The Zionist is someone I like to read because she is not afraid to defend her people and is proud of her culture and this is very important especially in a multiple diversity society like the USA because if everyone is insecure of their culture then there is much more conflict. Still, it is troubling to see how the Zionist lets her defense of her own people poison her attitudes. The latest post is a kind of irony in that she points out how anti-semitism is rising around the world, but then ends by saying that the real problem is Islam. Doesn't she of all people see that the two are the same wearing different clothes? Why is one anti- okay and the other evil? Both are evil.

world wide jew hatred is a bad problem but there is a lot of muslim hatred too. I have many friends in UK who report being attacked by thugs and kids in schools being abused by classmates. This is not a problem in the US but neither is jew hatred a problem here either. So we jews and muslims should be vigilant together to make sure that we dont see these problems import to our shared nation.

It is very sad to see how reasonable people become radical and open to hate in their hearts. The Zionist is an example of someone who went from principles to a kind of cynic. She used to argue that hatred of a people was bad and now she only argues that hatred of HER people is bad.

right guidance is hard

a very nice post by yursil talks about hadith and what they are and arenot supposed to have been.

The opposite of Taqlid is the approach taken by the Ahl ul Hadith (People of Hadith), otherwise known as Salafi’s or Wahabi’s. Their influence has been far and the printing press has been their friend indeed. Wrapped in source texts they seek every answer in between marks on paper, not realizing the heaviness of those texts and the burden they bear.

Hadith were an attempt at capturing the Amal (Manners) of the Prophet (صلي الله عليه و سلم) in a supplementary way for future generations. They were not meant to replace those who the Prophet (صلي الله عليه و سلم) himself described as his inheritors and those who the Quran praises. Reading Hadith to achieve those manners is possible for pieces here and there, but at the same time it is quite like parents communicating to their child only through one way text messages. Such an approach is insufficient to handle the needs of transmitting the fundamental expressions of our faith (including ritual prayer) much less raising a well rounded person.

Today’s Muslims are, for the most part, like such children.

not to say that i am an adult but this is very true we are all children, i mean i a community way. We have been made into children by the colonial powers and now are shadows of what we are supposed to be, and it is because we look for the easy fix like Bukhari instead. in my last post I did mention that I don't like the way that muslims make Bukhari into a prophet and there is a lot of silly things in Bukhari and it shoudl be okay to be able to say that. Now there is even a big book out slandering the Prophet by the jihad watch man and he uses Bukhari as his source! Doesn't that tell us something about Bukhari? And there are muslims who think Ayesha was only 9 years old too. Again thanks to Bukhari.

And then look at The Transhumanist who speaks beautifully about reason. Isn't Bukhari the opposite of this? How I wish muslims could do this:

It is speculative reasoning (al-nazar) which leads to knowledge of God, because He is not known by the way of necessity (daruratan) nor by the senses (bi l-mushahada). Thus, He must be known by reflection and speculation.
The Mu'tazilis had a nuanced theory regarding reason, Divine revelation, and the relationship between them. They celebrated power of reason and human intellectual power. To them, it is the human intellect that guides a human to know God, His attributes, and the very basics of morality.

that is so beautiful and yet i admire it but i do not know God except through my own imams and shayks so the question is am I doing taqlid? how do i know my imams and shayks are rightly guided? ar they just reading bukhari in the back room? i dont think that the mutazhili survived to today because what they say sounds great but who actually achieves that? everyone eventually just relies on someone else and then we assume it is taqlid. maybe we dont have the institutions for proper taqlid anymore though because bukhari has eaten them all.

it is still ramadan and I have been neglecting my qur'an with my blogging bad habit but then again maybe thinking about issues like this is part of my ibadat. this i guess is my attempt at reason but i am not a fancy thinker, i would rather just follow tradition rather than try and reason my way to something that is incorrect and how would I even know? I want to be right, not wrong.

Liberty. Humanity. Discovery. Victory.

I am amazed at the self-importance of some people. at the Imperialist's blog they always put themselves to be very high minded about freedom and human rights. Then look closer. here is a post that says

It's not personal. It's a system, and it's in the Koran and in the example of the Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) and in history and in the systems of laws and the cultural influences derived from all of the above. This, you can't alter. You can't get a fundamentally friendly Islam.

What you can have is simply less Islam, and more of other alternatives which aren't so hostile. And that is what I advocate that we aim at.

there's more

The tragedy can be denied if we deny that there are really moderate Muslims and friendly and upright people on the other side of the line that Islam draws between itself and the non-Muslim world, but I don't agree with blinding ourselves to the goodness of other people, even if we may not be able to avoid fighting them.

Rather, we are called by history to face up to a tragedy: that we have to oppose and diminish a system that is intractably and (in the context of proliferating nuclear weapons) fatally hostile to us, even though that will enrage and alienate the large absolute numbers of genuinely good and moderate people within that system, people who would like Islam to be friendly, kind and fair, even though, friendly or unfriendly, kind or unkind, and fair or anciently wedded to prejudices and violent supremacism in practice, it is still their religion, and since it is a political religion, still their side.

ok then. less Islam. good luck with that.

oh my goodness

I call him the Mujahid because he knows how to fight. I criticize him sometimes because I think that his intentions are very good but because he doesn't always consider who it is necessary to fight. Now the Mujahid has drawn cartoons about the Prophet SAW and his marriage to Zaynab and this has started a gigantic argument that is quite depressing to see during Ramadan.

To be honest I don't really understand the comic, but it looks like the Mujahid is trying to put a human side on the Prophet SAW. The problem with this is that it reduces the Prophet to just another man. The Mujahid probably wants to relate to him but we cannot relate to him, we are lesser. Also the Mujahid thinks too much about sex and so we need a good aunty to find him a girl quickly!

Someone says in the comment that the comic was inspired by a post here at my blog. I hope that is not true. I think we should make fun of ourselfes. But not of our religion or our holy people. If we do that then we will not be able to treat our own faith with respect and that is the problem that the Christians in the US have today.

I somehow feel that the Mujahid had drawn the comic for the benefit more of non muslims like the Liberal Hawk and the Transhumanist rather than his fellow muslims. Why does he feel that we need to have art to be inspired? I know a few artisty types and they always insist that if you don't like their art than you "dont get it" and are not intellectual equal enough. I get this feeling from The Mujahid constantly telling muslims that we need to see things his way. But his way of seeing things is very influenced by the non-muslims. I see him drifting away from us sometimes.

and Anyway, hadith are useless. What do they really do but create arguments and distract the muslims from what is important? I do not write SAW after Bukhari's name!


The Transhumanist says that it is ok for people to make fun of Islam and in fact this should be encouraged. I disagree because that is really rude behavior and this is supposed to be a civilized society. I do not walk up to people and insult them so why do should I not be offended if same happens to me? Yes free speech is important and when I get offended by a rude insult then i will express that I am insulted and that too is free speech.

Still, Transhumanist says that humor will help lessen power of the mullahs over the people. This assumes that there is no self mocking humor in Islamic world. Well, look at what The Arabist says about a tv show in Saudi Arabia!

JEDDAH, 30 September 2006 — For years comedy has been used to satirize the state or society in the Arab world. It is said to be the only way to criticize the systems in the region without having to spend a night or two in lockups.

More than two decades have passed since Syrian icon Dareed Laham starred in his hit motion picture “The Border”. In the film, Laham criticized Arab-style bureaucracy in a production that has become a landmark for the modern history of political satire in the Middle East. Today, Arabs can get a little relief from the sometimes-frustrating realities of politics and society by watching “Tash Ma Tash,” which first appeared on Saudi TV during Ramadan 14 years ago.

"Tash Ma Tash" is somewhat of a phenomenon in the Middle East. It's one of the most widely viewed TV programs during the month of Ramadan, popular for its ascerbic attacks on the status quo. What's somewhat surprising (at least to those who have little knowledge of Saudi Arabs) is that it is a Saudi production, in Arabic, so clearly for domestic consumption.

One episode this year satirized the recruitment of terrorists, having the would-be terrorists compete in an "American Idol" type show. You can imagine how well that went down in some quarters.

Anyone who goes to Middle East can see for themselves that muslim world has very funny sense of humor. in fact sense of humor there is better than in America where everything funny is either about politics or sex.

it comes back to this simple ting: do you want good relations with someone? then don't be rude and insult them. Don't make excuses for such behavior, either.

CAIR cares

I know I promised not to blog but my goodness! I am sorry but I think that the Mujahid is very wrong to say that CAIR should not have made an issue out of the jafi car dealer who was trying to sell cars by making fun of Islam and stereotyping normal muslims as terrorists. Look yes everyone has free speech, including CAIR so why should CAIR be the one to be silenced? Anyone is free to be jafi but then any muslim is also free to call out the jafi and say "you are an islamophobe, you are offensive" and note that the car dealer themselves made the decision not to run the ad so it is not like CAIR forced them to do it. If CAIR does not stand up for us as a community then who will? Why should we muslims not object when others try to disrespect us and perpetuate the whole thing about how we are intolerant and cannot assimilate and repeat worst things about us seen on TV.

I always hear the supporters of the war say that media does not portray good news only bad because that is what sells for war and that actually war in Iraq is going fine. Well I am not an Iraqi so I do not know if war is really fine for them but same argument is for muslims. media shows us the same way all the time. A few ignorant rioters are suddenly all of Islam after cartoons or the Pope. I see brother Rezwan called this "media feeds muslim trolls" (via Carnival of Brass). So we have to fight this perception and this is why muslims in America feel more alienated even though we are more assimilated than in UK where my cousins live. The car dealer maybe was just trying to be funny; well, if your humor comes at someone else's expense then that is not funny, it is hurtful and rude. Isn't civilization and civilized behavior supposed to be civil and not rude?

I think that the Mujahid is mistaken to write posts such as he wrote because it feels like he is trying to portray himself as "moderate" to the jafis like the Baron who wrote such disgusting things about the Prophet. I do not understand why the Mujahid continues to curry favor with these people. The Qur'an says that they will never be satisfied until we muslims abandon Islam so there is no point in trying to accomodate them.

I really admire the Zionist because she would never allow this kind of insult to her faith. The Zionist has declared her blog to be an Israel-bashing free zone (and by Israel she also means Judaism) because she has had enough. Look at the Christians, they are so lax about the importance of their faith, yes freedom of speech is important but it is useless if only one side speaks! Defend freedom of speech by speaking out and defending your own belief and fight for your own dignity else others will take it away from you. Jews know that you must cut off stereotype and insult immediately and address it otherwise it will feed into itself and build up and then you have allowed it to grow to a point where it wont be as easy to fight against. We have to be vigilant and then we can make sure that Islam does not decay but thrives in our hearts and also earns respect from our neighbors.

Why would non-muslims respect Islam if we ourselves do not? We must not allow insult to go un answered. No I dont mean go and riot I mean take advantage of same freedom of speech that jafis can (and should) be allowed to. That is what CAIR does for us and it is why I support them because they are on my side. Baron insulting poet and Jafi and and car dealers in Ohio who insult Islam are not.

no blogging

I will read Qur'an instead everytime I see urge to blog. I will read Qur'an instead instead every time I have the urge to read blogs. This month is precious and I have already wasted too much time!

well, I will probably keep track of Women's bill issues in Pakistan that The Mujahid is keeping track of. And also what a beautiful du'a via the Shayk, I will pray that too.


Democrats must cleanse their rhetoric

I don't has as much to say about the Democrats, i mean not as many words as I did for Republicans, but I'm not any less angry at them either and they are exactly half the problem after all in US politics. Main thing is that the Dubai Ports World deal revealed that Democrats are ready to become racist at a drop of the hat. Now we see (thanks to the @NB feed from the Shayk's political weblog) that Dubai Ports World just got an award for the best security certification! Wow I wish we could have good ports security in the US, but we chased away DPW because they were owned by Dubai (but its ok that China owns other ports on the west coast and hey wasn't the communists the enemy of all enemies a few years ago? well, hey they are not muslim at least).

Funny too is how Democrats want 100% inspection of containers but Republicans say no. But then Democrats play the muslim card against DPW. So who is serious about security? No one.

Republicans need to clean their house

Funny thing is that my family has voted Republican for many years including for President Bush in 2000. But Republicans today have total hatred of Islam and here at Redstate which is the Daily Kos for the Republican party (and has many party elected officials posting there) is a great window into how the base rank and file see Islam as the motivator ideology for terror.

I am very grateful to Neil in comments there who tries to inject some sense but he is labeled a facist and racist! Or maybe he is accused of accusing the crusader of being a racist and facist. I am not sure how to follow such convoluted logic but it is clear that the liberals are not the only ones who know how to scream about labels and whine about being silenced and having the pure truth of politics.

And of course we have the same old bit about how US muslims better do "something" or the American people will do "something" to US muslims. These somethings are never made clear. What am I supposed to do about bin laden or about bombers in London? quit my job and become a house muslim like a trained monkey on stage repeating "terror bad, kill innocents bad" all day? Will this "clean our house" ? Or be a joke?

I want Republicans to clean their own house about all this genocide lust. Didnt a congressman - not just some random person but an actual elected person to Congress! say that we need to nuke Mecca? And even so-called Armed Liberal at Winds of Change can't talk about Islam without saying how sad he would be if the "west" was forced to "solve" the problem. Or as he is putting it now, "dropping the constraints"

Will we conform our goals and policies to the social restraints we have placed on the conduct of warfare - or will we drop the restraints?

Robb doesn't believe that we can drop the restraints (as above). I know that we can, and wonder if we will choose to. That's a discussion well worth having.

Gee thanks for your enlightenment, the West!

look, war on terror is an important thing and in ideal world it would be fought with smarts and focused on the actual problem of terrorists. But it has become just a vechicle for the racists who want to declare war on Islam.

Why don't Republicans condemn?

Question for the Christian Soldier

excuse me.

Muslims are orcs. Our god - Allah, actually a moon god and not really the same god of Abraham - is a warrior concept that demands sacrifice in the present world. There is no love in Islam, only submission of slave to master. There is no divine revelation in Islam, only a code of action. The point of Islam is to bind the muslim, unlike Christianity where it is to elevate the believer. Islam is at its core a hate for everything that is not Islamic and the most important principle is jihad. Islam must destroy everything other than itself otherwise it will also be destroyed. There is no way to compatible the demands of Islam and of freedom because there is no free will in Islam. No muslim can truly believe in the Enlightenment principles because their own religion and holy book tells them opposite to the very core of those principles. The Prophet of Islam was false and a pervert and a crazed warmonger who slew drowned arabia in blood. Then the caliphs after him gutted the Christian world and destroyed overnight civilizations that would if not for Islam have endured today.

Is that right?

Is there anything I have missed?

greater and lesser crusades

I found this at the christian political blog Enchiridion Militis (which is run by The Christian Soldier) to be very interesting:

My Right Reason blog colleague Bill Vallicella has argued on his personal blog, Maverick Philosopher, that there are two culture wars–one against the American Left and one against Islam. According to Bill, the former is the “minor” war and the latter is the “major” war.

I think Bill is incorrect in his characterization of these two conflicts as major and minor. Instead, I think they are incommensurable–more colloquially, a case of apples and oranges. The one is a conflict over the national charcter of the United States and the other is a conflict over its survival in anything remotely resembling its present form.

she goes on to describe a horrible case where an abortion worker threw a living baby in the garbage!

then i see over at The Mujahid's blog the following piece about how muslims need to take sides on the "center left" of politics because the Republicans have done more damage to american muslims.

Now I am glad that the Christian does not agree with her colleague that the "threat" of Islam is a "major" one relative to the threat of leftism (which I think is not the same thing as what the Mujahid means when he talks about the center-left! progressivism left is not the same as liberalism left). However she still thinks that Islam is an existential threat to the US. Ironically it is her own compatriots who pose a threat to the US in their own way. Because as long as they see muslim americans as a threat, or the fifth column of global Islam and not their countrymen and women, then they are going to try and prevent muslims (and liberals alike) from expressing their values.

Ultimately I think that the problem is that the "left" has its wackos and that the "right" has its wackos. Today the right is in charge so the wackos have a lot more influence. But if the left is in charge wont they also have their wackos get more power. So what we need is to keep both in check by using them against each other so that both look at muslims and try to be moderate and win our vote. We have to be like the cubans in miami, fickle and never afraid to vote the other way.

also the Mujahid is right that the only vote is not the president but also we have to get out and vote at all levels including downstream all the way to school board and such. It is dumb to make stupid things like foreign policy towards israel the basis for our support. We should tailor it. School board? no creation, just teach them science so they score well on SAT and get into college. State government? dont tax too much but make sure services are provided. We should also make a distinction between senate and house at federal level. The Shayk said something about this a while ago and how divided government is best at his politics blog but I do not remember the link. Why not divide the vote then of muslims?

Muslims need to be smart and decide what our issues are and what are principles are. Then we can tailor the vote. I dont think we are left or right. Both directions are scary ones.


The Alim discusses the overuse of Islamophobia, saying

This inability discern goes back to the point that British Muslims are 'culturally illiterate' who take any sort of criticism or opposition as a form of hatred upon us and our beliefs. We end up opposing all such opinions and views through demands for more rights from the state and society, rather than trying to distinguish between them, and perhaps using them to our advantage. Combatting Islamophobia should mean combatting exclusion, bigotry, racism and hatred against Muslims and treating Muslims as 'serious adults', who can bring something to the societies in which they live and their acknowledging critiques do not merely mask a bid for political power. It should not mean shielding them or their beliefs from the critical eye of the onlooker or the outsider; we have the intellectual resources, across the religious, political and social spectrum to be able to meet the challenges that might be posed.

OK this is a very important point. However we also have to remember that the Alim is British and the situation of muslims in Britain is more analogous to labor class like black people and latin immigrants in the US. Here in the US muslims are more like jews in pre-war europe, in other words we are educated and affluent and yet also scary and foreign to the mainstream people even though we are very similar and share lots of values (america is a very conservative country, socially i mean). Obviously this is a generaliztion and the Alim is certainly not a laborer and not all muslims in the US are professionals.

So in the UK Islamophobia is like american blacks decrying racism. There are probably many cases of overuse but at the same time that vigilance does put pressure on the society keeping it from reverting to its base racist instincts (and having visited UK and europe many times I can say that anyone who says that they are not deeply racist people towards muslims or pakis as I got called all the time in public, is just being ignorant and maybe even dishonest).

In the US though Islamophobia is more like what Jews have successfully done in that it keeps the community vigilant against a recurrence of fear. I don't think that europe was "racist" towards Jews, it just hated them. Jews were white after all, they were therefore hated for their belief and identity, not their color. There is a subtle difference. Same goes for muslims in US because here we are not all one ethnic type and in fact anyone can be a muslim even a white person. So it is hate that we are vigilant against.

Is overuse of Islamophobia bad? yes probably but what is worse in both cases is what bad tendencies would accumulate without the watchers of islamophobia to poinnt them out. The jewish community in the US is probably the best friend of american muslims because we have a lot to learn from them and they have seen it all before. Lots of jews in the US think that because the US is pro-israel that means that they are safe from hatred from the christian majority and only focus on the threat from occassional stupid muslim punks (really not an "existential" threat to them at all!). In fact Jews because of their history now see every threat as existential no matter how minor. But anyway the Chritsian majority here is fickle and they would prefer to undermine the very freedom structure that makes it possible for us all to live here. The Terry Schiavo case and stem cells and rules about sex between adults and all that means that the Christian majority doesn't care about the Bill of Rights but rather forcing society here to be explicitly Christian according to their views. That is the actual agenda at hand - not a theocracy, but more like a mainstreaming by force of their morality. Just look at conservative republican sites and how they say that "tolerance" and "diversity" is bad and that all social issues of policy have a moral dimension. So anyway we need to be very watchful even though in many cases we share those values for the most part.

the true Islam

I read the Jafi because he will travel the dark hallways and bring things into light that need to be seen by muslims. It is a job better left to a jafi than a muslim because the muslim will deny, will resist, whereas the jafi will make the extra effort. I think that the Jafi is motivated by the same love of country and society that I am and so I do not hate him but I certainly would not want to ever meet him because I am pretty sure that since I am not "moderate" like a manji then he will never see me as anything other than a potential threat and that is sad really.

Anyway the jafi has an important link about some comments by an Abu Bakir Bashir released from prison in Indonesia which I think that need to be discussed:

Abu Bakr Bashir: The only model to follow is pure Islam. Because Islam in its original form was tough and hard, not weak and pliable. Islam is fixed, stable, ordered and disciplined, and so are Muslims.

If we return to the real practice of true Islam we would be much stronger and that is when the kafirs will fear us. That is why we need to uphold the Shariah and return to real Islam. But the West is trying to weaken Islam from outside and inside. They attack our people and invade our countries from outside, and they weaken us from within with ideas like secularism, liberalism and democracy. This is all designed to contaminate our pure Islam.

"our" pure Islam? this abu bakir bashir is much worse than a jafi, he is a snake. First he defames the Prophet by saying that he was a "radical". That is a smear! The Prophet was an idealist, a great humanitarian. This Bashir needs to cloak himself in authority and so he tries to claim the mantle of the Prophet which is also shirk I think.

and of course it is always about "return to practice of true islam" with these people. And what is true islam to him? aha, it is avoiding things like liberalism and dmeocracy! Someone show the idiot the fact that democracy gives Islamists like him political power look at Hamas and Hizbollah, they are smarter than he at least. He needs to claim that these ideas "contaminate" HIS "pure Islam" when actually these ideas are a reflection of pure Islam. It is people like Bashir who want to honor kill their women rather than recognize their power and freedom.

I also will say that Al Jazeerah is very important and does muslims a real service by putting people like bashir up for their idiocy for all to see. The Aardvark has discussed many times why Al Jazeerah is important and really follows the ideal of showing all sides so the audience can see for themselves. Always always does the idiots like Bashir come off as foolish in comparison. The Jafi surely hates Al Jazeerah for this but the simple truth is that Al Jazeerah is the Jafi's ally though he does not know it. I know my allies, I hope someday the Jafi will also.

Al Jazeerah invites comments by readers at and I emailed them:

Hello Al Jazeerah

in response to your article at,frameless.htm

I have the following comment,

First this Abu Bakir Bashir defames the Prophet by saying that he was a "radical". That is a smear! The Prophet was an idealist, a great humanitarian. This Bashir needs to cloak himself in authority and so he tries to claim the mantle of the Prophet which is also shirk I think.

and of course it is always about "return to practice of true islam" with these people. And what is true islam to him? aha, it is avoiding things like liberalism and dmeocracy! Someone show the idiot the fact that democracy gives Islamists like him political power look at Hamas and Hizbollah, they are smarter than he at least. He needs to claim that these ideas "contaminate" HIS "pure Islam" when actually these ideas are a reflection of pure Islam. It is people like Bashir who want to honor kill their women rather than recognize their power and freedom.

I think that Bashir wants power for himself rather than any true concern for the muslims. By whose hands do the muslims die in Iraq? by the same self-proclaimed champions of "true Islam" who kill children and innocent people lining up for work or to serve in police forces.

thank you, Sakina Arwah

silence is not agreement

The greatest lie of the jafi is that muslims are silent on terror. The ordinary actions of every law abiding and decent citizen muslim are themselves a loud condemnation of fanaticism in and of themselves. expecting that muslims have an obligation to condemn is itself evil. it says that we in the great great majority must all day do nothing except watch for and repudiate the actions and words of that tiny tiny fraction all day who are obscene. well, we have real lives to live! I am not a condemnation machine.

so why did i accuse the Mujahid of giving ammunition to the jafis? because he too wants mulsims to condemn. and like the jafis he says that not condemning is the same as agreement, tacit or implied.

The Mujahid wrote this:

So, I ask, either the societies aren’t Islamic, or Islam is no longer an adequate protection for the lives of women. In fact, Islam has become a scourge. Which is it? Since there are many who will ‘protect’ Islam from this ‘merely cultural’ evil (”let’s not mix culture and Islam” they will say), I will say that every Muslim, practicing or not, who in any way stays silent in the face of this evil, is complicit. Therefore, I myself am guilty and I don’t know how to atone.

I said before that his question, "Which is it?" is the part that is the problem. He makes it a false choice. Why is it only these two options? Why isn't it that the societies are both Islamic and also tribal, patriarchal, backwards? Why can't we just say flat out that Pakistan's culture still retains some element of barbarism which is thankfully absent in the new world to which pakistan's best and brightest have emigrated? this is the NEW WORLD and there are no honor killings here. Pakistanis who emigrated to europe took some of that barbarism with them. where is that recognition in the Mujahid's comment above? Or is critique of pakistan's culture (my culture too!) off limits?

No! Pakistan is NOT a barbaric culture - I said that it has retained elements of barbarism just as most cultures do. But there is no shame in calling spades spades. We must attack the barbarism not the Islam - it is the barbarism that prevents Islam's vision of true gender emancipation. So attack that, even if it means that precious Pakistan gets a black eye. Hey America didnt give women the vote until just 50 years ago so really its not like anyone is perfect.

and the Mujahid thinks that the following actually makes it better and clear:

the part “every Muslim, practicing or not, who in any way stays silent in the face of this evil, is complicit” makes it pretty clear that when I say “Islam” there I mean the actions of Muslims.

i think he means that we should read the earlier quote as:

So, I ask, either the societies aren’t Islamic, or Islam is no longer an adequate protection for the lives of women. In fact, (the actions of muslims) has become a scourge.

ok, but this still is a false choice and in fact even worse because its not the fact that the evil people who do honor killings are muslim that is worth commenting on, but that they are barbarians. Why not say:

So, I ask, either the societies aren’t Islamic, or Islam is no longer an adequate protection for the lives of women. In fact, (the actions of barbarians) has become a scourge.

and the Mujahid says plainly that every muslim who stays silent is complicit. Is the Alim complicit? Is the Shayk? Is the Mughal? Am I?

Why has The Mujahid rushed to condemn, to show the Jafis that he is not like the rest of us who do not condemn? I dont think so. I think that the Mujahid sincere feels that the honor killing problem must be stopped. But the way to do is call the murderers MURDERERS. Say they follow BARBARISM. Instead he has given the jafi the license to say that this is Islam. And worse, the Jafis will point to me and say look how the moderate muslims are treated by their own when they speak out about the evil of their horrid little religion.

I do not castigate the Mujahid for i know his goal is true. But his method is too much aware of the jafi's favor. When he casts aside his need to stay in the graces of them, then he will be a more effective champion for us.

The Mujahid is very sad

He laments honor killings, as well he should. But he again makes the mistake: honor killings are about muslims, and about Islam.

So, I ask, either the societies aren’t Islamic, or Islam is no longer an adequate protection for the lives of women. In fact, Islam has become a scourge. Which is it?

What a lovely false choice has been setup here. Of course any time that a muslims commits an evil, then Islam has become a scourge because Islam somehow failed to protect the victim!

Yes of course these particular cases are by muslims, and the "honor" is wrapped in Islamic arguments and excuses. But The Mujahid makes the same mistake as those who argue that Islam is inherently violent and hateful of women. He paints it as muslim this and Islam that. What wonderful ammunition he gives to the jafis!

The Mujahid seems to try and be the voice who condemns. Any muslim, anywhere, who commits an evil act and he must step up and demonstrate to some audience of jafis that HERE is a muslim who is righteous! Funny but I do not think that The Mujahid is any more righteous than my father, or my brother, or my cousin, who live in America, in Pakistan, in East Africa. They do not honor kill me because I live here and because I might date a non-muslim. I am alive; I am fine.

And where do these crimes take place? Why do they not take place here in the US? Does the Mujahid try to answer this question? So eager is he to immediately toe the line that he never bothers to dig deeper. For some insight maybe we should look at the Shayk, though that link is from years ago and nowadays the Shayk seems not to care about issues as anything more than a philosophical excercize.

Yes honor killings are evil. And they are usually committed by muslims, in the name of Islam. But the fact that there aren't honor killings in the USA means something. I wish that the Mujahid would spend some energy on THAT instead of being so sad.

tilts at windmills

The Mujahid believes that entering the lion's den - ie the jafi community - is productive. His latest foray met with disaster that was really predictable from before:

What hurt most was the way in which I was blatantly excluded from the conversation as if I were completely invisible. There were postings and conversations in which the commentators spoke to each other about “he,” “the guy,” “the Muslim apologist,” “this experiment.” It was as if I was not there. I was not Ali Eteraz. I didn’t have a name. They described and discussed me without acknowledging me. I was no more to them than a vague idea. Not a person, but a pronoun. It was the most blatant case of linguistic exclusion I have ever experienced because even when a man has called me sand-nigger, it has been to my face and I have felt his spittle hit me and felt the actual tangibility of the moment. This time I felt brushed off like I was a husk. Non-existent. Precisely because of the severity of their actions I am going to call it bigotry and I am not going to forgive it.

of course to them you are not a person, you are a muslim, and there is a very big different from their attitude and the one like the Liberal Hawk's attitude, because the Liberal Hawk believes in liberty and the jafis (led by The Jafi) only believe in a weak Islam that is not a threat to them. muslims are not human, they are scum, to be crushed. Otherwise they will crush the West, that is the attitude.

I have sympathy for the jafi's opinion actually because I also want what they want, which is no more big attacks upon my nation and no more death of innocents. I think that the Liberal Hawk is beginning to understand the dangerous attitudes of his allies, but why the Mujahid continues to try and reach out (or why any muslim should heed the Liberal Hawk's call for reaching out) I simply cannot understand.

Remember the biggest argument of the jafis. They say that they want muslims to stop terror. As if muslims were not the biggest victims of terror already! And then they say in very sad tones that if we do not stop it then the consequences will be to awaken the sleeping giant and then Islam will be destroyed and that they really don't want to be forced to do that. Why is genocide against Islam even raised as an option if they don't really want to do that? Especially when you consider that NOTHING that muslims do - not even foil bomb plots - is ever good enough, one sees that maybe we are being set up to fail.

their silence speaks volumes

The Liberal Hawk tells The Transhumanist:

A lot of hawks are just waiting to hear the bold, brassy statement:
7:19 PM "I love America, I love freedom of choice and free will and free worship, and I hate these fuckers who pollute my religion. I may not agree with everything my government does, but I want to help deffeat these assholes who spit on our enlightenment values."

Is the Liberal Hawk paying attention? At his own blog, which the Hawks surely read, the Shayk says this on a regular basis. And the Mujahid as well, to whom he links to routinely. And in fact any blog in the brass crescent.

So why this silence from the Hawks?

America is not the West

Welcome to War on AL-Islam (WALI). I am a patriotic American and I am a muslim. America is a nation, of all its loyal citizens, it is something grand and it is something wonderful and like the Shayk says, it is the greatest muslim nation on earth, for nowhere else in the so-called "ummah" is there a place like this where muslims are free. America unites its people.

But the West - what is that? It is just an ideology. It is just a construct. It exists only in the mind. Unlike the idea of America it divides people from each other. There is no "the West" and not even it's biggest defenders can even define it. What is the West?

I am of America, I am not of the West, for the West would have me abandon Islam and the West has declared war upon Islam. I will use this blog to show muslims like the Shayk, the Mujahid, the Alim, and others the truth of what I claim.