A Dam to Block the Islamocaust Wave

With all of the controversy surrounding Muslims today, I often find myself asking the question "What's taking the Islamocaust so long to take hold?" At first, I was under the impression that it actually HAS started, but with the access to information at its all-time high due to instant sharing, stories which were "news" ten years ago are no longer newsworthy. However, I don't think things are as morbid as they seem. For instance, at least for now, Muslims in the U.S. still enjoy their freedoms granted to them by God and guaranteed by the Constitution. If a Muslim woman is harassed, she has several organizations that will yell and throw tantrums until she gets her compensation and is allowed to don her Hijab.

This realization led me to the only other conclusion I could possibly think of, and that is that there are still sensible people around. When I do a post like this, I purposely don't mention Muslim efforts; this way we can eliminate all bias. You will recall the story I did on a Rabbi standing up for the New York multi-purpose center which has a prayer area in it. This time, I bring you a similar story, but from a Christian.

"Wait, a Christian?" one of my readers is likely to ask disapprovingly. Well, yes, and I want to stop you there. What you will read next is an Email from a good friend of mine. He is active in his church and is a strong believer in God. As Muslims, we are very quick to judge other faiths despite our religion demanding that we not do so (Quran 2:62.) Still, a lot of us are stuck on this idea that Muslims MUST hate Christians just because we are Muslims. I daresay that some schools go as far as to say that having friends from different faiths is unacceptable.

When I took an Islamic Studies course a while back at university, the majority of people there were Christian or Jewish--not Muslim. The reason a lot of them gave for taking the course is that there was a lot of misinformation going around about Islam and they wanted to find out the truth about the religion. Now let me ask you, O humble "pious" Muslim readers: How many of you would take a Bible studies course simply because you wanted to understand Christianity better? There is still a lot of unfounded hatred in our community for Jewish people as well, but what this has done is allowed us to ignore that Jews and Muslims are, in fact, very similar when it comes to traditions and practices. Ask a Jew about their marriages next time you get the chance, and you'll be thoroughly surprised.

When I met this man at a convention in 2012, he noticed a prayer rug sitting on my bed in my room. He pulled me aside and told me he had found it ("I noticed a prayer rug on your bed. Are you a Muslim?") My first reaction was "O no, I've lost a friend." But his next question caught me completely off guard. "Would you like me to let you know the phases of the day so you can pray on time?" We were in a different state, and adjusting to time differences is difficult, especially for a blind person since you can't see the changes in lighting well enough to determine accurately when it is time for prayers. I was amazed by this reaction to me being Muslim, and this is why I think the Islamocaust hasn't taken hold. Not everyone is brainwashed by the media and active government propaganda against us. He even approached me in such a way so that there was little chance of someone else eavesdropping on our conversation, since he understood that this might have been a sensitive subject and others would not necessarily take kindly to knowing I am Muslim.

Here is his Email. I have reproduced it with his permission.

Subject: from World War Two until now  
From: Bruce Radtke
To: Munawar Bijani

Dear Munawar, You are in my thoughts.  Yesterday at our public library I attended an event that publicized a community reading of a book about the Japanese-American experience during World War II.  It's a novel by Guterson called SNOW FALLING ON CEDARS, set in our area of the nation.  Since you live in Florida, perhaps you have only a little familiarity with what happened to Japanese-Americans on the West Coast.  Soon after Pearl Harbor was attacked in 1941, a Presidential Proclamation uprooted all Japanese-Americans, whether US citizens or not, who lived on the West Coast and required their "internment."  In reality, 120,000 women, children and men were placed in concentration camps until the end of the war.  Men who refused to sign the loyalty oaths were sent to federal prisons, but those who pledged allegiance only to the USA were placed in Japanese-American-only army troops that later were recognized for their bravery.  I'm of German descent, but no German-Americans or Italian-Americans were sent to concentration camps just because of their ethnicity.  It was a blatant example of national racism to place all Japanese-Americans in miserable concentration camps.  The Supreme Court upheld all these actions. 

Yesterday we listened to some panel members who lived through that experience and described its effects, mostly negative.  Several times these panel members from all over our state warned the audience that today we Americans are tempted to discriminate and abuse American residents and citizens who are Muslims, not because of their crimes, but because of their religion and sometimes only their ancestors' origin in the Middle East.  I live in a town with a university, so I was pleased to see the warm welcome these speakers received, but I know that drawing a parallel between how we treated the Japanese-Americans during World War Two and how we treat Muslims today might not be typical in many places in the USA. 

Guantanamo remains open, with some "detainees" or prisoners who have never been tried and should be released.  I recall seeing your anger displayed on Facebook over treatment of Muslims, and I encourage you to speak clearly about the bigotry you perceive.  There are many examples in our world of how silence can lead to disaster repeatedly, while truth-speaking has the potential for possible confrontation but ultimately a potential for healing and achieving belated justice.  I want to stand beside you. Your friend, Bruce

People who think along these lines are perhaps the only reason Muslims still enjoy their freedoms. As long as there are a few people like Bruce who can put faith differences aside and call things for what they are, I'm not worried about our situation. So thank you Bruce for being open-minded and not being afraid to voice your support despite the heavily anti-Islam public opinion. Your message is like a beacon of light among all the negativity and your efforts will go a long way. You've truly defined what it means to be brothers bound by common Abrahamic roots.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NYPD Conspires Against Muslims

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I Have More YouTube Likes Than You Do

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do you mean jihadists, or terrorists?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Letter to Our Government

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



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

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

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

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

Your government hates the people it serves

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

Against Geert Wilders: A Truth Against Lies

Author: Bijani, Munawar Ali

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

References

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

 

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

 

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

 

Rizvi, Sayyid Muhammad. Marriage and Morals in Islam

. British Columbia: Vancouver Islamic Educational Foundation, 1990.

---

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

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