By now, many readers may have seen Tunku Varadarajan’s controversial column for Forbes from last week, “Going Muslim.” In it, Varadarajan coins a new term to describe Major Nidal Hasan’s rampage at Fort Hood two weeks ago. “Going Muslim” is Varadarajan’s variation of “going postal,” a phrase coined a few years ago, after a string of (non-Muslim) U.S. postal workers went on killing sprees. Here is how Varadarajan defines the term:
This phrase would describe the turn of events where a seemingly integrated Muslim-American–a friendly donut vendor in New York, say, or an officer in the U.S. Army at Fort Hood–discards his apparent integration into American society and elects to vindicate his religion in an act of messianic violence against his fellow Americans.
The most irksome part of Varadarajan’s column for me was the following paragraph:
The difference between “going postal,” in the conventional sense, and “going Muslim,” in the sense that I suggest, is that there would not necessarily be a psychological “snapping” point in the case of the imminently violent Muslim; instead, there could be a calculated discarding of camouflage–the camouflage of integration–in an act of revelatory catharsis. In spite of suggestions by some who know him that he had a history of “harassment” as a Muslim in the army, Maj. Hasan did not “snap” in the “postal” manner. He gave away his possessions on the morning of his day of murder. He even gave away–to a neighbor–a packet of frozen broccoli that he did not wish to see go to waste, even as he mapped in his mind the laying waste of lives at Fort Hood. His was a meticulous, even punctilious “departure.”
In fact, reports from Hasan’s colleagues strongly suggest a profile of a person who was borderline psychotic for several years, but who finally snapped around 2007. Yes, he gave away his broccoli on the day he went on a shooting spree. But that is in fact entirely in keeping with how psychotics behave.
What Varadarajan doesn’t realize is that the kind of paranoid argument he is making about immigrants in “camouflage” could very easily be used against any other immigrant group, including Hindus, as a pretext for mistrust or active discrimination.
Varadarajan also make a claim about “integration” into American society that is simply not supported by any facts. The diverse groups of immigrants who are Muslim have done just fine in terms of their economic performance, civil participation, etc. By coining this pernicious phrase, and by promoting an argument based self-evidently on bigotry, Varadarajan has shown us why we no longer need to take anything he says seriously.
Much of Varadarajan’s animus is really directed at affirmative action, and seems to be an extension of the post 9/11 claim he made several years ago, which Manish responded to here, that Muslims really ought to be singled out for profiling, especially in connection with mass transit. There are some unconfirmed reports that Nidal Hasan, despite signs that he was incompetent and unhinged, may have been treated with kid gloves by his superiors at Walter Reed who wanted to avoid seeming to persecute a Muslim colleague. If proven true, they would support Varadarajan’s claim, with which I agree, that political correctness ought not be a consideration in situations like Hasan’s. But I have my doubts about how significant political correctness really was; it seems as likely that the army bureaucrats supervising Hasan simply didn’t want to deal with the arduous and extended process for firing him.
Even if the political correctness claim is supported by facts that will come out of the forthcoming investigation, the focus of our concern should be the Army protocols for assessing mentally ill service members, not Muslims as a group.
Needless to say, Varadarajan’s column has caused quite a firestorm of controversy in the NYU community. You can see some of the responses, including one from the president of the university, here.
1) for every person who was claiming that it had nothing to do with religion, there was another who was claiming it had everything to do with religion. it’s early times yet. it seems obvious that hasan was a) a religious nut, b) a nut. the interrelationship & causality is going to be too complex to be easily utilized as a talking point for “either side.”
2) re: tim mcveigh and all. people get sloppy about about these things, mcveigh was not a christian, but somewhere in the agnostic/spiritual range. but i regularly see him referred to as a “christian terrorist.”
3) during the school shooting rampages there was a tendency to report anti-christian sentiments on the part of these kids who were bullied. people look hard for a narrative. a lot of that didn’t pan out (e.g., an “atheist” school shooter turned out to have been a regular attendee of a local church).
4) foreign entanglements are difficult. as i noted on the talkislam blog, the problem with muslims vs. jews & hindus is that there are dozens of muslim countries, but only 1 jewish or hindu country (well, nepal too). where people come form has a strong effect on their attitudes toward particular policies (the irish were not excited about aiding england during world war 1 or 2), just natural. i’ve talked to american jews who admit freely that they’d pick israel over the usa a la jonathan pollard, but they’re never going to be put in that position. american muslims will because of the nature of our foreign policy. perhaps if there is a new “cold war” with china chinese american communities will be discomfited.
His definition does no such thing, it just says some people are not integrated, and they could throw off the veil of integration one fine morning. If that happens, he would term it “going Muslim”, instead of “psychological snapping”.
The problem is not with the definition — it just identifies a sequence of events that is different from psychological snapping, and is exemplified by the Headley_Rana case (though they did not throw of the veil, yet). The problem is with the “Muslim” moniker attached to the definition, if he had called it “going Jehadi”, or “going Taliban”, I am sure people would’ve nodded. But those monikers wouldn’t give him controversy, so he chose, intentionally, the larger concept people identify with. He could’ve chosen an even wider concept, such as “going immigrant”, but that would also have fallen flat, because no one identifies with “immigrant”.
Actually, from a practical standpoint, the US army/marines need more muslim americans, not less, serving in it if it’s going to continue operating actively in Afpak and Iraq theaters for the forseeable future. Especially given the nature and complexity of counterinsurgency strategies being mooted — you want people who get local cultural (yes, obviously being a 2nd/3rd generation muslim american whose ancestors are from lebanon might not help much in afghanistan..) and religious sensitivities, etc etc.
As for the Hasan case, it seems like the Army kinda dropped the ball on him given his prior statements and evident mental issues. Did the psychosis precede or collude with religious fanaticism? Perhaps investigation or time will tell, but it seems like the whole ‘going crazy’ thing mattered..
And for Varadarajan, christ what an ass. Stop blighting my grandfather’s last name with idiotic articles in worthless rags like Forbes.
What happened to freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and freedom of association, as well as attention to state actions that play a role, Mr. Libertarian? 🙂
The Vijay Prashad article in Counterpunch is useful and gets at many of the salient points in this conversation. The link had a typo in it so
you lost me. what in my statement argued against hese priciples.
Well, I woudl think that assessing blame to a religious group (and one as broad as ‘Muslims’ at that!), rather than to an individual, and thereby inviting scrutiny of that group would undermine the ability of members of that group to freely practice freedom of association, belief, and speech. It goes back to my point about the inadequacy of simply paying attention to government actions in addresing social discrimination.
Further, I would think that one might want to look at government policy, as Prashad did, as fostering the climate that created these kinds of problems. Surely if there is something a libertarian would be against, it would be the massive assault on Iraq and Afghanistan and the military industrial complex that breeds the preconditions for these kinds of problems.
no, examining the role white supremacy played in Von Brunn’s terrorism doesn’t necessarily translate to blaming all whites or restricting the first amendment rights of even the aforementioned supremacists. there are ways to nuance it.
sure, but examining the role ruby ridge and Waco played in McVeigh’s terrorism shouldn’t diverge us from examining his underlying mindset and criticizing the larger culture that enables it, as bill Clinton famously did with right-wing talk radio after OK city.
Huh ? A tad touchy aren’t we ? It is not like Vijay hides that detail about himself. Since it is a guiding philosophy in his writings, it is relevant to point out, just as much as somebody noted that Tunku is a Republican apologist. I think the record of Marxists around the world (since the formation of that idealogy) in terms of fostering peaceful resolutions to conflicts has been less than stellar, so I am not sure what Vijay is preaching about.
Yes, I agree that it is not an either/or. However, how frequently we are diverged in the context of violence by people who are claiming to act in the name of Islam 😉 Why is that? Paging Mr. Chomsky.
This is precisely why you can’t ignore social context. There is not a wide-swathe of anti-White activities, stereotypes, harassment, in culture and policy, as much as Glenn Beck might wish there were. In contrast, those things quite clearly do exist in the United States and elsewhere wrt to Muslims, which is why the author’s comments above are not just idiotic, but actively hostile and disgusting.
Or to paraphrase the Bible, look at the speck in your own eye before looking at the mote in your brother’s. Speaking of which…
Try replacing the word ‘Marxists’ with ‘American’ and then ask yourself if any American would be able to ever speak again.
However, that is besides the main point – there are things that Vijay Prashad (a person) has done which I disagree with vehemently – that doesn’t mean he is wrong in what he says in this article, or that one can use a blanket criticism of all Marxists any more than one can make a blanket criticism of all Americans to discount their views on all issues in all contexts in all arenas.
Na?
So Vijay is an American and a Marxist… so then he should probably shut up on all counts… ;-). Point is many Americans are not ones out of choice, having been born here. Vijay is a Marxist by choice. A big difference.
Na ?
they can leave. asinine distinction to make the argument about the person, not his criticisms.
Wait is it America-bashing time already?
I don’t find anything wrong with Tunku. Seems to be much ado about nothing.
Contrary to what you may see where you are, not all Americans have the luxury of sitting in a Starbucks cruising the web. Checked the unemployment rate recently ? And isn’t that argument “they can leave” made about immigrants and minorities who complain about discrimination and unfair treatment here ? But somehow that is different I guess.
If we’re going to ignore Vijay’s motivations for his article, then we should also ignore Tunku’s conservative background.
While we must be thankful for every voice of sanity in this situation, Vijay Prashad, though, may just be another stuck clock that happens to get the time right twice a day, just twice though.
“Tunku’s known for his thoughtless writing since from his Hindu Taliban days. Open cabinet, file under diarrhea.”
Did you even bother to read the link you posted? It says that he was one of the first journalists to use the term ‘Hindu Taliban’ to refer to Hindu religious extremists.
You’ve just accused a conservative Hindu commentator of somehow being associated with Hindu terrorism, while attempting to express outrage at the fact that other people have rushed to similar, and equally erroneous, conclusions about Muslims.
LOL at Jyotsna, that’s exactly right. Though I am not sure about twice a day, maybe once every full moon.
the conservative background is only relevant in the light of the spurious arguments he launches in this article. in and of itself, it is of no relevance. from all your discussion, i will take it that you really are unable to find any argument against prashad’s criticisms and hence have to resort to pathetic mudslinging and innuendo.
fine. we can talk about the top 50% of americans since you’ve suddenly discovered your inner marxist.
yes, this is very different. i am refuting your asinine claim that somehow americans are helpless lambs handcuffed by the wages of destiny and have no choice or bear no responsibility in the way their country acts. if minorities “bring it upon themselves”, then there is a similar argument. dont pile logical fallacy upon logical fallacy, it makes you look really quite pathetic.
he posted a link which clearly referred to tunku’s careless writing and his use of the word hindu taliban, maybe you should bother to consider if the “accusation” is really an issue of your incomprehension.
Okay, granted, the ‘i know you are but what am I’ response I gave above wasn’t very helpful 🙂
However, more seriously and to bring it back to the topic at hand – we’re talking about an article that believes Muslims are secretly waiting to be violent, written after an American military officer who is Muslim and was about to be deployed killed American military personnel on an American military base in the context of two American wars in mostly Muslim countries that have gone on for 6 and 8 years respectively and have been accompanied by unsurprising amounts of public blaming of Muslims as well as unnecessary amounts of government attacks on Muslims.
If not now, then when is it time to assess what the responsibility of the American government and American society is – not just to Muslims, and not just to its military personnel and not even just to the people in Iraq and Afghanistan, but to all people, for creating a circumstance like this? Isn’t the writer of this article just committing the same error we’ve seen for 8 years – blame deflection in the face of the unsurprising?
So if as you suggested all of the Americans who don’t like it here should leave , how would that change anything , as the ones left in the country would be the the supporters of the current establishment ? Do explain.
I think the term ‘Hindu Taliban’ works pretty well to describe Hindu religious extremists. It has been used often since then by other writers, so good for him if he came up with it.
Tanku has attempted to paint a picture, but has used the broadest brush that he could lay his hands on. This has made the portrait ugly and inaccurate, but it doesn’t mean that the subject of his portrait doesn’t exist. He is sitting there, waiting for a more skillful depiction.
He is sitting there, waiting for a more skillful depiction.
lol…funny way you put it.
FYI: you will have to walk down that rabbit hole by yourself as that has nothing to do with my original comment which was a critique of your pointless ad hominem.
Are you blaming American society for this pig’s actions?
a pcycho is a pcycho regardless of what religion…if one followed this path, then all white killers have gone christian..people at ayodha went hindu…and so forth..where does that end??
Just curious – Are those of you who are critical of Tunku’s piece also denying that Nidal Hasan did his gruesome deed because of PTSD and not a perverted interpretation of his religion?
Your question hardly does not suffer from a paucity of negatives, so i do not know whether I would say yes or no.
The irony here is that if Hasan had been discharged from the military for mental instability, there would have been a hue and cry about the military declaring Muslims unfit to serve. As regards PTSD, Hasan had never even seen combat. It is not unlikely that he could be smart enough to fake symptoms of insanity and PTSD based on his knowledge as a psychiatrist.
@ad hom: Your inability to explain your statement in #61 and random comment about small mammals and holes that you possibly meant to post on another board leads me to suggest your handle should be another Latin term: “non sequitur”
There are some unconfirmed reports that Nidal Hasan, despite signs that he was incompetent and unhinged, may have been treated with kid gloves by his superiors at Walter Reed who wanted to avoid seeming to persecute a Muslim colleague. If proven true, they would support Varadarajan’s claim, with which I agree, that political correctness ought not be a consideration in situations like Hasan’s. But I have my doubts about how significant political correctness really was; it seems as likely that the army bureaucrats supervising Hasan simply didn’t want to deal with the arduous and extended process for firing him.
Maybe they didn’t want to deal with groups like CAIR and the ACLU for firing a muslim.
good example of ad hominem. i see you still havent been able to justify your remark on prashad.
Ok, I’ll make very simple analogy for you. Prashad, a Marxist, a violent ideology in its own right, making sanctimonious statements about US policy apparently being the cause for Hasan’s attack, is like the NRA making statements about the lack of gun control leading to violence, when they themselves work to weaken such laws. Is it clear now why Prashad is hardly the messenger of peace in this case ?
jyotsana wrote:
I was wondering how long it would be before somebody mentioned Virginia Tech… While some news outlets are focusing on Major Hasan’s religion, others are blaming his educational background.
marxists are responsible for violence inducing us policies? stop the presses! those banners about obama must be true after all!
Had a post typed up yesterday, for some reason didn’t seem to come through.
In any case, the media and op-ed pundits still have very little information on the root cause of this issue. As always, people and news agencies seem to jump the gun to grind their own axe. We don’t know enough about the motives and the status of Hasan’s mental health when he decided to kill his fellow Soldiers. Anyone claiming to know the “truth” about Hasan and somehow fitting his profile into [insert theory here] are blowing smoke. He did kill people and for that he will be punished is certain, along with Army procedures coming under a massive microscope.
‘going army’ would have been more appropriate if he wanted it to be analogous to ‘going postal’. i think going postal itself is offensive to postal workers, the same way, even going army would be offensive to the men and women in the army. ‘going muslim’ is even more offensive in the sense that muslim is an identity and is a very core part of who one person is, if you are a believer, unlike one’s job being postal worker or soldier. i can’t see what purpose this provides other than inciting animosity toward muslims in the u.s.
Congratulation to ad hom for derailing this thread. Perhaps, he knows the sound of one hand clapping. In regards to the topic at hand, my opinion and (Hitchens as well ) is that Hasan was clearly a jihadist and a religious bigot and I hope for the sake of the 13 servicemen and women killed in Fort Hood that justice is served. Hasan clearly had no PTSD unless lapdances from strip clubs gave him secondary PTSD. Tunku is wrong to generalize about Muslims in such an inflammatory manner but lets not take our eyes from the pig (the Major in question). Regardless, I am willing to listen to opposing arguments on this issue made in good faith.
I agree here. PTSD has a specific definition. Several service members have mental health issues – ones they have already prior to entering the military or something that develops (not necessarily due to the military, but other triggers). Plus, not everyone is going to face the same set of circumstances, specifically a MEDCOM officer that wasn’t going to go hand-hand anytime soon as infantry, or be even deployed in a manner to put him at risk (convoy duty). If anything, several military doctors have treated more locals in the countries they go to. It is a part of counter insurgency operations to offer medical help, which is why Army Special Forces (Green Berets) have the most trained medics in the military as a part of their teams.
I have friends and colleagues with PTSD and most are pretty functional, if not moving forward with life successfully. They go to the VA, get treated, and move on with their civilian lives continuing to address their issues. PTSD is an issue for sure, but just because a service member goes nuts doesn’t mean it automatically that they were traumatized by military operations. resulting in PTSD.
DSM IV criteria for PTSD.
No, I’m trying to be reasonable in understanding what has actually happened based on a limited amount of information, refraining from namecalling, and trying to encourage looking at aspects of this debate which are underemphasised (and which the kind of article that was written serves to further deflect attention from). Clear?
for a thread about a hateful article on “going muslim”, referring to the apparently inevitable acts of an inherently devious fifth column, i will take that as a compliment.
This case is not about profiling. The FBI never profiled Hassan per se but because of his behavior and actions, the FBI knew exactly what Hassan was up to but chose not to apprehend him as they wanted to find out about the people he was talking to etc.
Well, if you are trying to be reasonable, I am all for it. I thought you were trying to deflect attention from Hasan to talk about American society at large, but if you are not, good for you. Just as we are clear that Hasan is a criminal who needs to be prsecuted to the full extent of the law.
Is this just a case of a psychotic/disturbed individual ? Here is an extract from an article written by a Muslim American on the topic:
In 2006, six men attending the Palmyra mosque in New Jersey were arrested and subsequently found guilty of planning an attack on US soldiers stationed at Fort Dix in New Jersey. Despite this, the leadership of that mosque has failed to display any worthwhile contrition and has steadfastly refused to change the tenor of the discourse at that mosque. Similarly, the mosque in my hometown in New Jersey, built mostly through the efforts of a Pakistani-American couple few years ago, has over the last two years been taken over completely by Saudi-ized radicals. The Imam, a young Saudi-indoctrinated zealot takes every opportunity to torment young children entrusted to his care with ironclad guarantees of hell if they do such horrible things as go trick-or-treating on Halloween or even celebrate their own birthdays! This man and his fellow guest Imams openly militate for good Muslims to withdraw from the mainstream. They demand that Muslims minimize their interactions with the mushrikeen and follow the Imams’ edicts sans question. The obscurantist, isolationist mindset they wish to inculcate amongst American-Muslims is rapidly becoming the predominant mindset, one that is an obstacle in the way of Muslims becoming fully engaged citizens of this great nation, like the Jews or Hindus have become, and one that will lead to the downfall of all Muslims in this country as more Major Hasans launch suicide missions and fed up Americans do all they can to restore order.
Got a source?
Got a source?
The writer’s name is Syed Nadeem Ahsan. Here is an attachment that accompanied the writeup:
“The author is an academic physician working in Philadelphia, PA, and can be reached at dervaishbaba@ hotmail.com”
I think the author of the controversial article for Forbes is not that surprising. It is common practice in journalism to get people of colour to do the dirty work. Forbes doesn’t want to look racist so they get a man of colour to write a racist article. It is classic journalism 101.
Hmmm….weren’t a number of Tamils arrested in New York just a few years ago for attempting to procure weapons for the LTTE?
Who’s to say Mr. Varadarajan isn’t about to ‘go tamil’ imminently?!
Could be DSB then.
If only the police officer’s bullets had paralyzed this psychopath from the neck down rather than from the waist down. It is pretty certain that he will not get the death penalty . Being tube fed on a gurney while aware of his helpless predicament for the rest of his miserable life would have been the next best punishment.
@97. The Tamils arrested were guilty of violating US arms laws . Not murder like Hasan. “Going Tamil” is meaningless in that context.