"This is Snake": Another Radical Wahabi Fundamentalist Islamist Is down

In my last post, I wrote about how we need to realize just how much our government is actively doing to keep us safe. In this latest incident, the FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation) tracked a man from Bangladesh who had come to the U.S. to blow up a federal building. This attack was to be carried out, of all places, in New York.

The 21-year-old suspect, Quazi Mohammad Rezwanul Ahsan Nafis, attempted to detonate what he thought was a 1,000-pound bomb in front of the Fed building on Liberty Street, but the device was a fake supplied to him by undercover FBI agents who had been tracking his activity, the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force said Wednesday afternoon.

I've never seen someone with five parts of names before. I wonder when a terrorist will just call himself John Doe, since he'll be one of millions who will blow themselves up.

Nafis apparently came to the U.S. on a student visa to attend university. What a way to put the spotlight on Bangladeshi people now, Nafis.

He was also starting to recruit people to form a terrorist cell, and had links to Al-Qaeda. In other words, they were planning to attack us from inside again, but they weren't able to because of our government's excellent counter-terrorism division.

As a Muslim I'm glad he was tagged when he arrived and a deadly attack was thwarted. The last thing we need is another of these radical Salaf / Wahabi people killing innocent Americans because they're jealous that they can't run their country correctly and we can run ours really well. I've always wanted to say this: "Go suck it, Al-Qaeda, we've gotten smarter than you. Game over."

Al-Qaeda, We Can See What You're Hiding Down There: Go Crotchless

It is human nature to focus on negative or undesirable consequences of an event. So often, especially as Americans, we complain about the state of affairs and how nothing the government is doing is helping us.

Take the Arab Spring, for instance. On the one hand the Muslim Brotherhood, a radical organization, has taken power. On the other hand (the often overlooked one) Egypt is slowly but surely stabalizing.

Today, in the Age of Information, we have come to expect immediate results, and have become less accepting to letting history take its course. Instead of allowing General Motors to file bankrupcy and fail which would have forced the company to restructure, our president authorized a bailout of the company, later using "General Motors is alive" as his misguided campaign slogan. Prominent Capitalists, including Mitt Romney, were against this approach because, in the words of Nassim Taleb, big, sloppy businesses failing will make other businesses stronger, assuming the businesses are not dependent on each other. In other words, Capitalism should be allowed to run its course--except, of course, in case where not rescuing a business will have catastrophic consequences (E.G. banks.)

The same philosophy applies to Egypt. For a government to evolve it takes time, but every so often we see an outburst of anger from the West when something goes on in Egypt that appears to move the country away from progress.

In fact, we are so used to jumping up and down over "the Middle East is this" and "those radical jihadists need to die" that we fail to realize how much our government is doing back home to keep us safe.

A new key detail has emerged in the foiled underwear bomb plot: NPR's Dina Temple-Raston reports that a CIA informant posed as a suicide bomber in order to persuade the al-Qaida branch in Yemen to hand over a new, more sophisticated underwear bomb.

The operation was a joint effort between the CIA and Saudi Arabian intelligence and once the informant received the bomb, he "arranged to deliver the explosive device to U.S. and other intelligence authorities waiting in another country, officials said Tuesday."

Officials have said that the bomber had been instructed by al-Qaida to choose a U.S.-bound flight to target but that the bomber, who we now know was a double agent, had not yet bought his tickets.

Because of the Christmas Day bomber, the CIA got smarter and infiltrated Al-Qaeda's ranks even deeper than they already had. They managed to stop another attempted airplane bombing. This is an example of a success story where possibly hundreds of people who were boarding a plane were saved because of the CIA's work.

Notice also that this was a "joint effort" with, of all places, Saudi Arabia. I don't know if they're cooperating because they are stakeholders in the U.S. economy or if they genuinely want to stop terrorists; nonetheless, I was glad to see that they actually do work with the CIA.

Next time you feel like security measures put in place aren't helping, think of this story. It definitely changed my mind.

NYPD Conspires Against Muslims

The phrase "conspiracy theorist" is widely used in the U.S. today. Usually, people who are dubbed conspiracy theorists are seen as insane, "off the rocker," "thinking too much," or "making a big deal out of nothing." One of the big ones that comes to mind are the 9/11 conspiracy theorists.

The 9/11 conspiracy theorists argue that the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 were spearheaded by the U.S. government to provide a populus justification for waging war on Iraq. They even go far enough to argue that Bush Junior carried out the 9/11 attacks under his father's direction so that his father can get revenge for and attain closure with Desert Storm.

These theories have been dismissed by quite a few people simply because they are just that--theories. Further, they have been disproved time and again by various credible sources including INDEPENDENT investigation teams.

Another theory that popped up after the attacks was mainly circulated among Muslims. This theory asserts that the government is plotting against Muslims because they fear Islam. At first, I scoffed at it. Recently, though, this has changed.

I was given an article by a friend of mine that talks about informants planted to purposely make Muslims say things that will get them flagged as threats. But wait, why not other people? Simply because this only works with Muslims. You can't take a White man who doesn't even remotely look Arab and get him talking about "violent jihad" and expect people to take him seriously.

This case deals with the NYPD (New York Police Department.)

A paid informant for the New York Police Department's intelligence unit was under orders to "bait" Muslims into saying inflammatory things as he lived a double life, snapping pictures inside mosques and collecting the names of innocent people attending study groups on Islam, he told The Associated Press.

Shamiur Rahman, a 19-year-old American of Bangladeshi descent who has now denounced his work as an informant, said police told him to embrace a strategy called "create and capture." He said it involved creating a conversation about jihad or terrorism, then capturing the response to send to the NYPD. For his work, he earned as much as $1,000 a month and goodwill from the police after a string of minor marijuana arrests.

Before you start the "well anyone can say that" argument, let me point out that this is from the Associated Press, so it lends itself some credibility.

I appreciate that Rahman actually came forward and disclosed what he did. I have a lot of respect for him for doing that. It must have been nerve-wracking, to know that what is actually going on in the local government and that his life could be at stake for whistle blowing.

"We need you to pretend to be one of them," Rahman recalled the police telling him. "It's street theater."

Rahman said he now believes his work as an informant against Muslims in New York was "detrimental to the Constitution." After he disclosed to friends details about his work for the police — and after he told the police that he had been contacted by the AP — he stopped receiving text messages from his NYPD handler, "Steve," and his handler's NYPD phone number was disconnected.

Yes, you read that correctly. They actually tasked him with "being one of THEM." The operation is so undercover that he is not even told the name of his "handler."

Informants ... are a central component of the NYPD's wide-ranging programs to monitor life in Muslim neighborhoods since the 2001 terrorist attacks. Police officers have eavesdropped inside Muslim businesses, trained video cameras on mosques and collected license plates of worshippers. Informants who trawl the mosques ... tell police what the imam says at sermons and provide police lists of attendees, even when there's no evidence they committed a crime.

Let me break this down for you. Since September 11, 2001, NYPD (and probably other law-enforcement departments as well) are planting actors inside Muslim communities. These actors have a simple mission objective: to put these Muslims in a spot where they will say something that can potentially be viewed as a threat, or they will use words that will raise alarms. For instance, if I say "I'm going to commit radical jihad," it is different from "I don't like radical Arabs." However, to the NYPD they are one and the same. I used the word "radical" so I must be "one of THEM."

Further, the NYPD will be quick to deny these allegations (of course, "don't mess with our surveillance--we're 'keeping Americans safe.'") That's what disgusts me about this incident. In the name of security, the government is quite literally spying on us and finding any excuse to drag us away. I've often joked with my friends that I'm probably on a watch list for keeping this blog and being open about my religious identity. The article brings this to reality, to where it's no longer a laughing matter. Apparently, going to a Mosque or Islamic center is also an act of terrorism. Thank you Taliban and Hamas for storing your bases under Muslim places of worship, and thank you Americans for being so ignorant and uneducated that you think they represent all of us. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this how the roundup of Japanese-Americans started after Pearl Harbor?

Anti-Islam Ads

Gathering support for a lost cause is often a challenging task. Usually, people tend to be smart enough to recognize a lie when they see or hear it. Today, a lot of people understand that Islam is nothing like the violent, demonic religion propagandists have made it out to be in order to swing public opinion in support of the war effort. This is why people like Pamela Geller are now turning to more aggressive means of spreading their propaganda, as if to wave their hands in the air and say "Hey! Remember me? Remember me? I'm still here. Remember..."

The anti-Islam propaganda campaign has turned to buying advertisement space on subways in Washington D.C. Imagine that. People no longer believe the anti-Islam rhetoric, so Pam Geller will start pushing her ideas onto a new group of people.

An anti-jihad ad that has caused a stir in other cities now has another destination for its message: the subways of Washington.

The ad by the American Freedom Defense Initiative states, “In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Support Israel. Defeat Jihad.”

If this was an actual government organization, we'd be in the full swing of the Islamocaust by now. But of course this is an independent organization so no one can stop them.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations, which is working with the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee and Jewish Voice for Peace, knows it can’t get the ads removed. Instead, the groups want the D.C. transit officials to help reduce the negative impact of the posters.

“With respect to your response in this matter, it is not our desire that (the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority) disallow advertisements that contain any political speech,” the Council on American-Islamic Relations said in a statement. “I do believe there are measures WMATA can take to mitigate the affect hate speech has on the community.”

These measures include working with organizations representing affected Muslim and Arab communities, placing disclaimers to show that the transit authority does not support the views of the ads, and providing free space for advertisements focused on promoting, understanding and tolerance, the Islamic group says.

I like CAIR's approach. They're actually working with other organizations to counter the ads, not shouting "Jihad!" and blowing people up. Ironically, anti-Islam propagandists will still point to the Middle East and use the Arab definition of Islam instead of CAIR's definition so that they can further their agenda of ethnic cleansing.

“The counter-ads are fine from a free speech standpoint,” Geller said. “But where were these groups countering ‘hate’ when the Fogel family was murdered in Israel? Or when the Chabad house was targeted for a bloody jihad attack in Mumbai? Or when Christians are persecuted on an increasingly frequent and violent basis in Egypt, Pakistan, Indonesia and elsewhere?”

Geller, where were you when Israel killed Rachel Corrie? Where were you when a non-Muslim plotted to blow up forty-eight churches in the United States? Where were you when Anders Breivik killed over seventy people because he hated Muslims? If you want to use that argument against us, I can bring a lot more evidence forward to show you that these same people you are supporting are guilty of acts of terrorism just as bad as Arab terrorist groups, so your argument actually has no ground.

Authorities in Oklahoma have arrested and charged a 23-year-old man who they say planned to blow up 48 area churches.

Gregory Arthur Weiler II was arrested last week at a motel in Miami, Oklahoma, according to Ben Loring, first assistant district attorney for Ottawa County.

Authorities were tipped off to the plot by workers at the motel about 90 miles northeast of Tulsa. One discovered a duffel bag full of Molotov cocktails near the outside trash, while a room service employee reported suspicious items in Weiler's room, said Loring.

How conveniently these people ignore these other incidents! Instead of the foiled plan to blow up FORTY-EIGHT churches, another terrorist in New York, who has an Arab name, gets all the media attention for attempting to blow up a government building with ONE bomb.

Federal authorities running a sting operation arrested a 21-year-old Bangladeshi man, who came to the U.S. on a student visa and was allegedly planning to blow up the Federal Reserve Bank of New York with what he believed was a 1,000-pound bomb, officials said.

Quazi Mohammad Rezwanul Ahsan Nafis was detained Wednesday after an alleged attempt to detonate the device, which was inert and part of an elaborate investigation by federal authorities and NYPD detectives.

Prosecutors say Nafis was apparently motivated by al Qaeda and traveled to the United States in January under the pretext of attending college in Missouri in order [to] carry out "a terrorist attack on U.S. soil" and to recruit members to form a terrorist cell.

It's not clear whether Nafis maintained al Qaeda ties, but authorities say he apparently claimed that the plot was his own, and that it was his sole motivation for the U.S. trip.

Practically everyone has heard of this latest attempt to blow up a government building, but almost no one has heard of the other man's plot. Sound familiar? This is an example of the clear bias in media coverage as well as public opinion. Pam Geller will ever so elegantly turn a blind eye to the attempted church bombings and point at one single Arab to call Islam a terrorist's religion, when she's hesitant to call Israel's government terrorism as well for killing Corie and then disclaiming all accountability.

The good news is, it is becoming clear that Geller's message is starting to fall on deaf ears thanks to CAIR and Muslims in the United States no longer hiding behind shuttered blinds. If she has to go as far as posting ads on subways denouncing Islam, then her message is indeed in a very dire state.

Protesting the Protests: Don't Shoot, I'm Innocent

There used to be one significance about the date September 11th--the day when Wahabi terrorists flew planes into the World Trade Centers and killed over 3,000 people. Since then, a lot of us have laughed or rolled our eyes at the U.S. government when threat alerts go up on the anniversary of the terrorist attacks. We argue that no one would be dumb enough to attack a U.S. government compound on this date again for as long as the United States is around.

This idea has been realized by the terrorists, and this year, 2012, they took advantage of it.

It started out as a peaceful protest in the Middle East against a video released which mocks Prophet Muhammad (SAWH.) However, the protest quickly evolved when the Muslim Brotherhood got involved. While there wasn't much destruction even then, terrorists used the protest as an excuse to attack the U.S. embassy in Benghazi, Libya. I have remained quiet on these protests and attacks so far since the facts are still coming in and, unlike Hillary Clinton, I didn't want to make any preemptive judgments.

The attack on the embassy killed the U.S. ambassador to Libya, causing both presidential nominee Mitt Romney and President Obama to give speeches condemning the attacks along with their usual political rhetoric. Both president and presidential candidate used the opportunity to make political moves against the other side, which wasn't taken lightly by Americans.

(The U.S. embassy in Egypt) said in a statement that it "condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims -- as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions."

"Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy," the statement said. "We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others."

The embassy statement set off a political spat back in the United States after the Republican presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, criticized its message and linked it to his opponent for the White House.

"It's disgraceful that the Obama Administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks," Romney said in a statement released late Tuesday.

...

"We are shocked that, at a time when the United States of America is confronting the tragic death of one of our diplomatic officers in Libya, Governor Romney would choose to launch a political attack," Ben LaBolt, an Obama campaign spokesman said in an email.

Hillary Clinton quite literally condemned Libyans in the hours following the attack, saying that the U.S. helped Libya and that it was a disgrace to kill the U.S. ambassador. I knew we'd hear something like that eventually, now that Libya is tied with assistance-debt and obligation to the U.S. for helping.

After Hillary burned a critical bridge with Libya, evidence came out that the attack on the embassy was, in fact, a terrorist attack and not part of the protests. U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said in this article that it was clear that those "were terrorists who planned that attack." However, by this time it's already too late for Hillary to take back what she said right after the attack. Libyans have already been shown her arrogance, and I doubt they will take her as credible again for rushing to judgment so quickly.

Even so, the current administration still tried to save face when the evidence was released.

Panetta's comments are the most definitive to date by an administration official that the Benghazi assault was planned. The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice said on September 16th that the attack "began spontaneously" as a protest against an anti-Muslim film that "spun" from there.

In other words, they finally gave in and admitted that the script they gave Hillary was "jumping the gun." It was an "oops" moment for the administration.

Last week, testifying to Congress, the director of the National Counterterrorism Center said, at that point, there was no indication of "significant" plotting.

"What we don't have at this point is specific intelligence that there was a significant advanced planning or coordination for this attack," Matt Olsen said.

You can see here that at the time Hillary condemned Libya, the investigation was still preliminary. Passing judgment like that was uncalled for and very disappointing. If I was a Libyan, I would not have taken it lightly at all.

The attackers had rocket launchers and were heavily armed. They knew exactly what they were doing, so even initial reports coming from the area pointed to the fact that these people were prepared, and used the protests as a cover-up. Still, to further our agenda of making Muslims look like terrorists to keep the support of international war crimes up, the administration will blame the attack on all of Libya, when it actually wasn't Libya at all.

I came across an article that talks about LIBYANS carrying the ambassador to a hospital. Ever wonder who transported him? It wasn't his faithful Americans who, among heightened tensions in the Middle East, slashed the military's budget, leaving the consulate unsecured.

The chaos is palpable, as a throng of Libyans frantically scramble outside a damaged building. Suddenly, a man's body is carried from inside toward an open window -- and the frenzy and sounds become even more urgent, more emotional.

"Get him out!" some yell.

After joyfully discovering the man -- a foreigner, apparently, a voice in the crowd says -- is alive after he's dragged out, fresh screams ring out.

"Allahu Akbar," which translates from Arabic to "God is great," men in the crowd shout. Others raise fists to the sky, seemingly rejoicing that this man has somehow survived.

So Allahu akbar doesn't mean "we're going to kill you and your family" anymore? I like how CNN only provides the translation when they're forced to, since their readers are now asking "but wait, didn't you say this was a war cry? Why are they shouting a war cry and celebrating when he's alive?" Then CNN sighs and says "We lied." I'm not surprised.

At any rate, if you watch the video you will see the celebration. How happy Libyans are that they saved the U.S. ambassador. These are the people Hillary condemned. Unfortunately, the ambassador died from smoke inhalation later on, but he clearly wasn't purposely killed by Libyans. The terrorists got the last laugh because they succeeded in their mission, but Libyans actually tried to thwart the terrorists' efforts. Shouldn't they get credit for that? Yes? So why didn't I hear Hillary apologize for condemning them and then thanking them for trying to save a U.S. diplomat? Because the administration doesn't work that way. We're quick to condemn, but not quick to thank. Think of people you know who are like that. Have you ever done something for someone and they give you hell instead of thanking you? What are your impressions of that person? Now consider this situation from Libya's perspective.

Today, it's common knowledge that one of the best ways to start protests in the Middle East and anger Muslims abroad is to mock their prophet. Despite credible evidence against claims such as Muhammad being a womanizer, mad man, or murderer, anti-Islam rhetoric continues especially in the U.S. where several groups and individuals use such propaganda to swing the public opinion towards favoring demolishing the Middle East. Politicians such as Geert Wilders and Adam Hasner are also guilty of this as well, so we can't argue the government is innocent in any way.

If we know that these claims against Prophet Muhammad are false, and that making a video about them like Geert Wilders' video "Fitna" will cause unrest, yet we do it anyway, what could our reasoning possibly be? Only one thing comes to mind--the video was purposely put online and circulated to cause the unrest. Once again, anti-Islam activists have blood on their hands, and those involved can join Geert Wilders.

Posted in July on YouTube, (the video) got more notice recently after Egyptian television aired segments and anti-Islam activists promoted it online. Numerous questions surround the film, which includes cartoonish scenes of Mohammed as a womanizer, child molester and ruthless killer.

According to a FBI/Homeland Security joint statement, the film's producer identified himself to news media as an Israeli -- an assertion Israel's government denies -- and falsely claimed the movie was financed with help from more than 100 Jewish donors.

He releases a video, and further claims it was funded by Jewish donors. Why would he do such a thing? The only logical answer to this question is that he is familiar with Arab-Israel tensions and knows that if he injects this false claim into the production, it will help add fuel to the fire. Then, he will be able to point to the Arabs and claim "See how they are? I was right!"

I find it odd that this man can inject a false claim into his production efforts and Islam haters still believe the words that come out of his mouth; it shows how ignorant these groups, individuals and politicians promoting anti-Islam propaganda are.

Wait, his debasement doesn't stop there.

While he'd been identified in July 2011 by various names, including Sam Bassiel, federal officials now say they believe the filmmaker's name is Nakoula Basseley Nakoula. He was convicted in 2009 of bank fraud, with the indictment from the U.S. Attorney's Office listing seven aliases.

A criminal made a low-quality film spreading lies about Prophet Muhammad and people actually believe him?

A production staffer said he believed the filmmaker was a Coptic Christian who also went by the name Abenob Nakoula Bassely.

Even his own team doesn't know who he really is. Still, anti-Islam propagandists don't care about any of that; to them the content is just as credible. Then again, we can't expect anything more from them if they already believe Geert Wilders' claims and say that everyone who argues against Wilders is going on their own assumptions and has no evidence, despite the contrary.

The anti-Islam propagandists will also ignore the peaceful protests, or Muslims denouncing the protests.

"These protests are a bad image for Egypt," said a Cairo street vendor named Ahmed. "Of course I'm against insulting Islam, but it's the undereducated, poor people who are out here causing problems."

"All I want for Egypt is security and stability," he said. "And as you can see this isn't it."

Still, to the anti-Islam activists, it's "all Muslims are terrorists."

Sometimes, the way God does things leaves me speechless. Remember the Fathima Bary case where eventually the teenage girl was found to be full of lies and Global Revolution church was disbanded because of the evidence leveled against them? Now the evidence is coming out that Mr. Video Creator--whatever his name is--is actually a criminal who just wanted a good laugh.

As more questions are being answered, we recently found that there was an extremist Coptic church in California that was responsible for the film. Further, Terry Jones, the man responsible for "International Burn the Quran Day" was directly involved in the film's production. Coptic Christians and Egyptians have been at odds going back generations, and even more since the Muslim Brotherhood took power in Egypt after the Arab Spring revolution.

In addition to the film's producer being a criminal, evidence is mounting against the legitimacy of the film. Several actors have claimed they were lied to and had been given a script that was portrayed as anything but debasing Prophet Muhammad. As Fox reports:

In a statement issued to multiple outlets from the film’s cast and crew, they said (they) were “shocked by the drastic re-writes of the script and lies that were told to all involved.” No specific representative was named in the statement, however. Most of the dialogue that relates to Islam or religion in the trailer looks like it was overdubbed in post-production, with many suggesting that the dialogue was translated with words (from) something completely different to lines delivered.

One of the film’s actors, Cindy Lee Garcia, 43, from Bakersfield, Calif., who had a small role as a woman who’s daughter is given to Muhammad to marry, said in multiple interviews that she had no idea she was involved in such an offensive movie, and that (she) was simply given a script entitled “Desert Warriors.” Garcia also said that her lines were changed to be far more inflammatory in post-production.

Another unnamed actress reportedly claimed that the original script did not contain a Prophet Muhammad character, but rather a man named “George,” and several actors reportedly complained that their lines were altered.

Also, the producer's original claim that the movie cost $5,000,000.00 to develop has been called into question.

The supposedly two-hour feature is said to have cost $5 million to make, with “mom and pop” donations coming in from across the world, although many are scratching their heads with regards to how the clearly unprofessional, no-name and no production value film – as projected by the 13-minute trailer – could possibly have cost that much.

“There is absolutely no way that film could have cost five million,” one independent film producer told FoxNews.com. “More likely, five dollars… It looks like a hoax.”

The article also claims that the movie was produced under a fictitious company name, and that there was no permit given for large-scale release although an early version was shown in Vine Theater, and "fewer than ten seats in the theater were filled."

Can any smart person still believe the video's content after it was made in such a way?

As we've denounced the filmmakers and those who believe it on the anti-Muslim side, the same applies to people who protest the film. If you're foundation in Islam is so weak that one video created in low quality by a criminal makes you so mad you go and burn your country and condemn the U.S., I don't know what to tell you.

Many of them (the protesters) directed their anger, too, at the U.S. government and its Israeli allies. In Cairo, for instance, a photo showed a man standing over chalk-writing, in Arabic, that read, "Remember your black day 11 September."

The man mentioned in the quote is perfectly okay with standing for prayers and saying "Keep me on the straight path. ... The path of those whom you have blessed" (Quran surah 1), yet he condemns an entire nation and indirectly threatens to wipe out an entire people over a damn video which is false in the first place. Where are this man's priorities, and where are the priorities of the rest of the violent protesters? If one video makes you kill someone without even blinking an eye, I venture to say that you have no idea what religion's prophet you are "fighting jihad for." The only people who had it right were the Libyans who tried to save an innocent American, and the peaceful protesters who wouldn't dream of taking a life or burning down their own country which is trying to make a future for itself after it went through the Arab Spring and removed Hosni from power. Islam is larger than one criminal's video and Terry Jones' burning of the Quran. These anti-Islamic acts are no excuse to go kill an innocent person when that person probably knows more about your religion than you do. It seems like the only thing these violent protesters are good at is releasing a fatwa. Ask them about the philosophical nature about Islam or how Islam has given you inner peace or what Islam says about the blessed Prophet Jesus or what Islam says about the Abrahamic roots and you will leave them stumbling for words. This is the problem with Muslims today. We're shallow-minded when we hold the answer to one of the greatest religions to ever exist, but we throw it all away because someone released a video about the Prophet.

Did the video change anything? Did anyone who knows the real Islam believe it? No. The only people who even considered its contents to be factual already hate Islam, since no smart person would believe such a blatant fabrication, especially after evidence was released about the producers.

Last term, I took a course at university called "Islamic Thought and Culture" and the professor asked each of us why we were in his course. Several people said that Terry Jones was burning Qurans and talking trash about Islam, so they wanted to find out what Islam really was instead of what Jones was saying about it. O yes, I forgot to mention, my Arab kill-Americans-over-a-video friends! The people who took the course to get the real side of Islam WERE AMERICANS. So if you're a Muslim and whether you're American or Arab and if you support the September 11th, 2001 terrorist attacks, you're horribly misguided and you need to step out of your protective bubble.

Small and large demonstrations have occurred in recent days all around North Africa and the Middle East. While some protesters say they have not seen any of the online film, they were incensed by reports of its depiction of the Prophet Mohammed.

These are the types of people we are dealing with. Of course, your extremist fundamentalist violent jihadist terrorist media will purposely keep the facts away from you. Essentially, a lot of these people protesting don't even know really what happened and they are so ignorant that one report by state-run media will get them going. The media probably ignored the fact that the group creating the video has criminal ties. All they mentioned is that the group is Coptic, when the Egyptian Coptic Christians had nothing to do with the film and were living with Muslims as brothers before the protests started.

I'm disgusted by the stupidity of these Muslims. Haven't you heard about the murder of Imam Ali (A.S) when the man stabbed him with the sword and he was dying, how he told the guards who had captured his killer before he died that they should give the murderer milk because he saw the murderer was thirsty? Further, when they asked Ali what they should do with the man, he told them that the man should be struck with the sword just as he struck Ali, but not to hurt him (give him a light blow and minus the poison so as not to kill him) and let him go. By contrast, the Muslim protesters will kill people who haven't even touched them, and are with them in condemning the video.

These are also the same people who will torture prisoners of war when Prophet Muhammad always treated prisoners well and condemned torturing them. He made sure their women were also taken care of while the men were held prisoner lest someone takes advantage of the women, and when he conquered Mecca he didn't kill any of the civilians; in fact, he brought more just laws to the land.

These protesters, during the Arab Spring, have been known to torture people who were on the side of the opposition. During the U.S.-led wars, they would capture American JOURNALISTS (not even military personnel) and behead them, when their Prophet wouldn't even let his people so much as strike prisoners of war, let alone kill journalists. Look at how they err!

But of course, these Muslims don't know the real Islam. From birth they've been conditioned to take America as the common enemy and support September 11th, 2001 because they've been told that America was attacked and are never told (or don't care because they are heartless) that innocent people died--including Muslims. In fact, some of them are so heartless they'll turn an innocent kid into a suicide bomber and make him blow himself up amongst a bunch of other innocent kids. I'd like to take you inside a hospital and introduce you to one of the kids injured in the blast.

Recovering in one of the wards is 17-year-old Naweed Tanha. He was badly injured on September 8 when a teenage suicide bomber blew himself up outside ISAF Headquarters in Kabul. It was the 55th suicide bombing in Afghanistan this year. "We were all selling bracelets in that place," explains Naweed, quietly sitting on a bench outside, happy to get out of the crammed hospital ward. His right hand is thickly bandaged after the explosion tore a chunk off his palm. His legs and back were also badly injured after being flung ten meters by the force of the blast.

You're suicide bombing your own countrymen? Why? Who in their right minds would do such a thing?

"I was with my friends -- we're all poor, innocent people. I was a few meters away getting some water from the nearby water hand pump and as I was returning the bang happened," Naweed says.

"By the time I opened my eyes I saw myself injured and saw bodies of my other friends laying on the ground. I started crying and running towards them when police stopped me. They put me in a car and brought me here to the hospital. "

Killing adults, people you hate, military personnel, and government officials is one thing; killing an innocent child is quite another thing. This is the part Western media and propagandists leave out when they start their anti-Islam rhetoric--that even Muslims are a victim of terrorism. So is it logical for a religion that supposedly promotes violence to kill someone who supposedly promotes violence?

Four were killed in the blast, including 14-year-old Khorshid Hawa and her 10-year-old sister Parwana. "I am so upset for losing my friends," says Naweed, his eyes dark, his pupils bloodshot from crying. But he has no more tears to shed -- just hurt and anger oozes from his body. "What kind of people would do this? Why are they continuing to do this? It is ruining our country and our future."

Yes, they are, unfortunately, ruining your future. These terrorists won't let you progress, and now they're getting so desperate they took a kid who would have been part of your future and brainwashed him. They are now using child soldiers against child soldiers, and yet they're perfectly ok with claiming to follow Prophet Muhammad. Did Muhammad tell you to go kill kids? On the contrary, he was always making better lives for orphaned kids, to the point where a narration from him says to not even hug your child in front of an orphan kid so you don't entice sadness in the orphan's heart. This is the type of man the Prophet was, and yet his people have gone so astray.

Observe the anger in Naweed's statements. He's not mad at the U.S., he's mad at the terrorists. So those of you who think these terrorists are Muslim, think of Naweed the next time you find yourselves nodding at something Wilders or Spencer say.

A Modern-Day Martyr

Blind love is dangerous. Everyone knows that. It is often the cause for problems later on because one partner refuses to believe the other was not good for him or her. This is despite friends repeatedly telling the soon-to-be victim to get out of the relationship because they are looking at it from the outside in and can see things more clearly that the person actually involved in the relationship.

Often times, when we hear of partners being shot to death by a stalker who used to be intimately involved with the victim, we ask ourselves "What made them come together in the first place?" We shake our heads at the stupidity of some people to not be able to foresee a brewing explosion.

One of the biggest victims existing today is the United States. George Washington had given us a very profound piece of knowledge when he told us not to get involved in "entangling alliances." The United States' relationship with Israel is just that--the very thing Washington was against.

Our alliance with Israel has become so muddled that even when Israel commits a criminal act, we have to keep our mouths shut. The story talks about Rachel Corrie, an activist who was against Israel bulldozing Palestinian houses in Gaza. She was killed by one of the demolitions, and nine years later Israel has acquitted all persons involved in her death.

Nine years after an American activist was crushed by an Israeli army bulldozer, an Israeli civil court ruled Tuesday that Rachel Corrie's death was an accident.

Corrie, 23, was killed in 2003 while trying to block the bulldozer from razing Palestinian homes.

Her parents filed suit against Israel's Ministry of Defense in a quest for accountability and sought just $1 in damages. But Judge Oded Gershon ruled Tuesday that the family has no right to damages, backing an earlier Israeli investigation that cleared any soldier of wrongdoing.

A twenty-three-year-old was killed by Israeli forces and Israel's own government says this is all well and good. Still, they have U.S. aircraft landed there and have a U.S. backed military. Consider, for one moment, if Iran, Iraq, or Pakistan did something similar. First, Obama would surely be on the microphone in an instant condemning the acts and saying that these countries should be neutralized or disarmed. Next, Robert Spencer and Geert Wilders would be releasing blog post after blog post mocking Islam and calling these acts proof that Islam loves killing people, not to mention women. These posts would somehow lead into proof that because Arab countries killed a woman, Islam hates women and it advocates for their oppression. These posts would have the words Shariah, Jihadist, and Islamist scattered throughout.

Yet when Israel commits murder, it's quiet. In fact, I didn't even see this article about Corrie on the front page of CNN; I had to search for it, and I read the news headlines almost daily. I got wind of this incident from Facebook... Go figure. So the article was probably on the front page for a very short while, unlike its radical jihadist Islamist extremist counterpart.

The family sought only $1.00 in damages. Imagine that. Just one whole dollar, and Israel still didn't give them the respect they deserve. I would love to meet this family because I know now what type of people they are. They didn't go after the money; they wanted, as they put it, "accountability"--nothing more.

"The more we found out, the more likely that the killing was intentional, or at least incredibly reckless," father Craig Corrie said in 2010. "As a former soldier, I was even in charge of bulldozers in Vietnam. ... You're responsible to know what's in front of that blade, and I believe that they did."

Craig Corrie said the soldiers, too, are victims. He does not view them with disdain.

"So I'm not full of hatred for this person, but it was a horrendous act to kill my daughter, and I hope he understands that."

This man, whose daughter was killed by Israelis, holds no hatred for the people responsible. Still, Israel couldn't do him justice. The worst type of person is one who strikes good people; all major religions condemn this sort of violence. What would Prophet Moses say about this?

These people call themselves Jews. Excuse me, but your definition of Jewish is certainly not what the Abrahamic religions teach. If you were Jewish, you wouldn't be able to sleep at night knowing that you were, at least indirectly, responsible for the death of a young woman who, might I add, was involved in NONVIOLENT protests. You're just like Iran now, the very country with whom you want to war to "protect human rights." Yeah...right.

Rachel Corrie died protecting Palestinians in a time when the world hates them. She saw through all the propaganda promoted by both the U.S. and Israel, claiming that Palestine is nothing but a terrorist's country. She died while saving Muslims who have been victimized throughout history, and I hope the world never forgets her.

The Islamocaust Continues

For a long time now, I've been using the word Islamocaust to describe the current state of affairs concerning Muslims. From the day a cab driver was stabbed in New York for being Muslim, to the Park 51 controversy, from Geert Wilders' assault on Muslims to Adam Hasner's Free Speech Summit, the evidence is mounting in favor of the Islamocaust.

This latest incident further confirms the idea that Muslims are headed towards a dangerous period in time, a danger which Al-Assad's murder of Syrian civilians during Ramadhan is doing nothing to prevent.

A mosque in Joplin, Missouri, was burned to the ground early Monday [August 6th, 2012], just over a month after an attempted arson at the Islamic center, officials said.

Authorities are investigating the cause of the latest fire. The mosque's security cameras were destroyed in the blaze, according to Sharon Rhine of the Jasper County Sheriff's Office.

We are all familiar with the Holocaust of the 1940's. In American History courses, the Holocaust is, often times, a central theme for the entire course. We are taught about the mass murder of Jews and what methods were used to kill them (with none of the graphical material held back, regardless of whether the class is early high school or upper-classman university.)

In these classes, one thing is repeated over and over. Jewish people were used as scapegoats, and because of the intolerance and frustration of Germans, the Holocaust was permitted to happen. The teachers and professors emphasize that we must prevent such an incident from happening again by learning to coexist, not exclusively exist.

Think back to your late middle school and early high school days when they were teaching you about the Holocaust. Can you still hear your teacher's voice? I can. Now, bring yourself back to today. I'll wait a moment...

As you read the excerpt below, ask yourself "Did I think this was possible [years] years ago when I was learning about the Holocaust? Did I think history could POSSIBLY repeat itself in TODAY's 'civilized' world?"

Though investigators haven't determined the cause, [Kimberly] Kester suspects it to be another incident of arson.

On July 4, surveillance video caught a man approaching the mosque and throwing "an ignited object" on the roof, causing minor exterior damage, according to the FBI.

The FBI was offering a combined reward of $15,000 for information leading to the suspect arsonist in that incident.

Kester said the mosque was a target of other acts of vandalism. In September of 2008, a sign at the mosque was set on fire and was also determined to be arson, according to CNN affiliate KODE.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations has called for increased police protection at other places of worship in the wake of the fire and is offering a $10,000 reward for information on the latest incident.

Here, the article talks about another incident which occurred on July 4th at the same mosque. So, the mosque was burned on July 4th and then again on August 6th. I bring this point to your attention because this is not a one-shot, once-in-a-lifetime-occurring incident. It has happened before, and it will happen again.

From Geert Wilders, to Adam Hasner, to the cab driver stabbing, to the Quran burning, to mosque burning. Sound familiar?

Before some of you start shaking your heads and saying "but you are not scapegoats like the Jews were--this is all your fault anyway," I humbly correct you.

Remember why Muslims are hated. We are hated because a minority who claims to be Muslim (and whose ideology I have denounced strongly often times) flew planes into the World Trade Centers. These people had political motives, not religious ones, but yet people act as if we, all Muslims everywhere, had some or other part in it; whether it's that we follow the teachings of the Quran and Abrahamic faiths, or that we pray "just like the terrorists do, with your asses in the air to your fucking god Allah who has a machine gun and wants you people to kill us all." In this way, we all become scapegoats for something that wasn't our doing, and we would never even dream of doing.

Now the problem is becoming a lot more serious. We all know by now that the shooter who went on a shooting spree in a Sikh temple actually wanted to target Muslims, but lacked the brain capacity to know the difference between the two religions. So, it was misfire, but his intents were very clear. Consider that for a minute, even my Muslim readers who don't accept the reality of the Islamocaust. WHAT IF he hadn't misfired, and had ACTUALLY shot up a mosque?

Innocent Scapegoats

Sallams Readers.
We've known for some time how backwards and deceptive the Taliban are and how they use Islam as a means for their own political gain. However, now they're pushing the bar even further, by using children as metaphorical ransom. The Taliban have always recruited kids as soldiers, but now they're moving to a more subtle approach. Read the article on the Polio ban here.

A ban on polio vaccinations imposed by the Taliban could affect about 280,000 children living in tribal areas of northwest Pakistan, according to estimates from the World Health Organization.

Last month, local Taliban militants prohibited polio vaccines over the United States' use of drone strikes in the region.

When a three-day nationwide effort to administer polio vaccines began this week,health workers and volunteers weren't able to immunize children in North and South Waziristan.

So let me see if I understand this correctly. You terrorize the United States, England, and other Western countries. Then, you whine when we retaliate. And then, you say no more retaliation or we'll kill our children. And then, you stand for prayer at the first utterance of "Allahu akbar?" Really? That's absolutely laughable. How can you sleep at night when you very well know that thousands of innocent children will die because of your political motives?

Under this security situation, they "obviously cannot operate," said Mazhar Nisar, the health education adviser in the Pakistani prime minister's polio program. "We're hoping that the campaign will resume in the near future."

Throughout the rest of the country, vaccination efforts continued as 180,000 health workers and volunteers fanned throughout communities trying to immunize 34 million children, under the age of 5.

Let me reiterate that. "under the age of five." First you demand your women to not get an education, directly going against Islamic law. Now you're killing off your children because you have issues with the United States' operation in your country? Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you harbor Osama--a man responsible for killing millions of people around the world?

The vaccine ban began in June after a Taliban commander in northwest Pakistan declared in a statement that the vaccines "would be banned in North Waziristan until the drones strikes are stopped."

The commander, Hafiz Gul Bahadur said that the drone strikes "are worse than polio," and consulted with other Taliban leaders regarding the decision, according to the statement. Drone strikes are widely unpopular, as the Pakistani government has pressed the U.S. administration to stop the attacks. 20 dead in drone attack in Pakistan

So killing millions of children is worse than one of your people dying. Right. Your statement makes no logical sense, Mr. Taliban. I don't even know how you can fast during Ramadhan with so much blood on your hands!

This incident is the very reason why Pakistan has not progressed to this day. I see a lot of wonderings on Muslim-based forums asking the question, "Why do Muslims live in poverty?" My answer, "The Taliban, and all the corrupt dictators who come into power." Every time Arabs try to progress, something happens which holds them back. And the ban on Polio is a prime example. Now, millions of kids who would have grown into your next generation--smarter, stronger, more aware of your deception, will never get that chance because of what you did, O Taliban. You're sentencing kids to death because your ever so precious commander was killed, and I hope Pakistan sentences you to death because these precious children will die.

Life Saver, Or Life Taker?

Sallams Everyone, and Ramadhan mubarak to you all.
Often times, we tend to forget that political motives are not what shapes humanity. Americans, along with the rest of the world, judge countries based on the actions of the government. This would be fine if indeed the governments were true Representative Republics like so many claim to be, but alas--we can argue that even the government of the U.S. does some things against the common moral code.

Despite what you may think of the United States, I hope this article about a bus driver catching a falling girl gives you a different view of its common citizens.

A veteran New York City bus driver on Tuesday played down any claims of heroism for snagging a 7-year-old girl who fell three stories from a Brooklyn apartment building a day earlier.

Steve St. Bernard, 52, says neighborhood children alerted him to the girl standing on top of a window air-conditioning unit, and he positioned himself underneath her.
...
The incident occurred Monday afternoon and was captured on amateur video, which soon surfaced online. It shows the girl, who neighbors said is a special-needs child, standing and apparently dancing on the air-conditioner, losing her balance and falling. One of at least two people standing on the sidewalk beneath her reaches out and catches her before she hits the ground.

Here's my question. A group who claims to be Muslim can blow people like this man up without blinking an eye just so they'll get their seventy-two male virgins in heaven. How can you call yourselves Muslims when you wouldn't have the heart to do what this man did, and how can you call this country Satan's country when people like this man live here?

This man was not young. He also risked the possibility of missing her entirely, in which case there would have been very bad publicity for him. But he put all that aside and focused on one thing--trying to save a girl who fell from her window. Imagine if this man hadn't been there. Chances are the girl wouldn't have survived.

How many times have you thought that, Al-Qaeda? "If I don't blow up this bomb for my own corrupt political views, that mother, that father, that newborn child will live."

I Have More YouTube Likes Than You Do

While there is nothing wrong in protecting your personal security and making sure your citizens are safe, there are times when this effort is wasted. In a CNN news article, Google talks about removing hundreds of videos that talk about terrorism, per the request of the United Kingdom.

From the new head of al Qaeda core, Ayman al-Zawahiri, to terror propagandist Ayman al-Awlaki, using the Internet to spread the jihadist message is a tool of the trade for terrorists.

In the last six months of 2011, Google agreed to remove some 640 terrorist videos from YouTube at the request of law enforcement officials in the United Kingdom, because the videos violated the company’s guidelines. The disclosure was contained in Google’s biannual Transparency Report, which provides data on government requests from throughout the world to remove content from Google’s YouTube and search websites.

I really don't see the reasoning behind this effort. After all, this is the Internet we're talking about, not the Gutenburg Printing Press machine. Fine, you removed them from YouTube, but I've seen this before. The same videos will be uploaded again, just under different accounts. It's like applying patches to a severely corroded pipe. The second you patch one hole, another one will spring up to take its place.

Aaron Zelin, who started monitoring jihadist websites in 2002 in Washington, has seen a myriad of propaganda and do-it-yourself terror tricks posted in the form of videos.

The problem with trying to take some of the more egregious material off the Internet, said Zelin, is that it has a way of popping right back up again.

So you're monitoring a "Strugglist's" website? Wait, that makes no grammatical sense. Anyway, Aaron says here exactly what I wrote--just worded differently. But I'd like to take you to other parts of this article and show you why, sometimes, I have no sympathy for these counter-terrorism people.

From the new head of al Qaeda core, Ayman al-Zawahiri, to terror propagandist Ayman al-Awlaki, using the Internet to spread the jihadist message is a tool of the trade for terrorists.

Do you mean jihadists, or terrorists?

With hundreds of videos being posted by some jihadi groups, getting a handle on all of the terrorist information that’s out there can be a challenge.

Interesting, because the last time I checked, jihad had nothing to do with blowing people up.

Sen. Joseph Lieberman, I-Connecticut, credited Google for being responsive to concerns about what he called violent Islamist extremism online.

“These videos have played a role in the indoctrination, training, and radicalization of violent Islamist extremists, whose warped ideology advocates the killing of innocent people,” Lieberman said in a statement.

So now it's become a three-word description, not just two? Violent...Islamist...extremists. Sounds like a mouthful. What will the fourth addition be? "Fundamentalist violent Islamist extremists." And the fifth? "White fundamentalist violent Islamist extremists." And the sixth? "Rich white fundamentalist violent Islamist extremists." And the seventh--well, you understand.

It's sad how even though these countries are complaining about out-of-control debt, they're still wasting money on getting Google to remove videos that someone has probably downloaded already and will upload as soon as they feel like it. Your efforts would be more fruitful if, for starters, you educated your Members of Parliament and Senators (in the case of the United States) so that we Americans wouldn't be mad at you as well.

Yes, these terrorists claim to follow Islam, and I can't expect everyone to know the distinction between terrorists and Islam, but these are MY lawmakers, people who make laws that WE have to follow. If they're this ignorant, how can we count on what they create to be any better?

As for the terrorists. I wish they'd stop directing all their hate where it doesn't belong. I'm sorry if they're sexually deprived, but really, we can't help that. All they do is focus on the negative side of the West. If you but worked with us, we could bring you forward. But no, instead you sit there, shouting out your fatwas and condemning everyone who doesn't fold their hands in prayer. Yet you fail to realize that behind the governmental front, there are kind people around. Would you return a skeleton that was stolen from Mongolia? I doubt that if Al-Qaeda got hold of it, it would return it. it would more likely sell the skeleton, and use the money to buy more Hashish.
Ma'a sallamah,
Munawar

And The Winner Is...

We cheered when Tunisia's president fell. We cheered when Egypt's president fell. We cheered when Libya's president fell. We're all wishing for Syria's president to either get killed by a fat man wielding an axe or get blown up by one of his own tanks.

You would think that through all this, Middle Easterners were actually starting to move forward, to pick up from where they left off after the fall of the Ottomans. This wish may be too much to hope for.

Egypt's highest court declared the parliament invalid Thursday, and the country's interim military rulers promptly declared full legislative authority, triggering fresh chaos and confusion about the country's leadership.

The Supreme Constitutional Court found that all articles making up the law that regulated parliamentary elections are invalid, said Showee Elsayed, a constitutional lawyer.

What does this mean? It means that the military assumes full responsibility for law in the country, doing as it wills with whomsoever it wills, and that the parliament has been invalidated, giving it no more legislative power than a man on a soap box. Yes, dear readers, we've just witnessed a coup in Egypt.

Parliament has been in session for just over four months. It is dominated by Islamists, a group long viewed with suspicion by the military.

I would go off on that word, "Islamists," but I think I've exhausted that topic; you get the point.

So they don't like the party that may win, and therefore they say "hey, you know what? We suddenly decided that you people can't make laws anymore. Bye."

After all that Egypt has been through, it was that easy to revert everything. Islam suffers from the same thing it has suffered from ever since the death of Prophet Muhammad (SAWH)--power-hungry fat-behinded first-century so-called Muslims who want everything for themselves. Think of Abu Bakr's reign. Didn't he just slide into power like the military coup?

The Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt's largest Islamist party, said SCAF leaders were taking matters into their own hands "against any true democracy they spoke of."

The court also ruled that former Prime Minister Ahmed Shafik, the last prime minister to serve under ousted President Hosni Mubarak, may run in a presidential election runoff this weekend.

Look at Iraq and you will notice how slowly the country is progressing politically. The reason is that the Baath party, Saddam's political affiliation, still has authority--although it is through insurgency. If Mubarak's people obtain political office, the consequences could be dire.

Some Freedom and Justice members, including parliamentarian Mohamed el-Beltagy, called the rulings "a complete coup d'etat through which the military council is writing off the most noble stage in the nation's history."

I couldn't agree more. Egypt has worked so hard to be where it is; with no help from the U.S. They fought their own battle--and won; and now, the military just throws it away, insisting that Mubarak's party will be allowed to run.

The part that struck me most about the situation were these couple paragraphs.

Hossam Bahgat of the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights decried the court's decisions in a tweet.

"Egypt just witnessed the smoothest military coup," said Bahgat "We'd be outraged if we weren't so exhausted."

Egyptians are throwing up their hands and asking, "What else? What more do we have to do just to get freedom from dictatorship, a right explicitly granted to us by the very religion these people in power claim to follow, and a right the West takes so much for granted?"

By executing this coup, the military also forced a former Mubarak-regime member to participate as a candidate in the elections. Just like Saturday Night Live said so long ago about Mubarak bringing about reform that he'll fire his old cabinet, and then form a new one that will be made up of members from the old one. I think your joke may actually turn into reality, SNL.

Morsi and Shafik are the most nonrevolutionary of all candidates and represent "two typically tyrannical institutions: the first (Morsi) being a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, and the second (Shafik) a senior official of the former regime," Sonya Farid wrote for Al Arabiya earlier.

There you have it. Even as elections do take place through Sunday, the revolutionary ideals are nonexistent. I find a striking similarity to their situation compared to that of the U.S. We get to choose between a Socialist, or a businessman, neither of whom have our best interests at heart. Welcome to Democracy, Egypt. I'm sorry if they told you the Democratic system is perfect and the best around, because they lied. Democracy is based on forcing one of two "choices" on people, and it becomes a problem when both choices are everything except for what's right for your country. Here in the United States, it's based on popularity and looks. Over there in Egypt, it's based on a Harem and the military.

The worst part is that I'm sure Mubarak is sitting in court laughing himself to death, and it's not the Alcohol this time.
Ma'a sallamah,
Munawar

Narrow Victory

Now that the war in Iraq has come to an end, we can start evaluating whether or not the results were worth the trillions of dollars spent on it. This evaluation tends to take one of two sides. Either the far left approach, which calls for an end to all wars (which still leaves me wondering whether or not Ron Paul was really a Conservative,) or the far right approach, which says that every invasion is good for America's growth and that America should be everywhere, spreading the will of the American Empire to every corner of the globe. Revolution Muslim calls it American Imperialism.

The people in the middle--those that I like to see as having at least a little bit more sense than that--do not see things as Black-and-White, cut-down-the-middle. They argue that this is humanity we're talking about, and humans are never that simple.

Still, a lot of these independent thinkers narrow the effectiveness of the Iraq war down to three things. We spent trillions of dollars, our own country is suffering because of the deficit, and we gained nothing from it. Yes: It's all about "me, me, us."

Consider the Iraq war from a survivor's perspective. Before Saddam was toppled, thousands of Shias would be killed by his regime just by him giving a command. Shias were not allowed to commemorate Ashoorah without the risk of being killed.

Now, the government in Iraq is predominantly Shia, and the rules according to Shia Islam are slowly being implemented. For instance, capitol punishment is no longer allowed, and there is a higher tolerance for other faiths existing in Iraq.

The occasional bombings we hear about from the media have their ways of making us forget what the state of Iraq used to be before the invasion. When you consider what Saddam put Shias through, compared to today's relatively low-grade attacks, I find it hard not to support the war. Does this mean it was picture-perfect, and the U.S. acted in a saintlike manner throughout the duration of the war? Certainly not. We do have reports of soldiers raping Iraqi women and committing other war crimes. But one can easily argue that Saddam was just as bad, and the freedom of Shias has greatly increased since his fall.

Lawrence Kaplan points out in his book "The War Over Iraq: Saddam’s Tyranny and America’s Mission" that there have been numerous records from Human Rights Watch of Saddam cutting off peoples' genitals and applying electric shock to them. There are also records of Saddam torturing prisoners of war during the Kuwaiti conflict by drilling holes in their chests and arms and cutting off their fingernails.

Saddam also committed mass slaughter of Shia people and made sure his Suni followers ruled with an iron fist. People used to be gassed, and there are records of him using chemical weapons against his citizens.

Consider all that compared to several people being killed in odd places or while they go on pilgrims. The latter, although not the end that everyone would like to see, is much better than how the country used to be. Further, one can argue the point that while these were Shias who were killed while traveling to the shrine of Imam Moussa Al-Kadhim (S.A,) they had indirectly accepted that sacrifice. They know there will be some possibility of them being killed by Suni insurgents, but they go anyway, driven by faith, standing proudly, and not accepting to bow to the insurgents' threat. Their freedom may not have been possible if it wasn't for the invasion. Granted, today the Arab Spring would have taken hold in Iraq, but who knew that such a thing would occur back then?

In many ways, the bombing reminds me of Ashoorah, when Imam Hussein (S.A) was killed for not bowing down to the corruption of Yazid. These Shias do the same thing, so although we should mourn them no doubt as our brothers and sisters in Islam, we should also be proud that there are Shias who will stand and go to visit these shrines and accept, with their heads held high, the possibility of being blown to bits on the way. Ask yourself this question: "Would I do it too?"
Ma'a sallamah,
Munawar

Who's Right Is It Anyway?

It's been almost a year since my last post. During that time, I've taken a step back and looked at the world, specifically the Islamic world, from an outsider's perspective. It has been quite a journey for me, to listen to people debate, debase and stand up for Islam--and not getting involved. I'll dedicate this post to why I decided to suddenly take a break, which I'm sure many of you are curious about.

I used to write posts quite frequently about anything that came to mind that concerned Muslims. We talked about the Arab Spring, Osama, memorial Day, September 11th, my disgust with the government, and a host of other topics in between. After my September 15th post, I felt like I needed to walk away for a bit.

I mainly did this because it was time I looked at things from a, shall we say, slightly different angle. Instead of getting involved and jumping on things as soon as something went down, it was quite peaceful to just watch it happen. I learned a lot and really got a chance to observe things both from a Muslim's point of view, and from a non-Muslim's point of view. Suddenly, I was no longer focused on "how can I prove this person wrong?"

Due to me observing things from the background, I reevaluated the state of Muslims. Is it really as bad as we think? Was I also sucked in by the media propaganda and had I fallen into the same trap that I myself condemned others for falling into? The answer was "yes."

In order to prove my point, let me ask you, Muslim readers. What is your current view of the state of Muslims. Do you think we're in bad shape? Or do you think there's hope? Chances are you will say "we're in bad shape."

Why is this? The answer is simple. You, along with everyone else, have bought into the media's portrayal of the world. Do you hear about the Iranians saving a U.S. cargo ship from pirates? No, of course not. In fact, many of you have probably never even heard of the story and are wondering, "well, that's not possible. They hate us!"

This is exactly how the world wants you to think. They want you and everyone else, ordinary American citizens going about their American lives, to think that Iran and the U.S. are doomed when it comes to peace and mutual respect, as Obama's politically motivated words so elegantly put it long ago.

I used to think this way as well--that is, until I stopped writing since last year. During my time off, it was this idea that I revisited; and the interesting thing is, it changed my outlook.

We've always known Arabs aren't terrorists. If you've been reading this blog since it started, you should be well aware of that fact. We know that Arabs are actually kind-hearted people, not bomb-throwing zombies and Opium-addicted suppliers like our government likes us to think. But there's more to it than just terrorism.

If you look back at history, you will see that Islam gave rise to one of the greatest cultures to ever exist. It's common knowledge that a Muslim invented Algebra when he studied under Imam Jaffer Al-Sadiq. It's also common knowledge that the Muslims brought books to the Europeans when the Crusaders plundered their land; this gave rise to the Age of Enlightenment. Further, it's common knowledge that while the Arabs were exploring arts and other cultures, Europe was still in its Dark Ages. These Arabs were Muslims, and their wealth of knowledge was inspired by Islam.

Islam existed hand-in-hand with scientific advances (so don't give me that "religion is for idiots, science is for thinkers" stuff.) You will see this especially in the Shia traditions.

My point is that these people who are known as backwards today were responsible for turning points in history, conveniently wiped out of the record by kings and others with their own agendas, and nothing can make this more evident than the recent succession of events that has taken place in the Middle East.

They call it the Arab Spring. I call it "it's about time."

So far, three leaders have fallen because of popular uprising and Syria's leader, Al-Assad, will probably be next. Along with these uprisings, people are going back to their fundamentals: the core of Islam--human rights.

There are several narrations from Prophet Muhammad (SAWH) in which he says "I've come to perfect your manners," and part of Islam's fundamental principles is the principle of fairness, and human rights. The Meccans did not like the Prophet because he upset their status quo by empowering the poor people, by showing them that they're not dumb like the Quraysh tribe wanted them to believe.

These revolutions have been just that--freedom from oppression; to get back the right to free will (which Islam is a firm believer in.)

Along with general human rights, women are slowly regaining their liberty as well. Wait, Munawar, did you say "regaining?" Yes, I did.

During my observation, there were two issues I saw as being at the forefront of peoples' problems with Islam. One was the idea that Islam oppresses women, and the other was that "Islamists" are anti-progressive and barbaric.

So why did I write "regaining?" Simple. Womens' rights, after the Prophet's death, went away. Islam introduced an inheritance code for women; no longer did they have to sit by while their male counterparts took all the wealth to supposedly protect the woman (we all know how that used to turn out.) Women also, during the time of the Prophet, gained the right to property ownership.

Still, there's one event in Islam's early days that stands out. Khadijah's marriage to the Prophet. She was his first wife, and she was a businesswoman. She was involved in the trade business. As if that's not enough, it was Khadija who proposed to the Prophet; not the other way around. Typically, people think of monotheistic religions demanding that the male propose, and proposal by the woman is forbidden. The marriage of Khadija and the Prophet is evidence against that misconception, and this sort of thing only continued once Islam gained a hold.

Suddenly, men had to get their wives' permission before they could marry more, and if the woman denied them the permission, it was forbidden for them to marry additional wives.

All this progress slowly went away once the Prophet died and Abu Bakr and his regime gained their iron fist over the Muslims to restore the original status quo.

A couple days ago, I heard of a Saudi Arabian woman driving to defy the government's ban on women driving. Is she doing this to defy Islam? On the contrary, she's doing it to restore Islam.

I was thrilled to read about this woman, Manal Al-Sharif, for the reason that she has no anger towards Islam. She's not doing this because she thinks Islam is a bad religion. Rather, she's doing it because it's her right under Islamic law. She has drawn a fine line between defying the government and defying Islam, unlike the Irshad Manji clones running around directing all their hatred towards Islam itself.

We have the Arab Spring and people demanding their rights that were guaranteed to them by Islam. The Muslims in the Middle East are headed towards better days, and maybe in one-hundred years when we look back at this time period and someone cockily types to all the people in the general area "so, no Muslim blew himself up today?" someone else will step in and reply, "Muslims aren't like that."

Ma'a sallamah,
Munawar