Our old friend Raymond Ibrahim explains the Islamic doctrines in play in Nidal Hasan's jihad at Fort Hood, and the cost of ignoring them. "Nidal Hasan and Fort Hood: A Study in Muslim Doctrine," by Raymond Ibrahim for Pajamas Media via Middle East Forum, November 18:
One of the difficulties in discussing Islam's more troubling doctrines is that they have an anachronistic, even otherworldly, feel to them; that is, unless actively and openly upheld by Muslims, non-Muslims, particularly of the Western variety, tend to see them as abstract theory, not standard practice for today. In fact, some Westerners have difficulties acknowledging even those problematic doctrines that are openly upheld by Muslims -- such as jihad. How much more when the doctrines in question are subtle, or stealthy, in nature?Enter Nidal Malik Hasan, the psychiatrist, U.S. Army major, and "observant Muslim who prayed daily," who recently went on a shooting rampage at Fort Hood, killing thirteen Americans (including a pregnant woman). While the media wonders in exasperation why he did it, offering the same old tired and trite reasons -- he was "picked on," he was "mentally unbalanced" -- the fact is his behavior comports well with certain Islamic doctrines. As such, it behooves Americans to take a moment and familiarize themselves with the esotericisms of Islam.
Note: Any number of ulema (Muslim scholars) have expounded the following doctrines. However, since jihadi icon and theoretician Ayman Zawahiri, al-Qaeda's number two, has also addressed many of these doctrines in his treatises, including by quoting several authoritative ulema, I will primarily rely on excerpts from The Al Qaeda Reader (AQR), for those readers who wish to source, and read in context, the following quotes in one volume.
Wala' wa Bara'
Perhaps best translated as "loyalty and enmity," this doctrine requires Muslims to maintain absolute loyalty to Islam and one another, while disavowing, even hating (e.g., Koran 60:4), all things un-Islamic -- including persons (a.k.a. "infidels"). This theme has ample support in the Koran, hadith, and rulings of the ulema, that is, usul al-fiqh (roots of Muslim jurisprudence). In fact, Zawahiri has written a fifty-page treatise entitled "Loyalty and Enmity" (AQR, p. 63-115).
One of the many Koranic verses on which he relies warns Muslims against "taking the Jews and Christians as friends and allies ... whoever among you takes them for friends and allies, he is surely one of them" (Koran 5:51), i.e., he becomes an infidel. The plain meaning of this verse alone -- other verses, such as 3:28, 4:144, and 6:40 follow this theme -- and its implications for today can hardly be clearer. According to one of the most authoritative Muslim exegetes, al-Tabari (838-923), Koran 5:51 means that the Muslim who "allies with them [non-Muslims] and enables them against the believers, that same one is a member of their faith and community" (AQR, p. 71).
Sheikh al-Islam, Ibn Taymiyya (1263-1328), takes the concept of loyalty one step further when he tells Muslims that they are "obligated to befriend a believer -- even if he is oppressive and violent towards you and must be hostile to the infidel, even if he is liberal and kind to you" (AQR, p. 84).
In ways, Hasan's life was a testimony to loyalty and enmity. According to his colleague, Dr. Finnell, Hasan "was very vocal about the war, very upfront about being a Muslim first and an American second." If his being "vocal about the war" is not enough to demonstrate unwavering loyalty to Islam, his insistence that he is first and foremost a Muslim is. Other evidence indicates that the primary factor that threw him "over the edge" was that he was being deployed to a Muslim country (Afghanistan) -- his "worst nightmare."
According to a fellow Muslim convenience store owner who often spoke with Hasan, the thought that he might injure or kill Muslims "weighed heavily on him." Hasan also counseled a fellow Muslim not to join the U.S. Army, since "Muslims shouldn't kill Muslims," again, showing where his loyalty lies. Tabari's exegesis comes to mind: the Muslim who "allies with them [non-Muslims] and enables them against the believers, that same one is a member of their faith and community," i.e., he too becomes an infidel (AQR, p. 71).
Another source who spoke with Hasan notes that "in the Koran, you're not supposed to have alliances with Jews or Christian or others, and if you are killed in the military fighting against Muslims, you will go to hell."
At any rate, surely none of this should come as a surprise. In April 2005, another Muslim serving in the U.S. Army, Hasan Akbar, was convicted of murder for killing two American soldiers and wounding fourteen in a grenade attack in Kuwait. According to the AP, "he launched the attack because he was concerned U.S. troops would kill fellow Muslims in Iraq."...
There is much, much more. Read it all.
Ray knows the way.
As he pointed out, people need to make an effort to learn some Islamic doctrine. It's the intellectual counterpart of: Brake for moose, it could save your life.
Excellent piece.
This passage is especially notable:
Sheikh al-Islam, Ibn Taymiyya (1263-1328), takes the concept of loyalty one step further when he tells Muslims that they are "obligated to befriend a believer -- even if he is oppressive and violent towards you and must be hostile to the infidel, even if he is liberal and kind to you" (AQR, p. 84).
...............................
This is so alien to the Western mind. Everything from "by their fruits ye will know them" to the urging to judge people by "the content of their character" lead Westerners to try to take people as they find them.
Are there Westerners who do not adhere to this philosophy? Of course, but most people consider them narrow-minded or bigoted.
More importantly, Westerners consider seeing people as individuals as an ideal–as something to strive towards. Ironically, it is this very philosophy (coupled with less high-minded elements, such as fear and denial), that is leading so many Americans to shy away from understanding what was really going on with Nadel Malik Hasan.
The larger issue is - should the U.S. military permit Muslims to serve? With the taquiyya and kittman as a part of Islamic dogma, how can the loyalty of any Muslim be guaranteed?
"According to a fellow Muslim convenience store owner who often spoke with Hasan, the thought that he might injure or kill Muslims "weighed heavily on him."
Even that is TAQYIAA!
What are the odds of a Psychiatric Doctor FACING THE ENEMY?
"According to a fellow Muslim convenience store owner who often spoke with Hasan, the thought that he might injure or kill Muslims "weighed heavily on him."
Even that is TAQYIAA!
What are the odds of a Psychiatric Doctor FACING THE ENEMY?
SORRY about the Duplicate posts
Another fine article from Raymond.
As implied in the discussion of loyalty, Muslims are obliged to wage jihad of whatever form they can carry out in order to support and defend their fellow Muslims. As the Quran and Hadith state in numerous places, those among the Muslims who fail to wage jihad are considered hypocrites, i.e., disbelievers posing as Muslims. Those who are less than enthusiastic about participating in jihad also receive stern warnings in the Quran. Failure to wage jihad, particularly against an "enemy" who is killing Muslims, is itself considered evidence of disbelief. The Quran dictates that hypocrites must be punished in this world and eternally in hell-fire in the afterlife.
From the bottom of the article by Raymond:
"Soon following the Fort Hood massacre, FBI agent Brad Garrett explained Hasan's behavior as follows: "It's one of those things that he obviously went to kill a lot of people [jihad] and commit suicide [martyrdom]. Maybe in his own mind that he's saving future lives [Muslim loyalty]." Read with the bracketed concepts I supplied, Hasan's actions become logical and consistent — again, from an doctrinal point of view, that is, from a point of view the West, especially its leaders, are loath to explore and alacritous to ignore.
[snip]
Flagrant obfuscations aside, the facts remain: loyalty to Muslims and enmity for infidels (wala' wa bara'), a secretive double life (taqiyya), violence in the name of Allah (jihad) — all these can easily explain Hasan's violent rampage in Fort Hood."
That fully sums it up, really good job Raymond! Why do we let Muslims in the military? Only ex-Muslims should be employed, those who voluntarily and courageously left the Cult.
One issue with which the mainstream talking heads seem to have some difficulty is the significance of the conservative theological mindset, versus the liberal mindset.
In the conservative mind, the Koran is either the word of God or it is not. Unless the Koran is not the word of God, the things written in that book carry supreme moral authority and it makes no sense to subject it to outside moral sensibilities- because that is what 'supreme moral authority' means. Even conservative atheists tend to accept the necessity of an objective moral model even if not attached to any notion of God. What the exact basis for that model should be is open to discussion but it can generally be acknowledged that there ought to be one.
Only in the liberal mind is it possible to profess acceptance of the Koran, to profess to be a Muslim, and also dismiss the plainly written commands in the Koran, because the liberal mind imagines itself spiritually advanced enough to dictate which parts of the doctrinal core 'ought not to be taken literally'. Ultimately this mindset establishes morality as a subjective affair, which is not, ultimately, any less dangerous than the objective application of an evil moral system.
It is not a small leap for an individual to go from one mindset to the other, which is why I find it absurd to suggest that the jihadist menace can be simply defeated by endorsing liberal theology for all Muslims-- which the mainstream talking heads seem to be implicitly saying.