"If a Muslim-American Tries to Kill Over A Dozen Americans in a Significantly Jewish Neighborhood and No One Calls Him a Jihadi, is He Still a Jihadi?" or, The Threat and the Promise

*Updated 12/20/06*: Convicted of murder in the first degree (of a Jew), Mujtaba Rabbani Jabbar is sentenced to serve time in . . . a psychiatric facility.

.
Michelle Malkin has combed through the coverage of Tuesday's killing rampage by Omeed Aziz Popal, the disturbed Muslim-American who two days ago killed one and injured 14.  Most of his mayhem occurred near and terminated in the most significantly Jewish section of San Francisco -- which makes his deeds an obvious cause of concern to those of us concerned with preventing terrorist attacks, and antisemitic attacks in particular.  As a journalist, some of whose best work has been in documenting and exposing jihadist threats within the United States, Ms. Malkin weighs many aggravating factors -- the strains of an intercontinental arranged marriage, a stifling family environment, and severe mental illness -- and concludes:

I will call Popal ... many names. But for the moment, "jihadi" isn't one of them.

.
To her careful commentary I respectfully add the following:

Might we also maintain that there are jihadis "with a little-j" (the Westernized Muslim Walter Mittys, the smallest-time losers) who, alongside the Jihadis "with a big-J", will choose as their victims -- as Mr. Popal did -- predominantly (or exclusively) non-Muslims from among members of their adopted dynamic, secular Western society?  For which Mexican and Latin American or Sikh or East African Christian or Israeli immigrants -- all of whom reside throughout the San Francisco Bay Area, and most of whom face Muslim persecution in their countries or regions of origin -- go on killing rampages here? I can't think of any.

And if Islam is in any way a source of spiritual strength for Mr. Popal, shouldn't we assume that Islam's dual principles of jihad ("spiritual struggle") -- the Greater ("inner") and the Lesser ("military") -- may co-exist in his troubled soul?  Can't jihad reside dormantly in his mind, the way, say, "Am I my brother's keeper?" can occur to a non-churchgoing Christian or a Jew when passing a destitute person on the street? And might a spiritual condition (or "precondition" or temperament) containing some sense of jihad have led him, in the end, to direct his rampage exactly where he did: at San Francisco's Jewish Community Center and Temple Emanu-El, which, as I wrote in my original comments on this subject (within here), are absolutely San Francisco's emblems of liberal, affluent and socially productive Jews?

Clearly the magnitude of this tragedy is moving Ms. Malkin, as it is many of us, to sincere pity for the criminal as well as for his victims. Yet the pity of this or of any tragedy, properly experienced, does not diminish us. The pity of tragedy -- one of our proudest Western cultural institutions -- properly experienced, elevates us. It elevates us to aspire to strive for what is best in our ideals with all our capacities, even in the face of death.

When Omeed Aziz Popal set out on his killing rampage what died was the possibility of Muslim-American assimilation. For despite his many cultural, familial, and medical complications, the cliche nevertheless held true: he had everything to live for.  Truer still is that he had everything to live for right here in the USA -- his income-earning potential (as landlord and also auto mechanic), the challenge of integrating a foreign-born bride, and the accessibility of cutting-edge treatment for his mental illness.

That's why "they" hate us.  That may also be why Mr. Popal, torn between many contending realities -- of Afghanistan and America, of Islam and secular freedom, and of reason and insanity -- for some very distinct moments, hated others. And perhaps also, lost in such a terrible shuffle, hated himself.

To grasp this tragedy we must confront two contending realities of our own: the threat of jihad and the promise of Muslim-American assimilation. Certainly they are difficult to consider at the same time.  Blogging not from fear, however, but from vigilance and diligence, I insist that we consider both realities at once. History proves thus far that the threat of jihad is far greater than the promise of Muslim-American assimilation.  Yet the more we succeed at confronting the former the more we will be able to facilitate the latter.

* * *

I offer these comments out of earnest respect for, and address them to, all of JMK's Gentle Readers who strive to uphold the very best American ideals, whether you are native or foreign born, whether at home in America or abroad in the world.

* * *

Some further blog-commentary:

Certain additional bloggers' comments on Ms. Malkin's comments at: Outside the Beltway, Riehl World View, The Heretik, The Anchoress, Occidentality.

For harder-hitting commentary see also: Debbie Schlussel and (Updated 9/2) Jeff Bargholz.

(Update 9/3): Isaac Schrodinger, self-described "pakistani-born, ex-muslim, refugee-claimant, pro-usa," was kind enough to answer my invitation; his speculations are up today at his own blog, under "Popal the Enigma."  They offer inklings of light in addition to the heat that the other linked commentaries provide (despite the post's title!).

Note: This post has been modified slightly since August 31 (merely for word choice, not for emphasis).

(Update 9/6): Marooned in Marin is doing his/her homework and looking out for public safety. Anyone who wants to get to the bottom of the Popal case should read MiM's post, "Did Omeed Popal Really Yell 'Allah Akbar' When Taken Into Custody...?"

Comments

[Madzionist]

JMK, the moslems should be expelled before they become any more numerous. Islam is a terrorist organization, and the leftist dhimmis who enable them are the true enemy within.

[JMK]

I'm willing to run the risk of being called "Hellenized" or "Americanized" or even "dhimmified" with this post. (I'll grant that I may be the first or second, but not the third.)

[JMK]

A reader in San Francisco emailed the following:

"He's not as sick as all of his relatives (for their own self-serving reasons) want us to believe. They're saying that to cover themselves, not him. What he did was because of the culture/religion he lives in - so blaming mental illness exculpates all of those who remain in that culture/religion. Yes, it was sick what he did - but that doesn't make him mentally sick. Ask yourself? Was it WELL for the pilots on 9/11 to calmly sit in their planes as they flew straight into the Towers? It was a sick thing, but it didn't make them 'sick' - i.e., mentally ill. They planned it, they looked forward to it.

Michelle is exhibiting the same blindness of the liberals - that because she would never do something like that and she is sane, then ergo, those who do it aren't. But that's not true. The 9/11 pilots were sane, doing an insane thing. Same for Popol. He knew what was right and wrong and he chose to do wrong."

[James Joyner]

But all manner of immigrants and non-immigrants go on killing rampages. There are serial killers, the postal workers who go "postal," the Colombine kids, and the like. Most of them are just regular white guys, mostly raised in Christian environments. Sometimes, a nut is just a nut.

[JMK]

James,
Islam systematically incites violence against non-Muslims. All responsible commentators have an obligation to exhaust every aspect of this case to determine what, if any, specifically Islamic influence pushed Mr. Popal over the edge.

In determining guilt, every criminal should be held to the same set of legal standards, regardless of the motivations for his crimes. But since Mr. Popal's motivations may well derive from Muslims who are demonstrably and implacably hostile to the West, then you or I or any commentator would be negligent to not pursue this track.

Note that the post extends no particular sympathies to the victims or to their families -- I focused on Mr. Popal's tragedy. I want to raise the bar higher than, for example, saying "sometimes, a nut is just a nut."

As I wrote in the post, "vigilance and diligence."

I'm glad you visited and hope you come back again.

[JMK]

Judith of Kesher Talk emailed the following:

"I don't think he was targeting Jews, but I do believe he was targeting Western Civ in general. Someone suggested it was much more likely he was targeting gays, but I don't think he was even that precise."

She says to check out a 1999 story of a white supremacist Chicago shooter who targeted blacks, Jews and Asians:
http://www.cnn.com/US/9907/06/smith.profile.01/

Kesher Talk:
http://www.keshertalk.com/

[Pastorius]

I agree with Judith of Keshertalk. His family has given conflicting stories to support the mental illness theory. I think they are exaggerating the problem.

But, the truth is, I don't know. I am just speculating based upon the evidence.

[JMK]

Yes, Judith is deductive: she's good at summarizing a situation in one or two sentences, as she does here.

You're on to something with the fact of his mental illness: its reality and its "spin" need to be raked through.

Thanks so much for your thoughts.

[JMK]

Isaac Schrodinger started a comment thread. This the gist of what I left at his site (each paragraph in response to a point I.S. makes in his post):

"Some thoughts:

I hope indeed that note, audio, and/or video evidence is brought to light. Though I don't trust that investigators will know what to look for and, as a commenter on another blog wrote, the family may well have destroyed any such evidence as soon as they heard Tuesday's terrible news.

"He was treated like a 9 year old": indeed, whether it's a stifling (by most American standards) family and/or one that resented or misunderstood his mental illness, that sounds like a recipe for a disaster. Besides, it's not necessarily advisable for someone with severe mental illness to be prodded into marriage and parenthood.

That the family is protecting itself by projecting him as the crazy one may be simply because they want to "get on" with their lives. But how far might such "protection" extend? For if any of them have anti-semitic or anti-Western sympathies or affiliations they probably want to keep such hidden from public scrutiny.

Given the circumstances of his rampage and recent anti-semitic violence elsewhere, however, I say that the public has a right to know."