Friday, November 27, 2009

On Religion and Terror

In today's NYTimes, one Ayman Hakki agrees, in a letter-to-the-editor, that Robert Wright’s Op-Ed article, “Who Created Major Hasan?”, is correct in attacking a conservative news media’s attempt to link Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan’s shooting rampage at Fort Hood to his religion as opposed to homicidal lunacy.

In other words, he was just your normal abnormal murderer. Just a killer. No ideology, no rational and especially no religious motive. At the most Hasan’s act "may have been inspired by his incorrect interpretation of Islam".

But then he writes:

We Muslims allowed a mind-set (which may have influenced Major Hasan) by letting immoderate voices drown out more moderate ones.

Excuse me but he's contradicting himself. And worse, he's admitting the complicity, essentially, of Hakki and like-minded Muslims.

And why would he be liable for complicity is Hassan was simply your average lunatic?

Because of his shared religion?


Dear, dear, so there is a problem of religion mixing with terror.

And why were 'moderate voice' drowned out?

Where they terrorized?

Or did they view the immoderates and within the fold and not lunatics?


Vigilante said...

The Ft Hood massacre was an act of war, not terrorism. The victims were military, not civilians. Or do you think this is a useful distinction?

YMedad said...

act of war? in which army was Hassan serving, the US or an Islamic army? If US, then it was terrorism.