Muslim Americans Must Obey U.S. Laws; Nidal Hasan Disobeyed Islamic Doctrine

[Maripat]

Major Nidal Hasan Conundrum

This is a conundrum to US only.
For the rest of the humanity it should not be very difficult to understand as to what went wrong.

Here is the time line of the episode we are talking about.
November 5, 2009, Major Nidal Hasan of Fort Hood, Texas, USA killed thirteen servicemen and injured dozens in a shooting spree.
His cousin, Nadir Hasan, later on told Fox News that Major Hasan had complained of of harassment because of his "Middle Eastern ethnicity" and had tried to leave the army.
Maj Hassan, a military psychiatrist, was due to be deployed in Iraq.
Maj Hasan was paralysed from the chest down after being shot by police during the incident at Fort Hood.
He is being held at a special hospital cell about 15 miles (25km) from the base.
His trial is in progress but might be delayed because he now sports a beard and that make his identification by the witnesses difficult.
Major Hasan says that he has a premonition of death and would not like to die in a state of sin - by shaving his beard.
The problem is, for the authorities court marshaling him, is whether to shave him forcibly or not.
That is not the conundrum we are talking about.
The conundrum is why did he behave the way he did.
Some other facts that came out of the investigation are as follows. Major Hasan had given a talk in which he averred that those servicemen who want to leave the services should be allowed to do so because they do not agree with the objectives of war.
Technically he did have that choice, it was allowed by the rules but the people he consulted gave him the opposite impression.
Major Nidal Hasan, being US army psychiatrist, had the job to motivate the soldiers being deployed.
In layman's terms his job will be to motivate US soldiers to kill Iraqis - his fellow Arabs.
US expectations were and perhaps still would be that it will be alright, natural and logical for him to do the bidding. Is it really that simple? On the face of it we know Major Hasan just cracked up.
In the history of mankind there have been very rare examples where people gave preference to the call of duty and acted against their family and near and dear ones.
In India the most famous scripture, Gita, after the Vedas, is about that. It needs Krishna to motivate Arjun to go for the war against his own relatives.
In Islam it was the company of the beloved Prophet (PBUH) and his rigorous training that could prevail upon some Companions (RA) to fight against their family members.
In any society it is difficult to wage war against your family, blood relatives or your clan or race.
US expectations from Major Hasan to motivate soldiers to kill Iraqis should be looked in that perspective.
Not the perspective that the US media is clutching to - Major Nidal Malik Hasan's contact with Anwar Al-Awlaki - the only American targeted and martyred by the US in a missile attack in Yemen.

It is strange that a country that is so advance in all academic discipline should be so naive in one of them - psychology. It is not rocket science - to use a cliche.

[Abu Zakir]

[1] it was lawful for a muslim to immigrate and accept citizenship in a land governed by non Muslims in the first place

The Muslims first migrated to Abyssinia before they went to Madina, is that not an example of migrating to a non Muslim land?

[2] even if this 'contract' were legal and binding, Islamic jurisrupence is unanimous regarding a non Muslim land which willfully invades a Muslim land, that any and all contractual agreements between Muslims and that land is invalidated automatically.

Here you would have to define a Muslim land, what makes it Muslim and whether they are harbouring criminals or not.

In fact the entire premise was first developed by the Rand Corporation and the US Pentagon in conjunction with the MI6 to enlist media savy Muslims, particularly westerners, who could rally some modernists scholars who pose as traditoinalist to opiate the Muslims of the west into quietism as western nations attempt a recolonization of the Muslim world.

A simple perusal of the Qur'anic verses regarding the obligation of hijra, their commentaries along with the subsequent legal rulings regarding sulhi, amaan, jizya, mu`ahida would easily debunct the entire premise of the argument. It builds its argument on a false pretext of a distorted understanding of 'contract'. The reality is that in Islam a contract is only valid if the contract is initially permissible. For example, if I were to follow the argument that would obligate a person to adhere to a contract which was initially forbidden in the first place. It would imply that if a person contracted a marriage contract with his sister that he wold herefore be obligated to adhere to the contract simply because he made the agreement! This is an illusion!

There is not a single proof in Islam that [1] it was lawful for a muslim to immigrate and accept citizenship in a land governed by non Muslims in the first place; [2] even if this 'contract' were legal and binding, Islamic jurisrupence is unanimous regarding a non Muslim land which willfully invades a Muslim land, that any and all contractual agreements between Muslims and that land is invalidated automatically. The entire premise of the argument is based upon a modernist LIE rapped in the turban of 'tradition'.

[Abu Zakir]

It is simple really, they should allow people to leave the army if they want to...forcing someone to kill others on your behalf is just unacceptable.

Major Nidal Hasan Conundrum

This is a conundrum to US only.
For the rest of the humanity it should not be very difficult to understand as to what went wrong.

Here is the time line of the episode we are talking about.
November 5, 2009, Major Nidal Hasan of Fort Hood, Texas, USA killed thirteen servicemen and injured dozens in a shooting spree.
His cousin, Nadir Hasan, later on told Fox News that Major Hasan had complained of of harassment because of his "Middle Eastern ethnicity" and had tried to leave the army.
Maj Hassan, a military psychiatrist, was due to be deployed in Iraq.
Maj Hasan was paralysed from the chest down after being shot by police during the incident at Fort Hood.
He is being held at a special hospital cell about 15 miles (25km) from the base.
His trial is in progress but might be delayed because he now sports a beard and that make his identification by the witnesses difficult.
Major Hasan says that he has a premonition of death and would not like to die in a state of sin - by shaving his beard.
The problem is, for the authorities court marshaling him, is whether to shave him forcibly or not.
That is not the conundrum we are talking about.
The conundrum is why did he behave the way he did.
Some other facts that came out of the investigation are as follows. Major Hasan had given a talk in which he averred that those servicemen who want to leave the services should be allowed to do so because they do not agree with the objectives of war.
Technically he did have that choice, it was allowed by the rules but the people he consulted gave him the opposite impression.
Major Nidal Hasan, being US army psychiatrist, had the job to motivate the soldiers being deployed.
In layman's terms his job will be to motivate US soldiers to kill Iraqis - his fellow Arabs.
US expectations were and perhaps still would be that it will be alright, natural and logical for him to do the bidding. Is it really that simple? On the face of it we know Major Hasan just cracked up.
In the history of mankind there have been very rare examples where people gave preference to the call of duty and acted against their family and near and dear ones.
In India the most famous scripture, Gita, after the Vedas, is about that. It needs Krishna to motivate Arjun to go for the war against his own relatives.
In Islam it was the company of the beloved Prophet (PBUH) and his rigorous training that could prevail upon some Companions (RA) to fight against their family members.
In any society it is difficult to wage war against your family, blood relatives or your clan or race.
US expectations from Major Hasan to motivate soldiers to kill Iraqis should be looked in that perspective.
Not the perspective that the US media is clutching to - Major Nidal Malik Hasan's contact with Anwar Al-Awlaki - the only American targeted and martyred by the US in a missile attack in Yemen.

It is strange that a country that is so advance in all academic discipline should be so naive in one of them - psychology. It is not rocket science - to use a cliche.

[Maripat]

It is simple really, they should allow people to leave the army if they want to...forcing someone to kill others on your behalf is just unacceptable.

Technically it was allowed but the people he consulted gave the opposite impression - perhaps they themselves did not know.

There is power point presentation by Major Hasan where he explicitly says that people who do not agree with these wars should be allowed to leave.

[Abu Zakir]

Technically it was allowed but the people he consulted gave the opposite impression - perhaps they themselves did not know.

There is power point presentation by Major Hasan where he explicitly says that people who do not agree with these wars should be allowed to leave.

Are you sure they are allowed? I think it is very difficult because many people might leave and they would be stuck without an army if they allowed anyone to leave. Quite a few go AWOL absent without leave and they are hunted as deserters.

Bush and others escaped the military draft by some legal device.

[mh16388]

major nidal did the right thing. he correctly recognized US as the enemy of Muslims and that the enemy has to be struck where it hurts. the aim was to strike fear and terror into the hearts of kuffar. the terror is greater when the enemy is struck in their homeland rather than in the battlefield. it was not an emotional reaction to his impending deployment in afghanistan. yes he found this attack to be a way out of it but why he did it was because muslims cannot aid kuffar against fellow Muslims when the result of their aid is death of fellow Muslims and establishment of Kufr government. this point seems to be missing on many Muslims and esp Muslim rulers. among the many who have deemed such people out of Islam is Allama Qurtubi (rh) in his tafseer q qurtubi.

people conveniently forget what the US did to Islam from 1948 to 2001 (when it was paid back some amount) .they conveniently forget what the US and its allies are doing to islam right now and the plans they have for Islam. all they see is their own American citizenship or residence and anybody threatening that is their enemy. they deem mujahideen as terrorist left right and center and that too without any strong evidence (you will notice that in their fatawa). for other Muslims in other countries J!had can be waged everywhere but inside their own countries.

major nidal was in correspondence with sh. al-awlaki (rh). it may be worth reading the sheikh's views here (page 41; in english)

also please see a fiqh discussion on this by sheikh nasir bin hamd al fahad (rh) who is imprisoned in saudi arabia. this booklet is in urdu (soon in english).

[Maripat]

Are you sure they are allowed? I think it is very difficult because many people might leave and they would be stuck without an army if they allowed anyone to leave. Quite a few go AWOL absent without leave and they are hunted as deserters.

Bush and others escaped the military draft by some legal device.

When the story unfolded at the time of the incident this is the point that came out - that he did have the option but the advisers gave him the opposite impression.

It is true there are deserters but that is a different problem.

major nidal did the right thing. he correctly recognized US as the enemy of Muslims and that the enemy has to be struck where it hurts. the aim was to strike fear and terror into the hearts of kuffar. the terror is greater when the enemy is struck in their homeland rather than in the battlefield. it was not an emotional reaction to his impending deployment in afghanistan. yes he found this attack to be a way out of it but why he did it was because muslims cannot aid kuffar against fellow Muslims when the result of their aid is death of fellow Muslims and establishment of Kufr government. this point seems to be missing on many Muslims and esp Muslim rulers. among the many who have deemed such people out of Islam is Allama Qurtubi (rh) in his tafseer q qurtubi.

people conveniently forget what the US did to Islam from 1948 to 2001 (when it was paid back some amount) .they conveniently forget what the US and its allies are doing to islam right now and the plans they have for Islam. all they see is their own American citizenship or residence and anybody threatening that is their enemy. they deem mujahideen as terrorist left right and center and that too without any strong evidence (you will notice that in their fatawa). for other Muslims in other countries J!had can be waged everywhere but inside their own countries.

major nidal was in correspondence with sh. al-awlaki (rh). it may be worth reading the sheikh's views here (page 41; in english)

also please see a fiqh discussion on this by sheikh nasir bin hamd al fahad (rh) who is imprisoned in saudi arabia. this booklet is in urdu (soon in english).

I'll try to read the links but you are allowing your wishes to cloud the reality. If you see the power point presentation by Major Nidal Hasan it is clear that he was wishing for a way out of the US army. He was ready to pay the Army back. This clearly indicates that there was no intention on his part to single handely take on the US might. It was simple frustration of being put in an impossible situation. Major Hasan is a victim of an insensitive, actually inapt, system - not a rebel.

PS: Both links have been blocked by my local admin.

[mh16388]

I'll try to read the links but you are allowing your wishes to cloud the reality. If you see the power point presentation by Major Nidal Hasan it is clear that he was wishing for a way out of the US army. He was ready to pay the Army back. This clearly indicates that there was no intention on his part to single handely take on the US might. It was simple frustration of being put in an impossible situation. Major Hasan is a victim of an insensitive, actually inapt, system - not a rebel.

PS: Both links have been blocked by my local admin.

i did not say that it wasnt one of the reasons. i am saying it wasnt the only reason.

i doubt it is my wishful thinking:
"During his psychiatry fellowship at USUHS, Air Force Lt. Col. Dr. Val Finnell, a graduate school classmate in the MPH program, said that while other students' projects focused on topics such as water contamination, Hasan's project dealt with "whether the war on terror is a war against Islam." According to retired Colonel Terry Lee, "He said 'maybe Muslims should stand up and fight against the aggressor'. At first we thought he meant help the armed forces, but apparently that wasn't the case. Other times he would make comments we shouldn't be in the war in the first place."

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/nov...rt-hood-hasan7
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,572405,00.html

he was in contact with sh. al-awlaki. if you can find a way (hint:ultrasurf) to read those links you would see what the sheikh says and why every Muslim who accepts the sheikh's teachings does exactly what major nidal did. it is an ideology that requires time to understand.


(my 4shared account has been blocked? the second link is from there)

[Abu Zakir]

Ok let us say that you are right. You are saying that as a resident of Pakistan you can kill or attack any or all Pakistanis because the state of Pakistan is aiding Americans in killing Muslims?

Or only the Pakistani military can be rightly attacked?

What if someone attacks the Pakistani military, kills a few hundred soldiers, but then the Pakistani millitary reacts by ruthlessly killing many Muslims in return and further empowering itself as the biggest and baddest bully on the block....what have you achieved?


With regards to killing the military in America...what if the soldiers are forced to go...are they guilty and responsible for it? It is the democratic form of government which allows these things to occur and we have to know where ultimate responsibility lies. Is it with 'the people', or 'the President', or the hidden banker and corporate elites.

major nidal did the right thing. he correctly recognized US as the enemy of Muslims and that the enemy has to be struck where it hurts. the aim was to strike fear and terror into the hearts of kuffar. the terror is greater when the enemy is struck in their homeland rather than in the battlefield. it was not an emotional reaction to his impending deployment in afghanistan. yes he found this attack to be a way out of it but why he did it was because muslims cannot aid kuffar against fellow Muslims when the result of their aid is death of fellow Muslims and establishment of Kufr government. this point seems to be missing on many Muslims and esp Muslim rulers. among the many who have deemed such people out of Islam is Allama Qurtubi (rh) in his tafseer q qurtubi.

people conveniently forget what the US did to Islam from 1948 to 2001 (when it was paid back some amount) .they conveniently forget what the US and its allies are doing to islam right now and the plans they have for Islam. all they see is their own American citizenship or residence and anybody threatening that is their enemy. they deem mujahideen as terrorist left right and center and that too without any strong evidence (you will notice that in their fatawa). for other Muslims in other countries J!had can be waged everywhere but inside their own countries.

major nidal was in correspondence with sh. al-awlaki (rh). it may be worth reading the sheikh's views here (page 41; in english)

also please see a fiqh discussion on this by sheikh nasir bin hamd al fahad (rh) who is imprisoned in saudi arabia. this booklet is in urdu (soon in english).

[Maripat]

i did not say that it wasnt one of the reasons. i am saying it wasnt the only reason.

i doubt it is my wishful thinking:
"During his psychiatry fellowship at USUHS, Air Force Lt. Col. Dr. Val Finnell, a graduate school classmate in the MPH program, said that while other students' projects focused on topics such as water contamination, Hasan's project dealt with "whether the war on terror is a war against Islam." According to retired Colonel Terry Lee, "He said 'maybe Muslims should stand up and fight against the aggressor'. At first we thought he meant help the armed forces, but apparently that wasn't the case. Other times he would make comments we shouldn't be in the war in the first place."

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/nov...rt-hood-hasan7
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,572405,00.html

he was in contact with sh. al-awlaki. if you can find a way (hint:ultrasurf) to read those links you would see what the sheikh says and why every Muslim who accepts the sheikh's teachings does exactly what major nidal did.

I had read these things at that time. Even at that time I got no impression that Major Hasan was on a mission of any kind. He simply displayed a Muslim mindset which can see through some of the American rhetoric. Nothing more than that.

(my 4shared account has been blocked? the second link is from there)

I think an over enthusiastic person blocked 4shared itself.

It is an ideology that requires time to understand.

May I say lol akhi? Let me tell you the end result. I have gone through so many ideologies by now that these do not impress me any more. By now I am more interested in whether my Surah Fatiha is correct in Tajweed or not. ( It is not!) It weighs rather heavy on my conscience - heavier than the life after Higgs. I kid you not.

Ok let us say that you are right. You are saying that as a resident of Pakistan you can kill or attack any or all Pakistanis because the state of Pakistan is aiding Americans in killing Muslims?

Or only the Pakistani military can be rightly attacked?

What if someone attacks the Pakistani military, kills a few hundred soldiers, but then the Pakistani millitary reacts by ruthlessly killing many Muslims in return and further empowering itself as the biggest and baddest bully on the block....what have you achieved?


With regards to killing the military in America...what if the soldiers are forced to go...are they guilty and responsible for it? It is the democratic form of government which allows these things to occur and we have to know where ultimate responsibility lies. Is it with 'the people', or 'the President', or the hidden banker and corporate elites.

The military court will not get to hear my words but I would like to shout that Major Hasan is not guilty. Because of the above circumstances.