Newsfeed
Printer-Friendly ModeFacts, not bias suggest Islamic influence in Fort Hood shooting
November 16, 2009 —
Since U.S. Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan’s violent attack on civilians and service member at Fort Hood, the army has refused to speculate about his motives. With 13 dead and several wounded, President Obama cautioned Americans “against jumping to conclusions until we have all the facts.”
As more facts arrive, reporters and commentators question whether mental instability or Islamic extremism may have inspired Hasan’s actions.
According to NPR, anonymous sources at Walter Reed Army Medical Center described Hasan’s behavior as “disconnected, aloof, paranoid, belligerent, and schizoid.” Sources also reported that “he antagonized some students and faculty by espousing what they perceived to be extremist Islamic views.”
Despite the fact that approximately 3,500 Muslims honorably serve in the U.S. military, some in the media express concern that Hasan’s apparent extreme religious views may be used for political fear mongering.
Newsweek’s Evan Thomas, for example, said recently, “I cringe that he’s a Muslim. I mean, because it inflames all the fears. I think he’s probably a nutcase. But with that label attached to him, it will get the right wing going and it just — I mean these things are tragic, but that makes it much worse.”
I disagree with Thomas. I have a higher opinion of the American people. I don’t believe Americans become fearful of someone based on the simple fact that that person happens to be a Muslim. American culture’s fundamental values include the peaceful practice of religion, and the majority of Americans do so according to their faith.
However, if the threat is real, then isn’t a reasonable amount of fear a healthy, if not life-preserving, reaction? Fort Hood aside, events since the Cold War prove Islamic extremists commit acts of terrorism that kill Muslims and non-Muslims around the world — that is a real threat.
The facts tell us that Islamic extremism played a significant role in Hasan’s actions.
Media reports indicate Hasan had contact with al-Qa’eda cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, whose sermons were also attended by three of the 9/11 hijackers.
A slide from Hasan’s 2007 Power Point entitled “The Koranic World View As It Relates to Muslims in the Military” states, “It’s getting harder and harder for Muslims in the service to morally justify being in a military that seems constantly engaged against fellow Muslims.” The same presentation also states, “We love death more then you love life!” Classmates claim Hasan’s presentation “justified suicide bombing.”
Hasan reportedly told colleagues at one time, “I’m a Muslim first and an American second.”
These sentiments seem to have gained little attention as Hasan was promoted to the rank of major in May. In hindsight, the army would have done well to question Hasan’s expression of divided loyalty and his ability to perform his duties.
Hasan is not the only service member to be engaged in a war against other members of his faith. Other people have done so without choosing treason.
Thousands of Muslims currently in the U.S. military peacefully observe their faith while fighting in the war against radical Islam. Their beliefs systems are apparently compatible with their defense of freedom as we know it.
Christians have also dealt with wars fought against members of their own faith. In 1990, Clinton’s policy was to support the infiltrating Kosovo Liberation Army, a terrorist group comprised of “ethnic Albanian” Muslim radicals. Christians serving in NATO were ordered to bomb the opposing Christian Serbs, people who aided American service members during World War II.
Unlike these other service members, Hasan broke his oath by attacking U.S. service members and citizens in a time of war. He betrayed the trust of his country. Hasan has become the textbook definition of a traitor, and the role radical Islam played cannot be dismissed.