Posted by John Romano in News and Analysis, Politics on November 6, 2009
NEW YORK (YBH.ME) – An Associated Press profile of Nidal Malik Hasan begins with the following quote:
He was by turns caring and conscientious, a man quick to say “I am blessed” in casual greeting yet one who seemed to stew in discontent that he could not always keep to himself.
Sounding more like the profile of someone with dating problems than a Jihadist, the AP takes pains to not directly associate yesterday’s shootings directly with Islam.
Political correctness abounds in media reports about yesterday’s attacks. Some news outlets, like NPR, fully explored Mr. Hasan’s relationship with Islam, before talking about “combat stress.” Many others, including President Obama, seemed to downplay or ignore the issue. President Obama said today, “We don’t know all the answers yet. And I would caution against jumping to conclusions until we have all the facts.” The Imam at Mr. Hasan’s former mosque said flatly, “Islam is not responsible,” for the attack.
A girl prays at Nidal Hasan's former Mosque in Maryland.
Witnesses claim that Mr. Hasan yelled “Allahu Akbar!” – or “God is great!” in Arabic before he began shooting up the Soldier’s Readiness Processing Center at Fort Hood yesterday. A former classmate, Dr. Val Finnell, stated that Mr. Hasan claimed to be “a Muslim first, American second.”
All of this begs the question: At what point does the media begin to label acts of violence by Muslims with Islam? Should they?
It can be argued that a climate of overt political correctness led to the Army missing, or refusing to act, on some troubling signs Mr. Hasan displayed to classmates and others. Reports have surfaced that Mr. Hasan posted about justification for suicide bombings on the internet, outwardly argued with other officers about U.S. Policy in the Middle East, and required counseling for “difficulties” with his job at Walter Reed. No word on what those “difficulties” are said to be. If they were about U.S. policy, the Army missed a cue that could have possibly saved lives. Mr. Hasan was said to have believed that the “war on terror” was a “war on Islam.” If the AP was able to dig up those quotes, and others about Mr. Hasan’s alleged anger at U.S. policy in the Middle East, nary 12 hours after the attack on Fort Hood, why didn’t the Army know about them earlier?
Muslim groups are right to be terrified of a backlash. The New York Daily News ran a story today entitled “We’re appalled too by Fort Hood killer Nidal Malik Hasan, so don’t target us: Muslim Groups.“ The fact that Islamic groups are front and center the day after the attack is helpful. However, quotes like “Such violence is morally reprehensible and has nothing to do with any religion, race, ethnicity or national origin,” by Mary Rose Oakar, president of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, may fall flat with many Americans who see the evidence as being very much about “religion, race, ethnicity or national origin.”
And meanwhile, the eminent Daniel Pipes, a leading “outer” of Muslim extremism, coined the phrase “Sudden Jihad Syndrome” in 2006, when a seemingly mild-mannered Iranian immigrant student drove his car into a crowd of students, injuring 9 but killing no one. Pipes is thus far silent on the Fort Hood incident, though it seems to fit his theory, “whereby normal-appearing Muslims abruptly become violent.”
This article is a companion piece to “Media Begins To Caution Over Islam’s Role in Fort Hood Shootings” which was published at YBH! yesterday.