Some people, although not many, are of the belief that Nadil Malik Hasan, the man who opened fire on his fellow soldiers at Fort Hood, was a soldier who just snapped, completely out of the blue, and that his actions has nothing to do with his faith, Islam.

Others are willing to admit that anyone yelling “Allahu Akbar” while killing innocent civilians is an Islamic terrorist, period.

Still, others seem willing to admit that Hasan was perhaps embroiled in some kind of bizarre or hateful ideology, as evidenced by a presentation he gave in June 2007. In this presentation, he said that infidels should have boiling water poured on their heads, that jihad is indeed a holy war against the infidels, and that Muslims should be allowed to conscientiously leave the U.S. military, as he says at the end of his speech, lest “adverse effects” occur.

However, what no one is willing to admit is that these statements made by Hasan, in both his presentation and his actions, are exactly as outlined in the Koran. In fact, most of his above-mentioned presentation quotes the Koran directly, including when he outlines that infidels should have boiling water poured on their heads, among many other “punishments,” and that Muslims are commanded to fight those “who do not believe.”

Here are just some of the verses from the Koran quoted by Hasan in regards to punishment for infidels. They are on the slides called “Punishment Verses:”

[8:50] And if you could see when the angels take away the souls of those who disbelieve (at death); they smite their faces and their backs, and (saying): Taste the punishment of blazing fire.

[44:48] Then pour over his head the torment of the boiling water

[44:56] Surely, those who disbelieved in Our Ayat (verses, signs, etc.), We shall burn them in Fire. As often as their skins are roasted through, We shall change them for other skins that they may taste the punishment. Truly, Allah is Ever Most Powerful, All-Wise.

It is not hard to see, reading Hasan’s presentation, how Islam was at the root of his actions—the very thing to inspire him. Some time ago, I read the Koran and wrote an article on my findings (Islam on Trial: The Prosecution’s Case). Hasan came to the same conclusions that I did regarding Islam. The difference is that I studied it from a scholarly perspective; Hasan took it literally and based his life and actions from it.

In my article on Islam, I argue that the Koran is essentially one long battle cry against infidels. In the study I did on the Koran, taking a subset of it and classifying the topic of each verse, I found that 53% of the Koran was comprised of hatred aimed at infidels: that they are thankless, that they will be punished, and that they should be fought, etc. Another approximately 15% deals with believers: that they are righteous and will be given rewards, such as young women in heaven. The rest of the Koran mostly deals with Allah, The Day of Judgment, and The Day of Doom. The bulk of the Koran deals entirely with this theme of believers as righteous holy people who will be given rewards, and infidels as wretched scum who should suffer in this life and after, and how to sort these two groups out via The Day of Judgment or The Day of Doom.

Hasan’s presentation is a spitting image of the Koran and its message. The presentation starts off by saying that Islam means submission, in fact he says it means “surrender.” (Ask yourself, surrender to whom?) When he gets to the part about Islam in his presentation, he dedicates several slides to what the rewards of the believers will be. Then he dedicates several slides to what the punishment of nonbelievers will be (some were cited above). Hasan isn’t getting his ideas in a vacuum, in every way his ideas are completely lifted, and quoted, from the Koran.

Slide 5 of Hasan’s presentation fully admits that jihad can mean either spiritual self-struggle or outright holy war against infidels. (Many Islam apologists insist that jihad only means the former definition). However, towards the end of the presentation, Hasan argues that violence is only justified in “defense.”

This is arguably one of the most purposely deceitful parts of the Koran. Muslims, such as Hasan in his presentation, will tell you that they only favor force in self-defense—and who can argue against that? However, Hasan says this, and then he wounds and kills several innocent people.

The problem is the definition of “defense” is weak. Anything that is considered offensive to Islam is considered an attack on Islam, worthy of violent retaliation. For instance, in 2005, when a Danish newspaper ran a cartoon depicting the Islamic prophet Mohammed, it inspired violence throughout the Muslim world. Danish embassies in Syria, Lebanon, and Iran were set on fire, and an estimated 100 people died in retaliation for the cartoon.

I have no doubt that Hasan believed he was acting in “defense.” The ending slide of Hasan’s presentation warns that unless the Department of Defense allowed Muslims to leave the U.S. military as “conscientious objectors,” adverse effects may occur. He is not vague about what those adverse effects are. He lists some, such as “Hasan Akbar: 101th Airborne Division’s 326th Engineer Battalion- Through (sic) grenades killing/wounding many.”

For anyone still in doubt about the nature of the Koran and how it leads to violence: towards the end of his presentation, Hasan quotes Sura 9:29: "Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection." (Bolding in the quote is Hasan’s). This is a direct quote from the peaceful, "wrongly interpreted" Koran, presented by that misunderstood, out-of-the-blue-mad-man, “alleged” shooter Nadil Malik Hasan.

I do not deny Hasan his right to free speech or to spew the hateful garbage that he did. I would prefer he show us his intentions verbally before we find them out in actuality. However, this should have given law enforcement reason to take action. Hasan’s presentation had direct threats against non-Muslims, and he should have been discharged from the military. This should have warranted a police investigation into his intentions.

Islam is not a religion of peace. Islam is a hateful ideology that has been inspiring people to violence for the past 1,400 years. Mohammed himself killed innocent people. How can a book that is littered with threats and wishes of death upon infidels not inspire violence? Does it really matter if Hasan acted in coalition with a terrorist organization? Anyone who reads the Koran, in any part of the world at any time with seriousness and a desire to follow what it says will independently be inspired to violence.

Please, read the Koran for yourself, read my 20 page synopsis of it, or even read Hasan’s presentation. They all say the same thing.

Amber Pawlik is a fervent Iran democracy activist. She actively writes on Islam, terrorism, politics and gender issues in her blog.

Comments powered by CComment

Joomla templates by a4joomla