: If done on individual basis, I believe there is a good chance majority Americans may think that certain cultures themselves are mentally ill. For example, the practice of killing females for restoring honor is spread pretty much across the Muslim world, even in USA(Law and order occasionally reports such cases).

I know some Americans have sympathy for muslims on the basis that they are "people of the book" but that can be suicidal.


When political correctness goes mad the society is in suicide mode.

Posted by zotz at November 6, 2009 11:47 PM ET:

There are over 4,000 Muslim servicemen in the armed forces. We can't question their patriotism because of their religion. Remember the Japanese-Americans that fought bravely for the US in WW2. Bigotry is not the answer. However if an individual soldier is showing poor or abnormal behavior it warrants investigation. Ironically, the reason for the military's need of Maj. Hassan was the shortage of trained psychiatrists to deal with soldiers that were on the verge of cracking, like Maj. Hassan.

Posted by Moorthy Muthuswamy at November 7, 2009 12:37 AM ET:

How many "Muslim time bombs" are there in the United States military?

A wealth of data accumulated over the past decade on the Muslim men involved in terror plots point to a common theme: invariable they were all mosque-going Muslims.

A recent report released by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) claims that 76% of the Muslim men in America are mosque-going.

An April 2001 survey by CAIR found 69% of Muslims in America saying it is "absolutely fundamental" or "very important" to have Salafi (similar to Wahhabi) teachings at their mosques (67% of respondents also expressed agreement with the statement "America is an immoral, corrupt society"). There was another poll conducted in Detroit area mosques in 2003. In this poll, 81% of the respondents endorsed the application of the medieval sharia in Muslim-majority lands.

It appears that about 70% of the mosque-going American Muslim men identify with radical ideologies. Marrying this data with 76% of the men who attend mosques, about 54% of the American Muslim men identify with radical ideologies.

There are about 3,500 Muslim men who serve in the United States armed forces. The profile of the Muslim men who choose to serve in the all-volunteer American military is not known. Based on the above analysis, about 1,800 of these men are likely to identify with radical ideologies. This select group is put in the difficult spot of having to choose between fighting the believers of these very radical ideologies they too have a soft spot for and fighting for America.

This notable conundrum has the potential for creating many Nidal Malik Hasans out of the 1,800 or so vulnerable Muslim American soldiers.

Posted by Spooky at November 7, 2009 4:06 AM ET:

Moorthy-

That broad support you speak of is the product of a vicious cycle. Radicals attack someone, the people of that someone generalize and attack the people of that radical, who then become radicals and start the mess all over again. Then take into account radicalization of other factions into the mix and you get the very situation for which FUBAR would be the perfect description.

Maybe your book better explains what you are saying and thus my argument isn't viable, but from what excerpts of it you are giving, that is my answer.

And I don't think I'd be convinced of the warranting of Islamophobia anyway even if I did.

Max-

Thats the grossest generalization I have ever read on this forum. And untrue at that.

TLA-

The man who committed the crime has already paid the ultimate price. Kicking out his family may feel nice, but its legally and morally wrong to do so, and last I checked, we're supposed to be the good guys.

Xavier-

This has nothing to do with political correctness on my part. This has to do with preventing the continuation of a vicious cycle that harms us in the end.

Armchair Warlord and zotz-

Amen.

Posted by BAM at November 7, 2009 6:58 AM ET:

The morning after the murders I was on the phone with a Marine, "TM", who works at Walter Reed in a program that rehabs the wounded. "T.M" had been so occupied with duties of life that he hadn't seen any news and knew nothing of the events in Ft. Hood, so I updated TM" as best I could. What was remarkable about his VERY level headed response is this: he's fought beside Muslims who were passionately dedicated to eradicating murderers who used radicalization of their faith as an excuse to destroy civilization and humanity.
I view radicalized Muslims much as I view radicalized Christians during the Crusades. They bastardized Christianity to torture, terrify and oppress the vulnerable among them. I wouldn't be surprised if docile Muslims fear for their very lives if they take a stand. (Satanic Verses?)

Finally, the media using "Secondary Trauma" as a free pass for murder is, as I've come to expect from the MSM, ignorant. Professionals are responsible for knowing their limitations and maintaining their own mental health, thus clinical efficacy. It is obscenely malicious to infer that a therapist's hearing "the horrors of war" legitimizes mass murder. I cringe to contemplate how veterans interpret this irresponsible spin. Now their burden is toxic to others and can only be borne alone? Now the "experts" are incapable of serving them because they'll become contaminated with secondary trauma? Now the Combat Stress Teams who embed with them in theater might shoot them all? Hasan has done more than murder and maim. A jihadist couldn't have been more effective in sabotaging the fabric and strength of our culture.

Posted by Raven at November 7, 2009 7:47 AM ET:

Major may use mental illness as a defensive strategy in his trial. But that doesn't make it so. This pre-meditated crime is, as other commenter's have said, is about radicalization of ideology and I do blame arab imperialism for that. What happened in Sudan (moslems killing non-arab moslems) is part of this.

In how many mosques around the world that this major's act will be praised and preached as "courageous"? How many recruits will be gained?

Posted by Zeissa at November 7, 2009 1:47 PM ET:

A nation where there are a minority of Muslims is known in Islam as 'a house of war'. This is of course meant in a literal sense, like most things in the Koran.

Posted by Zeissa at November 7, 2009 1:55 PM ET:

1) What would be reaction of American people to this incidence?

- Shock, Horror, Anger

2) How would they tend to see Muslims now? This is a big incidence. So would it impact the way Muslims are looked at by general US public?

- Yes.

3) How (and what) would US change to safeguard itself from such incidences in the future?

- Screen out obvious traitors.

4)Would Muslims be still welcome in Military profession ?

- Yes, but they may soon, someday, be required to state their loyalty to the US army in a way which no other than a heavily secularized or charismatic Muslim would abidy by.

5) What about the current Muslims in the Military?

- They will probably be watched more closely, and unfortunately, imo, not be thrown out even if they chose Islam over America not just in spirit but in politics, as the Islamic belief system included politics by nature in and of itself from the start. Some muslims (heretics according to the mainstream) will not care for this and be watched more closely, even though they are innocent.

Who knows what would be the number of disgruntled islamic characters are out their, ready to trigger similar mayhem?
- Tons of them, just like in India. 600 million ~ Hindu Kush

Posted by Zeissa at November 7, 2009 2:35 PM ET:

Actually, I probably won't be able to stop Spooky, your comments are just too insidiously misinformed.

You question Mooth's numbers, not bothering to go for your own and ask him to check with the rest of the world. There are clear numbers on who supports suicide bombings, and they are far above fifty percent in those who do not suffer from it. Those who are victims of suicide bombings still have a strong minority.

Posted by Zeissa at November 7, 2009 2:43 PM ET:

Spooky, it is good not to generalize. I have met many good people who call themselves muslims, but who are not and I have met true muslims whom I respect.

However you fail to realize the most basic fact that faiths are belief systems, and Islam is a highly conservative one that brooks no interpretation beyond fundamentalist doctrines, due to the way in which the Koran was received straight from Heaven to Muhammed and applied directly to his military and nation in his lifetime.

So yes, there are many muslims who do not to take their faith seriously, just like Christians. I am a serious Christian and will die for Jesus, but nowhere did he ask me to kill for him, though it is legal to join the army. That is moderate to conservative Christianity.

If I was an average Muslim who took his faith seriously I would indeed believe this man was a hero. If I lived in the West I'd watch out for my society first, then decry what he did, though elicit some sympathy for him. I'd either believe that what he did was ok or that it was wrong, but regardless I would think suicide bombers elsewhere or in the past is acceptable. Yes, if you confront a progressive muslim in the west with gore they will in fact react with shock and horror, even if they support it elsewhere.

Travel to Cairo, Islam's theological capital, and ask the theologians there (without letting them know you're a westerner) what they think.

That said a significant minority of muslims will in fact mildly to not at all hassle their children for abandoning Islam. These of course, do not observe their faith properly or do but are ignoring the parts that say to freeze them out and kill them.

Posted by Zeissa at November 7, 2009 2:48 PM ET:

Spooky, I'll say to you what I say to the rest of the deluded West (I'm Chinese).

You do not want to treat Islam like the warrior religion it is (a perfect example, nothing against warrior religions myself, I respect them usually (though Islam is extremely duplicitous so I don't respect it at all, though some of its participants are ok) except for how violent they are), because it has a billion adherants (not counting the heretical sects, but counting the heretical Shia sect).

You're scared of judging it for what it is because of the vast differences within the population (though much less than other societies as Islam is heavily conservative), and because you don't want them mad with you. I don't know if you're reason 2 (cowardice), but you're certainly a proponent of the intellectual fallacy of reason 1. Muslims are muslims and have characteristics that follow with this, no matter how much diversity (which beyond certain limits can no longer be considered Muslim) you wish to point out.

Posted by Zeissa at November 7, 2009 2:56 PM ET:

Zots, you're imposing an aribtrary standard of judgment on other groups than the one you mentioned.

Japanese immigrants can generally be trusted by their host nation if in conflict with their original nation.

People of my China in general, and Muslims in particular can generally be distrusted if their host nation is in conflict with their original nation.

Posted by Zeissa at November 7, 2009 3:06 PM ET:

Moorthy, I have to disagree with one issue. I do not know the economic condition of muslims, but I would suspect patriotism is involved in their decision to join the US army and as thus fewer of them (but still a significant number) will be suspect to such ideologies.

Posted by Ellison at November 7, 2009 5:28 PM ET:

"Why doesn't the military use polygraph tests to weed these people out?"....

You are joking? Right? All they needed to do was ask Hasan. He would have been proud to tell them. So proud of his faithfulness to the Muslim jihadist ideology was he that he told numerous soldiers of his beliefs. And the soldiers told the brass. The Walter Reed brass knew, and the Fort Hood brass knew. Do you know soldiers risk disciplinary action by reporting suspected Muslim jihadists?

And while your asking the Muslim jihadist if he is a jihadist, ask him also if the fulfillment of his religious obligation is incompatible with peaceful co-existence with non-Muslims in a democratic Republic, he will be very happy to give you an honest answer: "NO, it is not."

What are we to make of Americans who scratch their heads and ponder such possible catalysts for the Ft. Hood Massacre as pre-post traumatic stress syndrome and "compassion" fatigue. Were they to get the results of your polygraph tests, they would say, "Foul! False positive. The Muslim was under stress."

An act that, in undeluded times, would have been called a deliberate, premeditated, traitorous war crime was to him a faithful and sacred ritual of jihadist genocide.

Who is betraying their oaths?

Here is just one example of Hasan's oft-repeated, unambiguous clear-mindedness:

Hasan also praised the murder of two US soldiers who were killed outside of a recruitment center in Little Rock, Arkansas.

"'This is what Muslims should do, stand up to the aggressors,'" Hasan said, according to Lee. "'Maybe we should have more of these, people should strap bombs on themselves and go into Times Square.'"


Posted by daj at November 7, 2009 9:29 PM ET:

zeissa - what makes you think you can judge between good muslims and bad muslims? Are you learned in Islam? Are you a schollar or a sheikh?

Posted by Moorthy at November 7, 2009 9:37 PM ET:

Spooky:

The process of radicalization you are talking about doesn't happen in non-Muslim communities. But it does in Muslim communities because of jihad buildup (details in my book). This, in other words, is a characteristic of Islam.

Zeissa:

No doubt, there are patriotic Muslims in our military. I did this calculation to give an indication that the Muslim "bad apples" (the likes of Nidal Malik Hasan) in the American military couldn't be very few - contrary to the claims of top American military folks and politicians.

By making baseless guess work these American leaders are compromising the security of American men and women in uniform and by extension, all of us.

We are dealing with a grave and escalating Islamic threat within our own borders sponsored and supported by foreign entities.

Posted by munnabhai at November 7, 2009 11:01 PM ET:

Mr/Ms Zaissa says (in her response on November 7, 2009 1:55 PM ET to "Who knows what would be the number of disgruntled islamic characters are out their, ready to trigger similar mayhem?) "Tons of them, just like in India. 600 million ~ Hindu Kush"!
I think majority of Indian Hindus [not Hindukush which is the name of a mountain range between Pakistan and Afghanistan which includes the (in)famous Khyber Pass] will question your wrong impression! The Hindu militancy is a backlash against Muslim militancy in India fuelled by shameless pursuit of Muslim votebank by India's so-called secularist parties.
Though all Indian Muslims are not terrorists, all terrorists involved in terrorist attacks on India are Muslims. This speaks volumes against what you have expressed!

Posted by e.l. totsira at November 8, 2009 1:06 AM ET:

It is hard to know where to begin since several levels of analysis are in play. There is no doubt that an inerrancy doctrine applied to the Qur'an per the most originalist school of Islamic jurisprudence--Hanbali--leads without much wiggle room at all to an expansionist, military concept of jihad as religious prescription. But, the question whether jihad is legitimately declared; legitimately fought; and the ends sought--glorification of Allah--is a huge question presently splitting the Muslim world in two. There is a Muslim civil war, and Muslim reformation, and a Muslim confrontation with the modern that requires all allies possible, if possible, to assist this transformation--which cannot scripturally be a 'revision' but is in practice a definite revision.
The question isn't whether the Qur'an and originalist interpretation demands jihad, but what the massive center of gravity in the Muslim world understands to the the genuine meaning of the Qur'an and Muslim religiosity to them. The process of fundamentalization is a global sociological phenomenon occuring in every faith, with obviously different consequences, particularly in relation to whether violence is permissible as a sacrificial act that demonstrates the utmost loyalty to one's god.
Points of vulnerability in the Al Qaida narrative that should have led the Major, supposing for the sake of argument, he was religiously motivated, not to attack his comrades in arms, or his country.
1. We are not, and have never been at war, with Islam as a faith. How is it possible that he interpreted our actions in Iraq or Afghanistan as war on Islam, or an interest in occupying and usurping Muslim sovereignty?
2. Treachery to a nation that grants you citizenship and safety. Not permissible; prohibited massively.
3. Murder. Forbidden.
There is much that is illegal, criminal, horrific, abhorrent, tragic, and ultimately deeply sad on many levels. You will find that the vast majority of Muslims do not feel the need to apologize for this since they do not recognize this as something that could conceivably arise from the Allah that they worship, and the prayerful and contrite manner in which they understand their faith. Are they wrong to do so? The war for the soul of Islam requires our very best efforts to not play into Binny's hands--a criminal global terrorist mastermind.
My take? The Major was not a devout jihadi, but a deeply troubled man who though his faith under certain circumstances can be used in 2009 to carry out murderous attacks against one's countrymen, who snapped and killed mercilessly. He was by all accounts unable to view blood without passing out, and according to a telling interview with his uncle in Ramallah, not at all the beastly violent spectre we so want him to be.

Posted by Ellison at November 8, 2009 6:02 PM ET:

totsira:

This appears to be a thorough but, perhaps, disingenuous appeal for universal patience while the Muslim community sorts out the meaning of the Islam religion.

"The process of fundamentalization is a global sociological phenomenon occurring in every faith, with obviously different consequences, particularly in relation to whether violence is permissible as a sacrificial act that demonstrates the utmost loyalty to one's god."

This alleged fact, skillfully phrased, is ludicrous on its face. What other religions (erring toward "fundamentalism") are conflicted about this "spiritual" issue: "whether violence is permissible as a sacrificial act that demonstrates the utmost loyalty to one's god."

Furthermore (moving closer to the edge of incredulity), what "violence" do you describe? Are you referring to military armed conflict? mob violence? or the perverse ecstasy derived from the blood lust of fulfilling a sacred act to one's Muslim god?

And what might be the difference between "a devout jihadi," and "a deeply troubled man."

I, as a non-Muslim, do not hold the opinion that it is appropriate, let alone civilly or religiously required, that non-jihadist Muslims should be apologizing for jihadist Muslims' behaviour.

However, were I to be a Muslim whose Islamic beliefs I held to be compatible with peaceful co-existence with non-Muslims in a democratic, Constitutional Republic, my conscience would demand vocal and vociferous denouncements of jihadists and public censure of the mosques who fund and harbor them.

And yet, "the vast majority of Muslims do not feel the need to apologize for this since they do not recognize this as something that could conceivably arise from the Allah that they worship."


This absence of recognition of the jihadist mentality "as something that could conceivably arise from the Allah that they worship" is not a mental void of association, nor mystification or perplexity but, rather, it is suppressed, pathological ambiguity at best, or "peaceful" complicity at worst.

Else, how could they even participate in the "huge question presently splitting the Muslim world in two."

The silence is deafening.

Posted by Abheek at November 8, 2009 6:46 PM ET:

Zeissa, Moorthy - Concur with your thoughts more or less. Born muslims are taught to be different and stay away from the mainstream. Most of the time religion comes first (Ummah, global Caliphate) for them.

So there is a big social problems and that leads us to the queston of their trustworthyness.

Munnabhai - What Zeissa replied (tons) was in answer to my questions on how many such disgruntled Islamist character could be out there. Hope this makes it clear ..

Posted by e.l. totsira at November 8, 2009 7:44 PM ET:

Ellison:
Here's another take on the same issue. We'll stick to law.
Jihad is of four types.
J1 = jihad as introspective, deep cleansing of one's motivational core to develop that righteousness required when it is time, oneday, to be judged. All judgment in Islam is based on an individual's specific acts over the course of a lifetime with an actual weighing on scales.
J2 = jihad as active charity or works. It is not enough to pray, though that is for virtually every religious person the centerpiece of faith; Islam, like Judaism, creates religious proscriptions and prescriptions that demand action, with much directed at those deemed socially underprivileged.
J3 = defensive jihad. Ignore for the moment that Muslim lands were conquered lands and just draw a line in the present nation-state Muslim world. It is an absolute individual-level obligation for all Muslims to defend Muslim lands if they are under attack by forces disloyal to Allah as Sovereign. Yes, medieval from our point of view, but this is an Islam that can accepts the nation-state system, most of international law, and a kind of just war theory. CRUCIAL HERE IS BINNY'S CLAIM THAT HIS JIHAD IS DEFENSIVE RATHER THAN OFFENSIVE. We are at war with Islam, it is claimed, but there is no evidence for this, unless you break with the J3 definition of jihad which is virtually unanimously accepted--even if just pragmatically--throughout the nation-state Muslim world.
The rules for J3 also permit Binny to circumvent any and all authority because the defense of a Muslim land does not require permission from parents, is done by males and females, and undermines the civil/military distinction.
J4 = offensive, militant, imperial Islam. i.e. how Islam mostly, and Arab Islam especially, ripped out its section of Eurasia. The 9th Sura, esp. 9:5, and 9:29, but many others--and especially the Hadith--clearly embrace this. Every school of law does so. The most important commentaries do as well. But, THERE ARE RULES for fighting and a law of war.
1. The right motives must be in play; 2. it must be declared by a legitimate authority; 3. certain persons may not be killed; 4. children require the consent of their parents; treaties are possible, though they must be renewed; 5. pragmatism can rule if definite costs outweigh any possible benefits; 6. tactical and strategic alliances are permissible with infidels.
Other major facts to consider.
Takfir -- excommunicating, apostisizing, heretification. the attacking of a government or person on the grounds that they are insufficiently Muslim has major, major negatives.
The desired scope for Shari'a --puritanical hard-core Taliban-land is not the paradise most Muslims dream of.
Tawhid -- the indivisible sovereignty and supremacy of Allah is for the vast majority of Muslims compatible with democratic will formation, as long as that is not rooted in notions that contradict Allah's sovereignty. But for them, nothing happens without Allah and if Allah says create a representative government, just don't obey laws that contradict mine--and here, the scope of shari'a as a law that regulates marriage, property, contracts, crime and punishment is variably understood--must be examined.

Final thoughts Ellison (and I am not an apologist just an academic who tries to teach this stuff while I teach my students how to implement properly a full-scale COIN--btw spell e.l. totsira backwards--. Don't let BINNY inflate his stature and draw us in to trying to alienate the center of gravity he is so far away from possessing.
The Major snapped. It is a psychological not a theological question why he decided to say his good-byes methodically, carefully, deliberately, and tell people--"infidels"--thank you for being his friend, and his neighbor. He should have been discharged. It is a tragedy that will make its way up a chain of command somewhere. He was the trigger guy, no question about it. But don't look to the Islamic law of war to ground this act.

Posted by JT at November 9, 2009 1:53 AM ET:

First, McVeigh did not murder because of his religion.

Second, No one, not even white supremacists, complimented him on his actions.

Big difference between that and Jihadists. Some people need to get a clue before they start claiming things are the same when they are clearly not.

Posted by T Ruth at November 9, 2009 9:36 AM ET:

Ellison, i like your arguments.

By way of background, i am not American, nor Muslim or even non-Muslim, for i believe true religosity has nothing to do with any or all organised religions.

Personally, i believe that in the bigger picture the Ft Hood incident merely underscores that we are still (psychologically, and therefore, actually) living in a dark age, despite the advancements in technology.

All organised religions are at the root of this, but having lived in the Middle East some years, a couple of decades ago, even in relatively peaceful times one has to observe that there is a rather more aggressive edge to Islam in general, jihadist or not.

That said, in addition to the Major's muslim affiliation one can not ignore his family's Palestinian roots. And without trying to explain away anything at all, one asks one's self the question, why does one US President after another fail, together with all of America's allies, to solve the Palestinian problem?

Posted by Ellison at November 9, 2009 2:06 PM ET:

totsira:

Appreciating you efforts to educate me, but noting your failure to address all but one point I raised, I will endeavor to work backwards and respond to that one point.

I. The Major most certainly did NOT snap. He had broadcast his mindset unwaveringly for years---going back all the way to (at least) shortly after 9/11. The following are known facts, with supporting documentation (and no doubt much more to come---at least until Americans are no longer permitted to receive news from foreign journalists who are still free and willing to actually...investigate and report.)


A. Hasan's ties to 9/11 hijackers and their mosque

He attended the controversial Dar al-Hijrah mosque in Great Falls, Virginia, in 2001 at the same time as two of the September 11 terrorists....The preacher [iman] at the time was Anwar al-Awlaki, an American-born Yemeni scholar who was banned from addressing a meeting in London by video link in August because he is accused of supporting attacks on British troops and backing terrorist organisations.

Hasan's eyes "lit up" when he mentioned his deep respect for al-Awlaki's teachings, according to a fellow Muslim officer...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6521758/Fort-Hood-shooting-Texas-army-killer-linked-to-September-11-terrorists.html

B. At least as far back as 2007, Hasan was espousing views in sync with 9/11 hijackers

"Dr Val Finnell, a fellow student on a public health course in 2007-08 who heard Hasan equate the war on terrorism to a war on Islam. Another student had warned military officials that Hasan was a "ticking time bomb"...

a Muslim friend who is also an officer at Fort Hood...[Hasan] expressed anti-Jewish sentiments and defended suicide bombings.

[SOURCE: same as above]

C. [Hasan] once gave a lecture to other doctors in which he said non-believers should be beheaded and have boiling oil poured down their throats.

He also told colleagues at America's top military hospital that non-Muslims were infidels condemned to hell who should be set on fire. The outburst came during an hour-long talk Hasan, an Army psychiatrist, gave on the Koran in front of dozens of other doctors at WALTER REED Army Medical Centre in Washington DC, where he worked for six years before arriving at Fort Hood in July. ...It was the LATEST in a series of "red flags" about his state of mind

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6526030/Fort-Hood-gunman-had-told-US-military-colleagues-that-infidels-should-have-their-throats-cut.html

D. Hasan attempted contacts with AlQaeda

U.S. intelligence agencies were aware MONTHS AGO that Army Major Nidal Hasan was attempting to make contact with people associated with al Qaeda, two American officials briefed on classified material in the case told ABC News.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/fort-hood-shooter-contact-al-qaeda-terrorists-officials/story?id=9030873

E. A strange morning visit

I could go on with many more known facts leading up to the premeditated massacre (one of which is a series of known visits to a strip club) and on the day of... including minute details of ritual behavior the day of the massacre---not to mention the strange visit on that very morning:

"Other residents at the Casa del Norte apartment complex were surprised to see the mild-mannered army officer accompanied by another man in Islamic dress.

Alice Thompson, 53, who manages the two storey block of simple dwellings with her husband John, told The Sunday Telegraph: "It was very unusual because he had never had anyone round before. His visitor had long black hair and a moustache and a dark complexion. He stayed about five minutes and then left. We'd never seen him before."


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6521578/Fort-Hood-shooting-inside-story-of-how-massacre-on-military-base-happened.html

F. Lastly, this disturbing report, with video and stills--- Videos of Ft. Hood Shooter at Israeli Ambassador Address to Homeland Security Policy Institute

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/videos_of_ft_hood_shooter_at_i.html

The incontrovertible evidence, gathered by the foreign press and citizen journalists is that Nidal Malik Hasan most certainly did not SNAP (and, please, no lengthy psychiatric definitions of "snap," or its corollary, "the 8-year snap."
~~~~~~~


Another point I made, you addressed tangentially:

"Tawhid -- the indivisible sovereignty and supremacy of Allah is for the vast majority of Muslims compatible with democratic will formation, as long as that is not rooted in notions that contradict Allah's sovereignty."

An investigation into the beliefs of the leading Muslim imans AND Islamic educators (identified as such by Muslims), with one or two exceptions, all espouse views incompatible with a democratic, Constitutional Republic. The greatest hope by most is 1) an Islamic caliphate; or, by some, 2) the legal overthrow of our American government by a more wise, beneficent, global regime in which US sovereignty is sacrificed for the good of all and US law is replaced by international law. Their hope is not overly optimistic.

"DEMOCRATIC WILL FORMATION"? Which country has one of those governments?

I am a citizen of the United States. Its government is a democratic, Constitutional Republic, in existence for over 200 yrs. That we remain so is in grave doubt. The "governmental and legal" coup taking place is too frenzied and too surreal to be believed by most Americans. (voluminous evidence supplied by foreign press and a small handful of well-known, intelligent, well-respected, careful, measured, thorough, and courageous Americans).

Those Americans ignorant of the facts, and fast becoming willfully self-deceived, still prefer the confines of Plato's cave. It's comfortable there, until it's not. What is a chosen residence for them now will become, most probably, an unchosen prison for all Americans in the painfully not-too-distant future.

I live in the nation that suffered the attack of 9/11 and the Fort Hood Massacre (and before that, several successful attacks orchestrated by Muslims with the same belief system as Hasan---evidence for which is ample but governmentally suppressed to this day). Most recently, British (mind you, British...) intelligence stopped a plot of what would have been the most deadly jihadist attack since 9/11.


Setting aside for a moment the "troubled" jihadist Muslims "on the street", examine what the leading Islamic educators and imans in America espouse (not necessarily teach or preach, but espouse. Look deep.) The specific center of gravity you wish to portray and to which you advise Americans to anchor themselves does not exist, except in the cave. It's a comfortable community in there until it's not.

Posted by T Ruth at November 9, 2009 7:49 PM ET:

Ellison i agree with you, the major did not'snap'. And in his planning, he bought his weapons back in July/Aug.

And this begs another question--how CIVILised is this 21C democracy when it is nearly as easy to buy lethal guns, as it is to buy a beer?

Posted by e.l. totsira at November 9, 2009 11:16 PM ET:

Ellison,
Global Pew Research data strongly suggests the vast majority of Muslims do not view representative institutions as incompatible with Islamic religious convictions. The Preamble to the Paki constitution is a case in point that states what I did earlier: it is not an 'inalienable rights' grounding, though it could be on Jeffersonian terms 'God's Nature'; it is simply a hunger to have institutions that are accountable to and a reflection of those whose children are generally anchored in a modern world, though possibly a deeply religious one. A religious modernity seems a contradiction in terms, but only if logic is the foundation of religion, which I believe it is not.
What a 'Muslim democracy' looks like will certainly not be like the Anglo-American version, but if President Bush was right, and Sharansky before him, and Reagan too, the unstoppable quest by human beings to realize a degree of freedom--for them compatible with God's gifts and existence, and even made possible by Him--is the greater threat to the autocratic, sclerotic, semi-despotisms we confront.
It is a global culture war in which we can easily position ourselves as defenders of an Islamist reformation so long as AQ is granted no quarter; global capital, energy, and financial markets are not compromised; and a tactical alliance is formed against terroristic forces that threaten the international nation-state system, international law, and the right of citizens to be free of terror within their sovereign territority.
Don't blow it here. The humiliation, dishonor, and failure of the Muslim world has found its scapegoats and we would be very smart to harness this energy into a grand alliance against puritanical murderous usurpers acting in the name of a civilization they destroy by the moment.

Posted by Gill at November 10, 2009 2:35 AM ET:

How did the army miss this one!!! The signs were there. America Wake up!

Posted by SFC MAC at November 10, 2009 11:57 AM ET:

Islam is more ideology than religion. It's bad enough we have to fight muslim terrorists on Middle Eastern battlefields and that the federal government allows them to come into the country and operate jihadist training camps on our soil. Now we also have to contend with the ones in our military ranks. I look forward to this scumbag getting a cell on death row right next to Asan Akbar, who killed Army CPT.
Christopher Scott Seifert, an S2 Officer in one of our 101st Airborne brigades, and wounded 15 others.
This is clearly an act of terrorism by a radical muslim jihadist, who had no business being in the U.S. Army, let alone the country.

Posted by wendy at November 11, 2009 9:10 PM ET:

my heart goes out to everyone. do not let this get you down for they will have there way if you do. my thoughts are with you.

Posted by Taqiyyotomist at November 16, 2009 8:07 PM ET:

I know I'm late to this shindig, but:

Daj,
You ask how can someone who is not Muslim judge who is or is not a "good" muslim.

The same way I, having never played football, can tell whether or not someone who purports to be playing football really is playing football. I've read the rules, the history, and seen the example of the greatest football players of all time, according to football players.

Another analogy: I read a Harry Potter book, say, fifteen times, and then I go see a movie that claims to be the film version of the book. I myself have never acted, nor have I ever pretended to be Harry Potter. Even so, having read and studied the character of Harry Potter in the book, I can be reasonably sure if the actor in the film is ACTING LIKE HARRY POTTER or not.

You could look at someone's life and deeds and, if you had read the account of the life of Jesus Christ as described in the first four books of the New Testament of the Bible, you could also tell if that person's life and deeds were those of someone acting like the recorded words and deeds of Jesus Christ. If they say they are Christian and are not attempting at all to act the way Christ acted and commanded his followers to act, then you would not be incorrect or wrong in saying that that person is not a "good" Christian. Even if you disbelieve that the Gospel accounts are true or accurate, it doesn't matter. What matters is, are they following the character they purport to be following as described in the existing records.

On the same token, I and many non-Muslims have studied quite vociferously the writings of Muhammad, the Sira, and quite a lot of the ahadith. We who have read the records can tell if someone is acting in accordance with the historical record of Muhammad, and whether they are following his words and emulating the man and his deeds.

If they are not killing, lying, stealing, destroying, subjugating, or attempting to engage in Jihad against the non-Muslim population in at least one of these ways (I left out a few), they are not emulating Muhammad, therefore they are not "good" Muslims, where "good" means "approaching the likeness of the Benchmark", where in this case, the benchmark is Muhammad, "the perfect man", whose life is to be emulated, and whose commands are to be followed.

If I were a dog, and I said I was following my master, and my master called me to him, and I took off and ran the other way, still saying "I'm following my master," you could rightly say "BULLSQUAT" you're not following him at all.

If a banana tree has a sign on it that says "Orange Tree", and you can see that there are bananas growing on it, and not oranges, you can rightfully say that the sign is in error, or is, indeed, lying. You wouldn't say, "See, sometimes orange trees grow bananas. Who am I to judge what an orange tree really is?"

If you're a Muslim, don't try taqiyya with someone who knows your game.

Posted by Dave at November 27, 2009 2:13 PM ET:

This blatantly shows the social retardation we have succumbed to. There are so many of the "intelligent, evolved" politically correct spewing individuals out there today that we cant even protect ourselves.

We hear constantly from these people that "the war on terror is a farce, it is just a way to keep people in fear.. blah blah" ..... how many potential bombings have been thwarted due to raised security in recent history? As I recall, enough to tell us that we need to be doing more. Yet, the politically correct, rose colored glasses wearing whiners want to keep telling us we should just let everyone in, trust people, dont hurt anyones feelings, etc. They are in complete denial.

Then this. There is so much wrong with this it sickens me.

1) Who in their right mind (whether or not he was a murderer or normal guy) would want to have troops, who have watched their friends get blown to bits by muslim extremists over and over, go see a psychiatrist that looks and believes like their enemy??? I would tell them to cram it up their you know what and get me an american shrink to visit. Whether or not he was an extremist, the mental aspect would not be comforting.

2) He WAS AN EXTREMIST!!!! It just shows me the complete lack of intelligence throughout our system that he was not booted from the military long ago.

3) All of these "dont hurt anyones feelings by questioning them on their motives based upon ethnicity and beliefs" people should feel REAL good about themselves now. People DID suspect he was an extremist and said nothing in fear of retribution due to perceived discrimination. Now 13 are dead BECAUSE of those that propagate this culture of politically correct bs.

I feel saddened to see how dumb our society has gotten. I am all for freedom of religion and being diverse, accepting other cultures, etc. But when our greatest enemy ever is also perfectly fine with being dishonest, infiltrating other cultures an committing senseless acts of violence against people who have done nothing to them and actually believes it is GOOD in their gods eyes, we should be VERY leary of letting anyone questionable in our country, let alone our military. The politically left out there will probably pop a crybaby vein if they read that statement.. but they are continually being proved wrong by these types of things.. even though they are too pig headed to believe it.

Posted by Dave at November 27, 2009 2:22 PM ET:

I also left out one important point...

What is more important to everyone... not hurting peoples feelings and being "fair" in a world that is NOT fair.... or using common sense in being more diligent in weeding out this type of scum?

If you were in the wilderness with a gun and your children.. and 3 of your children had been eaten by wolves already, would you peacefully watch a wolf approach to be "nice" and accepting of their species, or would you kill the thing to save your kids?

I have no problem with any race or belief as a whole, but when most of these types of events are being propagated by the same people.. I am going to keep a closer eye on who is around me. I would rather have hurt someones feelings and be alive than be mister nice guy and be dead along side my family.