Fort Hood and separation of mosque and state
Examining Muhammad's life as a 'candidate for change.'
November 27, 2009

by William J. Federer

Thanks to liberal judges everywhere, virtually everyone has heard of
the "separation of church and state." But what about "separation of
mosque and state?"

Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, an outspokenly aggressive Muslim, yelled
"Allahu akbar," Arabic for "Allah is great," before killing 14 (a
victim was pregnant) and wounding 31 at Fort Hood, Texas, on Nov. 5.

He had reportedly praised Muslim suicide bombers on the Internet;
refused, in the name of Islam, to be photographed with female
colleagues; listed his nationality as "Palestinian," and dressed as a
fundamentalist Muslim when not in uniform. In 2007, his supervisor at
Walter Reed Army Medical Center wrote an evaluation that said of
Hasan, "The Faculty has serious concerns about (Capt.) Hasan's
professionalism and work ethic. ... He demonstrates a pattern of poor
judgment and a lack of professionalism." As National Public Radio
reports, this memo was sent to officials at Fort Hood when Hasan was
transferred there.

Even with all of this, some still question whether Hasan's killing
of U.S. soldiers was motivated by his belief in Islam or whether he
got a pass from politically correct superiors fearful of accusations
of religious bigotry.

Before we condemn as "hateful" those who dare ask such questions, it
should be determined what is meant by the term "Islam."

Is Islam 1) a religious system, 2) a political system or 3) a
military system?

The answer is all three, as Muhammad was: 1) a religious leader 2) a
political leader and 3) a military leader.

One may ask, what relevance does Muhammad's life 1,400 years ago
have today?

Well, since Muhammad was the best Muslim, those striving to be
better Muslims are trying to imitate him, just as Christians try to
imitate Jesus (WWJD, or What Would Jesus Do?).

Muhammad's life is called "the Sunna," which means "the way" or "the
example." By examining Muhammad's life, we can gain insights into his
followers' motivations.

Muhammad was a religious leader in Mecca for 12 years, beginning in
610 A.D., making around 100 converts before being chased out. In 622,
he fled 200 miles north to the predominantly Jewish city of Medina.
The Jews rejected Muhammad, so he went into pagan neighborhoods where
he made converts, gained a political following and, in a sense, acted
as a community organizer.

With his new following, he went back to the Jews as a candidate of
change, promising to be objective and fair as he was a newcomer to
the city's heated partisan politics. The Jews made a treaty with him,
and Muhammad became a political leader in Medina. When Muhammad's
followers back in Mecca were harassed, chased out and their houses
confiscated, he permitted them to rob caravans headed to Mecca in
retaliation. The Meccans sent 1,000 soldiers to protect their
caravans. With just 300 warriors, Muhammad defeated them at the
Battle of Badr in 624 A.D. This amazing victory while being
outnumbered three-to-one convinced Muhammad that he was to be a
military leader. He fought in 66 battles and raids in the next eight
years before he died. In Medina, he slew or enslaved all the Jews in
the city.

Muhammad sent his warrior, Abdullah, in 625 A.D., to lie to gain
entrance into the military base of his enemy, Chief Sofyan ibn
Khalid. When Abdullah had convinced Sofyan of his loyalty, Sofyan let
down his guard. When the moment was right, Abdullah beheaded Sofyan.

Since Muhammad was the best Muslim, those wanting to be better
Muslims gravitate to following his example, religiously, politically
 and militarily.

Most Americans are not concerned about someone's religion, or in
which direction someone prays or if someone believes paradise
consists of sex with 72 virgins. But Americans do care if their
freedom of speech is taken away, if their wives and daughters are
threatened if they don't wear veils, if nations such as Israel face
extinction or if terrorists attack our military bases or civilian

It is political/military Islam that concerns Americans, not the
religion of Islam. When a political/military Muslim bows toward
Mecca, he is effectively pledging allegiance to something other than
the United States.

For the sake of discussion, let's go beyond the religion of Islam
and, for the moment, examine political/military Islam.
Political/military Islam has two features: 1) a global conquest
aspect and 2) wherever it takes power, non-Muslims are not treated

The question is, what other political/military systems has America
faced in the last 60 years that had 1) a global conquest aspect and
2) wherever they took over, non-adherents were treated unequally?

Answer: Germany, Japan and Italy in World War II, and later the
Soviet Union and other communist countries.

During the Cold War, Americans said, "We love Russians, but we have
to identify and resist the political/military system of Stalin's and
Khrushchev's Soviet communism." And, "We love Cubans, North Koreans,
Vietnamese, Cambodians and Chinese, but we have to identify and
resist the communist political/military systems of Fidel Castro, Kim
Il-sung, Ho Chi Minh, Pol Pot and Mao Zedong."

Today, Americans have no problem with Arabs, Indonesians, Turks and
Egyptians, but Americans have to identify and resist the
political/military system of Islam, because it has a 1) global
conquest aspect and 2) wherever Islam takes over, non-Muslims are not
equal to Muslims. Unlike Nazism and communism, political/military
Islam has been harder to identify and resist because it can advance
under the cloak of religion.

It's increasingly obvious that some Muslims in America with a
political/military agenda are taking advantage of the freedoms
extended to Muslims who are simply practicing the religion of Islam.

In order to prevent more tragic episodes, such as the killings at
Fort Hood, more attention should be given to the separation of mosque
and state.