Home > News of interest > Nidal Malik Hasan’s powerpoint
Nidal Malik Hasan’s powerpoint
Folks, I would strongly recommend reading this post by Charles Cameron over at Zenpundit.
Charles has traced the history of Hasan’s reported statement in a powerpoint presentation. It turns out he was quoting someone else. I don’t have visibility on the powerpoint to offer any further comment but to my mind this just reinforces the need to be extremely cautious in posting analysis, which is based on speculation. Thank you Charles for your thorough research and taking the time to point this out.
zenpundit.com » Blog Archive » BREAKING! The Mystery of Maj. Nidal Hasan’s Powerpoint.
Categories: News of interest
MASH message for Islamic terrorist Nidal Malik Hasan:
Mr. Hasan,
May you be swiftly executed, may you rot in Hell for eternity, and may your family be ashamed of you for as long as they shall live.
With utmost contempt,
Muslims Against Sharia
http://muslimsagainstsharia.blogspot.com/2009/11/fort-hood.html
Muslims Against Sharia: I wish I could be nearly as tough (and mature) as you.
I’ll add this:
On slide 49, he is not quoting anyone when he says:
“Fighting to establish an Islamic State to please God, even by force, is condoned by Islam”
and
“Muslims [sic] Soldiers should not serve in any capacity that renders them at risk to hurting/killing believers unjustly –> will vary!”
He also accepts abrogation in the Quran on issues like jihad (defensive -> offensive) a few slides before that.
An alternative reading of this is that he is explaining the various mindsets on these issues, as indicated by his comment “will vary”. He is charting out the range of views and what they can be based upon in terms of exegesis of the Quran. Not having visibility on how he spoke to these slides I don’t know if he shared these views.
Reading these reports from the Telegraph and NPR:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6526030/Fort-Hood-gunman-had-told-US-military-colleagues-that-infidels-should-have-their-throats-cut.html
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120162816
“And I said to the psychiatrist, but this co[u]ld be a very interesting informational session, right? Where he’s educating everybody about the Koran. He said but what disturbed everybody was that Hasan seemed to believe these things. And actually, a Muslim in the audience, a psychiatrist, raised his hand and said, excuse me. But I’m a Muslim and I do not believe these things in the Koran, and then I don’t believe what you say the Koran says. And then Hasan didn’t say, well, I’m just giving you one point of view. He basically just stared the guy down.”
I am not clear that this is the same presentation as the one in the Washington Post article ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/09/AR2009110903618.html?hpid=topnews), it isn’t clear yet, but I think the point stands.
You seem to be putting considerable effort into discouraging people from attributing any religious motivation that may have contributed to Hasan’s actions. The information that is out there from reputable sources so far supports the view that Hasan was angry about what was happening overseas saw his attack and actions in religious terms.
I would like to hear more of your pov on this incident and his possible motives, rather than just warning people not to make judgments when we already have a considerable amount of info out there.
I will post my point of view when there are more facts at hand.
Thank you for the link, Leah.
I added a link to the Washington Post slideware presentation of Hasan’s PPT. Here is the link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/gallery/2009/11/10/GA2009111000920.html
Ryan writes:
“You seem to be putting considerable effort into discouraging people from attributing any religious motivation that may have contributed to Hasan’s actions.”
Hasan’s presentation was about Islam, and potential conflicts in the minds and hearts of Muslim servicemen and women. He himself was a Muslim, in the Army himself, and a psychiatrist. It appears to me that “religious motivation” was indeed involved. But in what way?
The questions I’m trying to address — and I believe Leah’s comment goes to them, too — are: what was his state of mind at the time of preparing and giving his presentation, what influence did he hope to exert on his audience, and where does the presentation lie on the time-line of his thoughts and feelings as they move to their tragic conclusion.
I’m finding three kinds of ambiguity in my reading of the presentation:
a reader’s ambiguity, not knowing how he framed the text of his slides
a presenter’s ambiguity, embedded in the slides themselves and presumably discussed in his accompanying narration
an ambiguity within himself, which the presentation attempts to address
I’m hoping to account for all three strands in my upcoming longer “close reading” of the slides.