Originally written for and first published with Islamist Watch

When Americans first heard of Islamic extremism, most didn’t consider homegrown terrorists. Even further removed from our imagination was any idea that a Pakistani man working to change Muslim stereotypes, or that a Palestinian-American Army psychiatrist, would make national news for their acts of extremism against American citizens.

Earlier this year, Buffalo, New York’s Muzzamil Hassan was charged with beheading his wife, and Fort Hood’s Hasan went on a murderous shooting rampage on November 5, 2009, killing 13 and injuring over 30 servicemen.

Sitting face to face in a prison cell, what would these two men say to each other? What commonalities or a shared ideology exists between these two American Muslims who were both pillars in their community. Moreover, would these two men defend each other’s behavior? What common ground do these men share that could shed light onto a widening definition of terrorist and extremism than the narrow perception that views ‘extremist’ as a bomb-strapped militant Muslim.

The Buffalo Beheading

Founder of the first television station aimed to counteract negative Muslim stereotypes, on February 12, 2009, Muzzamil Hassan was arrested and charged with stabbing and beheading his wife, Aasiya Zubair.

The Muslim community, in denial about the beheading, focused the core issue on marital problems rather than the murder itself.  Despite two failed marriages, a string of domestic violence calls, and community members acknowledging a failing marriage between Hassan and Zubair, Hassan’s legal team is now citing insanity as a pretext for the beheading.

Fort Hood Shares Insanity Plea Defense

The insanity plea is the same defense argument being used by Fort Hood Shooter Nidal Malik Hasan. Hasan, who despite his radical beliefs and documented communication with Anwar al-Awlaki, an accused senior Al-Qaeda recruiter, is now also seeking the insanity plea.

An army psychiatrist scheduled for a deployment to Iraq, Hasan posted online messages in defense of suicide bombers. And while it can be argued that he is both lone gunman and a domestic terrorist motivated by extremist ideology, the public argument regarding Hasan is shifting away from terrorism and toward the sympathy of psychological disorders faced by soldiers returning from war.

The fact that Hasan had voluntary enlisted in the U.S. Army, reaped the benefits of a military-funded education, and had not witnessed war, makes psychological trauma of warfare a very poor argument; it also draws attention away from a larger issue.  The insanity argument lends sympathy to intentional acts of violence that highlight a very real tangent of Islamism and its use of rhetorical manipulation. However, insanity as a defense for the acts committed by Hassan and Hasan faces considerable obstacles if viewed from a legal perspective.

Why the Insanity Plea Doesn’t Work

The “insanity” plea is a legal term that acts as an umbrella for any number of psychological disturbances, ranging from psychosis to depression. Islamism witnessed a considerable shift in methodology in the legal aftermath of crimes committed by Muzzamil Hassan and U.S. Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan. Islamist use of the insanity plea fails because of the long list of intentional behavior and interests, which reflect the state of mind of both Hassan and Hasan.  Their intentional behavior negates use of an insanity plea, which is only justifiable when an individual’s judgment is impaired by psychological factors beyond their intention.

The Foggy Media Lens

The legal parameters in this case continue to be publicly dismissed as media fails to report on these incidences with objective reasoning. Media coverage was scarce on Hassan and excusing of Hasan, citing that these men were not representative of a larger Muslim demographic.  While not indicative of a greater Muslim community, the activity is reflective of an Islamist mindset that subjugates an outside party to the preferences of the individual; in other words, a perceived Islamic ideology is forced upon others with no regard for an individual’s free will.

How Islamism Factors In

Although Islamism is normally viewed as political in nature, it is in essence a “lawfare” waged through a judicial system. It is also not outside the realm of possibility for Islamists to become violent if the acting individual perceives violence as the only measure for recourse.  The notion of recourse comes into effect when an individual feels that his or her environment is beyond their control and outside the scope of (their) acceptable norms. An individual with an Islamist agenda does not have to be part of a larger niche group to be considered Islamist, which is a mindset analogous to terrorism where popular opinion dictates that such activities are only carried out by organized groups.

Evidence of a Failing Islamic Culture?

In fact, paired with a refined understanding of Islamism, the acts committed by Hassan and Hasan highlight a larger problem within Islamic culture.  Islamic culture, through scripture that promotes acts of violence rather than compassion and understanding, fosters an environment that makes it easy for followers to deflect accountability from both the individual and from the community.

It is possible for individuals to come from backgrounds that makes them weaker in character.  However, there are communities that create weak individual and communities which cradle negative traits, giving them strength, importance and justification to develop into cemented personalities.

Who’s Responsible for the Culture?

A differentiation between religion and culture can also argued, but ultimately Islamic culture is carved by followers of the faith; followers are to be held accountable for the direction of the faith.  For example, in the case of Aasiya Zubair, her death is seen by many as an honor killing – but while honor killings are not part of Islamic faith, they have become an associated with Islamic culture that has failed to evolve and adapt to a growing number of issues pressing upon it. Through manipulation of religion, Islam’s followers breed a culture that gives a “green light” to act out against perceived transgressors.

Is Islamic Culture a Gateway to Extremism?

Traditional Islamic culture, saturated in verses of aggression and a history seeped in violence, allows not only the development of negative traits but allows them to grow rather than be marginalized through corrective attitudes that emphasize understanding and tolerance.  A static Islamic culture readily acts as a gateway to extremism.  It remains a dominant characteristic despite differences in demographics, educational background and ethnicity.

Hassan, a first generation Pakistani executive in New York, and Hasan an American born Palestinian military psychiatrist in Texas, both ultimately arrived at the same destination where they acted out in brutal violence against others who they felt frustrations against.  Both Hassan and Hasan viewed outside factors as the problem rather than working to understand what shortcomings they may have carried.

Fort Hood and the Buffalo Beheading Point to a Dangerous Problem with Muslim Americans

Hassan and Hasan are two Muslims out of millions of Muslims in America. The Muslims community reaction to the Buffalo Beheading and Fort Hood Shooting is equally as important as understanding the motives of the accused.  In both cases a larger Islamic community shifted the burden by (a) ignoring the problem, (b) deflecting the issue, and (c) shifting the blame to outside sources. The dual atrocities show an emerging trend of patterned aggression among diverse Muslim community groups that will grow in frequency if there is no accountability for the extremism in our Muslim communities.

For centuries, Muslim communities have targeted women and ‘outsiders’ labeled as non-Muslims. And Americans are still seen as outsiders by a number of Muslims living in the United States.  Yet how can Americans be seen as outsider by someone who is also living in America?

Viewed from the perspective of an Islamic culture that treats non-Muslims with xenophobic caution, where ultimately the only accepted people or ideology is an Islamic one, it’s easy to see how modern Muslim communities, seeped in ancient Islamic culture, view themselves as separate from a larger American community.  Exclusionary in nature, Islamic culture does not tolerate differences; it promotes psychological imbalances by protecting and emboldening a mind that recognizes differences and shelters Muslim paranoia against non-Muslims.

Who’s to Blame?

The real culprit is an Islamic culture that enables extremism, resulting in an extremist culture that is sheltered from truth and critical examination by a larger Muslim community.  In Buffalo and Texas, a larger Muslim community failed to show the same vigilance and outcry that is demonstrated when they perceive an attack on Islam.  In the case of Hassan and Hasan, Muslims as individuals and Muslim organizations both looked the other way or treated the situation with a degree of caution that showed their reservation at identifying with the Muslim ‘Ummah’.

A Muslim Ummah, the idea of a larger Muslim community and a principle tenet in Islam, is conveniently shied away from at the exact moments where it is critical that it’s emphasized and utilized to attack the problem of extremism in Islamic culture.  Failed accountability for extremism from within the Muslim community is the main reason for the misogyny and murder in the case of Hasan and the prolonged psychological imbalances of Army psychiatrist Hasan, leading to extremism and violently ending the lives of 15 innocent people.

And so while Islamic culture may be the culprit, the culture is theoretical in nature and can exist only within vessels willing to give it life.  Ultimately the fault lies with those Muslims who refuse to see 21st century Islam for the cultural virus that is has become.  Unwilling to see, these Muslims propagate a culture that has very little resemblance to the originally intended message.

Yet, giving them slight yet receding breathing ground, they have the shoddy defense of citing they were born into such a system. But what about the media and our present administration – what’s their excuse?

Shireen Qudosi a writer on Islam in the 21st century the founding editor of Qudosi Chronicles. She is also available as a consultant.  To contact her, email shireen@qudosi.com

Tags: american muslims, buffalo beheading, cultural virus, fort hood shooting, Islam, islam in the 21st century, muslims in america, muzzamil hassan, nidal malik hasan, qudosi chronicles, shireen qudosi

This entry was posted on Friday, January 29th, 2010 at 6:02 pm and is filed under Islam, Religion, Society. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.