I Would Die Before You Would

I am surprised many times by how much Americans believe Arabs hate them. While this belief definitely has a basis in truth, the gravity of the reality of the belief is often far-fetched, and is based on mere assumptions generally by people who listen to the media and think they now own the criteria for arguing a doctoral degree in islamic Studies.

People who believe that all Arabs hate America have two misconceptions, in general, to drive this notion.

The first misconception is that they think all Arabs are Muslims and all Muslims are Arab. A 2009 statistic shows that fifteen percent of Muslims are Arab, and while the majority of Arabs are Muslims, there are other religions in the Middle East as well.

The second misconception is that America is the most-hated entity to ever exist. I heard a lecturer state once (I do not remember his name) that if him and a Christian would go to Arabia, they would kill the lecturer first, to which I rolled my eyes until he explained the statement. Why would they kill him first? Because he is Shia. I heard this statement about four years ago.

As time passes, I see how obvious the conclusion is, and to show you exactly what I mean, I have provided an excerpt from an article I read in CNN a couple days ago.

Gunmen shot 22 passengers to death after intercepting a bus carrying Shiite pilgrims Monday night in Iraq's Anbar province, police officials said.

The bus was en route to Karbala from Damascus, Syria, and was in the al-Nukhaib area when it was stopped by gunmen, said police officials in Ramadi, the provincial capital.

Twenty-two innocent travelers were shot to death simply because of the fact that they were Shia. If you are not familiar with the Suni-Shia conflict, read my post here.

Those of you who think that Arabs only hate America because of its Western philosophy, and America is the number one enemy of the Arab Muslim world, think again.

Wait, it gets worse.

The gunmen then separated the men on the bus -- including the Syrian driver -- from the women and children. They then took the men to another location and shot them, the officials said.

Shiite pilgrims from Karbala often travel by bus to Damascus to visit the Syeda Zainab shrine.

I find it amazing how history repeats itself, over and over again. If you recall the post I did on Ashoorah (linked above,) you will remember how Yazid's army burned the tents of the women, denied the Imam's people any water, and then even took the ladies' hijab. I wonder what happened to these women, now that they, too, were separated from their men--and it also happened in relation to Karbala. So to those of you who think that America is the only target, I encourage you to rethink your philosophy. These terrorists are not just targeting your country, they're even killing fellow Muslims. Don't tell me I'm responsible for September 11, 2001, because, guess what, even Muslims died at the hands of these people.

However, it's not just from Suni to Shia. Recently, it's been going the other way too, as is evident from the same article.

Separately, in Baquba, a Sunni imam was shot and killed by gunmen Monday in the al-Gatoon area, an official with Iraq's interior ministry told CNN on condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to speak to media. Ahmed Mahmud al-Jabalawi, the imam of the al-Shuhada mosque, was on his way to the mosque for morning prayers when he was shot by gunmen who used pistols equipped with silencers, the official said.

Terrorists are even killing Muslims who will lead prayers! I do not care if he is Suni, Shia, or Wahabi / Salaf--that went way too far. How can you rightfully continue to call yourself a Muslim when you just killed someone who will recite the call to your prayer? So what if their call is a bit different from the Shia version because they do not recognize Imam Ali (S.A.) as a direct successor to Prophet Muhammad (SAWH.) In the end they are going to prayer just like you and me. I assume these latter gunmen were Shia. Who gives you the right, o Shia gunmen, to bring judgment on people that harshly? Now you are becoming like the un-Islamic Islamic Arabian courts that stone women to death even though the woman was raped, which is another, completely backwards, illogical action.

I have found lately that using the word "illogical" interchangeably with the word "Arab" is becoming easier; still, for fear of generalizing, I won't go that far, because I have met some really nice Arabs who wouldn't even dream of shooting someone, let alone picking up a gun.

At any rate, this number, twenty-two, shocks me. These were people minding their own business, doing what Shias do, and they were still killed. Do you understand now when I say even Muslims die due to terrorism? These people have so much hatred in them I don't even know where to begin--especially Salafs. If you listen to their sermons, often times that is all it is--hate. These people are kafir, those people are kafir, etc. Revolution Muslim, an organization I have written about in the past, is a prime example. These terrorists don't just hate america, they hate almost everyone. For Revolution Muslim, though, it's sad because they have some excellent thoughts and are very intellectual, and I have openly stated my agreement with them on some issues. However, they have so much hate to go along with it, including hatred towards Shia Islam, that it bars people from their message.

I dread to think what has become of the women who were left on the bus.

Does Age Really Make Us Wiser?

As I watched the commemoration of the tenth anniversary of September 11, 2001, several things crossed my mind. At the forefront of all those things was one question: what happened to us?

Ten years ago, I remember, quite distinctly, the days following 9/11. They passed in quite a flurry of events, emotions, speeches, and general confusion. This was my first introduction to terrorism. I found it hard to come to terms with the idea that someone out there has been plotting to kill me, or someone I know, or the country I love, simply for political gain. It was also the first time I had heard the name Wahabi and Taliban. Before 9/11/2001, they were completely unknown to me. Then our country went to war, a war which I supported in the beginning because it seemed like the correct thing to do. You see, I, like everyone else, wanted to get rid of the bad Muslims I had just recently heard about. As I got older, though, I realized just how much the government lied.

The lying isn't what astonished me later on in life; it was how easily Americans fell for it. I was a kid, that was one thing. Others were adults, and they still bought into it. Some of them still buy into it, to the point now where the entire airport check-in process has been changed forever, and where certain words have been, due to public opinion, disallowed altogether. In spite of all this, I seriously doubt we are any safer than we were ten years ago.

Still, as I thought about all this today--how innocent I was ten years ago, one thing stood out among the rest; how Americans came together in so many interfaith sessions taking place across the country.

I remember going to at least three of them. We had Christians invoking the name of Prophet Jesus (PBUH,) Jews invoking the name of Prophets Moses and Abraham (PBUH,) and Muslims invoking the name of Prophet Muhammad (SAWH.) We heard about Siddhartha, meditation, the Universal Being, and at the end of all this, we ALL joined hands (literally) to sing "I'm Proud To Be An American." I saw that unity come back today as people (including Muslims) announced the names of people they had lost to the Trade Center attacks, and it showed me where we should have been, and where we actually are.

In the years that followed the 9/11 attacks, we saw a dramatic shift in attitude. Suddenly, no one wanted to listen to anyone else. Suddenly, you showed me a cross, I had to show you a Quran. Suddenly, you told me your god has four arms, I had to tell you my god has no physical representation.

This gradual shift, over about two to three years, ended up escalating and getting narrower and narrower, until sights were focused purely as they are today--on Muslims. Even today, when I think back ten years ago, it is absolutely amazing how public opinion can change so quickly.

Is this change unassisted? Change in public opinion always has a basis. Either Americans start losing touch with conservative religious doctrine (which resulted in public opinion to not be so conservative about sex, as Sayed Muhammad Rizvi talks about in his book "Marriage and Morals in Islam,") or Americans change their dietary habits (as is evident by the excessive amounts of Slim-Fast spin-offs available on the market today.)

Therefore, the change in public opinion towards Muslims has to have a cause as well, and I daresay, it was not just the 9/11 attacks which caused the shift.

Unlike the other shifts in history, this one was more deliberate, and was done by people with specific agendas. In fact, it was so strong, it drove someone to kill more than seventy people in Norway. Yes, you probably know who I'm talking about now.

The shift from religions coexisting with each other to the idea that America must be deIslamized was caused by people who used 9/11 to define Islam. Essentially, if they wrote World Religion 101 textbooks, you wouldn't be able to learn about Islam unless you learned about the 9/11 attacks. People like Robert Spencer who calls himself an anti jihadist. People like Geert Wilders who wants to deIslamize the world and deport all Muslims out of America and the West. People like Pam Geller who runs Atlas Shrugs. They are like Hitler incarnated in the modern world; instead of putting us in concentration camps, they attack us on social media outlets, write strongly worded letters to pressure the government, all the while sitting in their nice, air-conditioned offices.

What the three players conveniently ignored (there has been a lot of convenient ignoring going on lately) is one critical point which completely demolishes their ideas. However, Wilders can't acknowledge it because his Freedom Party is founded on the basis that it will rid Europe of Muslims--he has political stakes in the matter. Spencer can't acknowledge it because it would crush his site, jihadwatch.org, and render the few books he has published useless--he has money in it. Geller can't acknowledge it because she runs Atlas Shrugs, a site which doubtless generates quite a bit of revenue--she has money in it. All these three are in so deep that none of them could safely turn their backs without a major financial loss, and this is why, to this day, despite the evidence clearly being against them, they keep on professing their corrupt views of Islam and keep on stirring the public to the point where, now, it is becoming violent from peaceful.

The critical piece of evidence against them is one thing: Alcohol. When Saddam was captured, it's common knowledge that the military discovered wine in his hideout. Wait, doesn't Islam forbid Alcohol?

For Osama, it was pork and pornography. He also had several mistresses (despite Islam's limit being four.)

Most recently, for Gadhafi, it was Alcohol, and very lavish living quarters, despite him claiming several times he lived modestly. Further, the Alcohol was found by rebel fighters during the month of Ramadan, when there was a country-wide ban on it.

Despite all this, the three players still claim Muslims are to blame, that Muslims blew up the Trade Centers, and that Muslims should be killed.

Over the last three years or so, I have found this hatred against Muslims has gotten more and more unfounded. People are simply angry to be angry. You say Muslim, and a bomb goes off in their heads. Yet, when you ask them, "Why are you mad?" They can't answer. Does this sound familiar? In the 1940s, a lot of the Nazi party simply followed orders. They had no idea why they hated Jews, but they hated them to hate them. Today, the very word, "Muslim," has such a negative connotation to it, even Muslims only but whisper it to each other. Others still completely conceal their identities for fear of retaliation, as if they caused the terror attacks of 9/11.

I have news for you. We attend the same universities you do, eat the same food you do, walk the same streets you do, and you may even pass ME a couple times without knowing it. We don't chuck bodies into the sea when people die, we don't spend our entire lives locked in a laboratory thinking up the next clever plan on how to take down America. All we want is to be offered the same opportunities the rest of you have.

So let me ask you this. If there was Alcohol found in Saddam's and Osama's place of residence, and there was Alcohol found in Gadhafi's place of residence, and the consumption of Alcohol is forbidden in Islam, how can these people possibly be Muslim? What, because they pray five times a day, they're Muslim? I have news for you, a WHOLE CHAPTER in the Quran is dedicated to condemning people like that, who pray but, as the Quran puts it, are heedless. Further, there is a requirement for prayer. One is not allowed to pray if he or she is "intoxicated," meaning if a person is under the influence of Alcohol, it is forbidden for them to pray.

How can you possibly call these people Muslims--if, when Prophet Muhammad started preaching, he set a very important precedence of how Jews, Christians and Muslims should coexist as a single Abrahamic faith, and no one should ever step on the sacred symbols of another person--when these people have killed innocent civilians simply because they have a difference in faith? If these were real Islamic countries, any and all faiths would be welcomed. If you look into Islamic history, you'll see that when Prophet Muhammad established his government in Madina, he didn't force anyone to convert to Islam. In fact, the constitution of the government dictated that everyone should be judged by their own books. In other words, the Bible was the judge between two Christians having a disagreement, and the Torah was the judge between two Jews. Further, verse 2:62 from the Quran even praises Christians and Jews. As if that's not enough, a chapter later on states "You shall have your religion, and I shall have mine." I won't go into the details here, since the paper I wrote back in 2009 explains it in greater details and which I have linked elsewhere on this site (probably in the previous post.)

How can you continue to call these people Muslims when Syria insisted on crushing civilians DURING THE MONTH OF RAMADAN when people were fasting?

And this is what begs the question. How can they POSSIBLY be called Muslims? Is it because of self-identification? If so, your claims against Islam have no basis, since anyone can claim to be Muslim, Christian or Jew. It's just a name. But this is not how America was supposed to be. This nation was founded on rational thinking, freedom of religion and freedom from persecution because of opinion. Today, we have gone completely backwards. The very event we condemn, the Holocaust, we are helping to bring about in the form of an Islamocaust. The very persecution we ran from and wanted freedom from, we are committing simply because a country is not a democratic nation and has no car dealerships. The worst part is, this is not how we were ten years ago.

As I watched the commemoration of the tenth anniversary of September 11, 2001, several things crossed my mind. At the forefront of all those things was one question: what happened to us?

Geert Wilders: Politician Turned Murderer

Last week, a man set off a car bomb in Oslo, Norway. Then, he took a trip to an island where a youth camp was being held, and has, as of this blog post, confirmed to have killed seventy people in total from the bombing and shooting.

What got my attention right away was my initial reaction, and the shocking details that emerged afterwards.

Most of us (including me) thought, "Another Al-Qaeda attack," or "I bet his name is Muhammad Omar Hussein Al-Jabar Al-Hakim Al-Aziz." However, his name is nothing of the sort.

Given recent attacks and the common trend over the past ten years, it's become easy for us, even as Muslims, to blame the attack immediately on Muslims. Call it instinctive reflexes, following public opinion, brainwashing, or whatever else suits you, but I guarantee you that most peoples' first reaction was the likes of what I've just described; this is the first reason why I couldn't ignore it.

I wrote that the details of the event grabbed my immediate attention as well. This is where things get really, really interesting.

First, let us imagine the typical terror plot. Muslim kills Americans and says he hates the world. Muslim blows himself up and authorities find links to terror cells. Muslim kills people in Israel, England, and America and says he hates Christians and Jews because they're infidels.

Next, we come to this event in Norway. It's the exact opposite of the typical, Muslim-hates-world plot. The media are calling Anders Behring Breivik a "right-wing Christian Extremist." Some are even calling him a "right-wing Christian Fundamentalist." Yes, you read that correctly. For the first time, an act of violence committed by a non-Muslim is being dubbed as a terror attack, and being called extremism.

Why am I making this big of a deal out of it? The answer is simple, and I'll tell you in one sentence. Anders Behring Breivik being dubbed as a terrorist and a fundamentalist shows that the world is finally coming to its senses and public opinion is changing; terrorism is no longer confined to just Al-Qaeda and so-called Muslims--it is, slowly but surely, being applied to so-called Christian terrorists (and probably so-called Jewish ones too.) In essence, the "terrorist" label is no longer confined to Muslim terrorists--the context of the word is broadening to include anyone who decides to blow something up, not just Muslims who do it. This is a big change from a year ago, when it seemed that to be a terrorist you had to have some sort of ties to Islam; whether you got it by praying five times a day or just by stepping on a prayer rug with a picture of a Mosque on it.

Now, things continue to get better. Not only is this act dubbed an act of terrorism by mainstream media, Geert Wilders has some of the blame for it.

Geert Wilders, a Dutch politician whose Freedom Party is referenced in a manifesto apparently written by Breivik, condemned the suspect's alleged actions Tuesday. Wilders said he was not "responsible for a lone idiot who twisted the freedom-loving anti-Islamization ideals" of his party.

Of course, Wilders quickly disclaims any responsibility, but any ounce of common sense will lead you to make the logical conclusion that if Wilders was referenced, Anders got his ideas partly from Wilders' ideas. In other words, Wilders, who has been responsible for spreading hatred about Islam and who leads a party whose goal is to deIslamize Denmark, is now responsible for influencing this shooting. His years of perpetual hatred, lies, fabrications and accusations has led a man to kill seventy people. Seventy innocent people died because this man, Geert Wilders, never stepped down and never listened to sane-minded people.

Therefore, on this day I liken Geert Wilders to Al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda uses perpetual hatred and demonization to get people mad at other religions, eventually pushing them so far they are willing to commit murder in the name of Islam. Geert Wilders, who demonizes Islam through his Freedom Party, pushed Anders so far he committed murder in the name of Christianity. I had a feeling this would eventually happen. Dangerous ideas are dangerous in dangerous hands; this shooting proved that. No matter how much Wilders disclaims the correlation, since he was referenced and his ideas were used, he has a part in it. Karma bites.

I must add that I have the right to make this connection, mainly because of something said to me on a forum long ago when I was debating against Wilders. I drew the distinction between Islam and Culture and said that all these killings are not condoned by Islam and are purely political. A responder said that "until Wilders starts killing people and blowing things up, you can't make a razor-thin distinction between your religion [Islam] and politics." Well, today that distinction can be made, because now Wilders, like it or not, has blood on his hands. The unfortunate part in all this is that people had to die for it to happen, and no one can ignore that. It was a huge loss to the world because these were innocent people. They had no part in the hatred, and the question that is still left unanswered is, "If you hate Muslims so much, why kill innocent people?" I don't think any of the people he killed were Muslim; as far as I know, most of them were Christians. Anders claimed to commit the murders because he wanted to stop the colonization of Muslims in Europe. These people didn't need to die, but they died anyway because of Wilders' continued hatred against Muslims and his continued brainwashing of innocent people. Well, Geert, this is the end result. Death.

Monkey Floated Away; Did the Muslims Do It?

I can hear it now. "We don't have a body because the Muslims wanted to bury him. We don't have a body because the Muslims have to bury people at sea, so we dumped his body to prevent jeering from them."

On Sunday, May 1st, 2011, the United States killed Osama Bin Laden by storming his compound, asking him to surrender, and shooting him in the head when he refused.

That's all well and good. What I find to have been quite unnecessary is attributing the dumping of his body overboard to "Muslim traditions."

I have found some things which have made me smile, and some things which have made me shake my head at the still-present ignorance of so many people. I will cover them in this post.

My question: Since when has any country had any regard for "Muslim tradition?" More importantly, if countries operate mainly for their own self interests, WHY would they have regard for Muslim tradition? And, is this even "Muslim tradition?"

My dear readers, I would like to point out something very important, and I would like you to folow me very, very closely. This is your key to understanding why this is not a celebratory post.

First, am I upset over the fact that Osama is dead? Certainly not. He has debased Islam to the point where I think our tarnished reputation is almost unrecoverable. He has killed thousands of people--even Muslims--just because him and a few of his followers were mad at the US. He has turned "Allahu akbar" in to a war cry; and, he has used the Quran to justify this. The world is finally rid of one of the most wanted terrorists who changed so many lives that even Jimmy Carter can't boast as much as Osama could.

Next, the "Muslim tradition." I have read several articles where the reporter states that Osama's body was given "proper burial procedures according to Muslim customs." Does anyone know what this REALLY means?

First, you have to bathe him (Ghusl-E-Cuffan.) Next, you have to cover his body using an ehram (unsewn, two pieces of cloth.) Next, you have to recite Sallatul-Mayyat. Next, you have to bury the body so that the head is facing East.

I find it hard to believe that this procedure took place, notwithstanding the details which I have left out, including reciting the Kalma (declaration of loyalty to Islam.)

Still, though, the media heard this and essentially ran with it, to the point now that when I hear something about Osama's body not being available, it is almost always accompanied by "because he was buried according to Muslim tradition."

This is where you should have followed me closely. If you review the outline of burial procedures above, you will notice one glaring discrepancy. Nowhere in the procedure is it required to dump the body in the sea. I'm especially stressing this because I was asked, myself, if everyone who dies that is a Muslim gets chucked into the sea. No. We bury our dead in the ground just like everyone else (well, except for Hindus and Pagans and Satanists and Atheists and sharks and ...) Seriously, this is the type of misconceptions that have already spurred from the US "following Muslim tradition."

Now, I have no idea where they buried Osama's body--deep in the ocean or at a shore. I do know he received a navy burial (as my brother explained, "That's how they bury crewmen if they die on board--it's a proper, respectful burial, the only difference is they throw the corpse overboard.") What I don't understand is how this translates to a Muslim burial.

Don't come to me saying, "Because of you guys, we have no body." I won't hear it. I've explained everything as well as I could above and I'll kindly direct you to this post. It was the military's choice to dump him, not ours. Yes, you can argue that we require bodies to be buried as soon as possible, but who would think that during this ONE incident, SUDDENLY some country has regard for our procedures?

I was fast asleep when our Navy SEALs went in to Osama's compound and killed him. Later on, I watched President Obama's speech, thanks to our digitized world and the ability to grab almost anything on-demand today. One part stood out among the usual rhetoric, emotional words, scripted gestures and political professionalism.

Bin Laden was not a Muslim leader; he was a mass murderer of Muslims. Indeed, al Qaeda has slaughtered scores of Muslims in many countries, including our own. So his demise should be welcomed by all who believe in peace and human dignity.

I have written in the past about Obama losing points because he used the terms "radical Islam" and "Islamic extremists." This quote, though, I can't pass up. It's the first time I've heard any political leader call Osama anything BUT Muslim. I'm impressed, I really am. By doing this, Obama has even made Robert Spencer and Geert Wilders look bad, because he's shown that he's better than them; that he's at least not as ignorant as I thought. I underestimated him for the two years he's been in office. Thank you Mr. President for having the guts to stand up for us even when you're surrounded by an anti-Islamic environment.

On the other hand, I have seen more misconceptions about Islam popping up. Specifically, Fareed Zakaria, a journalist who writes for Time Magazine, was interviewed. During the interview, he called the revolutions happening in the Middle East "non-Islamic, peaceful revolutions." Non-Islamic? Really? This is what you need to be "peaceful?" How come the revolutions can be called a Jihad, then? What really bothers me is that this label came directly from Fareed Zakaria, someone who I thought had his head on properly. Yet, he openly called the revolutions "non-Islamic" as if bringing Islam anywhere near the revolutions means instant radicalization. I see now why Americans are so ignorant. Because we live in a credential-based society, anyone looking at Zakaria's biography will think, "wow, he's smart," and take whatever he says as complete fact, not opinion. It looks like Obama and Zakaria's points are inversely proportional right now. Obama's points just went up for me, and Zakaria's points just dropped significantly for his, I venture to say, intentional mistake.

When I watched his interview, I remember my Physics II professor recently saying that she was reading something about compasses. She mentioned how, even though the Arabs can be credited with inventing them, the book she was reading said "maybe the Arabs were the first." Then, she talked about this for quite some time; how, even though the Arabs did make a discovery, common public opinion is to insult them and understate their work because they are all terrorists, so they were not given any credit.

Similarly, Zakaria has effectively removed any notion of Islam from these revolutions, despite there being much evidence to the contrary. I won't reiterate what I wrote in my previous post, but you can easily read it by following the provided link above.

Finally, I would like to close by stating that I am thrilled that Osama was captured and killed, that Obama actually does seem to have some intellect, but we still have a lot of work to do to rid the media of the people who will insist on stepping on Islam even during good times. Zakaria's comments basically negated any hope I had for our future. Then again, he's not alone. I have not looked at Robert Spencer's comments yet, but I doubt me visiting his site will do much good; I already know what he's saying. And one more thing I find sad is one of the commenters to the video referred to Zakaria as "brother," so I assume he is Muslim (I don't know if Zakaria is Muslim or not--names don't mean anything.) So you see how even our own Muslims have simply resigned and accepted the terms "moderate," "radical," and have also accepted that these revolutions are supposedly "non-Islamic," because calling them anything else is anti-American.

I would also like to state that my faith in our military has been renewed (even though there is a big misconception going on about the burial procedure.) The burial misconception isn't their fault, but I think instead it is the fault of the media who likes to insert its own words into things. So thank you for ridding the world of this terrorist. There is always good and bad, and lately it seems as if we've been seeing more of the good--especially since it seems as if people are now waking up and realizing that Geert Wilders, Robert Spencer, and Savage are just people who earn their livelihoods by criticizing Islam, so if nothing else--they're just earning their bread and butter.

For the Muslims, this means we no longer have a bearded monkey-like man supposedly representing us. At least if you're going to assume the throne, dress better, shave your face (don't even get me started on the beard misconception,) and stop womanizing. Has anyone else noticed that most of the time, when a terrorist is caught, they are always surrounded by a handful of women? It's never just one. It's always more than one. If you believe you're getting seventy-two virgins (don't get me started on that either,) why waste your time with earthly women and why not just wait for the much better ones God will supposedly give you? I wonder often times why Al Qaeda has so much anger, and I can't help but come to the conclusion that because of their oversized beards, angry scowls and non-commical natures, no woman would dare touch them and this is part of the reason why they're so angry. After all, sources say that one of the women Osama married was given to him as a gift. Translation: they wrapped her up, put a UPS or APS (Arab Postal Service) label on her, and shipped her off to Osama. For all we know, she could have gone against her will--which, believe it or not, is against Islam (at least the one taught by Prophet Muhammad (SAWH).)
Ma'a Sallamah,
Munawar

The Middle East: Revolution, Jihad

Sallams All,
For the past three weeks or so, we have been seeing a very interesting development in the Middle East. This development is rightly called a revolution. No--not a revolution where the Taliban tell the women they are nothing and beat them for not veiling, and keep their women inside and don't let them drive. Instead, it's quite the opposite.

In early January, Tunisia's people started protesting, which led to the eventual overthrow of their longtime president who had been ruling for over twenty years.

Shortly thereafter, Egypt followed. After two weeks of protests (most of which were peaceful,) Hosni Mubarak--the president who has been ruling thirty years--resigned and fled.

Next followed Yemen, Iraq (which wanted better living conditions,) and Palestine.

Today, we're seeing protests in Iran (most notably Bahrain.)

In essence, what I'm driving at here is an all out revolution--started by one country who was successful in overthrowing its president who had been ruling with an iron fist for years. The revolution Muslims all over the world have been waiting for. Finally, the Arabs are sick of being puppets in the game. They're sick of being pushed around when they used to be the greatest nation ever known to man, who has been responsible for translating so many books into Greek and other languages.

This revolution has begun, and I think it is long from being over. Tunisia overthrew its president because he was corrupt. Egypt overthrew its president because he ruled with a very un-Islamic oppression and he was also corrupt. Iraq is not going to overthrow its government, but it's asking the question, "If you say Democracy is better, why hasn't our standard of living improved?" They are protesting because they want better power and water services.

One thing, through all this, has out-right surprised me. None of the major media outlets have even thought of dubbing this as a jihad. Before you start shaking your head though, let me explain.

When "Jihad Jane" was arrested, CNN, Fox, and other news agencies were quick to say she wanted to commit "violent jihad." Al-Qaeda is commonly known as a jihadi organization. Islam is often called a jihadi political ideology. Yet--when there is a revolution--the word "jihad" is nowhere to be seen. Why is this?

To answer this question, we will define jihad in two contexts. Western, an Islamic.

The Western notion of jihad is attributed most often to "holy war," "terrorism" and "killing Americans." Essentially, it's everything that Geert Wilders would say.

Islam defines jihad as "struggle." This struggle is of two types--physical, and mental (called jihadun al-nafs.) I'm more concerned with the former of these two types, since it is this jihad that is the most misunderstood, and is used by people to call Islam a violent religion.

If you read through my earlier posts, you will see that from time to time, we develop this concept of jihad; this is how important it is to understanding the central philosophy in Islam. It's the one thing that, if misused, has very dangerous consequences (Al-Qaeda.)

This jihad, called "physical jihad" for lack of a better term since it has no perfect English translation, is a jihad which leads to eventual perfection, justice, and equality. These are three ideals about which Muslims are to go to arms if the need calls for it.

So how does it relate to the misinterpretation, and further to the revolution?

First, this jihad is not a "holy war." "Holy war" in Arabic is "harb muqaddata"; it is not "jihad." There is no place in the Quran where you see the words harb and muqaddata in this manner.

Second, the revolutions going on in the Middle East are for these ideals. Mubarak was kicked out because he was corrupt [jihad for perfection.] Mubarak was also kicked out because his courts were corrupt; they stole a lot of funds, ruled in Mubarak's favor, etc [justice.] Iran is protesting because of Ahmadinejad--they don't like his favoritism, and oppression of the people [equality.] Iraq is protesting because they want better living conditions [perfection.]

In other words, the revolution in the Middle East is jihad at its finest; however, because it's not violent (except for the clashes between protesters and antiriot police,) none of the propagandists can call it jihad because it doesn't fit with their manipulated definitions. That's right--they're confused. The whole ideological battle against Islam is confused. People see Arabs killing people on television, yet, about two weeks ago, Christians held a mass in Cairo's Tahrir square and a ring of Muslims formed around them to protect the Christians from being attacked. The Egyptian protests only got violent when pro-government protesters arrived; otherwise, it was a very peaceful protest.

Still, even with the revolution reaching its climax, outlets such as CNN are clinging to their threads of anti-Islamic public opinion. For instance, on several occasions they have praised Mubarak, calling him the "embattled" president as if he is a king of some rich land. They have labeled the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization even though it is nothing of the sort. Despite all this, the revolutions are continuing. Slowly but surely there is change being brought about in the Middle East--whether it's calling an end to economic termoil (Egypt,) better living conditions (Iraq,) end to oppressive rule (Tunisia, Egypt, Iran,) or a call for more rights as a state (Palestine)--it's happening, and it's something that's so overdue, a lot of us are having trouble coming to terms with the fact that it's actually happening.

Another thing I have noticed is that these revolutions are being started because people are tired of these dictators coming in, claiming to be Muslim, and then doing the opposite of what Islam advises. They're tired of the dictators using the religion for their own gains, and they're especially sick of all the oppression the dictators are doing in the name of Islam. This is another reason why the revolutions are so powerful. This isn't a revolution about "modernizing" a "legacy" state--it's about going back to the roots. It's about making Arabs what they once were until people like Ahmadinejad took over. I think this is why the revolution has been successful so far. It's not a corrupt revolution for personal gain. It's about collective perfection, justice, and end of oppression. It's not about secularization--it's about having Islam coexist with the rule instead of being used as a spiked hammer. This is what the people are fighting for, and so far, they have been completely successful. If you were confused about my explanations of jihad, look at this revolution and you will see jihad (the real jihad) taking shape in front of you.