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

Honor Killings: Robert Spencer Gets Another Chunk Of Meat

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Earthquake Hits Iran, World Turns Blind Eye

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

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


Ma'a sallamah,


Munawar

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).