Posted Aug 02, 2013 by Michael L. Brown

If someone looks like a Muslim terrorist, identifies as a soldier of Allah, is mentored by a Muslim terrorist and then slaughters Americans on a military base in cold blood in the name of Allah, that person is obviously a Muslim terrorist—unless, of course, that person is Nidal Malik Hasan, the accused Fort Hood mass murderer.

It is tragic enough that Hasan is charged with taking the lives of 13 innocent people and wounding 30 more. It adds salt to the wounds to realize he has received nearly $300,000 in military pay since the Fort Hood shootings in 2009 while languishing in the hospital (after being shot) and in prison.

But it is utterly outrageous that our government still refuses to call him a terrorist—specifically, a Muslim terrorist. In fact, it is not just outrageous; it is hypocritical.

Consider that Hasan was inspired by the radical Islamic cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, a man considered so dangerous that he was killed in Yemen by an American drone attack September 30, 2011.

How can it be, then, that the teacher is a terrorist and the student, who murderously follows his teacher’s tenets, is not a terrorist? What kind of sophistry is this?

It has been common knowledge for years that Hasan’s colleagues noticed his increasing radicalization, that his co-workers at Walter Reed Medical Center were concerned about his behavior, and that he turned what was supposed to be a medical lecture into a radical Islamic screed in which he allegedly justified suicide bombings, reportedly stating that if you didn’t believe in the Koran, “you are condemned to hell. Your head is cut off. You're set on fire. Burning oil is burned down your throat.”

Finally, on November 5, 2009, witnesses state that Hasan sat quietly at a table with his head bowed for a few seconds, then jumped to his feet, shouting, “Allahu Akbar!” and started spraying people with bullets.

And the government has the gall to classify this as “workplace violence”?

Now, on the eve of his trial, Hasan has released documents in which he refers to himself as SoA, meaning “Soldier of Allah” (not “Sold-Out American”!). This same abbreviation was found on his business card at the time of his shooting—but he, of course, is not a Muslim terrorist.

In the only dated document (Oct. 8, 2012), Hasan writes, “I, Nidal Malik Hasan, am compelled to renounce any oaths of allegiances that require me to support/defend [any] man made constitution [like the Constitution of the United States] over the commandments mandated in Islam. ... I therefore formally renounce my oath of office. ... This includes my oath of U.S. citizenship.”

But he, of course, is not a Muslim terrorist.

In another document, he makes clear his beliefs that Sharia law and American democracy are incompatible, explaining, “There is an inherent and irreconcilable conflict. ... In an American Democracy ‘we the people’ govern according to what ‘we the people’ think is right or wrong; even if it specifically goes against what All-Mighty God commands.”

But he, of course, is not a Muslim terrorist.

As for his relationship with Anwar al-Awlaki, Hasan wrote, “He [al-Awlaki] was my teacher, mentor and friend. I hold him in high esteem for trying to educate Muslims about their duties to our creator. May All-Mighty Allah accept his martyrdom.”

But Hasan, of course, is not a Muslim terrorist.

According to Thomas Joscelyn, a senior fellow with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and writer for the Long War Journal, "He's clearly saying that he's a homegrown extremist, that he's somebody who identifies with al-Qaida's ideology. He's somebody who definitely reached out to an al-Qaida cleric and who decided he was going to take up al-Qaida's cause here on American soil."

In other words, he’s flat-out telling us he’s a Muslim terrorist, in case we haven’t put the pieces together, but we actually know him better than he knows himself, and he really is not a Muslim terrorist at all, and what happened at Fort Hood was just another example of workplace violence.

Staff Sgt. Shawn Manning, who was shot six times at Fort Hood, told Fox News, “The government has tried to deny that this was an act of terrorism. I think that—I hope that if people hear the words from Hasan's own mouth, that they will understand that this was an act of terrorism.”

I would certainly hope so—but why should facts matter now?

We can only imagine the sense of outrage and grief felt by the families of the dead, along with the surviving victims and their families, when our government continues to deny that the Fort Hood massacre was an act of Islamic terrorism, to the point of complete being delusional. The real question is, Why?

Let’s break the spell and help our government wake up to reality by saying it out loud together: “Nadal Malik Hasan is an Islamic terrorist.”

And while we understand that millions of Muslims are not Islamic terrorists, Nadal Hasan most certainly is.


Sign Up or Login to post comments.