The Security Risk that Lies with Conflicting Allegiance
Maj. Nidal Hassan’s vicious and deliberate shooting of unarmed soldiers and civilians at Ft. Hood was a terrorist attack. Hassan’s assault was religiously motivated and it targeted a population which he regarded as the enemy, therefore, his actions must be regarded as “terrorist”. Unlike a criminal who targets an individual or a group of individuals, Hassan’s terrorist target was a group of people who represented a political doctrine to which he fiercely objected and resented.
Hassan’s role as an officer and psychiatrist in the U.S. Army about to be deployed could not coexist with his beliefs and his religious identity as a devout Muslim. The policies taken by the U.S. government and put into action by the U.S military abroad go against some of the most fundamental doctrines in Islam. One such doctrine is that Muslims should never be ruled or conquered by an army that represents a faith other than Islam (like it or not, the U.S military is regarded by most Muslims around the world as a Christian army and not as we might see it; an army representing a democratic and free nation.) In fact, a conquest of Muslims by non-Muslims such as the one taking place in Iraq and Afghanistan justifies Jihad according to prevalent Muslim thought.










