It's Called Islamic Terrorism

It's Called Islamic Terrorism
by Motte Brown on 11/06/2009 at 4:54 PM

I'm not going to lie. It was my first thought after seeing the alleged gunman's name, Nidal Malik Hasan, appear in the initial reports of the murderous rampage at Fort Hood that left 13 dead and 30 wounded. I sort of expected to see news trickle in confirming my suspicions. But it didn't.

It seems the mainstream media (as well as Army spokespersons) would rather reflexively rule out Islamic terrorism than let anyone consider the possibility.

I don't know, maybe conjecture about motives is unwise when reporting on something like this. Though I saw a lot from the MSM about the gunman not wanting to be deployed and being teased because he was a Muslim.

The news is only now starting to trickle in about possible motives related to his Islamic beliefs. Eyewitness accounts verify that he praised Allah shouting "Allahu Akbar!" just before he opened fire on unarmed soldiers. And he was already under investigation from Federal authorities for comparing Islamic suicide bombers to soldiers who throw themselves on grenades to give their lives for their comrades. (More here.)

I know that none of this means definitively that this was an act of terrorism. We should pause while all the facts are gathered. But I can't help but think that ignoring the obvious is reflective of a society still unwilling to face the fact that there are Muslims living here who want to kill Americans in the name of Jihad.

And in case you think I'm being unfair to Muslims, consider the post-9/11 evidence of plots and attacks blogged about here by National Review's Victor David Hansen.

At the end of his of post, Hansen wonders how many more attacks against our soldiers and innocent civilians it will take before Americans begin resenting "the disconnect between what they are told to think and what they believe, on the basis of some evidence."

Current Events , Politics | Mail This | Share on Facebook

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

1. Jethro said the following at 6:16 PM on Nov 6:

There is no maybe about it Motte, conjecture about motives is unwise at this point. It is not as if Dr Hasan declared his religious motives as Scott Roeder did.

2. Simon from Texas said the following at 6:46 PM on Nov 6:

So... what exactly do are we supposed to do with these "Muslims living here who want to kill Americans in the name of Jihad"? Please suggest something. Otherwise I take this post to be little more than un-constructive agitation.

3. Brandon said the following at 8:03 PM on Nov 6:

I completely agree. I think Hansen makes a good point. Eventually, all of this political correctness is going to backfire and our society will cast it off. But what price will we have to pay before it goes, and what will take it's place? Perhaps it would open the door to Christian persecution as described in Revelation?

4. Annika said the following at 8:24 PM on Nov 6:

By which I hope you mean terrorism committed in the name of Islam. I don't understand the extreme hatred Boundless seems to harbor toward Muslims.

5. Sasha said the following at 8:57 PM on Nov 6:

I know it's politically incorrect, but I have been disgusted by the focus the mainstream media is placing upon the fact that this killer experienced teasing because of his religion, as if that excuses his murder of 13 people. I don't want to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but I wouldn't be a bit surprised if evidence that his actions were meant as an act of Jihad were to be suppressed or at least ignored by the media. I, too, wonder how far this disconnect between political correctness and reality will extend itself.

6. rushncap said the following at 9:04 PM on Nov 6:

Sure, it was Islamic terrorism, you're right. So... what do we do about that?

7. Jessica said the following at 9:26 PM on Nov 6:

Amen, Motte!

8. Chris said the following at 10:31 PM on Nov 6:

Motte writes:

But I can't help but think that ignoring the obvious is reflective of a society still unwilling to face the fact that there are Muslims living here who want to kill Americans in the name of Jihad.

Well, before we start making claims like this and linking to blogs with an obvious bias, let's read some news:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/11/06/texas.fort.hood.shootings/index.html

That being said, the more important questions are 1) Did he actually do this as part of some religious attack or did he "snap"? and 2) How did the Army not pick up on this?

I think we would all be better served by asking and answering these questions.

9. Jethro said the following at 10:32 PM on Nov 6:

Sasha (#5),

'Teasing' is Motte's word. There is a big difference between 'teasing' as we commonly understand it in the schoolyard sense, and the systematic bullying and psychological degradation of a person. Now, there is nothing that could ever excuse the actions of Dr Hasan, but to label it as merely 'teasing' is dishonest in the extreme.

In the absence of evidence to the contrary I don't see this as any different to a white postal worker taking a gun to work and shooting his colleagues. Just because he is a Muslim doesn't mean it this is an act of terrorism.

10. S said the following at 10:53 PM on Nov 6:

Motte, you linked to the NYPost to defend your arguments? And an op-ed piece at that, in which the word "whacko" appears? This is your answer to MSM bias?

What if the situation really is that a man who happens to be Muslim snapped, as men of all faiths and no faith have done?

It seems you've already made up your mind, and if investigations reveal that his Islamic faith had no influence on the shooting, you'll just assume that bias and political correctness are at play.

11. SC said the following at 12:00 AM on Nov 7:

That's just not true - Army spokesmen have explicitly said they are not ruling his being a terrorist out, and will not say either way until a full enquiry has been conducted. Anything else would be grossly unprofessional.

Anyway, can we get off the conservative bandwagon and concentrate on Jesus (who, it seems is yet to be mentioned) and the work He appointed us? I am struggling to see what creating and making disciples has anything to do with liberal media bias, or the moral decline of America (nations and societies can't be 'Christian', only people, but that's another issue for another day).

12. Keith said the following at 12:36 AM on Nov 7:

Yes, there are people in the world that would like to kill Americans. Maybe Nidal Malik Hasan is one of those people, or maybe he was just suffering from a severe mental disorder.

There is no evidence that Nidal Malik Hasan has any linked with any terrorist group, and is exremely unlikely that a person who hated America would serve in the United States army.

In any case, the real question is how one chooses to respond. One can choose to respond with a combination of fear, rage, or confusion...or one can respond with a spirit of love, forgivesness, and with a sound mind.

Pray for those people who plot to attack America. Choose to forgive. Feed the poor in far away countries so they can experience the love of Christ and won't be drawn to the dangerous man-made doctrines of extremist groups.

Muslims are hardly a threat to American lives. Greed, abortion, and social injustice destroy many more lives every year in the United States than any Islamic terrorist groups could ever do. Those issues should be our real concerns.

13. Rob said the following at 12:43 AM on Nov 7:

Mr.Brown,
As a fan of statistics...this shooting is rare in America. Shouldn't we remember...
Matthew J. Murray
Eric Harris
Dylan Klebold
Timothy McVeigh
Senng--Hui Cho
Robert A. Hawkins
Nidal Hasan

Long story short, I'm not going to cry "Wolf" until shootings like Nadal's become significantly more common. Nadal so far is an outlier of the average American, just like Timothy McVeigh.

14. Jo said the following at 2:13 AM on Nov 7:

I'm with Jethro. I'm surprised you've posted this to be honest.

15. Jo said the following at 2:37 AM on Nov 7:

Also, even if his motive was religious (which is very possible), that doesn't make it Islamic terrorism. The shootings at New life Church and YWAM in Colorado a couple of years ago were religiously motivated but no one would call that 'atheist terrorism', would they? One man deciding to murder several people isn't the same as a terrorist organisation training killers and suicide bombers to carry out large scale attacks. Both are horrific, of course. But let's not call everything terrorism...

16. LouiseinPA said the following at 5:24 AM on Nov 7:

I agree that there is too much political correctness when it comes to offending Muslims. I read Ayaan Hirsi Ali's book, Infidel, a year ago, and she talks about the misogyny she experiences as a Muslim woman in the name of Islam. As an immigrant to the Netherlands, she noted that Western Europeans ignored much of this misogyny, domestic abuse against women in the name of cultural toleration.

I also heard a story on National Public Radio this week about book that recently was published about the reaction to the cartoon of Allah published by a Danish cartoonist three years ago (remember the violent reaction in the Muslim world?). Anyways, this scholar whose name escapses me had a contract with Yale University Press to publish to book but Yale backed out after national security experts in the US who hadn't even read the manuscript warned about the reaction of Muslims to the images reprinted in the book for the sake of scholarly anaysis. The American Association of University professors filed a complait against Yale University Press, compaling that the book is worthless without hte images because you can't see what the author is discussing. Yale didn't publish the cartoons because it wanted to protect its image among Muslims.

So, multiple examples of too much political correctedness exist towards Muslims. Certainly one should not hate Muslims-but to are Muslims that easily angered/excitable that a book with a cartoon cannot be published and we as Westerners cannot charge Muslim men for crimes of violence against Muslim women if these are Muslims living in Western countries?

17. Amir Larijani said the following at 5:50 AM on Nov 7:

Simon asks:

So... what exactly do are we supposed to do with these "Muslims living here who want to kill Americans in the name of Jihad"? Please suggest something. Otherwise I take this post to be little more than un-constructive agitation.

As a Christian whose father is a Muslim from Iran (a naturalized American Citizen), I'll give you an answer, with which my Muslim dad agrees:

(a) if they are not Americans, deport them.

(b) if they are Americans, then they are allowed to "think" whatever they want. That's the First Amendment. On the other hand, when they are discovered engaging in plotting attacks against Americans, we need to hit them as hard as we legally can.

With the case of Maj. Nidal, I have several issues:

(1) According to at least one other officer who served with him, he had expressed sympathies toward Jihadists--in their attacks against American servicemen. Was any action taken by the Army? Why not?

(2) The FBI was apparently trailing him due to some comments he left on blogs. Was this ever reported to the Army? If so, then why was action nto taken? If not reported, Why not?

Moreover, given that we have had at least two incidents of Muslim Soldiers who did not want to deploy in war against Muslims--and who went on shooting sprees when informed that they must deploy--then it seems that the Army needs to cut their losses with these guys and simply remove them from the Service.

The Army's marginal cost of washing their hands of these guys, is far less than suffering these attacks by disgruntled Muslims.

18. Anderson said the following at 6:32 AM on Nov 7:

Good point, Motte. That is definitely being overlooked.

Having said that, let's all not get caught in the heat of the moment and forget Matthew 5:44 (NKJV).
"But I say to you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which spitefully use you, and persecute you"

The truth is, we believe in the gospel and they don't. We can do better than hating them back, regardless (not that you or anyone here does). Just a thought.

19. Kay said the following at 6:39 AM on Nov 7:

To Annika (#4): "[T]he extreme hatred Boundless seems to harbor toward Muslims" is a very serious allegation. Could you please provide some specific examples of what brought you to this conclusion?

20. Jeffrey Whiting said the following at 7:12 AM on Nov 7:

As long as the liberal doctrines of cultural equality and unlimited immigration are espoused these sort of occurrences will continue.

Islam is not compatible with Western civilization and its way of life.

21. Lia said the following at 7:17 AM on Nov 7:

Okay, so if this was an act of Islamic terrorism, what then? Are you suggesting that we monitor Muslims to make sure that there's no repeat action? Deport all Muslims, immigrant or not? Forcibly convert all Muslims?

I mean, regardless of his motives, 13 people are *dead*. Understanding their murderer's motives does little else but make us feel better-- it doesn't necessarily deal out justice, and without extreme measures, it doesn't prevent this from happening.

22. Jacob M. said the following at 7:21 AM on Nov 7:

Posters are inevitably asking, if this is Islamic terrorism, what can we do about it?

Not that they, nor the Boundless authors for that matter, will accept this answer, but the only solution is not to allow Islam in non-Muslim countries. The killing of infidels is not some bizarre practice resting on a flawed interpretation of Islam held only by a "tiny minority of extremists," it's at the core of Islam itself, the Koran and the Hadith, it comes straight from the pen of Mohammed, and has been going on since the very beginning of Islam itself. Muslim terrorists are not "extremists" or "radicals" or "Islamists," they are good and faithful Muslims devotedly carring out the will of Allah as commanded by his great prophet Mohammed. Therefore, the only way non-Muslims can avoid being killed by Muslims is to keep Islam contained in Muslim countries.

The fact that even the "conservatives" of our society find this idea unacceptable only shows how far gone we are.

23. David Daniel said the following at 8:39 AM on Nov 7:

"I know that none of this means definitively that this was an act of terrorism. We should pause while all the facts are gathered." And presumably, write blog posts entitled "It's Called Islamic Terrorism".

24. ALS said the following at 9:20 AM on Nov 7:

While it is not politically correct, we are going to have to get better at picking up on people like Hasan who are giving off warning signs, even if this may entail a certain degree of racial profiling. What to do with them once the system is aware of them is a problem. While I believe in 2nd amendment rights, we need to find a way to keep people who have displayed troubling behavior (Hasan, the shooter at Virgina Tech) from being able to purchase weapons, although they could still obtain them through other means. My brother is currently deployed in Afghanistan. I can't imagine the grief of the families who lost loved ones at Ft. Hood. My brother was in a solider readiness processing center filling out paperwork just a few months ago.

25. Sara said the following at 9:48 AM on Nov 7:

Geez, it is articles like this that do promote hatred towards Islamic people. Whatever happened to love your enemy? Plus, I have a lot of Muslim friends, and I teach a lot of Muslim children, and I live in a neighborhood with a lot of Muslim people. The only problem I have ever encountered is that the ones in my neighborhood don't like my dog walking too close to them (I think their sect interprets a part of the Qua'ran to say you can't get dog spit on your hands or else it is unclean).

Yes there are Muslim terrorists out there. For sure... no one is denying that. However, there is probably just as many attacks on people by the mentally ill, and we are trying to help them, not hurt them. That is what we should also be doing for Islamic people who come to live in the Western world.

Perhaps they buy in so easily to these terrorist plots because they experience so much hatred here, and they don't fit in at all in any community in our world that they are susceptible to these fundamentalist groups.

I guess my problem is that your post sounded more like you wanted to keep them out of the country, and less like a call to involve Islamic people in our community, and help them feel welcome and loved as children of God.

26. Jonathan said the following at 11:45 AM on Nov 7:

i agree with simon, what point are you trying to make. yes islamic terrorist exsist, but there are also a lot of peaceful islamic people also. The extremist base their action on thier interpretation of islam.

to be fair lets go back to all of the crazy people in history who killed because "god told them too" and call it christian murder.

doesnt seem right does it?

I respect your opinion, but this post is very pointless.

27. Renee said the following at 12:46 PM on Nov 7:

I could suggest a few things, Simon. First of all, stop allowing Muslim refugees and immigrants from entering this country, like they used to do with communists. Thousands of muslim refugees are resettled in this country every year. Watch for the very discontent somalis to be a problem soon.

Annika, in post 4. It's not hatred. But I suggest you read the whole Qu'ran (if you haven't already) and look at what it says, honestly, about the rest of the world. It's a book of really dangerous and evil ideas, when it comes to non-muslims.

28. Renee said the following at 12:47 PM on Nov 7:

And Motte.... I think it's silly for you to call it Islamic Terrorism. I think you should call it Islam. Because it is.

29. Jared said the following at 12:54 PM on Nov 7:

I served 4 years in the Marine infantry and one of my best friends and comrade was a muslim and he delt with the position he was in just fine. When people shout allahu akbar they were about to blow someone up or attack. You can't separate his religious views from this attack, its another case of extremism. What should we do? Just have a healthy suspicion. But I don't think as Christians we should persecute them. Just be realistic in loving way.
thats my 2 cents

30. Carl said the following at 1:09 PM on Nov 7:

I would go further and call him a "True Follower of Islam".

Those 'peaceful' Muslims are the hypocrites of the religion, as are racists who wave the banner of Christianity. Consistency is key.

31. obewan said the following at 2:44 PM on Nov 7:

#1, 2, & 4: I agree with you guys. It does not do much good to scream “terrorist” without offering some constructive advice or potential solutions. And, I tend to think more of him more as a person with some serious mental health issues of his own rather than a terrorist.

I mean, did he act on his own or was he following orders from his cell leader? What organization was he aligned with?

The facts so far seem to suggest that he was a person with conflicts. He did sign up for the U.S. military as have many other Muslims, and this led to his current conflict of emotions.

But besides agitating others, what can we do about this situation? Is Motte suggesting we should intern as POW's all American Muslims like we did all those Japanese Americans in WWII? Don't forget, we have many loyal Muslims who are serving our military as liaisons and translators. We are in desperate need of their loyal service to help end this conflict. And the danger with ANY military person with access to a gun is we do not know and can never predict when they will just “snap” and kill fellow soldiers. It happened a lot in Viet Nam even.

And, we have had several non-Muslim soldiers freak out during this current conflict and murder others in Iraq. Where is the same “outrage” over their “status”?

Murder is murder. It does not undo the evil by spreading yet more hatred. Maybe that is why we have heard “less” from the so-called “liberal” press about his “faith” issues.

32. Leigh said the following at 3:40 PM on Nov 7:

I wish that Americans would take time to read about, understand and talk with a muslim. I find their religion very scary. People might be suprised at what they find. And maybe this isn't the time or place to say it, but I just cant stand it anymore.

My GOD and their allah are NOT the same GOD!!!!

Their god says die and send your sons to die in my name and you will gain eternal life..

MY GOD.. sent HIS SON to DIE for ME so that I will gain eternal life!

Yewah is NOT allah....

Leigh

33. BDB said the following at 4:05 PM on Nov 7:

Hmmm...the Ft. Hood incident has the hallmarks of both ideology AND workplace violence.

Unlike a terrorist cell focused on creating the maximum civilian casualties, this guy seemed to be talking to an awful lot of people.

The WSJ has found a career setback for this guy from the local Muslim center, which apparently declined his reqest to be the leader of the Fort Muslim community. One guy at least felt something was wrong with him. Article is here. It seems that the guy who recommended against putting him into leadership is both Muslim and a Gulf War vet.

There's an awful lot of violence committed by men in the middle of divorce, too, like the shooting in Orlando. In that incident, the shooter seemed to blame is former employer, hence choosing fellow employees as targets, just as in Ft. Hood.

Neither case appears to be driven solely by ideology, but by a combination of factors. Personally, I wish the press would find a way to describe these guys as something besides an unmarried quiet guy who kept to himself...

In any case, from a deterrent standpoint, the onus on us all is to speak up when someone starts talking about using violence to solve problems. While I can't prove how many incidents are prevented by people challenging someone's advocacy of violence, I wonder if it would have caused the Columbine and Virginia Tech shooters to re-think what they were doing.

34. Melisssa S. said the following at 4:09 PM on Nov 7:

#2 Simon from Texas- Check out actforamerica.org

#4 Annika- "extreme hatred"? Really?

35. Eve said the following at 6:37 PM on Nov 7:

Islamic terrorism is such a broad term. I get tired of Americans lumping different groups together under the heading, "Islamic Terrorism."

A terrorist, by definition, is someone who employs "the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear." I would emphasize the fact that terrorism is used to achieve a goal.

When Motte talks about "Islamic terrorism," it frustrates me because "Islamic terrorist" is not always synonymous with "Muslims living here who want to kill Americans in the name of Jihad." Hamas and Hezbollah have been called terrorist groups, but their goal is not to "kill Americans." Their goal is to establish a Palestinian state.

Using "Islamic terrorists" to specifically mean 'Muslims who want to kill Americans' is inaccurate and slanderous. Not all terrorists have the same motive. I am not just saying that to be politically correct. Lumping terrorist organizations together without a real understanding of their motives only clouds the picture and makes it difficult to respond to their threats.

Nidal Malik Hasan may have a religious reason for what he did. However, at this point, it is just conjecture.

If he is a random gunman with personal issues and no political purpose, then he is a lone gunman, not a terrorist. If he has a political purpose, but is not affiliated with a terrorist organization, he may merely be a fanatic. After all, Timothy McVeigh bombed Oklahoma City to get back "the biggest bully in the world, the U.S. government." (http://www.rickross.com/reference/mcveigh/mcveigh6.html)

Motte, you say you don't want to speculate and that conjure about motives may be unwise. If you think this, then you shouldn't speculate.

It is not a media conspiracy or political correctness that causes Americans to, "[ignore] the obvious" and be, "unwilling to face the fact that there are Muslims living here who want to kill Americans in the name of Jihad."

Americans don't want to take time to understand issues. They want to be entertained, so our media entertains us.

36. NathanaelN said the following at 7:25 PM on Nov 7:

It is really interesting to watch what is happening in the US and the world overall. At times, it is like seeing a train zoom down the tracks when you know that the tracks are out ahead. What will we remember in 20 years about what we are seeing now?

I do not know for sure what it was like for the people of Germany and Europe as Hilter rose to power, but I doubt many people understoond where it was all going.

Many people, including myself, are feeling our hearts stirred to dig deep into the Bible, get our lives where they need to be with Jesus, and to stay alert.

Many things are shifting around us. I believe that it is all going somewhere and fast. The days of unlimited Christian liberties and comfortable Christianity in the US are limited.

The good news is that believers in Jesus will get a chance to shine like never before. Recently, I overheard a coworker relating how a police officer in his neighborhood had his car broken into one night. The officer moved alway shortly thereafter. The coworker telling the story ended by saying, "I guess that he did not want to live in a war zone". As believers in the US, I think that we have gotten very comfortable, but the reality is that we are living a spiritual war zone. Time to armor up!

37. Michelle Castle said the following at 10:11 PM on Nov 7:

Wow. I am deeply saddened by your post. Your initial reaction to the news of the shooting - that Hasan was motivated by religion - is nothing but an assumption. For you to express such bias on your personal blog would be disheartening. But for Boundless to allow you to post it on here is deeply troubling.

Hasan may have been motivated by his religion, but he may also have over-reacted to the years of harrassment and disrespect he perceived he was a victim of. No one has suggested the later motive excuses his actions. But assuming that he was motivated exclusively by religion is naive. I love Christ with all of my being, but not everything I do is motivated by my faith. I would like to always be motivated by Jesus, but the truth is I act out of my hurts, desires, and fears sometimes. Maybe Hasan did the same; maybe it wasn't motivated by his religion.

You need to wait for the facts to be revealed.

38. Texas Craig said the following at 10:39 PM on Nov 7:

There are Muslims in the world plotting to kill Americans. But, there are also plenty of non-Muslim Americans that plot to kill Americans. What about the man in Cleveland who killed all of those women and left their bodies in his house? What about the shooter in Orlando? There are plenty of crazy people who want to kill others. Some do it because of their religious extremism, some for other reasons.

What about the ordained minister who abducted the girl in California, or the church Sunday school teacher who killed the young girl and hid her body? How would you feel if secularists pointed out those two examples and said "we need to do something about those Christians!?"

I absolutely think our government needs to be aware of and track domestic terrorists. And, many of those may be Muslims. But, I also absolutely do not think there is any basis to paint all Muslims in general with a broad negative brush because of this incident, and I am not sure exactly what you are saying should be done. Do you have some specific suggestions?

39. bryce said the following at 11:13 PM on Nov 7:

The reporting of this incident on all sides has left me deeply dissapointed. There are thousands and thousands of articles focusing on the killer, and projecting his motives without having the details. There have been a comparatively few articles really honoring those who died, and honoring the bravery of the lady who took him out, after having been shot herself. We're giving the killer exactly the attention all mass murderers want. They *want* to be talked about for years after they're dead. They want to bring attention to whatever it is they feel is an injustice.

Why can't we ignore the people? Honor the dead and the brave. When facts are known, put together intelligent ways to combat Islamic terrorism. But don't post thousands of articles across the internet in honor of the killer. Please.

40. twilley said the following at 3:47 AM on Nov 8:

From what I'm reading, it seems Hasan acted alone, and no evidence of connection to any terrorist groups has been found on his computer. So he looks like one guy who felt unsure about how to handle combining his faith and his involvement in a violent war. Who went crazy one day.

People commit evil acts in the name of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism... I think what this story says to me is that religion can be used for evil or for good, no matter which religion it is. Making it a tool instead of celebrating it for what it is... can this ever be right in and of itself?

41. Masouda said the following at 4:48 AM on Nov 8:

maybe one of the things that America can do is have better understanding of other cultures aside from its own and accept there is a difference and be tolerant with it. I am sorry for the people who were murdered and their families as no one should experience that. However, how would you feel day in, day out, about solders coming and telling you horror stories of all the crimes they committed as a solder, which was supported by high in chain of your command in a war that was based on lies and they were sending you to assist in that act. To add to it you were bullied in the workplace and harassed for your background??? it is no reason for killing any one but stress of death and murder and being a witness as he was to it must have pushed him over the edge as has happened by so many American employees and solders who have taken their own lives and others. Look for eg the Vietnam Vets, more have committed suicide then had died in that war...there was a reason why...

42. Clay said the following at 6:22 AM on Nov 8:

This is a good word, Motte. I've been thinking the same thing!

43. Megan said the following at 8:13 AM on Nov 8:

FOX has reported several times that there is a possibility Hasan acted in the name of Allah.

While Islam is "said" to not promote terrorism, it does tell the followers of Allah and Muhammed to kill those who deflect the faith. Here's what concerns me: could this growing fear of Islam bleed over into a fear of all religions, mainly Christianity? While Christians do not truthfully act violently in the name of God or Jesus, why would the world believe we wouldn't?

44. Will said the following at 12:51 PM on Nov 8:

We fight Islamic terrorism (as well as the other variants) wherever we find it. Sometimes we'll win, sometimes we'll lose.

That's war for ya.

45. Becky said the following at 4:32 PM on Nov 8:

My husband is a Major in the Army and after 12 years is getting out because he is so disgruntled, unhappy and just flat out annoyed and angry with the Army. Yes this soldier yelled "Allah Akbur" but that is no different than yelling out "Praise God". Looking from the inside out rather than the outside in I truly believe that this was really a soldier that had just had it with being mistreated and snapped. It's not the first time that a soldier has lost it and taken it out on fellow soldiers.

46. christine said the following at 8:43 PM on Nov 8:

legitimate causes of stress: not wanting to be deployed, discrimination

signs of being mentally unstable: comparing suicide bombers to guys who save people by jumping on grenades, shooting 13 people out of the blue

He could be a muslim without terrorist motives.

Here's the crux of your argument:
"But I can't help but think that ignoring the obvious is reflective of a society still unwilling to face the fact that there are Muslims living here who want to kill Americans in the name of Jihad."

Don't fear Muslims. Fear God.

There are Americans who are living in America that want to kill Americans. it happens every day. you can change the colour of their skin or their motives but you've got the same problem - the enemy isn't muslims, it's our heart.

There are messed up people that could "go nuts" and shoot up the place. We've seen it in white people, too, let's not forget.

Maybe the guy was a terrorist, but what does that mean? That every muslim is a terrorist? Remember who we're fighting, as Christians. It's not Muslims.

For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. eph. 6.12

47. Leah said the following at 10:05 PM on Nov 8:

I don't think it was terrorism. Just because a Muslim kills someone doesn't mean it is terrorism. From the reports I've heard, he just hated the fact that America was in Iraq, Afghanistan etc.

Ever since 2001 people have abused the word 'terrorism' far too much.

Annika - "By which I hope you mean terrorism committed in the name of Islam." ...what else would it mean??

Also... please show me one place where Boundless has exhibited "extreme hatred" towards a Muslim.

48. Alex C. said the following at 10:55 PM on Nov 8:

Replying to post #5.

As someone who can relate to stuff like this personaly, I find it annoying how some people try to downplay issues like bullying as if they have no importance at all to these situations. No, I'm not saying that bullying excuses murder, but at the same time I don't think we should just pretend that there was nothing wrong with the way this man was treated, or that we shouldn't consider doing something about it in the future.

*IF* what I've been reading about this situation is true (the man being harrassed because of his religious beliefs, his attempting to leave the army because of it and being denied) then it seems that this event may have exposed some problems in the military with how soldiers are treating eachother, problems that should probably be addressed.

49. Rose said the following at 1:18 AM on Nov 9:

Amen rushncap...it's much more important how we respond than whether or not this was an act of terrorism. How can we bring the love of Christ into this situation for families of both murdered and murderer?

50. Callie said the following at 4:30 AM on Nov 9:

Thank you for this, Motte. As someone who lives in the Middle East, I'm shocked by how decieved Americans have become considering Muslim Terrorist networks and the violent spirit attached to Islam. They are real and they are still opporating today.

51. Aeryn said the following at 8:25 AM on Nov 9:

This is interesting. Motte, are you saying that all workplace violence committed by religious people is necessarily terrorism? Suppose one of your FOTF coworkers gets laid off, and unbeknownst to you, they had some mental illness issues. Losing their insurance coverage also means losing their prescription drugs. Now suppose they show up with a TEC-9 and shoot you or other co-workers. Is that Christian terrorism? If someone with my beliefs starts shooting co-workers, does that make it agnostic terrorism? (Suppose they shouted, "I just don't know!" beforehand.) I'm honestly curious -- what makes it religious terrorism, other than your bias against other religions? (Meaning bias in the descriptive, not pejorative, sense.)

52. rachel said the following at 8:34 AM on Nov 9:

I agree with #1, Jethro. It's unwise to speculate about motives now. The truth will come out soon enough.

53. Anonymous said the following at 8:47 AM on Nov 9:

I think it is unwise to assume this. As a member of the military family, I can tell you that bases are NOT secure like people think they are, and if Hassan had wanted to pull of a full-scale terror attack it would have been unbelieveably easy--they never check your car or the contents thereof when going on base, and anyone can go on if they have a liscense and/or a 'visitor's pass' which you get with a driver liscense. You are not even required to have a military ID on most bases.

That said, I do not think this was a terror attack. I think it was an act of agression and a statement about the government's current stance on the wars in Iraq/Afghanistan; Hassan offered to serve in Afghanistan but blatantly opposed the war in Iraq and his request was denied. He attacked a very specific section of base, the section associated with those wars. He counseled soldiers coming back from Iraq and heard their stories. I'm sure there was a little bit of tension with Islam for him, but I think the majority of it came from other sources--his frustration with the military, with the president's decision about the wars overseas, his overwhelming fear of Iraq and working with tons of people with PTSD, and yes, maybe a little bit of religious tension.

I also would like to see a link to where it was confirmed he yelled 'Glory to God' when he attacked. Last I read that was not confirmed and they were unsure if the links online were his or not. However, that was a day or two ago, so it may have changed. Can someone post a link if that is the case?

54. Samantha said the following at 10:28 AM on Nov 9:

Leigh (31) that is incredibly true. I wish more people realized this.

55. Chris said the following at 10:40 AM on Nov 9:

Some very interesting comments on this topic.

I see a lot of people taking issue with the poster's claims. They are advising caution and waiting for the truth to come out. Others are asking the honest question of how should we respond. Others caution us against automatically assuming it was religiously based or painting all Muslims with a broad brush. Mental health issues have also been raised.

This gives me hope. Even if this incident is in no way related to terrorism, you can bet terrorists will be watching. They want us to react in an emotional way; responding to this crisis with cool and calm, methodically investigating the shooting, and then responding in an appropriate, level-headed way is exactly what they don't want.

However, I also see people responding with fear and ignorance. This is exactly what they do want.

56. Carl said the following at 11:58 AM on Nov 9:

Good, clear thinking, Samantha (53) and Leigh (31).

57. Meghan said the following at 12:36 PM on Nov 9:

Of course it's terrorism. Terrorism is violence for the sake of violence and spreading fear, whoever causes it. Terrorism is not exclusive to Muslims, nor is it absolute in all Muslims. And you offer no suggestions but that we become suspicious of our Muslim neighbors. This sort of talk seems reminiscent of Americans rounding up Japanese during WWII and herding them all to camps-- lumping innocent people together with guilty by an external factor.

Above someone commented that this fear of Islam could lead to a growing fear of all religions, including Christianity-- how ironic that Christians are at the front lines to start that fear, when God tells us we do not need to fear.

Anyone with a blog can cause a controversy with a few words. With no suggested constructive course of action, it seems the point of this post is just to stir up distrust of, as you've showed us, those with a certain kind of name. As a Christian, making that kind of blanket judgment is something I just can't do.

58. Todd said the following at 12:37 PM on Nov 9:

From ABC News today...
U.S. intelligence agencies were aware months ago that Army Major Nidal Malik 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

59. Michael said the following at 12:47 PM on Nov 9:

I don't know if it necessarily *was* Islamic terrorism. Hasan was an army psychiatrist, and I know someone who was actually a patient of his back at Walter Reed.

60. DannieA said the following at 12:51 PM on Nov 9:

What if this guy had some mental disorder?

Not to bash the army, but they seem to be really lax these days in who they let in.

My co-worker has a son that joined that marines...however, his recruiter did many things to "hide his overnight stay in jail" and to downplay his mental health issues so he could get into the marines.
Luckily my co-workers' son snapped and begged the psychologist on the base to check into his past medications and let him off....finally he was let off...thank goodness because with his past background, past medications, he was going to have access to GUNS??????

Does that sound right to you? I know we need recruits but sometimes I think recruiters go to extra lengths to get them without regard for possible mental health breakdowns.

61. Aeryn said the following at 1:25 PM on Nov 9:

DannieA (#59): A young man of my acquaintance who was three times arrested for domestic violence (against his MOTHER) and spent ages 12 to 18 on psychiatric medication....won Cadet of the Cycle after a recruiter helped him hide his background. Luckily he is an inactive (I think that's the right term) Mormon, so if (when?) he snaps, it'll just be a tragedy, not (Religious Minority) Terrorism.

62. Craig M. said the following at 1:50 PM on Nov 9:

You appeasers are out of your minds. This guy attended a radical mosque, screamed "God is Great" while killing, tried to contact Al-Qaeda, refused to be photographed with women, told Army colleagues that "infidels" should have their throats cut, and praised suicide bombers who killed American troops overseas. And you want to pretend that enveloping radical Islamists in love will somehow sway their minds. You stick your head in the sand with your fingers in your ears while you yell "PTSD" repeatedly as loud as you can--even though the guy had never deployed. Your willful blindness is pathetic, and will result in the end in millions being killed instead of hundreds or thousands. Read up on the 1930's, folks, and then on nuclear proliferation, A.Q. Khan, Pakistan, and Iran.

"It's comments like yours that promote so much hate, Motte." You can almost hear the whiny voice. What hate? Last I checked the victims of hate score in the Army was Non-Muslims 13, Muslims 0. Army officials were so afraid of being accused of "hate" that they chose to ignore and pass over obvious, OBVIOUS signs of danger from this guy. And now 12 soldiers and a policeman are dead. Their lives are snuffed out, never to be recovered. Fathers, mothers, wives, husbands, sons and daughters will be forever without these lost souls--families are damaged forever. And you don't care--you have more compassion for the imaginary victims of anti-Muslim "hate" than for the real victims being laid in the ground this week, because having a politically correct attitude and lecturing Motte on "love" makes you feel just oh so righteous.

I say again. You self-hating appeasers are pathetic.

63. twilley said the following at 2:32 PM on Nov 9:

Craig M., #61:

I think you should take a second look at what you are writing.

"And you want to pretend that enveloping radical Islamists in love will somehow sway their minds."

What other job does the Christian have? Does not loving all people constitute the entire law of God as described in the Bible? What else but love will have a lasting effect on healing the pain which causes this kind of violence?

64. Melissa S. said the following at 3:20 PM on Nov 9:

Callie, Jacob M., Craig M., and several others...thank-you for your honest and INFORMED comments.

A lot of commenters on here seem to be scared and derisive about all the supposed fear that Christians and others are digging up about Muslims, as if that were the real problem here.

It scares me to see so many of these responses, and others like them, who have no idea what America and the world have been facing from Islam, and will continue to face in the decades to come.

But they get all their news from biased TV networks and newspapers, so it can be a challenge. Wake up, people! Start reading first-hand sources about Islam and Muslims- things written by people who are actually in the Middle East or grew up there. Read from people who specialize in keeping tabs on Islam and Muslims in the world. Maybe even read the Koran and Hadith and get some first hand info. But relying on second-hand information from reporters in the USA who are sold out to their politically correct business isn't gonna cut it. Seriously, it makes you look really ignorant.

Before 9/11, most peoople didn't have much awareness of Muslim plans for the USA or the rest of the world, and while many people do know what we're up against now, the amount of lies and propaganda that most people still believe about Islam is appalling.

65. Ryan said the following at 3:54 PM on Nov 9:

Craig M. (#62)--

"And you don't care--you have more compassion for the imaginary victims of anti-Muslim "hate" than for the real victims being laid in the ground this week, because having a politically correct attitude and lecturing Motte on "love" makes you feel just oh so righteous."

I LOVE you... thanks. I'm so tired of Christians being ignorant. You and Motte and others who don't stick their heads in the sand truly have mad my day when it could have been dicouraging reading people lecture Motte.

66. Chris said the following at 4:04 PM on Nov 9:

Melissa S writes (#64):

Of course, because such things are never biased.....

67. Nate said the following at 4:08 PM on Nov 9:

Lots of opinions thrown about here, so here's mine:

The kind of radical Islam that a lot of posters here are referring to is real, yes. And it's definitely sanctioned in the Qur'an. No doubt about that. The Qur'an is a corrupt piece of "literature" that contains grammatical and historical mistakes that--speaking as a linguist and text analyst--was clearly conceived by a power-hungry misogynist. And there are those who take it at face value.

(And let me just insert here: Please don't go comparing Christian to Muslim terrorists. The former misinterpret the Bible to suit their own agenda, while the latter are dead-on with their exegesis. Anyone who says otherwise either hasn't read the Bible or the Qur'an or is a severely sub-par exegete.)

But those who really follow the Qur'an are the minority in my experience. Most Muslims have never read it, don't think they're capable of it, and only know what their clergy tell them. Why? Because a Qur'an that isn't in Arabic isn't really the Qur'an, so most of them don't bother. As a result, a lot of Muslims don't really know what the Qur'an teaches.

I guess what I'm saying is that to paint Muslims in broad strokes is inaccurate at best. Qur'anic Islam you can characterize objectively, but the practice of it varies really widely.

That said, it sure looks like Hasan was one of the guys who took the Qur'an at least half-way seriously. But like I said, that's just my opinion.

68. Leah said the following at 5:44 PM on Nov 9:

Melissa S - while other people's comments might make them look really ignorant, your comment makes you look scared and biased.

My understanding on Muslims comes from having read bits of the Koran, listened to lectures by Muslims-turned-Christians, listened to lectures by Christians who specialise in Muslim evangelism, and listening to Christians who have Muslims for friends, and having visisted a mosque and listened to a lecture by a member of Muslim clergy.

I'm no expert on Islam but I do feel I have more than just your average what-the-news-reports understanding of the religion. I know that the Koran evolves from beginning to end - because when Mohammed started writing it, he was an oppressed individual with very few followers who tried to keep a low profile, and by the time he finished the book he was extremely powerful with thousands of followers and no longer had anyone to oppose his violent regime. He didn't have to keep his policies or theology secret. I also know Muslims are never guaranteed entrance to "Heaven" and just have to hope that when they die Allah will be pleased with how well they've kept the five tenets. This is why the fundamentalists who actually take the Koran to heart want to take out as many infidels as possible. And the Koran definitely advocates violent jihad (not the peaceful inner "struggle" that so many modern Muslims suggest the Koran really teaches). It explicitly says to kill the infidel.
But I also know most Muslims like to ignore those parts of the Koran (if they have even read those parts for themselves). They pretend (and live by the belief that) Jihad is just a moral struggle and that Islam would never advocate killing innocent women and children.

We should not be ignoring the fundamental Muslims who pose a real threat out of fear of being called hateful or racist (even though Islam is not a race, people like to call anti-Muslims "racist"). But this doesn't mean we should be painting all Muslims with the same broad brush strokes.

69. A.M.C. said the following at 6:16 PM on Nov 9:

While I hate to sound facetious, here's my take on the issue:

This is yet another reason why Christian evangelism is so important-- for the sake of national security. (Obviously, because the U.S. government has to be officially religiously neutral, this has to be done through the private sector.)

70. Melissa S. said the following at 7:08 PM on Nov 9:

"Melissa S writes (#64):

Of course, because such things are never biased....."

Chris #66- Meaning? Are you trying to insinuate that first-hand sources are inferior or equal to the major news outlets in the USA? Of course, first-hand sources CAN be biased,but the ones I'm talking about are not paralyzed with the cowardly political correctness that infects a lot of governments and business establishments. And I notice you cut out the next couple sentences I wrote about perhaps reading the Koran and Hadith. The point is to find some real info from real sources, not to just read the popular political correct junk that everyone regurgitates ad nauseum.

The first-hand sources I'm talking about come from people who are literally risking death to speak the truth about Islam. They're telling stories that most people haven't heard. These people know what they're talking about- they're sounding the alarm and telling us to wake up before it's too late. And they aren't scared to death by political correctness. They've lived under Islam or witnessed things that make them willing to speak the truth at all costs.

If you want to equate whatever their bias is to the typical bias you'll find in a lot of news/propaganda outlets in the civilized and non-civilized world, go ahead.

Besides, even though all sources will have some sort of bias, isn't it a basic rule of research and fact-finding to start with primary sources?

71. Samaria said the following at 7:10 PM on Nov 9:

Somehow, I think many of you commenting on this post need to replace "Muslim" with any ethnic minority of your own choice - or replace "Muslim" with "Jewish", because perhaps that will elicit a more honest response - and reread your comments. The attitude that many of you all have toward Muslims (I'm talking about normal, everyday Americans who worship Allah, by the way) would be considered racist, vulgar, and ultimately un-American if it were applied to, say, blacks. Just because somebody doesn't worship your version of an infinite, supreme being does not entitle you to, as Jacob 22 put it, "not to allow Islam in non-Muslim countries." That goes against an American's right (American meaning anyone who is legally a citizen of the country, since that will come up) to worshipping Who s/he pleases. Christians - the religiously conservative ones, especially - will never know true persecution here in the States, because there is simply too many of them. Safety in numbers and all of that. You guys are spoiled rotten and woefully ignorant of any genuine discrimination, and that is a shame.

Maybe the self-righteous, bigoted, hostile attitude would be put into check if you guys were thrown into some Middle Eastern boondocks and given the same treatment you guys give Muslims, albeit behind a facade of Loving Thy Neighbor.

My best friend is Muslim and no doubt she is appalled by Muslim extremists. In fact, I know she is, because we've had long conversations about it. Amina is the sweetest, most generous, kindest person I know; she puts many Christians I know to complete shame. Her heart is pure toward those she fundamentally disagrees with (including yours truly!), which is more than I can say for a lot of y'all.

This doctor prescribes a large, daily dose of a change of heart, ASAP.

72. Craig M. said the following at 9:37 PM on Nov 9:

Twilley--I'd refer you to C.S. Lewis' comments about what it means to truly love your neighbor as yourself. He notes that it does NOT mean "thinking myself a swell fellow" or something similar. He notes that it DOES mean wanting the best for a person's soul, as we do for our own. He points out that if we had committed a very great crime, we might well correctly think that love for ourself--for our soul-- might mean that we know we ought to turn ourself into the police and be hanged.

Love for the terrorist means killing him before he can corrupt his soul any further, or destroy any more innocent lives. That is the best we can offer his soul. If I knew I would twist myself into a heartless murderer of unarmed innocents, I would want a good man to kill me before it came to pass.

And if you think that every evil person will be swayed from his path by your sympathy, you are deluding yourself. History refutes you. Were there no loving Christians in Nazi Germany, in Stalinist Russia, in Nero's Rome? Of course there were. Their love did nothing to sway those who had placed themselves beyond reason or repentance.

73. JB said the following at 9:42 PM on Nov 9:

Nate #67,

I have a problem in general with the idea that people outside of a particular religious tradition can claim to authoritatively interpret what a religious text "means." As Christians, we know well that people who want to misinterpret the Bible can find grounds to do so. There are plenty of people who will tell you that Christianity is a bloody religion and will make reference to stories of child sacrifice and genocide in the history of Israel as evidence that we have a morally depraved faith. They can easily back up that contention with illustrations from the history of Christianity. I think if we're honest, we can see how someone might come to that conclusion, but when *we* read the Bible and hear the living Word of God, we can clearly see how utterly mistaken those people are. The Bible *could be* read as a book about war and slaughter but in fact it speaks of God's boundless love. That is the essence of Christianity and people who murder others in God's name are not Christians at all.

If atheists can be that profoundly mistaken about how to read the Bible, isn't it also likely that non-Muslims can be very wrong about how to read the Quran? When Christians say that Muslim terrorists are the true representatives of Islam, is that really any different from Richard Dawkins arguing that the bloodiest episodes of the Crusades represent authentic Christianity?

And, even if we could read the Quran and come to some objectively true conclusions about its teachings on the subject of violence, why should we want to help the radicals further marginalize moderate Muslims? As it happens, I live with two Muslim roommates who are great people and who could not be more appalled by the violence that is perpetrated in the name of their religion. Even if I thought that they were misinterpreting their Quran, why would I want to do anything to convince them or anyone else that this is so? If non-Muslims can have any legitimate advocacy in the realm of Quranic interpretation (and I don't think we do), why wouldn't we advocate in favor of peace?

I think the commentators above who are so vociferous in their condemnation of Islam are wrong in (a) assuming that they have any ability to authoritatively interpret Muslim thought and (b) in choosing to privilege the worst possible interpretation of that faith.

74. Eugene said the following at 7:05 AM on Nov 10:

from wikipedia (not the MOST reputable source but trustworthy nonetheless) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_terrorism

"However, the interpretation of Al-Qaeda and the Taleban has been condemned by influential group of Pakistani scholars and religious leaders, who declared that suicide attacks and beheadings as un-Islamic in a unanimous resolution. See #View of Muslim Clerics.

Marmaduke Pickthall, a Western convert to Islam and an Islamic scholar notes that “Nowhere does the Qur’an approve a spirit of revenge” [41] and situates verse 2:194 in the context of a defensive war.

Ibn Kathir stated that the Quran clearly commands believers to prefer forgiveness over retaliation wherever possible.[42]

Michael Sells and Jane I. Smith (a Professor of Islamic Studies) write that barring some extremists like Al-Qaeda, most Muslims do not interpret Qura’nic verses as promoting warfare; and that the phenomenon of radical interpretation of scripture by extremist groups is not unique to Islam."[43].[44] According to Sells, "[Most Muslims] no more expect to apply [the verses at issue] to their contemporary non-Muslim friends and neighbors than most Christians and Jews consider themselves commanded by God, like the Biblical Joshua, to exterminate the infidels."[43]"

to Nate:

A corrupt piece of literature? Most Muslim's have never read the Qu'ran? "The former misinterpret the Bible to suit their own agenda, while the latter are dead-on with their exegesis?"

Seriously? The MAJORITY of Muslim's I've met are devout and 'god-fearing' individuals. They are a lot about their religion and for the most part take it very seriously. I would go even as far to say that the majority of people who say they are 'Christian' (but don't practice) and less devout than the majority of Muslim's I meet.

And not one has ever 'praised' or agreed with the idea of Islamic Terrorism. In fact they condemn the acts and totally agree that these people are taking the Qu'ran and misintepreting the text in their own context. The official 'Muslim' body in the states and around the world condemn such actions for a reason, but again, like always, a small group of people ruin it for the masses.

Dare we say the same for the actions of our own religion and the atrocities that people commit in the 'name of Christ' or in association with the Church? gay-bashing? pedophilia? murders related to issues of abortion?

Muslims are NOT that different from us. And until this stereotype is dropped we cannot, and will not be able to effecitvely evangalize and love a group of people that has been totally outcast/centered out by western society.

This 'blog post' does nothing more but provide prejudice to a situation without any actionable results. Perhaps a call to prayer for our Muslim friends in this nation? To reach and find out more about the Muslim faith so we can better understand it and in turn understand Muslims around the world? Put ourselves in THEIR shoes to see what it would be like if this nation was founded on 'Islamic' values and Christians were perceived in this way?

We need to do more helping than judging. Myself included.

And that's just my opinion.

75. Bobbie said the following at 8:11 AM on Nov 10:

The fact is that we have gone aside from our Christian morals and stopped being a praying nation, God has given us over to our own deceits and laciviousness. We need to get back to God and pray for forgiveness and go back to our christian roots as a country and God will hear from heaven and heal our country. Otherwise I fear that we will go the way of other peoples in the Bible who forgot to fear God.

76. Craig M. said the following at 9:52 AM on Nov 10:

Again, none of you who want to focus on how bad Motte is have a word to say about the 13 people who are dead this week.

And Samaria, Islam is a religion, not a race. Religions have certain core beliefs. Of course many Muslims are wonderful people; I served in Iraq and liked many of the Iraqis I met. But it is simply undeniable that the aggressive, expansionist, violent, Sharia interpretation of Islam is a MAINSTREAM body of thought in the Islamic world. I'm a First Amendment absolutist, so of course I'm not in favor of suppression of religious belief. But you're kidding yourself if you don't think there are tens of millions of Muslims who sympathize with violent Jihad to expand the Umma.

77. Nate said the following at 12:26 PM on Nov 10:

JB (#73):

You're right, I'm in complete agreement with you about not trying to push the underlying meaning of the Qur'an on moderates. I also agree that it's very possible for people of any stripe to misread the Qur'an or any other book.

I guess my point is, when you're analyzing a text sometimes there's content that can go either way (e.g., from the Bible, baptism by sprinkling or immersion--doesn't really prescribe or proscribe either), and then there's stuff that's pretty black-and-white (like "You shall not murder"). And some of the black-and-white stuff in the Qur'an isn't pretty. Not all by any means, but a nice chunk.

Here's the thing though: I refuse to allow room for Reader-Response Criticism of texts, the kind that Fish pushes, where the reader gets to derive any meaning he likes from a text. You simply can't read a text to conduct exegesis that way--it's got to be based on authorial intent. So yeah, moderate Muslims will read the Qur'an and interpret it more softly than, say, a Bin Laden. I've no quarrel with that. I'm all for it. But again, when you look at what Mohammed intended, it ain't pretty.

Leah (#68):

Not trying to call you out, but Mohammed didn't write the Qur'an. He was (supposedly) illiterate, although I doubt that a merchant was completely unable read anything at all. It was compiled in bits and pieces from different sources (reciters, leaves, stones, etc.) years and years after his death, and there were a lot of different versions of it, with a lot of variants, until a standard version was set and (most of) the rest were gotten rid of. But you're definitely right, you can see the evolution in his thinking as you track it chronologically.

Eugene (#74):

Yep, serious about all three. Look into it for yourself.

Not arguing that a lot of Muslims don't take their religion more seriously than a lot of Christians. You probably would too if you thought you had to work your way into heaven. You're also right that most Muslims will disavow justifications for terrorism based on the Qur'an. I'm all for it. (Though I'm not sure what you're referring to when you say "the official 'Muslim' body in the states [sic.] and around the world condemn such actions"--CLAIR? If so, I'm also not sure what else they would do. Celebrate it? Might not be such a smart idea.)

Like I said, some people will try to use the Bible to back up acts of terrorism by Christians--not saying that doesn't happen. But trying to draw a comparison between that and terrorism by Muslims is fallacious because the texts are fundamentally different. I'll say this again: If you (generically speaking, I'm not trying to pick on you bro) think the basic messages of the Bible and the Qur'an are the same, you're profoundly mistaken. And by extension, I'll agree that in a lot of cases Muslims aren't that different from "Christians" who think your good deeds need to outweigh the bad for St. Peter to open the pearly gates (to play off the cultural stereotypes). But a true follower of Islam and a true follower of Christ are completely different.

I agree with you--I wish more people were praying for their Muslim neighbors. I also agree with what was said earlier about needing to love Muslims--especially the ones who wish believers harm. And I also agree that there are a lot of really kind, generous, wonderful people who call themselves Muslims out there. Growing up in a Muslim area of West Africa and South Asia will do that to a fellow. I'm not trying to bash Muslims. But I stand by what I said that the Qur'an is corrupt. Maybe I just should've been more clear in drawing the line between the religion and the varying expressions of it. I apologize for that.

78. Cherith said the following at 1:00 PM on Nov 10:

In this topic - I'm amazed at some of the incredible statements made by people. The only reason why we are concerned about Muslims is because they have a religion in which they have 'holy war'! When other 'snap' and kill people it's different because mentally they 'snapped' they weren't raised being taught to kill people who don't believe the same as them.

In this topic I'd love to make mention of Rifqa Bary and ask people to pray for her as she is a Muslim convert to Christianity. Her life has been threatened.
http://www.rifqabary.com/index.html

79. Zusanne said the following at 1:31 PM on Nov 10:

As more news about the shooter trickles out, many of our questions and suppositions have been addressed.

It's true that hindsight is 20/20. If all the pieces had been put together a week ago, this incident wouldn't have taken place. This man was an obvious threat. But too many loose, little pieces in an environment and a time in which we have to be so careful about being too offensive, and we have another tragedy.

What I found interesting was that Hasan was known by many to consider himself to be Muslim first and an American second. This is a particular point of view espoused by many (notice, not all, even though this is what the Koran teaches) of the Muslim faith that their first loyalty is their tradition; all other affiliations (nation, family) are secondary. For a person with this mindset to be a member of the US military is troubling. The US has thousands of Muslims who serve their country honorably; I'm not criticizing their tradition, just a (in this case) damaging point of view.

Also interesting was the perspective of many of his students. Many were troubled by some of his comments but were afraid to report him because they didn't want to appear politically incorrect, especially since he's a member of a population group that at times commits--and takes credit for--murderous acts.

Samaria (#71) said, "Just because somebody doesn't worship your version of an infinite, supreme being does not entitle you to, as Jacob 22 put it, "not to allow Islam in non-Muslim countries." That goes against an American's right (American meaning anyone who is legally a citizen of the country, since that will come up) to worshipping Who s/he pleases. Christians - the religiously conservative ones, especially - will never know true persecution here in the States, because there is simply too many of them. Safety in numbers and all of that. You guys are spoiled rotten and woefully ignorant of any genuine discrimination, and that is a shame.

So many things, but I'll just take two:

1. There is NO place on this planet where Muslims can practice their faith in the way they choose with as much freedom as in the United States. Period. Even in our prisons, so many concessions have been made to honor their practice. Perfect system, no.
2. That same respect is NOT granted to people of other faiths in Muslim countries. In fact, much of the fighting that has gone on in that part of the world is people fighting for the supremacy of their particular brand of the Muslim faith.

80. Eve said the following at 2:19 PM on Nov 10:

Look, there is a group of individuals who are empty and go looking for purpose and find it in extremist groups. They feel alienated and belonging to a militant organization gives them purpose and a clear position. They enjoy the tight bond with other members of the group. It helps give them significance. "Common hatred for an outside group" furthers this feeling of belonging.

In fact, most of Muslim terrorists are educated, Middle class citizens. They do not belong to a planted terrorist cell. Instead, they became more extreme while studying abroad/living in a foreign country in which they felt alienated. In order to be more secure in their identity, they embraced an extreme form of Islam.

It is also interesting to note that groups like al-Qaeda don't really go recruit members. Instead, groups of people tend to evolve locally and are attracted to the "main hub."They then contact a well-known organization/"main hub" and express their willingness to act. (ex: the moroccans who bombed casablanca or the Hamburg cell)

Most people start off with one or two relationships with someone inside the extremist group. This friend is warm and welcoming. They get involved with this friend and get to know others in the group. The ideas of the group may be strange, but the sense of community appeals to people who feel alienated (a Muslim in the Military?). Gradually, the person will adopt the group's opinion as the group becomes the norm and everyone else is an outsider. The person pulls away from all other friends and influences. At this point, the person is fully committed to the group and is willing to kill or die for it. You can see this pattern in many social interactions. The difference is that militant groups, such as al-Qaeda, take it to an extreme level. The do not tolerate any compromise. Furthermore, they have access to the tools to achieve their goal.

(I am not excusing people who are extremist, I am trying to show you how they end up in such an extreme position).

Q. What does any of this have to do with this post about Islamic Terrorism?

A. Islam, when construed in a certain way, CAN be deadly. However, the religion is not the point...It is the cause of the group, but it is not what caused the group. In other words, Islam does not magically make people violent. Instead, the people who have the tendancy to be attracted to an extremist group are attracted to al-Qaeda. Salafism just happens to be the popular ideology for today.

However, one can find people with the same psychological profile in cults, Islam, Judaism, and even Christianity.

For further reading, I would suggest:

"Understanding Terror Networks" by Marc Sageman

and

"Terror in the Name of God" by Jessica Stern

81. Samaria said the following at 2:20 PM on Nov 10:

Craig 76, I do realize Islam is not a race; I was simply making a comparison. The attitude I've encountered on this blog by various people remind me distinctly of racism; I can easily draw parallels between Jacob's mentioned statement of disallowing Muslim practice in the States and other non-Muslim countries and the comments of decades past concerning black's role in American society and, for the more extreme, sending blacks "back to where they came from." (It also reminds me of how Irish Catholics were treated when they first arrived, but somehow I think this go-round is worse.) I also know that there are plenty of Muslims, both here and abroad, who wish harm to the rest of us. However, those millions are the exception, not the norm, and it's time that you and other Christians recognize that fact. It's also time for Americans, especially the Christians ones, to stop regarding Muslims as A Problem just because the said few are making trouble for everybody.

Zusanne 79, America may have freedom of religion in theory, but the fact that there are plenty of people - as demonstrated on this very blog on this very post! - seriously consider Islam to be a threat to America (while it's terrorism itself that is a threat, regardless of who it's done by) and regard Muslims with all of the hostility that comes with believing another group to be unAmerican tells a completely different story. Freedom of religion in America not only means that people are free to worship Who/What they please, but also that believers of other faiths purchase a lifelong membership to the Mind Your Own Business Club. Evangelize all you want, but don't do it without the other's permission. (Everyone understands the annoyance that comes on when Jehovah's Witnesses knock on your door. Same thing, only worse, because the Witnesses at least give you the option of ignoring them.) Until you and other Christians learn to fully respect Islam and Muslims with grace and dignity - meaning a Christian doesn't call their sacred literature corrupt, one doesn't sneer at their practices, our image of a terrorist does not bring to mind a Middle Eastern Muslim, etc. - than Muslims do not have full access to their First Amendment right. You're fooling yourself to believe otherwise.

The way I see it, it is a Christian's responsibility to reach out first. A Christian must be the first one to respect, the first one to understand, the first one to sympathize, the first one to love. Christians cannot reasonably expect the same from Muslims if we do not give it out; it's time to stop whining about this false sense of persecution, take the high road, and learn to live peaceably. The rest will follow.

Deal with the terrorists, nobody is saying that we shouldn't, but don't confuse the Muslim terrorists with the majority of Muslims, all right?

82. A Guy said the following at 2:21 PM on Nov 10:

I've seen several people comment that the shooter was "teased" or "bullied" (always careful, though, to say this doesn't justify what he did).

Baloney. He was a commissioned officer in the US Army, a major. No one "teases" or "bullies" a major, no one junior and certainly no one senior.

Hasan may have interpreted being warned about proselytizing or being given a bad performance review as "bullying," but it was nothing of the sort.

I'm also tired of people speculating that he was under combat stress. The man had yet to deploy to a war zone. More important, tens of thousands have deployed to war zones, and they do not come home and mow down a room full of their fellow soldiers.

We've learned more and more about this guy, and only the willfully blind will deny that he was not motivated by radical Islam.

83. twilley said the following at 2:26 PM on Nov 10:

Craig M.,

"Love for the terrorist means killing him before he can corrupt his soul any further"

This statement does not accord with the Bible, and I do not believe it is the way of God. There is a commandment against killing. It is not my place as a human to take human life. That is God's place. If I were to kill another believing that I was justified to do so by God, how would I be any better than the suicide bomber? What other names of types of sinners could we substitute for "terrorist" in this sentence?

You and I have widely different views of what Christianity is.

Am I the only one who wonders where the poster of this blog has disappeared to? Or any Boundless editors? He has certainly ignited a debate--I would like to hear what he has to say to some of the points raised in it.

84. Aeryn said the following at 2:53 PM on Nov 10:

#79: Are you saying that you consider yourself an American first and a Christian second? If not, why is it wrong for followers of other religions to maintain the same order of priority that you do?

85. DannieA said the following at 2:57 PM on Nov 10:

#82

maybe not combat stress....but if he had any form of mental health issues and then started feeding into ideologies, yeah then, I can expect him to snap and kill people.

I still think in these days, the armed forces are letting many people into the ranks that SHOULDN'T BE....there are just some people in this world that shouldn't be around guns and the more we find out that this could have been averted the more I'm convinced that we aren't doing a good job of screening people....see my first post in this thread.

86. Jethro said the following at 3:29 PM on Nov 10:

Bobbie (#75)

"The fact is that we have gone aside from our Christian morals and stopped being a praying nation, God has given us over to our own deceits and laciviousness."

Really?? A fact? Aren't facts provable? Can you prove this? It's a pretty outrageous claim!!

87. Craig M. said the following at 9:12 PM on Nov 10:

Samaria--on what are you basing your opinion that the Wahhabi/Takfiri/radical interpretation of Islam is an outlier? I'm not suggesting that every Muslim subscribes to these views, but they are mainstream views in the world of Islam. Any scholar of modern Islam can tell you that. They are as much at home in Muslim thought as Calvinism is in Christian thought. You don't have to believe it to be a Muslim/Christian, but a lot of Muslims/Christians do and you can't legitimately say that they are outside the community.

twilley--there is a command against "murder." Killing in many contexts is explicitly approved or ordered by God in the Old Testament. So that everyone knows where you're coming from, are you against the death penalty in all cases? Are you an ardent pacifist, against fighting any and all wars regardless of the cause? Would you choose not to kill a terrorist if he were about to detonate a bomb that will kill hundreds of innocent people?

88. John said the following at 9:51 PM on Nov 10:

Good article. There are Islamic extremists that reside in this country. Not only do they live here in the U.S. but they also train here. I live a couple miles from one of these 'training compounds' as they're called.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,494424,00.html

89. Samaria said the following at 2:48 PM on Nov 11:

Craig M,

That's just it - I haven't. It's just like you said: there are Calvinists Christians, but while they are mainstream in that they are part of the majority, Calvinists are by no mean the majority itself. One needs to be able to make and appreciate that distinction.

90. BDB said the following at 4:16 PM on Nov 11:

Eve (#80) wrote:

>>Look, there is a group of individuals who are empty and go looking for purpose and find it in extremist groups.<<

One of my professors wrote a book that explained the rise of Nazism called The End of Economic Man.

It's fascinating reading. But one key point is that the inner party and secret police apparatus DO tend to attract and promote those who are looking for a sense of significance they can't find in regular life. They join the party, pledge their loyalty, and in return reap respect and financial benefits.

There's also a chapter on this in his Autobiography Adventures of a Bystander. The chapter is "The Monster and the Lamb." Drucker describes how, the night before he fled Austria after the Nazi takeover, a Nazi party member who knew him came to visit at his house. This was 1933 - before the holocaust. But it was quite clear to Drucker that in normal life, this guy wouldn't be much of a success. But by pledging to serve the Party, they gave him more and more responsibility - after all, his membership card had "a very low number."

Much of The Federalist Papers includes a discussin of how people need an economic stake in "the system" to be willing to follow the law and not try to violently overthrow it. The common trait in both terrorists and workplace violence is that the individuals seem to reach a place where they feel that they have nothing to lose...

And I say this as a former co-worker's son was murdered on Monday. There seems to be no explanation - he was just installing cable and an ex-convict living in the house hit him with a hammer.

91. BDB said the following at 5:07 PM on Nov 11:

This Washington Post article should remove any doubt on the role of ideology in the Ft. Hood incident. Excerpt below from the WSJ article. There were warning signs:

As a Post news story, also yesterday, reported, one Muslim volunteered his thoughts on the matter. He "warned a roomful of senior Army physicians a year and a half ago that to avoid 'adverse events,' the military should allow Muslim soldiers to be released as conscientious objectors instead of fighting in wars against other Muslims." That man, of course, was Nidal Hasan, and the Post managed to get hold of his PowerPoint slides, which are now online. The news story describes some of them:

Under a slide titled "Comments," he wrote: "If Muslim groups can convince Muslims that they are fighting for God against injustices of the 'infidels'; ie: enemies of Islam, then Muslims can become a potent adversary ie: suicide bombing, etc." [sic]
The last bullet point on that page reads simply: "We love death more then [sic] you love life!"
Under the "Conclusions" page, Hasan wrote that "Fighting to establish an Islamic State to please God, even by force, is condoned by the Islam," and that "Muslim Soldiers should not serve in any capacity that renders them at risk to hurting/killing believers unjustly--will vary!"
The final page, labeled "Recommendation," contained only one suggestion:
"Department of Defense should allow Muslims [sic] Soldiers the option of being released as 'Conscientious objectors' to increase troop morale and decrease adverse events."

92. Craig M. said the following at 6:10 PM on Nov 11:

Samaria--In that case you need to stop attacking straw men. Which, in case you're not sure, means attributing beliefs to people that they themselves have not embraced, and then attacking them for the belief you've invented. Motte and myself and every other poster on here that I can see has made it clear that no one is blaming or impugning every Muslim for what many Muslims believe and do. I talked myself about my experiences in Iraq and my affection for most of the Muslims I met and worked with there. What we HAVE said is that what we like to call "radical" Islam is a mainstream position in the Islamic world, attracting millions and tens of millions of adherents and sympathizers.

That distinction is important. If we were dealing with just a few crazy radicals--a tenth of a tenth of a percent, shunned by "real" Muslims and having no foundation in historical Islam--we'd be in a far less dangerous situation and our response could be more relaxed. Unfortunately that is not the case.

93. Eve said the following at 6:23 PM on Nov 11:

BDB (#90), those books look really interesting! I think I will check them out.

Also, I would like to point out that, as Christians, we have an answer for people's need for community and significance. :-)

94. Benjamin said the following at 7:36 PM on Nov 11:

"Love for the terrorist means killing him before he can corrupt his soul any further, or destroy any more innocent lives. That is the best we can offer his soul."

Wow. I suggest checking out the Bible. It may be able to offer you some hope about higher possibilities for his soul.

95. Samaria said the following at 9:30 PM on Nov 11:

Craig M., I commented with what I did because despite what you, Motte, and a few others have claimed by saying that you're only referring to radical Islam - which everyone here wants gone, so it came off as redundant - it appeared to me as an attack on Muslims in general, as a whole. The attitude that I received from a lot of y'all here (and in other posts, besides) made me believe that many of you not only dislike the general Muslim population for no good reason at all, but wish them gone from America. For the life of me, I've yet to believe any differently, despite what you've now told me. So these straw men you speak of? No. They don't exist on this side of the screen.

I don't see these radicals as being dangerous so much as the government being too lax. They wouldn't be a problem if the government would handle the situation with the firmness that they should. I, for one, am not worried about them so much as I'm worried that the government isn't doing its job properly.

96. twilley said the following at 2:09 AM on Nov 12:

Craig M.,

Yes, I am a pacifist. I am completely and entirely against the death penalty. If you'd like to bring up hypothetical situations, I'll answer them, although I don't think it's a very strong technique of argumentation.

If I had the opportunity to kill a terrorist with dynamite on his chest who was going to blow up a hundred people?

Yes, I would probably do it. But I wouldn't pretend it was a godly action.

Islamic extremists are a very small minority of average American Muslims, living their lives in peace as good and patriotic citizens. This guy looks like he chose an ungodly way to solve political conflicts in his own heart. And that's it.

97. mary kate said the following at 8:44 AM on Nov 12:

i spent a good part of the last two days working on art projects for two of my studio classes while listening to radio coverage of the events at Ft. Hood.

first of all, let me say the following. i do not think that practicing the muslim faith will get you to heaven. while it may have some admirable qualities, it's a bastardization of christianity. second, while i enjoy NPR programming, i can see that like every media outlet (be it fox news or cnn or whatever), it has some bias. and third, as other commenters have noted, i would hope that anyone practicing any religion, would consider him/herself an adherent of that religion first, and anything else second. i am follower of christ: my relationship with him defines me more than citizenship in any country ever will. i love america, and am blessed to live and be a citizen here. however, i did not choose it. none of us chose where to be born.

in light of all these things, i say the following; the evidence that has come out over the past few days shows that Maj. Nidal Hassan was very mentally unstable. various interviewers pointed to evidence collected both at ft. hood and his prior post at walter reed. colleagues wondered out loud to eachother in meetings about his mental state. one interviewer said a source actually said they wondered if he were descending into psychosis.

others went on to note that his colleagues at walter reed gave him every chance they could to succeed, often BECAUSE he was muslim. in our current cultural climate, no one wanted to be the person who pulled the plug on his military/medical career. in the end, he was moved to ft. hood in the hope that he would fade into the woodwork. one person interviewed noted that ft. hood had more medical personal in the pschiatry field than any other base in the country. maj. hassan was noted as being a mediocre doctor by his colleagues and superiors—they were hoping that through the move, he would be influenced by new colleagues, and somehow 'get better.'

there is definitely a danger in the presence/growth of radical islam. however, it seems to me that in this case, a man who was mentally unstable and very unhealthy gravitated toward a radical, violent ideology and used it to justify his desires and values. this happens frequently—when 'christians' (i use that word loosely here) bomb abortion clinics. when catholics and protestants fought in northern ireland. when teenagers who struggle with self esteem and mental illness turn to violence to 'solve' their problems.

the army needs to look carefully at the decisions that were made about Maj. hassan. they appear to be decisions made out of fear and insecurity, not out of caring for either hassan or his colleagues. it seems they ignored countless red flags out of fear of not being 'politically correct.'

98. Zusanne said the following at 11:35 AM on Nov 12:

Aeryn (84)--I did not say that very well (79) at all.

My allegiance is first to Christ. A person who truly practices faith should feel a first loyalty toward his faith.

The Bible makes it clear how I, as a follower, am expected to behave. I'm to treat others the way I expect to be treated, to love my neighbor, to give sacrificially to others, to pray for my leaders . . . all that stuff and more.

No where in the Bible does it say that I am to cause harm to those who don't see things the same way that I do. Being loyal first to Christ, then, makes me a better citizen. That's the plan, anyway.

Someone who follows another scripture that advocates--in some interpretations, commands--harm to others in order to achieve a place (maybe)in heaven should be watched. His place in the military should be questioned.

That's what I intended to say.

As the news has trickled out, some of it almost looks as if the US military were negligent in allowing Hasan to remain in the military. It appears, however, that moving Hasan to Texas was the first step to removing him from the military. Apparently, by sending him there, his supervisors could monitor his behavior better and document his statements so that, when he was let go, it could be a clear case of behavior and performance and not prejudice.

I can understand, also, why a little caution was necessary, in addition to basic fairness. This man joined the military of his own free will. He was provided with not only his education but also specialist training. The taxpayers of the US invested ten years (at least) and tens of thousands of dollars in his education.

99. Craig M. said the following at 9:16 PM on Nov 12:

Samaria--if you're determined to engage your fellow conversationalists in bad faith, presuming them liars who don't mean what they say but rather something you invent, then there's no conversing with you.

twilley-at least you're honest; I have a certain degree of respect for that. But I find committed pacifism to be profoundly immoral. As a committed pacifist, you have to be willing to accept the Nazi conquest of Europe, the continuation of slavery in the American South, the continued Japanese rape (literally, on millions of occasions) of China, etc. etc. Not that war can't also be bad and unnecessary in some circumstances--that's why scripture says there is "a time for war, and a time for peace." I don't understand how you deal with the obvious implications of real, committed pacifism, or with scripture and Christian tradition. What do you make of a world dominated long-term by Nazism? It was Hitler or war. What do you do with God's commands for the Israelites to make war?

100. twilley said the following at 3:13 PM on Nov 13:

100

Well, if you're really interested in having a discussion about pacifism, I'll be happy to do so. I get the sense from your comment that you think of pacifism as passive. As sitting back and watching evil things happen. I don't experience it that way. My definition of pacifism has more to do with treating the world with honesty and respect. With refusing to answer anger with anger, but instead trying to figure out where anger and violence come from, and combat them at the root cause. Like turning a fire hose on the burning house instead of working to stamp out the sparks.

I'm a Germanist. It's my job to study German language, literature, culture, and history. I don't really agree that it was Hitler or war. Hindsight is 20/20, right? Looking back on it, we can see a thousand places America went wrong, Britain, France, all of us missed ways we could have prevented all of the evil things which followed World War I and led to the second World War. Or we saw them but chose violence or passivity instead of helping where we could.

I think when people bring up Hitler in an argument, it's usually to point to something that is seen as absolute and unstoppable evil, and say--look at this! Here is where peace stops, and tolerance stops, and love stops. This great and absolute evil cancels out those things.

But to do that misses the entire point of the German experience of World War II. You know what we should really learn from these people's lives? That each and every one of us is capable of the greatest evil we could ever imagine. I am. You are. And the man we consider to be the deepest pit of evil didn't have to be there.

Terrorists don't have to keep doing these things. Islamic fundamentalist terrorism can stop. The question of the pacifist is, what is at the root of these acts? Not--how can I kill them before they kill me.

To me, pacifism is about breaking the chains which lead us to violence. There is a difference between assertiveness and aggression, and I see pacifism as a philosophy of assertiveness, refusing aggression.

Contributors

About Us

Relevant Boundless Articles

GOOGLE THIS BLOG

SUBSCRIBE VIA EMAIL

Newer Post | Older Post