Jeffrey Goldberg writes at The Atlantic in a post entitled When Muslims Commit Violence:
I do think that elite makers of opinion in this country try very hard to ignore the larger meaning of violent acts when they happen to be perpetrated by Muslims. Here’s a simple test: If Nidal Malik Hasan had been a devout Christian with pronounced anti-abortion views, and had he attacked, say, a Planned Parenthood office, would his religion have been considered relevant as we tried to understand the motivation and meaning of the attack? Of course. Elite opinion makers do not, as a rule, try to protect Christians and Christian belief from investigation and criticism. Quite the opposite. It would be useful to apply the same standards of inquiry and criticism to all religions.
My question on this topic is: what can we make of Hasan’s religion in this case? I will readily grant that it appears quite likely that his religious identity played a part in his actions (in the same misguided way extreme Christian believes on the part of some have helped motivate anti-abortion and anti-gay violence) . But what does this ultimately mean? What can it tell us about avoiding such events? What policy implications does it have? Or, directly to the point: what does Goldberg (and others who hold his views) want here?
I am not sure, by the way, that Hasan’s religion is being ignored, given that every story about him that I have read tends to note it.
Beyond that, unless we have evidence of a broader conspiracy, I don’t see how this is ultimately any different than any other mass shooting in US history: the acts of a deranged individual.
As Spencer Ackerman noted (via James Joyner): there have been, sadly, cases of non-Muslim soldiers also engaging in this type of tragic behavior. Ackerman points to case earlier this year of Sgt. John Russell, who opened fire on his fellow soldiers, killing five.
Really, after these events we want there to be a broader pattern so that we can protect ourselves in the future. However, this is rarely (if ever) the case. As James Fallows (one of the “elite makers of opinion” that inspired Goldberg’s post) correctly notes:
In the saturation coverage right after the events, the "expert" talking heads are compelled to offer theories about the causes and consequences. In the following days and weeks, newspapers and magazine will have their theories too. Looking back, we can see that all such efforts are futile. The shootings never mean anything. Forty years later, what did the Charles Whitman massacre "mean"? A decade later, do we "know" anything about Columbine? There is chaos and evil in life. Some people go crazy. In America, they do so with guns; in many countries, with knives; in Japan, sometimes poison.
Emphasis mine.
To this point, the evidence suggests that the Fort Hood shooting will fall into this category as well, with Hasan’s religion being part of his personal motivation, but with almost certainly no broader meaning than that.
And, for what it is worth, local Muslims (including those from his Mosque) are condemning Hassan’ action:
Sphere: Related ContentMajor Hasan was one of about 10 men from Fort Hood who attended prayers in their uniforms, Dr. Farooqi said, and he was shocked to see the major’s face on television identified as that of the gunman. “He is an educated man. A psychiatrist,” he said. “I can’t believe he would do such a stupid thing.”
“I have no words to explain what happened yesterday,” Dr. Farooqi said at Friday afternoon prayers, in which about 40 men were led by the mosque’s imam, Syed Ahmed Ali. “Let’s have a moment of silence to bless those who lost their life.”
“The Islamic community strongly condemns this cowardly attack, which was particularly heinous in that it was directed at the all-volunteer army that protects our nation,” Dr. Farooqi said.
The views expressed in the comments are the sole responsibility of the person leaving those comments. They do not reflect the opinion of the author of PoliBlog, nor have they been vetted by the author.
November 8th, 2024 at 6:08 pm
It matters, if as reported, he said Allah Akbar. He made it matter and we have to consider this an attack by militant Islam on America.
November 8th, 2024 at 6:30 pm
Why does shouting “Allah Akbar” change anything? (And I ask with all sincerity).
And how, if as it appear this is one man acting alone, can this construed as “an attack by militant Islam on America”?
November 8th, 2024 at 6:41 pm
This means he was killing while saying God is great. This is the same perverson of Islam that all the militants use when killing so it matters.
November 8th, 2024 at 6:51 pm
But what does this ultimately mean?
It was clear that this was the first salvo in this year’s war against Christmas.
November 8th, 2024 at 7:06 pm
Mark,
Yes, I know what it means, but the issue to me is how such an utterance makes this any less an act of one crazed individual. I would agree that this is a perversion of Islam, just as I think someone who kills an abortionist in the name of Christianity is perverting the Christian faith.
November 8th, 2024 at 7:09 pm
And Mark, beyond that, what do you then think are the practical implications of calling this “an attack by militant Islam on America”?
November 8th, 2024 at 7:37 pm
what do you then think are the practical implications of calling this “an attack by militant Islam on America”?
If we think of it that way, it will give us justification to run into a series of aimless, endless, and expensive military confrontations abroad against evil while allowing for an assault on civil liberties at home!
It will be great….trust me.
November 8th, 2024 at 8:19 pm
It clearly is time that America woke up the threat to our society posed by militant psychiatrists!
November 8th, 2024 at 9:57 pm
I don’t see how he is crazy: He is a Muslim who thinks it is wrong to go to war against his fellow Muslims. How does that make him crazy?
I question the logic of people who insist that the US follow policies most Muslims strongly oppose like fighting in Iraq and also want Muslims to immigrate to the US and serve in the military.
I think Hassan is being more rational then Americans who think that Islam is “a
religion of peace” or that most Muslims approve of US policy in the Middle East.
November 8th, 2024 at 10:02 pm
The “crazy” part would be the gunning down of unarmed persons.
And last time I checked, the vast, vast, vast majority of Muslims in America weren’t shooting anyone.
November 8th, 2024 at 10:08 pm
I’m surprised at this post, as you seem to miss the obvious: someone who goes on a killing spree for no apparent reason probably can be called “deranged,” but someone who does so based on a political ideology, in the service of a political cause, is a terrorist. It’s definitely unclear at this point which Hasan was/is, and we may never know.
That said, what you imply in your post, which I totally agree with, is that there is almost a hope among some people that Hasan was undertaking some kind of martyrdom operation. It’s as if they need this to be radical jihadism in order to justify their worldview.
Finally, I don’t for a second believe that we didn’t learn anything from Columbine. Those kids were the byproduct of our sociocultural zeitgeist; to simply blame “chaos and evil in life” is far too simplistic, and I’m surprised that you (as a social scientist) accept “crazy” as an explanation.
November 8th, 2024 at 10:34 pm
“The “crazy” part would be the gunning down of unarmed persons.”
He was gunning down soldiers who were going to fight in a war he opposed. When pilots kill enemy combatants by bombing when said combatants are not carrying weapons I would not say the pilots were crazy.
November 8th, 2024 at 10:40 pm
Prof C:
Whether or not he can be classified as a “terrorist” remains to be seen. I would not, by the way, necessarily classify him as “terrorist” simply if one can can prove he was ideologically driven. But then I am prone to use the terms in a fairly narrow way. I am especially reluctant to use it in a lay context, because the term has acquired rather emotional and imprecise connotations in the general population.
“Crazy” in this case is shorthand for what was clearly psychopathic behavior–I am unconvinced that this was some sort of coolly calculated event.
If we are going to play the social scientist card, I would note (as do you) that we really do not know his state of mind. In terms of comparability, the evidence to date places it, to me, along with the other mass shootings we have witnesses (from the UT Tower in the 60s to Columbine to the Luby’s in Killeen in VA Tech and all the other we could name). So, while admitting the small N we are dealing with, I don’t think that I am as far off as you suggest in placing this event in that category. Indeed, as I think I alluded to somewhere, every one of these shooters had their reasons for what they did. That doesn’t, ultimately, make them less psychopathic, does it?
And I must confess that “Those kids were the byproduct of our sociocultural zeitgeist” strikes me as not all that satisfying an answer.
November 8th, 2024 at 10:46 pm
I would not, by the way, necessarily classify him as “terrorist” simply if one can can prove he was ideologically driven. But then I am prone to use the terms in a fairly narrow way. I am especially reluctant to use it in a lay context, because the term has acquired rather emotional and imprecise connotations in the general population.
For me, I stick with the Bush cabinet member, Rod Paige, who equated teachers with terrorists.
November 8th, 2024 at 11:00 pm
I wasn’t trying to play “the social scientist card” — or at least if I was, I wasn’t trying to be confrontational or a jerk about it. I was just saying that “crazy” or deranged seem highly unsatisfactory to me as explanations in most cases, including this one. If Hasan just kind of lost it, went over the edge, I still want to know why (surely there’s something between crazy and terrorist).
As for the sociocultural zeitgeist comment being an unsatisfying answer, it wasn’t meant to be. It’s not an answer, it’s more of a question, a place to start (a hypothesis I suppose). And I maintain that we do know something about the Columbine case beyond that it was the product of evil.
November 8th, 2024 at 11:10 pm
Sorry if I made it sound like I thought you were being a jerk–probably shouldn’t respond to comments whilst watching a tense football game.
I take the point on “crazy”–although I still think that the behavior was psychopathic regardless of his exact motivation. But yes, ultimately, we need a better term than “crazy.”
And I agree that we need to know more. Indeed, I was pleased that he was captured alive for just that reason.
November 8th, 2024 at 11:13 pm
Perhaps to put it another way (and really what I was trying to get at in the post): if it turns out that he was motivated by radical Islam, but sill acted alone, what difference will that make (in terms of policy, anyway)?
November 9th, 2024 at 1:06 am
Is there a ‘Radical Christianity’ and a ‘Moderate Christianity’ and so on? The question is absurd and it is absurd if you substitute Islam for Christianity in the question. To be clear, there is no such thing as ‘radical Islam’. There are certainly Muslims who are radical (just like Radical Christians etc.) but there is only one Qur’an and only one Islam. This is an important point if one is really trying to understand the religion and those who profess it. There is a good article from a Muslim POV here http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/tam.html/features/articles/fort_hood_tragedy_islam_and_america/0017718
Going away from the religious angle (which is not very useful for analyzing this terrible event) one factor that comes to mind is that we are a very violent society and resorting to violence is quite prevalent in many aspects of our culture. This is not an anti gun comment, Norway and Canada have more guns per capita but far lower (far far lower) violence. Major Hasan may be a lot of things including a Radical Muslim and someone who became deranged but he was also a product of our society. It is most unfortunate that he chose to kill so many as a result of his mental state. Perhaps if he had grown up in another country with not a culture of violence it is possible that on becoming deranged he would have taken different actions. There have been some incidences of mass shootings in other countries but from my casual following of news the bulk of such shootings have happened in USA.
November 9th, 2024 at 1:58 am
I’m just going to agree with Ratoe on this one. Carry on.
November 10th, 2024 at 4:11 pm
In reference to Hasan, you ask: “What policy implications does it have?” On July 8, 2024, your guestblogger Bryan S linked to a SPLC study of neo-Nazis in the armed forces. Bryan opined that “These folks shouldn’t be in the military to begin with, and those who are found out should be given immediate dishonorable discharges.” He further opined that: “How extensive the population of extremist racists in the military is obviously impossible to gauge, since the scum know better than to advertise their presence. But training any of these vermin on the taxpayer’s dollar is too much, and something needs to be done. Zero tolerance.” Do you agree with “something needs to be done”? Or would you find their politics as lacking in meaning as Hasan’s?
November 10th, 2024 at 6:33 pm
I would concur that if there are Muslim extremists who want to commit jihad against Americans that they ought not be allowed in the US military. However, that goes beyond simply the question of whether Hasan was Muslim or not.
My point would be that Hasan himself, as a case of one, does not demonstrate a pattern of radical jihadis in the US military. If he ends up being a pattern one, I am unsure as to the policy implication. It does appear, however, that some serious warning signs were missed, which may should have led to his discharge.
In honesty, I am unclear on the point that you are making.
November 17th, 2024 at 11:21 am
And if Sgt. Russell was known to have said, “Forgive them father they know not what they do.” Would this mean Lutherans should be given extra scrutiny?
People who profess to believe in God are capable of ANYTHING. They should not be trusted.