The Fort Hood Killings: Murder in the Name of Islam

In the wake of the terrible killings at Fort Hood, the New York Times printed a quote that I found particularly telling:

"When a white guy shoots up a post office, they call that going postal," said Victor Benjamin II, 30, a former member of the Army. "But when a Muslim does it, they call it jihad."

But there's a reason for that. And it's one that Muslims and non-Muslims alike need to be honest about.

Get the new
PD toolbar!

Let's stipulate up front that there are many things about Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan that we still do not know, that we may never know. But the details that have emerged so far are pretty consistent:

His devotion to Islam, as he understands it, appears to have been longstanding and unswerving. And when he started shooting, witnesses say that he shouted "Allahu akbar!" Which means "God is great!" in Arabic, the language of the Quran.

Was this "Muslim terrorism"? or even "Islamic terrorism"? I suggest it is more accurately described as murder in the name of Islam. And here's the truth that Muslims and non-Muslims need to confront honestly: In the world of 2009 (or 1430 AH, if you prefer), more violence is being committed in the name of Islam around the world than in the name of any other religion.

Consider that some of the world's most infamous terror groups claim to be acting in the name of Islam: Islamic Jihad, Hamas (an acronym for Islamic Resistance Movement) and Gamaa al-Islamiya (the Islamic Group). Hezbollah means "party of God."

Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida may seem an exception. The name simply means "the base," as in a military base. But in 2002, even that group claimed a longer and faith-linked name: Qa'edat Al-Jihad – "the base for Jihad." "Jihad," of course, is the sacred struggle that Muslims are called to by their faith.

And from the World Trade Center to the buses of London to last week's murders on Fort Hood, it looks like the perpetrators claimed to be acting in the name of Islam.

That doesn't mean that Islam is per se violent or evil. There are more than a billion Muslims around the world, most of whom have engaged in no more (or less) violent activity than members of any other faith.

As is true for any sacred text, the Quran is filled with difficult and seemingly contradictory passages. The Bible has its "eye for an eye" verse that some Christians struggle to reconcile with Jesus' command to "turn the other cheek." The Quran says in one verse that Muslims should take care not to transgress the limits of battle "because Allah does not love transgressors." But another verse says that enemies may be subject to execution, crucifixion, having hands and feet cut off, or exile.

Collected sayings of Mohammed, called hadiths, include examples that many Muslims say help resolve the apparent conflicts. One says: "If people do good to you, do good to them; and if they mistreat you, still refrain from being unjust." Another story tells of Mohammed ordering his soldiers not to mistreat women and children, even during a battle. Both the Quran and hadiths offer examples of respect given to Christians and Jews -- both considered along with Muslims as "people of the Book."

And yet, there is that small fraction of Muslims who take another, horrible meaning from their sacred texts and act upon it. Consider that if only one-tenth of one percent of Muslims in the world hold to that violent ideology, that's a million people.

Fortunately, a far smaller percentage of any potentially violent population is actually willing to act on those feelings. And peer pressure is a powerful deterrent to violence for many people -- even those who might be inclined to be violent. As I posted earlier, several American Muslim organizations immediately condemned the Fort Hood shootings. As they routinely condemn many attacks on civilians done in the name of their faith.

And here's another truth: More Muslims have been the victims of violence in the name of their faith in recent years than members of any other religion. Start with the most recent carnage from the Sunni-Shia battles in Iraq and track back to, say, al-Qaida's bombings of the U.S. embassies in Africa in 1988. It's not a slight against the victims from 9/11 to state the fact that Muslims kill and maim other Muslims in the name of their faith more than they do anybody else.

(And let's quickly defer questions about brutal wars that do not have religious roots. The genocide in Darfur, for instance, includes Muslim perpetrators. It's horrible and unconscionable. But it's not an atrocity being committed, as far as I can tell, in the name of Islam.)

So who represents the "true" Islam? Does Paul Hill or Scott Roeder represent "true" Christianity? Did Baruch Goldstein represent "true" Judaism? Most members of those faiths would say the answer is pretty clear that they do not.

And yet, Benjamin raised a question that deserves a direct answer.

The other terrible shooting in America last week happened in Orlando. From the details now available, a man named Jason Rodriguez killed one person and wounded five others. In the aftermath of that event, I can find no stories asking Hispanics about any sense of responsibility they might share. Nor, given the statistical probability about the religious beliefs of American Hispanics, have Catholics been asked for a reaction.

The explanation we're getting about this shooting is that Rodriguez really did "go postal," (a term that real postal employees despise, btw). The Orlando Sentinel reports that others describe him as a creepy, angry man with a history of possible mental problems who was so furious about being fired by the company that he went back with a gun.

And when he started shooting, I can find no account that says he shouted anything about La Raza or Jesus.

But in Fort Hood, the shooter himself introduced his religion into the narrative. That's the difference. And it's a difference that matters.


Follow PoliticsDaily On Facebook and Twitter,
and download the new Politics Daily toolbar!