The Tragedy of Nidal Hasan’s Fort Hood Shootings: Media Discipline & Muslim Condemnations
Like the rest of the America, I was disheartened and shocked by Thursday's events in which a U.S. serviceman, identified as Nidal Malik Hasan, perpetrated a terrible act upon his fellow servicemen. That night I was glued to as many news sources as one person could handle: simultaneously monitoring local AM talk radio, websites, Cable TV news and statements from American Muslim organizations.
My frustrations were exacerbated, both by some of the news coverage (though I have something positive to say about their initial reporting) and by the Muslim community’s reactions. In contrast to the initial reporting and punditry, I believe that Muslim community’s handling of the issue leaves much to be desired.
Clearly, condemning the killing of unarmed people in a non-combat situation is the right thing to do.
However, why do we have to do it as Muslims?
This is an issue of common humanity. Condemning these and similar events can serve to strengthen the association with Islam. If we learn conclusively that Maj. Hasan believed he had religious justifications for his actions, our condemnations as Muslims actually reinforce those making that connection instead of refuting it. Muslims and non-Muslims alike have to separate the actions of Muslims from the religion of Islam. A great resource outlining the logic of this can be found in the Freedom and Justice Foundation's landmark position paper titled the Triumph over Terror, Interfaith Statement. Understanding this separation of terms for the religion and the follower — that is unique to Islam — would lead to a better strategy like offering condolences to the families who lost loved ones and focusing on the loss of life.
The Prophet (peace be upon him) once instructed Mu'adh Ibn Jabal (may God be pleased with him) not to speak on his behalf, or on behalf of Islam. In fact Mu'adh was specifically instructed on how and what to say when he was sent to essentially perform missionary work. Mu’adh was told to speak only for those that elected him as their leader. Now, let us remember just who Mu'adh was. He was endorsed by the Prophet as having the most knowledge on Halal (the permissible) and Haram (the prohibited). He was the companion whom when the Prophet used to show that Iman (faith) is in the heart, the Prophet patted the chest of Mu'adh.
If Mu'adh was instructed to speak only on behalf of those that elected him, how about us? It would be good for us to remember the difference between the words “Muslim” and “Islam.”
Today, Muslims acting in the role of spokespersons must consider the multiple audiences they’re addressing. When possible they should be credible subject-matter and subject specific experts. They should not speak beyond their actual leadership or expertise. In best-case scenarios religious questions (what does Islam say about xyz?) should be deferred to religious leaders with the appropriate qualifications.
So, when is it appropriate to condemn on behalf of Muslim organizations and who should do it?
In my view, only local Muslims should speak on local issues that are directly related to their communities. National organizations can handle the national issues. The exception to this rule of thumb is when Muslims discuss a policy or subject-matter expertise that benefits the community. This commentary should be intended to guide and suggest proactive steps, improved responses, education or strategy development. Facilitating dialogue, helping community leaders gain knowledge and experience or educating the community on positive action that they can take are all excellent examples of reasons to comment on a situation or tragedy as an American Muslim.
As for the news reporting following the incident, I was surprised both by the early restraint shown by some news sources and more surprised by which media outlets which demonstrated that initial restraint. During FOX news' interview with Kay Bailey Hutchison, both the U.S. Senator and Shepard Smith were seemingly eager to announce the suspect's name was a Muslim name. However, they did show restraint unlike ABC’s news crew, which subsequently started the domino effect with CNN next and followed by others all introducing the Muslim angle to the story.
Locally, Michael Berry— a popular talk show host and former Mayor Pro Tem for the City of Houston— also demonstrated a responsible approach when discussing Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan's religion. He qualified the listener’s comments reminding them that at the time there was a lot of speculation, but not confirmed facts. Berry did speculate mildly, yet he stuck to the facts as they were being released and continually reminded listeners that much of the on air discussion is unverified.
I am sure that many readers are surprised at this praise for the early reporting, so let me be clear: I do not think any of the coverage was prefect or even ideal. But what should be noted is that even media sources typically hostile toward our community displayed more sensitivity and concern for facts for confirming the facts than others media outlets that have a reputation for being less biased toward the Muslim community, at least in the early reports.
Muslim organizations vs. the media
Why does the early media restraint matter? It is a fair question especially now as the story's narratives develop and the patterns of bias return. The answer is in the contrast between our community's organizations and the media. If FOX News and talk radio demonstrated some restraint on reporting the Muslim angle, shouldn't our organizations also have shown restraint in their responses?
This is where condemnations come in. Very rarely in my time as an activist has the request come to me to condemn something. People relate to people. If you and your community did not do it — and/or if you believe Islam does not endorses it and you still feel the need to condemn it — do it as a human being. If however, an incident happened in your community and it was clearly expressed by the perpetrators that they believed they had religious motivations, condemn it as a human and as a Muslim. However, ONLY the local community should do this, otherwise you are actually giving the story legs (a longer news cycle) and affiliating yourself and your faith with an unaffiliated event.
As rumors in Maj. Hasan's case give way to facts, we will see if the rushed condemnations from many American Muslim organizations are relevant. If the motivations of Maj. Hasan are some how proven to be rooted in his religious beliefs, the condemnations would have been both more effective and more appropriate if they were released as those details are made known and verified. Knee-jerk condemnations sometimes come off as insincere and overly protective, begging all sorts of new and avoidable questions.
To be fair, I have to acknowledge the embattled state that many of our organizations are in. Our leaders and activists are constantly attacked — from every conceivable source — simply for advocating for Muslims and that Islam be understood and respected. These attacks are not only from non-Muslims but also from within our community. It is this latter category of attacks from the Muslim community that makes writing this article so difficult. May Allah reward our community's representatives for the difficult tasks they face, make them successful and forgive us all for our short comings.
In closing, my heart goes out to the families of the victims of this tragic shooting. I pray that Allah guides and comforts them during this time of loss. I also pray that Muslims in the West, especially those in all forms of public service, will not be maligned due to unfair association of these types of actions with our entire community and faith.
Moderation for this post
To preserve the integrity of this discussion, any comments relating to the topics of (1) permissibility of Muslims working for the military or (2) whether this murderous spree should not be condemned (this article is about HOW not if) and, (3) of course, any celebratory comments (an unfortunate reflection upon some in our Ummah) will be deleted. Please stick to the topic: how separating Islam and Muslims is important in public dialogue and how it is especially important in condemning on behalf of Muslim communities.
Related Posts:
See Also:
- Muslim Americans Must Obey U.S. Laws; Nidal Hasan Disobeyed Islamic Doctrine
- Open Letter to Al-Awlaki
Iesa Galloway
Paul "Iesa" Galloway is a native born Texan. He was recently called "the Yoda of interfaith affairs" by a colleague from his daytime gig. After hours Iesa serves as a consultant, messaging strategist and trainer on media, government and community relations. Iesa is a product of the "Military Brat" experience of the 1990's on US Army bases in Germany he has traveled extensively, for extended periods in Kenya, Hungary and Communist Poland on missionary trips, visited Communist East Germany with the Boy Scouts of America, as well as enjoyed time in France, Italy, Spain, Switzerland, Holland and Austria. Since embracing Islam, Iesa was asked to be the founding Executive Director of CAIR-Houston, where he served the community from 2002 to 2006, he has completed the Hajj pilgrimage, participated in an interfaith pilgrimage to the Holy Land with the Society for Biblical Studies and completed a study abroad program on the history of Islamic Spain, Morocco and Andalusian Philosophy with the University of Houston. Iesa's education is rooted in History and Public Relations and he has a interfaith and multiracial background.
Pingback: C L O S E R » Blog Archive » Closing the week 46 – Featuring Fort Hood and Nidal Hasan