Much has been made over the role of Army psychiatrist Maj. Nidal Hasan’s deep Muslim faith in the mass shooting at Fort Hood earlier this month, in which he opened fire at the massive Texas installation and killed 13 people. The day after the shooting, the Washington Post ran quite a long profile of Hasan, paying a great deal of attention to his faith and how it shaped his life and military service. More recently, NPR aired a story this week on a damning evaluation Hasan received from the Army in 2007, which made mention of his habit of proselytizing to patients — a habit that makes sense in light of a comment in the WaPo story that “his faith was the only outgoing thing about him” — among a laundry list of reasons why the evaluator felt he lacked professionalism and a work ethic. Several news outlets have wondered whether Hasan’s faith was the primary motive for his rampage; their claims are reinforced by eyewitness accounts that told of Hasan shouting, “Allahu akbar!” (“To God be the glory!”) as he opened fire with his personal handguns.
But, as with any situation, there is another side to consider. Shortly after the shooting, the Missourian’s Jeremy Essig wrote an analysis of news coverage of Fort Hood up to that point, questioning the validity of featuring Hasan’s faith so prominently in the news and adding, “Jason Rodriguez killed one person and injured five others in a mass shooting on Friday in Orlando, Fla. Who knows Rodriguez’s religion?” And the religion section of the La Canada (Calif.) Valley Sun assembled a panel of local clergy to debate whether too much had been made of the issue of Hasan’s faith.
But all of those are just others’ opinions. What do you think, dear reader? Should the media be focusing on and analyzing Hasan’s faith? Are they doing too much of it?


