The Islamocaust Continues

For a long time now, I've been using the word Islamocaust to describe the current state of affairs concerning Muslims. From the day a cab driver was stabbed in New York for being Muslim, to the Park 51 controversy, from Geert Wilders' assault on Muslims to Adam Hasner's Free Speech Summit, the evidence is mounting in favor of the Islamocaust.

This latest incident further confirms the idea that Muslims are headed towards a dangerous period in time, a danger which Al-Assad's murder of Syrian civilians during Ramadhan is doing nothing to prevent.

A mosque in Joplin, Missouri, was burned to the ground early Monday [August 6th, 2012], just over a month after an attempted arson at the Islamic center, officials said.

Authorities are investigating the cause of the latest fire. The mosque's security cameras were destroyed in the blaze, according to Sharon Rhine of the Jasper County Sheriff's Office.

We are all familiar with the Holocaust of the 1940's. In American History courses, the Holocaust is, often times, a central theme for the entire course. We are taught about the mass murder of Jews and what methods were used to kill them (with none of the graphical material held back, regardless of whether the class is early high school or upper-classman university.)

In these classes, one thing is repeated over and over. Jewish people were used as scapegoats, and because of the intolerance and frustration of Germans, the Holocaust was permitted to happen. The teachers and professors emphasize that we must prevent such an incident from happening again by learning to coexist, not exclusively exist.

Think back to your late middle school and early high school days when they were teaching you about the Holocaust. Can you still hear your teacher's voice? I can. Now, bring yourself back to today. I'll wait a moment...

As you read the excerpt below, ask yourself "Did I think this was possible [years] years ago when I was learning about the Holocaust? Did I think history could POSSIBLY repeat itself in TODAY's 'civilized' world?"

Though investigators haven't determined the cause, [Kimberly] Kester suspects it to be another incident of arson.

On July 4, surveillance video caught a man approaching the mosque and throwing "an ignited object" on the roof, causing minor exterior damage, according to the FBI.

The FBI was offering a combined reward of $15,000 for information leading to the suspect arsonist in that incident.

Kester said the mosque was a target of other acts of vandalism. In September of 2008, a sign at the mosque was set on fire and was also determined to be arson, according to CNN affiliate KODE.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations has called for increased police protection at other places of worship in the wake of the fire and is offering a $10,000 reward for information on the latest incident.

Here, the article talks about another incident which occurred on July 4th at the same mosque. So, the mosque was burned on July 4th and then again on August 6th. I bring this point to your attention because this is not a one-shot, once-in-a-lifetime-occurring incident. It has happened before, and it will happen again.

From Geert Wilders, to Adam Hasner, to the cab driver stabbing, to the Quran burning, to mosque burning. Sound familiar?

Before some of you start shaking your heads and saying "but you are not scapegoats like the Jews were--this is all your fault anyway," I humbly correct you.

Remember why Muslims are hated. We are hated because a minority who claims to be Muslim (and whose ideology I have denounced strongly often times) flew planes into the World Trade Centers. These people had political motives, not religious ones, but yet people act as if we, all Muslims everywhere, had some or other part in it; whether it's that we follow the teachings of the Quran and Abrahamic faiths, or that we pray "just like the terrorists do, with your asses in the air to your fucking god Allah who has a machine gun and wants you people to kill us all." In this way, we all become scapegoats for something that wasn't our doing, and we would never even dream of doing.

Now the problem is becoming a lot more serious. We all know by now that the shooter who went on a shooting spree in a Sikh temple actually wanted to target Muslims, but lacked the brain capacity to know the difference between the two religions. So, it was misfire, but his intents were very clear. Consider that for a minute, even my Muslim readers who don't accept the reality of the Islamocaust. WHAT IF he hadn't misfired, and had ACTUALLY shot up a mosque?

Innocent Scapegoats

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Life Saver, Or Life Taker?

Sallams Everyone, and Ramadhan mubarak to you all.
Often times, we tend to forget that political motives are not what shapes humanity. Americans, along with the rest of the world, judge countries based on the actions of the government. This would be fine if indeed the governments were true Representative Republics like so many claim to be, but alas--we can argue that even the government of the U.S. does some things against the common moral code.

Despite what you may think of the United States, I hope this article about a bus driver catching a falling girl gives you a different view of its common citizens.

A veteran New York City bus driver on Tuesday played down any claims of heroism for snagging a 7-year-old girl who fell three stories from a Brooklyn apartment building a day earlier.

Steve St. Bernard, 52, says neighborhood children alerted him to the girl standing on top of a window air-conditioning unit, and he positioned himself underneath her.
...
The incident occurred Monday afternoon and was captured on amateur video, which soon surfaced online. It shows the girl, who neighbors said is a special-needs child, standing and apparently dancing on the air-conditioner, losing her balance and falling. One of at least two people standing on the sidewalk beneath her reaches out and catches her before she hits the ground.

Here's my question. A group who claims to be Muslim can blow people like this man up without blinking an eye just so they'll get their seventy-two male virgins in heaven. How can you call yourselves Muslims when you wouldn't have the heart to do what this man did, and how can you call this country Satan's country when people like this man live here?

This man was not young. He also risked the possibility of missing her entirely, in which case there would have been very bad publicity for him. But he put all that aside and focused on one thing--trying to save a girl who fell from her window. Imagine if this man hadn't been there. Chances are the girl wouldn't have survived.

How many times have you thought that, Al-Qaeda? "If I don't blow up this bomb for my own corrupt political views, that mother, that father, that newborn child will live."

I Have More YouTube Likes Than You Do

While there is nothing wrong in protecting your personal security and making sure your citizens are safe, there are times when this effort is wasted. In a CNN news article, Google talks about removing hundreds of videos that talk about terrorism, per the request of the United Kingdom.

From the new head of al Qaeda core, Ayman al-Zawahiri, to terror propagandist Ayman al-Awlaki, using the Internet to spread the jihadist message is a tool of the trade for terrorists.

In the last six months of 2011, Google agreed to remove some 640 terrorist videos from YouTube at the request of law enforcement officials in the United Kingdom, because the videos violated the company’s guidelines. The disclosure was contained in Google’s biannual Transparency Report, which provides data on government requests from throughout the world to remove content from Google’s YouTube and search websites.

I really don't see the reasoning behind this effort. After all, this is the Internet we're talking about, not the Gutenburg Printing Press machine. Fine, you removed them from YouTube, but I've seen this before. The same videos will be uploaded again, just under different accounts. It's like applying patches to a severely corroded pipe. The second you patch one hole, another one will spring up to take its place.

Aaron Zelin, who started monitoring jihadist websites in 2002 in Washington, has seen a myriad of propaganda and do-it-yourself terror tricks posted in the form of videos.

The problem with trying to take some of the more egregious material off the Internet, said Zelin, is that it has a way of popping right back up again.

So you're monitoring a "Strugglist's" website? Wait, that makes no grammatical sense. Anyway, Aaron says here exactly what I wrote--just worded differently. But I'd like to take you to other parts of this article and show you why, sometimes, I have no sympathy for these counter-terrorism people.

From the new head of al Qaeda core, Ayman al-Zawahiri, to terror propagandist Ayman al-Awlaki, using the Internet to spread the jihadist message is a tool of the trade for terrorists.

Do you mean jihadists, or terrorists?

With hundreds of videos being posted by some jihadi groups, getting a handle on all of the terrorist information that’s out there can be a challenge.

Interesting, because the last time I checked, jihad had nothing to do with blowing people up.

Sen. Joseph Lieberman, I-Connecticut, credited Google for being responsive to concerns about what he called violent Islamist extremism online.

“These videos have played a role in the indoctrination, training, and radicalization of violent Islamist extremists, whose warped ideology advocates the killing of innocent people,” Lieberman said in a statement.

So now it's become a three-word description, not just two? Violent...Islamist...extremists. Sounds like a mouthful. What will the fourth addition be? "Fundamentalist violent Islamist extremists." And the fifth? "White fundamentalist violent Islamist extremists." And the sixth? "Rich white fundamentalist violent Islamist extremists." And the seventh--well, you understand.

It's sad how even though these countries are complaining about out-of-control debt, they're still wasting money on getting Google to remove videos that someone has probably downloaded already and will upload as soon as they feel like it. Your efforts would be more fruitful if, for starters, you educated your Members of Parliament and Senators (in the case of the United States) so that we Americans wouldn't be mad at you as well.

Yes, these terrorists claim to follow Islam, and I can't expect everyone to know the distinction between terrorists and Islam, but these are MY lawmakers, people who make laws that WE have to follow. If they're this ignorant, how can we count on what they create to be any better?

As for the terrorists. I wish they'd stop directing all their hate where it doesn't belong. I'm sorry if they're sexually deprived, but really, we can't help that. All they do is focus on the negative side of the West. If you but worked with us, we could bring you forward. But no, instead you sit there, shouting out your fatwas and condemning everyone who doesn't fold their hands in prayer. Yet you fail to realize that behind the governmental front, there are kind people around. Would you return a skeleton that was stolen from Mongolia? I doubt that if Al-Qaeda got hold of it, it would return it. it would more likely sell the skeleton, and use the money to buy more Hashish.
Ma'a sallamah,
Munawar

And The Winner Is...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Narrow Victory

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who's Right Is It Anyway?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ma'a sallamah,
Munawar

I Would Die Before You Would

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wait, it gets worse.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Does Age Really Make Us Wiser?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Geert Wilders: Politician Turned Murderer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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