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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Get him out!" some yell.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wait, his debasement doesn't stop there.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Modern-Day Martyr

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Does Age Really Make Us Wiser?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Monkey Floated Away; Did the Muslims Do It?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Middle East: Revolution, Jihad

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Islamocaust

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Summary Of 2009; Is 2010 Predictable?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ma'a sallamah,
Munawar Bijani

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

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

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

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

Honor Killings: Robert Spencer Gets Another Chunk Of Meat

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If You Thought It Was Over...Think Again

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

These words come from a man with the following credentials.

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

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

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


President Barack Obama 8/20/2009

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

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

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

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

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

ACT NOW


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

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

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

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

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