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

And The Winner Is...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Narrow Victory

Now that the war in Iraq has come to an end, we can start evaluating whether or not the results were worth the trillions of dollars spent on it. This evaluation tends to take one of two sides. Either the far left approach, which calls for an end to all wars (which still leaves me wondering whether or not Ron Paul was really a Conservative,) or the far right approach, which says that every invasion is good for America's growth and that America should be everywhere, spreading the will of the American Empire to every corner of the globe. Revolution Muslim calls it American Imperialism.

The people in the middle--those that I like to see as having at least a little bit more sense than that--do not see things as Black-and-White, cut-down-the-middle. They argue that this is humanity we're talking about, and humans are never that simple.

Still, a lot of these independent thinkers narrow the effectiveness of the Iraq war down to three things. We spent trillions of dollars, our own country is suffering because of the deficit, and we gained nothing from it. Yes: It's all about "me, me, us."

Consider the Iraq war from a survivor's perspective. Before Saddam was toppled, thousands of Shias would be killed by his regime just by him giving a command. Shias were not allowed to commemorate Ashoorah without the risk of being killed.

Now, the government in Iraq is predominantly Shia, and the rules according to Shia Islam are slowly being implemented. For instance, capitol punishment is no longer allowed, and there is a higher tolerance for other faiths existing in Iraq.

The occasional bombings we hear about from the media have their ways of making us forget what the state of Iraq used to be before the invasion. When you consider what Saddam put Shias through, compared to today's relatively low-grade attacks, I find it hard not to support the war. Does this mean it was picture-perfect, and the U.S. acted in a saintlike manner throughout the duration of the war? Certainly not. We do have reports of soldiers raping Iraqi women and committing other war crimes. But one can easily argue that Saddam was just as bad, and the freedom of Shias has greatly increased since his fall.

Lawrence Kaplan points out in his book "The War Over Iraq: Saddam’s Tyranny and America’s Mission" that there have been numerous records from Human Rights Watch of Saddam cutting off peoples' genitals and applying electric shock to them. There are also records of Saddam torturing prisoners of war during the Kuwaiti conflict by drilling holes in their chests and arms and cutting off their fingernails.

Saddam also committed mass slaughter of Shia people and made sure his Suni followers ruled with an iron fist. People used to be gassed, and there are records of him using chemical weapons against his citizens.

Consider all that compared to several people being killed in odd places or while they go on pilgrims. The latter, although not the end that everyone would like to see, is much better than how the country used to be. Further, one can argue the point that while these were Shias who were killed while traveling to the shrine of Imam Moussa Al-Kadhim (S.A,) they had indirectly accepted that sacrifice. They know there will be some possibility of them being killed by Suni insurgents, but they go anyway, driven by faith, standing proudly, and not accepting to bow to the insurgents' threat. Their freedom may not have been possible if it wasn't for the invasion. Granted, today the Arab Spring would have taken hold in Iraq, but who knew that such a thing would occur back then?

In many ways, the bombing reminds me of Ashoorah, when Imam Hussein (S.A) was killed for not bowing down to the corruption of Yazid. These Shias do the same thing, so although we should mourn them no doubt as our brothers and sisters in Islam, we should also be proud that there are Shias who will stand and go to visit these shrines and accept, with their heads held high, the possibility of being blown to bits on the way. Ask yourself this question: "Would I do it too?"
Ma'a sallamah,
Munawar

Who's Right Is It Anyway?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ma'a sallamah,
Munawar

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.

Does Age Really Make Us Wiser?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 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.

Out Of The Darkness: Rabbi Supports NY Mosque, Condemns Haters

Sallams Readers,
Recently, there has been a lot of controversy surrounding an Islamic Center in New York which is going to be built two blocks from "Ground Zero"--the area of New York where the World Trade Centers once stood. Both towers were destroyed on September 11, 2001 by Wahabi terrorists for political gain.

Arguments against the center, named Park 51, state that since "Muslims" blew up the Trade Centers, Muslims should not have their own center near Ground Zero. Pam Geller, who owns the blog Atlas Shrugs (which I have written about extensively in the past,) is campaigning very hard against the construction of this center. In addition, Sarah Palin has also become an advocate against the Islamic Center. Both these women claim that Islam is "Islamizing" the US, which is "taking away our freedom."

By now, you are probably expecting me to start arguing in favor of the Park 51 center. Of course--I am Muslim, why would I not support it, right? Of course--I have a blog which is completely pro-Islam, why would I not support it, right? I am sorry to let you down, but I will not be arguing in favor of the Park 51 center. Instead, I will let a Jewish Rabbi do it for me.

Wait, Jewish Rabbi? I thought Muslims and Jews hated each other. You are correct, Arabs and Israelis hate each other; however, I stand to be challenged by anyone who can still, after reading parts of the article I have provided below, say Islam and Jews hate each other.

This Rabbi's name is Bruce Warshal, and I came across his article when it was forwarded to me through Email. Here is how it begins.

To begin, the mosque controversy does not involve a mosque. It is planned as a 13-story community center encompassing a swimming pool, 500-seat performing arts center, gym, culinary school, restaurant and, yes, a prayer space for Muslims, which already exists in the current building. A formal mosque would forbid eating or the playing of music on the premises. I guess that we are now at the point in America where Jews can have our JCC’s and Christians their YMCA’s, but Muslims are not wanted.

I could not have said this better myself. The "Mosque" is actually a "multi-purpose center" which contains a Mosque (a Muslim prayer space) in one area. I think the misunderstanding has stemmed from the words "Mosque" and "church" being used interchangeably. In Arabic, "Mosque" and "center" are two different words. A Masjid [Mosque,] is an open-door place where Muslims can come, pray, and leave. There are NO services held there. An Imam Bargha is what you would call the equivalent of a Church. While it is for praying, regular "services" are also held there, along with social gatherings. In other words, this Masjid or Mosque is NOT a Church; it is just a prayer room.

The Rabbi goes on to describe the idea that the center should not be built because Ground Zero was the site of terrorism, and any such land should be respected.

President Obama in his defense of religious freedom commented that, “Ground zero is, indeed, hallowed ground.” I beg to differ. If Ground Zero is holy ground, then the railroad station in Madrid, the Underground in London, the federal building in Oklahoma City, the Pentagon (where there is presently a prayer space for Muslims – yes, patriotic, religious Muslim Americans work at the Pentagon) and every other physical location that has been the object of terrorism is holy ground. If Ground Zero is holy space why plan for it to be developed with office buildings (in which the object will be to amass money – obviously a holy pursuit), a shopping center (in which consumer goods will be peddled to continue to gorge the American appetite for material possessions), and with a theater for modern dance (a project to which I personally look forward as a devotee of the Joyce, the modern dance Mecca of New York)? I’m sorry, but someone has to tell America that this designation of holy space is merely part of a mass hysteria that really scares me.

Let me reiterate that this is a Jewish Rabbi who has written this. If he is able to see past all the lies of Robert Spencer and Pam Geller (who he "calls out" later on,) why is it so difficult for the average person to see it? This Rabbi's religion has been stepped on and spat on by the so-called "Islamic fundamentalists," but yet he shook his head and said, "you don't represent Islam, I'm not going to believe you." This is exactly what has completely amazed me. This article is not coming from an Atheist--it is coming from a man who belongs to a religion that even Geert Wilders has claimed Islam hates. In essence, why should he support us? The answer is simple: he is the true embodiment of what the Abrahamic faiths should have been. You can completely eliminate any bias and notion of personal gain from this article, simply because of the situation the Rabbi is in. I would especially like my Muslim readers to understand this point. How many of you would be quick to support a Christian center? Be honest with yourselves. I can hear the voices and the arguments now. "The Christians hate us; the Christians do not follow their Bible; the Christians are this and the Christians are that." And if you are sitting there shaking your head, "no, I would support them," keep lying to yourself, because chances are, my fellow Muslims, if the roles were reversed, we would be guilty of the same hate against the Christians that we are receiving right now from these Islam-haters. Here, let me help you along and make things easy for you. Until I read this Rabbi's article, I would have been right there with you and slammed the Christians for their YMCA (Young Men Christian's Association) complex. There, I have publicly announced this for everyone to read. This is why, if nothing else, the main reason I wanted to bring this article to your attention is because of what it did for me. This is mainly because the Rabbi does not even hesitate to down talk his own people.

I guess that we are now at the point in America where Jews can have our JCC’s and Christians their YMCA’s, but Muslims are not wanted.

The Rabbi goes on:

The question which must be asked is why this hysteria? The impetus comes from a triumvirate of right-wing Christians, Jews and politicians.

Here again, the Rabbi does not even flinch when he debases his own people. He is completely unbiased in his account; to him, a religion of the Abrahamic faiths is being trampled.

Fundamentalist Christians are still fighting the crusades, still vying to convert the world to their truths. Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world, to the distress of these Christian proselytizers. What better way to win this battle than to brand all Muslims as terrorists?

Well said. Remember when I wrote that post about how to be branded as a terrorist? I see that same thought here. In fact, after Prophet Muhammad's (SAWH) death, Abu Bakr did the same thing--debase the Prophet to uplift his own character; this is exactly what is going on today.

Right-wing Jews think that they are doing Israel a favor by painting Islam as a terrorist religion thereby proving that Israel need not negotiate with the Palestinians. The idea is to project the concept that we are civilized and they are not. This theme is picked up in the right-wing press of Israel. Commenting on the New York proposed “mosque,” a columnist in the Jerusalem Post declares that “Islamism is a modern political tendency which arose in a spirit of fraternal harmony with the fascists of Europe in the 1930’s and ‘40’s.” Ground Zero isn’t Israel’s “holy ground.” Why would he be involved with this discussion? Simply because right-wing Jews in Israel as well as the United States believe that demonizing the religion of 1.3 billion people is good for Israel. God help us.

Did you read that, o Jewish-hating Muslims! A Jewish Rabbi has just denounced Israel. What does this mean? It means that Israel is not representative of the Jews. After all, next time you say "kill the Jews," remember that verse you read in the Quran that mentions the scripture of Moses.

Periodically we go through this in America.
...
We deported over 10,000 people during the First World War because they opposed our entry into that war and we incarcerated loyal Japanese Americans during the Second World War. Now during this “war on terror” I shudder to think where we are headed.

Islamocaust? Yes, you read that correctly. Rabbi Warshal indirectly mentions an era where Muslims are persecuted just like the Native Americans at the hands of Spanish explorers, and the Jews during World War II by Hitler. If you rolled your eyes at my last entry, here it is directly "from the horse's mouth" as the saying goes.

The tool used in this hate campaign is the concept of collective guilt. Based on that, all Jews are traitors since Ethel and Julius Rosenberg sold out this country. All Christians are terrorists since Timothy McVeigh attacked the federal building in Oklahoma City.

Neither are all Muslims traitors nor terrorists. Islam is not monolithic. Its forms are as varied as Judaism or Christianity. I do not practice Judaism the same as a Satmar Hasidic Jew. A Catholic does not practice Christianity the same as a Jehovah Witness. Imam Rauf does not share the same Islamic beliefs as bin Laden.

There you have it. Osama and Saddam are not representatives of Islam, and please, do not get me started on the Iranian president who I have actually supported in the past. The Iranian president, who claims to be Shia, rules just like Saddam did, and has even restricted people from commemorating Ashoorah. Can you still call him Shia?

Of all people Jews should beware of collective guilt since we have suffered from it for millennia. Yet the organization that started this hysteria is headed by a right-wing Jewish supporter of Israel by the name of Pam Geller. She is quoted in the mainstream media (including the Jewish Journal) as if she is a legitimate political voice. Yet on her blog, Atlas Shrugs, she has declared that “Obama is the illegitimate son of Malcom X.” She has written that we have “an American-hater for president.” She has proposed that devout Muslims should be prohibited from military service. She asks, “Would Patton have recruited Nazis into his army?” To all of the rabbis quoted in the Jewish Journal urging that the “mosque” be moved, know who is pulling your strings.

This is the portion of the article that made me chuckle. The Rabbi calls out Pam Geller and completely discredits her. You see how people like Geller look in the eyes of people who are respected, and have their facts straight? This is the first time I have seen anyone slam Geller for the hate she has spread, and directly challenged her on her credibility. Yet, as the Rabbi stated, she is getting quite a bit of media attention, simply because she is fulfilling the correct goal of the public opinion; otherwise, if you dig down deep in to her foundation, you will find--as this Rabbi has--that she makes no sense and her claims are either false, or filled with fabrications. Ironically, she was one of the lead sponsors of the Free Speech Summit in 2009. See what ignorance runs our country.

Since Pastor Jones' proposed "International Burn the Quran Day," Pam Geller's continued campaign against the Park 51 center, and countless other anti-Islam movements started by Republican Sarah Palin, this is the first article I have read in favor of the center. I sent an Email to Rabbi Warshal after reading this article, and he actually took the time to respond to me. In the few communications I have had with him, I can tell these are not just words on paper; the Rabbi is a genuine man, and the Abrahamic faiths would have been somewhere quite different today if we were all like him. This article does an excellent job of capturing the core of the three monotheistic religions, but sadly people like Rabbi Warshal are few and far between.

For all my Muslim readers who firmly believe Muslims should kill Jews, think again, and try reading your Quran one more time. You will be surprised at what you find, and how easily you can discredit the Wahabi and Al-Qaeda ideologies just by opening your own book.
Ma'a sallamah,
Munawar