Originally written for and first published with Islamist Watch
When Americans first heard of Islamic extremism, most didn’t consider homegrown terrorists. Even further removed from our imagination was any idea that a Pakistani man working to change Muslim stereotypes, or that a Palestinian-American Army psychiatrist, would make national news for their acts of extremism against American citizens.
Earlier this year, Buffalo, New York’s Muzzamil Hassan was charged with beheading his wife, and Fort Hood’s Hasan went on a murderous shooting rampage on November 5, 2009, killing 13 and injuring over 30 servicemen.
Sitting face to face in a prison cell, what would these two men say to each other? What commonalities or a shared ideology exists between these two American Muslims who were both pillars in their community. Moreover, would these two men defend each other’s behavior? What common ground do these men share that could shed light onto a widening definition of terrorist and extremism than the narrow perception that views ‘extremist’ as a bomb-strapped militant Muslim.
The Buffalo Beheading
Founder of the first television station aimed to counteract negative Muslim stereotypes, on February 12, 2009, Muzzamil Hassan was arrested and charged with stabbing and beheading his wife, Aasiya Zubair.
The Muslim community, in denial about the beheading, focused the core issue on marital problems rather than the murder itself. Despite two failed marriages, a string of domestic violence calls, and community members acknowledging a failing marriage between Hassan and Zubair, Hassan’s legal team is now citing insanity as a pretext for the beheading.
FortHood Shares Insanity Plea Defense
The insanity plea is the same defenseargument being used by Fort Hood Shooter Nidal Malik Hasan. Hasan, who despite his radical beliefs and documented communication with Anwar al-Awlaki, an accused senior Al-Qaeda recruiter, is now also seeking the insanity plea.
An army psychiatrist scheduled for a deployment to Iraq, Hasan posted online messages in defense of suicide bombers. And while it can be argued that he is both lone gunman and a domestic terrorist motivated by extremist ideology, the public argument regarding Hasan is shifting away from terrorism and toward the sympathy of psychological disorders faced by soldiers returning from war.
The fact that Hasan had voluntary enlisted in the U.S. Army, reaped the benefits of a military-funded education, and had not witnessed war, makes psychological trauma of warfare a very poor argument; it also draws attention away from a larger issue. The insanity argument lends sympathy to intentional acts of violence that highlight a very real tangent of Islamism and its use of rhetorical manipulation. However, insanity as a defense for the acts committed by Hassan and Hasan faces considerable obstacles if viewed from a legal perspective.
Why the Insanity Plea Doesn’t Work
The “insanity” plea is a legal term that acts as an umbrella for any number of psychological disturbances, ranging from psychosis to depression. Islamism witnessed a considerable shift in methodology in the legal aftermath of crimes committed by Muzzamil Hassan and U.S. Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan. Islamist use of the insanity plea fails because of the long list of intentional behavior and interests, which reflect the state of mind of both Hassan and Hasan. Their intentional behavior negates use of an insanity plea, which is only justifiable when an individual's judgment is impaired by psychological factors beyond their intention.
The Foggy Media Lens
The legal parameters in this case continue to be publicly dismissed as media fails to report on these incidences with objective reasoning. Mediacoverage was scarce on Hassan and excusing of Hasan, citing that these men were not representative of a larger Muslim demographic. While not indicative of a greater Muslim community, the activity is reflective of an Islamist mindset that subjugates an outside party to the preferences of the individual; in other words, a perceived Islamic ideology is forced upon others with no regard for an individual’s free will.
How Islamism Factors In
Although Islamism is normally viewed as political in nature, it is in essence a “lawfare” waged through a judicial system. It is also not outside the realm of possibility for Islamists to become violent if the acting individual perceives violence as the only measure for recourse. The notion of recourse comes into effect when an individual feels that his or her environment is beyond their control and outside the scope of (their) acceptable norms. An individual with an Islamist agenda does not have to be part of a larger niche group to be considered Islamist, which is a mindset analogous to terrorism where popular opinion dictates that such activities are only carried out by organized groups.
Evidence of a Failing Islamic Culture?
In fact, paired with a refined understanding of Islamism, the acts committed by Hassan and Hasan highlight a larger problem within Islamic culture. Islamic culture, through scripture that promotes acts of violence rather than compassion and understanding, fosters an environment that makes it easy for followers to deflect accountability from both the individual and from the community.
It is possible for individuals to come from backgrounds that makes them weaker in character. However, there are communities that create weak individual and communities which cradle negative traits, giving them strength, importance and justification to develop into cemented personalities.
Who’s Responsible for the Culture?
A differentiation between religion and culture can also argued, but ultimately Islamic culture is carved by followers of the faith; followers are to be held accountable for the direction of the faith. For example, in the case of Aasiya Zubair, her death is seen by many as an honor killing – but while honor killings are not part of Islamic faith, they have become an associated with Islamic culture that has failed to evolve and adapt to a growing number of issues pressing upon it. Through manipulation of religion, Islam’s followers breed a culture that gives a “green light” to act out against perceived transgressors.
Is Islamic Culture a Gateway to Extremism?
Traditional Islamic culture, saturated in verses of aggression and a history seeped in violence, allows not only the development of negative traits but allows them to grow rather than be marginalized through corrective attitudes that emphasize understanding and tolerance. A static Islamic culture readily acts as a gateway to extremism. It remains a dominant characteristic despite differences in demographics, educational background and ethnicity.
Hassan, a first generation Pakistani executive in New York, and Hasan an American born Palestinian military psychiatrist in Texas, both ultimately arrived at the same destination where they acted out in brutal violence against others who they felt frustrations against. Both Hassan and Hasan viewed outside factors as the problem rather than working to understand what shortcomings they may have carried.
FortHood and the Buffalo Beheading Point to a Dangerous Problem with Muslim Americans
Hassan and Hasan are two Muslims out of millions of Muslims in America. The Muslims community reaction to the Buffalo Beheading and Fort Hood Shooting is equally as important as understanding the motives of the accused. In both cases a larger Islamic community shifted the burden by (a) ignoring the problem, (b) deflecting the issue, and (c) shifting the blame to outside sources. The dual atrocities show an emerging trend of patterned aggression among diverse Muslim community groups that will grow in frequency if there is no accountability for the extremism in our Muslim communities.
For centuries, Muslim communities have targeted women and ‘outsiders’ labeled as non-Muslims. And Americans are still seen as outsiders by a number of Muslims living in the United States. Yet how can Americans be seen as outsider by someone who is also living in America?
Viewed from the perspective of an Islamic culture that treats non-Muslims with xenophobic caution, where ultimately the only accepted people or ideology is an Islamic one, it’s easy to see how modern Muslim communities, seeped in ancient Islamic culture, view themselves as separate from a larger American community. Exclusionary in nature, Islamic culture does not tolerate differences; it promotes psychological imbalances by protecting and emboldening a mind that recognizes differences and shelters Muslim paranoia against non-Muslims.
Who’s to Blame?
The real culprit is an Islamic culture that enables extremism, resulting in an extremist culture that is sheltered from truth and critical examination by a larger Muslim community. In Buffalo and Texas, a larger Muslim community failed to show the same vigilance and outcry that is demonstrated when they perceive an attack on Islam. In the case of Hassan and Hasan, Muslims as individuals and Muslim organizations both looked the other way or treated the situation with a degree of caution that showed their reservation at identifying with the Muslim ‘Ummah’.
A Muslim Ummah, the idea of a larger Muslim community and a principle tenet in Islam, is conveniently shied away from at the exact moments where it is critical that it’s emphasized and utilized to attack the problem of extremism in Islamic culture. Failed accountability for extremism from within the Muslim community is the main reason for the misogyny and murder in the case of Hasan and the prolonged psychological imbalances of Army psychiatrist Hasan, leading to extremism and violently ending the lives of 15 innocent people.
And so while Islamic culture may be the culprit, the culture is theoretical in nature and can exist only within vessels willing to give it life. Ultimately the fault lies with those Muslims who refuse to see 21st century Islam for the cultural virus that is has become. Unwilling to see, these Muslims propagate a culture that has very little resemblance to the originally intended message.
Yet, giving them slight yet receding breathing ground, they have the shoddy defense of citing they were born into such a system. But what about the media and our present administration - what's their excuse?
If you appreciated this article, please take a moment to show your support through a donation within your means. This article can also be tweeted, Facebooked or submitted to digg view applications in the upper right corner, under the label "Share".
Originally written for and featured in REVOLUTION Islam · December 10, 2009
As if Jerusalem were stock that could be divided among shareholders – butapparently that’s what EU ministers must think of one of the holiest cities to the three largest monotheistic faiths.
In an effort to negotiate peace, EU ministers call for Jerusalem to serve as the capital of both Israel and a future Palestinian state. But if millennia of history weren’t enough to warrant this a really bad idea, how about the phrase, “you can’t have two cooks in one kitchen”?
The EU Council shows once again that it completely fails to understand the depth of the situation, or the psychology behind the power plays. It’s a given that what’s happening to the Palestinian people is less than fair, but succumbing to sympathy and failing to realize the sensitivity of a larger issue, an issue that envelopes the region in its entirety, proves that despite calls for peace and moves to appease both sides, this most recent plan will also fail.
According to an EU foreign minister, “If there is to be genuine peace, a way must be found through negotiations to resolve the status of Jerusalem as the future capital of two states.”
Their short-sightedness is truly amazing. What does the council think will happen once a Palestinian state does have stake in Jerusalem’s capital? It’s not that difficult to imagine.
Imagine boxing the Sharks and Jets in a room, or Cripps and Bloods, forcing them to use the same space, the same resources, and expecting them to get along when nothing has been done to target the core problem, the core problem being the perception with which these two groups view each other.
It’s no secret that, save little exception, Muslims hate Jews. The sentiment is only magnified in the Israel-Palestine conflict, and forcing these two to occupy the same space is a recipe for disaster.
Do EU ministers really think that just because some illusive idea of peace is reached, that just because some piece of paper is signed by heads of state, that that somehow undoes a history of hate, hate weaved in scripture, through the tongues of mullahs and preachers who encourage a deeply rooted mistrust of Israel - despite the Quran at times advocating peace with believers.
Acknowledging Israel’s “legitimate security needs”, the EU 12 point statement includes a “call for a complete stop to all violence and arms smuggling into Gaza. The Council calls on those holding the abducted Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit to release him without delay.” The EU Council makes considerable demands but no mention of how it plans on ceasing illegal arms smuggling or even working toward regulating such activity.
A Muslim state, left in a condition where believers have not yet had a genuine revolution, will never be satisfied unless it has complete control of Jerusalem. And the EU’s 12 point call for a divided Jerusalem is nothing more than an empty shell and a recipe for disaster if put into effect.
If you appreciate the honesty of this article, please take a moment to show your support by donating to the Qudosi Chronicles. Donations can be made via PayPal by visiting the home page. Thank you.
On November 4, 2009, UK-based the Alliance of Religions and Conservation (ARC), in working with the U.N., hosted 200 representatives from nine major world religions spanning over 60 different religious organizations. Baha’i, Buddhists, Christians, Hindus, Jews, Muslims, Shintoists, Taoists and Sikhs all gathered at London’s Windsor Castle with a united environmental agenda. In an era of increasing religious divide, a once little thought of topic known as “the environment” was able to bring together ancient faith groups to discuss a modern solution. And with Islam at the forefront of today’s news, Muslim leaders proved Islam’s ability to adapt and meet new needs. Under the newfound coalition toward eco-commitment and a Muslim Seven Year Plan, Medina, Islam’s second most important city after Mecca, is to serve as a model green city. This move is critical since Saudi Arabia is essentially, for better or worse, presently the pillar of the Arab nations. Medina, “The City of the Prophet”, is a strategic start pointing that has the capacity to really launch a green campaign in neighboring territories. The Seven Year Plan was presented by the Sheikh Ali Goma’a, Egypt’s Grand Mufti, who has already introduced the plan into his own city of Dar Al Iftaa. Some key initiatives of the Seven Year Plan include:
Develop and implement a “Green Hajj”. With 2-3 million people visiting Mecca during Hajj alone, transforming the experience into an environmentally-friendly pilgrimage will reap immediate benefits.
Construct a “green mosque” and introduce this model for other Islamic buildings worldwide.
In the first phase, develop 2-3 green model cities; in the second phase, adapt ten other Muslim cities to implement the model.
Integrate eco-awareness into Islamic education.
Publish “green Qurans”, printed on paper procured from sustainable wood.
Create a specialized TV channel focused on Islam and the environment.
Create award and prize systems for excellence in this field.
The ultimate goal here, as with other faith groups, is to radically redefine faith-based relationships with the environment. While the “greenie” movement is still seen as a secular front by a number of conservative groups, the world’s oldest religions with a following in the billions will be able to bring much needed attention and authority to an issue that has predated our recognition of it.
Faith groups also realize the inherent relationshipSufi Muslims have long been known to have a deep reverence for nature. However, despite regional shifts toward eco-awareness, ARC Secretary General Martin Palmer accurately points out the difficultly in Islamic groups face in changing what are essentially government policies.
As Palmer states, essentially Muslims groups will be “saying to Islamic governments that this is how you should act Islamically.” Palmer also astutely notes that implementing green changes are possible if they can be proven to be Islamic in nature. In anticipation of this obstacle, plans are in effect to functionally launce the Muslim Association for Climate Change Action (MACCA). With 1.5 billion Muslims worldwide, the Seven Year Plan not only paves the way for increased interfaith cooperation, increased dialogue, but will also have a considerable environmental impact. With faith as the new foundation of a green movement, critical eco-issues have a new audience and a new life force that has the potential to quickly propel the issue forward – providing not only increased awareness but effective and long lasting solutions to a growing number of environmental concerns.
Over the last week, Texas’ Fort Hood shooting by U.S. Army psychiatrist Major Nidal Malik Hasan drew the attention of a nation. The main question that’s arising is whether this was an act of terror. Was this an isolated incident or does the military face a risk of jihadist infiltration?
Facing a potential backlash, a large number of Muslims speak out against the act. Does this mean they bear the burden in “terrorist” attacks?
AN ISOLATED INCIDENT
In surveying dialogue among both Muslim and non-Muslim group, there’s a majority consensus that this was a rare isolated incident. That being the case I’d also like to point out that most terrorist acts are ultimately rare isolated incidences - if you take into account the ratio of active militant jihadist to inactive non-militant Muslims. In keeping with the argument of an isolated incident, shouldn’t we be calling 9-11 an isolated incident? With this rationale, Islamic jihadist only directly attacked U.S. soil once – an isolated incident. Or does this fall on the precipice of in-ignorable naivety? Were Hasan’s actions not followed with flooding details of his ideological disposition, then yes we could call it a singularity among thousands of armed servicemen and among millions of Muslims. In this case, we would be justified in calling it unfortunate and take the incident as a warning of the serious internal conflicts many Muslims soldiers may feel when following orders against “our own”. And while many Muslim soldiers do not feel a conflict of duty, while I personally know many who are proud to serve our country, there are those that do face a dilemma even though they may not lash out. The frustrations are there and worth looking into. THE REAL QUESTION In light of Hasan's trail of activity, the greater question becomes does the military face a risk of jihadist infiltration? It has long been said that the war we face against extremism is unlike any other. And it will be said again that this war does not have identifiable and maintainable boundaries. We face Trojan Horses like no other period and Hasan is a clear example of that. Provided that the military does not ignore this fact, the next question is what steps should we take to protect future armed servicemen as well as the intelligence that circulates in a military community? BEARING THE BURDEN The Islamic community, facing a potential backlash, has publically denounced the act. They’ve taken considerable steps to displace themselves from Hasan and ensure Americans that they do no support violence. Why does the Islamic community at large only shuffle themselves together when they feel directly threatened? What is this if not a giant PR move, such as that made by CAIR. Ironic that CAIR would denounce the act and urge working with local authorities when their direct involvement with radicalism, vis-à-vis the Holy Land Foundation, is now a common known fact. The sinking of U.S.S. CAIR aside, the bulk of Muslim groups nationwide reacted much in the same way: denounce the act. While it is unfair that the act of one man clumps an entire faith community together as if they were some sort of silent culprit, the larger issue questions why the Islamic community doesn't show the same emphasis on denouncing radical acts in the name of Islam? Why do we only see the fatwas against violence when the community feels the burden of blame? Where are the voices of denunciation in times of direct attack in the name of Islam, or when in the presence of ideologically radical leaders such as those trailed by Hasan? Where are ‘our’ voices then? PARALLEL THEORY If the Islamic community feels compelled to do something because of one Muslim man’s act, then they have that same duty when other Muslims act violently - or is it because the act was at our own doorstep that they feel displaced from other acts of violence under Islam? Considering the great emphasis Islam places on a collective Muslim community worldwide, the Ummah, it becomes clear that the logic of selective dissent fails disastrously. If you denounce one act of violence in the name of Islam, you have a moral and spiritual obligation to denounce ALL acts of violence committed in the name of Islam and under the umbrella of the Muslim Ummah.
Sufism is the undiscovered sect within Islam known only through its most famous disciple, the 13thRumi whose work reflected strong themes pairing nature and spirituality. century philosopher poet
Sufis, “heirs of a mystical ancient tradition”, helped propagate the faith to the height of its expansion in Islam’s coined “Golden Age”. The then flourishing multiculturalism played a key role resulting in the large number of Muslims today, roughly 1.5 billion followers world wide. A great but under represented percentage this figure are still Sufi Muslims.
Initially rising out of a reaction to materialism and over indulgence resulting from excess wealth and power, Sufis are mystics at heart, lovers of the natural world inclined toward heterodoxy in a culture in which ego and possession is the norm.
The key aim of any Sufi is to separate themselves from the material and seek enlightenment by way of serving God, achieved through an internal process that shifts perspectives away from to ego and toward the divine. The process is usually performed through one of two ways.
The less frequented approach is the view of “Signifier to signs”, in which Sufis work to look at the world through a macro to micro lens – in other words, understanding the bigger picture and then applying it to the individual instance. However, the majority of Sufis use the “signs to the Signifier" approach.
The Signifier being a divine source, the analogy is similar to the process of understanding an artist through studying his creations. In this way, many Sufis embrace the natural world, and as such it’s no surprise that Sufis are great defenders of the environment.
Relevance of Sufism within the Arab World
Sufism emphasizes “eco-spirituality” - the fundamental belief in the sacredness of nature. Since Gnostic teachings, the Kabalah, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc, all hold this as a key truth, it’s easy to see how Sufism has the capacity to bridge perceived divides between Islam and other faith groups.
According to Sufi expert and director at the Moroccan Ministry of Religious Affairs in Rabat, Ahmad Kostas, “Progress and change are basic tenets of Sufi philosophy.” With this in mind, and with the premise of mutual appreciation for environmental initiatives, the common interest in eco-spirituality is a potential conduit for possible future partnerships between Mid East nations and their neighbors.
A Green Middle East
With the reasoning that a physical environment is reflective of a moral and cultural environment, proactive Sufi efforts to protect the environment can be seen in Morocco, where local Sufi youth gather regularly to “debate timely topics of social and political importance, ranging from the protection of the environment and social charity to the war on drugs and the threat of terrorism.”
It’s no wonder that this esoteric branch of Islam is now not only gaining increased worldwide attention as a possible solution to prevailing conflicts, but is also helping pave the way for a greener Mid East. A green Mid East is slow in the making - mostly because as Karin Kloosterman points out, “environmental education is seriously lacking.” And while Sufis make up about 1/3 of all Muslims, unfortunately their reach and global presence is still limited.
It’s Saudi Arabia that’s still the front runner role when it comes to Islam and Mid East issues. If there’s to be a trickle down effect of green Muslims in the region, then Saudi Arabia is a good place to start.
Religion
JERUSALEM DIVIDED
As if 
Sufism emphasizes “