Hasan’s Powerpoint Slides
In 2007, Major Hasan gave a lecture to his colleagues:
As a senior-year psychiatric resident at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Maj. Nidal M. Hasan was supposed to make a presentation on a medical topic of his choosing as a culminating exercise of the residency program.
Instead, in late June 2007, he stood before his supervisors and about 25 other mental health staff members and lectured on Islam, suicide bombers and threats the military could encounter from Muslims conflicted about fighting in the Muslim countries of Iraq and Afghanistan, according to a copy of the presentation obtained by The Washington Post.
“It’s getting harder and harder for Muslims in the service to morally justify being in a military that seems constantly engaged against fellow Muslims,” he said in the presentation.
“It was really strange,” said one staff member who attended the presentation and spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the investigation of Hasan. “The senior doctors looked really upset” at the end.
The presentation is here. Frankly, I’m unsurprised that it disturbed Major Hasan’s colleagues. It sets out, increasingly clearly, the theological basis of jihadism.
Before we start going through the presentation, it should be acknowledged that it would be impossible to talk about the mindset of an jihadist without talking about the theory underpinning that particular lifestyle choice. However, bear this in mind. Major Hasan’s topic was “The Koranic World View As It Relates To Muslims In The US Military”.
He is, in effect, talking about himself.
The presentation starts out calmly enough. Slides 1 to ten set out fairly anodyne neutral material about Islam and Muslims in the US military.
Things start to get worrying from slide 11, when Major Hasan starts to discuss the position of “Muslims in US Military”. He states:
“Fatwa my U.S. Muslim clerics are vague and ambiguous – under duress?
Non U.S. Scholars issued Fatwa clearly stating no.”
From Slide 16, the presentation picks up speed. Pretty much the whole of the rest of the presentation simply consists of the exposition of quotes from the Quran.
On Slide 25, under the title “Lack of Submission”, we find the “apes and swine” quotation.
Slides 28, 29, 30 and 31 list the Rewards promised to the believers. Slides 32, 33 and 34 list the Punishments meted out to the “unbelievers”, including:
Like boiling oil, it will boil in the bellies…like the boiling of scalding water… (It will be said) “Seize him and drag him into the midst of the blazing fire… Then pour over his head the torment of the boiling water… 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 Even Most Powerful, All-Wise”
By slide 35, he turns to the subject of ‘offensive jihad’ and discusses the ‘Islamic empire’. He then moves on to “defensive jihad”, which occupy slides 37, 38, 39, 40 and 41.
Hasan pauses at slide 41 and 42 to talk about the Verse of the Sword:
“I have been commanded to fight the people until they testify that there is no deity worthy of worship except Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, establish the prayer and pay the Zakah.”
The presentation continues in a similar vein until a slide entitled “Offensive Islam If [sic] the Future”:
By the One in Whose hand is my soul, soon the son of Maryam will descend among you as a just judge. He will break the cross, kill the pigs and abolish the jizyah, and money will become abundant until no one will accept it.
The final slides contain some other observations:
If Muslim groups can convince Muslims that they are fighting for God against injustices of the ‘infidels’; ie: enemies of Islam, then Muslims can become a potent adversary ie: suicide bombing, etc.
We love death more then [sic] you love life!
God expects full loyalty. Promises Heaven and threatens with Hell.
Muslims may be seen as moderate (compromising) but God is not
Fighting to establish an Islamic State to please God, even by force, is condoned by the Islam
Finally, Hasan concludes:
“Department of Defense should allow Muslims [sic] Soldiers the option of being released as ‘Conscientious objectors’ to increase troop morale and decrease adverse events.”
Adverse events is the term that Hasan uses earlier in the lecture to describe other attacks by Muslim soldiers on their colleagues.
Hasan’s mentor, the jihadist cleric Anwar Al Awlaki has opined:
‘Maybe Nidal was affected by one of my lectures,’”
Yes, perhaps he was. Having viewed this presentation, it is difficult to conclude that Hasan was merely recounting, neutrally, the theoretical underpinning of jihadism. The thinking he expounds in this lecture is precisely the sort of theology that Awlaki and other jihadists preach.
Hasan was almost begging his employers to cashier him out of the army. He had a clear view of his religious duty, and explained to his colleagues precisely what it meant to him, and for them. Yet, he was ignored.
Imagine that the officer had not been a Muslim, but a Christian. Imagine that, at a medical conference, he had started to preach fire and brimstone, while quoting extensively from the Book of Revelations. Imagine that he had started to rant about fighting the New World Order, the Whore of Babylon and the Beast of the Apocalypse. Imagine that all this was delivered in the context of a series of bombings by paranoid McVeigh-types.
You’d think – “Uh oh. This man is a Survivalist, or worse!”
This lecture was a warning sign. Why was it missed?
Who knows for sure. However, I suspect that part of the problem is racism and anti-Muslim bigotry. The same people who would be horrified to find a pink skinned person raving about End Times, just expected a brown and beige skinned person to be “a bit passionate”.
This is ‘noble savagery’ at its worst.
Comments
| 17 November 2009, 11:45 am |
HP’s commentators have their priorities fixed:
Far more fun ripping Penny Farting a new arsehole than discussing a disturbed Muslim.
| 17 November 2009, 11:53 am |
However, I suspect that part of the problem is racism and anti-Muslim bigotry.
Perhaps. But the main problem was the reasonable fear of being accused, as a result of raising the issue, of racism and anti-Muslim bigotry. A career-ender to be sure.
| 17 November 2009, 12:07 pm |
HP’s commentators have their priorities fixed:
Far more fun ripping Penny Farting a new arsehole than discussing a disturbed Muslim.
Well that’s a relief. And I thought we were supposed to be a “sectarian” blog.
| 17 November 2009, 12:45 pm |
I suspect that part of the problem is racism and anti-Muslim bigotry. The same people who would be horrified to find a pink skinned person raving about End Times, just expected a brown and beige skinned person to be “a bit passionate”.
This is quite a leap.
Stan
| 17 November 2009, 1:03 pm |
The BBC’s relentless campaign to perpetuate the myth that the killings were “inexplicable” was a rare opportunity to enjoy true comedy at the moribund BBC. The best example of Dhimmi-journalism at its rank finest. Read Mark Steyn for more.
Nothing demonstrated so clearly the fact that that vile, slobbering, self-promoting, greedy organisation has to go.
Hopefully, with much pain.
| 17 November 2009, 1:05 pm |
A murderous thug stood up and told his “supervisors”, in pretty plain language, “I’m a murderous thug and I have infiltrated your army in an attempt to destroy it from the inside on behalf of our country’s enemies.” That was in June 2007, two years ago, nearly two and a half. We may be confident that, in the meantime, the alleged “supervisors” who turned a blind eye at the time have now all been dishonorably discharged for gross negligence. Or if they haven’t, that’ll be worse for them, because now they’ll be liable to stand trial as accomplices to murder. Won’t they?
| 17 November 2009, 1:21 pm |
“Seven salient facts about Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan.”
| 17 November 2009, 2:21 pm |
It get’s even better.
Major Nidal Malik Hasan’s military superiors repeatedly ignored or rebuffed his efforts to open criminal prosecutions of soldiers he claimed had confessed to “war crimes” during psychiatric counseling, according to investigative reports circulated among federal law enforcement officials.
| 17 November 2009, 2:30 pm |
Some interesting analysis here:
http://christopherhitchenswatch.blogspot.com/2009/11/on-ft-hood-hitchens-ignores-underlying.html
| 17 November 2009, 2:34 pm |
Some interesting analysis here:
No, there isn’t.
| 17 November 2009, 2:36 pm |
Was there ever a more clear cut case of theology prompting an individual to commit murder? Yet, despite mountains of evidence most pundits are still referring to the attack as ‘inexplicable’. I,m wondering what the families of those killed will do as more info emerges about all the gross negligence by top brass.
http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2009/me_saudis0888_11_13.asp
| 17 November 2009, 2:52 pm |
It’s difficult to draw any conclusions from these slides since we do not know the content of the lecture. It seems to be fairly basic stuff and I don’t think it is a lecture to seek converts. If this was a non-Muslim who had not been involved in a massacre, it would be viewed as a basic guide to understanding the possible moral conflicts a Muslim would have.
I’m unconvinced that Hasan had considered killing his comrades when he gave this lecture. It seems that this man repeatedly stated that he had moral objections to the war and his loyalties were divided. And perhaps this lecture was intended to convince the powers that be that Muslims like him should be released. If he had been, then this massacre may not have happened. At some point he snapped. It would be interesting to know if Awlaki pushed him to act on serious personal objections to war to committing a massacre.
Do all Muslims serving in a predominantly non-Muslim military feel divided loyalty? I don’t think so. There are thousands of Muslim soldiers in the Indian army who are prepared to go to war with Pakistan if it invades again and I’ve not heard of this kind of incident in India. I suspect that the problems Hasan is talking about are shared by a very small number of Muslim personnel in the US armed forces. And it would be foolish for a Muslim who didn’t want to fight wars with governments in Muslim countries to join the US army when the US’s main enemies in the present and recent past are in the Muslim world: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Sudan, Afghanistan, Somalia.
| 17 November 2009, 3:39 pm |
” I suspect that the problems Hasan is talking about are shared by a very small number of Muslim personnel in the US armed forces.”
I agree. But the ones who are not are likely to be those who have adopted a jihadist focus.
| 17 November 2009, 3:48 pm |
That Hitchens Slate piece linked to by Mesquito – also here – absolutely nails it.
| 17 November 2009, 5:42 pm |
The real issue here is not about Hassan, it is about us, and how many of our organisations now have an unwritten rule that makes it impossible for muslims to be disciplined, fired, or even criticised. They have become “untouchables”. I’m sure the same sort of thing will be happening over here.
| 17 November 2009, 5:44 pm |
“Some interesting analysis here:”
No, there’s someone wittering on that shooting your fellow workers is pretty much grounds for beatification.
| 17 November 2009, 5:58 pm |
Dan, the Indian army Muslim representation is apparently 2% from a population of around 13%.
This is a very low percentage and would suggest a less than average propensity to fight to defend India against Pakistan. The recent Mumbai atrocity people are supposed to have had many Indian Muslim enablers as also many bombings by Jihadis around India have involved Indian Muslims too.
Certainly Muslims under influence of Jihadi ideology are likely to betray India when it comes to the crunch.
It was always trumpeted that no Indian Muslims were involved in international Jihad until a Bangalore Muslim doctor broke that in the UK.
Divided loyalty is certainly there if one takes Islamic ideology seriously. I just watched a whole number of Awlaki lectures and using impeccable scriptural proofs he lays out a very convincing case for Jihad against kafirs which is in fact the teaching and practice of Islam since its inception.
There has been plenty of betrayal like the Muslim divisions betraying their Vijayanagar patrons leading to the destruction of Hampi.
Indian Muslims are not uniquely immune to jihadi ideology although considering how strong this ideology is I am surprised at the lack of Hasan style issues so far since independence. That Muslims are only around 2% of the armed forces certainly helps. One would also hope that Indian army would be less bound by the ridiculous political correctness which helped this Jihadi minded soldier sprout his views and still keep his position.
Who makes the claim that “all Muslims feel divided loyalty”?
For many people religion is a pretty nominal thing that doesn’t dictate what they do in life too much. Those who really get into Islamic ideology though would certainly have issues of divided loyalty when it comes to serving in a non-Muslim army fighting against an Islamic foe army.
| 17 November 2009, 6:49 pm |
Kisan: There are some historical and cultural reasons. For instance, one of the states with the largest Muslim populations is West Bengal and few Bengalis, either Hindu or Muslim, opt to join the army. This goes back to the Indian Mutiny, after which the British generally refused to conscript Bengalis. Instead, they favoured recruitment of Sikhs because they were viewed as loyal and the Sikhs (and Gorkhas) are still over-represented (there are two Sikh regiments). Tamils are also under-represented, perhaps because Tamils generally regard themselves as separate from Hindi-dominated institutions. But I’ve not come across any instances like Hasan’s atrocity where Muslim soldiers have shot their comrades because of loyalty to Pakistan.
| 17 November 2009, 7:00 pm |
This religious maniac shows a room full of people what he believes in and still the people stay quite, deaf and dumb.
Why? Were they afraid of him because he was a Muslim, of course not.
They were afraid of Left wing terror tactics, call anyone who disagrees with you a “racist” a “bigot” a “nazi” they get all twitchy and their argument melts like snow in the microwave.
It is political correctness and a fear, not of Muslims, but of being labeled a “racist” It is the ultimate weapon of the Left, just call anyone a bigot and watch them cower.
Screw the Left I say, it is they who have made it possible for fantasy believing maniacs such as this Islamic fantasy believing Maj Hasan to not only preach this religious bullshit but to sound as if it had some basis in reality.
Religion, a belief in a “God” is a dangerous fantasy, it is making an exponential comeback because of the ridiculous leftist notion that everyones ‘beliefs and culture’ are to be respected, no matter how ridiculous they are.
Ask yourselves an honest question Mr and Mrs Leftist, if this psychiatrist had been a fantasy believing white evangelical Christian and had been quoting his ancient fairy tale as justification to kill or convert or prosecute, do you really, truly, honestly believe that this other ‘delusionist’ would have been given a pass.
This Guy Hasan was a Muslim fanatic, another Islamic fantasist with a death wish, he was allowed to continue to spout his bullshit not because those of us in the West are “afraid” of Muslims and Islam but because the liberal West is afraid to be called “racist” or “bigot” or “nazi” or the ultimate expression of western denial “Islamophobic”
The problem my dear Westerners is not in our stars but in ourselves, it has now become imperative to tell these religious fantasy believing lunatics that their “religion” their GOD, indeed all GODS are not real, they are a fantasy, anyone who believes that they are real, really believes, is a nutcase and should be treated as such.
People can believe in Klingons if they wish, but when they start to act like Klingons then they should be told in no uncertain terms to stop being so fucking stupid and grow up.
This is the 21st century folks and I hate to break it to you but Klingons are not real, neither are goblins, angels, desert devils, the lock ness monster or “GOD”.
It is childish bullshit on the same level as a belief in father christmas.
“how many of our organisations now have an unwritten rule that makes it impossible for muslims to be disciplined, fired, or even criticised.”
How many of these organizations fly the banner of being “progressive”?
If this is “progress”, if the current state of arse kissing re the religious fantasists is where the world is headed, then we are truly finished, at best we will return to the dark ages, more likely is that some religious maniacs will get hold of some nukes and press the button for the glory of “GOD”.
How the fuck did we end up hear? Oh yes I remember, suicidal political or rather ‘Leftist’ correctness.
| 17 November 2009, 8:03 pm |
Somebody please give AOS his meds, Now!
| 17 November 2009, 9:25 pm |
The world view of muslims vs the rest of the world finds another victim, but somehow this doesn’t look like the deranged bloodlust we see from jihadists, more like one individual getting unhinged not unlike the shooting tragedies.
But the fact that this warped worldview finds resonance even in a well educated individual brought up in a free, secular and democratic society is concerning.
Logically the pain would come from the idea that fellow muslims are being victimized by western powers, – choose your villian here – hence the conscientious objector, how come this pain doesn’t manifest when muslims suffer due to their own rulers, like in Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia or Algeria. These are despotic, deeply undemocratic regimes which have no respect for their citizens.
The victimhood pedaled by sundry preachers and the smoke and mirrors with cause and effect underpins the ridiculous extremism we are seeing since 2001 perhaps earlier, the moment folks start seeing people suffer and face injustice irrespective of their religion, the needless distraction and religion creep monopolizing global attention and paradoxically fueling attention starved islamist supremacist delusions will dissipate into the nothingness it is.
| 18 November 2009, 12:29 am |
Some interesting analysis here:
Yawn.
| 18 November 2009, 12:34 am |
So, what ever happened to the “insane lone nutter gunman attack in the grand American tradition” theory? Surely there must be a Lefti here to breathe life into it again?
| 18 November 2009, 1:03 am |
I think it was a lone nutter gunman in the grand American tradition of going postal and blowing away his co-workers in a supreme act of courageous heroism and defiance. A bit like John Brown meets Rosa Parks meets Rambo!
Sigh.
Proof that Americans can be cowardly too.
I pray the army learns its lesson from this episode.
Do me a favor and don’t forget how we missed the obvious. Don’t stop talking about it.