Out Of The Darkness: Rabbi Supports NY Mosque, Condemns Haters

Sallams Readers,
Recently, there has been a lot of controversy surrounding an Islamic Center in New York which is going to be built two blocks from "Ground Zero"--the area of New York where the World Trade Centers once stood. Both towers were destroyed on September 11, 2001 by Wahabi terrorists for political gain.

Arguments against the center, named Park 51, state that since "Muslims" blew up the Trade Centers, Muslims should not have their own center near Ground Zero. Pam Geller, who owns the blog Atlas Shrugs (which I have written about extensively in the past,) is campaigning very hard against the construction of this center. In addition, Sarah Palin has also become an advocate against the Islamic Center. Both these women claim that Islam is "Islamizing" the US, which is "taking away our freedom."

By now, you are probably expecting me to start arguing in favor of the Park 51 center. Of course--I am Muslim, why would I not support it, right? Of course--I have a blog which is completely pro-Islam, why would I not support it, right? I am sorry to let you down, but I will not be arguing in favor of the Park 51 center. Instead, I will let a Jewish Rabbi do it for me.

Wait, Jewish Rabbi? I thought Muslims and Jews hated each other. You are correct, Arabs and Israelis hate each other; however, I stand to be challenged by anyone who can still, after reading parts of the article I have provided below, say Islam and Jews hate each other.

This Rabbi's name is Bruce Warshal, and I came across his article when it was forwarded to me through Email. Here is how it begins.

To begin, the mosque controversy does not involve a mosque. It is planned as a 13-story community center encompassing a swimming pool, 500-seat performing arts center, gym, culinary school, restaurant and, yes, a prayer space for Muslims, which already exists in the current building. A formal mosque would forbid eating or the playing of music on the premises. I guess that we are now at the point in America where Jews can have our JCC’s and Christians their YMCA’s, but Muslims are not wanted.

I could not have said this better myself. The "Mosque" is actually a "multi-purpose center" which contains a Mosque (a Muslim prayer space) in one area. I think the misunderstanding has stemmed from the words "Mosque" and "church" being used interchangeably. In Arabic, "Mosque" and "center" are two different words. A Masjid [Mosque,] is an open-door place where Muslims can come, pray, and leave. There are NO services held there. An Imam Bargha is what you would call the equivalent of a Church. While it is for praying, regular "services" are also held there, along with social gatherings. In other words, this Masjid or Mosque is NOT a Church; it is just a prayer room.

The Rabbi goes on to describe the idea that the center should not be built because Ground Zero was the site of terrorism, and any such land should be respected.

President Obama in his defense of religious freedom commented that, “Ground zero is, indeed, hallowed ground.” I beg to differ. If Ground Zero is holy ground, then the railroad station in Madrid, the Underground in London, the federal building in Oklahoma City, the Pentagon (where there is presently a prayer space for Muslims – yes, patriotic, religious Muslim Americans work at the Pentagon) and every other physical location that has been the object of terrorism is holy ground. If Ground Zero is holy space why plan for it to be developed with office buildings (in which the object will be to amass money – obviously a holy pursuit), a shopping center (in which consumer goods will be peddled to continue to gorge the American appetite for material possessions), and with a theater for modern dance (a project to which I personally look forward as a devotee of the Joyce, the modern dance Mecca of New York)? I’m sorry, but someone has to tell America that this designation of holy space is merely part of a mass hysteria that really scares me.

Let me reiterate that this is a Jewish Rabbi who has written this. If he is able to see past all the lies of Robert Spencer and Pam Geller (who he "calls out" later on,) why is it so difficult for the average person to see it? This Rabbi's religion has been stepped on and spat on by the so-called "Islamic fundamentalists," but yet he shook his head and said, "you don't represent Islam, I'm not going to believe you." This is exactly what has completely amazed me. This article is not coming from an Atheist--it is coming from a man who belongs to a religion that even Geert Wilders has claimed Islam hates. In essence, why should he support us? The answer is simple: he is the true embodiment of what the Abrahamic faiths should have been. You can completely eliminate any bias and notion of personal gain from this article, simply because of the situation the Rabbi is in. I would especially like my Muslim readers to understand this point. How many of you would be quick to support a Christian center? Be honest with yourselves. I can hear the voices and the arguments now. "The Christians hate us; the Christians do not follow their Bible; the Christians are this and the Christians are that." And if you are sitting there shaking your head, "no, I would support them," keep lying to yourself, because chances are, my fellow Muslims, if the roles were reversed, we would be guilty of the same hate against the Christians that we are receiving right now from these Islam-haters. Here, let me help you along and make things easy for you. Until I read this Rabbi's article, I would have been right there with you and slammed the Christians for their YMCA (Young Men Christian's Association) complex. There, I have publicly announced this for everyone to read. This is why, if nothing else, the main reason I wanted to bring this article to your attention is because of what it did for me. This is mainly because the Rabbi does not even hesitate to down talk his own people.

I guess that we are now at the point in America where Jews can have our JCC’s and Christians their YMCA’s, but Muslims are not wanted.

The Rabbi goes on:

The question which must be asked is why this hysteria? The impetus comes from a triumvirate of right-wing Christians, Jews and politicians.

Here again, the Rabbi does not even flinch when he debases his own people. He is completely unbiased in his account; to him, a religion of the Abrahamic faiths is being trampled.

Fundamentalist Christians are still fighting the crusades, still vying to convert the world to their truths. Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world, to the distress of these Christian proselytizers. What better way to win this battle than to brand all Muslims as terrorists?

Well said. Remember when I wrote that post about how to be branded as a terrorist? I see that same thought here. In fact, after Prophet Muhammad's (SAWH) death, Abu Bakr did the same thing--debase the Prophet to uplift his own character; this is exactly what is going on today.

Right-wing Jews think that they are doing Israel a favor by painting Islam as a terrorist religion thereby proving that Israel need not negotiate with the Palestinians. The idea is to project the concept that we are civilized and they are not. This theme is picked up in the right-wing press of Israel. Commenting on the New York proposed “mosque,” a columnist in the Jerusalem Post declares that “Islamism is a modern political tendency which arose in a spirit of fraternal harmony with the fascists of Europe in the 1930’s and ‘40’s.” Ground Zero isn’t Israel’s “holy ground.” Why would he be involved with this discussion? Simply because right-wing Jews in Israel as well as the United States believe that demonizing the religion of 1.3 billion people is good for Israel. God help us.

Did you read that, o Jewish-hating Muslims! A Jewish Rabbi has just denounced Israel. What does this mean? It means that Israel is not representative of the Jews. After all, next time you say "kill the Jews," remember that verse you read in the Quran that mentions the scripture of Moses.

Periodically we go through this in America.
...
We deported over 10,000 people during the First World War because they opposed our entry into that war and we incarcerated loyal Japanese Americans during the Second World War. Now during this “war on terror” I shudder to think where we are headed.

Islamocaust? Yes, you read that correctly. Rabbi Warshal indirectly mentions an era where Muslims are persecuted just like the Native Americans at the hands of Spanish explorers, and the Jews during World War II by Hitler. If you rolled your eyes at my last entry, here it is directly "from the horse's mouth" as the saying goes.

The tool used in this hate campaign is the concept of collective guilt. Based on that, all Jews are traitors since Ethel and Julius Rosenberg sold out this country. All Christians are terrorists since Timothy McVeigh attacked the federal building in Oklahoma City.

Neither are all Muslims traitors nor terrorists. Islam is not monolithic. Its forms are as varied as Judaism or Christianity. I do not practice Judaism the same as a Satmar Hasidic Jew. A Catholic does not practice Christianity the same as a Jehovah Witness. Imam Rauf does not share the same Islamic beliefs as bin Laden.

There you have it. Osama and Saddam are not representatives of Islam, and please, do not get me started on the Iranian president who I have actually supported in the past. The Iranian president, who claims to be Shia, rules just like Saddam did, and has even restricted people from commemorating Ashoorah. Can you still call him Shia?

Of all people Jews should beware of collective guilt since we have suffered from it for millennia. Yet the organization that started this hysteria is headed by a right-wing Jewish supporter of Israel by the name of Pam Geller. She is quoted in the mainstream media (including the Jewish Journal) as if she is a legitimate political voice. Yet on her blog, Atlas Shrugs, she has declared that “Obama is the illegitimate son of Malcom X.” She has written that we have “an American-hater for president.” She has proposed that devout Muslims should be prohibited from military service. She asks, “Would Patton have recruited Nazis into his army?” To all of the rabbis quoted in the Jewish Journal urging that the “mosque” be moved, know who is pulling your strings.

This is the portion of the article that made me chuckle. The Rabbi calls out Pam Geller and completely discredits her. You see how people like Geller look in the eyes of people who are respected, and have their facts straight? This is the first time I have seen anyone slam Geller for the hate she has spread, and directly challenged her on her credibility. Yet, as the Rabbi stated, she is getting quite a bit of media attention, simply because she is fulfilling the correct goal of the public opinion; otherwise, if you dig down deep in to her foundation, you will find--as this Rabbi has--that she makes no sense and her claims are either false, or filled with fabrications. Ironically, she was one of the lead sponsors of the Free Speech Summit in 2009. See what ignorance runs our country.

Since Pastor Jones' proposed "International Burn the Quran Day," Pam Geller's continued campaign against the Park 51 center, and countless other anti-Islam movements started by Republican Sarah Palin, this is the first article I have read in favor of the center. I sent an Email to Rabbi Warshal after reading this article, and he actually took the time to respond to me. In the few communications I have had with him, I can tell these are not just words on paper; the Rabbi is a genuine man, and the Abrahamic faiths would have been somewhere quite different today if we were all like him. This article does an excellent job of capturing the core of the three monotheistic religions, but sadly people like Rabbi Warshal are few and far between.

For all my Muslim readers who firmly believe Muslims should kill Jews, think again, and try reading your Quran one more time. You will be surprised at what you find, and how easily you can discredit the Wahabi and Al-Qaeda ideologies just by opening your own book.
Ma'a sallamah,
Munawar

The Islamocaust

Sallams Everyone,
In light of Memorial Day, the day when, as Americans, we honor soldiers in battle, let us not forget the dark side to the bloodshed and the supposed saint like country in which we live.

During the American Revolution, everyone from the common farmer to the foot soldier fought bravely to break away from the rule of the iron fist government of the British Empire. This war was a different type of war. This war had a purpose, a solid goal and, most notably, the victory of which released the Colonies from oppression. Wait, did I just use the word "oppression?" Yes, and you are free to re-read and re-re-read that sentence as many times as you like. Back then, the then nonexistent United States of America was oppressed by the British. Shortly after the signing of the Declaration of Independence and the subsequent victory, the USA was born. Memorial Day had a purpose then. It was a day to honor everyone who had battled tirelessly and with their lives to say no to injustice, just like Ashoorah.

Unfortunately, those days are gone. As we come upon Memorial Day, instead of brave soldiers, what goes through my mind is exactly the opposite. Coward military operations doing the same oppressing that this very country was once a victim of.

Today, we have passed the Holocaust era and are now in the Islamocaust era. We can sit here and argue all we want about how much oppressing Islam itself is doing, but I have reputed that elsewhere. Even so, the oppression being done by the Arab states is nothing near the oppression that America is doing. The Arabs are not coming here, overthrowing our government, and insisting that we become like them. Yet we see America, the British and NATO kicking in the door of those countries and turning their economies in to one run by the people, which makes profit off of the people, and uses the peoples' bad financial situations to help itself. We are already seeing car dealerships popping up in Iraq. Is this just a coincidence, or is there an obvious link here? Remember that the marines in Iraq have just recently left. Since 2003, the Iraqi people have been ravaged by misfire and mushroom clouds. Soon after, Western and Japanese car dealerships start popping up. This is exactly what America wanted; when its economy collapses, Iraq's economy will collapse also. This is because we have an economy based on consumption. As soon as people stopped spending and tightened their fists, look what happened? Credit card companies had no one to charge interest to, banks lost profit because of less overdraft fees, and the economy declined--very steeply, I must add. Your government wants you to keep spending so that you do not have enough to save for yourself. Why else do you think credit card companies charge inactivity fees? Does charging you because you don't spend make any sense? Of course not, but it certainly serves the interests of the government, and this is why Iraq was so quickly converted into a consumer economy as well.

Next, we have the situation with Iran. Despite Iran's continued insistence that it is only pursuing nuclear power for the benefit of its people and for electrical power, America and NATO are descending on it like hawks. Once again, just like with Iraq, these actions by America are only based on suspicion. I am aware that Saddam was overthrown in Iraq; however, we all know where the military went when it first invaded Iraq--straight to the oil wells.

Iran is still causing panic when North Korea has actually declared international war and has threatened South Korea with war should anyone invade it. Has Iran done this? No! So why should the priority be Iran? The answer is simple: Islamocaust. I have mentioned before that being Arab or Muslim guarantees you a terrorist label when the same does not apply to so-called "normal people" doing the same thing. The real goal of the West, behind the guise of "making peace," is to completely "deIslamize" the world. Don't believe me? Just take a moment to consider that Geert Wilders was brought to the US to speak against Islam, and he was funded on government expense. Also take a moment to consider that someone none other than Robert Spencer was hired to train FBI agents on Islam.

In addition, we find that France is moving to ban the veil, and a Muslim woman was actually harassed because she was wearing one!

If you still do not believe me, consider this article about a "mistaken" drone attack on Afghan civilians:

A US air raid in the southern Afghan province of Uruzgan claimed the lives of at least 23 people -- including women and children -- in February.

The airstrike took place in the middle of a turbulent two-week period, when US and NATO attacks reportedly left more than 50 civilians dead.

The US military report on the incident claimed that the civilian caravan was mistaken for Taliban militants.

I can understand how mistakes like this could happen, but if we read further, it becomes clear that this could have been completely avoided.

The reasons for the alleged mistake were cited as ignoring available information and failure to properly analyze the situation.

"Ignoring available information." Translation: "We don't care, they're Muslim, bomb them!"

Four US officers have been reprimanded in connection with the incident; however, it is unlikely that they will face trial.

For killing 23 civilians, there will most likely be no trial? Where is your so-called justice? Apparently, this "mistake" is being taken very, very lightly, simply because these are "Afghan civilians" who are "Islamist Muslims with radical jihadi ideas."

American Imperialism marks the wars of today, when Americans are led to believe that the Western system of Democracy is the only right way and that it is free from error. Further, they are taught that all other systems--whether Theocratic, Communist, or Socialist--are wrong and should be abolished in favor of Democracy. They are taught that when a woman wears a veil, she is oppressed. They are taught that Islam is Totalitarian and should be wiped out. They are taught that Arabic is the language of terrorists and that the "Muslim God, Allah, wants to implement Shariah law which means we will all lose our freedom." They are taught that "womens' liberation" means running around in scanty clothing "because the alternative is oppressive"--this is in spite of the fact that general statistics show that in the United States, a woman is raped every five minutes. They are taught that a consumer economy is the only way, and everyone should live to consume, otherwise we will have an economic collapse again. They are taught that high interest rates, inactivity fees, overdraft fees and wasteful spending is "normal" and "part of every system," and that "no system can exist without it."

These sad realities are what we celebrate today. We celebrate the war on terror, the soldiers fighting to bring about the Islamocaust, a system that has failed us time and again, and the lies we are fed to make our country appear saint like. Where are our values on which our country was founded? Is this really what the Founding Fathers meant when they said "freedom?" Did they really mean we can go undisturbed, drawing cartoons of sacred figures, and mocking an entire religion by having "Draw Prophet Muhammad Day?" If you understand this, then you will understand one of the reasons for Revolution Muslim being in existence. I most certainly do not agree with them on everything, and have firmly condemned their statement concerning South Park, but at the same time, I am with them completely when it comes to American Imperialism.

Go on--call me a terrorist, put me on your watch list, suppress me like you do to every Muslim whose conditioning failed. In the end, you are doing exactly what you claim the terrorists do: killing or oppressing the threat.

When terrorists bomb America and kill 1,000 people, America completely overthrows a government and kills hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. Then they ask: "why are they mad at us?" Look at reality and stop living in an idealistic world. The "war on terror" will never be won. America overthrew Saddam, and look--North Korea is taking his place. America is "helping" Afghanistan by removing its reliance on Opium exports, when drugs run rampant in their own country and tons of Americans are on antidepressants because America cannot control it. This is why the world hates America; it tries to fix others' problems first before fixing its own problems. Do I support Taliban and the unIslamic beating of women for not veiling? No. But the government knows as well as I do, that is not the reason America went in to Afghanistan in the first place. The Taliban were just in America's way, so now it has to act good to justify killing them, when its own women are suffering at the hands of rapists and abusive partners.

Please remember all the innocent civilians today who have died at the hands of deceiving Americans. Please remember that friend, aunt, sister, wife, or mother who was raped or shot dead by a stalking ex-boyfriend / husband because the court denied her a restraint order and protection because her case "did not fall within the legal definition of stalking." Please remember all the times you have tuned in to radio talk shows and heard the West crushing your religion with its mouth and dropping bombs on your Mosques because of "suspected terrorist activity."

Today, while you hear the fireworks go off and you witness people drinking to their critical points, remember the Founding Fathers who fought so purposefully for freedom and how the American Mission has completely negated that purpose. If you are to mourn anyone today, mourn the Founding Fathers of our Constitution.

A Revolution Gone Rogue

Sallams Everyone,
Recently, South Park aired an episode in which they attempted to image the Prophet Muhammad (SAWH) both visually and audibly. Further, they also ridiculed him by beeping out his name in the second episode in the two part series. Shortly after the airing of the first episode, Revolution Muslim issued a statement, which, according to this article from Fox News, was a death threat against the creators of South Park. I have purposely chosen this article because two things become readily apparent here. First, a so-called "radical Islamist organization" has issued, supposedly, a death threat. Next, we can see from the article that the media appear to have blown things way out of proportion. I will present evidence first, and then give you something to think about afterwards.

In response to the media's outburst, Revolution Muslim posted a statement on their blog clarifying the situation. Zachary Adam Chesser, the man who issued the initial statement, was the one who wrote the clarification. There are things I agree with, and things I do not agree with. We will start with the former.

One of the major reasons there is such little opposition to American domination today is the reality that the principle of free speech, as envisioned by the founding fathers of the United States and by wise men and women throughout the ages, is a universal principle that may protect citizens from political, economic, or religious persecution. Today it is understood much differently; today “free speech” is interpreted as the right to promote pornography, homosexuality, slander, and libel against even that which is considered sacred.

This could not have been said better. We see examples of this everywhere; I have written several posts in the past about Geert Wilders and Robert Spencer. I guarantee you, if I turned around and insulted their faiths (whichever faiths they follow,) they would have problems with it. However, they feel it is no problem to go on undisturbed attempting to squash Islam. Wilders even had guts enough to speak IN THE SENATE against Islam, and rally politicians to remove Islam from America. Robert Spencer did his part by becoming a trainer for the FBI; he trained people on Islam, and later launched jihadwatch.org.

Indeed, it is in the shifting away from this conceptualization that America first deviated from its position as republic and assumed the role of global empire.

Is there a purpose, other than evil, in insulting something someone holds sacred?

While insulting Jesus, Moses, or any other prophet would remove someone from Islam, we Muslims are also forbidden to insult the deities that other religions hold in high esteem. Allah says in the Qur’an:
"Revile not those unto whom they pray beside Allah lest they wrongfully revile Allah through ignorance."

Revolution Muslim touched on a very valid point here. You are correct that a Muslim is forbidden to make fun of another sacred figure. In fact, we can see from the Quran how the Prophet Muhammad (SAWH) responded to people who resisted Islam: "To you your religion, and to me mine" (Quran 109). Yet we see, time and again, people like Pope Benedict XVI ridicule Islam. I myself have been challenged, and Prophet Muhammad (SAWH) has been called a warlord and rapist right in front of me when they knew I am Muslim.

Revolution Muslim's intentions become apparent when they mention that even the Prophets Jesus and Moses were insulted by South Park. In other words, this is not an isolated case against the Prophet Muhammad (SAWH); all these prophets are considered prophets of Islam and they are to be respected.

I agree completely with your statement and your reasoning. Indeed, I too did not appreciate what they did to portray Prophet Muhammad (SAWH.) However, this is where we differ:

As for the Islamic ruling on the situation, then this is clear. There is no difference of opinion from those with any degree of a reputation that the punishment is death. Ibn Taymiyyah a great scholar of Islam says, “Whoever curses the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) -a Muslim or a non Muslim- then he must be killed…and this is the opinion of the general body of Islamic scholars.” Likewise Ibn Mundhir, another classical scholar, said, “It is the consensus (ijma’) of our scholars that the one who curses the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) should be executed!” This is also the opinion of Imams Malik, al-Laith, Ahmed, Ishaq, Shafi’i, and Numan Abu Haneefah. This shows that taking this stance is virtually obligatory, but it does not mean that our taking this stance is in some way an absolute call toward the requirement that the creators of South Park must be killed, nor a deliberate attempt at incitement, it is only to declare the truth regardless of co sequence and to offer an awareness in the mind of Westerners when they consider doing the same thing.

This is where you fall into the same trap so many Muslims have in the past. I noticed you quote several scholars. However, may I ask you one thing: where are the teachings of the Prophet himself? By teachings I do not mean any old narration from Al-Bukhari; rather, what you left out from your description of Islamic jurisprudence is that narrations we use must be authentic. It is a known fact that during the time of Abu Bakr's regime, he hired scholars to distort narrations. In fact, this is how Ayisha, the wife of the Prophet and who you call the mother of Islam, made her living. She, along with several other people, were paid to fabricate narrations, and I know that all these opinions were gathered from these fabricated narrations. I have written an extensive paper on this topic, and you can read it by clicking here. These ideas you get of executing people for insulting the Prophet are mainly from the Arab Radical population. They would use Islam, just like they are today, to justify hanging people from different tribes. Further, I see no quote from a member of the Ehlul Bait in your posts, so this further leads me to dismiss the opinions you have gathered as insufficient evidence. In other words, Islam does not appear to command Muslims to kill people who insult the Prophet. Instead, like you mention several times, we encourage dialogue.

Zach goes on to post a quote from Osama Bin Laden: "If there is no check in the freedom of your words, then let your hearts be open to the freedom of our actions."

I honestly do not see how we can let you be free in your actions if you insist on blowing up innocent people, holding journalists hostage and beheading them, and turning your women into suicide bombers because you believe you will get 72 virgins in Heaven. Further, you beat your women publicly (refer to the paper above,) and you prey on innocent children and turn them into terrorists. I agree that America has its own goals; to overthrow you and put a corrupted democracy in your place, but at the same time you cannot say that you did any justice to your people at all. Therefore, I stand by America when they crush you. At least when a woman gets raped, the law, at least ideally, should stand by her. In your government, you would stone the woman for BEING raped, which, again, Islam itself is against; a proper Islamic state would stone the criminal, not the victim.

I would now like to turn your attention to the article I posted above from Fox News, and leave Revolution Muslim for a bit. We will come back to them later.

As is always the case, the media's goal in all this is to perpetuate the misconceptions about Islam. I have criticized USA Today previously for being very one-sided in their articles, their bias readily apparent and, I may add, not free from religiously influenced thoughts and objectives. You can read the post on a USA Today article here. This time, Fox News was very guilty of this, and I am ashamed that these are the reporters in my country.

"He [Zachary Adam Chesser] was definitely sort of weird," the classmate told FoxNews.com. "He was very into violent industrial music, borderline Satanic bands and stuff like that. He had dark undertones in his interests."

Are these qualifications for a Muslim?

Two years later, Chesser is literally a changed man. He now uses an alias and has a new set of hobbies. He now likes to be called Abu Talhah Al-Amrikee, and his primary interest in this world appears to be Islamic radicalism.

His interest is "Islamic radicalism." I have written several times on how those two words, when put right next to each other, do not make sense. In fact, my initial writings on this was because of a documentary by this same news agency. You can find my post here, entitled "Foes of the Friends." Once again, I see Fox attributing "radical" with "Islam"; in fact, this time they even went as far as to call it an interest!

Chesser's background offers nothing to suggest that he would recently have eloped and married a Muslim woman he met in college, a woman who has given birth to their baby boy, according to neighbors.

Marrying a Muslim woman is suddenly radicalization? What about marrying a Jewish, Christian or Hindu woman? What does him marrying a Muslim woman have to do with anything? Although, it seems from your article that you are pointing fingers at the general Muslim population; this becomes VERY evident as we look further. I was completely shocked by your decision to include the following paragraphs.

While there is no evidence that Chesser became radicalized while at George Mason, there were "dark overtones in his interests" for years, dating back to his years in middle school and high school.

Chesser's longtime classmate, who requested anonymity, said he did not overtly express an interest in converting to Islam while in high school. But given Chesser's past as a loner who sought to create conflict, she said she was hardly surprised to learn what's become of him.

May I ask you again, what about converting to Islam is significant here? I think you are suggesting that a conversion to Islam is somehow Satanic and wrong. It was not Islam that influenced Zach's actions; it was his desire for conflict. That is really obvious to me, so why are you avoiding and manipulating the truth?

The article worsens as we read on. The next few paragraphs are a DIRECT attack on Islam by a Christian. I rarely, if ever, have sided with an ideology and downplayed other ideologies here, but these paragraphs leave me no choice at all.

The neighbor, a devout Christian, said she was scared and surprised to learn that Chesser has posted messages calling for the murder of Jews and, most recently, the deaths of Parker and Stone.

You are quick to call people "devout Christians," but when it comes to real Muslims who follow Islam how it is supposed to be followed, you call us "moderate," and not "devout." Am I to gather that a "good Christian" is "devout" where as a "good Muslim" is "moderate" and, therefore, ignores the parts of his or her religion that "suggest radical leanings?" This is exactly what I've written about in the Fox rebuttal I linked earlier. I am shocked that this very thing is happening again.

"You have me sweating here," she told FoxNews.com. "I think he's really brainwashed to even think something like that. His family is not violent at all.

"I am so shocked. I really think he had to have been brainwashed into something like that. Zac was a very nice boy. I would never have even associated him with something like this, to do anything harmful."

She said she will maintain more of a distance from the Chessers now, "because we're Christians…. It's kind of sad that American people are falling into this. It's sad that he would be influenced to try to hurt people."

There is the direct slam on Islam I was talking about earlier. I see an obvious link to the "good American Christian" ideology here, and Fox News was quick to capitalize on it. Make every religion except Islam look good; what type of face-saving is going on here? I am disgusted by this article--although, I would like to add--I am not at all surprised. I was expecting something like this, especially from an agency like Fox.

Fox goes on to interview Zach, with some comments from CAIR as well. However, I do not agree with all of Zach's comments in the E-Mail interview with Fox:

Reached by FoxNews.com via e-mail on Thursday, Chesser said one of his goals in writing for the group is to "raise awareness of the correct understanding of key Islamic beliefs." But he also warned: "If you kill us, then we kill you."

"I seek to help the world understand that neither the Muslims in general nor the mujahideen including Al Qaeda are abject to peace...

I find it difficult to believe Al-Qaeda will like peace. I know them as an organization who would sacrifice innocent children and women for political gain. When the Taliban held control of Afghanistan, your women were beaten for not covering themselves. While the hijab is required in Islam, Islam also says "cover yourselves so that you may be modest." If a woman does not cover herself, it is up to the man to "avert your gaze." Although, I venture to say, I think your jurors whip the women for sexual pleasure themselves, so why would they pay any attention to the actual treatment of women anyway?

Basically the formula works like this … if you kill us, then we kill you. If you do not kill us then we can have peace. 9/11 had nothing to with freedom or democracy. It had to do with the murder of hundreds of thousands of Muslims around the world by American and other powers.

I agree with you here that so-called Muslim countries are being occupied unnecessarily. However, since I do not consider them Muslim countries because of how they treat their citizens--with terror and complete oppression--of both men and women--I will call them Arab states.

Your Arab states are being occupied by our resources. Believe me when I say this, we do not want them there either. That is our money, which we earn through hard work; those are our tax dollars, going to help fund your Opium plants and corrupt thought. Americans want the soldiers out of your Arab countries as much as you do--if not more. May I remind you that Americans did not vote, as a whole and unanimously, to go to war with your Arab countries? In truth, I could not care less about your Arab countries. What is happening there is not OUR fault, it is our GOVERNMENT's fault. How can you possibly justify 9 11 when you yourself know this? Most of the people in that building would firmly oppose the wars. I agree that thousands of innocent citizens are being killed at the hands of America in Iraq and Afghanistan. I do not like it any more than you do. I am against this as much as I am against the historical battle between Muslims and the Byzantine Empire simply because they had ideological differences. The attacks on the World Trade Centers cannot be justified, just like America's ruthless and endless killing of innocent Muslims in Arab states. No Muslim would support such an action. If you look at Islam's history (authentic history and narrations,) you will see how kindly Prophet Muhammad (SAWH) treated prisoners of war. You will see how peaceful he was with the citizens of Mecca when his resistance group conquered their government. Islam is completely against killing innocent citizens, and I cannot believe you actually call yourself Muslim and support 9 11.

As a final statement, I agree with your reasoning completely. Yes, America is pushing a political ideology and structure that is right because it thinks it is right; yes, America is killing thousands of Muslims overseas. However, please look at the actions of the Arab states as well. Ask a citizen there how they feel. I guarantee you, they will feel oppressed and hopeless. The governments rule with an iron fist. Indeed, because of America Israel has taken part of Palestine, but this is not the fault of Jewish people. Again, it is their government.

As to your statement about the death threat. I understand that you were just suggesting something; it was a friendly warning--I see that. I ignored all the media opinions and agree with you that South Park will be in the back of the minds of many Muslims. I do not see your statement as a death threat at all, so I would like to apologize to you on behalf of the ignorant and entertainment-run media. I empathize with you, since I myself have been a victim of this by people I used to know. As Muslims, even if we are friends, people find fault with us. However, this does not give us a ticket to support Al-Qaeda. I was disappointed when I saw statements on your Web site supporting them. Why? Again, it is because they kill innocent people. Journalists, in the end, are only doing their jobs.

In summary, I stand by you on your reasons but completely disagree with your methodology. You posted the following three questions on your blog. I will answer them now.

1.) Given that the Koran clearly and unambiguously calls for killing anyone who insults the Prophet, would you personally kill Matt Stone and/or Trey Parker given the chance? If your answer is no, how do you justify your answer in light of your insistence on adhering to the letter of Islamic law?

The Quran does not clearly and unambiguously call for killing of non-Muslims and people who insult the Prophet. If this were the case, the entire Kuraish tribe would have been killed during the lifetime of the Prophet. We all know they would throw stones at the Prophet, and feed lies to their kids to make them hate the Prophet. Why, then, did he say "To you your religion, and to me mine?" Also consider Prophet Moses' interaction with the Egyptian king. Quran tells him to "Speak softly to him; he raised you." The Fir`on definitely insulted a prophet of Islam. Why does the Quran not command Moses to kill him then?

2.) What if Matt Stone and Trey Parker expressed a willingness to engage in peaceful dialogue with Muslims regarding the matter of free speech, but stopped short of repenting for their depiction of the Prophet? Would Koranic law still require that they die?

Given that Quranic law does not require them to die anyway, my answer to this one is "No."

3.) What is your opinion of depictions of the Prophet in general, as in art works that attempt to render him respectfully?

We do not portray images of the Prophet because we do not wish to idolize him. Therefore, there is no "respectful" imaging of him. Anyone who knows this will adhere to it out of respect; they do not need to draw pictures to show their respect.
Ma'a Sallamah

Terrorism: Negated by Religious Ideology?

Dear Readers,
Sallams to you. Recently, we have seen a lot of terrorism. Most notably though, are terrorist acts committed by non-Muslims. I have written about terrorism in the past and those of you who read my posts frequently know that I do not support it. However, I am not here today to talk about whether terrorism is justified or not. Rather, I am here to help us redefine terrorism--from the perspective of people who hate Islam and make a living out of hating us. What do I mean by this? Well, consider the incident in which a man flew a plane into an IRS building. Is this terrorism? How about the man who tried to blow up a plane on Christmas Day 2009. Is this terrorism? How about a man who drove from California to the Pentagon with the intention of killing government officials, and ended up shooting and wounding two officers. Is this terrorism? How about Nidal Malik Hasan. Is he terrorism?

The Christmas Day bombing was labeled as an act of terrorism which actually prompted the TSA (Transportation Security Agency) to introduce a whole new line of equipment to airports, the controversial body scanners. Nidal Malik Hasan's Fort Hood shooting was dubbed as an act of terrorism, and he was claimed to have "contact with radical Islamic clerics overseas." This is all well and good; keep these points in mind, it's important here.

Consider the IRS plane crash. According to the DHS (Department of Homeland Security,) it was a "deliberate criminal act." Terrorism? No, of course not. In another article I read on this topic, the DHS was quoted as saying "this does not appear to be an act of terrorism." People, wake up! A man just flew a plane in to a government building! You're saying it's not terrorism? Are you telling me you must have the name Abdul Malik Hasan Muhammad Hakim for it to be terrorism?

The DHS' dismissal of this terrorist act would not have angered me if I had thought it was a mere slip. However, a while later, a man by the name of Bedell John Patrick drove from the West coast of the US to the East coast to attack officers at the Pentagon (military headquarters of the US for those of you who aren't American.) Yet, I do not see "terrorism" anywhere. In fact, the article from Fox links his actions to depression. That's right...they view him as a victim! The Fox article goes on to mention that the attack on the Pentagon came four months after Nidal Hasan's attack on Fort Hood, which they linked to "radical Islamic leanings." What are you suggesting, that Patrick got the idea of shooting people at the Pentagon because of the actions of a terrorist who is a "radical Islamist" and Islam should be the blame for Patrick's actions? Of course, you're a news agency so you can't come out and say that...but that's what it sounds like from what you've written.

Now take all this, and we can answer our questions above.

1. Are Stack's actions of flying a plane into the IRS building terrorism? According to our government, "No, he's not Muhammad Abdullah Al-Zawiri."
   
2. Are Patrick's actions of shooting two officers at the Pentagon an act of terrorism? According to our government, "No, it was Hasan's fault and Hasan gave him the idea. Besides, he suffered from depression."
   
3. Are Hasan's actions of shooting military personnel at Fort Hood an act of terrorism? According to our government, "Yes! He had ties with radical Islamists and he was a radical Muslim with radical Jihadi ideas, and he was also radicalized by radical Islamic clerics overseas."
   
4. Are the actions of the Christmas Day bomber's actions an act of terrorism? According to our government, "Yes! He was an Al-Qaeda member so he was a radical Muslim with radical Jihadi ideas and he associated with Radical Islamic clerics."
   

Finally, I have outlined the criteria which constitute a "terrorist" based on recent responses to terrorist acts committed by non-Muslims:

• Must have a beard.
  
• Must be on, or look as if to have the potential to be on, a terrorist watch list.
  
• Must pray five times a day, so when we make a movie about you, we can show you praying right before you commit said terrorist act.
  
• Must speak Arabic.
  
• Must shout "Allahu akbar" before committing said terrorist act. During the act and after the act is optional, but highly recommended.
  
• Must have a name similar to Al-X; preferably, the name should include the following:
  
  
  
  • Muhammad
    
  • Abdullah (or any variation thereof)
    
  
  
• If death to the said terrorist is inevitable, said terrorist must only speak in Arabic during the last moments prior to his or her death; this includes, but is not limited to, Islamic prayers, curses, and common phrases such as "death to America."
  

Please note: Anyone who shows hatred an anger and carries out an act of extreme violence, will not qualify as a terrorist unless he or she meets the criteria above--it does not matter how similar the act is to an official terrorist. Failing to meet these criteria will result in the following:

• A diagnosis of mental health issues, and possible transfer from the category of "aggressor" to "victim" due to any mental health issues found.
  
• Front page headlines for only one (1) day.
  

If you do meet the criteria for "terrorist" as listed above, your benefits include the following:

• You will be dubbed "radical Islamist". This will allow you to blame Allah instead of yourself for your actions.
  
• You will receive front page headlines for at least one (1) month--even if you managed to kill no one.
  
• Our president will give a speech about your act, even if it failed, and you will completely change how passengers are scanned before they board public transportation.
  
• When we see another act similar to yours, we will remember you.
  
• We will come up with all sorts of dramatic names for your actions (examples of this include "Ground Zero" and "Christmas Day Bomber.")
  
• We will use your actions to say how bad Islam is, even though inside we know better.
  
• We will claim we suffered Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder because of your actions, but we're perfectly okay with one of our guys committing the same act you did; because of this, you will be remembered forever.
  
• We will have fun saying your name for years to come.
  
• We will blame every similar act on you. In this way, you will help us ignore how distressed our people are, since you will give us a solid reason for why one of our own guys did what you did.
  
• You will give us another excuse to hate everyone who is not us. In this way, we will praise you for years.
  

Ma'a sallamah,
Munawar

Fathima Rifqa Bary: The Truth Has Prevailed; An End to the Saga?

Sallams All,
Welcome to the first post of 2010! I thought it best to start off by writing more about Fathima Rifqa Bary, especially since this saga seems to be coming to a close--finally!

While the Fathima Rifqa Bary saga has moved out of Orlando and back to Ohio, the pastors who brought her here are not off the hook. In a recent development, we find that the pastor who is based here in Orlando was fired from Global Revolution Church. If you recall, an earlier post stated that Global Revolution Church has moved. However, it turns out that the church was disbanded. According to this article from the Orlando Sentinel, Blake Lorenz was fired on September third. He lied to church officials--and to the public, an investigation found. Fathima never hitch hiked a bus; she was brought here to Orlando by the church--I have mentioned this before when I wrote a summary of an investigative report concerning this case.

The media obtained a recording of the final meeting in which Lorenz was fired, and he can be heard calling church officials devils. In fact, WFTV even published a derogatory statement he made against Muslims:

"Why lie if no crimes have been committed? Why?” a church board member asked Pastor Blake Lorenz."To protect innocent people who could be killed by Muslims, that's why," Lorenz replied.

To protect innocent people who could be killed by Muslims? What are you going to say next, Blake, "Halal means it is lawful for them to kill me?"

You can find the audio of the meeting from WFTV in their article about the case.

This is not all. Other articles from the media suggest that Blake could be charged with transporting a minor across state lines, even when advised against it by lawyers. Oops...I don't think this is what Blake signed up for. Sorry, but this is what you get when you mess with us. Who ever said the being that crushed Fir`on can't crush you? Oh yes, and didn't you say once "the truth will prevail?" I think it's finally prevailing, Blake. In fact, it's prevailing so much that Fathima "admitted to being unruly." Amazing! Fathima admits she went overboard! Alhamdulillah--I never thought I'd see this day! So much for your wishes of honor killings and anti-Islam rhetoric, Blake.

On another note, although Fathima's back in Ohio, she's in foster care and will probably remain there until she is an adult--under the consent of her parents. So they do have control of the situation now, and I'm glad they battled for it. You can find the article about foster care here.

I wonder if I'm a devil now too because of this post.

This is the latest in the Fathima case, but it may come to an end now--from Fathima's perspective anyway. The pastor seems to have a lot of face-saving to do, but I'm not concerned about that. I'm glad Fathima's at least back in Ohio--instead of with a hitherto unknown family.
Ma'a sallamah,
Munawar