100 Treatises

Muslim+Terrorist=Muslim Terrorist, Right?

In the wake of the Fort Hood tragedy, some controversy has developed over whether or not Nidal Malik Hasan is a “Muslim Terrorist” or “just a terrorist” or “a criminal” or what. Many on the left, ensconced in political correctness, are hesitant to call him a Muslim, much less a Muslim terrorist, out of apparent fear that doing so just causes simpler-minded people to become even more fearful and distrustful toward Muslims generally than they already are. Meanwhile, many on the right are knee-jerkingly adamant that he should be referred to as a Muslim terrorist. The equation is simple: (1) he is a Muslim, (2) he is a terrorist, therefore (3) he is a Muslim terrorist. Furthermore, the thinking goes, Hasan was clearly radicalized, tried to contact Al-Qaeda, and espoused views that were obviously right in line with militant Islam.

As usual, the truth lies somewhere between left and right. The left is correct to seek the actual character of the man and his grisly act before jumping to conclusions. But their evident inability to confront some of the more, let’s say, “uncomfortable” truths surrounding this incident can only be chalked up to blind political correctness. At the same time, the right is correct to bypass considerations of political correctness, but is too quick to jump to conclusions, seeing red as they often do whenever Islam enters the picture.

That said, let’s consider some facts regarding Islam and extremist violence:

First, there is the whole set of Muslims

Then, within the population of Muslims, there is a group who are conservative and devout

Within that group, there are the fundamentalist radicals

Within the set of fundamentalists, there is a group who are violent or militant

And finally, within that group, we find specific groups and organizations whose purpose is to do violence

So we see, unlike the simple vision of many conservative Americans, that not all fundamentalist Muslims (who nonetheless believe in repulsive and contemptible idiocy) are violent. They are comparable to Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson in the Christian tradition, in that respect. In addition, not all violent fundamentalists are members of larger organizations. This is where Hasan falls–in the class of violent fundamentalists, but not in the class of members of violent fundamentalist groups.

This makes him a Muslim terrorist, yes. But insofar as he is not a member of a larger cell or organization, he is not comparable to, say, Mohammed Atta of September 11th fame. Therefore his act is of a different level of danger than the September 11th attacks or any other attack that has been perpetrated by Al-Qaeda and its ilk.

How different a level of danger is the Fort Hood attack? That depends. In one way, it is less dangerous than a traditional Islamic terrorist attack because a lone actor like Hasan will not have the network of personal connections and the supply chain that a member of an established group will enjoy. In another way, though, it is more dangerous because a lone actor is extremely difficult for intelligence services to detect and can kill, out of the blue, using some materials available at a hardware store.

So things are more complicated than they may at first appear on the “Islamic terrorist” count. It is vital to see people like Hasan for what they truly are and the danger to innocent life they present. But no good is gained by dumbing down the issue and oversimplifying these very serious matters. Is Hasan a danger? Absolutely. Is he comparable to a Taliban? I think not.

MORE ARTICLES:

Terrorism and Islam: Keep Your Friends Close…

What the Fort Hood Killer Tells Us about Human Nature

Christianity, Islam…What’s in a Name?