As reported by the Washington Post, the above is the title of a PowerPoint presentation given in June 0f 2007 to medical personnel at Walter Reed Hospital by the Army psychiatrist, Major Nidal M. Hasan, who last week murdered thirteen of his fellow soldiers at Fort Hood, Texas.

When news of this terrorist atrocity first broke, the news media instantly jumped to the conclusion that Hasan’s heinous act arose out of a personal crisis, that the pressure of counseling soldiers who had seen terrible things in Iraq and Afghanistan unbalanced him, that he was a loser in life and was unhappy in love — and that it had nothing to do with Islam or Islamic terrorism.

Then, over the past several days, a very different picture has emerged. Hasan made over twenty contacts with Anwar al Awliki, an Islamic religious leader (now living in Yemen) who inspired two of the 9/11 terrorist bombers; Hasan aggressively preached to patients about Islam instead of doing his medical duties; Hasan compared the 9/11 suicide bombers to a soldier who falls on a hand grenade to save his buddies; and he otherwise made his “Islamist” views known.

And in the PowerPoint mentioned above, Hasan gave a history lesson on the Koranic worldview. Using verses from the Koran (and the example of Muhammad), he made the following points:

  • [Slide 11, describing  fatwas, or supposedly authoritative religious rulings, on Muslims’ participation in the U.S. military] (a) “Fatwa [ by] U.S. [Muslim] clerics [are] vague and ambiguous — [suggesting that they are] under duress?” (b) “Non U.S. [Muslim] Scholars issued a Fatwa clearly stating no [to Muslims joining the U.S. military.” (c) “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.”
  • [Slide 12] “Whoever kills a believer intentionally, his punishment is hell,” as the Koran says in surah (chapter) 4:93.
  • [Slide 23] Calls Jews “apes,” “pigs,” and “despised and hated,” as the Koran does in surahs 2:65; 5:60 and 7:166.
  • [Slide 35, on the “Jihad-rule of Abrogation”] Describes how the earlier “peaceful” and “self-defense” verses in the Koran were superceded by later “offensive fighting” verses. This slide also mentions, as evidence, that at one point the Islamic Empire stretched from Morocco to China.
  • [Slides 42-44] Quotes “verses of the sword” from the Koran: surah 9:05, 1:53, and 9:29.
  • [Slide 45] Cites two highly respected Muslim hadith authorities, al-Bukhaari (#2222) and Muslim (#155), on “Offensive Islam [In] the Future” — in which Jesus is supposed to come at the end of the world to “break the cross” (meaning, destroy all churches), “kill the pigs” (meaning, eliminate the Jews), “and abolish the jizyeh” (meaning, to be finished with the Koranic tax imposed on unbelievers in Muslim territories because there are no unbelievers left).
  • [Slide 48] “If Muslim groups can convince Muslims that they are fighting for [Allah] against injustices of the ‘infidels; ie: enemies of Islam [i.e., the U.S.!], then Muslims can become a very potent enemy, ie: suicide bombing, etc.”
  • [Slide 48] Cites the jihadi slogan: “We love death more than you love life!”
  • [Slide 49, the conclusions slide] Hasan’s slideshow ends with these points: (a) “[Allah] expects full loyalty. Promises heaven and threatens with Hell.” (b) “Muslims may be seen as moderate (compromising), but [Allah] is not.” (c) Hasan puts the following words into a compromising Muslim’s mouth: “I love the Koran and being a Muslim, but I don’t want to live under Islamic rule.” (d) “Fighting to establish an Islamic State to please God, even by force, is condoned by the Islam.” (e) “Muslim soldiers should not serve in any capacity that renders them at risk to hurting/killing believers unjustly. . .”
  • [Slide 13] Cites as “adverse events” Hasan Akbar’s grenade-throwing against other U.S. soldiers; Waseef Ali Hassoun’s dessertion in Iraq; and Abdullah William Webster’s refusal to deploy — foreshadowing Hasan’s own future murderous rampage.
  • [Slide 50] To avoid future “adverse events,” the Department of Defense “should allow Muslisms [sic] Soldiers the option of being released as ‘Conscientious objectors.’” In other words, Muslim soldiers who have voluntarily signed on with the military should be treated like pacifist Quakers; they should released from active military duty.

Major Hasan didn’t just make all this stuff up. He’s applying a recognized and widely-used form of Islamic jurisprudence to answer a question that is framed in this way: Should Muslims fight for the (unjust) U.S. military against fellow Muslim believers in other countries?

After 9/11, for Hasan to voice or teach any of the points above should have raised red flags. Together, they should have been recognized as very, very dangerous signs. But the Army did nothing effective to intervene. It’s good that President Obama is calling for a full investigation into why these warning signs were ignored and how they can be heeded in the future.

One reason for the failure is political correctness. We’re afraid say or do anything that might offend selected groups, especially Muslims.

Another is that far many Americans are ignorant of or in denial about the “Koranic World View” as described by Major Hasan. For example, in their opinion article “Zero Tolerance” (L.A. Times, 11/12/2009) Judith Miller (of the Manhattan Institute and a Fox News contributor) and David Samuels (a contributing editor of Harper’s Magazine) say:

We are at war, whether we like it or not, with Islamic heretics who argue that their own beliefs supersede traditional Islamic law and that traitors to Islam as they define it should be killed.

Miller and Samuels are very smart people, but in this sentence the authors’ wishful thinking is showing. Tens of millions of Muslims worldwide would laugh in derision at their analysis, knowing that (a) Muhammad spread Islam partly by preaching, and when that didn’t work by intimidation, terror and the sword; (b) Muhammad’s methods are codified and made normative in the Koran; and (c) Muhammad’s immediate followers followed Muhammad’s example. Unfortunately, using violence to spread Islam is very much a part of Islamic tradition — not “heretical,” as Miller and Samuels claim.

Thankfully, many Muslims are law-abiding citizens who have no desire to bring grief to others. Thankfully, many Muslim groups have disavowed Major Hasan’s actions in particular, and using violence in general, to spread their religion. And thankfully, there are Muslims in the U.S. military who are loyal to the U.S. and their units — who see their own role as combatting ruthless extremists and bringing a measure of freedom and justice to Iraq and Afghanistan.  But to make this choice for non-violence can be extraordinarily difficult for them because they find themselves in conflict with a significant portion of their fellow religionists who believe the traditional Koranic worldview legitimates the use of terror and the sword to subjugate non-Muslims and to enforce Islamic rule.