Fort Hood jihadist’s coworkers saw warning signs, but said nothing for fear of seeming bigoted

Details here.

So this is what it has come to — this is the fruit of the long-term efforts by groups such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations and others, to stigmatize and demonize everyone who speaks honestly about the threat of jihad and Islamic supremacism. People are afraid to speak up about what they see, when they know it is wrong.

And all it cost this week was 13 dead and 38 wounded.

WHY WAS MALIK NADAL HASAN IN THE U.S. MILITARY?

Jihad at Fort Hood

Modern Army Seeks Medieval Muslims

by

Paul L. Williams, Ph.D.

thelastcrusade.org

Major Malik Nadal Hasan, who opened fire on American troops at Fort Hood, was an Army psychiatrist who decried the U.S. invasion of Muslim lands, condemned the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and voiced his support of the global jihad.

But he was never taken to task for his views by his commanding officers and never reprimanded for his anti-American tirades.

Hasan was a devout Muslim who was born in Virginia to Palestinian parents who immigrated from Jordan.

He despised Christians and Jews and the principles of American democracy.

Why was a radical jihadist serving in the U.S. Army?

Why was he granted rank and privilege until he drew his weapons and proceeded to mow down 43 soldiers, killing 12 and wounding 31, on a“secure” military post.

The answers to these questions come from the 14th Annual Arab International Festival, which was held in Dearborn, Michigan from June 19 to 21.

The event was sponsored not only by the Ford Motor Company (we thought they were bankrupt) and the American Arab Chamber of Commerce but also (get this) by the FBI, the CIA and various branches of the U.S. Armed Services, including the Army.

The 250,000 people who attended the event munched on rolled pita sandwiches, shawarma, tabouli, hummus and baklava. The men, in many cases, wore throbs and ghutras; the women were draped in black burqas, or western jeans, accented with veils.

The ribbon cutting, which got the festival underway, was conducted by State Senator Irma Clarke Coleman, Wayne County Executive Robert Ficano, and Dearborn Mayor Jack O’Reilly.

Representatives from the all branches of the U.S. Military – – Army, Navy, Marines, and Air Force Armed forces – – promised American citizenship to every Mid-Eastern immigrant willing to enlist – – as long as they were Muslims – – Christians and Jews were excluded from the offer. G.I. Issued uniforms were emblazoned with Arabic script in case prospective recruits could not understand terms such as “United States Army”.

The FBI, not to be undone, set up a booth to recruit Muslim agents, and the CIA conducted raffles in order to entice young Islamists to enter the cloistered world of U.S. Intelligence.

The few Christians, who dared to venture forth on Warren Street to attend the festive gathering, were prohibited by law from distributing religious tracts and materials.

The order, which prohibited religious freedom to the Christians, came from U.S. District Judge Nancy Edmonds.

While there never has been a disruption of the public peace by Christians during the annual event, the Dearborn police kept vigilant watch for any Baptist or Pentecostal intrepid enough to violate the ruling to suppress their religious freedom.

No such stout-hearted soul appeared with tract, rosary, or Bible in hand, except for an inspired group of young Arab Christians and ex-Muslims. Rick Warren’s disciples and the Joel Osteen militia were conspicuously absent as innocent Christians were set upon with violence and threats.

Serving their Islamic masters, the Dearborn Police defied their oath of office to protect the violent 5th columnists and joined in the unconstitutional intimidation of the Christians.

No native-born American Christian had the guts to stand with the victims of Islamic Jihad in Dearbornistan.

Of course, the Muslims were not prohibited from distributing their tracts (mostly to the African Americans in attendance) and selling Islamic books and materials.

Fay Beydoun of the American Arab Chamber of Commerce in Dearborn told the Detroit News there was “no problem” with the Christians being at the event, “but we do have to think about the safety of everyone.”

The ruling by Judge Edmonds caused Richard Thompson, president of the Thomas More Law Center, to quip: “It’s ironic that while Americans are applauding the free speech exercised by hundreds of thousands of Muslims on the streets of Iran, the city of Dearborn is restricting free speech rights Christians are attempting to exercise on the city’s public sidewalks.”

But why complain?

Christians by the hundreds, representing major local and national mainline denominations were more than pleased to fly into Dearborn,  to act as dutiful dhimmis by cleaning the streets, attending to the Muslim children, and maintaining the Porta-Potties.

And the Army managed to obtain over 40 Muslim recruits.

A few came to serve at Fort Hood under Major Hasan.

Retired Col. Terry Lee, who said he worked with Hasan at Fort Hood, told Fox News he heard the gunman say at a conference that Muslims should stand up and “fight against the aggressors.”

Lee said that at first, he and his colleagues thought Hasan meant that Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan should join forces with the U.S.

But, based on other comments Hasan made, it became clear he was encouraging Muslims to resist U.S. forces, Lee said.

Hasan, according to Lee, expressed happiness about the shooting of two soldiers by a Muslim convert outside an Arkansas recruiting center in June.

From The Corner

          Mark Steyn, here with Pamela Geller from Atlas Shrugs

Mark Steyn is not the only one who has become increasingly fed up with the gutless wankers from our so-called ‘free press:’

Just asking, but are beheadings common in western New York? I used to spend a lot of time in that neck of the woods and I don’t remember decapitation as a routine form of murder. Yet the killing of Aasiya Hassan seems to have elicited a very muted response.

When poor Mrs Hassan’s husband launched his TV network to counter negative stereotypes of Muslims, he had no difficulty generating column inches, as far afield asThe Columbus Dispatch, The Detroit Free Press, The San Jose Mercury News, Variety, NBC News, the Voice of America and the Canadian Press. The Rochester Democrat & Chronicle put the couple on the front page under the headline “Infant TV Network Unveils The Face Of Muslim News”.

* The Puff Ho, -always on the wrong side of the tracks- worries about  whether the Muslim  propaganda TV channel BridgesTV mission  will continue…

* Pakistan Dawn, the Nation, the Daily Times … Pakistan’s media seems less timid about covering a New York state beheading than does media in the US. Meanwhile, a gem of understatement from Croatia: 

Muzzammil Hassan established his own TV network to show Muslims in a good light. Decapitation charges will not help. 

But, when Muzzammil Hassan kills his wife and “the face of Muslim news” is unveiled rather more literally, detached from her corpse at his TV studios, it’s all he can do to make the local press – page 26 of Newsday, plus The Buffalo News, and a very oddly angled piece in the usually gung-ho New York Post, “Buffalo Beheading: Money Woe Spurred Slay“.

Oh, really? He beheaded her for some goofy clause in the insurance policy? Not exactly:

An upstate TV exec who set up a channel promoting Muslims as peace-loving people was stressed about his failing business in the days before he allegedly chopped off his estranged wife’s head, a friend of the couple said today.

Ah. 

“He was worried about the station’s future,” said Dr. Khalid Qazi, a friend of the couple and president of the Muslim Public Affairs Council of Western New York, who last spoke to the Hassans a week ago…

“Domestic violence is despicable, and Islam condones it in no way whatever,” he said.

“Murders are being committed in the US every day by people of all faiths.”

Well, maybe. But for sheer news value you’d think this one might stand out. Look at this picture. That’s the very definition of “moderate Muslim”. Look at the late Aasiya Hassan, beautifully coiffed, glossy-lipped. On countless occasions since 9/11, I’ve found myself at lunch or dinner in New York, London, Washington, Paris or some other western city, sitting next to a modern Muslim woman like Mrs Hassan telling me how horrified she is at how hijabs and burqas, honor killings and genital mutilation, forced cousin marriages and the disproportionate number of Muslim wives in European battered women’s shelters, how all these have come to define Muslim womanhood in the 21st century. Yet Aasiya Hassan ended up no differently – all because her husband’s TV network had a cashflow problem?

The media’s lack of curiosity is in marked contrast to their willingness to propagandize for the launch of Mr Hassan’s station. It also helps explain why the US newspaper business is dying.

(More from Michelle Malkin, and Ed Driscoll)

He cut her head off for disobeying him

District Attorney Frank A Sedita III said “Obviously, this is the worst form of domestic violence possible” -The man is clueless.

Over at Jihadwatch:

And now for the obligatory mainstream media exoneration of Islam:

It would be a mistake to link an act of domestic violence to the couple’s religion, he added.

“There is no place for domestic violence in our religion — none,” Qazi said. “Islam would 100 percent condemn it.”

The Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences has determined that over ninety percent of Pakistani wives have been struck, beaten, or abused sexually — for offenses on the order of cooking an unsatisfactory meal. Others were punished for failing to give birth to a male child. Dominating their women by violence is a prerogative Muslim men cling to tenaciously. In Spring 2005, when the East African nation of Chad tried to institute a new family law that would outlaw wife beating, Muslim clerics led resistance to the measure as un-Islamic.

Why do things like this happen?

Because Islamic clerics worldwide have spoken approvingly of wife-beating.

In 2004, an imam in Spain, Mohammed Kamal Mustafa, was found guilty of “inciting violence on the basis of gender” for his book Women in Islam, which discussed the methods and limits of administering “physical punishment” of women.

Muslim men bring this religiously sanctioned violence with them when they immigrate to the West, even to the United States. The prominent American Muslim leader Dr. Muzammil H. Siddiqi, former president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), has said that “in some cases a husband may use some light disciplinary action in order to correct the moral infraction of his wife…The Koran is very clear on this issue.”

In 1984, Sheikh Yousef Qaradhawi, who is one of the most respected and influential Islamic clerics in the world, wrote: “If the husband senses that feelings of disobedience and rebelliousness are rising against him in his wife, he should try his best to rectify her attitude by kind words, gentle persuasion, and reasoning with her. If this is not helpful, he should sleep apart from her, trying to awaken her agreeable feminine nature so that serenity may be restored, and she may respond to him in a harmonious fashion. If this approach fails, it is permissible for him to beat her lightly with his hands, avoiding her face and other sensitive parts.”

Why do they say such things?

Because the permission to beat one’s wife is rooted in the Islamic holy book, the Qur’an, and Islamic tradition.

The Qur’an says: “Men shall take full care of women with the bounties which God has bestowed more abundantly on the former than on the latter, and with what they may spend out of their possessions. And the righteous women are the truly devout ones, who guard the intimacy which God has [ordained to be] guarded. And as for those women whose ill-will you have reason to fear, admonish them [first]; then leave them alone in bed; then beat them…” (4:34)

The Islamic prophet Muhammad was once told that “women have become emboldened towards their husbands,” whereupon he “gave permission to beat them” (Sunan Abu Dawud, book 11, no. 2141). He was unhappy with the women who complained, not with their husbands who beat them.

Muhammad even struck his favorite wife, Aisha. One night, thinking she was asleep, he went out. Aisha surreptitiously followed him. When he found out what she had done, he hit her: “He struck me on the chest which caused me pain, and then said: Did you think that Allah and His Apostle would deal unjustly with you?” (Sahih Muslim, book 4, no. 2127).

Nothing in there about beheading, no. But the man was talking aboutdomestic violence.

Why does this matter? Because as long as no one has the courage to call Muslim leaders like Qazi to account for statements like this, and ask them about the clear justifications for domestic violence that do appear in Islamic tradition, what can possibly be done to combat the prevalence of domestic violence in Islamic communities? Ignoring the Islamic justifications for domestic violence harms Muslim women.