I mentioned in response to ConnScript’s post on Hasan that I’m interested in the media’s treatment of the attack. Charles Krauthammer does a great job making the case for calling a spade a spade. The last line is hilarious:
One must not speak of such things. Not even now. Not even after we know that Hasan was in communication with a notorious Yemen-based jihad propagandist. As late as Tuesday, The New York Times was running a story on how returning soldiers at Fort Hood had a high level of violence.
What does such violence have to do with Hasan? He was not a returning soldier. And the soldiers who returned home and shot their wives or fellow soldiers didn’t cry “Allahu Akbar” as they squeezed the trigger.
The delicacy about the religion in question — condescending, politically correct and deadly — is nothing new. A week after the first (1993) World Trade Center attack, the same New York Times ran the following front-page headline about the arrest of one Mohammed Salameh: “Jersey City Man Is Charged in Bombing of Trade Center.”
Ah yes, those Jersey men — so resentful of New York, so prone to violence.
Apparently Mr. Krauthammer prefers that we begin publically identifying American citizens by their religion, as opposed to their state of origin or location or any other host of more relevant identifying features.
Currently, a headline on FoxNews.com is: “Colorado parents plead guilty in hoax in which couple reported their son was aboard a runaway balloon — admission could could bring jail time and probation.”
I’ve got a complaint into the editor – I want that man identified by his religion!
I’ve also got a complaint in about this one from Fox: “Scott Roeder, 51, of Kansas City, Missouri, spoke to the AP in a telephone call from jail, saying he plans to argue at his trial that he was justified in shooting Dr. George Tiller.”
I guess it’s impossible to draw any correlation between Christians/evangelicals and abortion violence, right?
And, as we all know now, Hasan contacted the Yemeni cleric about his academic thesis. Period. That’s why his supervisors/army investrigators didn’t “act.” Glossing over this fact, and continuing to frame his communication in the most suggestive/ominous light, is far more dangerous than any suggestions that his religion may not have been a driving factor in the violence. Numerous other pieces of evidence has also arisen that strongly suggest Hasan was mentally imbalanced – a condition certainly not unique to muslims.
Drew, this argument is beneath even you. You can’t seriously try to claim that religion isn’t fundamental to jihadism. You just can’t.
There is no tenet of Christianity that calls for violence (against abortion doctors or anyone else). There is explicitly stated dogma in Islam that does allow for violence. You would be plainly stupid to deny this.
Jack, my response to this post – which ties directly to my earlier response to Conn’s (which hopefully I can clarify here) – simply is that it is irrelevant what Hasan’s religious motivations were, if any. I see the relevant inquiry as two-fold: (1) whether there was sufficient reason to investigate Hasan’s actions from the beginning; and (2) assuming there was reasonable suspicion to investigate Hasan, why he wasn’t properly investigated. Until those two questions are answered, it is premature for the media to begin focusing on Hasan’s religious motivations, his connections to Al Qaeda, etc. If the answers to those two questions above indicate that there was reasonable suspicion to investigate Hasan (which it seems at this point that there might have been), AND he was not investigated because of some concern about political correctness, then I can see the media and Krauthammer’s focus as relevant. But at this point, I find it to be premature.
I follow your logic, but I don’t see how this should be treated any differently than a suicide bombing. “Allahu Akbar” is a jihadist cry regardless of the weapon used.
Jack, I didn’t claim any such thing. What I am arguiuing is that unless we want to start linking people’s religions, publically, with stories about them, I don’t understand the point made by you/Krauthammer. How is this any different than an act of anti-abortion violence by a Christian?
In addition, as many have pointed out, there appears to be great evidence suggesting that Hasan’s acts had nothing to do with the fact that he was a muslim. While that debate may change, it’s certainly an argument for avoiding the reaching of such conclusions, publically and in the press, at this stage.
I also find it laughable that Krauthammer is turning this into a “media getting it wrong” issue. Krathammer is the media. In fact, he’s the mainstream media. So, unless he feels all media should always present the exact same story/headline/talking points/perspectives, it’s kind of hard for him to suggest that the media, with a capital M, isn’t getting it right…..if in his mind, he’s getting it right, than the Media, apparently, is too.
“How is this any different than an act of anti-abortion violence by a Christian?”
I already said this above – it is different because Islam is central to jihadism. The two are inherently linked together. There is no such thing as a non-Muslim jihadist.
Anti-abortion violence, on the other hand, is not committed in the name of religion, nor is it institutionally sanctioned. It is that simple.
Jihad is hugely different than violent vihad – there are hundreds of millions of non-violent muslim jihadists. Your suggestion that jihad (”striving in the way of Allah”) = violence is alarming to say the least.
Re: abortion violence it’s shades of gray at best. Are you suggesting that the driver behind anti-abortion violence isn’t a strong religious conviction, based on Christian biblical interpretation, that’s “taught” in organized settings? We both know it is – and we both know that the violence is almost always predeicated, and defended, on Christian terms. If the media started to push those connections in headlines, you and Krauthammer would scream like hell.
I really don’t know how to be clearer with you. I could tell you that 2 + 2 = 4 and you would make wild claims about what I’m inferring.
The terrorists, Islamists, Islamic fundamentalists, or whatever you feel like labeling them so that you aren’t offended, have labeled their OWN actions as jihad. Yelling Allahu Akbar and blowing yourself up or shooting 45 people is jihadism. There isn’t even an argument here. If you want to try telling me that what the terrorists have themselves said they are doing isn’t accurate…well, I have a bridge I’d like to sell you.
For abortion, I was just as clear. Read each word carefully: There is NO religious dogma that provides the opportunity or catalyst for violence.
As a religious studies major, I can tell you for a fact that you have no ground to stand on here.
Jack, you simply have no idea what you’re talking about. Jihad has numerous interpretations, definitions and applications. It’s roughly equivant to “evangelism.”
The word is a noun meaning “struggle.” It appears frequently in the Qur’an and is used as as the idiomatic expression “striving in the way of Allah.” According to scholar John Esposito (noted in this field), Jihad requires Muslims to “struggle in the way of God” or “to struggle to improve one’s self and/or society.” The four major categories of jihad that are recognized are Jihad against one’s self (Jihad al-Nafs), Jihad of the tongue (Jihad al-lisan), Jihad of the hand (Jihad al-yad), and Jihad of the sword (Jihad as-sayf).
In other words, violent (of the sword) jihad is one, extreme interpretation of jihad. So, do violent muslims call themselves “jihadists” when commiting violent acts? Sure they do. Just as many who aspouse or commit Christian-fueled violence frequently defend their actions by masking it in the exact same way – carrying out God’s will, following biblical teaching, etc. That’s not to say that all evangelicals evangelize in violent ways or that all muslims jihadists are shooting people or blowing things up – but, certainly, a minority of both do.
All of this, in Hasan’s case, is besides the point as there is far from clear evidence that his islamic faith had any link to his actions a week ago. You appear to be suggesting that everytime a muslim person acts violently it’s a condemnation of their faith because “jihad” is central to Islam. This is nothing more than prejudice and stereotyping, based on a deliberate misunderstanding of the term jihad, pure and simple.
“There is NO (christian) religious dogma that provides…the catalyst for violence.”
Jack, are you serious? Is your degree from Liberty University? There’s no Christian dogma that fuels violence? The last 5000 years of history have been marked by numerous examples of Christian dogma leading to violence – I’m at a loss if you’re operating from such a skewed perspective. I’d suggest you start with a review of the Crusades, move on to the Inquisition, and then finish with a close examiniation of the drivers behind every act of anti-abortion violence ever committed.
You tell me that I have no idea what I’m talking about and then lay out my argument again…
“So, do violent muslims call themselves “jihadists” when commiting violent acts? Sure they do.” Yes, thank you for repeating what I’ve said multiple times in this thread.
As to your point about Christianity, I ask you again: where does the Christian faith allow for violence, even in extreme interpretation? Give me a Bible passage that can be used to defend your point.
And while we are at it, let me ask you this: did you put up such a big fight on 9/11 when the media called the hijackers jihadists?
Jack, that doesn’t mean than jihad = violence. There are many ways to be on jihad, or self identify as a jihadist, and not be committing violence. Therefore everytime a muslim commits violence, it’s not because they are on a jihad. It may be defended under those terms, and it may not. I know you get it, but to admit it is to admit the flaw in your argument.
Here are some passages for you to chew on – I’m guessing your religious studies hopped over this stuff entirely:
St Augustine on violence:
The great Christian writer Augustine, bishop of Hippo Regius in North Africa (now Annaba or Bône in Tunisia) wrote a good deal on the problem of violence during the early decades of the fifth century. In his City of God he condemned war (Bk. 19, ch. 7; and Letters, 47.5) but violence had to be met by violence in order to keep the peace (City of God, 1.21 and 26). He expanded on this in his letters. He stated that it is clear from the Bible that God does not disapprove of soldiers; it is possible to be a soldier and please God. David was a warrior, and Jesus praised the faith of a centurion at Capernaum (Matt. 8 vv. 5-13), while St Peter was sent to another pious centurion at Caesarea, named Cornelius (Acts 10), and when John the Baptist was asked by some soldiers what they should do to please God, he told them to be content with their pay, rather than telling them to leave the army (Luke 3 v.14). (St Bernard later used the same example to justify soldiers.) But war is inevitable in this world because of sinners, who are allowed to test God’s people so that they can be purified and made perfect; but God’s people will have to fight against them to restore peace. What is wrong with war is not the fighting itself but the motivation behind the fighting: cruelty, desire for revenge, greed, savageness, lust for power. In fact, in fighting and punishing these evildoers, God’s people are actually showing them mercy, by correcting them and enabling them to repent and find the right way. So, war is waged in order to gain peace; soldiers are peacemakers.
Augustine did lay down criteria for a just war. He wrote that war should be waged under proper authority. When the soldiers obey this authority, they should be doing so to restore peace, not to seek plunder or power. But wars which set out to restore peace are authorised by God, and so they must be right.
…and so on. So, have religious leaders and teachers – even Saints – used the bible to justify war and violence. Yes, they sure have.
This is one of my favorites, since you asked, Jack:
“If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant, And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; … Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.”
— Deuteronomy, Chapter 17:2-3,5
In addition, as every good religious studies scholar knows, Israel’s wars of extermination outlined vividly in the Old Testament refute the suggestion that the bible doesn’t aspouse violence. God granted Israel the land of Canaan. The tribes and nations occupying it at the time were blatantly heathen, and their sins were particularly repellant (Dt. 9:1-5). Israel as God’s covenant people were called to expel these nations from a land rightfully Israel’s own.
Hmmmm….I wonder if there’s anyone in that “section” of the world you referenced who still use these biblical excerpts as the justification for violence, occupation, etc…..let me think….hmmmm….
Actually, I’m thoroughly versed in Augustine thanks. There is a huge difference between the defense of war and clear instructions for violence (jihad). I’ll just remind you that Augustine’s writings are not Christian institutional dogma.
The Deuteronomy quote is an interesting one, but Christianity is based on the teachings of Jesus Christ. The Old Testament offers historical context, but let me offer this instead. In no clearer terms in any other writing of any sort, Christianity forbids murder. The sixth commandment: Thou Shall Not Kill.
The bottom line: Islam provides the impetus for violence for those who seek it. Christianity does not. Period.
No, Jack, Christianity – via the bible – has provided the impetus for thousands of years of violence…and, in the case of the middle east/Israel, it continues to do so to this day. To argue that reality based on technical interpretations and the pointing out of troubling contradictions in dogma is nothing more than rationalization and a lack of objectivity.
I’m pretty sure the 10 Commandments aren’t technicalities. But whatever floats your boat. I don’t have anything else to say on the subject.
The fact that 10 Commandments exist doesn’t mean that people don’t use the bible as justification to get around them. Thousands of years of history prove that many Christians have and do.