Todayz Newz

by Raymond Ibrahim
Pajamas Media
November 18, 2009

Posted in the Middle East Forum

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.”

Taqiyya

This doctrine, which revolves around deceiving the infidel, is pivotal to upholding loyalty and enmity wherever and whenever Muslim minorities live among non-Muslim majorities.

Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch is interviewed by an acquaintance of mine, Nabeel Qureshi who, along with David Wood, comprise the Acts17 Apologetics Ministry. I was with David and Nabeel this past summer in Dearborn when the now infamous Shari’a in America video was made, which now has over 1.6 million hits on YouTube.

Note at about 4:30 into the interview, Nabeel asks Robert if there is any hope or if there is any light at the end of the tunnel. Spencer says there is no solving this problem; there is only managing it. I have to disagree. The problem will be solved when Muslims worldwide meet the Prince of Peace, Jesus Christ himself and yield to Him as Lord and Savior. Being the good Catholic man he is, Robert Spencer should know this.

Major Nadal Malik Hasan

None dare call what happened in Texas by its real name: Sudden Jihad Syndrome.

by Ebrahim Ashabi

Last evening I got into a bit of a discussion on Facebook with someone who had a mutual friend with me. He was decrying all the ‘right-wingers’ who were attempting to label the shooting at Ft. Hood as an act of jihad perpetrated by a lone gunman. His position was that it was not jihad at all; it was just the random act of a madman with a gun, and none of this would have happened if guns were outlawed. And his position is not alone. I have heard this and a number of other theories put forth as to what drove Maj. Nadal Malik Hasan to do what he did. To me, they all seem to miss the obvious, and likely out of political correctness, or out of fear of being labeled a bigot or an Islamophobe (whatever that is).

Let’s look at the facts as we know them to be at this point in time:

• Hasan had attempted to contact al-Qaeda operatives
• Hasan posted anti-American slogans on a blog
• Hasan spoke openly against the war in Afghanistan and Iraq
• Hasan told fellow soldiers Muslims should not be fighting against other Muslims
• Hasan was disciplined for proselytizing patients in Islam
• At a meeting with senior Army staff more than a year ago, Hasan warned of “adverse events” if the military did not allow Muslims to opt out of assignment to Muslim nations as conscientious objectors.
• The morning of the shooting, Hasan sold and gave away all his personal possessions, in addition to passing out copies of the Qur’an
• According to eyewitnesses he shouted the words “Allahu Akhbar” just before opening fire

I am confident the ongoing investigation will reveal even more facts and details. But what is clear so far is that this was not a simple random act of violence perpetrated by a madman with a gun. This was clearly an act of jihad, albeit by one lone man, attempting to right the wrongs that have been committed against ‘Muslim brothers’ by the United States armed forces. Hasan clearly intended to die the day of the shooting. It appears he was unsuccessful.

How much longer must we endure the politically correct atmosphere in our government and our major media outlets? How many more acts of mass violence against Americans by radical Muslims must we endure before we recognize the enemy and call it by name: Radical Islam?