Dr. Nidal Hasan's Outline of Islam and Andrew Bolt's Questions

The Herald Sun published an article by Andrew Bolt in which he stated critical facts which had been ignored by some journalists and propounded certain rhetorical of a most critical nature. The article included a link to his blog, where I discovered a link to Dr. Hasan's slide show at the Washington Post.

It has been reported that Dr. Hasan's assignment was to deliver a lecture on a medical topic. Instead, he lectured about Islam and its potential effect on servicemen and the Army. In retrospect, the advice given in the last slide should have been applied in his case.

The slide show presents a basic outline of Islam, hitting the most essential highlights. Most of the slides display Qur'an verses or hadith. I have no doubt that the lecture elaborated upon the military application of those slides.

The information presented in the slide show is basically accurate, with the exception of two areas where error has crept in. Slide #36, pertaining to peace & forgiveness, overlooks the fact that those verses have been abrogated by Surah At-Taubah. #38 & 39 misrepresent 9:38 & 9:39 as relating to defense though they are contained in a Surah dedicated to excoriating Muslims who refused to join the ghazwat against Tabuk. Ibn Kathir's Tafsir confirms the obvious.

I hope that you will click the link to the slide show, view it and consider its contents carefully. Its implications for military recruitment & retention policy are clear. Neither the Muslim who shrinks from conflict with fellow Muslims nor one who anticipates an opportunity to turn against friendly forces should be recruited or retained. I doubt the possibility of accurately identifying all members of those two classes of Muslims.

The critical questions propounded by Mr. Bolt are listed below, followed by my answers.

• How much of a threat is Islam to a secular, multi-ethnic society like America's - and ours?
• How sure can we be of the loyalty of Muslim troops in a war against a Muslim country?
• Have we become so fearful of asking such questions that even a Hasan, with his record for hate-preaching, is not just allowed to serve in the US military, but is promoted to the rank of major by people apparently too scared to seem racist to object?
• And can you trust journalists to even tell you the facts you need to reach the right answers?

Islam is an existential threat, immediately to random individuals as in the massacre of '02 in Metropolitan Washington D.C. and to the nation in the long term if we don't wise up and defend ourselves adequately and effectively by eliminating it. We can no more tolerate Islam in our midst than rattlesnakes and copper heads in our homes. All three are venomous, aggressive and predatory.

We can be sure of the past loyalty of Muslim troops after the war is ended without treacherous behavior on their part. We can never be sure of their future loyalty. We now know that Dr. Hasan is extremely disloyal.

The question about fearing accusations of hate/racism answered itself, it does not require amplification.

Journalists can only report what they know. In the early hours of any incident, that knowledge base will be small, growing over time as new information comes to light . But many journalists have agendas, as do the publications that employ them. We can not trust all of them all of the time; we must not become dependent on a single source of information about current events.

Sphere: Related Content