Why Are Arab And Muslim Organizations So Quick To Condemn?
It almost seems appropriate that since I’m a Palestinian-American Muslim from Northern Virginia who also happens to be from the same hometown in Palestine (El-Bireh) as Ft. Hood shooter suspect Nidal Hasan, I should issue a press release expressing my outrage and condemnation along with every other Arab-American and Muslim-American organization. But I won’t. I won’t because Nidal Hasan’s actions aren’t representative of me. They’re not representative of Palestinian-Americans, Arab-Americans or American Muslims. While I personally was shocked to hear about this incident, I wasn’t overcome with a sense of shame about it. And why should I? It had absolutely nothing to do with me or who I am. Hasan is an individual who, for reasons yet unknown, went postal and decided to kill his fellow soldiers.
Even before I had heard the news about the shooting, I noticed an email in my inbox from the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) with a statement condemning the attack and saying they were “appalled” by it. Later on, the late local news covered a press conference held by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) that joined in with statements of condemnation. Why are these organizations so quick to issue such statements? Of course, anyone in their right mind would be disturbed to hear about an incident like this one. But when these organizations are quick to put out condemnations they automatically link the incident with the respective communities they represent. Such statements are uncalled for and unnecessary.
Sure, there will inevitably be the usual Arab and Muslim bashing from ignorant, hateful people. Unfortunately, some will probably even commit violent acts on those they believe are Arab and/or Muslim. And I know that ADC and CAIR claim to put out these statements in order to curb such sentiments and attacks. But I can’t help but think that if these organizations stop immediately putting these statements out, especially before any motive has even been reached, then incidents like this will be begin to be viewed in the same light as any another violent attack. Certainly, all are tragic events but ones where the individuals who commit them would be scrutinized and/or vilified and not the communities they are from.
This is a sad story. But I won’t feel guilty, afraid or ashamed just because the suspect happens to be an Arab and a Muslim like me. That would be ridiculous.
Agreed. Not an American so can only go on what I see reported about CAIR but I get the impression that many will be seriously suspicious about any pronouncements from them.
Difficult situation for decent Muslims who fit in and don't deserve to be blamed but on the other hand, the Islamic threat, both terrorist and political, is not an invention of right wing bloggers and cannot be ignored. The best option is for the government to treat internal security more seriously and it beats me why this major was not investigated sooner. Inconvenience for decent Muslims/Arabs like travel checks at airports etc, is better than the alternative, more incidents and a right wing backlash.
it beats me why this major was not investigated sooner
Fear of appearing discriminatory against a Muslim kept people from reporting the red flags. this major was not investigated sooner
I wish it were true that they are uncalled for. But in point of fact, ignorant morons are calling for them. It doesn't matter though, because they won't hear them anyway.
I disagree, Nawal. There is a difference between what is expected of you as an individual and those who are perceived as "leaders." I think it is the responsible thing for these organizations to condemn the attack (I haven't seen the statements so I won't speak to the content of the condemnations). And that doesn't mean that they are ashamed or guilty; it just means that they know the dangers facing Arabs and Muslims in this country because of the context of 9/11 and two wars. It's what responsible leaders should do.
I reiterate that by instantly putting out statements of condemnation, these organizations link the incident with the communities they represent. And what did this incident have to us? Nothing. The backlash will inevitably come regardless. No amount of condemnation is going to change that. What these organizations should be condemning is any backlash that is perpetrated against their communities.
So these organization should remain silent and be very defensive?
Damned if you do, damned if you don't. And I think these organizations would rather 'do' because there seems to be more to lose by not doing anything.
Thanks for this Nawal.
So it's all about self-interest, rather than what's right or wrong?
Well, how are you defining what's right and what's wrong? I'm not making a judgement call here – I'm just saying it's definitely a catch 22 because both courses of actions have negative and positive outcomes. Thus it comes down to how such sentiments are expressed and what the reception is from the general populace. I think the organizations should have waited at least a couple of days before issuing statements and perhaps statements which were more than just flowery language. Statements which go beyond what CAIR posted:
“We condemn this cowardly attack in the strongest terms possible and ask that the perpetrators be punished to the full extent of the law. No religious or political ideology could ever justify or excuse such wanton and indiscriminate violence. The attack was particularly heinous in that it targeted the all-volunteer army that protects our nation. American Muslims stand with our fellow citizens in offering both prayers for the victims and sincere condolences to the families of those killed or injured.”
Its a complete damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario like you said Sana.
I mean just look at how many nutjobs in this country still believe that ZERO Muslims apologized for 9/11.
Aside from the fact that NO Muslim should apologize for something they are not responsible for, is the simple fact that CAIR, MPAC, ISNA, and every other mainstream Islamic organization in the United States issued statements condemning the attacks in the most powerful language possible.
This is on top of virtually every single Muslim majority country (including Iran) condemning the attacks, and various top scholars of Islam condemning the attacks.
Its just really sad that people expect Muslims to apologize on an individual and community level for the actions of individuals acting out on their own. Now if the Muslim community was involved directly or indirectly in an attack on a large scale, that would be the case. But this has NEVER been the case.
The problem with issuing a statement of condemnation for Maj. Hasan is that before any of the facts were/are known (because things are still circumstantial and extremely questionable in regards to the commentary coming out of opportunists) these organizations already, inadvertently, took on the yet-to-be-proven idea that he acted out of religious fervor as opposed to self-actualized angst that was perhaps mitigated in part by religious identity, amongst several other factors (trauma/stress related to harassment by fellow soldiers; identity crisis revolving around his involvement in two wars which had killed his ethnic and religious brethren [issue of being replaceable with your group kin]; resulting horror from the stories he heard from his patients, etc etc).
If groups are going to issue statements, they should at least wait before they tie themselves and their group identity to the crime.
Good point, well worded.
Obviously those issuing condemnations see these statements as disconnecting their group identity from the crime. Maybe detaching from the crime is viewed as better than remaining silent, which could have the unintended consequence of appearing allegiant to the religiosity which is possibly responsible for the violence.
I haven't been aware of any "opportunists" taking advantage of the news for some nefarious purpose, as if there are people out there just waiting for something like this to happen so they can use it as an opportunity to take advantage of.
On talk radio I have heard some disgust with the way Obama and his administration tried to dance around the fact that the attacker was Muslim and the reason had to do with the wars. He didn't mind immediately stating that the "Cambridge police acted stupidly" before he even knew what had happened (because they arrested a black man that Obama knew)
For some reason ppl keep bringing up Timothy McVeigh – but did you notice after that attack there wasn't all this need for "understanding" and there wasn't all the excuse making? His ideology and associations were discovered, and no one tried to make excuses for it.
Its just really sad that people expect Muslims to apologize on an individual and community level for the actions of individuals acting out on their own.
The 911 attacks were done in the name of Islam.
If someone went to some other country and flew airplanes into buildings killing thousands of people, and their group revealed that it was done in the name of Jesus Christ, and the perpetrators yelled "Praise Jesus!" as they flew into the buildings…. obviously regular Christians would come out and say that NO, this has nothing to do with Christianity.
And if there were some sort of crazed radical Christians detonating suicide bombs all over the world, with their groups releasing statements about the power of Christ… certainly regular Christian Churches would reject this and make it clear that it had nothing to do with real Christianity.
By the way, just look at how many nutjobs in this country believe that Bush, or Jews, or someone else was behind the 911 attacks (instead of radical Muslims)
And I disagree with you Amal. A leader is supposed to be someone who makes the right decision under any circumstance, in this case the right thing to do was to NOT condemn the attacks. What good is it to the people you are leading if you are always making compromises? By condemning it, you are taking what was to be a single human beings outrage, and now throwing it upon Muslims as a unit to be judged on. Im a Muslim living my normal and daily life, an innocent life is an innocent life regardless of what racial, and beliefs you have. And the guilty party is guilty because of their actions, because they were wrong, not because their religion or racial background. I mean where was the Vaticans apology for Timothy McVeigh, Hitler or Bush? Because i seem to have missed them if thats "what responsible leaders should do". When it comes to situations like these, Muslim "leaders" fail time and time again.
Timothy McVeigh and Bush are not Catholic, and being Catholic was not the reason for their actions. Hitler was atheist.
Hasan was Muslim and presumably that is what conflicted him so much that he went crazy like this. His Muslim identity is shared by people who do not condone his actions, and want to make that clear.
As you probably know, some radical Muslims are praising his actions.
Just like some radical Christians praised timothy Mc McVeigh, and some radical christians continue to praise George Bush Jr.
Your also completely ignoring the fact that its not Islam that motivates any attacks from any radical Muslims. Its always been political and economic grievances. They may use language coated in religion to describe their problems but in the end those problems are still one and the same. I can hardly think of any "fanatical Muslim" who carried out his attack because it was a religious requirement to kill the "infidel." Not even the Bin Ladin tapes echo this simplistic message. They all cite political reasons for their vendettas.
Once we understand that, and accept that as a reality, we will be able to better address whatever threats come our way. But as long as we pretend that its "Islam" that is causing them to act this way, we will get no where, and only create more problems around the world.
No, it is not "just like" radical Christians praising Timothy McVeigh (when did that ever happen, anyway?)
Where have some of these "radical Christians" latest attacks been?
its not Islam that motivates any attacks from any radical Muslims
Wrong again: listen to this (just one example)
But as long as we pretend that its "Islam" that is causing them to act this way
It is not Islam, it is the bastardization of Islam into this extremism which is about terrorism and fascism. Most people consider it to be a perversion of Islam which is responsible. You seem to be trying to say that Islam has nothing to do with it, and that is clearly wrong.
There is a phenomenon of violence committed because of, and in the name of, religious ideology. This phenomenon is unique to Islam, no other religion has so much violence and terrorism committed in its name.
Yes there is other terrorism, and yes there is other violence. And no, not all Muslims are terrorists.
The 911 attacks, the train bombings in Spain, the public transit system attacks in London, the nightclub bombings, and jihad attacks all over the globe are part of this phenomenon.
This global phenomenon is unique to Islam. Obviously regular Muslims who are against this sort of activity do not want to be stigmatized by what the radicals do…. that is why they denounce it (something you seem to have a problem with, for some reason).
I agree with Mostafa 100%
Nawal: The condemnations didn't link the communities with the attack. The link is already there because of the context.
Mustafa: a leader does what is in the best interest of her community. There is no "right decision under any circumstance." There is only decisions in specific contexts affecting specific people at specific times and places.
But before I get in a lengthy debate, I should go read the condemnations.
It is a case of damned if you do, damned if you don't but I think Arabs and Muslims are fed up of being group-linked to the actions of individuals in a way no other community is. When Muslim and Arab groups routinely put out statements of condemnation immediately after every single criminal act perpetrated by a member of the community, it sends the signal that we ARE all collectively culpable for the actions of individuals.
great post nawal. as for whether or not these orgs should be condemning these types of events, all i can say is that i hope to live to see the day that jewish orgs feel compelled to condemn israel's actions.
You make your point very well, but I have to respectfully disagree. It is unfortunate that CAIR and other Muslim and Arab organizations feel the need to condemn every incident involving a Muslim or Arab. But you have to see things from their point of view. When choosing how to respond to an incident like this, they have to take into consideration the fact that any incident involving a Muslim or Arab is going to be heavily exploited in the media by those with a reactionary agenda to demonize Muslims and Arabs. The minute you hear a name like "Hasan," you know immediately what you'll soon be seeing in the media as surely as if you had a crystal ball. You know it is inevitable there will be articles like this one, linking Hasan to the alleged 9-11 hijackers:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northam...
That is the environment groups like CAIR have to contend with, and there is no way they could successfully challenge the anti-Muslim hysteria that the media will be generating out of this incident without first condemning the attacks. If they fail to do that, they open themselves up to a world of false accusations such as that they are unconcerned with the victims or tacitly support the attacks. The only other response is to ignore the issue altogether, but even there, the media will be happy to fill in the blanks left by their silence.
Unfortunately, this happens all the time. Whatever his religion, he obviously went off. Time will tell what sickness drove the shooter to kill. For now, we don’t know. It should be obvious however, that the guy’s name is as irrelevant as was that of say—Timothy McVeigh.
What is relevant is that Islamaphobia has a way of bubbling up in this culture. The way to overcome a phobia is to face it head on. Overcoming Islamaphobia requires the same and this is what CAIR is trying to do. When it comes to a phobia, you’ve got to name it and claim it before you can let it go. This is not only CAIR’s job, but also everyone who cares.
http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/religion_thes...
Alleged Ft. Hood gunman may have 9/11 mosque link
Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan apparently attended the same Virginia mosque as two Sept. 11 hijackers in 2001, at a time when a radical imam preached there. Whether Hasan, an Army psychiatrist, associated with the hijackers is something the FBI will probably look into, according to a law enforcement official who spoke on condition of anonymity because the investigation is ongoing.
Classmates participating in a 2007-2008 master's program at a military college complained repeatedly to superiors about what they considered Hasan's anti-American views. Dr. Val Finnell said Hasan gave a presentation at the Uniformed Services University that justified suicide bombing and told classmates that Islamic law trumped the U.S. Constitution.
You mean, wake up and smell the propaganda. People should be smart enough to realize this guy is a neocon propaganda goldmine who will be milked for everything he's worth. For all we know he is just a lone nut who went postal, and there is nothing but speculation and contradictory reports linking him with Al Qaeda or anything else, most of which are probably bullshit.
Thank you! You just saved me some time that i was going to spend replying to this. Glad to know there are people out there that think like me.
read this
there is nothing but speculation and contradictory reports linking him with Al Qaeda or anything else
Wrong again.
Major Nidal Malik Hasan once gave a lecture to other doctors in which he said non-believers should be beheaded and have boiling oil poured down their throats.
He also told colleagues at America's top military hospital that non-Muslims were infidels condemned to hell who should be set on fire. The outburst came during an hour-long talk Hasan, an Army psychiatrist, gave on the Koran in front of dozens of other doctors at Walter Reed Army Medical Centre in Washington DC, where he worked for six years before arriving at Fort Hood in July.
Colleagues had expected a discussion on a medical issue but were instead given an extremist interpretation of the Koran, which Hasan appeared to believe.
Fellow doctors have recounted how they were repeatedly harangued by Hasan about religion and that he openly claimed to be a "Muslim first and American second."
One of Hasan's neighbours described how on the day of the massacre, about 9am, he gave her a Koran and told her: "I'm going to do good work for God" before leaving for the base.
Just hours before the shooting, video footage shows Major Nidal Malik Hasan shopping at a 7-11 store just outside Fort Hood, Texas, in full Islamic garb.
He attended the same Virginia mosque as two September 11 hijackers in 2001, a time when a radical imam preached there. He held his mother's funeral at the Dar al Hijrah Islamic Center in Falls Church, Virginia, on May 31, 2001, according to her obituary in the Roanoke Times newspaper. At the time, Anwar Aulaqi was an imam, or spiritual leader, at the Washington-area mosque. Aulaqi told the FBI in 2001 that, before he moved to Virginia in early 2001, he met with 9/11 hijacker Nawaf al-Hazmi several times in San Diego. Al-Hazmi was at the time living with Khalid al-Mihdhar, another hijacker. Al-Hazmi and another hijacker, Hani Hanjour, attended the Dar al Hijrah mosque in Virginia in early April 2001.
In the months leading to Thursday's shooting spree, Hasan raised eyebrows with comments that the war on terror was "a war on Islam" and wrestled with what to tell fellow Muslim solders who had their doubts about fighting in Islamic countries.
"The system is not doing what it's supposed to do," said Dr. Val Finnell, who complained to administrators at a military university about what he considered Hasan's "anti-American" rants. "He at least should have been confronted about these beliefs, told to cease and desist, and to shape up or ship out."
Finnell studied with Hasan from 2007-2008 in the master's program in public health at the military's Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, Maryland, where Hasan persistently complained about perceived anti-Muslim sentiment in the military and injected his politics into courses where they had no place.
Hasan killed 13 and left 31 injured after he jumped on to a desk screaming 'Allahu Akbar' – God is Great – and fired on defenceless colleagues.
As usual Eagle, you just repeat the media's propaganda as if everything it spews out is indisputable fact. You ask for "proof" that any of the items you mention is false, but it is impossible to prove a negative. No one cannot prove that Nidal wasn't at some radical Muslim's mosque anymore than they can can prove he's not your secret lover. The burden of proof is on you and the media to establish that what you claim is fact is in reality the truth, and so far both you and the media have failed to do so. Merely repeating your Islamophobic assertions again and again does not make them reality. There is a good article here pointing out many of the absurdities and contradictions that have been offered up in the meida over this shooting. I don't share the author's opinion that this is a "psy-ops" operation, but the other points he makes are still good and I accept that possibility Nidal may be a victim who was framed to pin the blame on Muslims.
http://www.sott.net/articles/show/196533-Reviving...
The author clearly establishes many of the problems with the "facts" of this incident as we are being told. I can add a few others:
1. Initial reports from multiple sources clearly indicated there was more than one shooter involved. Other reports indicated that another suspect had been arrested and admitted he was "with the shooter." Still other reports indicated multiple shooters at multiple places, some using sniper rifles. What happened to these other suspects?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRXxk0coJ7Y
2. The guy who claimed he heard the shooter shouting "Allahu Akhbar" earlier claimed he wasn't sure if he heard that or not.
3. The media claimed he attended a mosque lead by a radical Muslim with ties to the 9-11 suspects who called for jihad against America and was said to be on Yemen's "Most Wanted" List. This begs the question, why wasn't he arrested or investigated? Later the media claimed that Mr Most Wanted is now in Yemen, which is why he wasn't arrested here. So why isn't he being arrested there is he is wanted?
3. The shooter was initially said to have shot 43 people in 5 minutes firing 100 rounds from a revolver. Many of the victims were shot multiple times. When people pointed out the sheer impossibility that a lone gunman could shoot and reload a revolver that fast and hit targets with that degree of accuracy in such a short time, the story then changed to that he had 2 pistols. Later, the make of the pistol in question was changed from a revolver to some high tech thing with a 20 round clip. Even then, that would be a near impossible feat of shooting.
4. Why did this "radical Muslim" put down "No Preference" as his religion on his personnel records? A person with "No Pref" on his dogtags would most typically get a Christian funeral by a military chaplain, or even a funeral by a Jewish rabbi if no chaplain were available. He would not usually receive a Muslim funeral except by chance.
5. Nidal was said to express sympathy for suicide bombers. What he actually did was to try and explain the psychology behind suicide bombers, avoiding the usual simplistic religious explanation.
http://www.sott.net/articles/show/196300-Nidal-Ha... part 1
No one cannot prove that Nidal wasn't at some radical Muslim's mosque
It has clearly been established that Nidal Hasan attended the same Virginia mosque as two September 11 hijackers in 2001, a time when a radical imam preached there. At the time, Anwar Aulaqi was an imam, or spiritual leader, at the Washington-area mosque. Al-Hazmi and another hijacker, Hani Hanjour, attended the Dar al Hijrah mosque in Virginia in early April 2001. Nidal Hasan held his mother's funeral at the Dar al Hijrah Islamic Center in Falls Church, Virginia, on May 31, 2001.
The burden of proof is on you and the media
The only "burden of proof" will be on the prosecutors who are charging Hasan with 13 counts of premeditated murder.
All of your denials and excuses about certain aspects of the case are insignificant.
Merely repeating your Islamophobic assertions again and again does not make them reality
There is nothing "Islamophobic" about the fact that Hasan was a devout Muslim, that he gave some strange and inappropriate lectures at Walter Reed Hospital about Islam, that he made many statements such as he was a "Muslim first and American second" or non-Muslims were infidels condemned to hell who should be set on fire, ect.
Initial reports from real news sources – not pseudo-news like SOTT – reported that others were taken into custody for questioning… then it was revealed that they were fleeing the shooting and were innocent. That was early on.
The guy who claimed he heard the shooter shouting "Allahu Akhbar" earlier claimed he wasn't sure if he heard that or not.
Multiple soldiers reported hearing this.
The media claimed he attended a mosque lead by a radical Muslim with ties to the 9-11 suspects who called for jihad against America and was said to be on Yemen's "Most Wanted" List
The media correctly reported that he had been COMMUNICATING with Anwar al-Awlaki who was released from a Yemeni jail last year, has used his personal Web site to encourage Muslims across the world to kill U.S. troops in Iraq.
The media correctly reported that he attended a mosque when the radical imam Anwar Aulaqi, presumably the same person, preached there. You are in such a frenzy of denial that you are getting all mixed up.
There rest of your comments about "why this, and why that" are desperate and irrelevant.
WASHINGTON – The mystery over whether the military knew Fort Hood shooting suspect Nidal Hasan was communicating with a radical Muslim imam lapsed into finger-pointing ahead of congressional investigations looking into the Army psychiatrist's contacts with any extremists.
A Defense Department terrorism investigator looked into Hasan's contacts months ago with Anwar al-Awlaki. Awlaki, an imam who was released from a Yemeni jail last year, has used his personal Web site to encourage Muslims across the world to kill U.S. troops in Iraq. A military official Tuesday denied knowing Hasan had such contacts.
The Washington-based joint terrorism task force overseen by the FBI was notified of communications between Hasan and the imam overseas, and the information was turned over to a Defense Criminal Investigative Service employee assigned to the task force. The communications were gathered by investigators beginning in December 2008 and continuing into early this year.
The assessment concluded Hasan did not merit further investigation — in large part because his communications with the imam were centered on a research paper about the effects of combat in Iraq and Afghanistan and the investigator determined that Hasan was in fact working on such a paper, the officials said.
The Senate already has launched its own inquiry into the Hasan case.
The disclosure Tuesday of the defense investigator's role indicated the U.S. military was aware of worrisome behavior by the massacre suspect long before the attack.
The FBI has opened its own internal review of how it handled the early information about Hasan. Military, law enforcement and intelligence agencies also are defending themselves against tough questions about what each of them knew about Hasan before he allegedly opened fire in a crowded room at the huge Army post.
Time to face the facts, Sean
This guy is being milked for all its worth to show that there is a threat from "Islam."
The guy acted alone, he was a nutter.
Furthermore, almost all the evidence trying to link him to Al-Qaeda or the hijackers has proven to be false, including most of the stuff our resident nujob Eagle has posted.
Provide ONE THING I posted that was false?
Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the suspect in last weeks Fort Hood, Texas shooting spree that killed 13 people, came under scrutiny by officials beginning last year for communicating with Anwar al-Awlaki, who had been a scholar at a mosque Hasan attended when he lived in Virginia. The Virginia mosque where al-Awlaki taught had also been visited by 9/11 hijackers Nawaf al-Hazmi and Hani Hanjour.
He prayed every day at the Muslim Community Center in Silver Spring, a devout Muslim . He held his mother's funeral at the Dar al Hijrah Islamic Center in Falls Church, Virginia, on May 31, 2001, according to her obituary in the Roanoke Times newspaper. At the time, Anwar Aulaqi was an imam, or spiritual leader, at the Washington-area mosque.
Fellow doctors have recounted how they were repeatedly harangued by Hasan about religion and that he openly claimed to be a "Muslim first and American second." He also told colleagues at America's top military hospital that non-Muslims were infidels condemned to hell who should be set on fire. Colleagues had expected a discussion on a medical issue but were instead given an extremist interpretation of the Koran, which Hasan appeared to believe.
A group of doctors overseeing Nidal Malik Hasan's medical training discussed concerns about his overly zealous religious views and strange behavior months before the Army major was accused of opening fire on soldiers and civilians at Fort Hood, Texas.
Doctors and staff overseeing Hasan's training viewed him at times as belligerent, defensive and argumentative in his frequent discussions of his Muslim faith, a military official familiar with several group discussions about Hasan said.
The Pentagon has found no evidence that Hasan formally sought release from the Army as a conscientious objector or for any other reason, two senior military officials told The Associated Press. Family members have said he wanted to get out of the Army and had sought legal advice, suggesting that Hasan's anxiety as a Muslim over his pending deployment overseas might have been a factor in the deadly rampage.
Hasan had complained privately to colleagues that he was harassed for his religion and that he wanted to get out of the Army. But there is no record of Hasan filing a complaint with his chain of command regarding any harassment he may have suffered for being Muslim or any record of him formally seeking release from the military, the officials told the AP.
ARAYUS
Uhm.. you do realize that Sean exposed your bullshit.
Yet your response was to cut and paste the same bullshit over again…
Get a life dude.
So to you, the FACTS are just "bullshit"?
The facts are the anti-dote to your misinformation and lies. You try to turn your wishful thinking into reality.
You claimed something I posted was false. That was a lie. This is not the first time you have lied. It seems to be a habit for you.
When the crooked syrian rabbis from brooklyn were caught selling kidneys and giving bribes. the sephardic community issued a statement condemning the act. it was the right thing to do even though many who write on this blog would have assumed that the so called 'jewish' media would have given them a pass!
it was the right thing to do and nawal you seem to have a problem distinguishing between the responsibilities of a community leader and a private citizen!
Indignation about the way that only Muslims are linked together is rather naive. It happens because Muslims link themselves together. There are mostly Christians in some terrorist groups throughout the world but we don't see the IRA avenging the arrest of ETA members etc and no group that I can think of actually claims to be acting in the name of Christianity.
In the UK we always get a big rise in anti-semitic attacks when the situation in the Middle East heats up although we have very few Palestinians or Arabs generally. These attacks are mostly by Pakistanis and other South Asian Muslims. If too many Muslims see themselves as a single group that transcends nationality why do you expect the rest of us to see you otherwise?
Indignation about the way that only Muslims are linked together is rather naive. It happens because Muslims link themselves together. There are mostly Christians in some terrorist groups throughout the world but we don't see the IRA avenging the arrest of ETA members etc and no group that I can think of actually claims to be acting in the name of Christianity.
Depends on how you define "terrorist." Certainly the US Army and the British Army—two of the largest terrorist organizations on the planet—claim to be acting in the name of Christianity and the defense of Western Civilization against a "clash of civilizations" instigated by Muslims. George Bush claimed he invaded Iraq because God told him to. Did not Britain exact "revenge" for 9-11 by joining in attacks against Muslim countries and Muslim people who had nothing to do with it?
In the UK we always get a big rise in anti-semitic attacks when the situation in the Middle East heats up although we have very few Palestinians or Arabs generally. These attacks are mostly by Pakistanis and other South Asian Muslims. If too many Muslims see themselves as a single group that transcends nationality why do you expect the rest of us to see you otherwise?
There is also a rise in anti-Muslim attacks whenever things heat up in the Mideast, or haven't you noticed?
The schmuck doesn't represent me either, but I still feel embarrassment for Arab and Muslim Americans.
Why not condemn the action because it was WRONG?
That is a good point, however it is contradicting. By condemning it your giving Hasan the title of Muslim, when in fact this man was as close to being Muslim as the Pope is. Islam is a peacful religion, it teaches you to be kind to everyone of every racial and religious background, so by going against this then that doesnt make him a Muslim then, you know? Yes his actions were wrong, but why should a Muslim organization have to condemn it? Because of his name? No thats not right, if we are to condemn it because it was wrong then we need to do it as a nation (United States Of America), not CAIR or any other muslim organization.
He prayed every day at the Muslim Community Center in Silver Spring, a devout Muslim
The Associated Press reported that Hasan attracted the attention of law enforcement authorities in recent months after an Internet posting under the screen name "NidalHasan" compared Islamic suicide bombers to Japanese kamikaze pilots. "To say that this soldier committed suicide is inappropriate," the posting read. "It's more appropriate to say he is a brave hero that sacrificed his life for a more noble cause."
Major Nidal Malik Hasan once gave a lecture to other doctors in which he said non-believers should be beheaded and have boiling oil poured down their throats.
He also told colleagues at America's top military hospital that non-Muslims were infidels condemned to hell who should be set on fire. The outburst came during an hour-long talk Hasan, an Army psychiatrist, gave on the Koran in front of dozens of other doctors at Walter Reed Army Medical Centre in Washington DC, where he worked for six years before arriving at Fort Hood in July.
Colleagues had expected a discussion on a medical issue but were instead given an extremist interpretation of the Koran, which Hasan appeared to believe.
Fellow doctors have recounted how they were repeatedly harangued by Hasan about religion and that he openly claimed to be a "Muslim first and American second."
Dr Val Finnell, who took a course with him in 2007 at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Maryland, did complain about Hasan's "anti-American rants." He said: "The system is not doing what it's supposed to do. He at least should have been confronted about these beliefs, told to cease and desist, and to shape up or ship out. I really questioned his loyalty."
Selena Coppa, an activist for Iraq Veterans Against the War, said: "This man was a psychiatrist and was working with other psychiatrists every day and they failed to notice how deeply disturbed someone right in their midst was."
One of Hasan's neighbours described how on the day of the massacre, about 9am, he gave her a Koran and told her: "I'm going to do good work for God" before leaving for the base.
He attended the same Virginia mosque as two September 11 hijackers in 2001, a time when a radical imam preached there.
In the months leading to Thursday's shooting spree, Hasan raised eyebrows with comments that the war on terror was "a war on Islam" and wrestled with what to tell fellow Muslim solders who had their doubts about fighting in Islamic countries.
"The system is not doing what it's supposed to do," said Dr. Val Finnell, who complained to administrators at a military university about what he considered Hasan's "anti-American" rants. "He at least should have been confronted about these beliefs, told to cease and desist, and to shape up or ship out."
Finnell studied with Hasan from 2007-2008 in the master's program in public health at the military's Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, Maryland, where Hasan persistently complained about perceived anti-Muslim sentiment in the military and injected his politics into courses where they had no place.
WASHINGTON – The mystery over whether the military knew Fort Hood shooting suspect Nidal Hasan was communicating with a radical Muslim imam lapsed into finger-pointing ahead of congressional investigations looking into the Army psychiatrist's contacts with any extremists.
Federal agencies reacted to conflicting claims about whether a Defense Department terrorism investigator looked into Hasan's contacts months ago with Anwar al-Awlaki. Awlaki, an imam who was released from a Yemeni jail last year, has used his personal Web site to encourage Muslims across the world to kill U.S. troops in Iraq. A military official Tuesday denied knowing Hasan had such contacts.
The Washington-based joint terrorism task force overseen by the FBI was notified of communications between Hasan and the imam overseas, and the information was turned over to a Defense Criminal Investigative Service employee assigned to the task force. The communications were gathered by investigators beginning in December 2008 and continuing into early this year.
Mostafa:
It is good that you reject Nidal Hasan.
Clearly there is a bastardization of Islam into the extremism which is about terrorism and fascism. Regular Muslims should reject and condemn this as a perversion of Islam.
Muslims at Fort Voice Outrage and Ask Questions
KILLEEN, Tex. — Leaders of the vibrant Muslim community here expressed outrage on Friday at the shooting rampage being laid to one of their members, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, who had become a regular attendee of prayers at the local mosque.
CNN: Radical American Muslims praise Fort Hood shooter
Sure, there will inevitably be the usual Arab and Muslim bashing from ignorant, hateful people.
I read it twice to find the part where you called the perp ignorant and hateful. Didn't see it! So his reasons are "as yet unknown" according to you, but his victims (and people who see themselves as his potential victims) are ignorant and hateful.
Are you really so sure Hasan is not representative of you?
PC, I have no idea how you came to this conclusion. What I said was that regardless of the condemnations by Arab and Muslim organizations, there will be (ignorant and hateful) people in the public who will take advantage of this incident and attack the Arab and Muslim communities. Nowhere do I state or imply that Hasan's victims are ignorant and hateful.
Radical imam praises alleged Fort Hood shooter
Radical imam praises alleged Fort Hood shooter
To all responses:
What you guys fail to see or at least it may seem this way is that Islam doesnt preach these types of acts, therefore if Islam doesnt preach it, and by doing such acts, then that doesnt make you a muslim now does it? So therefore by condemning these acts you are now putting the title of Muslim in between the words Crazed Shooter, when it should've only been crazed shooter do you understand? We, as mulims, have to be smart, do you think if a John Smith who was a christian and blew up a military base that we would get a condemnation from a single christian organization let alone two? No, because they dont see it as John Smith the Christian Shooter, they see it as John Smith the shooter and thats the point I'm trying to make, this man was Muslim by title, but everyone in here can be more than sure that he didnt follow the teachings of the Prophet (SWT), if he did, there would be no talks of this because this never would've taken place.
Amal: Allow me to quote you, "a leader does what is in the best interest of her community." Please explain to me how claiming Hasan as a muslim is in the best interest of the community? Hasan did not follow the preachings of the Prophet (SWT), he was not lead by the examples of the Prophets (SWT) Life, so please tell me how this man is now Muslim all of a sudden? Sure when he goes to fill out a form that asked of his religion he would check off Muslim, but how does that make him a Muslim? If i say for example that I'm a big fan of Soul music but yet i dont know who James Brown is well then i'm not what i claim to be then am i? Its like i said earlier, by condemning it your giving him the title of Muslim when all it should be is a crazed shooter
Hasan did what he because of his ties to Islam.
Did Timothy McVeigh do what he did because of his ties to christianity? Or what about Hitler? Or Bush for that matter? Was religion in any way shape or form "tied" into their actions? Did Christianity tell them to occupy a country under the pretenses of WMD's? Did Christianity tell them to cause a genocide on the Jewish people? Etc Etc. No it doesn't, so therefore we don't judge christianity, but that single human being. Why does it now suddenly change once Islam is played into the discussion? Why is that a key word? Islam doesn't teach these kinds of things. Quite the contrary, its very against it.
Did Timothy McVeigh do what he did because of his ties to christianity?
No, he did not.
Or what about Hitler?
No, he did not.
Or Bush for that matter?
No, he did not.
Did Christianity tell them to occupy a country under the pretenses of WMD's?
No, Christianity did not.
Islam doesn't teach these kinds of things.
Maybe not under your interpretation, but under the interpretations of others it does.
It is the bastardization of Islam that teaches terrorism and fascism.
It is clear that as a Muslim you do not want to be stigmatized by what the Islamofascists do, and that is perfectly understandable. So it seems that instead of denying or making excuses about radical Islam, you would want to expose it and make your rejection of it very clear.
WASHINGTON – The mystery over whether the military knew Fort Hood shooting suspect Nidal Hasan was communicating with a radical Muslim imam lapsed into finger-pointing ahead of congressional investigations looking into the Army psychiatrist's contacts with any extremists.
Federal agencies reacted to conflicting claims about whether a Defense Department terrorism investigator looked into Hasan's contacts months ago with Anwar al-Awlaki. Awlaki, an imam who was released from a Yemeni jail last year, has used his personal Web site to encourage Muslims across the world to kill U.S. troops in Iraq.
The Washington-based joint terrorism task force overseen by the FBI was notified of communications between Hasan and the imam overseas, and the information was turned over to a Defense Criminal Investigative Service employee assigned to the task force. The communications were gathered by investigators beginning in December 2008 and continuing into early this year.
The U.S. military was aware of worrisome behavior by the massacre suspect long before the attack.
The Senate already has launched its own inquiry into the Hasan case.
I totally agree with you!
The "real" people of Palestine want some rest and to travel freely in their home land, and not like Palestinian extreme groups who want war and to keep the fight on going.
As a Palestinian who lives abroad as well, I received an email yesterday with a flash game a Palestinian teenager created who shows what our people really want!!!!
http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/512173
May this be the start of a new dawn as the younger generation understands the path it must go through!
[...] Nawal’s rhetorical titular question posed “Why Are Arab And Muslim Organizations So Quick To Condemn?” and yet so slow to celebrate the heroism by someone in our community. And, might I add, why do Arab [...]