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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Life Saver, Or Life Taker?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I Have More YouTube Likes Than You Do

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do you mean jihadists, or terrorists?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who's Right Is It Anyway?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ma'a sallamah,
Munawar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Rabbi goes on:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Revolution Gone Rogue

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are these qualifications for a Muslim?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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