Print
Email
The Ft. Hood tragedy is a citizenship test for Muslim Americans—and everyone else.
In July, the Islamic Association of Raleigh, N.C., hosted “Meet Your Muslim Neighbor”—an event designed to build bridges and educate the non-Muslim community about different facets of Islamic life and culture beyond common negative stereotypes.
Two days later, the FBI arrested seven Muslim men from a neighboring town for alleged involvement in a terror conspiracy.
It keeps happening: Denver, Dearborn, Ft. Hood. Muslim Americans start making positive inroads just as news breaks of other Muslims somewhere, preparing to do something terrible.
Most Muslims are conservative, patriotic and believe in the American Dream, but they don’t always say it out loud. Whether fair or unfair, now, more than ever, they should.
No doubt, Muslim-American hearts collectively sank last week upon hearing the name of U.S. Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, accused of killing 13 service members at Ft. Hood. On Thursday, the U.S. Army charged Hasan with 13 counts of premeditated murder.
Though Hasan’s alleged actions shouldn’t reflect on Muslims any more than Timothy McVeigh’s crimes did on Christian Americans, there’s an implicit burden that remains with mainstream Muslims to distance themselves from Muslim perpetrators of violence.
As The American Prospect’s Adam Serwer observes, “This is the paradox of being a minority in America”—it’s our built-in societal hypocrisy—“you’re not only responsible for your own actions as an individual, but the bad acts of everyone in your community.”
But the issue of Hasan’s relationship to his faith can’t be avoided. He reportedly told his colleagues, “It’s getting harder and harder for Muslims in the service to morally justify being in a military that seems constantly engaged against fellow Muslims.”
He was talking about himself. And whether he “snapped” or his alleged actions were a calculated response to a perceived grievance, it appears Hasan, who was deploying to Afghanistan, couldn’t reconcile his duty with his apprehension about why he was going.
If that’s what happened, the answer isn’t scapegoating the Muslim-American community because of the actions of an individual.
But the answer also isn’t to apply the “lone nut” theory. What’s called for is greater dialogue about the conflict between radical Islamic teachings and the mainstream Islamic beliefs that coexist with American political and social values in a secular, pluralistic society.
For starters:
America isn’t perfect.
Though the majority of Muslim Americans disavow violent acts of the kind that Hasan now stands accused, in some cases, what stokes anti-American sentiment in parts of the Muslim community is frustration over U.S. involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan.
But the way to change our foreign policy is not to complain about it behind closed doors, and obviously not to endorse violence. It’s by investing in the political process. In Red, White, and Muslim: My Story of Belief, Asma Gull Hasan writes: “Muslims don’t practice Islam perfectly, and Americans don’t necessarily practice American values perfectly.”
We’re a great and powerful country—and sometimes we’re wrong. Muslim Americans have to deal with that disappointment. It comes with being a full-fledged American.
Everything isn’t “jihad.”
“Jihad” is a complex concept encompassing both warfare in the name of Islam and the idea of an individual’s lifelong, personal, internal struggle with piety, right and wrong.
“Terrorism” is violence calibrated to turn a political screw: Lockerbie, Khobar, 9/11.
Cynics like the New York Post’s Michelle Malkin have been quick to attach tough-sounding terms like “terrorism” and “jihad” to Ft. Hood. But heinous as Hasan’s alleged actions were, it’s unclear what “goal” he had. Malkin claims any nuance is “a rush to whitewash.” Actually, hers is a rush to make Ft. Hood a proxy fight about “political correctness”—it says more about her patriotically correct agenda than it does about what underlies the tragedy.
Fighting isn’t dying.
Hasan is charged with murder. He can be convicted and executed without any finding that he was part of an extremist conspiracy.
Nevertheless, The Globe and Mail’s Irshad Manji argues, in the big picture it’s still worth taking religion into consideration because “Understanding is served by analyzing, not sanitizing.” She’s right: Nothing is gained by avoiding a discussion of the connection between Hasan’s frame of mind, his version of Islam and his alleged actions.
Arguments about the tension between patriotism and faith that take place in homes, masjids and on Muslim blogs have to be brought out into the public square. If not, then non-Muslims are left to interpret these issues on their own.
Like the National Review’s Andy McCarthy, who posits “there is enormous pressure on Muslim soldiers, from their religious authorities, to sabotage American military operations.”
Tell that to the mother of U.S. Army Cpl. Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan—the fallen Muslim-American soldier made famous by Gen. Colin Powell a year ago. Presumably, Muslim Americans want to dispel this kind of thinking, but how can it be rebutted if Muslims don’t speak out vigorously—and don’t outwardly acknowledge that there is a debate?
Beliefnet’s Aziz Poonawalla explains the basic Qur’anic arguments for and against a Muslim serving in the U.S. military. Ultimately, he says “the Qur’an provides enough rationale to either permit or forbid a Muslim from being in the military, depending on the interpreter’s bias.” It’s a small part of a larger discourse about being a practicing Muslim in America. It’s not new, but it’s to our peril if it takes Ft. Hood for us to start talking.
Americans are receiving a graduate level course in citizenship. If it was easy to be a free, diverse and secure society, we would have already figured it out. By now, we should at least know it takes more than enhanced Homeland Security protocols and soothing words from President Barack Obama.
Some of the voices calling for zero tolerance in the wake of Ft. Hood are the same ones that railed against Secretary Janet Napolitano’s April report on right-wing extremism—even though it anticipated the alleged killings of African-American security guard Stephen Tyrone Johns at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum by a white supremacist, and of abortion doctor George Tiller during Sunday church services.
That’s not zero tolerance; that’s intolerance.
Muslim Americans shouldn’t be asked to do more than their share. But they can take the lead and take ownership of sorting through whatever conflict there is between mainstream American life and holding on to sometimes incompatible Islamic beliefs.
Then the rest of us need to listen, think and respond.
David Swerdlick is a regular contributor to The Root. Follow him on Twitter.
Comments
Pre-Christmas gift,nike air max jordan shoes,coach,gucci,lv,dg,ed hardy handbags,Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste)ugg boot,Jacket,Sent to your friends, relatives, let them feel the warmth this winter. www . coolforsale . com
The problem isn't so much religion as groups that short shrift getting a real education because of religion. Who believes in creationism? Southerners, Blacks and Muslims. The rest of the country doesn't cause half the social problems those groups do.
pipec
If you're a gun owner then you know that the House and Senate are chock-full of ant-gunners, especia;lly the Attorney General, and Obama himself is a supporter of widespread and draconian gun control legislation. The recent comments by Daly and Schumer should re-inforce this fact. However, they know that passing such legislation would be a sure ticket out of office in 2010, and for a long time to come.
So, they bide there time, and perhaps approach the situation diagonally rather than head-on.
The liberal media is a great help to them, willing to pass on any gun violence story with relish, and to portray the "nutjobs" as you call them as the norm.
People had the same problems with the Patriot Act under Bush as they do with healthcare reform today. They know both are just another system of control.
Last, I think ITguru's beef is that currently, evangelicals or Mormons are not trying to kill us, nor do they find the U.S. as the "great devil" .
Your passage about Islam is remarkable given the history of Christianity. Christian fundamentalists / evangelicals are of the persuasion that judgment day is coming, and those who do not believe in Christ must be "saved." I can't tell you how many Mormons have tried to "help" me or how many evangelicals wanted to "take me to the light."
How is this less offensive to you than a Muslim trying to show you his holy book?
The Christian book of Revelation indicates that those who do not believe in Christ will be damned when our day of judgement comes. Many in the GW Bush administration and some GOP supporters who attend megachurches seem to think the rapture is coming, and support the state of Israel as a final war between the jews, muslims, and christians in the holy land will usher in the 2nd coming. This is what people really believe, and some of our foreign policy has been influenced by it. I'm not even going to begin to discuss the violence and "us vs them" discussed in holy Jewish books. It makes the God of the Qu'ran seem quite patient and merciful by comparison. We have Muslims attacking people now not because of the Quran but because of political reasons. It's about as much about Islam as the crusades were about Christianity. The europeans were more interested in the treasure than the holyness of it all. Power struggles dressed up with the shield of religion.
I'm a gun owner so I'm not sure where you got anything anti-gun about my post. My point is that many folks are willing to stand up and fight WITH THEIR GUNS to defend the 2nd amendment. I'm not condemning it, I'm just saying it's a fact and we need to stop being hypocritical by saying that we shouldn't label these people as extremists. The right-wing calls them "patriots" the same way left-wing communists 30 years ago were all "freedom fighters" including today's "jihadists" or whatever you want to call them.
After Obama was elected I couldn't find ammo. Every right-wing nutjob somehow thought that once he came on board, all of the sudden the entire Winchester brand would be wiped out and no one would be able to buy guns or ammo. Everyone knew assault rifle prices would shoot up, and they did. This is only logical. But AMONGST that group of folks, a small percentage were buying ammo because they feared that "big government' was gonna come in and spoil the fun and take away our guns, so we were prepared to stockpile weapons in preparation for a revolution. Go to some gun forums and you'll see that for every 9 calm, logical gun owners, there is 1 nutjob who wants to kill the black guy who is about to create a world government and we'll be living in Orwell's 1984. This is simply not going to happen. Obama does not have the power to take our guns. He cant even GIVE us health care, how is he going to take something away? That's in the constitution..
The SAME people who think we should "weed out" the extremist Muslims who are ready to start killling people for their beliefs will cry foul when the government tries to target white Christian extremists. These people exist. Just as 9 out of 10 muslims in the USA couldnt care less to install sharia law and commit violetn acts, 9 out of 10 gun owners are gentle, moral people. But it's unfair to go chase down extremists of one faith while saying the extremists in the other faith are simply "patriots" or victims of a left-wing conspiracy.
Big government is no longer somethign rejected by the republican party. George W Bush enlarged our goverment more than Bill Clinton could have ever dreamed. Just look at the DHS. FOr some reason people are so afraid to let the government take care of us when we're sick, yet are all about giving the government all our tax money to get bigger tanks, bigger surveillance system on americans, and destroy our liberties in the name of "security."
Do we really think our pathetic shotguns and semi-automatic assault rifles are gonna help us protect ourselves from a government armed with tanks, fighter jets, and drones? You go on these gun boards and it seems to any observer that some of these guys are holding the guns in preparation for another civil war where white people take our country "back" from the minorities. I'm not making this up, go around and investigate this. It's sick. This is waht Napolitano's report is talkign about. Not your average joe who wants to go hunting with his kid on sunday.
The 2nd Amendment is a right given to us by the founders of this country. So were the rest of them. Arlington and foreign battlefields the world over are full of men and women who died to protect them for us. To willingly give them up is ( I don't have a word for it, combine horrible, stupid, immoral and lazy in one.) If we gladly let them take the 2nd, what's to stop them from the rest? We've already shown our willingness to be controlled.
If you don't like guns, don't get one. Don't campaign for the rest of us to not have them because they offend you.
It's the hard heart that kills, the weapon is just a tool. The 9/11 hijackers killed thousands without pulling a trigger. Nobody is outlawing airplanes. (sarcasm) Millions died by the sword and spear before firearms were invented. You have to be willing to take life to do it.
I know your argument to that, my answer; the military is voluntary. Don't want to hump a rifle? Stay away. Drafts? Would you rather salute a swastika?
"I would say that "violent capabilities" is poor wording and something liek[sic] "combat training" would be more applicable" ==>what's the difference?
"Just look at what happened to our vets after the Vietnam war. What a great job we did taking care of them. It's a joke. The fact is we need to learn our lessons and treat these vets with better care and the point is that someone with PTSD is more likely to be mentally unstable. It just means we should take better care of them and hear their demands. The fact someone who is traumatized is more susceptible to outside influence is not an insult, it's a truth" ==>True, we should be doing a better job of taking care of our veterans. Some of the abuses and treatment they received is beyond contempt.
Vietnam? most of the abuse heaped on them was from the left.
Harold Davis, thank you for your service to this country. God bless you.
AmericanMe, you don't have to be a returning vet to be violent any more than you need to be a Muslim to be violent. Plug in "Muslims" for veterans and "fundamentalist sheikh/imam" in place of "right-wing extremist" and you'll have a pretty good model of what the previous administration was putting out as guidelines for DHS, FBI, etc. Except Michelle Malkin doesn't have a problem with Islam being labeled as a violent faith, yet somehow training a soldier on how to kill people with weapons then makes it reprehensible to label them as having violent training.
Military warfare is violence, any way you slice it. They can be exploited by left-wing or right-wing militias. Most militias in this world are run by ex-military folks. This isn't about demonizing our soldiers, this is about reality. Look at the militias we have in our own country, from the Mississippi to Montana. The right-wing in this country is very pro-gun, HELLO, the right-wing carries the 2nd amendment as a tattoo on their chests.
There are extremely violent left-wing militias all over South America, and the right-wing governments there such as Colombia are hoping to stamp them out. The difference is that the right wing in the USA is associated with guns, by their own choice.
I would say that "violent capabilities" is poor wording and something liek "combat training" would be more applicable. Certainly you don't have to be in the military to be violent, but the military does help you shoot a weapon with greater accuracy than your average joe.
Just look at what happened to our vets after the Vietnam war. What a great job we did taking care of them. It's a joke. The fact is we need to learn our lessons and treat these vets with better care and the point is that someone with PTSD is more likely to be mentally unstable. It just means we should take better care of them and hear their demands. The fact someone who is traumatized is more susceptible to outside influence is not an insult, it's a truth.
I don't read this as an indictment of the military , hell I'm a vet so that would be stupid of me. However all manner of extremists with a fixation on paramilitary tactics have always tried recruiting disaffected military types, they're already trained and disciplined.
What I'm saying is the Napolitano report didn't anticipate these events. Did she have a crystal ball? The report demonizes people who fought for this country, which you should find reprehensible if you're a decent American. It also tries to cast people whose politics lean conservative, not based on facts but to further a leftist political ideology.
(U//FOUO) "Returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are
attractive to rightwing extremists. DHS/I&A is concerned that rightwing
extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to
boost their violent capabilities."
Violent capabilities.
Do you need to have been in the military to have violent capabilities?