July 11, 2009

Top 10 Misconceptions About Islam

Source

In the words of Swiss journalist and author, Roger Du Pasquier “The West, whether Christian or dechristianised, has never really known Islam. Ever since they watched it appear on the world stage, Christians never ceased to insult and slander it in order to find justification for waging war on it. It has been subjected to grotesque distortions the traces of which still endure in the European mind. Even today there are many Westerners for whom Islam can be reduced to three ideas: fanaticism, fatalism and polygamy. Of course, there does exist a more cultivated public whose ideas about Islam are less deformed; there are still precious few who know that the word islam signifies nothing other than ’submission to God’. One symptom of this ignorance is the fact that in the imagination of most Europeans, Allah refers to the divinity of the Muslims, not the God of the Christians and Jews; they are all surprised to hear, when one takes the trouble to explain things to them, that ‘Allah’ means ‘God’, and that even Arab Christians know him by no other name. “

10

Muslims are Arabs

China 9X

Misconception: All Muslims are Arabs

The common image of a Muslim is a turbaned dark Arab man with a long beard. However this image is part of the minority of Muslims. Arabs make only 15% of the world’s Muslim population. As a matter of fact the Middle East comes in third with East Asia coming in at first (69%) and Africa (27%) coming in at second. Another common misconception is that all Arabs are Muslims. While the vast majority of Arabs are Muslims (75%), there are many other religions that Arabs practice including Christianity and Judaism.

9

Muslims and Jesus

Lastjudgment30D

Misconception: Muslims Hate Jesus

There are many similarities between the historical references of Christianity and Islam. Many people are amazed to find out that according to Muslim belief, Jesus is one of the greatest messengers of God. One cannot be a Muslim without believing in the virgin birth and the many miracles of Jesus Christ. Jesus is also mentioned in many verses of the Quran and is often used as an example of good virtue and character. However, the main difference between Christianity and Islam is that Muslims do not believe that Jesus was God. Pictured above is Jesus in an Islamic portrayal of the last judgement.

8

Children’s Rights

Picture 1-106

Misconception: Children have no rights

Children, according to Islamic law, have various rights. One of these is the right to be properly brought up, raised, and educated. Islam encourages children to be brought up well because it is the responsibility of an adult to raise his child to become a moral and ethical adult. Children must also be treated equally. When giving financial gifts they should all be the same amount and there should be no preference among them. Children are even permitted to take moderately from their parent’s wealth to sustain themselves if the parent declines to give them proper funds for living. A child is also not allowed to get hit in the face or hit by anything larger than a pencil.

7

Religious Intolerance

Sat-B4-Chsfr-Synaxis-Monastics

Misconception: Islam is intolerable to other religions

‘Kill the infidel’ is the phrase many people believe is the ideology that Muslims have towards the non Muslims. This, though, is not a correct portrayal of Islamic law. Islam has always given respect and freedom of religion to all faiths. In the Quran it says “God does not forbid you, with regards to those who fight you not for religion nor drive you away out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them, for god loves those who are just.” There are many historical examples of Muslim tolerance towards other faith. One such example was when the caliph Umar was ruler of Jerusalem from 634 to 644 AD. He granted freedom to all religious communities and said that the inhabitants of his city were safe and that their places of worship would never be taken away from them. He also set up courts that were designated to the non Muslim minorities. Whenever he would visit holy areas he would ask for the Christian patriarch Sophronius (pictured above) to accompany him.

6

Islamic Jihad

I28 17796607

Misconception: Jihad means to fight for the sake of god

The true Arabic meaning of the word jihad is struggle. However in Islam it is often used to describe the striving in the way of god. There are many forms of jihad but the most important ones are Jihad al-nafs (jihad against ones self), jihad bil-lisan (jihad by being vocal), jihad bil yad (jihad by using action), and Jihad bis saif (jihad by using the sword). Each jihad is ranked differently and it was reported that Muhammad returned from a battle and said “We have returned from the lesser jihad (going into battle) to the greater jihad (the struggle of the soul).” This means that a Muslim struggling against himself and his soul is more important than the jihad of going into war. Another misconception is that only when a person dies in war does that person becomes a martyr. This is, however, false and it is believed that anyone doing anything for the sake of god and is killed becomes a martyr. A person who dies while performing pilgrimage in Mecca, a woman who dies while giving birth, or even someone who dies in a car crash while he was on his way to the mosque are all considered martyrs.

5

Child Bride

Mo Aisha Daughter-1

Misconception: The Prophet Muhammad was a pedophile

While it is true that he married a girl that was at the age of nine that does not constitute pedophilia. Historically, the age at which a girl was considered ready to be married has been puberty. This was the case in Biblical times, and is still used today to determine the age of marriage in many parts of the world. This was part of the norm and is not something that Islam invented. The girl he got married to had reached puberty 3 years before marriage. It is upon reaching the age of puberty that a person, man or woman, becomes legally responsible for their actions under Islamic law. At this point, they are allowed to make their own decisions and are held accountable for their actions. It should also be mentioned that in Islam, it is unlawful to force someone to marry someone that they do not want to marry. There is no indication that the society at that time criticized this marriage due to the girl’s young age. On the contrary, the marriage was encouraged by the girl’s family and was welcomed by the community at large.

4

Muslim Savages

The Islamic War

Misconception: Muslims are savages and barbaric during war

Quite the contrary, when it comes to the conduct of war there are ten rules that every Muslim army must obey:

1. Do not commit treachery
2. Do not deviate from the right path
3. Do not mutilate dead bodies
4. Do not kill children
5. Do not kill women
6. Do not kill aged men
7. Do not harm or burn trees
8. Do not destroy buildings
9. Do not destroy an enemy’s flock, unless you use it for your food
10. When you pass people who have devoted their lives to monastic services leave them alone

During the crusades when Saladin defeated the franks he honored the defeated Frankish army and supplied them with food and during the third crusade when Saladin’s enemy king Richard fell sick, Saladin sent him a gift of fruits and horses.

3

Women’s Rights

Miss Indonesia Universe 2006 Miss Universe 2006 Nadine Chandrawinata Indonesian Muslim Women Nadine In Bikini

Misconception: Women have no rights

The image of a woman wearing a veil from head to toe, a woman who gets unfair justice or a woman who is not allowed to drive is an all too familiar notion when it comes to women treatment in Islam. And while there are Muslim countries in the world that do implement many harsh rulings against women, this should not be portrayed as Islamic law. Many of these countries have cultural differences that go against the teachings of Islam. It should be noted that during pre-Islam Arabia women were used for fornication only and had no independence. The birth of a daughter in a family was considered humiliating and the practice of female infanticide was uncontrolled. When Islam came to being, verses in the Quran condemned the practice of female infanticide. Islam gave back many human rights to the woman and Muhammad(s) was even reported saying that “women are the twin halves of men.” A Muslim woman is allowed to reject and accept any suitor for marriage and has the right to seek divorce. There is nothing in Islam that forbids a Muslim woman from exiting her house and is allowed to drive. Also in regards to education, a woman is obligated to seek knowledge and it is considered a sin if she refuses.

2

By the Sword

Islammongolsyurts

Misconception: Islam was spread by the sword

Historian De lacey O’Leary states “History makes it clear however, that the legend of fanatical Muslims sweeping through the world and forcing Islam at the point of the sword upon conquered races is one of the most fantastically absurd myths that historians have ever repeated.” There is no record in history that shows people being forced by sword point to convert to Islam. When Islam spread through countries they would set up private churches and synagogues for the non Muslims they were governing and because of the good treatment they had received they themselves would convert. If one considers the small number of Muslims who initially spread Islam to the west all the way from Spain and Morocco and into east from India and China one would realize that such a small group of people could not force others to be members of a religion against their will. It is also interesting to note that when the Mongols invaded and conquered large portions of the Islamic empire, instead of destroying the religion they adopted it!

1

Islamic Terrorism

Itikaf-080923 03

Misconception: Muslims are terrorists

This is by far the biggest misconception of Islam, given unfairly by stereotyping and the public image that the media gives. Has anyone else noticed how when a specific group of people attack another group of people it is labeled as a ‘hate crime’, but when a Muslim opens fire on anybody it is quickly regarded as ‘terrorism’. Many political dictators and officials or extremist groups use the name of Islam as a strategy to garner followers and attention when many of their practices go against the true basis of Islam. The media has also portrayed Islam as a cult or a club where if you join you become a terrorist and that is now part of your agenda. However all over the world people practice Islam in the true form and use it as a way of life. There are many verses in the Quran that go against the idea of terrorism. Some of these verses include “fight in the way of Allah those that fight you but do not transgress limits for god does not love transgressors.” This basically means do not fight except in self defense and even in doing so do not go beyond defense. Another verse states “if they seek peace, then you seek peace,” which means do not attack people for no reason or kill innocent people. There is nowhere in Islam, whether it be in the Quran or the teachings of Muhammad, that promotes the killing of innocent people. Pictured above is a conference of Muslims against Terrorism.

June 22, 2009

A Policy of Double Standards Mushrooms Among Muslim Media

Since 9/11, the FBI has emphasized identifying domestic national security threats while at the same time fostering an open door policy with local Muslim communities. In March of 2009, the bureau discovered the door had been slammed shut. The Southern California Islamic community was in an uproar over findings that the FBI had placed ex-con Craig Monteilh as an informant at the Islamic Center of Irvine. Monteilh, assigned in August of 2006 to infiltrate the community under the guise of a Muslim convert, worked to undercover individuals who might be threats to U.S. security by developing personal relationships among his new circle of friends.

The developments became public soon after Monteilh handed over a taped conversation with 34 year old Ahmadullah Niazi. Niazi, a naturalized U.S. citizen of Afghan descent, was recorded praising bin Laden in repeat conversations. This prompted local agents to arrest and question Niazi on multiple grounds, including naturalization fraud and failure to disclose that Niazi’s brother-in-law is a high-ranking al-Qaida member.

Niazi appealed to CAIR (the Council on American Islamic Relations), protesting that the FBI threatened him for not becoming an informant in light of the evidence held against him. As a reaction to the bureau’s use of informants to infiltrate mosques and at the alleged intimidation of Niazi, local Muslims groups (including CAIR) advocated ending outreach efforts with law enforcement agencies.

The incident here is not an isolated one. “Across the nation, such grass-roots relationships between Muslims and the federal government are in jeopardy.” This per a coalition of Muslim groups, represented by the American Muslim Taskforce on Civil Rights and Elections, is in response to “increasing government surveillance in mosques, new Justice Department guidelines that the groups say encourage profiling, and the FBI’s recent suspension of ties with the nation’s largest Muslim civil rights group, the Council on American Islamic Relations.”

The call to cut community relations with the FBI ignores the real threats that continue to thrive in these niches. Considering that mosques are an ideological gathering place, the probability that they are breeding grounds for Islamist recruiting is a harsh reality that Muslim communities do not recognize. The FBI has a critical role to play which they cannot carry out without conducting low-key surveillance. The failure of Muslim coalitions to recognize this handicaps the FBI’s ability to work toward the best interest of all American citizens, including the safety of the Muslim coalitions who banded together against the FBI. This raises the question of the bureau’s effectiveness if it’s unable to gain the support of the greater Muslim community itself.

The high-profile Niazi trial draws attention to alarming levels of bias in Muslim media against governmental efforts to fight terrorism. In Focus, the most widely distributed Muslim newspaper in Southern California, featured an article attacking the credibility of the prosecutor. Withholding the facts of the case, In Focus questioned U.S. Attorney Deirdre Eliot’s ability as a prosecutor due to her affiliation with the Lincoln Club of Orange County. Accusing the Orange County Chapter of featuring newsletters containing content on fundamentalist Islam and radical Islamists, In Focus asserted that Eliot “runs the risk of being guilty by association herself for supporting a right-wing group that has promoted anti-Islamic rhetoric on its Websites.”

Stanford Knight Fellow and journalist Eugene Kane recognizes the problem here, noting “criticism of the prosecutor instead of dealing with the details of the case doesn’t really give readers the whole story. That’s where bias is dangerous. If you’re skewing the facts of the story to make a point, then it’s not journalism, it’s commentary.”

Rather than work with local authorities to identify and isolate common threats to national security local Muslim groups have instead chosen to fall back on the rhetoric of victim hood that isolates them from the mutual interests of a collective American society. The Monteilh and the Niazi trials highlight a greater issue the Muslim community faces. By maintaining a policy of double standards used to victimize themselves and criminalize third parties to sabotage investigations, silence criticism of Islamist activity within the community, Muslim leaders enable security risks that one day might harm their own communities.

Hussam Ayloush, executive director of the Los Angeles Chapter of CAIR, stated “It is a serious flag when a government prosecutor of Ms. Eliot’s position and role is associated with a group that is clearly promoting anti-Muslim bigotry in its most hateful forms,” adding further that “her generous contribution to a group that is spreading Islamophobia and her refusal to repudiate or disassociate herself form its views sends an unspoken yet strong message on how she views Muslims and about her possible personal biases in driving this case against members of the Muslim community.”

However, these groups and these leaders do not recognize their own self-contradiction when the community failed to distance itself from Niazi after evidence revealed that he had praised Taliban leaders and likened bin Laden to an angel. Reversing the In Focus argument against Eliot, Muslim groups also ‘run the risk of being guilty by association’ by refusing to ‘repudiate and disassociate’ themselves from Niazi. Not only do they fail to distance themselves from such people, they also endanger a larger community by protecting those individuals who authorities have legally asserted as a national security risk.

Furthermore, recent expert recommendations for the U.S. Government to step away from terminology linking Islam with violence become ineffective measures if community groups themselves cannot directly disassociate from terrorist sympathizers.

June 19, 2009

A Look at Who’s Who in Iran

Friday June 19, 2009 – Iran’s seat of power, the Ayatollah, gives his first official speech since last week’s historical post election protests.  Before you listen to the speech, get caught up on who the key players are and check out BBC’s guide on “Who’s who in Iran”.

A response to Ayatollah Khamenei’s speech will follow shortly.

Thursday's demonstration, outlawed by the govt.

Thursday's demonstration, outlawed by the gov

WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW:

Khomeini vs Khamenei

Iran’s political chessboard can be a little confusing.  Note that before Khamenei, there was his predecessor Khomeini.

Iran’s Second Revolution

This is arguably Iran’s second revolution. The first took place in 1979, and continues to be the source of much controversy.

June 16, 2009

Iranian Citizens React to Rigged Election

The epic response from hundreds of thousands of Iranians bears witness to the fact that many Iranians cannot be represented by the theocratic and political leaders currently cemented in place.

Tehran, Iran: Hundreds of thousands of Iranians protest election result at iconic Freedom Monument [AP Photo/Ben Curtis]

This surge of expression highlights the will and determination of the Iranian people and their refusal to lay dormant in this obviously rigged election that hailed Ahmadinejad as victor over popular and well-supported Mousavi.  The theocracy originally outlawed protests, but with record number of Iranians hitting the pavement in protest, the establishment quickly rescinded the threat, recognizing it would force a revolution.  Instead, the government has targeted journalist and instilled media ban on the coverage of Iranian reaction.

THE MOST SIGNIFICANT POLITICAL MOVEMENT OF THE 21st CENTURY… and many key journalist and media groups have failed to treat it with historic and monumental importance.  Perhaps their failure is the reason why it’s business as usual for most Americans – with only slight pause to acknowledge some ongoing commotion in Iran.

A shame.  An America quickly losing itself in blanket socialism could have learned the genuine meaning of democracy and voice from an unlikely source…and possibly an unlikely ally.


June 12, 2009

Jon Voight on Obama

May 26, 2009

Ahmadinejad Struggles to Secure Second Term

With Iran’s upcoming June 12 presidential election, a quick trace over Ahmadinejad’s steps shows a failing leader desperate to secure a win.

AP Photo/Vahid Salemi

AP Photo/Vahid Salemi

At his May 25 press conference in Tehran, the Iranian leader carefully positions himself against a sky backdrop in a see-through attempt to project himself as visionary.  It was at this time that he extended an open invitation to Obama for a public debate at the U.N. should he be re-elected.  In this maneuver, (one that will likely be turned down by Obama despite his  “unilateral cowboy summitry” pledges), Ahmadinejad attempts to paint his candidacy as being the only one that can truly protect Iran’s nuclear interests and present a bold face against the West – which many in the region continue to hold a pitted resistance to.

In a four way race, Ahmadinejad’s possibly sees his biggest threat in reformist Mir Hossein Mousavi, the fifth and last prime minister of Iran backed by former Iranian president Mohammad Khatami for whom he also served as adviser.

Khatami initially entered the race but pulled out, giving support to Mousavi – a move many believe was orchestrated to ensure the race had at least one strong reformist candidate.

The sign reads 'Every Iranian is a single campaign headquarter', referring to the Mousavi campaign's lack of access to any media. (AP Photo/Hasan Sarbakhshian)

The sign reads 'Every Iranian is a single campaign headquarter', referring to the Mousavi campaign's lack of access to any media. (AP Photo/Hasan Sarbakhshian)

A recent move by Ahmadinejad to block Facebook, an online social networking forum critical to Mousavi’s campaign, has seemingly backfired.  Although Ahmadinejad denies banning the site, the blatant act of media censorship and freedom of speech (common in the Islamic Republic) has only catapulted Mousavi to headline news and prompted thousands of young supporters to be more adamant in their support for him.

The question is will this support translate to votes?  With over fifty percent of Iranians born after the 1979 Islamic Revolution, young voters have the potential to make or break this election.

Meanwhile, Mousavi still has access to Kalameh Sabz, a newspaper he launched a few weeks prior.  Translated as the “Green Word”, the move to combat the regime’s notorious track record of media censorship may not be a major asset to Mousavi due to its late launch date.

However, regardless of who wins the race, the ultimate seat of power in Iran is with the Ayatollah – and that’s where things need to change.

Further readings…   Ahmadinejad uses Christ to Attack West

May 22, 2009

Why Obama’s Speech Failed to Deliver

President Obama’s recent national security and anti-terrorism policy speech was an opportunity for Obama to highlight his strengths, to display strong leadership, set out a clear road map for combating terrorism, and above all give us a concrete indication of his disposition on the war on terror.

Instead, it was a defensive maneuver that stood out as a stark cry against recent attacks on his administration.  It was a speech riddled with a convoluted game plan and his trademark over-use of rhetorical devices.

However, a few key points are worth mentioning and responding to.  Citing the Constitution, Obama declared that “we must never – ever – turn our back on its enduring principles for expedience sake.”  But what of that rising minority, a soon to be global majority, who twist the ideals and safeguards of such monumental documents as the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and subvert the authenticity of their meaning in order to promote an agenda driven by Islamic domination.

Islam is a highly politicized faith; it’s structured not only as a faith but as a guideline for society.  Adherents to Islamic ideology, will without question favor its indoctrination into a Western sociopolitical framework.  And while active adherents work to push this agenda, they retain a silent majority who tacitly support such movements because they believe it in their best interest (since the agenda is premised on perceived Islamic values).  In this way it becomes a war and sides must be chosen.

You cannot pick both Islam and the West.  The crux of Islamic ideology, paired with a scriptural and historic analysis, does not accommodate alternative points of view.  And from its standpoint, why should it? The societal framework handed down by God himself through the Quran is, in the eyes of most Muslims, ultimately no match for a system designed by men.  And while this system also invokes heavy Judeo-Christian values, and while it is a system premised on truth and equity, it’s unfortunately not perceived as such by the vast majority of Muslims who, when made to choose (as the direction is being forced), will for the most part side with the beliefs impressed on them at birth rather than the ideals taught to them at a later age.

The real battlefield for the war on terror is in the hearts and minds of Muslims.  The “war on terror”, as it is still referred to even if not labeled as such officially, goes far beyond zealot fanatics or armed radicals and directly the psyche of 1.5 billion Muslims worldwide.  To win the war, we have to understand them.  We have to understand what influences them – a dense asphyxiating influence when considering the religious and spiritual misinformation panhandled from “scholars” to followers, and from follower to follower.  In such an equation, fact and logic are absent and instead decisions are based on emotional appeals to religious and cultural ideology.

It is this culture of panhandled faith, of critically limited questioning (or not being bold enough to ask the right questions), that those with misguided agendas, those who hold the Quran up high but could not be further removed from God, have a vast percentage of the human population in either direct or indirect support of their initiatives.

It is this percentage that we must reach out to in all manners possible; this percentage in all corners of the globe whom we must keep addressing until they awake and accept the great responsibility pressing on their shoulders with the burden of a hundred worlds.

That is our responsibility and that is our duty whether or not we realize it, and whether or not we choose to accept it.  It is a resolution that calls us to action, louder and louder with each passing feigned act of tolerance that only empowers those people and those elements in radical Islam that will never stop until they have not only subverted our democratic systems, but have destroyed it completely and upon its torched remains have built the foundation of a world-wide Islamic empire.

And so yes, for the sake of liberty, for the sake of justice, of tolerance, equality and truth – for the sake of a world with unbound potential, we cannot (under any pretense or for any excuse) turn our back on the core ideals that have shaped all that is good in our society, the principles that have chartered our destination, and the unharnessed determination that can navigate us into a bold and wondrous future.

And while Obama speaks of these ideals, in order to live up to them he must recognize the importance of taking the necessary steps that strip radicals of their power and of their authority.

The appearance of things do not matter, and the farce of political correctness is now a very real leper that has leapt across the Atlantic pond and into our territory, a hidden disease that masquerades as tolerance and acceptance; a disease masked – but a disease nonetheless.

And while, “America must demonstrate that our values and institutions are more resilient than a hateful ideology,” America cannot risk down playing the unpleasant reality of an enemy that has spiraled out of control, a hydra that continues to sprout new heads in new forms.  While we have not yet had another 9-11 on U.S. soil, we cannot be simple enough to think that the absence of such an attack is any real indication that we’re winning the war on terror, or the hearts and minds of escalating numbers of educated moderate Muslims who still shield themselves from a truthful discussion on this issue – a sentiment that shows a disturbing mindset.

As he stated, “…the decisions that were made over the last eight years established an ad hoc legal approach for fighting terrorism that was neither effective nor sustainable – a framework that failed to rely on our legal traditions and time-tested institutions; that failed to use our values as a compass.”  But what we’re still missing is a plan of action in fighting a war that has escaped beyond terrorist organizations and has encroached closer in new shapes and forms.

The steps taken thus far by the Obama administration are only stepping stones.  This speech was an opportunity to clearly layout his position and his perception of this war.  Rather than position, we were filled with idealism, rhetoric, and an attack on the last eight years rather than understanding the frustrations of those years – a move that is not only politically divisive but divides the American people from their own recent history that no matter how unpleasant, is still our history.

From the last 8 years we know now that we cannot simply throw bombs and money at the problem.  The strongest nation in the world is waging a war in which its strength does not matter.  In the last few years through facing intangible wars, we have just now awoken as a nation to truly understand the broad parameters of the form of terrorism we’re dealing with.

It is a battle beyond the scope of military might.  It is a battle entrenched in perception.

———————————–

Highlights from Dick Cheney’s Response:

On Terminology: “Behind the overwrought reaction to enhanced interrogations is a broader misconception about the threats that still face our country. You can sense the problem in the emergence of euphemisms that strive to put an imaginary distance between the American people and the terrorist enemy. Apparently using the term ‘war’ where terrorists are concerned is starting to feel a bit dated. So henceforth we’re advised by the administration to think of the fight against terrorists as, quote, ‘Overseas contingency operations.’ In the event of another terrorist attack on America, the Homeland Security Department assures us it will be ready for this, quote, ‘man-made disaster’ – never mind that the whole Department was created for the purpose of protecting Americans from terrorist attack.

And when you hear that there are no more, quote, ‘enemy combatants,’ as there were back in the days of that scary war on terror, at first that sounds like progress. The only problem is that the phrase is gone, but the same assortment of killers and would-be mass murderers are still there. And finding some less judgmental or more pleasant-sounding name for terrorists doesn’t change what they are – or what they would do if we let them loose.”

On Torture: “Another term out there that slipped into the discussion is the notion that American interrogation practices were a ‘recruitment tool’ for the enemy. On this theory, by the tough questioning of killers, we have supposedly fallen short of our own values. This recruitment-tool theory has become something of a mantra lately, including from the President himself. And after a familiar fashion, it excuses the violent and blames America for the evil that others do. It’s another version of that same old refrain from the Left, ‘We brought it on ourselves.’

It is much closer to the truth that terrorists hate this country precisely because of the values we profess and seek to live by, not by some alleged failure to do so. Nor are terrorists or those who see them as victims exactly the best judges of America’s moral standards, one way or the other….

If fine speech-making, appeals to reason, or pleas for compassion had the power to move them, the terrorists would long ago have abandoned the field. And when they see the American government caught up in arguments about interrogations, or whether foreign terrorists have constitutional rights, they don’t stand back in awe of our legal system and wonder whether they had misjudged us all along. Instead the terrorists see just what they were hoping for – our unity gone, our resolve shaken, our leaders distracted. In short, they see weakness and opportunity.”

On ‘Open Government’: “Releasing the interrogation memos was flatly contrary to the national security interest of the United States. The harm done only begins with top secret information now in the hands of the terrorists, who have just received a lengthy insert for their training manual. Across the world, governments that have helped us capture terrorists will fear that sensitive joint operations will be compromised. And at the CIA, operatives are left to wonder if they can depend on the White House or Congress to back them up when the going gets tough. Why should any agency employee take on a difficult assignment when, even though they act lawfully and in good faith, years down the road the press and Congress will treat everything they do with suspicion, outright hostility, and second-guessing?”

May 14, 2009

DISSECTING BENEDICT

Pope Benedict’s recent trip to Israel is disconcerting to say the least.

Traveling to Nazareth, the childhood home of Jesus, the Pope brought with him a message of reconciliation between interfaith groups – namely Muslims and Jews.  He urged them to “reject the destructive powers of hatred and prejudice.”

While this act may be heralded by those around the world, the fact of the matter is anyone (especially these days) can and does go around urging peace. But were it that simple, we’d have had peace by now.  And what I personally see as a popular trend is the rise of many so-called leaders trumpeting a message of peace that not only fails to have any real substance, but is also not followed by clear decisive action.

What raises grave concerns here is not the stated agenda behind the Pope’s trip, but the acts and specific choice of words, which raise alarming suspicions and point to incredible hypocrisy.

CREATING ASSOCIATIONS

The words of any leaders, particularly those given at mass public gatherings, are carefully thought out.  Words don’t just stumble out of their mouth – they’re crafted.

And here is what was shaped on this occasion:

“I urge people of goodwill in both communities to repair the damage that has been done, and in fidelity to our common belief in one God, the Father of the human family, to work to build bridges and find the way to a peaceful coexistence,” – Benedict.

The use and placement of the bolded text highlights the association created here. As monotheistic faiths agree, God is Father and Creator – and the title of Pope is derivative of “il Papa”, Latin for Father.

In the minds of many who already believe in this self-appointed title, these words will reinforce a belief.  In the minds of others, it creates a subliminal association that makes his presence more acceptable.  Any student of rhetoric will attest to the obvious connection the Pope creates here, linking himself to the divine.

Troubling?  Not so much.

Troubling considering the immense influence he has over a significant percentage of the population? Yes.

Troubling when as a self-appointed religious leader, with a claim to faith in God, he does the very things warned of in the Bible – the book he says he’s about?  YES.

ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS

While the rhetorical strategies in Benedict’s speech can be fairly debated, his actions cannot.

While you may accidentally or unknowingly say the wrong word, you cannot “accidentally” create a parade “led by a procession of priests and bishops in flowing white robes.”  Nor can you accidentally carry a large gold cross, don yourself in a golden cloak, and surround yourself with an entourage of priests all setting the stage for a grand spectacle of ‘faith’.

These shows of faith are exactly that – a show.

The truly saddening part is the crowd that showed up, chanting his name, “clapping in unison and waving yellow and white Vatican flags.”

And the grand irony of this is the fact that it all took place in Nazareth.  Nazareth, in Galilee, was where “according to tradition, Jesus traveled through Galilee with his disciples preaching and performing miracles in the final years of his life.”

Benedict’s display here is a questionable imitation of Jesus.

There are too many coincidences here for it to be a coincidence – the choice of words, the location, the movement…

However you choose to look at the picture, there’s one fact and figure that stands out in sharp contrast to this scene.  Anyone who has studied Jesus would know how much this man was against shows of grandeur, against religious titles, against mass followings…against the very idea of a “pope”.

And yet, here is Benedict – revered by believers who unfortunately do not see that he is a manifestation of the very thing Jesus warned against.  And when he passes, another in his place, and another thereafter and another and another.  Each claiming an exclusive right to something God gives freely to all.

May 9, 2009

Hawaiian Senate Declares “Islam Day”

In an overwhelming 22-3 vote, Hawaii’s Senate moved to declare a state-wide “Islam Day”.

The bill, previously passed by Hawaii’s House of Representatives, marks the 24th of Sept as day celebrating Islam’s “rich religious, scientific, cultural and artistic contributions.”

The dissenting minority of two Republicans argued that other faiths did not have a celebration day, and further added that radical elements in Islam celebrated the Twin Tower attacks. The third vote against passing the bill came from a Democrat who cited the rule of separating church and state.

Proponents of the bill remarked that it was a show of American tolerance, especially in light of the 9-11 attacks.  In my personal view, yes it’s a show of tolerance but how much more can we stomach as a society in an attempt to “show our tolerance”.  Didn’t half of America just get done voting in a president to “show we’re tolerant”?

And if “recognizing contributions” is the case, then let’s clutter the calendar with every civilization across history that’s contributed in some way.

The bill is going to backfire in two ways:

1)      It’ll give Islamists and fundamentalists another notch on the belt

2)      It’ll create resentment among other groups

The gesture is an attempt to be equitable, but in reality is considerably as ridiculous as an International Women’s Day, Black History Month, and any other day that really just separates a group from the rest by highlighting it as ‘unique’ or in ‘need’.  In actuality, these ‘celebrations’ show a complete lack of progress by the very people who should be educated enough to know better.

On a closing note – seeing as to how he’s been dodging religious affiliations, it would be interesting to gauge Obama’s response to “Islam Day”.

January 28, 2009

A Global President?

What does Obama’s interview with Al-Arabiya mean to the Muslim world?  

Choosing Dubai’s Al-Arabiya news network for his first official interview, Obama takes a significant step towards reaching out to Middle Eastern nations and stepping away from traditional presidential practices.

Dubai's Al-Arabiya TV network hosts the first presidential interview

Dubai's Al-Arabiya TV network hosts the first presidential interview

Add to that his recent move to close down Guantanamo, nominate Harvard physicist John P. Holdren as a science advisor and Nobel laureate Steven Chu as secretary of energy, leads a nation of onlookers, and even critics, to think that perhaps “hope and change” were not simply chanted slogans.

 

But for a nation of Muslims both domestic and abroad, what does this gesture of interviewing with Al-Arabiya mean?

 

Apparently not much.   It’s noteworthy, as was closing Gitmo and as was the fact that someone with the name Hussein was running for president.  But it’s certainly going to take a little more than shows of good faith to change the mass sentiment held by the Muslim world.

 

The show of positive intentions, the change in the administration itself, did not thwart a reprise attack against Israeli soldiers – nor did it prevent the near phantasmal bin Laden from resurging to share a message with followers. 

 

However, Obama notes that the attacks and messages issued by Al-Qaida are indicative of their failure to handle the shift in American politics.  Responding to the attack, Obama states, “They seem nervous.  What that tells me is that their ideas are bankrupt.” 

 

Bankrupt or unconvinced of changes?

 

Tuesday’s attack by Palestinian militants near an Israeli army patrol, moments after a fragile truce was seamed together, proves that those least likely to believe in any hope and change are those militant Muslims, who after years of training and brainwashing, aren’t exactly going to relinquish a contorted interpretation of faith.   

 

We’re dealing with a hardened lot here.  A lot toughened by and left skeptical from the last eight years of abuse, of dividing lines deepened to near Biblical proportions, each move by the Bush administration cementing Quranic forebodings of a vicissitude of enemies.

 

If the Obama administration’s current momentum continues, progress would mean getting East/West relations back where they were during the Carter Administration – a very realistic possibility if and only if he and those in his administration have a thorough understanding of the deep-rooted psyche behind the mask of politics. 

 

For those in Islamic nations, such as Iran (which Obama has pledged talks with), it is not about democracy, nor about declaring peace between neighbors near and far – but about Islamic ideology, a rigid belief system that trumps all western values.

 

Obama’s clear move in this global chess match is to draw on similarities.

 

In his Al-Arabiya interview, Obama makes mention of his Muslim relatives, perhaps in hopes of gaining respect and trust.  However, having Muslim relatives is only a commonality – it is not necessarily a common ground in perspective regarding worldly affairs.

 

Though growing up in Indonesia, a densely populated Muslim nation, is sure to have shaped his perspective, it still remains to be seen whether that background will bear any influence on his future decisions in these matters. 

 

Who he is and what his stance on East/West politics and religious rifts are, will only be known to us when the next crisis develops.   Since the recent Israel/Palestine conflict neatly resolved itself on the brink of the inauguration, the real test on whether Obama is ultimately any different from his predecessor is in how he will respond when the next situation erupts, as it inevitably will. 

 

But ultimately, Obama’s Muslim middle name and undeniable Muslim background, doesn’t take away decades of deep rooted skepticism and distrust.  It is American policies that Muslims see as their enemy, and I have a feeling they will not be easily won over by a few gestures.  Nor do I envy Obama’s Middle East envoy, George Mitchell – it is undoubted that both he and boundaries will be tested to see how this administration is any different, and to whose advantage.

 

November 8, 2008

Muslim cries against Sarah Maple drown out Aisha Duhulow’s cries for help

Over the last month, Muslims on the streets and on social networking sites have been expressing their hatred for Sarah Maple.  But hardly any of those uttered a word of Aisha Duhulow.


Recent spotlight in the art world has been on Sarah Maple, whose viewpoint on being a Muslim in a Western society has drawn yet another wave of complaints and threats from Muslims worldwide.


Her recent exhibition depicts, in my opinion, crude images of veiled Muslim women in various positions.

The expression of art has once again stirred Muslims to take the time to voice their opinions of both Sarah and her art. Yet, instead of engaging in dialogue, expression comes in the form of threats, hatred, and vandalism.

So much fuss over some paintings and yet not one word or call for an end when it’s violence by Muslims in the name of Islam or in the name values tacked on to an idea of Islamic culture.


A world of Muslims roar against Sarah Maple.

And yet only one lonely boy cried out for Aisha Duhulow, both of whom were killed last Monday.

The boy, a bystander shot dead when he attempted to save her life.


And Aisha, buried and stoned to death for committing “adultery”. In this case “adultery” meant “being raped by three men and having the courage to report the crime”. None of the three men who raped and stole her life were questioned, detained or punished.

Aisha, a child not more than 13 years of age, was viciously killed by interpreters of Islamic law, by a group of 50, with 1,000 spectators watching and only one small child there to stand up for her. That child, that day, showed more compassion, more humanity, and was more a reflection of God’s grace and God’s will than any of the 1,050.

Shame on them.


And shame on us for using the gift of voice ONLY to complain when things don’t seem to go our way -

throwing tantrums when we feel personally insulted that our precious identity has been marred and damaged in some way.

Sarah Maple’s art is only showing her view. It is a picture on a canvas.

You will not physically die or be maimed in any way by her act of free speech.

Yet, the actions of brutes and cowards in the name of honor, under a guise of Islam, are killing.

December 14, 2008

“There is no America. There is only Islam”

MANA discusses Muslim American agenda


Orange County, California A crowd of a hundred Muslims shuffle into Orange Crescent Mosque to listen to the evening’s lecture on “Forging an American Muslim Agenda”, hosted by MANA.


A video projection on a nearby wall casts the image and rhetoric of Malcolm X. With this introduction, and with two speakers missing in action for the evening, Imam Qasim Khan attempts to salvage the small fundraiser. According to the video, MANA, which stands for the Muslim Alliance in North America, is a “Muslim group dedicated to bringing American Muslims together to address the needs of inner city Muslims”.


MANA Video

Guests learn of MANA’s chief goals, which include community activism, the rehabilitation of formerly incarcerated Muslims, and masjid (mosque)/leadership development. Imams Muhammad Abdul Malik, Ismail A. Alam, Abdullah Madyoun, Musa Azam, and Siraj Wahhaj are all shown giving endearing testimonies of MANAs efforts.


Post video, Director of Events and Fundraising and former Christian preacher, Imam Khan extends the message by announcing the dangers humanity is suffering. As many agree, there is a crisis in the Muslim community, and per Imam Khan, it’s “not that we don’t care, but that we don’t get it. We’re only human, so we can’t see everything that’s going on”.


MANA event With a few wayward words about deen (loosely translated to religion or way of life), prayer and a duty to charity, Imam Khan shares his experience during Hajj (holy pilgrimage). He describes handing out money to the orphans, where  within seconds both the children and the money are gone.  He recalls solemnly that when he looked down, he saw a small one armed one legged girl clutching to his ankles, crying “What about me? Are you going to ignore me just because you can’t see me?”


With the parallels of that story, he relays the importance of helping those we can’t see. Giving credit to other Muslim and non Muslim charities or activist groups, Imam Khan points out that despite their efforts there are still those who are forgotten – Muslim in the inner cities, the “unseen in America”. It becomes clear who these ‘unseen’ are as Imam Khan tells us that there are 300,000 Muslims in prisons in America, and that 3,000 are released daily. He asks, “Who’s going to take care of them?”


With red collection bags beginning to make their rounds, the message of the evening unravels in a mix of poignant statements and religious rhetoric. For those who believe they’ve paid their proverbial dues, Imam Khan reminds the audience “Who told us how much the dues are”. And so begins the plucking of the ‘hell and eternal damnation’ strings, as the speech takes a turn to remind us of the importance of charity.


MANA Fundraiser 3

“Allah is keeping watch and whatever wealth you’re left with when you pass away will be melted in fire and stuck to your forehead, sides, and back”. The idea of death in mind, words vibrate our ears – “We’re praying on a nice soft carpet. We’re ok, but what if the Angel Gabrielle (angel of death) was to pay us a visit?”


At this point one person donates $1000.

MANA’s goal is $100,000, and we’re reminded, “What would we like our last act to be?”


With all this talk of sudden death, I half expected to be struck by lightening at any moment.


Fortunately the tone of Imam Khan’s speech takes a turn for the better, reminding the audience that Allah (God) says we can’t attain righteousness until we give that which we love. He discusses Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his beloved child, Moses’ willingness to sacrifice his staff, and Muhammad’s willingness to leave Mecca for Medina.


MANA Fundraiser 5

The evening nearly at an end, MANA announces raising over $7000 in a two hours time. Imam Khan tells us that Allah (in the Quran) is addressing those who have a potential and that it is in our interest to preserve our potential until the right time. With analogies in tow, and relevantly so, it dawned upon me that I am still waiting for the “American Muslim Agenda”. Thus far, I had heard a few good words but absolutely nothing about an American Muslim Agenda.


Imam Khan beckons for a few more minutes of our time. Alas, I thought, here we go – the point. But no, we are only told more of how Allah is preserving us.


“We all got some crap. We all got some dirt. We all got some bruises on our souls. But Allah is preserving us.” With all this preservation, I was beginning to feel like a pickled plum. Wouldn’t it be better suited the thesis of the evening to talk instead of action? Wouldn’t it be more righteous to talk to the importance of helping fellow man and the importance of giving in that context, rather than luring money out of pockets with the played out Pipe Piper tune of death, hell and an irrational fear of Allah?


Give, but give because you want to – and not because you feel it’ll earn you brownie points in heaven and get you in God’s good books.


But no, none of that. There is a slight moment of hope, a light at the end of the evening when Imam Khan poetically expresses, “if you have a conscience and you haven’t murdered it by ignoring it…then give”. A call to conscience. This is what we need. Finally. But regrettably, this slight sign of hope for leaders who get it is butchered to reality when Imam Khan immediately after state he’s made a dawah (prayer) for Allah to give 700,000 blessings for every penny that we give or wish we could give.


What we who call ourselves Muslims need is conscience. Conscience derived from a will and passionate desire for the betterment of mankind, and NOT from a desire for heavenly reward. If any act of charity is done with the hope of reward, it fails to be charity.


And with the evening dwindling to a close, it’s ever apparent that a few good words here and there did not make up for the lack of focus of the evening’s presentation. We are still missing the American Muslim agenda, at least from MANAs perspective.


MANA Fundraiser 4

Amidst these last reclusive thoughts in a room still segregated with women in the back and men in the front, Imam Khan gives his final words – final words that are the only insight into what MANA (or at least he) thinks is the Muslim American agenda.


Imam Khan warns that we don’t own anything, that when we die our body goes to the earth, our souls to Allah, and our deeds in the Book of Judgment. From there he relates a story of a fellow Muslim lighting a smoke, much to Imam Khan’s admonishment. Hearing the rebuke, the Muslim brother responded with the phrase we’ve all know and either hate or cherish, “this is America”.


Enraged, his voice hitting the heights of the ceiling and echoing through the cold room, Imam Khan pronounces that “This is not America. This is Islam.”


Seven words amidst hundreds are the only indication of the evening’s promised discussion. With only these words to string together some idea of what is to be a Muslim American agenda, we are left with no other logical conclusion that in fact there is no Muslim American agenda because there is no America – “there is only Islam”.


This once again draws attention to the issue of whether Islam and America can harmoniously co-exist, at least from a Muslim perspective.

December 25, 2008

Home of the Ego

Photo by di_lighted

Photo by di_lighte

Scientific studies have continued to link religious experience to activity in the brain.  But now the new area of interest is the right parietal lobe, discovered to be the home of the ego.

According to scientists, the higher the activity in this part of the brain, the more subjects identify a sense of self. A ’sense of self’ creates an awareness of who we are, what we do,  and how we are perceived.  This in turn develops our ego, however deluded it may often be.

Who was it that once said “the ego is the greatest trickster”?  It tells us exactly what we want to hear and what we want to believe.

With this in mind, it comes as no surprise that scientists are now discovering that those who walk a more spiritual path, with lessened ego, have reduced activity in this “ego” part of the brain.

Those of us unlikely to turn into monks, but who wish to quiet the mind and lessen the ego, have a few options at our disposal.

Art.

Studies show that experiencing art and nature reduces ego activity. But lovers of art, music, and environments void of modernism, have known this for some time.  Perhaps we didn’t know the scientific name for it, or exactly what the mechanics of the mind were, but we felt the sense of quiet and peace that came with it.  A spiritual experience in its own right and more powerful than any echoed words of preachers from pulpits.

Photo by Chezrump

Photo by Chezrump

However, everyone hasn’t had quite the same experience.

Others, not exposed (or not exposed enough) to such treasures, have found it unsettling to be in environments dominated by nature, or when exposed to music that is not mainstream junk, to art that is so powerfully felt that it cannot be expressed in words.

The reason for this may be because that part of the brain, that right parietal lobe, home of the ego, is so strongly defined that not only has it become a measure by which we assess our surroundings, but it’s become the only thing we know (or think we know):  I, me.

This “I, me” has become our reality.  Anything away from “I, me” destabilizes a fictitious sense of what’s real – a feeling that is cemented into firm belief by synaptic connections every time the “I/me” thought is fired off.  Over time, the brain solidifies in it’s thinking and new ways of thought create physical neural re-routes that are difficult for a mind that’s already set in one thought mode. As such, when immersed in nature, an area void of direction or influence,  a space void of ego, the mind begins to panic. Anything that quiets this sense of “I” causes a state of restlessness because we are far removed a from one of the most the ego – a toxic element that entombs us in a false sense of security.  

If it hasn’t already been done, it would be interesting to research the effects of those with strong right parietal lobe activity and how the brain responds to heavy and continued exposure to elements that lead to spiritual experiences – such as art, music, nature.

I have a feeling it would be a lot of like rehab for most, even to those of us who feel like we’re Shaolin masters with our yoga and daily online meditations and words of wisdom.

December 28, 2008

Ahmadinejad uses Christ to Attack West

In a so-called “Alternative Christmas Message”, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahamdinejad (prounounced ah-maud-deen-a-jahd) denounces the leaders of ‘expansionist’ states, saying that the world suffers because the leaders of such nations have strayed from the message of the prophets.

Ahmadinejad makes special mention of Jesus, saying that “if Christ were on earth today undoubtedly he would stand with the people in opposition to bullying, ill-tempered and expansionist powers.”

His most recent contorted message of peace is an echo of his September 2008 rant at the U.N. General Assembly1, where he tapped into people’s beliefs to invoke a message of brotherhood and mutuality. But strangely enough, even then he thought himself better and almost divinely inspired2 as he now projects in an “alternative” for truth.

A message of peace, a message that has been penciled and scripted, rehearsed, and calculated with precision and focus, is – totally unbelievable.

Ahmadinejad3, an accused terrorist, called for the destruction of Israel as far back as 2006. Ahmadinejad, a man who refuses to cease Iran’s uranium enrichment program and limit nuclear technology.

Leader of one of the most inhumane nations with the highest degree of human rights violations,

Who shut down Iran’s main human rights organization, headed by Iranian Nobel Peace Prize winner Shirin Ebadi4.

Who just this year called for “Death to America”5 at a rally preceeding his visit to the U.N.

Who, as leader and supporter of an Islamic republic intolerant of other faiths and lifestyles, has done nothing to change the direction of the nation.

A man who continues to call for the death of Jews, yet speaks of Abrahamic faiths, of brotherhood, and “for the establishment of justice and for love in human society”.

Such a man is not a man of God.  Such a man does not know God.

Dodgy AhmadinejadHis contradictions scream brazenly.  They are banshee-like calls that riot against the values set by the very prophets he invokes.

He speaks the words but he does not know their meaning – he does not live them.

And Jesus, whom he chooses to invoke in this perverse Christmas message, would be disgusted by him.

Ahamdinejad has no legitimate role in society, let alone on an international stage.

Yet he is repeatedly given the podium at Ivy League universities6 in America, and now even on UK’s Channel 4.

If Ahmadinejad is gaining mass followers and fame, which he is, it is because of the attention academic institutions and media agencies continue to throw upon him.

They do not question his character and listen to only his words.

But words without the question of character, without the question of who is speaking them, are dangerous words if they are believed.

So who is to blame for madmen and their messages – the madmen, or the men who listen to them?

 

Footnotes:

 

1. Transcript of Ahmadinejad’s September speech at U.N. General Assembly

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6107339


 

2. Ahamdinejad self-projects divinity.

http://www.rferl.org/content/Article/1063353.html

 


3. Ahmadinejad, an Islamic fundamentalist deadest on a worldwide Islamic revolution

http://www.iranfocus.com/en/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2605


 

4. After years of harassment and zero support, Iran shuts down Human Rights Defenders Center

http://www.voanews.com/english/2008-12-21-voa14.cfm

http://www.iranpresswatch.org/2008/12/police-raid-close-offices-of-shirin-ebadi/


 

 

5. Before heading to U.N. meeting in NY, Ahmadinejad attends rally calling for “Death to America”

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2007/09/23/2007-09-3_irans_ahmadinejad_issues_new_threats_aga.html


 

6. Ahmadinejad addresses Columbia University

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/24/AR2007092401042.html