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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Get him out!" some yell.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wait, his debasement doesn't stop there.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And The Winner Is...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Middle East: Revolution, Jihad

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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