A Modern-Day Martyr

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who's Right Is It Anyway?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ma'a sallamah,
Munawar

The Middle East: Revolution, Jihad

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Summary Of 2009; Is 2010 Predictable?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ma'a sallamah,
Munawar Bijani

Karbala: Injustice Costs Blood; Who Are The Shia?

When many people say "X has been oppressed or Y has been oppressed," they often times forget the cost of being Muslim. Since the beginning of monotheism--from the Prophet Abraham (may peace and blessings be on him) to the death of Prophet Muhammad (SAWH,) people who "identify" with a religion of monotheism have been crushed, ridiculed, insulted and tormented. Still, there is one tragedy that no Muslim can ever forget, and that is the tragedy of Karbala, where the blood of the leader of Islam was spilled to save the minority--Shiatul Ali; where the blood of the leader of Islam was spilled to save the very essence of humanity. It is a known fact that Muslims were not the only ones who fought on Yomul Ashoorah; rather, there was a Christian named John and several Hindus who fought alongside Imam Hussein.

They all had a common goal: to stop the oppressive nature of the Abu Bakr-started regime, and this battle ended with 72 martyrs, including Imam Hussein; the leader of the movement. Who was Abu Bakr, you may ask.

During the time of Prophet Muhammad (SAWH,) there was no such thing as Shia, Suni, Ismaeli, etc. Islam ([the philosophy of] submission) was just that--Islam. A famous narration by the Prophet says "I have come to reform your manners." This was Islam until the death of the Prophet. Indeed, when a reformer comes to a land, the "reformed" tend to revert back to their old ways after he leaves. Refer to this paper for a discussion on this topic. This is exactly what happened to Islam. Those of you who asked me "who are the Suni," because of the repeated references I made to them in the rebuttal, I will answer you now.

Before the Prophet died, he had made his son in law, Ali, his successor. The first person to accept this decision and acknowledge it was Abu Bakr. Ironically, this was the first man to turn against the Prophet after he died.

After the death of the Prophet, Abu Bakr mentioned that Prophet had not left a successor. Two miles away from the Masjid of Kufa, Abu Bakr gathered his close friends and held elections. Naturally, he was elected to be the successor of Islam. Bare in mind that this position was supposed to be held by Ali, not Abu Bakr.

Meanwhile, back in Kufa, Ali was overseeing the burial of the Prophet (yes, the Prophet hadn't even been buried yet!)

During the reign of Abu Bakr, several things were happening to the religion of Islam. Most notably was the corruption that ensued. Several narrations tell us that Abu Bakr enjoyed drinking to a great extent. We know that Alcohol is forbidden in Islam. Further, Abu Bakr himself has stated on many occasions that "had it not been for Ali, my reign would not have lasted." Whether he liked it or not, Abu Bakr had to accept Ali, in the end, as his adviser. (Ali was eventually given the leadership of Islam, but only after three rulers: Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman.) After Ali came Muawiya who started the Umayyad dynasty. Until then, tensions between Suni and Shia escalated. This was because, while Ali was to have the leadership from the beginning, the Suni took it and then proceeded to corrupt Islam. Thus, we can view the Shia as the reformists.

During the reign of Muawiya, Imam Hussein, the third descendant of the Prophet, was told to bow to Yazid--the commander of the army of Muawiya. He was told to either bow or die. Hussein chose death, and that is why, today, we commemorate Ashoorah on the tenth day of Muharram every year. Instead of giving in to the corruption, Imam Hussein stood his ground and said "no" to corruption and tyranny. This is the very reason why people from several different faiths fought alongside him. This is why Suni-Shia conflicts are still ongoing.

A common Suni argument is, "we follow the Prophet, the Shia follow someone else besides the Prophet, which is against Islam's teachings." Not only is this claim logically false, it is also factually false. Remember that Prophet had declared Ali as his successor (at Ghadeer-E-Qum.) Thus, to not accept Ali as the leader of Islam after the Prophet's death is going against the very wishes of the Prophet. Further, to follow someone does not mean to worship them. We follow Ali because the Prophet said " if I am your master, Ali is your master." In another narration he says "I am from Ali, and Ali is from me."

Next, bare in mind that the Suni follow someone who instigated (and later carried out) the killing of the grandson of the Prophet. What better way to say "I love Islam" than to kill the Prophet's grandson?

On Ashoorah, we commemorate the brutal killings of the 72 martyrs in Karbala, Iraq. That night--after all the men had been killed--the ladies of Islam who were in the tents were dragged from the tents, their hijab torn and the tents burned. This, my dear reader, was done by the leader of the Suni sect of Islam! The suni attack us by saying "crying and wailing is against Islam." Show me a narration that supports it. They also say "grieving is against Islam." My dear reader, Prophet Jacob, the father of Prophet Youssef (may peace and blessings be on both of them) cried until he went blind when his son was supposedly killed by a pack of wolves--and the Suni sect is saying the Prophet's actions were forbidden. This statement defies the very logic of the infallibility of the prophethood in Islam.

Today, we find that the suicide bombs are all Suni. We find that Saddam Hussein continued oppressing Shia until his death. We find that women are not allowed to drive in Saudi Arabia because of the way the Suni sect continues to degrade its women. Ashoorah represents the day our Imam (leader) took a bold stand against the Umayyad government to save his Shia people from falling into the hands of corruption. His blood was spilled; his head was cut and speared. Narrations tell us the government rode on horseback carrying the Imam's head on a stick (they did this to the grandson of the Prophet!)

During the day of Ashoorah, the troops of Hussein were cut off from the water supply; Muawiya's army had surrounded the river of Karbala. Hussein's son, Ali Asgar, who was still an infant at the time was dehydrated. Hussein took him to the opposition and begged them to give him water at least, stating "maybe you hate me, but this child has done nothing wrong to you." You know what they gave the infant? An arrow that went in to his right ear and came out of the left. This, my dear reader, is the same exact leader the Suni sect follows. In fact, you will see a lot of them celebrating on Yomul Ashoorah.

Today, history books have misinterpreted history, saying that the Suni sect believes in elections and the Shia sect believes in blood royalty. If Abu Bakr--the elected representative of Islam confessed that his reign was saved because of Ali's advice, who seems more qualified and knowledgeable to you, the Suni Abu Bakr, or the Shia Imam Ali (may peace and blessings be upon him?) When I used to teach at the local Islamic school, one of my students told me she had some Suni friends who were smoking weed. When she confronted them, they claimed that Abu Bakr smoked weed so it was fine for them to do it because he was the leader of Islam. Can you see how corrupt their mentallity is? Today, when you go to Suni gatherings you will notice a lot of their women shedding their hijab; they call it "modernization" of Islam. Suni people have completely thrown their religion away; they have fabricated it to such a great extent that today all Muslims are suffering because of the fabricated narrations to debase the Prophet in order to raise the status of Abu Bakr. Refer to this paper for a discussion on this topic. I asked an instructor a couple years ago why Suni people fabricated the narrations of the Prophet; it brought no favor to Islam. He answered me with logic and said "think about it. Set aside all the Shia Suni stuff. Why would you debase someone like that? Because they stole the leadership position, and needed a way to debase the Prophet--put him below them." This answer made so much sense to me, and I see that debasement today. They blinded their followers.

There is a narration concerning the event of Ashoorah where the fourth descendant of the Prophet (who took over after Imam Hussein was martyred) was shackled to a carriage and lead through the city of Kufa. An old man approached him and started insulting him (the propaganda had begun against the family of the Prophet.) The fourth Imam, Zainul Abi-Deen, stopped him and said "have you read the verse in the Quran that states that a man who gives charity during prostration in prayer will be your [Prophet Muhammad's] successor?" The man said "yes." The imam replied "we are from his family!" The man broke down and cried "I have been lied to!" The man the Quran talks about was Ali. A narration states that he was in prayer while a woman came into the Mosque to ask for assistance. The Imam stuck out his ring finger to signal for her to take the ring he was wearing; she did. He did this while in prostration and this is the very man against whom injustice was done by your fellow Suni suicide bombers!

Peace be on you, O Abu 'Abdillah
Peace be on you, O son of the Messenger of Allah
Peace be upon you, O the chosen one and the son of the chosen one
Peace be on you, O son of the Commander of the Faithful and the son of the chief of the successors.
Peace be on you, O son of Fatima, the leading lady of the worlds
Peace be on you, O fearless warrior of Allah, the one who was killed, but to whom blood revenge is still denied
Peace be on you, and on the souls who died with you.
I send peace of Allah on all of you forever, so long as I remain alive, and the night and day remains.
O Abu Abdillah,
Great is the loss,
And unbearable and great is your tragedy for us, and for all the Muslims,
And unbearable and great is your tragedy in the heavens, and for all the dwellers of the heavens.
May Allah curse the people, who laid down the basis of oppression and wrongs against you, people of the House
May Allah curse those who removed you from your position, and removed you from the rank in which Allah had placed you.
May Allah curse the people who killed you,
And those who facilitated for them the means for your killing
I turn to Allah and to you, away from them,
And from their adherents, their followers, and their friends
O Abu 'Abdillah,
I am at peace with those who make peace with you,
And I am at war with those who make war with you, till the Day of Judgement.
May Allah curse, the family of Ziyad, and the family of Marwan,
And May Allah curse Bani Umayya entirely,
And May Allah curse Ibn Marjanah
And May Allah curse 'Umar ibne Sa'ad,
And may Allah curse Shimr
And May Allah curse the people who, carried out, saw, and tried to conceal, your killing
My father and mother be sacrificed for you, great is my sorrow for you.
I pray to Allah who has honoured your status, and honoured me through you,
To grant me an opportunity to seek your revenge with a victorious Imam, from the family of Muhammad, blessings of Allah be on him and his family.
O Allah, make me of a worthy status in your eyes, through Hussein, peace be on him, in this world and the Hereafter.
O Abu 'Abdillah,
I seek nearness to Allah,
and to His Messenger,
and to the Commander of the Faithful,
and to Fatima,
and to Hassan,
and to you, through the love and dedication to you,
and through disassociating with those who killed you, and prepared to fight you
and disassociating with those who established the foundations of tyranny, and wrongs against you (O Ahlul Bayt).
I turn to Allah, and His Messenger, away from those who laid grounds for it,
and those who built the house of injustice upon it,
and carried out oppression and cruelty, against you and your followers.
I turn to Allah, and to you, away from them,
and seek nearness to Allah, and then to you through love for you and your friends,
and by disassociating with your enemies, and those who went to war with you,
and by disassociating with their adherents and those who follow them.
I am at peace with those who made peace with you,
and I am at war with those who went to war with you.
I befriend those who befriended you,
and I am the enemy with those who were your enemies.
I pray to Allah, who has honoured me with awareness of you, and my awareness of your friends
and has enabled me to disassociate from your enemies.
(I pray) that He may place me with you in this world and the Hereafter.
And (I Pray) that He may strengthen for me a truthful stance in this world and the Hereafter.
And I pray that He may enable me to reach, your honoured station with Allah
And that He may grant me the opportunity to seek victory, along with a rightly guided Imam from amongst you, who will manifest and speak the, truth.
I ask Allah by your station, and by the honoured position you have with Him,
That He grants me for the grief at your sorrows, more than the personal grief that troubles anyone in tragedy.
What great sorrows (you experienced)! How great was your tragedy, for Islam and in all the Heavens and the earth!
O Allah, make me, at this moment, one who receives from You, blessings, mercy, and forgiveness.
O Allah make me live the life of Muhammad and his family,
and make me die the death of Muhammad and his family.
O Allah, this is a day when Bani Umayya rejoiced, and so too the son of the she who eats the liver of man.
the condemned son of the condemned as said by You, and Your Prophet blessings of Allah be on him and his family,
at every location and occasion in which Your Prophet stood.
O Allah, curse Abu Sufyan, and Muawiya, and Yazid son of Muawiya an everlasting curse
And this is a day when the family of Ziyad was happy, and the family of Marwan because of their murder of Hussein, (blessings of Allah be on him).
O Allah, so increase the curse on them from You, and the painful punishment.
O Allah, I seek nearness to You on this day, and in this position, and for the rest of my life,
through disassociating from them (the enemies) and cursing them,
and though the love of Your Prophet, and his family, peace be on them.

O Allah, curse the first tyrant who oppressed the right of Muhammad and his family,
and the last one who followed him on that.
O Allah, curse the group who fought al-Hussein,
and the group which followed and supported, and joined hands to kill him.
O Allah curse them all.

Peace be on You O Abu Abdillah and on the souls that died with you.
Greetings of Peace of Allah be on you, from me, forever so long as I live and so long as the night and day remain.
May Allah not make this my last pledge of your visitation (ziyarat)
Peace be on Hussein,
and on Ali the son of Hussein,
on the sons of Hussein,
and the companions of Hussein.

O Allah, curse particularly the first tyrant
and begin with him first,
then the second, the third, and the fourth.
O Allah, curse the fifth one, Yazid,
and 'Ubaydullah bin Ziyad,
and Ibne Marjanah,
and 'Umar ibne Sa'ad,
and Shimr,
and the family of Abu Sufyan,
the family of Ziyad,
and the family of Marwan, till the Day of Judgement.

O Allah, for You is Praise, Praise of those who thank You during tragedy.
Praise be to Allah for my intense grief.
O Allah, grant me the intercession of al-Hussein, on the Day of appearance (before You),
and strengthen for me a truthful stand by You, with Hussein and the companions of Hussein,
who sacrificed everything, for Hussein, peace be on him.

[ Sallutations Of the Day Of Ashoorah]

You can read more about Abu Bakr at a Web site which is dedicated to him and his reign: www.abubakr.org.
Munawar

Honor Killings: Robert Spencer Gets Another Chunk Of Meat

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agree To Disagree: It's Our Only Hope

Dear All,
Today I have a big question to pose: When will it all end? I was speaking to one of my friends over Skype yesterday and had a lengthy discussion about how Muslims today are the scapegoats of the world. I wonder if anyone else is getting this feeling, but as far as I'm concerned--I'm sick of fighting among monotheists. By that I mean I really think it's time for Jews, Christians, and Muslims to band together as one body--"Under God." Several times I get challenged by people from other faiths, and every time I end up walking out thinking, "what did they gain out of it?" Granted, some people ask to understand only; not to debate or debase anyone; however, for the most part, we are still living in frozen time: I'm right, you're wrong.

We discussed the fundamental issue with youths as concerns their faith in the Al-Rahman (The Merciful,) and we came to the conclusion that youths are turning away from religion today faster than ever. Put aside the antitheist views for any specific religion, and you see that this problem exists across the board. Today, more children are Agnostic or Atheist than they are of religion X. When I speak to people about this--namely to Agnostics--they give me one of two reasons. Either they believe religion is causing war, or they do not like being controlled.

So is religion causing war? My answer to that is definitely yes. But does it have to be that way? My real question is, is the religion causing the war, or are the people causing the war? Is it this purified faith that is causing Churches, Synagogues, and Mosques to crumble, or is it our hunger for power, our greed, and our vain desires? I'll let you think about that one.

Most of us who studied Islam know about the fact that the enemies of the Christians who were living under the government of the Prophet Muhammad (SAWH) were threatened by the Prophet himself because he wrote in a letter to them "These Christians are under my protection, and whosoever attacks them is attacking me. And whosoever attacks me is attacking God." My dear readers, this was said by the same Prophet who today is being labeled by Geert Wilders as a conqueror, warlord, and rapist. If this so-called rapist can agree to disagree to the point where he offers them physical protection, then we, my humble readers, are worse than this so-called rapist!

Why is Atheism prevailing today? I challenge you to observe an interaction between two Atheists. You will notice they appreciate each other's views--they unite under an antitheological philosophy, and they charish it! What is stopping the three monotheistic faiths from doing this? Are we all sitting around waiting for our Savior who will come with the Prophet Muhammad (SAWH,) or will we get up and start saving ourselves? I vote for the second choice. Yes, I agree--we have some differences. However, in the end, we are all descendants of the Prophet Abraham (may peace and blessings be upon him.) This is what we need to focus on. Otherwise, as much as I hate to admit it, the antireligion conversions will continue, and will even pick up speed--it's inevitable.

Now let us examine the second issue. In our discussion we touched on a cause for this reason. To me it seems as if children do not know why they do certain things. My friend stated that these children are conditioned to be a certain way; follow certain procedures. Is this a bad thing? No. However, it can be a bad thing if by the time the child reaches the age of baligh, it does not understand why it was conditioned before reaching baligh. This situation of not knowing, we concluded, was caused by the parents' lack of understanding of their faith. For instance, if my parents were not educated by their parents, who in turn were not educated by their parents, we have a big problem on our hands. This problem is the issue of what I call "religious robots." You do things "just because," with no reason for doing them. CNN interviewed some Chinese Muslims who were fasting under cover because the government has banned fasting. They asked one Muslim why he fasts, and his response was, with an embarrassed chuckle, "I don't know." This is when the reality of the situation hit home for me, and to this day I am utterly disgusted at the lack of understanding among my Muslim people. My dear readers, this lack of understanding is what is causing these suicide bombs, and terrorist plots. I have praised converts before because they understand more than we do. However, I regret to say that a lot of the terrorists today are Muslim converts who wish to "commit jihad" in the name of Islam. So this light of hope I had once because of the converts is fading quite quickly.

Indeed, if the child does not understand their faith, they will feel like they are being controlled; and they have a right to feel that way. In other words, the issue starts with the parents, but it's not all their fault. according to the Islamic view, what a child does after reaching baligh is their responsibility--they have the ability to reason with themselves, and the parents will not be held accountable. At the same time, before the child reaches baligh, the parents have the responsibility to teach that child as much as they can, and do their best to ensure the child does not stray.

Through all this though, there is still hope. As part of the society is going toward an antitheist view, another part is going toward the theist view--properly this time. A couple days ago, I read an article that CNN published which was an interview with some teenage women in hijab. They said they wore it to preserve their beauty and piety. Alhamdulillah, I hope all of them receive the blessings of God for speaking up. We must demolish these misconceptions one step at a time, and I sincerely feel they have taken one of those steps. The article was the first I've ever read where the reporters had no false information; I didn't disagree with any part of the article. From beginning to end, it was right on, and I think those teenage girls had everything to do with it. I bet Robert Spencer wasn't happy to see that article. Sorry mate, but your visions of opression are out the window. You see, I can lecture all I want about hijab for men and women (yes, men have hijab too.) However, in the end, people will only listen very closely to a woman who actually wears a hijab, because now we move away from theoretical philosophy into practical philosophy, and I applaud those women for representing Islam so well. You truely made my day.

Our discussion lasted for about three hours on the general subject I have written about in this entry, and in the end I saw that there are still some people out there who understand it, and can wade through all the misconceptions and fabrications that are thrown at them.

To all of you who think we as theists are doomed, there is still hope out there, but remember what I have said time and again: if you do not step up, noone will. Stop waiting for "them to do it" and turn it in to "I will do it." You will be amazed by the results. And hey, even if nothing comes of it--even if you are mocked, ridiculed, or just plain ignored, you have done your best, and that is all God wants from you.
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).