In the wake of the tragic shooting at Fort Hood earlier this month, Americans have been shaken by a random act of violence against our servicemen and women. Post-9/11 America is a world in which our psyches are marked by the fear of a similar attack on American soil, and Major Hasan's shooting spree reminded us of that fear. However, we must recognize that this is an isolated incident perpetrated by one individual working by himself. In no way does the tragedy of Fort Hood reflect the nature of the various Muslim communities living throughout America in peaceful integration with their fellow Americans. We must recognize that Muslim Americans are Americans first and foremost, and not allow one high-profile incident to poison our views of our fellow citizens.

However, depiste Preisdent Obama's best attempts to downplay questions over the Islamic background of Major Hasan, leaders in politics, journalism, and even academia have made the irresponsible decision to blow the murderer's radical background out of proportion, thereby extending a haze of suspicion upon all Muslims all over this nation.

Perhaps the ugliest of these irresponsible diatribes comes from Tunku Varadarajan, a professor at New York University and columnist at Forbes Magazine. In a column titled "Going Muslim", Varadarajan likens Hasan to the stereotypically crazed postal worker who suddenly snaps and unleashes violence upon the public. The difference between these two terms, he posits, is that there is a snapping point for the postal worker, while the violent Muslim has no psychological snapping point. Rather, he or she casts off the "camouflage" of integration and reveals himself as an Islamic radical.

There are so many problems with this idea that the mind spins just contemplating it. First of all, the idea of "going Muslim" implies that Hasan's violence and radical beliefs are something held in common by all Muslims. Nothing could be further from the truth. Varadarajan must have missed the memo that there are millions of Muslims living integrated and peaceful lives in American society. Incidents of Muslim-related violence are rare, and incidents of violence related to radical Islam are even rarer. The professor seems to think that Muslims live double lives, uneasily balancing their radically oriental beliefs with liberalism. The facts do not bear this out. The vast majority of Muslim Americans live well-adjusted lives. Hasan's violence is not a reflection of the Muslim American community, but of Hasan's warped world view.

Even more dangerous is Varadarajan's implication that radical Muslims of Hasan's stripe exist everywhere, as if there is a radical Islamic shadow army preparing to assault America any day now. The truth is, Hasan is not symptomatic of a potential wave of Muslim violence anymore than James Von Brunn is indicative of a Neo-Nazi onslaught. The funny thing is that when Von Brunn committed his hateful shooting at the Holocaust Museum earlier this year, nobody went as far as to claim that he could be the first in a line of radical conservative killers out to destroy the enemies of their "America", despite the fact that the Department of Homeland Security warned of such acts of violence.

We must ask, then, why the clamor to interpret Hasan as evidence of a radical Muslim presence in America? I can only attribute this rush to judgment to a reflection of American prejudice against Muslims and people of Middle Eastern descent. It is sad that in this day and age, with our supposedly enlightened way of life, we cannot turn away from the asinine ideas of prejudice that haunt our nation. I would hope that the next time Varadarajan and people who share his thinking jump to the conclusion that Muslims are out to get America, they stop to analyze the situation and realize that their attitudes are motivated by an unthinking prejudice that has no place in modern America.