In The American Thinker today, Pamela Geller says of the rush to exonerate Islam and jihad after the Fort Hood massacre: “Shariah law forbids criticism of Islam. And here we are….This is well beyond political correctness. We are enforcing Shariah law.”
Sharia does indeed forbid criticism of Islam, but this is nevertheless hyperbole, no? Well, no. There is an avalanche of articles appearing like this unsigned editorial from the Seattle Times: “Do not slander Islam after Fort Hood,” November 10. Would the Seattle Times have published such an editorial after any conceivable atrocity committed by a Christian believer? What do you think?
Do not compound the atrocity at Fort Hood with loose, slanderous talk about religion, conspiracy and political motives.
ALL of the horror and heartache of the Fort Hood shootings should not be compounded by labels and assumptions seeking motives to explain a heinous, irrational act.
The same restraint is also appropriate with a suspect in custody for the murderous assault that claimed the life of one Seattle police officer and wounded another.
The Fort Hood attack took 13 lives and wounded 41. There is a rush to link Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, an Army psychiatrist, with Islamic extremists and generally defame his faith by association.
Of course, Hasan himself made the link. He is the one who passed out Korans and then started shooting people. But the Times, of course, sweeps that under the rug.
Religious and political affiliations make for easy, slanderous links that can be pointedly selective. Little time was spent exploring Timothy McVeigh’s Catholic and Republican connections after he slaughtered 168 men, women and children and wounded hundreds more with a truck bomb.
Never mind that he was an avowed atheist at the time of the attack and only became a Catholic later. Never mind that even if he had been a Catholic, there is nothing in Catholic teaching that exhorts believers to warfare against unbelievers, while there is plenty in Islam that does so exhort believers. Why should the Seattle Times worry about all that? Anything is good for a smear.
There is no more justification for Hasan’s crimes in Islam than there was in the religious teachings of McVeigh’s Christian faith….
Care with words is essential because they have enormous power. If Hasan was an observant Muslim, then he violated his faith. The Seattle police are investigating what amounts to a murky personal grudge.
He violated his faith in what way? Again, an unexplained, unsupported assertion.