veiled4allah: When I read this in the news, my heart sank to the floor

Um Mouhamed said:

Total comments: 2

Bismillah irRahman irRaheem
Assalamu alaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh, Al-Muhajabah - jazakum Allah khairan, ameen, ameen. May Allah protect us, and guide us, and give us sabr in these difficult times, and always. Ameen!

PG said:

Total comments: 64

I had a similar reaction when I saw on TalkLeft that the soldier being held was an African American Muslim.

I think that the "Muslim issue" has to be looked at in a balanced way, however.

Clearly, Islam would not condone such an assault. But I think a Muslim may feel a closer connection to the people of Iraq, and have stronger feelings against the war -- and feel more psychological stress and cognitive/ emotional dissonance from participating in the killing of Muslims -- than a non-Muslim.

For military members to feel automatic distrust of Muslims would be the wrong reaction. Having special consideration of how Muslim servicemen and women are being affected, and ensuring that they receive the support they need, might be a worthwhile lesson from this incident. Increased psychological services overall would be good for the military as well; I think there was more help for New Yorkers after 9/11 than there is for soldiers who are traumatized by the job.

jan said:

Total comments: 1

To those who automatically blame the alleged fragger's religious orientation for his alleged actions, I would suggest one look to the current White House resident for a comparison: since Dubya insists that America is a "Christian" nation, and that to be Christian one must talk like and act like he does; and since he appears to be a hell-bent warmonger amongst a nation of both hawks and doves; one might conclude that to be Christian means one must destroy anyone else who talks and acts in any way differently from that self-claimed Christian. And yet not one Christian religion I'm acquainted with teaches or preaches such a philosophy. The last wars that were seriously considered "holy" were those cited in the Bible wherein God, Himself, commanded evil people to be destroyed. GWB may see himself as a messiah, but I beg to differ.

Hope said:

Total comments: 1

Anyone who says, automatically without evidence that this is a 'muslim issue' is making it one without good cause. For all any of us know, the man in question may have simply had some sort of psychotic mental episode. It breaks my heart that the country I live in-- which was originally founded on the need for freedom of beliefs-- isn't living up to it's standards. As a Pagan I see htis all the time, and this is somethign recent and horrible. I hope they're wrong. I so honestly hope they're wrong.

PG said:

Total comments: 64

jan, actually I do think President Bush's religious beliefs have a lot to do with his actions, particularly his willingness to accede to the demands of the religious right.

I don't believe I am being intolerant by taking beliefs (whether religious, political etc) into account when trying to understand why people do what they do. I am being realistic.
If there is much more support for Israel among Jews and fundamentalist Christians, perhaps that support has something to do with beliefs and is not a random outcome.
If some Muslim soldiers are having more trouble fighting fellow Muslims than non-Muslims soldiers are, we shouldn't pretend that it's not happening.

Al-Munaqabah said:

Total comments: 996

PG, while I understand what you're saying, there is simply too little information available at this time for you to be able to make that assumption about him.

This soldier could be listed as Muslim simply because he has a Muslim name, but he might not be at all observant (perhaps he converted at an earlier time and has now relapsed).

Given that he's African American, there's a fair chance that he follows Farrakhanism rather than orthodox Islam. Farrakhanism has some very different beliefs. You can't just extrapolate from what an orthodox Muslim believes.

And while it's true that most Muslims oppose the war, it's perfectly possible for a devout Muslim to feel that he's there to liberate his brothers and sisters from the "infidel tyrant" Saddam Hussein and he believes that the damage to Iraq will be minimal. In that case, he would be gung-ho for war.

If the soldier had been Jewish, would it be appropriate to speculate immediately that he had done it because he thought it would benefit Israel in some way? I think most people would consider that inappropriate. And rightly so. We know nothing more about this man than the name of his religion and we're building up this whole idea of what we assume he must think and feel because of that. Sorry, but Muslims are not cookie-cutters. We have as much diversity of opinion as any other group. You can't assign a whole set of motivations to a Muslim just because you know he is one.

The only hard information we have as of yet is that the soldier had been reprimanded for insubordination and as punishment was not going to go into Iraq with his unit. If we didn't know the guy was Muslim, we would think he was getting revenge for that. But put the word "Muslim" in there and suddenly we start coming up with these grand theories about something else entirely. Some people start going on about Muslims as the "enemy within" and saying that he wanted to "kill the infidel". But even your more positive suggestion that he was troubled by making war on other Muslims has no basis yet other than an idea what all Muslims must be like.

Finally, I have to say this. Let's say it's true that he decided when the war actually started that he couldn't kill his brother and sister Muslims after all. He had many choices. He could have tried to file for conscientious objector status. He could have refused all orders and asked them to court-martial him instead. He could have deserted and fled into Iraq to help the Iraqi people. All of those would be excusable courses of action. Killing his superior officers is not. If he is indeed guilty, what he did was an act of murder, and should be punished accordingly.

PG said:

Total comments: 64

While I strongly disagree with aspects of this article, it offers an alternative to the hypothesis that the soldier is likely to have been a Farrakhan Muslim (as opposed to a "true" Muslim?).

Al-Munaqabah said:

Total comments: 996

The link seems to lead to an article about Richard Perle and Seymour Hersh.

PG, in an earlier comment, I posted a link to a page on Farrakhanism. The beliefs of Farrakhanism are VERY different from those of orthodox Islam, in a number of very significant ways. The consensus of the scholars and of Muslims in general is that Farrakhanism is outside of Islam because it contradicts too many essential beliefs of Islam. It has an Islamic sounding name (i.e., Nation of Islam) and it has adopted a number of Islamic trappings, but at its core it is not the same religion as the one I believe in.

I could decide to call myself "The Christian Church of Al-Muhajabah" but that doesn't mean I'm a Christian or would be considered as one by Christians. I'd have to have the correct beliefs and doctrines. That is what distinguishes one religion from another.

PG said:

Total comments: 64

Doh! Sorry, here's the correct article

Originally posted by Al-Munaqabah -

The link seems to lead to an article about Richard Perle and Seymour Hersh.

Al-Munaqabah said:

Total comments: 996

Thanks for the correct link.

There's a lot of attention on the Wahhabi movement and its alleged ties to terrorism. I find most of these articles to be superficial. I've discussed this issue somewhat here.

Two of the major influences on Bin Laden's thought are Ayman Zawahiri and Abdullah Azzam. Ayman Zawahiri is Egyptian and has been involved with radical Islamist groups in Egypt since the 1960s. Azzam likewise was involved with radical Islamist groups in Egypt and when he was in Saudi Arabia it was their thinking that he taught. Both Zawahiri and Azzam follow in the footsteps of Syed Qutb, another Egyptian. It is Qutb's teachings that form the primary basis of Bin Laden's ideology. I do not know of any link between Qutb and the Wahhabis or any indication that Qutb's ideas were based on Wahhabism or learned from a Wahhabi teacher.

Additionally, the Wahhabi establishment in Saudi Arabia has strongly condemned Qutb and those groups that follow him. A couple of links are available in the article; I can provide more on request. They have a very simple reason for doing so: the Qutubis, like Bin Laden, would like to see the current regime in Saudi Arabia overthrown.

It appears that the Saudi government hoped that if it directed the attention of radical Saudi youth abroad, they would forget to pursue their grievances against the government. Pakistan did the same thing in supporting the Taliban. That is the sense in which these governments are "exporting radicalism". Yes, there is radical militant Islam in Saudi Arabia. There is radical militant Islam in most every Muslim country that has an oppressive government of whatever nature.

But to conflate Wahhabism with Bin Ladenism is to make a big mistake.

All comments are copyright their authors

RSS feed of comments on this entry

Finished reading and posting comments? Return to veiled4allah