The Washington Post shows the slides shown by the Fort Hood jihadist before he acted on his beliefs: Maj. Nidal M. Hasan, the Army psychiatrist believed to have killed 13 people at Fort Hood, was supposed to discuss a medical topic during a presentation to senior Army doctors in June 2007.
Instead, he lectured on Islam, suicide bombers and threats the military could encounter from Muslims conflicted about fighting wars in Muslim countries.
Go through those slides here.
Mark Durie, a priest and scholar, describes what Hasan said:
He is saying that Muslims can experience problems in the military for two reasons.
One reason is the prohibition against Muslims killing other Muslims (’whoever kills a believer intentionally, his punishment is hell’ – slide 12).
The other is the requirement that Muslims wage war against non-believers in both defensive jihad (slides 37-41) and aggressive jihad (slides 42-48).
This command, he is saying, can be expected to be followed by devout, God-fearing Muslims (’Allah expects full loyalty’ – slide 49), especially if they are persuaded that in so-doing they would be ‘fighting against the injustices of the “infidels,”’ (slide 48).
His point is that if US Muslim soldiers can be persuaded that fighting against fellow-Muslims is an injustice, this could trigger a deadly attack against fellow US soldiers instead, e.g. by means of ‘suicide bombing, etc’ (’We love death more than you love life!’ – slide 48).
The Major was explaining that when Muslims in the military are ordered to fight against other Muslims (such as in Iraq or Afghanistan) this can trigger their religious convictions to such effect that they will seek to be discharged from their combat duties.
Otherwise they could feel compelled to attempt to kill fellow US soldiers in a personal jihad. Major Hasan refers to this possibility as ‘adverse events’.
He cites the case of convert to Islam and US soldier Hasan Akbar (slide 13), who killed two US officers in a grenade attack during the Gulf War, and had written prior to the attack: ‘I may not have killed any Muslims, but being in the Army is the same thing. I may have to make a choice very soon on who to kill.’
Hasan warned that Muslims soldiers could not be trusted to fight a Muslim enemy, and could turn their guns on their countrymen instead. He then did just that himself.
Question: why did the army not remove this man from his post?
And how can anyone still doubt the role of Islam in this massacre?
Source: Andrew Bolt
H/T: gramfan
Posts
