"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?

Innocent Scapegoats

Sallams Readers.
We've known for some time how backwards and deceptive the Taliban are and how they use Islam as a means for their own political gain. However, now they're pushing the bar even further, by using children as metaphorical ransom. The Taliban have always recruited kids as soldiers, but now they're moving to a more subtle approach. Read the article on the Polio ban here.

A ban on polio vaccinations imposed by the Taliban could affect about 280,000 children living in tribal areas of northwest Pakistan, according to estimates from the World Health Organization.

Last month, local Taliban militants prohibited polio vaccines over the United States' use of drone strikes in the region.

When a three-day nationwide effort to administer polio vaccines began this week,health workers and volunteers weren't able to immunize children in North and South Waziristan.

So let me see if I understand this correctly. You terrorize the United States, England, and other Western countries. Then, you whine when we retaliate. And then, you say no more retaliation or we'll kill our children. And then, you stand for prayer at the first utterance of "Allahu akbar?" Really? That's absolutely laughable. How can you sleep at night when you very well know that thousands of innocent children will die because of your political motives?

Under this security situation, they "obviously cannot operate," said Mazhar Nisar, the health education adviser in the Pakistani prime minister's polio program. "We're hoping that the campaign will resume in the near future."

Throughout the rest of the country, vaccination efforts continued as 180,000 health workers and volunteers fanned throughout communities trying to immunize 34 million children, under the age of 5.

Let me reiterate that. "under the age of five." First you demand your women to not get an education, directly going against Islamic law. Now you're killing off your children because you have issues with the United States' operation in your country? Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you harbor Osama--a man responsible for killing millions of people around the world?

The vaccine ban began in June after a Taliban commander in northwest Pakistan declared in a statement that the vaccines "would be banned in North Waziristan until the drones strikes are stopped."

The commander, Hafiz Gul Bahadur said that the drone strikes "are worse than polio," and consulted with other Taliban leaders regarding the decision, according to the statement. Drone strikes are widely unpopular, as the Pakistani government has pressed the U.S. administration to stop the attacks. 20 dead in drone attack in Pakistan

So killing millions of children is worse than one of your people dying. Right. Your statement makes no logical sense, Mr. Taliban. I don't even know how you can fast during Ramadhan with so much blood on your hands!

This incident is the very reason why Pakistan has not progressed to this day. I see a lot of wonderings on Muslim-based forums asking the question, "Why do Muslims live in poverty?" My answer, "The Taliban, and all the corrupt dictators who come into power." Every time Arabs try to progress, something happens which holds them back. And the ban on Polio is a prime example. Now, millions of kids who would have grown into your next generation--smarter, stronger, more aware of your deception, will never get that chance because of what you did, O Taliban. You're sentencing kids to death because your ever so precious commander was killed, and I hope Pakistan sentences you to death because these precious children will die.

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

I Would Die Before You Would

I am surprised many times by how much Americans believe Arabs hate them. While this belief definitely has a basis in truth, the gravity of the reality of the belief is often far-fetched, and is based on mere assumptions generally by people who listen to the media and think they now own the criteria for arguing a doctoral degree in islamic Studies.

People who believe that all Arabs hate America have two misconceptions, in general, to drive this notion.

The first misconception is that they think all Arabs are Muslims and all Muslims are Arab. A 2009 statistic shows that fifteen percent of Muslims are Arab, and while the majority of Arabs are Muslims, there are other religions in the Middle East as well.

The second misconception is that America is the most-hated entity to ever exist. I heard a lecturer state once (I do not remember his name) that if him and a Christian would go to Arabia, they would kill the lecturer first, to which I rolled my eyes until he explained the statement. Why would they kill him first? Because he is Shia. I heard this statement about four years ago.

As time passes, I see how obvious the conclusion is, and to show you exactly what I mean, I have provided an excerpt from an article I read in CNN a couple days ago.

Gunmen shot 22 passengers to death after intercepting a bus carrying Shiite pilgrims Monday night in Iraq's Anbar province, police officials said.

The bus was en route to Karbala from Damascus, Syria, and was in the al-Nukhaib area when it was stopped by gunmen, said police officials in Ramadi, the provincial capital.

Twenty-two innocent travelers were shot to death simply because of the fact that they were Shia. If you are not familiar with the Suni-Shia conflict, read my post here.

Those of you who think that Arabs only hate America because of its Western philosophy, and America is the number one enemy of the Arab Muslim world, think again.

Wait, it gets worse.

The gunmen then separated the men on the bus -- including the Syrian driver -- from the women and children. They then took the men to another location and shot them, the officials said.

Shiite pilgrims from Karbala often travel by bus to Damascus to visit the Syeda Zainab shrine.

I find it amazing how history repeats itself, over and over again. If you recall the post I did on Ashoorah (linked above,) you will remember how Yazid's army burned the tents of the women, denied the Imam's people any water, and then even took the ladies' hijab. I wonder what happened to these women, now that they, too, were separated from their men--and it also happened in relation to Karbala. So to those of you who think that America is the only target, I encourage you to rethink your philosophy. These terrorists are not just targeting your country, they're even killing fellow Muslims. Don't tell me I'm responsible for September 11, 2001, because, guess what, even Muslims died at the hands of these people.

However, it's not just from Suni to Shia. Recently, it's been going the other way too, as is evident from the same article.

Separately, in Baquba, a Sunni imam was shot and killed by gunmen Monday in the al-Gatoon area, an official with Iraq's interior ministry told CNN on condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to speak to media. Ahmed Mahmud al-Jabalawi, the imam of the al-Shuhada mosque, was on his way to the mosque for morning prayers when he was shot by gunmen who used pistols equipped with silencers, the official said.

Terrorists are even killing Muslims who will lead prayers! I do not care if he is Suni, Shia, or Wahabi / Salaf--that went way too far. How can you rightfully continue to call yourself a Muslim when you just killed someone who will recite the call to your prayer? So what if their call is a bit different from the Shia version because they do not recognize Imam Ali (S.A.) as a direct successor to Prophet Muhammad (SAWH.) In the end they are going to prayer just like you and me. I assume these latter gunmen were Shia. Who gives you the right, o Shia gunmen, to bring judgment on people that harshly? Now you are becoming like the un-Islamic Islamic Arabian courts that stone women to death even though the woman was raped, which is another, completely backwards, illogical action.

I have found lately that using the word "illogical" interchangeably with the word "Arab" is becoming easier; still, for fear of generalizing, I won't go that far, because I have met some really nice Arabs who wouldn't even dream of shooting someone, let alone picking up a gun.

At any rate, this number, twenty-two, shocks me. These were people minding their own business, doing what Shias do, and they were still killed. Do you understand now when I say even Muslims die due to terrorism? These people have so much hatred in them I don't even know where to begin--especially Salafs. If you listen to their sermons, often times that is all it is--hate. These people are kafir, those people are kafir, etc. Revolution Muslim, an organization I have written about in the past, is a prime example. These terrorists don't just hate america, they hate almost everyone. For Revolution Muslim, though, it's sad because they have some excellent thoughts and are very intellectual, and I have openly stated my agreement with them on some issues. However, they have so much hate to go along with it, including hatred towards Shia Islam, that it bars people from their message.

I dread to think what has become of the women who were left on the bus.

Geert Wilders: Politician Turned Murderer

Last week, a man set off a car bomb in Oslo, Norway. Then, he took a trip to an island where a youth camp was being held, and has, as of this blog post, confirmed to have killed seventy people in total from the bombing and shooting.

What got my attention right away was my initial reaction, and the shocking details that emerged afterwards.

Most of us (including me) thought, "Another Al-Qaeda attack," or "I bet his name is Muhammad Omar Hussein Al-Jabar Al-Hakim Al-Aziz." However, his name is nothing of the sort.

Given recent attacks and the common trend over the past ten years, it's become easy for us, even as Muslims, to blame the attack immediately on Muslims. Call it instinctive reflexes, following public opinion, brainwashing, or whatever else suits you, but I guarantee you that most peoples' first reaction was the likes of what I've just described; this is the first reason why I couldn't ignore it.

I wrote that the details of the event grabbed my immediate attention as well. This is where things get really, really interesting.

First, let us imagine the typical terror plot. Muslim kills Americans and says he hates the world. Muslim blows himself up and authorities find links to terror cells. Muslim kills people in Israel, England, and America and says he hates Christians and Jews because they're infidels.

Next, we come to this event in Norway. It's the exact opposite of the typical, Muslim-hates-world plot. The media are calling Anders Behring Breivik a "right-wing Christian Extremist." Some are even calling him a "right-wing Christian Fundamentalist." Yes, you read that correctly. For the first time, an act of violence committed by a non-Muslim is being dubbed as a terror attack, and being called extremism.

Why am I making this big of a deal out of it? The answer is simple, and I'll tell you in one sentence. Anders Behring Breivik being dubbed as a terrorist and a fundamentalist shows that the world is finally coming to its senses and public opinion is changing; terrorism is no longer confined to just Al-Qaeda and so-called Muslims--it is, slowly but surely, being applied to so-called Christian terrorists (and probably so-called Jewish ones too.) In essence, the "terrorist" label is no longer confined to Muslim terrorists--the context of the word is broadening to include anyone who decides to blow something up, not just Muslims who do it. This is a big change from a year ago, when it seemed that to be a terrorist you had to have some sort of ties to Islam; whether you got it by praying five times a day or just by stepping on a prayer rug with a picture of a Mosque on it.

Now, things continue to get better. Not only is this act dubbed an act of terrorism by mainstream media, Geert Wilders has some of the blame for it.

Geert Wilders, a Dutch politician whose Freedom Party is referenced in a manifesto apparently written by Breivik, condemned the suspect's alleged actions Tuesday. Wilders said he was not "responsible for a lone idiot who twisted the freedom-loving anti-Islamization ideals" of his party.

Of course, Wilders quickly disclaims any responsibility, but any ounce of common sense will lead you to make the logical conclusion that if Wilders was referenced, Anders got his ideas partly from Wilders' ideas. In other words, Wilders, who has been responsible for spreading hatred about Islam and who leads a party whose goal is to deIslamize Denmark, is now responsible for influencing this shooting. His years of perpetual hatred, lies, fabrications and accusations has led a man to kill seventy people. Seventy innocent people died because this man, Geert Wilders, never stepped down and never listened to sane-minded people.

Therefore, on this day I liken Geert Wilders to Al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda uses perpetual hatred and demonization to get people mad at other religions, eventually pushing them so far they are willing to commit murder in the name of Islam. Geert Wilders, who demonizes Islam through his Freedom Party, pushed Anders so far he committed murder in the name of Christianity. I had a feeling this would eventually happen. Dangerous ideas are dangerous in dangerous hands; this shooting proved that. No matter how much Wilders disclaims the correlation, since he was referenced and his ideas were used, he has a part in it. Karma bites.

I must add that I have the right to make this connection, mainly because of something said to me on a forum long ago when I was debating against Wilders. I drew the distinction between Islam and Culture and said that all these killings are not condoned by Islam and are purely political. A responder said that "until Wilders starts killing people and blowing things up, you can't make a razor-thin distinction between your religion [Islam] and politics." Well, today that distinction can be made, because now Wilders, like it or not, has blood on his hands. The unfortunate part in all this is that people had to die for it to happen, and no one can ignore that. It was a huge loss to the world because these were innocent people. They had no part in the hatred, and the question that is still left unanswered is, "If you hate Muslims so much, why kill innocent people?" I don't think any of the people he killed were Muslim; as far as I know, most of them were Christians. Anders claimed to commit the murders because he wanted to stop the colonization of Muslims in Europe. These people didn't need to die, but they died anyway because of Wilders' continued hatred against Muslims and his continued brainwashing of innocent people. Well, Geert, this is the end result. Death.

Monkey Floated Away; Did the Muslims Do It?

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 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.

A Revolution Gone Rogue

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are these qualifications for a Muslim?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Earthquake Hits Iran, World Turns Blind Eye

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

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


Ma'a sallamah,


Munawar