Stop!...Look at it from THIS perspective

I Would Die Before You Would

2011-09-15T16:27:00.002-04:00

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?

2011-09-11T19:54:00.005-04:00

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

2011-07-27T10:29:00.005-04:00

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?

2011-05-04T10:39:00.005-04:00

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

2011-02-19T12:23:00.000-05:00

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.

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

2010-10-09T11:15:00.011-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Rabbi goes on:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Islamocaust

2010-05-31T11:08:00.005-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Revolution Gone Rogue

2010-04-27T16:23:00.005-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are these qualifications for a Muslim?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Terrorism: Negated by Religious Ideology?

2010-03-13T13:31:00.003-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ma'a sallamah,
Munawar

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

2010-01-21T20:49:00.005-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Summary Of 2009; Is 2010 Predictable?

2009-12-31T16:45:00.009-05:00

Sallams Everyone,
In the last entry for 2009, I would like to recap everything that has gone on this year--at least, the stuff I have talked about and paid attention to. Although we can say "we hope 2010 to be a better year," these hopes are often times false optimism. I do not think things are going to be getting better for Muslims any time soon, but only time can tell.

We start with the very first entry on this blog which was a paper I wrote in 2007 concerning a documentary Fox had done that year. This posting was in March, and it was the birth of "Stop!...Look At It From THIS Perspective." Can you believe it? It's already been ten months! I'll be fair and not round it up. This means the one-year mark will be in March 2010, conveniently the month we all have Spring Break at university. I started this blog mainly to vent about things, in a fun way. However, I quickly realized that this sort of task will be everything but good, happy-go-lucky news.

For instance, we soon had the Free Speech Summit 2009 in April. This was probably the biggest event this year, prompting a seven-page response which was cleverly ignored by the rich corrupt government that is supposed to be serving us. Did anyone hear Obama say "The people have spoken" in his victory speech? I certainly was not speaking when I saw how fake this man turned out to be. At any rate, the paper was posted here in June. Nothing was written between March and June; things were strangely quiet, perhaps because the environment was getting ready for the big storm.

Nonetheless, the Free Speech Summit battle raged on in July, with a co-sponsor of the hate campaign deleting my comment to the paper which I posted on her blog. Now that I think back on it, I'm amazed at how much momentum this whole ordeal gained.

Shortly after, I managed to get a hold of the entire Free Speech Summit video, and I wrote a post concerning it. To this day, I am utterly disgusted with how the so-called "officials" acted in the video. They were like little kids playing "House" on a cold night. I shake my head at the thought that these people are the ones who run my country.

August started off on a good footing, with the first post for that month talking about an in-depth discussion I had with a friend. We talked about the common problem with people and how they apply religious philosophy. In addition, I mentioned an article CNN ran concerning women in hijab. This was the first time in a long while I had heard something positive about Islam from the mainstream media, and it made me happy. Thank you again ladies for representing us so well.

Unfortunately, the smiles did not last long. A day or two before Ramadan, Obama decided to release a Ramadan greeting to "fellow Muslims." Keep in mind, this was after he completely ignored my letter (how can you not see that, it was seven pages!) I have dismissed the argument that he probably never even got it. I want to point out that it is now a long time after, and I still have no response from him. Despite the fact that he is vacationing in Hawaii.

That same day, another shocking piece of news falls into my hands, and thus we begin the saga of Fathima Rifqa Bary. In this first post, Gov. Charlie Crist decides to intervene in the Ohio runaway's case, stating that Florida should keep her here and support his administration's position.

The next month continues the Saga, first with a video taken by pastors of Global Revolution Church coming to light. I started by updating readers on Fathima's case, and then talking about the video. Apparently, this girl has turned in to a Muslim hater, and thinks "halal" means "it is good for them to kill me."

Shortly thereafter, a local news station released a report by Florida Department of Law Enforcement--the investigation into Bary was complete! Prompted by the story the news station ran about the report and an amazing comment on my last entry, I decided to throw in my two cents on the matter. I also discovered that CAIR had stepped up as well, dismissing "honor killings" as mere tribal actions. I would like to add here that since then, Fathima has been sent home to Ohio and is currently staying with a foster family. In addition, the pastor who transported her across state lines, Blake Lorenz, may be charged with criminal activity for transporting a minor and not reporting her whereabouts to FDLE. See how the case has turned on him! At any rate, the Ohio runaway saga is pretty much over. I'm so glad she's out of Florida.

We kick off the next month with an earthquake hitting Iran, and no one blinking an eye. The only agency who ran the story was BBC. However, it's not the earthquake that made November a significant month.

In November, a soldier named Nidal Hasan decides to shoot up Fort Hood, one of the largest military bases in the US. What struck me about this incident is when General George Casey firmly stated that Nidal's actions do not represent the way of the Muslim populus. Yes! It was good news at last! I was absolutely amazed that the General said this; I wasn't expecting a comment like this at all from the military. Thank you again, General.

Once again though, the joyous occasion doesn't last long. In December we're back to the negativity again, this time with Robert Spencer stating his view on honor killings, which, naturally, turned in to a hate statement against Muslims. This isn't surprising though given his track record and his all-famous Jihad Watch site. Nonetheless, I was let down by the fact that Spencer got interviewed by a mainstream media outlet. It was extremely disturbing to see this happen, especially since the article stated that Spencer has "trained FBI authorities on Islam." I can't imagine what he told them about us. No wonder the Patriot Act was enacted!

Also in December, we get another military killing incident--except this time, it's not by a Muslim! This post focused on the next to no media coverage the story got, and I firmly believe the reason no one paid attention to it is because the man who executed this murder didn't have a name like Sheik Abdullah Hasan Noorullah Hakim.

Finally, we close off this year by the first ever historically-based post on this blog: "Who Are The Shia?" This post was just two days before the day of Ashoorah, and I talked about the role the Suni sect had in the corruption we see today in Islam. The post gives an overview of Ashoorah, with background on the time of Islam's birth and the situation after the death of Prophet Muhammad.

With that, we come to the end of the first ten months (though full calendar year) of this blog. Will things change for us in 2010? From what it looks like right now, most likely not. The war in Afghanistan is escalating to a frightening level, and I seriously doubt this president knows what he is doing. Muslims are still being killed worldwide, and the election of Obama hasn't changed a thing; we're still fighting two wars. In fact, I recall a general stating that "the Taliban will kill us, and we will kill them," and that besides that, he doesn't think anything will change. I do not remember which general it was (I'm positive it wasn't Mccrystal,) but I agree with this statement. At least in Iraq the military had sane, educated Iraqis to work with. The general stated that they're dealing with a vastly illiterate, uneducated, and loosely connected country with a weak central government. Basically what he is trying to say is, the US (and now NATO as well) are picking up feathers from the ground on a windy day.

A lot of you may argue "so what should we do, just leave them?" My answer: yes! I'm telling you, if we had the military force here in this country, guarding neighborhoods, providing female business workers with escorts when they leave the building at night, patroling the area to make sure we don't have home invasions, we'd live in a much safer America. But no...they're stopping crime there while our home country rots away, crime escalates, women get raped and beaten, and innocent store owners have to shoot people because some robber broke into their store. Of course--we don't care about that. We're more concerned with stopping the once-a-year terrorist threat than we are with protecting the public from common harm.

While you think about that, what can I say? We're starting a new year but it seems like it will be the most ineffective year yet to come.

There is always hope though (as long as it is not unrealistic hope,) and that is all we have at the moment, so keep hoping inshallah, and one day things will be different.

I would like to thank CAIR for really stepping up this year and fighting back against anti-Islamists, with your statement concerning Adam Hasner where you implored the government to remove him, and later speaking out against Rifqa Bary. Please continue doing what you are already doing.

Next, to everyone who signed the letter in March through June! You took the first step in making sure we have a better world to live in. Now it's time for you to take it to the next step. Be a representative of Islam in every action you do. Never forget what you are representing. The spotlight is on you, so stand up tall and accept it. Run with it. Dive for it. You can make a difference; even someone saying "I never knew Islam was like this" is a difference--in fact, a larger one than changing a government's position, because you set right one person, and that person is genuinely changed, versus the government that half the time releases written apologies that don't mean anything, with their robotic stamping machines and overused scripts.

Ma'a sallamah,
Munawar Bijani

Karbala: Injustice Costs Blood; Who Are The Shia?

2009-12-25T09:08:00.005-05:00

When many people say "X has been oppressed or Y has been oppressed," they often times forget the cost of being Muslim. Since the beginning of monotheism--from the Prophet Abraham (may peace and blessings be on him) to the death of Prophet Muhammad (SAWH,) people who "identify" with a religion of monotheism have been crushed, ridiculed, insulted and tormented. Still, there is one tragedy that no Muslim can ever forget, and that is the tragedy of Karbala, where the blood of the leader of Islam was spilled to save the minority--Shiatul Ali; where the blood of the leader of Islam was spilled to save the very essence of humanity. It is a known fact that Muslims were not the only ones who fought on Yomul Ashoorah; rather, there was a Christian named John and several Hindus who fought alongside Imam Hussein.

They all had a common goal: to stop the oppressive nature of the Abu Bakr-started regime, and this battle ended with 72 martyrs, including Imam Hussein; the leader of the movement. Who was Abu Bakr, you may ask.

During the time of Prophet Muhammad (SAWH,) there was no such thing as Shia, Suni, Ismaeli, etc. Islam ([the philosophy of] submission) was just that--Islam. A famous narration by the Prophet says "I have come to reform your manners." This was Islam until the death of the Prophet. Indeed, when a reformer comes to a land, the "reformed" tend to revert back to their old ways after he leaves. Refer to this paper for a discussion on this topic. This is exactly what happened to Islam. Those of you who asked me "who are the Suni," because of the repeated references I made to them in the rebuttal, I will answer you now.

Before the Prophet died, he had made his son in law, Ali, his successor. The first person to accept this decision and acknowledge it was Abu Bakr. Ironically, this was the first man to turn against the Prophet after he died.

After the death of the Prophet, Abu Bakr mentioned that Prophet had not left a successor. Two miles away from the Masjid of Kufa, Abu Bakr gathered his close friends and held elections. Naturally, he was elected to be the successor of Islam. Bare in mind that this position was supposed to be held by Ali, not Abu Bakr.

Meanwhile, back in Kufa, Ali was overseeing the burial of the Prophet (yes, the Prophet hadn't even been buried yet!)

During the reign of Abu Bakr, several things were happening to the religion of Islam. Most notably was the corruption that ensued. Several narrations tell us that Abu Bakr enjoyed drinking to a great extent. We know that Alcohol is forbidden in Islam. Further, Abu Bakr himself has stated on many occasions that "had it not been for Ali, my reign would not have lasted." Whether he liked it or not, Abu Bakr had to accept Ali, in the end, as his adviser. (Ali was eventually given the leadership of Islam, but only after three rulers: Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman.) After Ali came Muawiya who started the Umayyad dynasty. Until then, tensions between Suni and Shia escalated. This was because, while Ali was to have the leadership from the beginning, the Suni took it and then proceeded to corrupt Islam. Thus, we can view the Shia as the reformists.

During the reign of Muawiya, Imam Hussein, the third descendant of the Prophet, was told to bow to Yazid--the commander of the army of Muawiya. He was told to either bow or die. Hussein chose death, and that is why, today, we commemorate Ashoorah on the tenth day of Muharram every year. Instead of giving in to the corruption, Imam Hussein stood his ground and said "no" to corruption and tyranny. This is the very reason why people from several different faiths fought alongside him. This is why Suni-Shia conflicts are still ongoing.

A common Suni argument is, "we follow the Prophet, the Shia follow someone else besides the Prophet, which is against Islam's teachings." Not only is this claim logically false, it is also factually false. Remember that Prophet had declared Ali as his successor (at Ghadeer-E-Qum.) Thus, to not accept Ali as the leader of Islam after the Prophet's death is going against the very wishes of the Prophet. Further, to follow someone does not mean to worship them. We follow Ali because the Prophet said " if I am your master, Ali is your master." In another narration he says "I am from Ali, and Ali is from me."

Next, bare in mind that the Suni follow someone who instigated (and later carried out) the killing of the grandson of the Prophet. What better way to say "I love Islam" than to kill the Prophet's grandson?

On Ashoorah, we commemorate the brutal killings of the 72 martyrs in Karbala, Iraq. That night--after all the men had been killed--the ladies of Islam who were in the tents were dragged from the tents, their hijab torn and the tents burned. This, my dear reader, was done by the leader of the Suni sect of Islam! The suni attack us by saying "crying and wailing is against Islam." Show me a narration that supports it. They also say "grieving is against Islam." My dear reader, Prophet Jacob, the father of Prophet Youssef (may peace and blessings be on both of them) cried until he went blind when his son was supposedly killed by a pack of wolves--and the Suni sect is saying the Prophet's actions were forbidden. This statement defies the very logic of the infallibility of the prophethood in Islam.

Today, we find that the suicide bombs are all Suni. We find that Saddam Hussein continued oppressing Shia until his death. We find that women are not allowed to drive in Saudi Arabia because of the way the Suni sect continues to degrade its women. Ashoorah represents the day our Imam (leader) took a bold stand against the Umayyad government to save his Shia people from falling into the hands of corruption. His blood was spilled; his head was cut and speared. Narrations tell us the government rode on horseback carrying the Imam's head on a stick (they did this to the grandson of the Prophet!)

During the day of Ashoorah, the troops of Hussein were cut off from the water supply; Muawiya's army had surrounded the river of Karbala. Hussein's son, Ali Asgar, who was still an infant at the time was dehydrated. Hussein took him to the opposition and begged them to give him water at least, stating "maybe you hate me, but this child has done nothing wrong to you." You know what they gave the infant? An arrow that went in to his right ear and came out of the left. This, my dear reader, is the same exact leader the Suni sect follows. In fact, you will see a lot of them celebrating on Yomul Ashoorah.

Today, history books have misinterpreted history, saying that the Suni sect believes in elections and the Shia sect believes in blood royalty. If Abu Bakr--the elected representative of Islam confessed that his reign was saved because of Ali's advice, who seems more qualified and knowledgeable to you, the Suni Abu Bakr, or the Shia Imam Ali (may peace and blessings be upon him?) When I used to teach at the local Islamic school, one of my students told me she had some Suni friends who were smoking weed. When she confronted them, they claimed that Abu Bakr smoked weed so it was fine for them to do it because he was the leader of Islam. Can you see how corrupt their mantallity is? Today, when you go to Suni gatherings you will notice a lot of their women shedding their hijab; they call it "modernization" of Islam. Suni people have completely thrown their religion away; they have fabricated it to such a great extent that today all Muslims are suffering because of the fabricated narrations to debase the Prophet in order to raise the status of Abu Bakr. Refer to this paper for a discussion on this topic. I asked an instructor a couple years ago why Suni people fabricated the narrations of the Prophet; it brought no favor to Islam. He answered me with logic and said "think about it. Set aside all the Shia Suni stuff. Why would you debase someone like that? Because they stole the leadership position, and needed a way to debase the Prophet--put him below them." This answer made so much sense to me, and I see that debasement today. They blinded their followers.

There is a narration concerning the event of Ashoorah where the fourth descendant of the Prophet (who took over after Imam Hussein was martyred) was shackled to a carriage and lead through the city of Kufa. An old man approached him and started insulting him (the propoganda had begun against the family of the Prophet.) The fourth Imam, Zainul Abi-Deen, stopped him and said "have you read the verse in the Quran that states that a man who gives charity during prostration in prayer will be your [Prophet Muhammad's] successor?" The man said "yes." The imam replied "we are from his family!" The man broke down and cried "I have been lied to!" The man the Quran talks about was Ali. A narration states that he was in prayer while a woman came into the Mosque to ask for assistance. The Imam stuck out his ring finger to signal for her to take the ring he was wearing; she did. He did this while in prostration and this is the very man against whom injustice was done by your fellow Suni suicide bombers!

Peace be on you, O Abu 'Abdillah
Peace be on you, O son of the Messenger of Allah
Peace be upon you, O the chosen one and the son of the chosen one
Peace be on you, O son of the Commander of the Faithful and the son of the chief of the successors.
Peace be on you, O son of Fatima, the leading lady of the worlds
Peace be on you, O fearless warrior of Allah, the one who was killed, but to whom blood revenge is still denied
Peace be on you, and on the souls who died with you.
I send peace of Allah on all of you forever, so long as I remain alive, and the night and day remains.
O Abu Abdillah,
Great is the loss,
And unbearable and great is your tragedy for us, and for all the Muslims,
And unbearable and great is your tragedy in the heavens, and for all the dwellers of the heavens.
May Allah curse the people, who laid down the basis of oppression and wrongs against you, people of the House
May Allah curse those who removed you from your position, and removed you from the rank in which Allah had placed you.
May Allah curse the people who killed you,
And those who facilitated for them the means for your killing
I turn to Allah and to you, away from them,
And from their adherents, their followers, and their friends
O Abu 'Abdillah,
I am at peace with those who make peace with you,
And I am at war with those who make war with you, till the Day of Judgement.
May Allah curse, the family of Ziyad, and the family of Marwan,
And May Allah curse Bani Umayya entirely,
And May Allah curse Ibn Marjanah
And May Allah curse 'Umar ibne Sa'ad,
And may Allah curse Shimr
And May Allah curse the people who, carried out, saw, and tried to conceal, your killing
My father and mother be sacrificed for you, great is my sorrow for you.
I pray to Allah who has honoured your status, and honoured me through you,
To grant me an opportunity to seek your revenge with a victorious Imam, from the family of Muhammad, blessings of Allah be on him and his family.
O Allah, make me of a worthy status in your eyes, through Hussein, peace be on him, in this world and the Hereafter.
O Abu 'Abdillah,
I seek nearness to Allah,
and to His Messenger,
and to the Commander of the Faithful,
and to Fatima,
and to Hassan,
and to you, through the love and dedication to you,
and through disassociating with those who killed you, and prepared to fight you
and disassociating with those who established the foundations of tyranny, and wrongs against you (O Ahlul Bayt).
I turn to Allah, and His Messenger, away from those who laid grounds for it,
and those who built the house of injustice upon it,
and carried out oppression and cruelty, against you and your followers.
I turn to Allah, and to you, away from them,
and seek nearness to Allah, and then to you through love for you and your friends,
and by disassociating with your enemies, and those who went to war with you,
and by disassociating with their adherents and those who follow them.
I am at peace with those who made peace with you,
and I am at war with those who went to war with you.
I befriend those who befriended you,
and I am the enemy with those who were your enemies.
I pray to Allah, who has honoured me with awareness of you, and my awareness of your friends
and has enabled me to disassociate from your enemies.
(I pray) that He may place me with you in this world and the Hereafter.
And (I Pray) that He may strengthen for me a truthful stance in this world and the Hereafter.
And I pray that He may enable me to reach, your honoured station with Allah
And that He may grant me the opportunity to seek victory, along with a rightly guided Imam from amongst you, who will manifest and speak the, truth.
I ask Allah by your station, and by the honoured position you have with Him,
That He grants me for the grief at your sorrows, more than the personal grief that troubles anyone in tragedy.
What great sorrows (you experienced)! How great was your tragedy, for Islam and in all the Heavens and the earth!
O Allah, make me, at this moment, one who receives from You, blessings, mercy, and forgiveness.
O Allah make me live the life of Muhammad and his family,
and make me die the death of Muhammad and his family.
O Allah, this is a day when Bani Umayya rejoiced, and so too the son of the she who eats the liver of man.
the condemned son of the condemned as said by You, and Your Prophet blessings of Allah be on him and his family,
at every location and occasion in which Your Prophet stood.
O Allah, curse Abu Sufyan, and Muawiya, and Yazid son of Muawiya an everlasting curse
And this is a day when the family of Ziyad was happy, and the family of Marwan because of their murder of Hussein, (blessings of Allah be on him).
O Allah, so increase the curse on them from You, and the painful punishment.
O Allah, I seek nearness to You on this day, and in this position, and for the rest of my life,
through disassociating from them (the enemies) and cursing them,
and though the love of Your Prophet, and his family, peace be on them.

O Allah, curse the first tyrant who oppressed the right of Muhammad and his family,
and the last one who followed him on that.
O Allah, curse the group who fought al-Hussein,
and the group which followed and supported, and joined hands to kill him.
O Allah curse them all.

Peace be on You O Abu Abdillah and on the souls that died with you.
Greetings of Peace of Allah be on you, from me, forever so long as I live and so long as the night and day remain.
May Allah not make this my last pledge of your visitation (ziyarat)
Peace be on Hussein,
and on Ali the son of Hussein,
on the sons of Hussein,
and the companions of Hussein.

O Allah, curse particularly the first tyrant
and begin with him first,
then the second, the third, and the fourth.
O Allah, curse the fifth one, Yazid,
and 'Ubaydullah bin Ziyad,
and Ibne Marjanah,
and 'Umar ibne Sa'ad,
and Shimr,
and the family of Abu Sufyan,
the family of Ziyad,
and the family of Marwan, till the Day of Judgement.

O Allah, for You is Praise, Praise of those who thank You during tragedy.
Praise be to Allah for my intense grief.
O Allah, grant me the intercession of al-Hussein, on the Day of appearance (before You),
and strengthen for me a truthful stand by You, with Hussein and the companions of Hussein,
who sacrificed everything, for Hussein, peace be on him.

[ Sallutations Of the Day Of Ashoorah]

You can read more about Abu Bakr at a Web site which is dedicated to him and his reign: www.abubakr.org.
Munawar

Non-Muslims Do It Too! Oh Wait... We Couldn't Care Less

2009-12-16T11:56:00.004-05:00

Sallams Readers,
I came across this story in Florida Today about a week ago, but just now got time to write about it. A man is accused of killing his two military buddies. You can read the article here. My question: where is the terrorist label? Where is Robert Spencer? Most importantly, where is the wide publicity? Let us consider the headline of this story from a different perspective.

First, change the title from "Soldier charged in Fort Drum murders had dead man's car" to "Muslim Soldier charged in Fort Drum murders had dead man's car." Next, give the man an Arab name--Sheik Abdullah Hakim. What do you think would happen?

Firstly, the media would insert the word "Muslim" into the headline as I have done. Why? Simple: Arab = Muslim, and Muslim_-1 = Arab. However, if someone without an Arab name kills his own soldiers, we won't call it "broad acceptance." In fact, we won't even talk about it after the day it happened. When other people do it, we attribute it to psychological disorders; however, when a Muslim does it, we attribute it to "radical Islam," "Jihadist ideology," and "radical Muslim clericks." There was no mention of the man's religion or motive here; it was plain and simple. He killed two soldiers, and that was the end. There was no second thought about it. Do you believe me now when I say Muslims are being hated for no reason just like the Jews just because they owned big businesses and people needed someone to hate?
Ma'a sallamah,
Munawar

Honor Killings: Robert Spencer Gets Another Chunk Of Meat

2009-12-01T19:22:00.007-05:00

Sallams Readers,
A few days ago I found an article in USA Today concerning so-called honor killings. Here is the beginning of this particular article:

Muslim immigrant men have been accused of six "honor killings" in the United States in the past two years, prompting concerns that the Muslim community and police need to do more to stop such crimes.

"There is broad support and acceptance of this idea in Islam, and we're going to see it more and more in the United States," says Robert Spencer, who has trained FBI and military authorities on Islam and founded Jihad Watch, which monitors radical Islam.

There is broad support? Wait, since when did Robert Spencer get media attention? I know he sponsored a memorial recently for another girl who was killed by a so-called honor killing; but right from the start, this reporter seems to be aiming at something: to give only one side of a story. We can see that from their writing below:

Many Muslim leaders in the USA say that Islam does not promote honor killings and that the practice stems from sexism and tribal behavior that predates the religion.

"You're always going to get problems with chauvinism and suppressing vulnerable populations and gender discrimination," says Salam Al-Marayati, executive director of the Muslim
Public Affairs Council.

Not all agree. Zuhdi Jasser says some Muslim communities have failed to spell out how Islam deals with issues that can lead to violence.

"Not all agree?" Let us qualify that statement. "Arabs don't agree."

As far as Muslim communities failing to deal with violent actions. Let me say it like this. If we were to capture those men and stone them for committing crimes against Islam, this same reporter would say "Muslims kill each other for committing violent acts--Muslims are savages!"

The reporter immediately switched away from Salam Al-Marayati, who was explaining that honor killings predate Islam. This action reminds me of the video "Terrorism In Its Own Words" aired on Fox back in 2007. In that video, the interviewer cut off an interviewee who was explaining that suicide bombing is a political action and has no basis in Islam.

I agree that honor killings are a real concern; I'm not arguing against that. Instead, I want to make the distinction between Arabs and Muslims clear, once again, just like I did in a rebuttal to Geert Wilders.

Common fact tells us that before monotheism came to Saudi Arabia, Arabs would bury their daughters alive. If you're going to throw that "Palestine is not Arab" argument at me like they did on this Discover Vancouver thread, stop slamming me with cheap shots.

Finally, Mr. Spencer, let me show you exactly what Islam says concerning justice and women: (I have bolded important words and phrases. Sorry screen reader users, I'll find a way to textually denote this next time.)

O mankind! Be dutiful to your Lord, Who created you from a single person (Adam), and from him (Adam) He created his wife [Hawwa (Eve)], and from them both He created many men and women and fear Allâh through Whom you demand your mutual (rights), and (do not cut the relations of) the wombs (kinship) . Surely, Allâh is Ever an AllWatcher over you.

Ironically enough, this comes from a chapter called "The Women."

Notice, firstly, the text uses the word "mutual." Here, the Quran doesn't specify "mens' rights" or "womens' rights." Next, the Quran commands Muslims to be "dutiful to your lord." In other words, don't commit injustice. Mind you, I'm taking this directly from the Quran, and you can read it for yourself.

(15)
And those of your women who commit illegal sexual intercourse, take the evidence of four witnesses from amongst you against them; and if they testify, confine them (i.e. women) to houses until death comes to them or Allâh ordains for them some (other) way.

The girl killed in the story I referenced was killed because she brought shame to her family because she had a boyfriend. Indeed, dating without a contract is illegal, hence she may have committed illegal sexual intercourse. Now, apply this verse to all that, and you can easily see that even in this circumstance, killing her is not permissible!

(16)
And the two persons (man and woman) among you who commit illegal sexual intercourse, punish them both. And if they repent (promise Allâh that they will never repeat, i.e. commit illegal sexual intercourse and other similar sins) and do righteous good deeds, leave them alone. Surely, Allâh is Ever the One Who accepts repentance, (and He is) Most Merciful.

Why, may I ask you, oh Mr. Spencer, is honor killing confined to women only? Clearly, if these so-called Muslims based it from the Quran, they would have killed both men and women who brought shame to their families; not just the women.

Despite the fact that CAIR released a statement some time ago saying exactly what Salam Al-Marayati said: it's a tribal thing, reporters still persist that honor killings are islamic, when in fact they're not. This becomes obvious when we look at the article as a whole:

Prosecutors charged Almaleki's father, Faleh Almaleki, with murder, saying the Iraqi immigrant was upset that his daughter rejected a husband she married in Iraq and moved in with an American.

See? It was a shame issue, not an Islamic issue. I know several parents who are upset over who their daughters are married to--the only difference between us and the Arabs and Middle Easterns is, they kill their daughters for these acts; we don't. Why is it when Japanese school students commit suicide, we're okay with it? "It's amazing how tied they are to family values." Then when an Arab does it, "Muslims are evil!" Do I support honor killings? No--no Muslim who actually studies the Quran will (I've proven that to you above.) I'm only asking you to look inward. Indeed, I'd love to hang this father over fire and watch him burn for committing such an act against his daughter; the same daughter God has commanded him to show mercy towards. Anyway, I don't see how such "shame" as the reporter puts it can lead a father to kill his daughter.

"By his own admission, this was an intentional act, and the reason was that his daughter had brought shame on him and his family," says Maricopa County prosecutor Stephanie Low, according to The Arizona Republic.

Again--a shame issue, not an Islamic issue.

Leaving all this aside, as I read further and further, I started wishing I'd never even opened the paper that day. Apparently, having boyfriends and girlfriends is "assimilating" with American culture. So you have to "get laid" to assimilate?

"How should young adult women be treated who want to assimilate more than their parents want them to assimilate?" asks Jasser, founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, which advocates a separation of mosque and state.

This is the exact problem we get when people are Muslim "just because" as I mentioned in an earlier post concerning religious robots. There is a narration from the Prophet Muhammad concerning this very question, where he says that you should raise your children in their time, not yours. A related narration talks about a father who came to Prophet and told him his son doesn't understand the father's native language, and all the lectures are in the father's native language. The Prophet said that because the father brought the son to this land, the father should learn the child's native language and not vice versa. All this shows us that people are allowed to "assimilate" as long as it is in the bounds of Islam. I guarantee you, if you really knew what was going through your so-called boyfriend's mind, you'd be horrified. Islam never said "don't date." All it says is "plan before entering a relationship"--hence the contract.

"How does an imam treat a woman who comes in and says she wants a divorce ... or how to deal with your daughter that got pregnant, and she's in high school?"
...
"The religion has failed to address this as a problem and failed to seriously work to abolish it as un-Islamic."

Jasser says his community needs to address how to treat young women who want to assimilate.

"Until we have women's liberation ... we're going to see these things increase."

My honored readers! All these answers are in clear sight! If a woman wants a divorce, based on Islamic law she is entitled to one. I already referenced verses above that talk about sexual acts with a non-mahram (someone who is not in a lawful relationship with you.) Won't you people read your book? When are you going to pick up that thing collecting dust on your book shelf and open it and find answers yourselves instead of looking at your religiously robotic parents for empty, misleading, and culturally influenced answers? Don't you get it? Open your ears!

"Womens' liberation?" That statement made me laugh. This man is a Muslim, and yet he whole-heartedly believes his religion condemns women. Islam doesn't need womens' liberation; Arabs need it. If Islam needed it, Saudi Arabia wouldn't be the only country to ban women from driving. Concerning assimilation again: it seems as if Jasser is implying that American women should shed their hijab and "be free." I still do not see how a Muslim can call himself Muslim and truely believe that total assimilation is the answer to all the problems. I do not see how you define womens' liberation as making them remove their hijab. I seriously doubt Muslim women want to be as disrespected as "assimilated" Western women are--if that were the case, women would not be converting to Islam quicker than men, Jasser.

I seriously think this calls for the birth of a new organization. I've honestly had it with these petty arguments and accusations time and again. I'm so sick of opening the paper and finding an anti-Islam article in there at least once a week; and I'm absolutely annoyed that I'm seeing the godforsaken name Robert Spencer pop up in mainstream media now.

At any rate, this is the newest attack on Islam--once again, thanks to Arabs. You baby killers with your 72 virgin philosophies, drinking, and opium growing. You're messing up the world for the rest of us, and I wish Islam had never come to you idiotic backwards animals in the first place. Go fill your harems and stop spreading your corrupt ideology in our land!
Ma'a sallamah,
Munawar

Out Of The Darkness: General George Casey Speaks For Islam In Light Of Nidal Hasan's Actions

2009-11-08T19:16:00.006-05:00

Sallams Everyone,
It's not often I write about positive news, but I have found this particular event to be most surprising. First, I will summarize the events around the light. On November 5th, a Muslim gunman fired shots in the Fort Hood military base in Killeen, Texas. Major Nidal Malik Hasan, a counsellor for the US military, killed thirteen people after jumping on a table in the Readiness center and shouting "Allahu akbar [God is great]."

Amazingly though, I found this article today concerning it.

The Army chief of staff says it's important for the country not to get caught up in speculation about the Muslim faith of the alleged Fort Hood gunman.

I smiled when I read that. An army staffer is warning people about jumping to conclusions about the Islamic faith. You see who you murdered, Malik? Just because they were sending you to Iraq gives you no right to do what you did. I understand you felt disturbed; however, it turns out these servicemen are still your brothers and are protecting Islam from unfair discrimination by their own people.

He says focusing on the Islamic roots of the suspected shooter, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, could "heighten the backlash" against all Muslims in the military.

Casey says diversity in the military "gives us strength."

Amazing. I'm speechless at the moment because of this statement. This is the first piece of good news I've heard in some time concerning Muslims; apparently General George Casey isn't going to fall for anti-Islam rhetoric.

Even if the general had said Muslims are messed up in the head, I most likely would have agreed with him. There are probably thousands of soldiers who feel the way you do, Malik, that doesn't mean you go shooting your own brothers. These are the same people who would have gladly jumped in front of you to save your life.

You really took things too far, and go "Allahu akbar" someone else next time. I have no idea what you were trying to prove, but all you did was get media attention and get Arab names back in the media. You also reiterated the misconception that "Allahu akbar" is a war cry; thanks for that.

General George Casey, thank you for being our voice today. That statement meant a lot more to me than Obama's Ramadan speech. Keep it up, and God bless you sir. I hope you are the voice of unity for years to come; we need people like you.
Ma'a Sallamah,
Munawar

Earthquake Hits Iran, World Turns Blind Eye

2009-11-06T12:04:00.002-05:00

Sallams All,
A shocking discovery came to me this morning. On November 4th, an earthquake hit southern Iran. You can find the story here. I am not going to reiterate the injury count. Instead, I would like to bring your attention to something which I find to be more than coincidental. CNN--a "world news agency", which brings news from India, US, and several other countries, had no mention of the earthquake. Instead, I found it on BBC news. Someone correct me if I simply missed the article, but I remember checking CNN that day at the university while I was bored in Calculus, and I found no mention of an earthquake.

This would not have been a shock to me, if the following were not true: (1) CNN did a "Generation of Islam" series in which they made a clear distinction between terrorists and Islam and (2) CNN did a piece about the real meaning of hijab [cover]--the Muslim modest dresscode. Is it just me, or do they appear to be swinging both ways? Putting CNN aside, I do not even remember reading about the earthquake from USA Today--another paper that carries US and international news. Both papers have, in the past, reported about earthquakes in other (non-Muslim dominant.) countries. I am shocked at how quiet the news was about the earthquake in Iran. You may say "Munawar, earthquakes happen in Iran all the time." I accept this argument. However, "hundreds of people" injured (according to BBC) is not an every day occurrence. Maybe CNN isn't turning around after all.

Ma'a sallamah,

Munawar

Fathima Rifqa Bary: Investigative Report; Exaggerated Or True?

2009-09-29T12:30:00.005-04:00

Sallams All,
The case on Fathima Rifqa Bary continues. This time, however, the case has taken an interesting turn. Just to make sure we are all on the same page, here is the summary of the case. So far, it has been an ideological battle between Ohio and Florida. The Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) conducted an investigation into Fathima, and wrote a seven page investigative summary on it. The report was provided by WFTV Eye-Witness News. The investigation suggests that there is no evidence or proof of any abuse having occurred; it goes on to state that Fathima's beliefs of an "honored killing" are influenced by her culture and customs, and FDLE found no factual grounds for these claims. One part of the report reads as follows.

I ran OCR on the report which was originally in a PDF embedded image. Since the report was scanned, parts of the report were handwritten and did not come out correctly. I have replaced these parts with [unintelligible] even though the missing parts may be deduced from the context. This is to avoid "guess-and-replace" and to keep me out of trouble.

[ Unintelligible ] discussed her upbringing and stated that she had been a cheerleader at New Albany High School. When asked if her father approved of her cheerleading she stated that her father had no real idea what the concept or activities involved in cheerleading were, and allowed it. She stated that she always wore sweatpants or other coverings to hide the short skirt of the cheerleading outfit from him. She stated her father had never been to an event in which she performed as a cheerleader. Furthermore, she stated the family had no photos of her cheering or team photos as would appear in a yearbook.
...

When FDLE and other investigators visited the household on August 27, 2009, several photos of dressed in her cheerleading uniform were prominently displayed in the family living room.

Two things could be going on here; either (1) she had a real reason to run away from home and is now, under the influence of her current environment, out to destroy her family; or (2) what happened was a spur of emotions and now she does not know how to handle the situation. Either way, the investigative report broke through her. The most recent report on Fathima as of this writing can be found at WFTV Eye-Witness News here.

In essence, the report indirectly states that Fathima's case is not immediately valid. The report claims that she has named noone besides her father who will conduct the so-called "honored killing" and even goes as far as to include an interview with CAIR (the Council on American-Islamic Relations):

On August 27, 2009, [unintelligible] was asked if there was any Islamic punishment for
conversion from Islam to Christianity. [Unintelligible] answered "absolutely not" and "there is no such thing as honor killing." An attorney present at the time, Mr. Romin Iqbal, characterized the concept as cultural and tribal, not related directly to the Islamic religious practice.

So finally someone is stepping up and saying "hey, she could have been set up." Indeed, the investigation was not even started by Muslims. I'm amazed that non-Muslim investigators--who were not motivated by religious bias have written this report. Thank you CAIR for stepping in as well.

The report also found no evidence of the child abuse Fathima talks about. The lie about the pictures of her cheerleading is what really brought her credibility down. If any of you wish to add to this, just leave a comment. I was not able to touch on everything here (and I do not always find everything as proven by an excellent comment on my last post) so feel free to add to this summary.

One thing of note is that her father did admit to picking up her laptop; but he did not strike her with it as Fathima claimed he did. The report claims that her father was about to throw the laptop but then decided against it because it was expensive. In addition, Fathima's original story of hitch-hiking a ride to the bus station was proven false. As it turns out, Brian Williams--the one who Baptized her--drove her to the station from a residence. In other words, she was not out on the street.

On August 31, 2009,
FDLE's investigation has revealed that the ticket was purchased in
Orlando under a fictitious name and provided to [unintelligible] During her interview, [unintelligible] acknowledged that it was her signature on the ticket. FDLE has maintained a copy of this ticket for this case file.

So they interviewed her, and then gave her a ticket to Orlando. Why is she so excited in the video? As one of the authors posted in the comments to the previous entry, "A pastor was filming a 16-year-old girl in her bedroom... I find that very suspicious. If her parents were so strict, how did she sneak a grown man into her room to film her?" I agree, it looks very suspicious, and I think law enforcement is seeing that as well.

For my visually impaired readers (or whoever does not wish to download the PDF version of the report,) you can get the rich text version here. Please note that this is the exact report contained in the PDF image, with no alterations of any kind. The document has not been edited for scanning errors or layout. The document is provided "as is" with no modification except that it has been converted to text. The rich text format was used to preserve all formatting as found in the original report. I make no warrant of any kind concerning this document, and do not claim a copyright on it; the document is only here for those of you who cannot read the original image. I disclaim all misinformation caused by any optical character recognition errors, missing parts, poor formatting, unrecognizable text, etc. Use at your own risk. If you are concerned about downloading the converted version, you may obtain the original version from WFTV. The original document just linked is provided by Eye-Witness News and written by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. All copyrights remain with them.
Ma'a Sallamah,
Munawar

Fathima Rifqa Bary: A Suicide Bomber To Our Cause

2009-09-17T12:49:00.001-04:00

Sallams All,
In my last entry I wrote about Fathima Rifqa Bary, a runaway Christian convert who is 17-years-old. As the case progresses between her family, who she claims are trying to kill her, and the state of Florida--which has the governor backing it--new stuff is being released daily. This particular piece, I found to be interesting.

An article was posted talking about a video fillmed by a minister before Fathima ran from home:

In a newly surfaced online video that was apparently filmed before she ran away from
her Ohio home and ended up in Florida, a passionate and vivacious Fathima Rifqa Bary
shares her testimony and talks about Jesus.
The nearly eight-minute video was posted on YouTube earlier this week. The video
details state it was filmed by "Minister Joe of P4CM in May of 2009 while Rifqa was
in Ohio."
A giddy Rifqa, then 16, starts her testimony: "Crazy how I found the Lord. Be prepared
to be blown away, but my parents are actually Muslim. They're radical, radical Muslims."

Great...so now this Fathima has resorted to not only running away from home, but also downtalking Islam. She uses "Muslim" as if it is something horrific, and the church played a big role in it. Way to go Suni parents. As always I will not take sides as to who is correct or wrong in this case--we can debate that for hours. However, it seems as if her Suni parents seem to be misguided themselves. I deduced they were Suni because Fathima's mother's name is Aisha.

Rifqa made national headlines when she ran away from her Columbus, Ohio, area home
and sought shelter with an Orlando family in July. The teen said she feared her Muslim
family would harm or kill her because of her conversion.
Her family has denied any wrongdoing, and investigators have not found evidence supporting
Rifqa's claims.

I'm glad someone is finally looking at this case from a rational perspective versus a clash of religious ideals.

In the video, Rifqa said she was abused. She said she didn't know who Jesus was.

How interesting. A Muslim girl not knowing who Prophet Jesus is, despite the prophet being one of the greatest and most honored prophets in Islam? Is it becoming obvious who's to blame?

"If you're listening to this .it's the best thing that can ever happen to you. If
there's a hole in your heart that yearns for something more it cannot be filled with
drinking or MTV or any of that stuff. Only Jesus can fill that whole in your heart,"
she said.
"Just come to Jesus and he will set you free."

I left some parts out because copy and pasting gets old. Here's what happened. She meets girl, girl meets Fathima. Fathima tells the girl she is Christian and gets invited to church. Fathima has an emotional breakdown.

Now, she believes that Jesus is the only way to God. This, my friends, is what happens when we take kids to Mosques and Islamic Centers without teaching them Islam. "Kids, we're going. Come on. Do homework later." With these parents though, it was probably more like "Come on or you're grounded." Look what they gained from it. Their daughter is now a runaway, supported by a conservative Christian governor. She is a daughter who lived with two pastors for two weeks before Florida took her into their care. She is a daughter who hates Islam, and what will the Suni people do? "We support Abu Bakr." Go on, keep supporting him, and watch your religion crumble. I am sitting here laughing as I write this and read the article. Only one thing goes through my mind: "I told you so."

For centuries you have contaminated, corrupted, slandered, mocked, and ridiculed your own religion. You started by murdering Prophet Muhammad's grandson. Next, you swung to radicalism by the introduction of Wahabiism by the British people. Why do you think Abdul Wahab couldn't corrupt Shia (the real Ithna Asri sect, mind you) and went instead with your corrupted faith? If this girl knew Ehlul Bait, if she knew Prophet Jesus existed in Islam, maybe she wouldn't be in the position she is in today. Maybe, just maybe, she would have tried to unite the three religions instead of tearing them apart. But no, her parents wouldn't let her. And that is why I make this statement:

Fathima, I am glad for you. I'm glad that you no longer support Abu Bakr and his drinking, and practicing of un-Islamic philosophy. Fathima, I am glad that you were able to find Prophet Jesus--indeed, he deserves to be honored, and I am ashamed that your parents took that away from you. Fathima, I am glad that you found completeness; indeed, I doubt your sect of Islam would have given it to you. Every article I read about you makes me so mad, not because of what happened to you, but because of what radical Christians are doing to steal the opertunity.

And here is my flip-side statement:

Fathima, I despise your actions; you have undone so many rights we have done. Had you been more mature, you would have handled this situation in a better way. Had you but understood, you would have seen things for what they really are. You are a mess of emotions, and your church took advantage of you. I doubt they mean any better for you than your parents did. You have not only upset the political balance, but have also upset the religious peace we were on our way to establishing. Thank you for nothing, and I have no idea why Florida had to be your place of choice to run away. Now, me, and the rest of the Shia Ithna Ashri Muslim community have to start explaining your situation--once again becoming defenders in a war that has been heightened by your deeds; a war that we are losing quickly, thanks to you.

Because of you, we find ourselves, once again, on the receiving end of radical anti-Islam comments; battles that were faught time and again, only to resurface because someone like you has to go parading in the streets. Thank you for making our jobs that much more difficult. I hope you are happy with yourself and the Global Revolution Church.

Selective Responding: "We do what we feel like"

2009-08-23T15:28:00.002-04:00

Sallams Everyone,
I know I know, I've never done two posts in one day before, but I guess i'm on a role right now. For this story, I need to fill you in on something that's been going on here in Florida for about a week or two. A 17-year-old girl, Fathima, was raised in a Muslim house in Ohio. She ran away from home after converting to Christianity, and is now here in Orlando. The battle is against childcare agents and her family. The family, naturally, wants her back in Ohio. She ran away because she said her father threatened to kill her. Whether that's true or not, I'm not sure, so I won't comment on that; this isn't a post about "who's right and who's wrong," so all my Christian readers, take a deep breath.

In the most recent update, John Stemberger is representing the girl--he's her lawyer. For her parents, we have McCarthy as their representative. What got me with this situation was the following portion of the article from the Orlando Sentinel:

In a statement released in the wake of a judge's order to keep 17-year-old Fathima
Rifqa Bary in custody of a foster family in Florida while her family is investigated
by state law enforcement officers, Craig McCarthy accused the governor (Gov. Charlie Crist) of taking
sides before evidence has been submitted.
"The governor's unfortunate decision to make a public statement taking sides in the
Rifqa Bary case before any evidence other than allegations has been presented underscores
the need to return this case to the child's home state of Ohio," McCarthy said in
the statement. "Governor Crist stated that he was 'grateful' that the judge ruled
a specific way and in support of his 'administration's position.'"

I find it absolutely unbelievable that Crist stepped in here, but when it came to the Free Speech Summit, he didn't even blink an eye. Is it just me, or do Muslims seem to be shoved off again? I give our President some benefit of the doubt (regardless of my last post)--he has quite a bit to deal with. However, Crist has no excuse at all. If he could step in so quickly with this case, why was I ignored? This is the Email he sent back to me when I first contacted him through United Voices to stop the summit from taking place.

Thank you for contacting Governor Charlie Crist. The Governor asked
that I respond on his behalf.

Governor Crist wants to know how people feel about the many issues we
face. For assistance with your concerns, you may wish to contact
Representative Hasner's Office directly at the address below:
The Honorable Adam Hasner
Florida House of Representatives
33 Northeast Fourt Avenue
Delray Beach, Florida 33483-4528
Phone: (561) 279-1616

The Governor believes having access to government is among the most
important rights Floridians and Americans possess, no matter which side
of an issue they are on. Please do not hesitate to write again to share
your concerns and ideas about issues that are important to you.

Yes, that's right. He blew me off! And now he's releasing statements saying he's "grateful" this girl got to stay in Florida?

In a previous article (sorry, I don't have the article off-hand,) Rep Adam Hasner also issued a statement to the effect of "people should not be prosecuted for their beliefs." Dear representative, who sponsored the Free Speech Summit? I can't believe you had the guts to say this when you yourself stood up with your GOP party and prosecuted us!

It's this type of foul play we are seeing today in our government. Leaving religion aside, (although I believe religion has a big part to play in the lawmakers' statements,) we see that they're picking and choosing who they like and dislike...and if you're not on their "okay, I may want to respond to that" list, well, tough luck. Forget the last post, I am angrier with Crist now than I am with our President. This man spent $483,000 to go to Europe on a twelve day trip, effectively ignored my letter, and my rebuttal. Also, he didn't care about the people he is supposed to be serving at all (as you can see from the Email he sent me--which, I may add, he didn't even care enough to send on his own! No, of course not. "I can't be bothered...you send it on my behalf.") So much for your GOP party, Crist!
Ma'a sallamah,
Munawar

If You Thought It Was Over...Think Again

2009-08-23T07:56:00.003-04:00

Dear All,
Sallams to you. First off, I would like to extend my humble and sincere wishes for all of you reading to have a successful Ramadan, not marked by the spike of violence we see in Iraq and Afghanistan, but rather by what Shahru Al-Ramadan is supposed to stand for. In a lot of ways, I count this month as our New Year--a chance to wind down and lay off a bit. Indeed, it has been a difficult year for a lot of us, with the Jihad we are currently performing here as US citizens against our government and the struggles we are facing around the world due largely in part to so-called "Islamist terrorists." At the same time, we are challenged to not ignore the pressure we still face. Just because Ramadan is upon us does not mean everything will go our way. For instance, we still have the face mask worn by our current president. I regret to say that most of you will smile when you watch
this video. It almost made me smile as well, I admit that. Now, let me give you my perspective on it.

These words come from a man with the following credentials.

He converted away from Islam.
He brags about drinking beer with a black Harvard professor and a police officer.
He paid no attention to my letter and rebuttal against Geert Wilders, and has done nothing to replace Adam Hasner.

As much as I hate to admit it, I know most of you will kiss his feet for wishing us a blessed Ramadan, as stated in the following Email I received from "United Voices Of America"--the organization that sponsored the March lobbying here in Florida. As always, any important Arabic phrases will include my translation in brackets.

"On behalf of the American people, including Muslim communities in all 50 states,
I want to extend best wishes to Muslims in America and around the world. Ramadan
Kareem [generous / blessed Ramadan]."

President Barack Obama 8/20/2009

President Obama just gave a video message to all Muslims wishing them Ramadan Kareem. In a way that only Obama can, he not only gave Muslims his best wishes this Ramadan, but he also demonstrates that he has a respect and understanding for Islam.

Because he said "Ramadan kareem," that shows he is on our side? Let me tell you something, United Voices, under his administration, Adam Hasner was able to speak against Islam, and is still a top GOP leader! To say that his efforts are good for Muslims and the world is outrageous! Does anyone understand that he is taking us for a ride? Diverting our attention? Who do you think we are, Mr. President, Saudi Arabia and Al-Qaeda who need video greetings? What are we, your little pets who you praise, and then put away and spit on; pets who are stared at, mocked, ridiculed, and told "sorry" when you hurt us? And what's worse, United Voices fell for it! You still say he has a "respect and understanding for Islam," when this very man has shoved away women in shcarves during his election campaign. I do not care if he "understands" Islam! He is not doing anything at all to change things! Forget Afghanistan, forget Iraq. If he can go warring in those regions, if he can remove the CEO of General Motors, what's stopping him from removing Adam Hasner? Surely, Mr. Saint President should be taking care of Muslim problems here first--or is his meaning of "mutual interest" translating into "expanded car dealerships, and oil?" For some reason, I have a hard time believing he "respects and understands Islam" just because of a video. What are you trying to prove, Mr. President, that you look handsome on camera and you have an eloquent voice?

As for "In a way only Obama can," anyone can say "Ramadan kareem"; and after that, I know he said "ahh, that's over," just like how he's done in the past.

Speak all you want, Mr. President, but until I get a response from you, I'm not believing a word you're saying. Any bit of respect I still had for you is now gone, with that dumb message of yours.

Show me you actually care, and then tell me "have a blessed Ramadan, I'm here to extend your voice." Until then, don't you dare do this again!

ACT NOW

, If the President of the United States has enough time to produce a Ramadan video
greeting then surely you can make time to thank him for it, especially because we
are going to make it easy for you.

"If the President...has enough time..." Yes, he has enough time to make a five minute video, but guess what? our efforts are being completely ignored. It's easy for him to make a five minute video--he has someone else write his script, he just speaks it. As far as Muslims having time to Email him? I have bad news for you, United Voices. They didn't have enough time to sign the letter that was sent to the President (except the few who did, and my gratitude to you is endless.) Of course not. They'd much rather open a page with prefilled text and press the "Send" button versus getting up and signing a letter. Good luck finding support--after all, you do feel the need to kiss up to him, don't you? "Oh my God, Mr. President, thank you for saying Ramadan kareem."

Keep wasting your time. You know what though? That's exactly what he wants from you. He wants you to be happy and smile like a bunch of idiots who are starved for attention. A bunch of puppets who like pressing submit buttons all day, and then claiming they don't know why they fast.. A bunch of people who like to kiss up to our government and pretend it's doing the right thing...when inside, you know it's not doing the right thing at all. A bunch of religious robots sucked up in the "modernization" and "moderation" of Islam. No, you want to be on good terms with the Ameircans because of "mutual interests" don't you? Well, I'm sorry to say this, O Muslim slaves! but that man has "mutual interests" in mind as well, and when it comes down to it, he's not one of us. In fact, he's far from it. He will never take the time to respond to a mailed in letter, yet he has the time to make a video. I see no sincerity behind his message. As I stated earlier, anyone can say Ramadan kareem, but it's turning that statement in to action that matters to me. Sadly, United Voices doesn't understand that; though, they seem more like a kiss up group than anything else the more I become acquainted with them. They're quick to say "our government is doing the right thing" and then forgetting about what we just went through in March and April. Yes, I know you're saying "forget about the past." My humble readers, with all due respect, I don't forget the past until something has been done about it, and I think it's time you opened your eyes as well.

I know Robert Spencer is hovering over me waiting to label me as a "Islamist Jihadist" and "Islamic terrorist," so go right ahead. You won't stop me from what I have set out to do, Spencer, and your lying government will not either. I'm sick of you guys, I'm sick of the lies, I'm sick of the mixed messages, I'm sick of the struggle, I'm sick of the standoffs, I'm sick of the petting, I'm sick of the pity, I'm sick of the fabrications, I'm sick of the propoganda, I'm sick of the war, I'm sick of the apologies, I'm sick of the misused media terms, I'm sick of the Freedom Party, I'm sick of Hasner, I'm sick of the lack of support, I'm sick of the Arabs, I'm sick of the Jihadists, I'm sick of the suicide bombers, I'm sick of religious robot parents, and I'm utterly sick of this corrupted government.

Mr. President, I see right through those eyes of yours and that eloquent voice of yours. I see right through your statements, your money, your campaign promises, and your actions. I see right through your stupid videos, your mutual interests, your conversion, your plan, and your mask. I see through all of it--and I regret to say that very few Muslims do. Know that you have challengers; know that you have not fooled everyone by your ridiculous video; and, most importantly, know that I am aware of your choice to ignore my letter. Know that this is my personal, humble statement to you saying that I see you for who you really are, and the anger I feel toward you right now cannot be put in to words. I will keep fighting you every step of the way--and although you most likely will win in the end, it will not be an easy battle for you. You cannot flip me on my back and play "Tickle Me Elmo" like you can with millions of Muslims around the world. I think the only country who supports me on this is Iran. I remember President Ahmadinejat saying the true colors of the US have been shown. I agree with you totally, President Ahmadinejat. Indeed their colors have been shown, and by God, what dark colors they are!
Ma'a sallamah,
Munawar

Agree To Disagree: It's Our Only Hope

2009-08-14T11:17:00.004-04:00

Dear All,
Today I have a big question to pose: When will it all end? I was speaking to one of my friends over Skype yesterday and had a lengthy discussion about how Muslims today are the scapegoats of the world. I wonder if anyone else is getting this feeling, but as far as I'm concerned--I'm sick of fighting among monotheists. By that I mean I really think it's time for Jews, Christians, and Muslims to band together as one body--"Under God." Several times I get challenged by people from other faiths, and every time I end up walking out thinking, "what did they gain out of it?" Granted, some people ask to understand only; not to debate or debase anyone; however, for the most part, we are still living in frozen time: I'm right, you're wrong.

We discussed the fundamental issue with youths as concerns their faith in the Al-Rahman (The Merciful,) and we came to the conclusion that youths are turning away from religion today faster than ever. Put aside the antitheist views for any specific religion, and you see that this problem exists across the board. Today, more children are Agnostic or Atheist than they are of religion X. When I speak to people about this--namely to Agnostics--they give me one of two reasons. Either they believe religion is causing war, or they do not like being controlled.

So is religion causing war? My answer to that is definitely yes. But does it have to be that way? My real question is, is the religion causing the war, or are the people causing the war? Is it this purified faith that is causing Churches, Synagogues, and Mosques to crumble, or is it our hunger for power, our greed, and our vain desires? I'll let you think about that one.

Most of us who studied Islam know about the fact that the enemies of the Christians who were living under the government of the Prophet Muhammad (SAWH) were threatened by the Prophet himself because he wrote in a letter to them "These Christians are under my protection, and whosoever attacks them is attacking me. And whosoever attacks me is attacking God." My dear readers, this was said by the same Prophet who today is being labeled by Geert Wilders as a conqueror, warlord, and rapist. If this so-called rapist can agree to disagree to the point where he offers them physical protection, then we, my humble readers, are worse than this so-called rapist!

Why is Atheism prevailing today? I challenge you to observe an interaction between two Atheists. You will notice they appreciate each other's views--they unite under an antitheological philosophy, and they charish it! What is stopping the three monotheistic faiths from doing this? Are we all sitting around waiting for our Savior who will come with the Prophet Muhammad (SAWH,) or will we get up and start saving ourselves? I vote for the second choice. Yes, I agree--we have some differences. However, in the end, we are all descendants of the Prophet Abraham (may peace and blessings be upon him.) This is what we need to focus on. Otherwise, as much as I hate to admit it, the antireligion conversions will continue, and will even pick up speed--it's inevitable.

Now let us examine the second issue. In our discussion we touched on a cause for this reason. To me it seems as if children do not know why they do certain things. My friend stated that these children are conditioned to be a certain way; follow certain procedures. Is this a bad thing? No. However, it can be a bad thing if by the time the child reaches the age of baligh, it does not understand why it was conditioned before reaching baligh. This situation of not knowing, we concluded, was caused by the parents' lack of understanding of their faith. For instance, if my parents were not educated by their parents, who in turn were not educated by their parents, we have a big problem on our hands. This problem is the issue of what I call "religious robots." You do things "just because," with no reason for doing them. CNN interviewed some Chinese Muslims who were fasting under cover because the government has banned fasting. They asked one Muslim why he fasts, and his response was, with an embarrassed chuckle, "I don't know." This is when the reality of the situation hit home for me, and to this day I am utterly disgusted at the lack of understanding among my Muslim people. My dear readers, this lack of understanding is what is causing these suicide bombs, and terrorist plots. I have praised converts before because they understand more than we do. However, I regret to say that a lot of the terrorists today are Muslim converts who wish to "commit jihad" in the name of Islam. So this light of hope I had once because of the converts is fading quite quickly.

Indeed, if the child does not understand their faith, they will feel like they are being controlled; and they have a right to feel that way. In other words, the issue starts with the parents, but it's not all their fault. according to the Islamic view, what a child does after reaching baligh is their responsibility--they have the ability to reason with themselves, and the parents will not be held accountable. At the same time, before the child reaches baligh, the parents have the responsibility to teach that child as much as they can, and do their best to ensure the child does not stray.

Through all this though, there is still hope. As part of the society is going toward an antitheist view, another part is going toward the theist view--properly this time. A couple days ago, I read an article that CNN published which was an interview with some teenage women in hijab. They said they wore it to preserve their beauty and piety. Alhamdulillah, I hope all of them receive the blessings of God for speaking up. We must demolish these misconceptions one step at a time, and I sincerely feel they have taken one of those steps. The article was the first I've ever read where the reporters had no false information; I didn't disagree with any part of the article. From beginning to end, it was right on, and I think those teenage girls had everything to do with it. I bet Robert Spencer wasn't happy to see that article. Sorry mate, but your visions of opression are out the window. You see, I can lecture all I want about hijab for men and women (yes, men have hijab too.) However, in the end, people will only listen very closely to a woman who actually wears a hijab, because now we move away from theoretical philosophy into practical philosophy, and I applaud those women for representing Islam so well. You truely made my day.

Our discussion lasted for about three hours on the general subject I have written about in this entry, and in the end I saw that there are still some people out there who understand it, and can wade through all the misconceptions and fabrications that are thrown at them.

To all of you who think we as theists are doomed, there is still hope out there, but remember what I have said time and again: if you do not step up, noone will. Stop waiting for "them to do it" and turn it in to "I will do it." You will be amazed by the results. And hey, even if nothing comes of it--even if you are mocked, ridiculed, or just plain ignored, you have done your best, and that is all God wants from you.
Ma'a sallamah,
Munawar

As I crack open the egg...

2009-07-03T20:00:00.003-04:00

Readers,
Sallams to you. I have finally located the entire film of the "Free Speech Summit" held in April. You can find the video on YouTube here. Is it just me, or do those so-called "well-respected, well-disciplined" politicians sound like animals to you? With their frequent "boos," exaggerated laughter, and excessively loud applause, they seem to have a lot of energy--or is it too much drinking? I finally got to hear the voice of Robert Spencer of JihadWatch.org. Of course, he went in to his usual mockery of the "out-of-context" argument. I wonder who wrote that paper anyway?

Wilders spoke next, and I was amazed at how many applause he got by just saying "they make you think Islam is peace...well, it's not" or something similar (sorry, I didn't catch the exact quote.) That line had no credible information; it seems like everyone there just took his word for it. Just as I predicted earlier, he's a man with no credible information to go by, and I saw that in the convention. Everyone was there for one purpose only--to mock. And wow...did they mock! I felt like they spat right on my religion.

Wilders asked if Mosques would be burned if he released a video condemning Christianity, and then answered his own question by saying "no." Really? What are you, a fortune teller?

After Wilders is done speaking, Pam of Atlas Shrugs, who deleted my comment pointing to the paper I wrote against Wilders, introduces the video "Fitna." So the whole mocking audience gets to see Wilders image of Islam.

Next came the press conference, in which Wilders made it a point to say he admires Israel--which, I may add, got a lot of applause from CNN and all other news stations there. So is this a ploy by Israel, or is it a ploy by my government, or is it a ploy by Wilders, or is it a ploy by Robert Spencer? The deeper I dig, the more of a mess this whole thing becomes. It wasn't just about Wilders' speech, it was about Muslims being mocked, spat on, kicked at, insulted, debased, and alienated. I'm not sure how long the convention lasted, but whoever wrote that paper...nice try. I need to get a hold of it and read it. I think Spencer is guilty of his own ever-hated mistake: taking things out of context. And if you really did write "Wilders' claims are simply wrong...just wrong..." well, join the millions of Muslims who can't even defend their own religion--who won't even stand to sign a letter--and, like one of the speakers stated, won't even bat an eye against the terrorists. They are moved by their own faith, with no real reason to them being Muslim--where are our scholars and our so-called Ayatollahs? But I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt, and if I do get a hold of your paper and see that it is just statements with no backing...watch for my criticism as well.
Ma'a sallamah,
Munawar

Hiding from what you cannot fight

2009-07-01T11:45:00.003-04:00

Dear Readers,
Sallamun alaikum. The hate campaign against Muslims is still an ongoing issue, and I want to bring your attention to something that showed me just how low the haters can get when they know their work is being compromised. Atlas Shrugs deleted a comment I had posted on the page where they give the transcript to Wilders' speech, three days after I posted it. I found out because I went back to the page to get some information from the speech, and realized my comment was not there. The comment referenced my blog post containing the rebuttal to Wilders' speech...and it was deleted from their site. Not only that, but the entry was closed to further commenting (I guess they didn't want me to come back and re-post it.) This was the second comment I submitted before I realized the topic had been closed:
"Hi Everyone,
This comment was deleted recently so I'm reposting it. I have written a rebuttal
to this speech which you can find here:
http://munawar0009.blogspot.com/2009/06/yo...-serves_18.html
. I urge all of you to read it--it will help you understand the difference between
the Islam Wilders talks about, and the real Islam."
I guess Atlas Shrugs doesn't know what to do with the rebuttal--it seems to me that their dream of a "radical Islam" was crushed. I'm sorry, haters, but you do well when you do not get challenged--and when you do, see how you stand? I know you tried to wipe me off the net, but I'm still here, and we will press on!

A Letter to Our Government

2009-06-28T12:43:00.005-04:00

Sallams All,
I would like to apologize for not including this letter in my post entitled Your government hates the people it serves. That post was already long, and I did not want to clutter it with more information, so I have split up the posts. Below, I have provided the cover letter which went along with the rebuttal to our government. You will find two things: first, the actual images of the letters which contain the signatures of everyone who signed (thanks to all of you.) Next, for my visually impaired readers, you will find the text version of the letters.

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
We recently heard of a summit led by GOP leaders in our Floridian government that invited Wilders--maker of the video Fitna--to speak out against Islam. As the Shia Muslim community of Orlando, Florida, we are appalled at what took place recently. We are ashamed that our government--who is supposed to be representing us--would take such illogical steps to driving out a minority.

Since the Muslim Capitol Day in March of this year, Representative Adam Hasner has been trying time and again to mock us as Muslims; the holding of this summit was just that. The author of this letter is visually impaired, and is writing on behalf of all those who have signed it. He feels that this country has stood by him when he needed the most expensive pieces of technology to be successful in the workplace, and he feels that the government has sincerely let him down. As our representatives, who should be serving us, as the people, we ask that you speak out against Hasner and condemn his actions. We have included a rebuttal to Wilders' claims in this letter; we urge you to read it. Islam is not a religion of terrorism, and war, nor is it a fascist political ideology. Wilder was able to speak in front of the government without any credible information (or, more correctly, information which is purposely misleading, misinterpreted, and fabricated.) He used the Suni ideological thoughts to justify what he was saying, but failed to point out that the real Islam does not support these actions. In other words, he was brought for one purpose: to spread falsehoods.

Our honored representatives, this is an open letter to you urging that you take action against Hasner. We are citizens like yourself, who pay taxes, attend American schools, etc; and most of us were born as American citizens, whose parents migrated to this country to give us better lives than they had. Thus, we have all the same rights that any American citizen has; we are not foreign, aliens, or outcasts; this is our home, and we do not appreciate the government taking actions, openly, to debase us. WE WILL NOT STAND DOWN! We are tired of the propoganda that is taking place against us; we are tired of the lies brought forth against us; and we are ashamed that our government allowed Wilders to speak, even though his ideology is so obviously misconstrued that he is banned from setting foot in the United Kingdom. We as American citizens do not hate America; rather, it is America who hates us, and we are imploring you as our representatives to stop this hate. This country's foundations lie in religious freedom and tolerance, and the spreading of falsehood against Islam is not helping this ideal.

Thank you for taking the time to read this letter, and we hope to hear from you.
Sincerely,
Munawar Ali Bijani,
ON BEHALF OF ALL THOSE WHO HAVE SIGNED BELOW
Please send response to:
[Deleted to avoid spam]
or:
[Deleted, can be found in image]
Ma'a sallamah,
Munawar

Your government hates the people it serves

2009-06-18T18:28:00.003-04:00

Recently, our Floridian government sponsored a hate campaign against Muslims. Allowed to speak at the campaign was Geert Wilders, maker of the video Fitna in which he shows the Trade Centers blowing up and Quranic verses in the background that "justify" this action by Muslims. For six minutes he spewed hate against us. This was my response to his speech, found here: http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2009/04/freedom-of-speech-text-of-geert-wilders-speech.html. For those of you who think our government is a saint...think again. Postmarked June 2nd, 2009, this rebuttal was a direct response to the speech Wilders gave, and it's happily on its way to our state government. Once again, the very government who is supposed to be "serving" us is now trying to turn people away from Islam by forging lies...and guess who paid for Wilders' hotel stay, research hours, etc? You and me, the same Muslims he condemned. Bye bye tax dollars.

Against Geert Wilders: A Truth Against Lies

Author: Bijani, Munawar Ali

And co-authored by several other contributors
We begin with the name of God, the most kind, the most merciful.

Recently, Geert Wilders, maker of the video Fitna, spoke at the Florida Senate against Islam. This paper serves as an argument against his claims, which we have found to be purposely misleading; however, it is not our intent to downplay Wilders; on the contrary, we would like to extend our appreciation to him for conducting the amount of research he has conducted. Many of the claims he has made are common, and are simply the result of incorrect information or faulty analysis. On the final page, the reader will find a list of sources used by the authors of this paper.

First off, we would like to begin by stating that it is not Islam's goal to dominate the world; rather, Wilders has fallen into the same trap as so many other leaders have: he has mistaken the terrorists as proper bearers of the Islamic ideology. Somalia stoned a rape victim to death, and only whipped the men who raped her; this is in spite of the fact that the Shariah law does not call for killing rape victims--it does not even allow husbands to kill their wives even if they have been found committing adultery (Hadi al-Hakim, Marriage, Questions and Answers Section).

Next, Wilders calls Islam a "totalitarian political ideology" and claims that the Quran calls for war and violence. He also mentions that the Quran calls Jews "pigs". Islam is not a "totalitarian political ideology." In fact, the Quran states very clearly that "There is no compulsion in religion; the truth has been made clear from error" (Quran 2:256). This verse shows us that Islam holds the following view: do not follow an ideology blindly. Towards the end of the Quran, a chapter states: "I worship not that which you worship, Nor will you worship that which I worship. And I shall not worship that which you are worshipping. Nor will you worship that which I worship. To you be your religion, and to me my religion." (Quran 109:2-6). We can clearly see from these verses that Islam invites people to the religion, but if they choose not to join, it is up to them. As we will see later, the battles fought during the time of the Prophet Muhammad (SAWH)[1] were in self-defense, since it is common fact that during the time of Islam, if one did not have physical strength to lead a movement, the movement would be crushed. We can see this clearly from the Crusades of the early Christian Church; they spread their ideology this way, but it was only after the passing away of the blessed Prophet Jesus (may peace and blessings be upon him.) The Prophet Jesus (PBOH) did not start the Crusades. Similarly, we are seeing the same issue with the Muslim people today. Islam does not support oppression, but yet Saudi Arabia oppresses its women. Concerning this, Bihishti and Bahonar point out that although Islam came to Arabia, after the leader--the Prophet Muhammad (SAWH) passed away, the government returned to its corrupted ways; it hired scholars and "paid-agents" to help distort Islam to "build the high castle of their [the government's] own power" (245-246), and thus "the system is used to serve the leaders; the leaders render no service to the system" (246).

Concerning Jews, the Quran does not call them pigs; in fact, it praises Christians and Jews: "Verily! Those who believe and those who are Jews and Christians, and Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day and do righteous good deeds shall have their reward with their Lord…" (Quran 2:62).

In the following verses, we see where Wilders may have thought that the Quran calls Jews monkeys. However, we can clearly see that this is something that has been taken out of context. We produce for you the entire passage: "And (O Children of Israel, remember) when We took your covenant and We raised above you the Mount (saying): "Hold fast to that which We have given you, and remember that which is therein so that you may become Al-Muttaqûn (the pious). Then after that you turned away. Had it not been for the Grace and Mercy of Allah upon you, indeed you would have been among the losers.

65. And indeed you knew those amongst you who transgressed in the matter of the Sabbath (i.e. Saturday). We said to them: "Be you monkeys, despised and rejected."

66. So We made this punishment an example to their own and to succeeding generations and a lesson to those who are Al-Muttaqûn (the pious)." Here, we see that the example of "monkeys" was only put on the people of Israel who betrayed prophet Moses (PBOH) after the parting of the Red Sea. This in no way applies to the people of today, if one looks closely at the verses surrounding it. Therefore, the Quran does not call all Jews monkeys; in fact, we see that they will "have their reward from their lord" as well as Muslims and Christians; thus, this notion is merely a context issue. This argument is further supported by the Quran stating "Those who have been expelled from their homes unjustly only because they said: "Our Lord is Allah." - For had it not been that Allah checks one set of people by means of another, monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques, wherein the Name of Allah is mentioned much would surely have been pulled down…" (Quran 22:40). Here, we see that Islam regards all places of worship as places "wherein the name of Allah is mentioned much", and there is no distinction made between any of them; it recognizes that all monotheistic religions (including Jews) believe in God, and they are to be respected, not hated. Therefore, we see that it then becomes not fit for this same Quran to turn around and call Jews pigs, since this action is logically impossible, and thus we point back to the context issue we mentioned earlier.

Next, wilders says that the "core problem with Islam is two fold," and the first problem being that Islam has no time scope; everything is relevant anywhere. We do agree with Wilders here that the Quran is not limited in one time. However, this is not to say that all verses apply everywhere. For instance, some verses were revealed for a specific battle, that is all (E.G.8:33, the Battle of Badr).

The second problem Wilders identifies is that the Quran has no room for interpretation; this is not true, according to real Islamic ideology, and numerous sources from the Prophet (SAWH) and his descendants. In order to understand our point of view on this, the reader should consider the Islamic history. During the time of the Prophet Muhammad (SAWH,) the Prophet served as the guide to the Quran. Notice that we used the word "guide." To say that the Quran leaves no room for interpretation is like saying Calculus must be learned by the book, with no professor. As we stated earlier, some verses of the Quran were revealed during a specific battle, and meant for that battle alone. Thus, it is only natural to have someone who is learned in Islamic knowledge and history to guide the people to understanding the Quran--otherwise, they will use these verses for places in which they are not proper. After the death of the Prophet (SAWH,) his son in law, Ali (PBOH) was the rightful successor to the leadership of Islam. However, Abu Bakr betrayed the Prophet, and took the leadership for himself. This, our dear readers, is why the people of Islam are so corrupted today. Abu Bakr was not fit to lead Islam with knowledge and understanding of the Quran (Bihishti and Bahonar 245), and the Sunni sect follows him. As you probably know, today the Sunni sect holds an 80% majority against a 20% "followers of Ali (Shiah)" people. The Somali government was Sunni, so was Saddam Hussein, and so is Saudi Arabia. The Islam they follow happened because of this "no room for interpretation" ideology--and look where they are today.

Wilders goes on to quote Prime Minister Erdogan from Turkey: "There is no moderate Islam, Islam is Islam." The Turkish minister was correct; but Wilders has used his statement in a fabricated manner. When the minister said this, he meant "Islam is Islam everywhere, at every time. You do not pick and choose what you follow and what you do not follow." Of course, to the minister, this meant "Jihad prevails everywhere," but once again this is according to the Sunni traditions of Islam. The real Islam has recorded a narration from the Prophet (SAWH): "A man asked the Prophet once after coming back from a battle, 'Have we completed jihad?' The Prophet replied, 'This was only minor jihad. The major jihad is that jihad [struggle] you do with yourself; staying away from sin, praying, etc.'" In other words, the Prophet was saying that anyone can throw fists or stones or kill someone; it is not difficult, and Islam does not center around this effortless thing, and the slaughter of non-Muslims. Bihishti and Bahonar point out that jihad should be done for "the assistance of the helpless and the oppressed; Jihad for gradual perfection, culture, knowledge and virtue; and lastly Jihad against one's own egoism, which is the most important and according to the holy Prophet of Islam, "Jihad Akbar" ['major jihad']" (355).

Wilders then goes on to "describe" the Prophet Muhammad (SAWH) by calling him a pedophile, conqueror, and warlord. We have already quoted a narration from the Prophet above which disproves this claim. Further, if the reader looks into Islamic history, they will find that most of the battles fought were in self-defense (as we have also explained above,) since Islam only allows Muslims to fight back, not to aggress: " Will ye not fight people who violated their oaths, plotted to expel the Messenger, and took the aggressive by being the first (to assault) you? Do ye fear them? Nay, it is Allah Whom ye should more justly fear, if ye believe" (Quran 9:13).

The reader may now point to verse 9:5 from the Quran, which states: " So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful." (Quran 9:5). This verse was part of a larger scope, however, and this becomes obvious when the reader turns their attention to verse 9:1: "(This is a declaration of) immunity by Allah and His Messenger towards those of the idolaters with whom you made an agreement." This shows us that this chapter (chapter 9) is just that--terms and conditions of an agreement made with the people of that time; it lays down guidelines for the Muslims of that period, and tells them what to do should the disbelievers break their agreement; it does not justify killing of nonbelievers today.

When Wilders refers to the Prophet as a "pedophile," we are assuming he is referring to the marriage of the Prophet to Aisha, the daughter of Abu Bakr. Aisha was given to the Prophet as a gift, which was a common practice during that time in Arabia, to form alliances between tribes; the Prophet did not marry Aisha in the traditional sense, so Wilders' claim is negated. In adition, according to several sources, Aisha was baligh [2]when the Prophet (SAWH) married her, which makes sense since the Prophet (SAWH) would not commit forbidden acts.

Next, Wilders quotes Muhammad as stating that he will conquer until everyone is submissive. Our respected reader, consider the verses we quoted for you above, where the Prophet Muhammad (SAWH) says "To you is your religion, and to me is mine." We do not see how Wilders can possibly draw a conclusion that "Muhammad's behavior in the Quran" can "inspire jehadists" to kill people, if this was his behavior. The quote Wilders has brought forth has no Quranic relevance, and we take it as a mere fabrication by the government of Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman in trying to debase the Prophet (SAWH) to justify their leaderships, and a further fabrication by Wilders to attempt to prove his point with faulty logic.

Unfortunately, Wilders has used, once again, the Middle Eastern ideology and called it Islam by quoting Ayatollah Khomeini. Islam does not teach to "kill and be killed for Allah" since even this killing can be unjust. In several places in the Quran Allah warns Muslims to "not exceed the bounds."

Next, Wilders makes one of the biggest errors in his analysis. His so-called "Al-Haya doctrine" is apparently a sign of danger. In our research, we discovered that this doctrine can be paraphrased as follows: If a Muslim is being hindered from practicing his or her faith, he or she is advised to migrate to a different land where the practicing of religion is free on him or her. The Prophet Muhammad migrated to Medina for this very reason, and the Puritan Christians migrated to the "New World" for this very reason as well. We have already shown the reader the Quranic view on other religions--"Neither shall any fear come upon them, nor shall they grieve" (Quran 2:62), yet Wilders believes that the migration of a religion that teaches religious tolerance is dangerous. This migration law under Islam is not for conquest, but simply to get away from oppression.

Wilders goes on to "coin" a term: Eurabia. Here, the authors of this paper agree with Wilders; indeed, the "Eurabiation" of a nation is evil. However, although Wilders' claim is correct, his reasons are incorrect. He calls veils "evil phenomena," and claims that Islam likes "honored" killings of women. In reality, the Islamic views are quite different from the Arabian views.

We start off by explaining the veil. Indeed, today it is seen as a sign of oppression and cruelty; however, we stress that this is only, once again, due to Arabia's fabrication of Islam. Our honored reader, consider the following verse from the Quran: "O Prophet! Tell thy wives and thy daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks close round them (when they go abroad). That will be better, so that they may be

recognized and not annoyed [harassed]. Allah is ever Forgiving, Merciful" (Quran 33:59); and "And say to the believing women that they cast down their looks and guard their private parts and do not display their ornaments except what appears thereof, and let them wear their head-coverings over their bosoms, and not display their ornaments except to their husbands or their fathers, or the fathers of their husbands, or their sons, or the sons of their husbands, or their brothers, or their brothers' sons, or their sisters' sons, or their women, or those whom their right hands possess, or the male servants not having need (of women), or the children who have not attained knowledge of what is hidden of women; and let them not strike their feet so that what they hide of their ornaments may be known; and turn to Allah all of you, O believers! so that you may be successful" (Quran 24:31). Based on these verses, we can deduce that:

The veil has been prescribed to keep women from being harassed.
The veil has been prescribed so that women "may be recognized" viz. they are not seen as mere objects of physical pleasure, since their sexual attractions (IE. Breasts, curves, etc) are covered; this allows a person to talk to them and get to know them before making any biased judgments based on their physical attractions.

Considering the points made above, we acknowledge that the so-called "Islamic country of the world"--Saudi Arabia--is not an example of the real Islamic view. The veil is prescribed on women, but for their protection only; the Quran and the Hadith (narrations) by the Prophet (SAWH) and his family do not support publicly beating women for not wearing the veil; in fact, the man who raped the woman or looked at her so as to make her uncomfortable even though she was veiled would be the criminal. This, our dear reader, is the same reason why the actions of the former "Islamic" Somali government are not supported by Islam: they stoned a rape victim to death, while beating the four men who raped her very lightly. As Rizvi points out, most Western books (or theses) "reflect the Arab view of female sexuality and not the Islamic view" (31). In other words, the Arab view--namely the beating of women for not veiling themselves--is not the Islamic view.

Wilders talks about several points in the rest of his speech, but we have reputed most of them already. We will now select the highlights of the rest of his speech and conclude thereafter.

Wilders repeatedly claims that women asking for separate gymnasium hours, opposite genders asking for separate campus housing, etc. is a bad thing. If we consider the reasoning behind this separation from a logical perspective, we see that it is, in fact, a noble thing to do. Firstly, the people themselves are asking for this separation; they are not being forced to do so. Secondly, the reader should recall an argument that we gave above concerning the harassment of women. Women, today, are looking to be respected--not because they are CEOs of corporations--rather, they are looking to be respected in a metaphysical manner viz. elevated beyond objects of physical pleasure. We suspect that the main reason people has a problem with separate gymnasium hours for men and women is because the men would prefer looking at a woman's sexual beauty versus respecting her. We see that gymnasiums allow both genders to walk around showing quite a bit of their bodies viz. there is no modest dress code, and this has become acceptable among today's society. Because of this liberal approach, when a man meets a woman at a gymnasium, the first thing he sees of her--and, we might add, he enjoys seeing of her--is her physical beauty. Already, he has degraded her to a sexual object, and any moves made for a "serious" relationship afterwards will most likely be done with the intentions of getting as close to her as possible. Today, women recognize this, and the only faith that gives them freedom from being sexual objects is Islam: "So that they may be recognized and not annoyed [harassed]," and yet discourages women from being tainted as "evil" because of their sexual beauty, as we discuss below.

Wilders' fear of separation may come from the earlier religious philosophies that run on an "all or nothing" basis: total abstinence. However, it is interesting to note that Islam does not encourage abstinence; in reality, it condemns it. The Islamic view of separation is paraphrased as follows: if one is not in a legal relationship with someone from the opposite gender, both should not display any sexual attractions; however, if they enter a legal relationship (I.E.: a relationship done by Islamic standards,) then they are free to do as they wish (Mutahhari Chapter 1). This is the balance that those who cry out against veils do not understand, and it is this balance that women, of all people, are understanding and enjoying. Rizvi comments on this view by stating that Islam teaches "its followers not to suppress their sexual urges, rather to fulfill them but in a responsible way" (21).

Wilders goes on to call Islam a Totalitarian ideology. We have already shown the balance present in Islam, and we have also shown how Islam is governed by a "give the message and leave" philosophy: " To you be your religion, and to me my religion" (Quran 109:6).

We have also shown to the reader the real purpose of the veil, and how it is made to protect women, and not oppress them, but Saudi Arabia and other so-called Islamic countries are fabricating these elements. Further, we have shown that Islam does not wish to dominate; it wishes to coexist (see Quran 2:62,) and the "Jihadist" political ideology is not supported by Islam.

With respect to jihad, we have shown that the more important jihad is that struggle one does against his or herself, and not physically fighting and killing other people (Bihishti and Bahonar 355); we have quoted a narration from the Prophet (SAWH) concerning this. In addition, we have shown that Islam is not a Totalitarian political ideology, but rather an ideology that wishes to coexist with other religions.

We hope that the reader has gained some insight to Islam, and realizes that Wilders claims are those made by his misunderstanding and fabrication of the real teachings of Islam; it is our hope that the reader has understood the actual Islam, and dismisses Wilders claims. His claims have no credibility against the authentic teachings of Islam, which are those taught by the Prophet Muhammad (SAWH)and his descendants. Wilders' claims are only valid if Arabia and Islam become interchangeable, which is not logically possible. In other words, Wilders' speech should have rightfully been labeled as "speaking out against Arabia and the Middle Eastern Arab tradition," not a speech "against Islam." We hope that this distinction has become clear to the reader. Not all Arabs are Muslims, and not all Muslims are Arabs.

References

Behishti, Ayatullah Dr. Muhammad Hosayni, and Hujjatul-Islam Dr. Javad Bahonar. Philosophy of Islam. Salt Lake City: Islamic Publications, 1982.

Hadi al-Hakim, Hujjatul Islam Sayyid Abdul, et al. A Code Of Practice for Muslims in the West. Trans. Sayyid Muhammad Rizvi. Ed. Najim al-Khafaji, BA. London: Imam Ali Foundation, 1998. 5 May 2009. <http://www.shiamasjid.com/books/Code/index.htm>.

Mutahhari, Murtadha. The Islamic Modest Dress. Qum, Islamic Republic of Iran: Dar us Seqafe, N/A. Ahlul Bayt Digital Islamic Library Project. 7 May 2009. <http://www.al-islam.org/modestdress/title.htm>.

Rizvi, Sayyid Muhammad. Marriage and Morals in Islam

. British Columbia: Vancouver Islamic Educational Foundation, 1990.

[1]SAWH: Arabic for "O Allah (God), bless Muhammad and his family (I.E. Moses, Jesus, Abraham, etc. and the ones who came after him.)"

[2] Baligh: In Arabic, this refers to "reaching maturity" and in Islamic terms refers to the point at which a male or female matures physically. For women, the age is nine, and for men, the age is fifteen. After these periods the male or females are considered physically mature (I.E. women will begin to develop breasts, and men will begin to grow beards..) In adition, sexual impulses are heightened past this stage (Rizvi 59-61).

A new bandage on an ever-growing problem

2009-03-18T14:37:00.000-04:00

Sallams All,

I read an article in the Orlando Sentinel recently which made my blood boil so much, I decided to vent about it on Live Journal. Here is the introduction. I have quoted portions of the article with my comments below the quotations.

The leader of the movement to ban same-sex marriage in Florida now wants to make
it harder and more expensive for heterosexual couples to marry — and divorce.

Just as he says gay unions would undercut the institution of marriage, John Stemberger
thinks the casual way people get married and the ease by which they can divorce threatens
the foundation of society. His goal is to change that.

"Harder to get in and harder to get out," said Stemberger, head of the Orlando-based
Florida Family Policy Council.

You are going to make marriage harder to institute because of high divorce rates? Will that really solve anything? Will that tell people "hey, it is going to be harder for me to marry, so I will do it more than sleep around and have bastard children"?

Stemberger's "Strong Marriages Campaign" is promoting a Premarital Preparation bill
before the Florida Legislature that would add $100 to the state's marriage-license
fee. Those who attend eight hours of premarital counseling would get their money
back.

Ahh yes, and this is how you will do it. Tack on $100 to the fee, and boom! everything is solved. I do not see your logic here, Stemberger. In fact, I believe all you are doing is snagging more money from couples who wish to marry. Don't you understand that people are avoiding marriage and then having bastard children? Now you want to charge them $100 extra to marry. I really think you have your philosophy backwards.

Money not returned to couples would go into a Marriage Education Trust Fund, which
would provide grants to premarital counseling groups.

Premarital counsiling! Now let me ask you this, oh saint. Would most people go to the counsiling to get their money back, or will they go to genuinely learn about how to keep a marriage? And what will you teach them at the sessions, how to be a "good Christian husband/wife?" Or will you tell them that marriage is all about equality and justice and sex is bad for you? Or will you tell them, oh senator, that even though they're married, it's a good idea to abstain from sex? That "premarital counsiling" phrase is too vague for my liking.

Part of Stemberger's selling point in the bill to raise the requirements for marriage
is that divorce is costly for the state because it results in poverty programs for
households headed by single women. A 10percent reduction of Florida's 86,000 divorces
a year would save the state $100 million a year, he said.

If divorce is costly for the state, can you stop it by preventing people from marrying? Yes, you can. In other words, oh senator, you are advocating less marriages! The only people who can marry are those who have the extra $100 to dish out, and are willing to go to counsiling. This will debase the importance of long-lasting marriages, my lawmaker, because the success of marriages will be attributed to "help" received before marriages, not a couple's intellectual abilities, and abilities to sort problems. You seem to be another way for psychiatry to infest the human mind--"you can only be happy if we drug you; and you can only be successful in marriage if we counsil you."

Critics contend Stemberger is using the state's budget crunch to push a conservative
Christian religious ideology disguised as public policy. Most children living in
poverty are not the products of divorce but of unwed mothers, said Judith Stacey,
a sociology professor at New York University.

Agreed. Thank you Sociology! Did you hear that, oh lawmaker, "unwed mothers." Why unwed mothers? Because people like to sleep around and not marry, that's why. Now you are making it even harder to get married.

"Cohabitation and marriage are not equal," said Live the Life founder Richard Albertson.

"The institution of marriage is so much better than cohabitation."

Stemberger said Live the Life and 12 similar "community marriage initiatives" in
the state have proven to reduce divorce. Those types of organizations would be among
those eligible for state funding, Stemberger said.

I do agree with you on this one, lawmaker; still, your means of repair are off the mark, and here is why:

Other states have enacted similar laws to encourage premarital counseling. A law
passed by Minnesota seven years ago has increased the number of couples receiving
premarital counseling from 24 percent to 36 percent. But the majority would still
rather pay the higher fees for a marriage license than go through the required 12
hours of marriage counseling.

Just what I predicted earlier. People either avoid it, or go there just to get their money back. Again I ask you, will making premarital counsiling mandatory do any good at all? According to human mantality, probably not.

Stacey argues that making divorce harder doesn't make marriage better. And making
marriage more expensive hurts those who have the lowest marriage rates to begin with:

the poor.

"One hundred dollars if you are poor is different than $100 if you are rich," she
said. "If you make it harder to get married, you will have more unmarried people.
And they will become poorer faster."

Again, I agree with the sociologist. Hats off to you, ma'm.

You have the right idea, lawmaker, but you are going about it incorrectly. Firstly, because we live in a liberal country, divorce is very easy; I agree with you on that. However, the problem (as we saw above) is mainly unwed mothers. People are not marrying anyway.

Secondly, here is my alternative to your proposal. After a couple is married (at the normal rate,) they have the option to go for marriage counsiling. When they do this, they will be paid a reasonable amount--let us say $100 to attend the sessions. Next, if they divorce, they return that money to the state. If they do not, the collection agencies will be notified. This way, divorce is free, but with an indirect penalty. Also, keep in mind that I am not advocating premarital counsiling; I am advocating counsiling after the couple is married, since this is a more suitable time (they will have gotten to know each other somewhat well by then, and can sort their differences out from the beginning instead of at the beginning of the beginning.): " And one of His signs is that He created mates for you from yourselves that you may
find rest in them, and He put between you love and compassion; most surely there
are signs in this for a people who reflect" (The Holy Quran 30:21).

Ma'a sallamah,

Munawar

The Middle East: Foes Of The Friends

2009-03-07T12:58:00.000-05:00

Before this document is read, you will be able to make better sense of it if you watch the

documentary around which this document is based. Links are provided below:

Introduction
Definitions
1. Moderate Islam
2. Radical Islam
Flaws in the Documentary
1. Suicide
2. Not Enough Airtime
Actual Islam
1. Jihad
False Islam
Final Remarks
References

Introduction

In the name of God, the most compassionate, the most merciful.

On 02/04/2007, Fox News aired an hour long segment entitled "Radical Islam: Terror in Its

Own Words" by E.D. Hill. The documentary, despite appearing to be composed well, had many

flaws. For instance, it wrongly labeled Muslims as killers ("radical") and non-killers

("moderate.") In addition, it failed to point out that although suicide bombing does occur

by those who claim to be Muslim, suicide is forbidden in Islam. Lastly, the documentary

failed to give the so-called "Moderate Muslim" more than two minutes of airtime to explain

his response, while contributing roughly fifty-six minutes to the degradation of the name of

Islam by using the Middle East as its potent example.

In the documentary, Muslims were repeatedly accused of not speaking out. The Muslim who

was interviewed and who was asked to give his thoughts on the Middle East for two minutes

said exactly why this is so: Muslims are not getting airtime. This fact was made clear by

the documentary itself. Not only was the Muslim given no more than two minutes, the

interviewer was constantly arguing with him, preventing him from finishing what he had to

say. The specific flaws of the documentary will be discussed at their appropriate times;

however, you will first be acquainted with the documentary's definition of "radical" and

"moderate" Islam.

Definitions

Moderate Islam

The documentary defines moderate Islam as Islam that teaches peace; an Islam that does not

enjoin killing, suicide bombing, or threats against the United States. Specifically,

Moderate Muslims are those living in the West.

Radical Islam

The documentary defines Radical Muslims as those in the Middle East: the suicide bombers,

those who kill, and those who pose threats against the United States. A man towards the

beginning of the documentary states that the very ideology of Jihad promotes killing. This

is not true, as will be discussed later. In order to begin the discussion, you must be

acquainted with some of Islam's basic teachings.

Flaws in the Documentary

As has been mentioned previously, several notions about Islam presented in the documentary

are false. Often times, one is told that suicide is condemned in Islam, but is not given

proof of this; one is told that killing is condemned in Islam, but is not given proof of

this. Mere words from one's mouth do not suffice to prove to the average opponent that Islam

does condemn suicide and killing; for this reason, explanations and relevant verses from the

Holy Quran have been provided to remove all doubt from your mind. Unfortunately, the

documentary lacked commentary on this aspect, effectively showing Islam as a religion of

terrorist activity, whether that Islam was radical or moderate becoming less significant as

the video progressed.

Suicide

Recall the documentary's definition of Radical Islam: mere Islam, but an Islam which teaches

that suicide bombing is the way to Allah. This notion is false, and is the basis for many

misconceptions about Islam since September 11, 2001. Many use the martyrdom of Imam Hussein

(S.A.) of the Shiah sect as an example to back up the righteousness of suicide bombing,

claiming that Hussein (S.A.) committed suicide. In reality, he did not commit suicide; he

was killed. In addition, Hussein (S.A.) did not cause others to die with him; their deaths

were voluntary, and were not performed by themselves. When this argument is presented,

suicide bombing loses its ground in two ways:

When a suicide bomber lights a bomb, he commits suicide, something which is highly

condemned time and again in the Quran.
When a suicide bomber blows himself up, he kills several people around him; many of whom

are innocent civilians.

you may now argue that the Quran does not condemn suicide. Consider, then, verse 2:195,

which reads as follows:

And spend in the way of Allah and cast not yourselves to perdition with your own

hands, and do good (to others); surely Allah loves the doers of good.

Verses 4:29-30 read as follows:

O you who believe! do not devour your property among yourselves falsely,

except that it be trading by your mutual consent; and do not kill your people; surely Allah

is Merciful to you.

And whoever does this aggressively and unjustly, We will soon cast him into fire; and this

is easy to Allah.

Take a look at verses 2:84-85

And when We made a covenant with you: You shall not shed your blood and you

shall not turn your people out of your cities; then you gave a promise
while you witnessed.

Yet you it is who slay your people and turn a party from among you out of their homes,

backing each other up against them unlawfully and exceeding
the limits; and if they should come to you, as captives you would ransom them-- while their

very turning out was unlawful for you. Do you then believe
in a part of the Book and disbelieve in the other? What then is the reward of such among you

as do this but disgrace in the life of this world, and on
the day of resurrection they shall be sent back to the most grievous chastisement, and Allah

is not at all heedless of what you do.

Consider what verses 2:84-85 tell the believers. (A) The shedding of blood of other human

beings is not lawful; (B) People should not be driven out of cities if they are your own

people (viz. Muslims should not expel Muslims); and (C) Do not believe in one part of the

Quran while ignoring the rest of it. By the three verses mentioned, the Islamic standpoint

on the killing of others during a suicide bomb becomes quite clear: it is condemned greatly.

Focus will now be shifted briefly to a flaw in the documentary which does not have to do

with the misunderstanding of Islam, but rather with the way one of the interviews was

handled.

Not Enough Airtime

Towards the end of the documentary, Hill interviews who she calls a "Moderate Muslim." She

asks him for his views on the situation in the Middle East. From the beginning of the

interview, the viewer can easily tell that Hill is looking for an argument. Not only does

she give the interviewee roughly two minutes to share his views, she does not let him finish

his thought: she is constantly arguing with him. Whether Hill meant for the argument between

her and the interviewee to communicate the message that Hill had a specific goal--a goal to

point a finger at Islam, one may never know unless they ask her directly; however, this did

appear to be her purpose by her attitude. The Imam made an excellent point when he stated

that Muslims are not getting the airtime they deserve; this was one of those examples. If

anything, Hill should have let him explain what he was going to say instead of interrupting

him half way through his sentences and handing him several videos to watch.

Through all the cut offs by Hill, the average viewer may have failed to notice a fine

point made by the interviewee, one which Hill skillfully ignored. He stated that the suicide

bombing is purely a political act, and has nothing to do with Islam. To understand the

interviewee's comment, one must consider the attack on the United States, which is believed

by many to have started the uproar experienced today.

A common belief is that Iraq was involved in 9/11/2001; however, this is not true.

Although Al-Qaeda may have been involved, Iraq had no political gain. Instead, it was more

likely the people from Palestine; several sources point in different directions, so there is

still much speculation. Nonetheless, if indeed Palestine played a role, one must understand

Palestine's position for this possibility to bare any significance on the political nature

of the assault.

Israel was given to the Jews by the United States after the Holocaust. Since then, Israel

invaded Palestine; and the destruction continues till today, according to
href="http://electronicintifada.net/bytopic/442.shtml">ei: Israel invades Gaza: "Operation

Summer Rain". Naturally, Palestine would be angry at the United States because the US is

allies with Israel, Palestine's enemy. Because of this, Palestine decides to take revenge on

the US for giving Israel its firepower and continuing to support the country even though it

went outside of its boundaries. Considering this, Palestine's action was purely political,

as the interviewee in Hill's interview stated.

Considering all of the information given above, you will now be presented with the actual

definition of Islam.

Actual Islam

The documentary, although shining light on the roots of terrorism, failed to point out that

Islam had no factor in suicide bombing, or the killing of US soldiers. Instead, Islam was

divided in to two categories: moderate and radical. These categories, however, are illogical

and do not follow the Islamic trend in the least.

A Muslim who follows Islam to its fullest--from the five daily prayers to fasting to

being mindful with whom he or she converses on account of whether that person is lawful for

him or her--is a "extreme Muslim." Notice that the word "radical" was not used. This is

because there is no definition of "radical Islam." Radical means beyond the normal

guidelines, and Islam beyond the normal guidelines is in fact not Islam at all. Here,

"beyond the normal guidelines" refers to suicide bombing, and killing other people

mercilessly, two acts which are condemned and looked down upon by the teachings of Islam, as

has been shown to you above. Every Muslim's goal is to become an extreme (or true) Muslim,

because at that point they are following the Quran to its fullest. Recall verse 2:85:
"… Do you then believe
in a part of the Book and disbelieve in the other? …" This verse clearly is a wake up call

to Muslims.

Owing to verse 2:85, the term "moderate Muslim" is a label that Muslims do not wish to

carry--that is, true Muslims do not wish to carry. A moderate Muslim is one who does just

what verse 2:85 condemns: he attends the Mosque but does not pray; he consumes alcohol but

still counts himself up righteous; and he turns his back on helping people by stating "If

only I won the lottery…" yet he counts himself good-hearted because he recites the Quran at

the Mosque. Chapter 107 of the Quran declares:

So woe to the praying ones,

Who are unmindful of their prayers,

Who do (good) to be seen,

And withhold the necessaries of life.

(4-7).

Considering the verses presented above, moderate Muslims would fall under the category of

false Muslims, those that cannot be called Muslims at all. Therefore, there still remains

two types of Muslims, but not in the sense in which Hill sees them (as radical and

moderate.)

Striving Muslims: These are those who pray in good faith; who give to the poor without

wishing they won the lottery; who do not consume alcohol; and who avoid sin where ever they

can. In essence, these are the Muslims who are still striving to be spiritually successful.

Although they do not follow every teaching of the Quran, they are still Muslims because they

are attempting to reach the goal of ultimate success.
True Muslims: These are those who have fully accepted the will of Allah (God); who are

free from sin; who do not eat unless their neighbors have eaten. These are the Muslims to

whom the former type look up to as role models.

Notice that there was no mention of suicide bombing or killing. No matter how extremely one

follows Islam, he or she is not permitted to kill another (except in self-defense), or

commit suicide. As soon as he or she does this, he or she is no longer a Muslim, according

to verse 2:195, which has been quoted elsewhere. Suicide cannot even be labeled as Jihad.

Jihad

Towards the beginning of Hill's documentary, a man stated that the very ideology of Jihad is

to kill those who do not follow Islam. There are several problems with this belief.

Firstly, one must establish the meaning of Jihad. Jihad means a struggle (not holy war).

There are two types of this struggle:

The war against one's self: This type of Jihad refers to one's struggle against his or

her own desires for unlawful things. Spiritually inclined persons practice Jihad every day,

whether they realize it or not (viz. resisting gambling, resisting alcohol, Etc.)

(Philosophy Of Islam 143).
Holy War: This type of Jihad is the physical Jihad performed with weapons; it is this

Jihad that has been used as an excuse for suicide bombing. There are strict guidelines by

which this Jihad is performed, however, and none of them are left standing when one blows

himself up in a crowded area. The most important of these guidelines is Muslims are only

permitted to fight when "… they [the non-Muslims] start fighting first, when they violate

the privacy of Muslims, expel them from their homes, or hinder them from conveying the

message of Islam"
href="http://www.islamonline.net/english/Contemporary/2003/10/article02_a.shtml">

[IslamOnline - Contemporary Section].

Al-Qaeda flew planes in to the United States World Trade Center when they had no reason to,

except anger. The US did not wage war upon them, and did not prevent them from spreading the

word of Islam; therefore, the claim that the attack on the Twin Towers was an act of Jihad

is void.

False Islam

you have been shown that Islam condemns suicide, and also the killing of others; yet, these

acts occur quite frequently in the Middle East. In fact, suicide bombing is branded as

martyrdom. Considering all of the verses and information presented above, one can now see

why many Muslims do not support those claims: suicide bombing is not martyrdom because it

violates one of the basic principles of Islam; and killing other human beings is also

unlawful (except in self-defense). With all these facts in mind, the arguments of the Middle

East fall short of solid ground on which they may stand.

Final Remarks

Therefore, Ms. Hill, I urge you to carefully rethink your documentary, and maybe talking to

someone who grew up in the West and studies the religion for what it really is may be

beneficial to you. You will fight us, so we will fight you, and in the middle we will clash.

In the end, surely Islam will prevail over the ones who are sensoring it because they are

uncomfortable that Christianity is losing its footing; even though we can all agree that

"Missionary work is performed mostly in exchange for financial and material remuneration"

(Philosophy Of Islam 27). This is all a ploy by the Pope and his Catholic friends.

You are now being seen right through because your political-religious wavering did not help

humanity. Today, society is looking for answers, and getting it through Islam (Philosophy

Of Islam 28). Where is the mention of your crusades when you talk about "radical

islamists" blowing up buildings? Where is your discussion of Timathy Mcvay's destruction of

a government building in the 90s? You seem to be so sure of yourselves, but yet you have

become so institutionalized that the Pope is an untouchable--you are to talk to his bishops.

Did Christianity come with Jesus (peace be upon him) or after Jesus?

Your pope lives in splendor while Moses and Aaron went to visit Farrow with only pieces of

woolen clothes on their bodies and wooden sticks (Philosophy Of Islam 143-44). You

will ignore the pitfalls of your own religion by focusing on debasing Islam (which helps

humanity because it tells the man and woman that you "must live respectfully and must not be

humiliated or dominated" (Philosophy Of Islam 11)); and you are teling me Jesus died

for my sins. Wrong--we are dying for each other's sins. You use this great sacrifice as an

excuse to not participate in prescribed rituals such as prayer and fasting because "Jesus

died so I don't have to do that anymore. Isn't he wonderful? Let's go drinking. Praise

Jesus!"

References

Behishti, Ayatullah Dr. Muhammad Hosayni, and Hujjatul-Islam Dr. Javad Bahonar.

Philosophy of Islam. Salt Lake City: Islamic Publications, 1982.

Stop!...Look at it from THIS perspective

I Would Die Before You Would

Does Age Really Make Us Wiser?

Geert Wilders: Politician Turned Murderer

Monkey Floated Away; Did the Muslims Do It?

The Middle East: Revolution, Jihad

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

The Islamocaust

A Revolution Gone Rogue

Terrorism: Negated by Religious Ideology?

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

Summary Of 2009; Is 2010 Predictable?

Karbala: Injustice Costs Blood; Who Are The Shia?

Non-Muslims Do It Too! Oh Wait... We Couldn't Care Less

Honor Killings: Robert Spencer Gets Another Chunk Of Meat

Out Of The Darkness: General George Casey Speaks For Islam In Light Of Nidal Hasan's Actions

Earthquake Hits Iran, World Turns Blind Eye

Fathima Rifqa Bary: Investigative Report; Exaggerated Or True?

Fathima Rifqa Bary: A Suicide Bomber To Our Cause

Selective Responding: "We do what we feel like"

If You Thought It Was Over...Think Again

Agree To Disagree: It's Our Only Hope

As I crack open the egg...

Hiding from what you cannot fight

A Letter to Our Government

Your government hates the people it serves

A new bandage on an ever-growing problem

The Middle East: Foes Of The Friends

Contents

Introduction

Definitions

Moderate Islam

Radical Islam

Flaws in the Documentary

Suicide

Not Enough Airtime

Actual Islam

Jihad

False Islam

Final Remarks

References