One of my colleagues posed the question of whether or not the media should have publicized the fact that Army psychiatrist, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan – the culprit in yesterday’s Ft. Hood shootings – was a Muslim. I seems like a valid question. I mean, was his faith really determinative?
According to CNN, Fort Hood’s commanding general (unnamed) relayed that witnesses reported that Hasan yelled “Allahu Akbar,” Arabic for “God is great,” during the shootings. But then they reported that Lieutenant General Robert Cone said investigators had not confirmed that. Why is it that a lieutenant general is referred to by name, but the commanding general isn’t? Is it because the commanding general said, “Don’t quote me on that”? And if he did, why would he have done so? Could it be that he was embellishing – trying to give a religious motivation to an incident that had no clear indications of one?
Oh, I’m not saying that there was no religious motivation – just that it isn’t clear. And my legal background has trained me to give the benefit of the doubt. Too many Muslims in this country have had to live a fragile existence since 9/11. We need to tread lightly in this area.
Like many in this country, my own sixteen-year-old son has an Arabic name, though he – just like the President – is not a Muslim. I named him after Kahlil Gibran, a Lebanese poet who wrote one of my favorite books – The Prophet. So the current environment where Muslims – and those with Arabic names – are viewed with suspicion concerns me. I fear for my son’s safety.
The Christian Science Monitor reported that there were signs that Maj. Hasan was “troubled”. He apparently counseled soldiers who experienced post traumatic stress disorder. And though he was never in a war zone, there is every indication that his treatment of traumatized soldiers coupled with the ominous prospect of deployment to a war zone, was just too stressful for him to handle. He wouldn’t be the first psychiatrist with psychiatric problems of his own.
All I’m talking about is fundamental fairness. We don’t attack or ostracize all Christians – and those with Christian names – when a particular Christian kills people. So what’s good for the goose….
Any thoughts?
.jpg)
I don’t know if it did or not. Apparently the guy welled out something in Muslim before going trigger happy. So it looks like it leans more towards another religious act of violence.
We now know that he reportedly yelled, “Allahu akbar”. This means, “God is great” or “God is the greatest”, depending on who you ask. Allah, incidentally, is not a PERSONAL name for God, such as Jehovah, Yahweh, Isis, Horus, Zeus, etc. Allah is merely the Arabic word for “god”.
The only point here is that there are fanatics in any religion that believe they “kill in the name of God”. Thus, they invoke his name upon starting their onslaught – seeking his protection as King David did before going into battle.
So obviously many people cry out in the name of God before going into battle. I would say that it was prevalent in battles in the Korean War, World Wars I and II, The Gulf War, The Crusades, etc. EVERYBODY feels that God is on their side. EVEN FOOTBALL PLAYERS pray before their battle – as if God “has a dog in the fight”!
Allahu Akbar is the “takbir” (we would call it a mantra) Muslims use both in their call to prayer and as affirmations of their spiritual lifestyle. The problem is truly with the media who posit “Allahu Akbar” as a “Battle Cry” used by extremist Muslims. Thus, they add to the anxiety of many unlearned Americans who then suspect every Muslim usage of the phrase to be a prelude to terror.
It is a phrase used in greetings as well – just as Christians in my neck of the woods exclaim that “God is Good” with regularity. And – although an abortion clinic bomber might utter, “God is Good” before doing his dastardly dead – NO US media outlet would proclaim “God is Good” to be the “battle cry of the Christian extremists”, making all Christians uttering the phrase suspect!