Author: Barry Rubin
Publication: The Pioneer
Date: November 17, 2009
URL: http://www.dailypioneer.com/216216/The-jihad-factor.html
It drove Maj Hassan to kill fellow soldiers
How do we know the attack at Fort Hood was
an Islamist terrorist act? Simple, Maj Nidal Hassan told us. He gave a number
of clues but nothing's more impressive than this one: Maj Hassan is the first
terrorist to give an academic lecture explaining why he was about to attack.
Yet that still isn't enough for too many people - including the US President
- to understand that the murderous assault was a jihadi attack. Maj Hassan
also told us how the tragedy could have been avoided. But no one seems to
be paying attention.
Instead of speaking about a medical topic,
Maj Hassan's lecture was: 'The Quranic World View as it Relates to Muslims
in the US Military'. He used 50 power-point slides.
Maj Hassan is very logical. This is clearly
not the work of a mad man or someone confused about what he was doing. Three
topics are covered: What Islam teaches Muslims, how Muslims view the wars
in Afghanistan and Iran, and how this might affect Muslims in the US military.
Maj Hassan defines jihad as holy war, of course.
Now here's Maj Hassan's central theme. God
forbids Muslims to fight against other Muslims in an infidel army. He quotes
the Quran extensively to prove the point. Allah will punish anyone who kills
a Muslim. A believer must obey Allah. Those who do enjoy great delights; those
who don't suffer torments in hell.
Next, Maj Hassan introduces the concept of
'defensive jihad', a core element in radical Islamist thinking. If others
attack and oppress Muslims, then it is the duty of all Muslims to fight them,
quoting the Quran he explains, "Allah forbids you…from dealing kindly
and justly" with those who fight Muslims."
Consequently, Maj Hassan understood his situation
perfectly. To be a proper Muslim given his beliefs, he had to pick up a gun
and join the jihad, Muslim side. He was not shooting Americans because he
caught battle fatigue from soldiers he treated but because he believed that
these soldiers must die at his hands.
The choice to act was forced on him when he
received orders to ship out to Iran or Afghanistan. Would he choose the side
of Allah and the Muslims, to be rewarded in heaven? Or would he join with
the infidels, to be punished with hell? He made his decision.
In practical terms, if not in religious ones,
his analysis misses an obvious and important issue: What if two groups of
Muslims are fighting, cannot one side with one group, even if it has non-Muslim
allies? After all, Americans don't go to Iraq or Afghanistan simply to 'kill
Muslims' but to defend Muslims from being killed. The Saudis, Kuwaitis, and
Egyptians had no problem with using Western troops to save them from Saddam
Hussein's Iraq in 1991, for example. The Iraqi and Afghan Governments, made
up of pious Muslims, do the same thing.
Arab nationalists who are Muslims can take
this position more easily. But Islamists are fighting to seize control of
all Muslim-majority states and perhaps of the entire world.
The true problem, then, is not that some Muslims
help infidels kill Muslims, but that some Muslims help infidels kill Islamists.
Maj Hassan never considered this point, in part and ironically, because he
was a native-born American and real Middle East issues were abstractions for
him.
But Maj Hassan tells us the possible ways
out of his paradox, using quotes from the Quran. First, if the Americans ended
the wars, then Muslims wouldn't have to kill them. Second, it would be okay
to be in the US Army if the Americans accepted Islam or agreed to become subservient
to Muslim rulers (dhimmis).
Third, if the Muslim messiah came, he'd destroy
Christianity as a false religion and set off the post-history utopia. He didn't
mention that this also involved murdering all Jews.
This brings up a valuable insight into Maj
Hassan's character. Although a Palestinian, he never verbally attacked Israel
or the Jews. He considers himself American by nationality, neither Palestinian
nor Arab. But he has a religion that directs his thinking. That's why he is
an Islamist and supports Al Qaeda, not Hamas.
As one moderate Muslim from Canada pointed
out, the clothes he wore the day before committing his jihadi attack was not
(as some sources put it in a silly manner) some martyr or even Arab garb but
the clothing of Pakistan and Afghanistan. He is an Al Qaeda jihadi, having
changed sides in the war on terror.
His conclusion takes on tremendous significance
in light of what would happen at Fort Hood. He writes: "If Muslim groups
can convince Muslims that they are fighting for god against injustices of
the 'infidels'; ie, the enemies of Islam, then Muslims can become a potent
adversary ie: Suicide bombing, etc."
And of course, these groups did so convince
Maj Hassan. Why? Maj Hassan tells us: "God expects full loyalty. Promises
heaven and threatens with hell. Muslims may seem moderate (compromising) but
god is not."
And at the very end, he proposes what might
have been his own escape route: "Recommendation: Department of Defence
should allow Muslim soldiers the option of being released as 'conscientious
objectors' to increase troop morale and decrease adverse events."
The fact that Maj Hassan's lecture has not
been the centerpiece of the whole post-massacre debate is a true example of
how impoverished are the 'experts,' journalists, and politicians at dealing
with these issues.
- The writer is director of the GLORIA Centre,
Tel Aviv, and editor of the MERIA Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab
Reader and The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the
Middle-East.
