If the media frenzy over the Fort Hood killings is any gauge, the ugly specter of 9/11 has again taken its psychological toll. This time, instead of the “bad Muslim” being a bearded terrorist called bin Laden, there is a US Army psychologist who was trained to be a healer of military personnel. He happens to have an Arabic ancestry and is Muslim.
Prominent American Muslim organizations issued statements right away condemning the murders. Debate in the media is now focused on his motivation. Was he a fifth-columnist wolf in military dress? Did his sympathies for innocent victims in our ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan overwhelm his common sense of decency? Should the FBI and security arms of the US military have pounced on him when they uncovered his initial links to a radical imam?
One result that I have noticed among those who study Islam, especially my Muslim colleagues, is a growing fault line over the dubious “good Muslim/bad Muslim” binary. As Mahmood Mamdani has eloquently argued, the choice is not between good and bad individuals or citizens, but about being Muslim. Major Hasan is a man who looked very much like a “good Muslim”: a military officer providing therapy to returning veterans. But, now, it seems that at some tipping point he became the “bad Muslim,” the kind who places mosque above state.
I suspect that were Major Hasan a member of almost any other religion, the issue would be his individual sanity. But in a climate of suspicion in which Islam is tainted with the ideological fervor of Islamism, Major Hasan has become the new “bad Muslim” on the block. The media wants his head, and public opinion follows in lock step.
“Going teenager”? “Going Christian”?
One recent commentary has sparked concern on the Islam e-lists that I follow. Published on November 9 in Forbes Magazine by Tunku Varadarajan, it is disconcertingly entitled “Going Muslim.” As the author, a professor at NYU’s Stern Business School and a fellow at Stanford’s Hoover Institution, explains, he is borrowing directly from the phrase “going postal,” which he notes is “a piquant American phrase that describes the phenomenon of violent rage in which a worker (archetypically a postal worker) ‘snaps’ and guns down his colleagues.” The actions of Major Hasan are said to signal a “new phenomenon of violent rage,” this time from within the United States and, even more disconcertingly, within our military.
Varadarajan does not believe, however, that Major Hasan simply snapped, but offers a more sinister scenario, one of “a calculated discarding of camouflage—the camouflage of integration.” Fearing that the Army succumbed to the dreaded politically correct mentality of liberals, the author issues a call for soldiers to turn in their comrades at the hint of “radical Islamism.”
Reactions have been visceral. A professor in Religious Studies at NYU has called on his university’s president to repudiate the remarks of Dr. Varadarajan, viewing them as incendiary. President Sexton* responded that although he found the remarks in the column offensive, the university remains a forum for freedom of expression. [See also Haroon Moghul’s essay for RD. —Eds.]
The deeper issue here is the politics of blame fueled by fear. Despite several “going postal” episodes in recent years, we still go to our local post offices, and local postal workers have not quit en masse. It sometimes seems like hardly a month goes by without a disgruntled individual going on a shooting spree. To neologize the term “going Muslim” is an insult that would not be tolerated for any other group I know. Were the perpetrators of the Columbine school killings “going teenager”? If a fanatic fundamentalist Christian kills an abortion doctor, is he “going Christian,” or should an Israeli soldier who loses it be considered as “going Jewish”? As much as I hate the term “Islamism,” could Varadanjan not at least have come up with “going Islamist”?
Words matter. In a recently published volume, Islamism: Contested Perspectives on Political Islam, I offer an essay rejecting the term “Islamism” as a catch-all for political and militant versions of Islam. More than a century ago, the term “Islamism” referred to Islam as such, like Judaism and Buddhism. That usage is now obsolete—but consider the linguistic damage in reserving the -ism for Islam as a marker of violence and intolerance. A Buddhist monk who sets himself on fire is not called Buddhist because of the act; but a Muslim who goes on a suicide mission is called an Islamist precisely because of the violent act. Like the prejudicial term “Mohammedan,” which has now been retired, the term “Islamist” perpetuates a false image of the world’s second largest religion. Why is it that we need one term to link Islam and violence in a way not done for any other religion? As problematic as the term “fundamentalist” is when applied to Muslims, at least it describes a view not specific to one religion.
The same argument holds for “going Muslim.” Instead of “bad Muslim/good Muslim,” which at least admits there can be a good Muslim, the dangerous notion of “going Muslim” inflicts the same linguistic damage to Islam as phrases like “to gyp” (referring to Gypsies) or “to jew” (to cheat). The dictionary still records such etymological ethnic bias, even if political correctness helps make them obsolete.
We may never be able to discover the motivation of Major Hasan, regardless of whether or not he chanted “Allahu Akbar” in the act. There are thousands of Muslims serving in the US military and several million Muslims living in America. If “going Muslim” means losing it and taking lives, then Muslims in America have no place to go. Major Hasan did not “go Muslim” when he took the lives of his fellow soldiers. As in all such crimes, no matter what religious veneer is assumed, he went berserk.
*As commenter (and RD contributor) Gabriel Mckee notes in comments, the NYU president referred to in the passage is indeed John Sexton. RD regrets the error.
Tags: forbes, fort hood, going muslim, islamism, major nidal hasan, muslim, nyu, varadarajan
One of the problems in trying to understand this - is that of westerners putting forward their own ideas on Islam or more how the Islamic world works. Having spent time in the Islamic world - I came to the conclusion that - the 'western' idea of Good and Bad wasn't going to work when it came to Islam and Muslims.
What I saw - and for the most part you don't see in the West - is the majority of the population being extremely controlled - very must like communism - but for religion. And this is where I thought there is going to be a problem with the 'bad'. Because when a person lives under this type of control they will simply do what they believe to be right - which Westerners and others may find 'bad'. Particularly so with the treatment of women.
Ramadan was a good example of this control. Anyone who did not take part was arrested - and held up publicly as a renegade - which people around me agreed with. As the days went on - it seemed the people became more extreme. It is a situation where everyone is policing everyone else including foreigners - like myself. I was yelled at a few times and given dirty looks for doing things considered un-Islamic during Ramadan - which included eating.
And this is in a moderate Muslim country. But after the fast - the intense drone-like stare of the crowds vanishes and people go back to normal.
It led me to believe that these people could be instructed to do anything. Right from the time they are kids they spend more hours studying the Koran than any other subject - in government schools. I got the impression that they were being trained to one day live in a world controlled by Islam.
Another thing I saw which caused some alarm - was the amount of reverence paid to the ultra religious. When almost no one else dressed like this - a guy wearing a long robe and a turban - almost causes people to stop. And when they would come by - you didn't get the feeling that you would with a Buddhist monk - dressed in robes - there was a militancy about it.
On one side there is the requirement to allow Muslims to live with the same dignity as everyone else - but on the other side there is this other reality about Islam that we cannot ignore. And that is to do with the teachings of the Koran. Of which [some] Muslims may feel extremely upset by if they are not following to the letter. And the verses on Jihad, jizya, and the subjugation of all others - are in direct conflict with living in a free society.
Unfortunately for many Muslims - one of the casualties of this war [which we did not start] may be the name of Islam.
Which country were you describing?
Hair brained understanding of Islam.
Mr. Cole if you had left your self righteous American arrogance in America before you went to visit the said Islamic country, you might have realized the fact that every country has its own social values and norms and American or not you need to abide by them. If a social norm suggests you not eat during Ramadan hours then you are inviting the stares and anger when you choose to eat anyway; after all its their country, NOT yours, contrary to what you might think as an American.
Secondly, the "control" you refer to is no more indoctrinated into "these people" than your mother telling you not to take candy from strangers. It is their cultural tradition and heritage. It is their knowledge that passes on from generation to generation, you or any other individual or nation has absolutely no right or place to judge it according to the New World's secular manifesto.
The "Islamophobia" phenomenon in question is not an accident and neither a coincidence. It is a carefully and meticulously engineered plan of the powers that be, to carry on an agenda still unclear to most of the world. If they don't instill the fear, they cannot achieve complete reliance.
For people like the NYU President, the freedom of society is preserved as long as the smear campaign against Islam continues. However, mention the improbability and unlikelihood of the Holocaust and suddenly you'll be deemed speaking out of order.
Truth today is relative. What matters is the status quo. Mr. Daniel Martin Varisco I applaud your eloquence and clarity and I hope you continue to see through the lies and deception. In the future, I'd love to see not just a narration of the incident, but an explanation of the motives as well. Thank you.
I would doubt -- to put it very mildly -- the claim that anyone was arrested for failing to observe Ramadan, even if the country was Saudi Arabia or Iran. I have read many blogs from residents of Muslim countries, many by extreme secularists, and it would have been mentioned in them, or would have been jumped on and become viral from anti-Muslim sites in the West.
There are many people who, because of circumstances, including age sickness, or pregnancy, are excused from fasting, and no non-Muslim would be expected to observe the fast. (In fact, it might be a small sample, but the Pakistani restaurants in America that I know of remain open for the convenience of non-Muslims, but I have seen Muslims eating there during the day.)
Mr. Cole, can you give more details and anything other than your say-so, because I hate calling someone a liar, as you appear to be?
Another comment of yours may merely be ignorant. Yes students in Muslim countries, and non-Muslim countries, spend much time studying the Qur'an, but it is frequently rote memorization of an untranslated book in a language they do not understand, not even the pitiful excuse for Bible studies that we get in similar Christian schools.
"President Stern responded that although he found the remarks in the column offensive, the university remains a forum for freedom of expression."
That was NYU President John Sexton. Thomas Cooley, Dean of the Stern School of Business, didn't find the column offensive, and sent two reactions out to those who contacted him: one a condescending memo stating that those offended "didn't understand" the column, the second a longer letter that "recognize[d] that the ideas expressed ... are controversial."
All three responses can be read in full here.
Maybe Hindus are given a pass, especially those from India. Maybe everybody thinks there have been too many burning trains there.
As for the country Cole was describing ( I presume it is not Juan Cole), perhaps in future years the population will look back and say remember how crazy we used to get during Ramadan. Indeed, their children and grandchildren may say, and what was Ramadan, Grandpa?
what conservatives and religious right wingers don't want to hear is the murderous decades of involvement the West has played in the Middle East. They pretend all this anger came from Islam. No fools, it came from your raping and pillaging.
When the US Soldier shot up a camp in Iraq in May and killed 5 fellow soldiers, no one asked what his religion was or what he said. They assumed he just snapped.
Hasan may very well be guilty of religious motives which obviously were perverted from the very real and justifiable outrage Muslims and other people all over the world feel about America's foreign policy.
No dimwitted explanation about treatment of women or Ramadan explains Abu Graib, Guantanamo water boarding, Iraqi pre-emptive attacks, abandonment of US values and moral codes and all the arms, training and money Ronald Reagan and others have pumped into creating the disaster we have in the Mujahiddeen (Taliban) operating for the past couple of decades in Afghanistan.
Hamed, let me take a crack at an explanation. America has freedom so we use that freedom for class warfare, rich against non-rich, although much of the time the non-rich is not aware of the struggle because the rich are good at distractions. After the war we tried to solve our problem of teenage girls crossing the border to get illegal abortions by making abortions legal. The rich are few in number, so they are always in need of a voting base, and they saw a golden opportunity in this situation. They formed an alliance with some in the Christian community, and those Christians had an opportunity to turn abortion into a wedge issue to gain power, and the rich got the votes from a block of people that previously were voting against them. Through a process of adjusting to each other, the rich and the Christians (increasingly under the spell of the hard core fundamentalists) found they had another common interest, war in the middle east. The rich like the idea of these wars for two reasons, they own the military industrial complex that stands to benefit financially from war, and they own the international companies that stand to benefit if our army gets control of more middle east oil. In America, Christianity has long been looking to destruction of the world centered on war in the middle east as their salvation. Once Christianity bought in to the wars, there was little resistance to torture or anything that America previously looked down on the rest of the world for. Once Christianity bought in to the torture, there was really no way out because that would be admitting the Christians are more ungodly than the population in general. They are now in for the long haul whatever the outcome. None of this would be that important except for the fact that we are the superpower, we have the biggest stockpile of WMDs, and we have a virtual monopoly on 21st century weapons designs such as space based lasers, vehicle mounted ray guns, and killer drones. The world is relatively safe as long as the Democrats are in power, but eventually the Republicans will return to power, and they know whatever good the Democrats do in the meantime the Democrats will also be preserving our military superpower capabilities, and so when they do regain the White House they will be able to pick up from where they left off.
Muslim majority countries have been miserable for a long time, long before the present wars. There has long been an oppressive, abusive culture of impunity and neglect. The West did not import raping and pillaging.
Sometimes attacking things has unexpected consequences. The train catches fire. A president treats the destruction of a couple of office buildings as an act of war.
In 1482 the moors still held parts of Spain. A sultan surprise attacked a Christian fortress during a storm. He returned to his palace to gloat over his conquest.
Ferdinand used this as a wonderful opportunity to unite his quarreling Christian tribes. 10 years later the moors were gone and he was King of Spain.
The major could have used the media, he could have done any number of legal things, to get himself out of the army and to draw attention to his views. Instead, he opts to shoot some people.
Reed, you have an interesting description of what is going on, but the Dems make mistakes as well as the Reps.
Postal? 'Going Postal' I think that's where the phrase comes from.
"We may never be able to discover the motivation of Major Hasan, regardless of whether or not he chanted “Allahu Akbar” in the act"
NO if he chanted Allahu Akbar in the act, I think it's pretty safe to assume that his motivations were Islamic
Not necessarily. A believing Muslim might say "Allahu Akbar" before performing any act, asking God's blessing on it, whatever the act is and without implying any religious motivation.
Those focused on Mr. Hasan's status as a practicing Muslim have decided to focus on surface symptoms rather than seek to discover and identify the root disease - human irrationality - which can certainly be found in every human being living and is particularly common to many more philosophies and religions than Islam. Mr. Hasan is guilty of two things one finds in humans everywhere - Muslim or otherwise: 1. He was either unable or unwilling to empathize with other human beings and was unable or unwilling to demonstrate compassion toward them AND 2. although he may at some point have agreed with the core values of civilization - respect for individual sovereignty and human community of peaceful cooperation for mutual prosperity - he apparently lost those values. His specific arguments for rejecting empathy, compassion, and civilization are far less relevant to his rejection of these necessary features of a healthy, rational, peaceful civilized human being.
In that, he is hardly alone. Each of us rejects these things everyday in small and sometimes in very large ways.
Maybe Ramadan customs vary from place to place, even city to city. Shirin Ebadi says she and her husband were put on a hit list because someone perceived they were eating in their house during the day.
Comments closed
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.