Which Muslims Share Nidal Hasan’s Vision of Islam?

The Washington Post has published an online gallery of the 50-slide erstwhile “medical grand rounds” given on June 27, 2007 by avowed jihadist psychiatrist Nidal Hasan.

Although Hasan merely reiterates salient aspects of classical jihad theory (i.e., see slides 35, 39, 42, 43, 44, 45,  and 49), this reality is understandably “shocking” to the elites in our media, military, and government who are now so obviously derelict in their duty to have learned what they still refuse to learn about the living doctrine and history of the religion of peace (or peace and love if you prefer Condoleeza Rice’s even more fatuous construction).

Nidal Hasan’s June 2007 presentation concludes, in full accord with classical (and unrepentant, let alone unreformed) Islamic doctrine regarding jihad war, (slide 49):

“Fighting to establish an Islamic State to please Allah, even by force is condoned by (sic) Islam.”

Our immediate, urgent task is to understand the extent to which Nidal Hasan’s orthodox vision of Islam is a shared vision—and by which Muslims, in particular.

The seat of Sunni orthodoxy Al Azhar University—which functions as a de facto Vatican of Sunni Islam, repeats in “Reliance of the Traveller” its widely distributed manual of Islamic Law, which “conforms to the practice and faith of the Sunni orthodoxy,” circa 1991,

“ Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and, is etymologically derived from the word, mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the religion [of Islam]…The scriptural basis for jihad is such Koranic verses as ‘Fighting is prescribed for you’ (Koran 2:216); ‘Slay them wherever you find them’ (Koran 4:89); ‘Fight the idolators utterly’ (Koran 9:36); and such hadiths as the one related by (Sahih) Bukhari and (Sahih) Muslim [NOTE: cited in slide 43 of Hasan’s 6/7/07 presentation] that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said: ‘I have been commanded to fight people until they testify that there is no God but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and perform the prayer, and pay zakat. If they say it, they have saved their blood and possessions from me, except for the rights of Islam over them. And the final reckoning is with Allah’; and the hadith by (Sahih) Muslim, ‘To go forth in the morning or evening to fight in the path of Allah is better than the whole world and everything in it.’ ”

Even more concrete evidence that this classical formulation of jihad is very much a living doctrine today is apparent in the openly espoused views, and sound Islamic arguments which conclude the contemporary work “Islam and Modernism,” written by a respected modern Muslim scholar Justice Muhammad Taqi Usmani. Mr Usmani, aged 66, sat for 20 years as a Shari’a judge in Pakistan’s Supreme Court (His father was the Grand Mufti of Pakistan). Currently Usmani is deputy of the Islamic Fiqh (Jurisprudence) Council of the Organization of the Islamic Conference—the major international body of Islamic nations in the world, and serves as an adviser to several global Sharia-based Islamic financial institutions. Thus he is a leading contemporary figure in the world of mainstream Islamic jurisprudence. Mr. Usmani is also a regular visitor to Britain. During a recent visit there, he was interviewed by the Times of London, which published extracts from Usmani’s writings on jihad, Saturday, September 8, 2007.  The concluding chapter of Usmani’s “Islam and Modernism” was cited, and it rebuts those who believe that only defensive jihad (i.e., fighting to defend a Muslim land deemed under attack or occupation) is permissible in Islam. He also refutes the suggestion that jihad is unlawful against a non-Muslim state that freely permits the preaching of Islam (which, not surprisingly, was of some concern to The Times!).

For Mr Usmani, “the question is whether aggressive battle is by itself commendable or not.” “If it is, why should the Muslims stop simply because territorial expansion in these days is regarded as bad? And if it is not commendable, but deplorable, why did Islam not stop it in the past?” He answers his own question as follows: “Even in those days . . . aggressive jihads were waged . . . because it was truly commendable for establishing the grandeur of the religion of Allah.” Usmani argues that Muslims should live peacefully in countries such as Britain, where they have the freedom to practice Islam, only until they gain enough power to engage in battle. Usmani explodes the myths that the creed of offensive, expansionist jihad represents a distortion of traditional Islamic thinking, or that this living institution is somehow irrelevant to our era.

And the preponderance of contemporary mainstream Muslims from Morocco to Indonesia, apparently share with their murderous, jihad terror waging co-religionist Nidal Hasan classical jihad’s ultimate goal: re-establishing an Islamic Caliphate, or global empire based upon jihad conquest and the imposition of Islamic Law. Polling data released April 24, 2007 in a rigorously conducted face-to-face University of Maryland/ WorldPublicOpinion.org interview survey of 4384 Muslims conducted between December 9, 2006 and February 15, 2007-1000 Moroccans, 1000 Egyptians, 1243 Pakistanis, and 1141 Indonesians-reveal that 65.2% of those interviewed-almost 2/3, hardly a “fringe minority”-desired this outcome (i.e., “To unify all Islamic countries into a single Islamic state or Caliphate”), including 49% of “moderate” Indonesian Muslims. The internal validity of these data about the present longing for a Caliphate is strongly suggested by a concordant result: 65.5% of this Muslim sample approved the proposition “To require a strict [emphasis added] application of Shari’a law in every Islamic country.”

The findings from the University of Maryland/ WorldPublicOpinion.org poll are ominous—indicating plainly to any rational mind willing to comprehend—the vast underpinning of support for Nidal Hasan’s orthodox vision of Islam, from the creed’s most respected religious leaders, to ordinary Muslims.  Our  self-righteously ignorant elites—particularly those in political and military  leadership positions—must be held accountable by the American public for their ignorance, and worse still,  deliberate obfuscation of these plain Islamic realities.


All Articles Copyright © 2007-2014 Dr. Andrew Bostom | All Rights Reserved
Printing is allowed for personal use only | Commercial usage(For Profit) is a copyright violation and written permission must be granted first.

9 Responses to Which Muslims Share Nidal Hasan’s Vision of Islam?

  1. Moorthy Muthuswamy United States Windows Vista Internet Explorer 7.0

    This is an important essay by Dr. Bostom. Note the words: “preponderance of contemporary mainstream Muslims.”

    The writing on the wall is clear. Radicalism is in Muslim main street. To deny that is wishful thinking.

  2. Alfred J. Lemire United States Mac OS X Safari 531.9

    Andy McCarthy at National Review Online’s “The Corner” did well to link to this factual account of the religious underpinnings of jihadism, or Islamism a less accurate term. This former newspaper reporter wonders about those currently in the biz.

    Why can’t anyone provide the Koranic basis for what folks like the mercilless major did and what others battling the West have done? One can understand their partisanship and their general incompetence, but not their refusal, like the President, to identify, name, and describe our foe and support policies to defeat it.

  3. Mr. Usmani’s belief that Muslims who reside in countries where they can freely practice their religion, should live peaceably there only until they gain enough power to engage in battle, assumes that these Muslims would tolerate living within that same society which they conclude is repugnantly at odds with their beliefs.

    The problem for western countries in this matter is our inability to determine exactly which Muslims presently in our country would adhere to a peaceful co-existence, at least for a time, and which ones are presently radicalized enough to wage a campaign of terrorism against us. It would seem that in either circumstance we will be the target that is to be destroyed.

  4. The solution seems obvious: Halt all immigration from Islamic countries. Since we can’t be sure, then just cut off the influx until we can figure this all out, and until we see what happens in Eurasia. I’m sure there are plenty of Latinos from central and south America with Christian based backgrounds that would happily assimilate into American culture.

  5. Mr. Bostom,

    On what page is the citation from the “Reliance of the Traveler”? I’m having a discussion on another blog and would like to have the exact reference.

    Thanks.

  6. Thank you, Mr. Bostom. I own both of your Legacy books, and eventually will find the time to read them!

  7. Americans gotta do something concerning their legislation before Islam takes over your country and treat you like they treat the Christians in Egypt. Please watch this Short film, dear ones. Greetings from a fellow Jerusalem Christian (yes the place where Hasan comes from)!! Please watch the film to get an idea.

    Film: Copts Under Siege
    فيلم أقباط محاصرون

    Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gciSUThpwkY
    Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5DzrJWU_Fs&feature=fvw

  8. Finally! Finally! Ordinary people are starting to get it. Islam is inherently violent. It is not a New Age feel-the-mellow religion, but a marauding, angry cult with a very angry god.
    It took a psychiatrist! A PSYCHIATRIST to get the message across.
    Now is the time for action. What are we going to do to get this cult out of our countries and send it back to the hole in Arabia it crawled out of.
    Thank you, Dr. Bostom. Is anyone in government listening? Stop this cult of death now!