Hello Friends,
Why did Nidal Hasan the Jihadi terrorist massacre 13 and wound over 30other innocent people? Barry Rubin writes a brilliant explanation of his actions. I essence he's telling us that Nidal Hasan told all that knew him what he was planning to do but no one listened and if they did failed to take the appropriate action.
An extremely interesting read.
Shalom,
Peter
Why I Murdered 13 American Soldiers at Fort Hood: Nidal Hassan Explains It All to You
By Barry Rubin*
November 14, 2009
http://www.gloria-center.org/Gloria/2009/11/why-i-murdered.html
Howdo we know that the attack at Fort Hood was an act of Islamistterrorism? Simple, Major Nidal Hassan told us so. You’ve seen reportsof a long list of things he did and said along these lines. But what’smost amazing of all is this:
Hassan is the first terrorist in history to give an academic lectureexplaining why he was about to attack. Yet that still isn’t enough fortoo many people—including the president of the United States--tounderstand that the murderous assault at Fort Hood was a Jihad attack.
Itwas reported that the audience was shocked and frightened by hislecture. He was supposed to speak on some medical topic yet insteadtalked on the topic: “The Koranic World View as it Relates to Muslimsin the U.S. Military.” All you have to do is look at the 50 Power Pointslides and they tell you everything you need to know.
It isquite a good talk. He’s logical and presents his evidence. This isclearly not the work of a mad man or a fool, though there’s still anote of ambiguity in it. He's still working out what to do in his ownmind and is trying to figure out if he has a way out other than ineffect deserting the U.S. army and becoming a Jihad warrior.Ultimately, he concluded that he could not be a proper Muslim withoutkilling American soldiers. Obviously, other Muslims could reachdifferent conclusions but Hassan strongly grounds himself in Islamictexts.
In a sense, Hassan's lecture was a cry for help: Cananyone show me another way out? Can anyone refute my interpretation ofIslam? One Muslim in the audience reportedly tried to do so. But unlessthese issues are openly discussed and debated--rather than swept underthe rug--more people will die.
In fact, I’d recommend that teachers use this lecture in teaching classes on both Islam and Islamist politics. .
Follow along with me and you’ll understand everything.
Hassandeals with three topics: What Islam teaches Muslims, how Muslims viewthe wars in Afghanistan and Iran, how this might affect Muslims in theU.S. military. [Slide 2] Hassan defines Jihad, showing how silly arethe claims that it only means a personal struggle to behave better. Italso signifies holy war, of course. [Slide 5].
Now here’sHassan’s central theme. Muslims cannot fight in an infidel army againstother Muslims. And Hassan himself says that it’s getting hard forMuslims in the U.S. military to justify doing so. [Slide 11] Obviously,Hassan was deciding that he couldn’t do so.
He then quotes theKoran extensively to prove the point. Allah will punish anyone whokills a Muslim [Slide 12]. Hassan then gives four examples of Muslimsoldiers who broke under the strain. One who killed fellow Americansoldiers (which Hassan would himself do), one accused of espionage (butwas acquitted), one who deserted, and one who refused deployment toIraq. [Slide 13]
Quoting the Koran, Hassan next provides anumber of quotations to show that the believer must obey Allah. If theydo, they will enjoy great delights (though he left out the 72virgins, there’s one quote hinting at pederasty), and if they don’tthey will suffer torments of Hell.
Finally, he gets into theheavy stuff. Hassan introduces the concept of “defensive Jihad” whichis a core element in radical Islamist thinking and has especially beenpromoted by Usama bin Ladin and al-Qaida. [Slides 37-39]. If othersattack and oppress Muslims, then it is the duty of all Muslims to fightthem. September 11 was justified by its perpetrators by saying that theUnited States had attacked Muslims and therefore it was mandatory tokill Americans in return.
And here is the crux of the matter:Verse 60:08, “Allah forbids you…from dealing kindly and justly” withthose who fight Muslims.” [Slide 40]
If Nidal Hassan believedthis and would follow it, he must—to be a proper Muslim in hiseyes—pick up a gun and join the Jihad, Muslim side. He was not shootingAmericans because he caught battle fatigue from American soldiers hetreated. Think about it. To have done so, Hassan would have had tosympathize with them, thinking about what it would be like for him ifhe’d been fighting…Muslims in Iraq or Afghanistan. But that wasprecisely his problem. He sympathized with the other side.
Beingordered to ship out to one of these countries, Hassan now had todecide: which side are you on? Would he choose the side of Allah andthe Muslims, to be rewarded in Heaven? Or would he join with theinfidels, to be punished with Hell and to betray his religion? He madehis decision.
It is interesting that no Muslim debate hasdeveloped over a very simple issue: What if two groups of Muslims arefighting, cannot one side with one group, even if it has non-Muslimallies? After all, Americans are not going to Iraq or Afghanistansimply to “kill Muslims” but to defend Muslims from being killed. TheSaudis, Kuwaitis, and Egyptians had no problem with using Westerntroops to save them from Saddam Hussein’s Iraq in 1991, for example.The Iraqi and Afghan governments, made up of pious Muslims, do the samething.
Arab nationalists who are Muslims can take this positionmore easily. But for Islamists the problem is not some abstraction butknowledge that they are fighting a battle to seize control of allMuslim-majority states and indeed perhaps of the entire world.
Thetrue problem, then, is not that some Muslims help infidels killMuslims, but that some Muslims help infidels kill Islamists. But Hassannever considered this point, which could be quite persuasive to otherMuslims in Western militaries.
So, in his thinking, how mightHassan have escaped from that stark choice? Hassan answers thatquestion. Quoting the Koran, he indicated that if the Americans endedthe wars, then that would be okay and no killing would be necessary.[Slide 42]
Another alternative is if the Americans acceptedIslam or agreed to become subservient to Muslim rulers (dhimmis) andpaid a special tax [Slide 43-44].
The third alternative wouldbe if the Muslim Messiah came, destroyed Christianity as a falsereligion and set off the post-history utopia. [Slide 45]. He didn’tmention another part of this description, which was the murder of allJews.
A digression is appropriate here. Hassan, although aPalestinian, has never been quoted as attacking Israel or the Jews.This is one more reminder that this struggle isn’t all just aboutIsrael. But it also tells something important about Hassan which alsoapplies to many Muslim radicals in Europe. Hassan is an American. Assuch he has no other nationality, neither Palestinian nor Arab. Hedoesn’t support Hamas or Fatah. But he has a religion that directs histhinking. That’s why he is an Islamist and why he supports ageneralized Islamist revolutionary movement, al-Qaida.
As onemoderate Muslim from Canada pointed out, the clothes he wore the daybefore committing his Jihad attack was not (as some sources put it in asilly manner) some martyr or even Arab garb but the clothing ofPakistan and Afghanistan. He is an al-Qaida Jihadi, having changedsides in the War on Terror.
Hassan was no fool or blind fanatic.Indeed, he presents a sophisticated view. For example, he quotescontradictory Quranic verses, one suggesting that all religions canenter Heaven; another that all non-Muslims will go to Hell [Slide 47].
His conclusion takes on tremendous significance in light of what would happen at Fort Hood. He writes:
“IfMuslim groups can convince Muslims that they are fighting for Godagainst injustices of the `infidels’; i.e., the enemies of Islam, thenMuslims can become a potent adversary ie: suicide bombing, etc.”
And of course, these groups did so convince Hassan. [Slide 48]
Why? Hassan tells us:
“Godexpects full loyalty. Promises heaven and threatens with Hell. Muslimsmay seem moderate (compromising) but God is not.” [Slide 49]
And at the very end, he proposes what might have been his own escape route:
"Recommendation:Department of Defense should allow Muslim soldiers the option of beingreleased as `Conscientious objectors’ to increase troop morale anddecrease adverse events.” [Slide 50]
If that had existed forHassan, I think, he would not have killed people. This proposal isworth debating, though it has negative implications too, of course. Butthen he had other options. He could have resigned his commission,deserted, or refused deployment as a conscientious objector and gone toprison. In fact, Hassan himself cited individuals who had done the lasttwo.
Consequently, Hassan's lecture also tells us why Muslimscan choose not to be Jihadists, though this requires ignoring orrationalizing clear, religiously binding commandments in their religionor by being basically secular people of Muslim background. This is thekind of solution found in Christianity and Judaism, of course.
Hassanwas too pious and consistent to take this way out. The answer to hispersonal behavior must be found in a mix of psychological factors andpolitical-religious beliefs. The fact is, however, that he clearly didsee himself as a Jihad warrior in the end. The existence ofpsycological factors in no way negates the importance of religiousconsiderations.
All terrorists have some psychological forcesworking to make them follow such a path. Yet if not forideological--and in the case of Islamists, religious--beliefs theynever would have become terrorists. In contrast, criminals havepsychological factors plus material goals, while mentally ill peoplewho commit crimes are compelled by purely psychogical factors. Hassandoes not fit either of those two categories.
Equally, his actioncannot be attributed to a "misreading" or "heretical" interpretation ofIslam. To read this lecture is to understand how carefully andself-critically he approached the issues. Anything so obviously falseor deviant from mainstream Islam would simply not appeal to so manyMuslims. Hassan was looking for a way out in the texts and listed the"loopholes" he did find: either the United States must not fight anyonewho was a Muslim or it must let him out of the military.
WhatHassan neglected was an explanation that lay outside what his strictreading of the Muslim texts would allow him to say: the United Statesmust fight, in general, because the Islamists have been the aggressors.And the United States is actually fighting as allies with one group of(more moderate) Muslims against another (of radical Islamists). Yet thetexts always deal with the Muslim community as a united whole (theumma), an interpretation that just doesn't correspond with reality.Indeed and ironically, this view enables Islamists to themselves killthousands of Muslims all over the world!
The fact that Hassan’slecture has not been the centerpiece of the whole post-massacre debateis a true example of how impoverished are the “experts,” journalists,and politicians at dealing with these issues. Of course, withoutexploring the Islamic factor, they're wasting everyone's time. They'realso going to be wasting quite a few lives.
*BarryRubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs(GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of InternationalAffairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader(seventh edition), with Walter Laqueur (Viking-Penguin); the paperbackedition of The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan); A ChronologicalHistory of Terrorism, with Judy Colp Rubin, (Sharpe); and The Long Warfor Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East(Wiley). To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to orderbooks, go to http://www.gloria-center.org The Global Rese