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

The Islamocaust

Sallams Everyone,
In light of Memorial Day, the day when, as Americans, we honor soldiers in battle, let us not forget the dark side to the bloodshed and the supposed saint like country in which we live.

During the American Revolution, everyone from the common farmer to the foot soldier fought bravely to break away from the rule of the iron fist government of the British Empire. This war was a different type of war. This war had a purpose, a solid goal and, most notably, the victory of which released the Colonies from oppression. Wait, did I just use the word "oppression?" Yes, and you are free to re-read and re-re-read that sentence as many times as you like. Back then, the then nonexistent United States of America was oppressed by the British. Shortly after the signing of the Declaration of Independence and the subsequent victory, the USA was born. Memorial Day had a purpose then. It was a day to honor everyone who had battled tirelessly and with their lives to say no to injustice, just like Ashoorah.

Unfortunately, those days are gone. As we come upon Memorial Day, instead of brave soldiers, what goes through my mind is exactly the opposite. Coward military operations doing the same oppressing that this very country was once a victim of.

Today, we have passed the Holocaust era and are now in the Islamocaust era. We can sit here and argue all we want about how much oppressing Islam itself is doing, but I have reputed that elsewhere. Even so, the oppression being done by the Arab states is nothing near the oppression that America is doing. The Arabs are not coming here, overthrowing our government, and insisting that we become like them. Yet we see America, the British and NATO kicking in the door of those countries and turning their economies in to one run by the people, which makes profit off of the people, and uses the peoples' bad financial situations to help itself. We are already seeing car dealerships popping up in Iraq. Is this just a coincidence, or is there an obvious link here? Remember that the marines in Iraq have just recently left. Since 2003, the Iraqi people have been ravaged by misfire and mushroom clouds. Soon after, Western and Japanese car dealerships start popping up. This is exactly what America wanted; when its economy collapses, Iraq's economy will collapse also. This is because we have an economy based on consumption. As soon as people stopped spending and tightened their fists, look what happened? Credit card companies had no one to charge interest to, banks lost profit because of less overdraft fees, and the economy declined--very steeply, I must add. Your government wants you to keep spending so that you do not have enough to save for yourself. Why else do you think credit card companies charge inactivity fees? Does charging you because you don't spend make any sense? Of course not, but it certainly serves the interests of the government, and this is why Iraq was so quickly converted into a consumer economy as well.

Next, we have the situation with Iran. Despite Iran's continued insistence that it is only pursuing nuclear power for the benefit of its people and for electrical power, America and NATO are descending on it like hawks. Once again, just like with Iraq, these actions by America are only based on suspicion. I am aware that Saddam was overthrown in Iraq; however, we all know where the military went when it first invaded Iraq--straight to the oil wells.

Iran is still causing panic when North Korea has actually declared international war and has threatened South Korea with war should anyone invade it. Has Iran done this? No! So why should the priority be Iran? The answer is simple: Islamocaust. I have mentioned before that being Arab or Muslim guarantees you a terrorist label when the same does not apply to so-called "normal people" doing the same thing. The real goal of the West, behind the guise of "making peace," is to completely "deIslamize" the world. Don't believe me? Just take a moment to consider that Geert Wilders was brought to the US to speak against Islam, and he was funded on government expense. Also take a moment to consider that someone none other than Robert Spencer was hired to train FBI agents on Islam.

In addition, we find that France is moving to ban the veil, and a Muslim woman was actually harassed because she was wearing one!

If you still do not believe me, consider this article about a "mistaken" drone attack on Afghan civilians:

A US air raid in the southern Afghan province of Uruzgan claimed the lives of at least 23 people -- including women and children -- in February.

The airstrike took place in the middle of a turbulent two-week period, when US and NATO attacks reportedly left more than 50 civilians dead.

The US military report on the incident claimed that the civilian caravan was mistaken for Taliban militants.

I can understand how mistakes like this could happen, but if we read further, it becomes clear that this could have been completely avoided.

The reasons for the alleged mistake were cited as ignoring available information and failure to properly analyze the situation.

"Ignoring available information." Translation: "We don't care, they're Muslim, bomb them!"

Four US officers have been reprimanded in connection with the incident; however, it is unlikely that they will face trial.

For killing 23 civilians, there will most likely be no trial? Where is your so-called justice? Apparently, this "mistake" is being taken very, very lightly, simply because these are "Afghan civilians" who are "Islamist Muslims with radical jihadi ideas."

American Imperialism marks the wars of today, when Americans are led to believe that the Western system of Democracy is the only right way and that it is free from error. Further, they are taught that all other systems--whether Theocratic, Communist, or Socialist--are wrong and should be abolished in favor of Democracy. They are taught that when a woman wears a veil, she is oppressed. They are taught that Islam is Totalitarian and should be wiped out. They are taught that Arabic is the language of terrorists and that the "Muslim God, Allah, wants to implement Shariah law which means we will all lose our freedom." They are taught that "womens' liberation" means running around in scanty clothing "because the alternative is oppressive"--this is in spite of the fact that general statistics show that in the United States, a woman is raped every five minutes. They are taught that a consumer economy is the only way, and everyone should live to consume, otherwise we will have an economic collapse again. They are taught that high interest rates, inactivity fees, overdraft fees and wasteful spending is "normal" and "part of every system," and that "no system can exist without it."

These sad realities are what we celebrate today. We celebrate the war on terror, the soldiers fighting to bring about the Islamocaust, a system that has failed us time and again, and the lies we are fed to make our country appear saint like. Where are our values on which our country was founded? Is this really what the Founding Fathers meant when they said "freedom?" Did they really mean we can go undisturbed, drawing cartoons of sacred figures, and mocking an entire religion by having "Draw Prophet Muhammad Day?" If you understand this, then you will understand one of the reasons for Revolution Muslim being in existence. I most certainly do not agree with them on everything, and have firmly condemned their statement concerning South Park, but at the same time, I am with them completely when it comes to American Imperialism.

Go on--call me a terrorist, put me on your watch list, suppress me like you do to every Muslim whose conditioning failed. In the end, you are doing exactly what you claim the terrorists do: killing or oppressing the threat.

When terrorists bomb America and kill 1,000 people, America completely overthrows a government and kills hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. Then they ask: "why are they mad at us?" Look at reality and stop living in an idealistic world. The "war on terror" will never be won. America overthrew Saddam, and look--North Korea is taking his place. America is "helping" Afghanistan by removing its reliance on Opium exports, when drugs run rampant in their own country and tons of Americans are on antidepressants because America cannot control it. This is why the world hates America; it tries to fix others' problems first before fixing its own problems. Do I support Taliban and the unIslamic beating of women for not veiling? No. But the government knows as well as I do, that is not the reason America went in to Afghanistan in the first place. The Taliban were just in America's way, so now it has to act good to justify killing them, when its own women are suffering at the hands of rapists and abusive partners.

Please remember all the innocent civilians today who have died at the hands of deceiving Americans. Please remember that friend, aunt, sister, wife, or mother who was raped or shot dead by a stalking ex-boyfriend / husband because the court denied her a restraint order and protection because her case "did not fall within the legal definition of stalking." Please remember all the times you have tuned in to radio talk shows and heard the West crushing your religion with its mouth and dropping bombs on your Mosques because of "suspected terrorist activity."

Today, while you hear the fireworks go off and you witness people drinking to their critical points, remember the Founding Fathers who fought so purposefully for freedom and how the American Mission has completely negated that purpose. If you are to mourn anyone today, mourn the Founding Fathers of our Constitution.

A Revolution Gone Rogue

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are these qualifications for a Muslim?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Terrorism: Negated by Religious Ideology?

Dear Readers,
Sallams to you. Recently, we have seen a lot of terrorism. Most notably though, are terrorist acts committed by non-Muslims. I have written about terrorism in the past and those of you who read my posts frequently know that I do not support it. However, I am not here today to talk about whether terrorism is justified or not. Rather, I am here to help us redefine terrorism--from the perspective of people who hate Islam and make a living out of hating us. What do I mean by this? Well, consider the incident in which a man flew a plane into an IRS building. Is this terrorism? How about the man who tried to blow up a plane on Christmas Day 2009. Is this terrorism? How about a man who drove from California to the Pentagon with the intention of killing government officials, and ended up shooting and wounding two officers. Is this terrorism? How about Nidal Malik Hasan. Is he terrorism?

The Christmas Day bombing was labeled as an act of terrorism which actually prompted the TSA (Transportation Security Agency) to introduce a whole new line of equipment to airports, the controversial body scanners. Nidal Malik Hasan's Fort Hood shooting was dubbed as an act of terrorism, and he was claimed to have "contact with radical Islamic clerics overseas." This is all well and good; keep these points in mind, it's important here.

Consider the IRS plane crash. According to the DHS (Department of Homeland Security,) it was a "deliberate criminal act." Terrorism? No, of course not. In another article I read on this topic, the DHS was quoted as saying "this does not appear to be an act of terrorism." People, wake up! A man just flew a plane in to a government building! You're saying it's not terrorism? Are you telling me you must have the name Abdul Malik Hasan Muhammad Hakim for it to be terrorism?

The DHS' dismissal of this terrorist act would not have angered me if I had thought it was a mere slip. However, a while later, a man by the name of Bedell John Patrick drove from the West coast of the US to the East coast to attack officers at the Pentagon (military headquarters of the US for those of you who aren't American.) Yet, I do not see "terrorism" anywhere. In fact, the article from Fox links his actions to depression. That's right...they view him as a victim! The Fox article goes on to mention that the attack on the Pentagon came four months after Nidal Hasan's attack on Fort Hood, which they linked to "radical Islamic leanings." What are you suggesting, that Patrick got the idea of shooting people at the Pentagon because of the actions of a terrorist who is a "radical Islamist" and Islam should be the blame for Patrick's actions? Of course, you're a news agency so you can't come out and say that...but that's what it sounds like from what you've written.

Now take all this, and we can answer our questions above.

1. Are Stack's actions of flying a plane into the IRS building terrorism? According to our government, "No, he's not Muhammad Abdullah Al-Zawiri."
   
2. Are Patrick's actions of shooting two officers at the Pentagon an act of terrorism? According to our government, "No, it was Hasan's fault and Hasan gave him the idea. Besides, he suffered from depression."
   
3. Are Hasan's actions of shooting military personnel at Fort Hood an act of terrorism? According to our government, "Yes! He had ties with radical Islamists and he was a radical Muslim with radical Jihadi ideas, and he was also radicalized by radical Islamic clerics overseas."
   
4. Are the actions of the Christmas Day bomber's actions an act of terrorism? According to our government, "Yes! He was an Al-Qaeda member so he was a radical Muslim with radical Jihadi ideas and he associated with Radical Islamic clerics."
   

Finally, I have outlined the criteria which constitute a "terrorist" based on recent responses to terrorist acts committed by non-Muslims:

• Must have a beard.
  
• Must be on, or look as if to have the potential to be on, a terrorist watch list.
  
• Must pray five times a day, so when we make a movie about you, we can show you praying right before you commit said terrorist act.
  
• Must speak Arabic.
  
• Must shout "Allahu akbar" before committing said terrorist act. During the act and after the act is optional, but highly recommended.
  
• Must have a name similar to Al-X; preferably, the name should include the following:
  
  
  
  • Muhammad
    
  • Abdullah (or any variation thereof)
    
  
  
• If death to the said terrorist is inevitable, said terrorist must only speak in Arabic during the last moments prior to his or her death; this includes, but is not limited to, Islamic prayers, curses, and common phrases such as "death to America."
  

Please note: Anyone who shows hatred an anger and carries out an act of extreme violence, will not qualify as a terrorist unless he or she meets the criteria above--it does not matter how similar the act is to an official terrorist. Failing to meet these criteria will result in the following:

• A diagnosis of mental health issues, and possible transfer from the category of "aggressor" to "victim" due to any mental health issues found.
  
• Front page headlines for only one (1) day.
  

If you do meet the criteria for "terrorist" as listed above, your benefits include the following:

• You will be dubbed "radical Islamist". This will allow you to blame Allah instead of yourself for your actions.
  
• You will receive front page headlines for at least one (1) month--even if you managed to kill no one.
  
• Our president will give a speech about your act, even if it failed, and you will completely change how passengers are scanned before they board public transportation.
  
• When we see another act similar to yours, we will remember you.
  
• We will come up with all sorts of dramatic names for your actions (examples of this include "Ground Zero" and "Christmas Day Bomber.")
  
• We will use your actions to say how bad Islam is, even though inside we know better.
  
• We will claim we suffered Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder because of your actions, but we're perfectly okay with one of our guys committing the same act you did; because of this, you will be remembered forever.
  
• We will have fun saying your name for years to come.
  
• We will blame every similar act on you. In this way, you will help us ignore how distressed our people are, since you will give us a solid reason for why one of our own guys did what you did.
  
• You will give us another excuse to hate everyone who is not us. In this way, we will praise you for years.
  

Ma'a sallamah,
Munawar

Fathima Rifqa Bary: The Truth Has Prevailed; An End to the Saga?

Sallams All,
Welcome to the first post of 2010! I thought it best to start off by writing more about Fathima Rifqa Bary, especially since this saga seems to be coming to a close--finally!

While the Fathima Rifqa Bary saga has moved out of Orlando and back to Ohio, the pastors who brought her here are not off the hook. In a recent development, we find that the pastor who is based here in Orlando was fired from Global Revolution Church. If you recall, an earlier post stated that Global Revolution Church has moved. However, it turns out that the church was disbanded. According to this article from the Orlando Sentinel, Blake Lorenz was fired on September third. He lied to church officials--and to the public, an investigation found. Fathima never hitch hiked a bus; she was brought here to Orlando by the church--I have mentioned this before when I wrote a summary of an investigative report concerning this case.

The media obtained a recording of the final meeting in which Lorenz was fired, and he can be heard calling church officials devils. In fact, WFTV even published a derogatory statement he made against Muslims:

"Why lie if no crimes have been committed? Why?” a church board member asked Pastor Blake Lorenz."To protect innocent people who could be killed by Muslims, that's why," Lorenz replied.

To protect innocent people who could be killed by Muslims? What are you going to say next, Blake, "Halal means it is lawful for them to kill me?"

You can find the audio of the meeting from WFTV in their article about the case.

This is not all. Other articles from the media suggest that Blake could be charged with transporting a minor across state lines, even when advised against it by lawyers. Oops...I don't think this is what Blake signed up for. Sorry, but this is what you get when you mess with us. Who ever said the being that crushed Fir`on can't crush you? Oh yes, and didn't you say once "the truth will prevail?" I think it's finally prevailing, Blake. In fact, it's prevailing so much that Fathima "admitted to being unruly." Amazing! Fathima admits she went overboard! Alhamdulillah--I never thought I'd see this day! So much for your wishes of honor killings and anti-Islam rhetoric, Blake.

On another note, although Fathima's back in Ohio, she's in foster care and will probably remain there until she is an adult--under the consent of her parents. So they do have control of the situation now, and I'm glad they battled for it. You can find the article about foster care here.

I wonder if I'm a devil now too because of this post.

This is the latest in the Fathima case, but it may come to an end now--from Fathima's perspective anyway. The pastor seems to have a lot of face-saving to do, but I'm not concerned about that. I'm glad Fathima's at least back in Ohio--instead of with a hitherto unknown family.
Ma'a sallamah,
Munawar