Meet the Qudosi behind Qudosi Chronicles
Call to Action
Submit an Article
Show Your Support
Donate a Dollar
Donations
| Support the Qudosi Chronicles |
What People Are Reading
- Why Building a Mosque on Ground Zero is a Failed Idea
- Can 30,000 More Troops "Fix" Afghanistan?
- "Caliphate or Republic"
- Romancing the Primitive | A Truthful Look at Societies that don't Evolve
- How to Win the War Against Radical Islam
- USC Progressive Alliance Adds to Growing Radicalism in College Campuses
- “There is no America. There is only Islam” | MANA's Muslim American Agenda
- Grappling with Language: the Ongoing Struggle in Defining the War on Terror
- Jerusalem Divided: Palestine to Receive Stake in Jerusalem
- A Policy of Double Standards Mushrooms Among Muslim Media
- ISLAM’S GREEN INITIATIVE
- Q & A: Representation of Muslim Women in the British Press
- Makeup and the Hijab: A Study with Seven Muslim Women Explores Possible Contradictions
- Sufi Muslims: Islam's Eco Guardians
- Get the QC 411
- What Do You Get When You Pair Conservative with Muslim?
- Bio
- STOP Spending OUR Money: An Analysis of the 2009 California Fiscal Crisis
- Pro-Muslim Brotherhood Candidate Eyes Public Office
- Speech Transcript
Search
| Fort Hood Shooting Draws New Parameters
Written by Shireen Qudosi
|
|
Thursday, 12 November 2009 12:56
| Religion - United States | ||||
Facing a potential backlash, a large number of Muslims speak out against the act. Does this mean they bear the burden in “terrorist” attacks? In surveying dialogue among both Muslim and non-Muslim group, there’s a majority consensus that this was a rare isolated incident.
That being the case I’d also like to point out that most terrorist acts are ultimately rare isolated incidences - if you take into account the ratio of active militant jihadist to inactive non-militant Muslims. In keeping with the argument of an isolated incident, shouldn’t we be calling 9-11 an isolated incident? With this rationale, Islamic jihadist only directly attacked U.S. soil once – an isolated incident. Or does this fall on the precipice of in-ignorable naivety? Were Hasan’s actions not followed with flooding details of his ideological disposition, then yes we could call it a singularity among thousands of armed servicemen and among millions of Muslims. In this case, we would be justified in calling it unfortunate and take the incident as a warning of the serious internal conflicts many Muslims soldiers may feel when following orders against “our own”. And while many Muslim soldiers do not feel a conflict of duty, while I personally know many who are proud to serve our country, there are those that do face a dilemma even though they may not lash out. The frustrations are there and worth looking into. THE REAL QUESTION In light of Hasan's trail of activity, the greater question becomes does the military face a risk of jihadist infiltration? It has long been said that the war we face against extremism is unlike any other. And it will be said again that this war does not have identifiable and maintainable boundaries. We face Trojan Horses like no other period and Hasan is a clear example of that. Provided that the military does not ignore this fact, the next question is what steps should we take to protect future armed servicemen as well as the intelligence that circulates in a military community? BEARING THE BURDEN The Islamic community, facing a potential backlash, has publically denounced the act. They’ve taken considerable steps to displace themselves from Hasan and ensure Americans that they do no support violence. Why does the Islamic community at large only shuffle themselves together when they feel directly threatened? What is this if not a giant PR move, such as that made by CAIR. Ironic that CAIR would denounce the act and urge working with local authorities when their direct involvement with radicalism, vis-à-vis the Holy Land Foundation, is now a common known fact. The sinking of U.S.S. CAIR aside, the bulk of Muslim groups nationwide reacted much in the same way: denounce the act. While it is unfair that the act of one man clumps an entire faith community together as if they were some sort of silent culprit, the larger issue questions why the Islamic community doesn't show the same emphasis on denouncing radical acts in the name of Islam? Why do we only see the fatwas against violence when the community feels the burden of blame? Where are the voices of denunciation in times of direct attack in the name of Islam, or when in the presence of ideologically radical leaders such as those trailed by Hasan? Where are ‘our’ voices then? PARALLEL THEORY If the Islamic community feels compelled to do something because of one Muslim man’s act, then they have that same duty when other Muslims act violently - or is it because the act was at our own doorstep that they feel displaced from other acts of violence under Islam? Considering the great emphasis Islam places on a collective Muslim community worldwide, the Ummah, it becomes clear that the logic of selective dissent fails disastrously. If you denounce one act of violence in the name of Islam, you have a moral and spiritual obligation to denounce ALL acts of violence committed in the name of Islam and under the umbrella of the Muslim Ummah. Image and continued reading: ARMY Times
blog comments powered by Disqus
|
||||
