Wafa Sultan: The Bubble is Bursting

I am sure many of the readers have heard of Wafa Sultan, the secularist 'humanist', the neither Muslim nor Christian nor Jew, the one who still describes herself a Muslim, but insists that "I don't even believe in Islam". No surprise there, after all it is more profitable to bash Islam while still claiming "Muslimship", ask Irshad Manji.

Originally Syrian, she is from an Alawi family, which kind of explains how she could be still a Muslim, yet not believe in Islam. I am glad that she admits this, in a sort of self-incriminating way, that Alawites are only Muslim by name, not really by their belief in Islam. After all, could this 'Alawite-Islam', which includes believing in Ali's (RD) divinity, almost similar to Christian belief in Jesus, be the Islam delivered by the Messenger of Allah (S)? I think not.

Last year, Wafa's claim to fame was via her appearance on Al-Jazeera, a piece of which was aired by the neo-con, Israeli-planted web-channel, MEMRI opposite Dr. Ibrahim Al-Khouli. Unfortunately, as with most of our Shayookh, they are good in what they do (Islamic education), but not good in what they don't (appearing in the media). Coupled with the fact that this was a MEMRI hit-job (apparently the Al Jazeera clip was edited out of context as per the transcript of the interview at the Annaqed website), Dr. Ibrahim didn't do too well. And the video resulted in pushing Wafa to a pedestal that she deserves not the least bit, not because she is an Islamaphobe, but because she doesn't have any real credentials, or any intellectual arguments. Amazingly, and this is an utter testimony to the media bias against Islam, she was named one of Time Magazine's 100 most influential people. Perhaps, I should start the list of the 100 most successful liars, and she definitely will get a ticket to the top 10!

Wafa claims that said she was shocked into secularism (from Alawism-- not sure what is really worse, hmm...) by the 1979 atrocities committed by Islamic extremists of the Muslim Brotherhood against innocent Syrian people, including the machine-gun assassination of her professor, Dr. Yusef al Yusef. Well, that is what she CLAIMED. Of course, the media does not care about checking facts... any self-described Muslim 'refuse-nik' is immediately elevated to media-darling status. But, fortunately for the sake of truth, someone did, and it seems that Ms. Sultan's story is full of holes, and her image is (hopefully sooner than later) imploding. Here is a catch from CAIR's email:
[See also this scathing post from Dr.M, the master of pro-regressive analysis!]

WAFA SULTAN: REFORMIST OR OPPORTUNIST?
By Abdussalam Mohamed, InFocus, March 2007

While Sultan's admirers have nothing but praise for her, detractors charge that many of her public claims do not corroborate with facts. Moreover, they assert that the reasons behind her rise to fame have more to do with her personal life than with her desire to reform Islam.

Adnan Halabi*, a Syrian expatriate who met and got to know the Sultans when they first came to the United States, spoke at length about the Wafa Sultan that very few people know.

According to Halabi, Dr. Wafa Ahmad (her maiden name) arrived in California with her husband Moufid (now changed to David) in the late 80s on a tourist visa. Contrary to what she told the New York Times, they came as a couple, leaving their two children back in Syria.

Another source named Nabil Mustafa, also Syrian, told InFocus that he was introduced to Moufid Sultan through a personal friend who knew the family well, and both ended up having tea at the Sultans' one-bedroom apartment one evening in 1989. It was then that Moufid told Mustafa the story of how he was reunited with his two children. According to Mustafa, Moufid Sultan told him that a short time after they arrived in the country, his wife, Dr. Wafa Sultan, mailed her passport back to her sister Ilham Ahmad in Syria (while the passport still carried a valid U.S. tourist visa). With Ilham bearing a resemblance to her sister Wafa, the plan was to go to the Mexican Embassy in Damascus and obtain a visa to Mexico, making sure that the airline carrier they would book a flight on would have a layover somewhere in the Continental United States.

With an existing U.S. visa on Wafa Sultan's passport, Ilham Ahmad had no trouble obtaining an entry permit to Mexico. Shortly after, Ilham and Wafa's two children landed in Houston, Texas. She and the children then allegedly made their way through customs and were picked up by Moufid and brought to California.

Taking advantage of an amnesty law for farmers, the Sultans applied for permanent residency through a Mexican lady who worked as a farm hand. She helped Moufid with the paperwork by claiming he had worked as a farmer for four years. The application went through and the Sultans obtained their green cards.

As incredible as the story sounds, Mustafa told InFocus that to the best of his recollection, this was the exact account he heard from Moufid Sultan. Halabi, who is not acquainted with Mustafa, corroborated the story, which he heard from Dr. Wafa Sultan herself but with fewer details. Dr. Wafa Sultan declined InFocus' repeated requests to be interviewed or comment on the allegations. InFocus contacted the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to check on the veracity of the story but an official said that they would look into the allegations, which could take months to investigate.

Halabi alleges that Ilham Ahmad lived as illegal resident with her sister Wafa for years until she met an Arab Christian named Khalid Musa Shihadeh whom she ended up marrying (they were married in Nevada on 12/8/1991 and filed for divorce in 2002). It was during that time that Halabi got to know the Sultans well.

Halabi alleges that the Sultans lived in dire poverty. "Their rent was over $1,000 per month and Moufid was only making $800," he said. Dr. Wafa Sultan was forced to rent out a room in her apartment and work at a pizza parlor in Norwalk, Calif. where a personal friend used to pick her up and drop her off daily. This same friend used to help the Sultans out with groceries and occasionally loaned them money just so they could make it through the month. "It was a serious struggle," Halabi recalled. "The Sultans lived hand to mouth for years on end." Further, Halabi said that at no point during the period he knew the family did Sultan ever discuss religion, politics or any topic relevant to her current activities. "She is a smart woman, articulate and forceful, but she never meddled in religion or politics to the extent she is doing now," Halabi said.

As to the claim that her professor (thought to be Yusef Al-Yusef) was gunned down before her eyes in a faculty classroom at the University of Aleppo, Halabi said the incident never took place. "There was a professor who was killed around 1979, that is true, but it was off-campus and Sultan was not even around when it happened," he added.

InFocus contacted the University of Aleppo and spoke to Dr. Riyad Asfari, Dean of the Faculty of Medicine, who confirmed Halabi's account. "Yes, the assassination took place off-campus," he said. Dr. Asfari was keen to add that no one had ever been killed in a classroom anytime or anywhere at the university.

Syrian expatriate Ghada Moezzin, who attended the University of Aleppo in 1979 as a sophomore, told InFocus that she never heard of the assassination. "We would've known about the killing if it had happened," she said. "It would have been big news on campus and I do not recall ever hearing about it." Moezzin, who lives in Glendora, Calif., added that government security was always present around the university given the political climate in Syria at the time.

What are perceived as inconsistencies and half-truths like these convince Sultan's critics that the motive behind her invectives against Islam and Muslims is other than her alleged desire for reform. (MORE)

"Weird Mosque on the Prairie"...

This post was so good and so detailed in its analysis of the "little (weird) mosque on the prarie", the Canadian sitcom, I had to add a whole entry for this. Read on here...

Response to Channel 4's Sinister Plot to Defame Muslims

Further to my commentary on Channel 4's documentary, these are responses by two well-known Muslims, one Yasir Qadhi (not featured in the documentary), and Abu Usama (featured). I thought hard whether I should even provide the links, or promote this destructive, evil, and sinister videos. But I would be fooling myself if I think that I will prevent this Internet fire from spreading.

I was quite disappointed that Abdul Hakim Murad aka TJ Winters participated in this slanderous program against Muslims. You know personally I don't care "which" Muslims they were working against... it really doesn't matter. If we have a problem with other Muslims, we should talk about it between ourselves. "Keep it in the family"! I hope AHM will take some time out in the near future to clarify that his intent was not as portrayed. Because we would never see Hamza Yusuf or Zaid Shakir do such things? I doubt that they would ever be part of an incrimination against other Muslims, regardless of the differences and the disagreements.

The documentaries are on Youtube, some may have been removed, others in the process. Here is a link to another blog that has the videos.

Responses:
1) By Yasir Qadhi
2) By Abu Usamah

Weird Mosque on the Prairie

Most of you have probably heard or seen this show. I reckon out of the 2 million viewers, many have to have been Muslims, yearning for some "positive" Muslim portrayal, but ended up seeing self-deprecating "comedy". I am actually a pretty positive, optimistic person on most things, usually not that cynical. However, I find myself feeling rather humiliated and embarrassed watching this little movie, which I would refer to as a weird mosque on the prairie, and not the Little mosque. Here are some facts:
1) Only one character is Muslim, who represents the pro-regressive (borrowing the term from Dr. Maxtor) Imam, x-lawyer, ready to take the weird mosque on the prairie to the "modern world".
2) They cannot even get the Quranic recitation right.
3) Muslims will lie and cheat in order to get their way. As opposed to the honorable reverend, who will overlook the hype to be fair and just.
4) Elders, esp. the 'traditionalists' are to be ignored, mocked and removed from positions of authority.

And so much more... I didn't plan to spend too much time on this since Lotaenterprises has already got a good thing going on this with plenty of interesting comments. I am too busy on the Wahhabi-busting post... didn't realize how long that would take!

The only additional point I will make is that this one area where most Muslims can agree upon: anyone who follows, claims or wants to follow the Sunnah and who opposes Pro-regressives, whether he be the "sufi-traditionalist" or the ICNA-type traditionalist or the "salafi-traditionalists". We can agree that the program is abysmal, and almost sinister in what it is trying to portray. I am especially weary of the affect this will have on the Muslim youth, who already (regardless of methodology) have little respect for elders, and who are being pulled in all directions by the winds of "question-everything".

For the sake of having all comments in one place, post 'em here at the Lotaenterprises's Center of Excellence! Link here.

Wahhabis -- an Assignment

I am personally sick of the term "wahhabis" because everyone and his brother uses this term for practically everyone they don't like. It's pretty much become a cuss word. A long time ago I gave a khutbah for MSA-UH on campus about this phenoneman (I guess they couldn't find anyone for that day!); I intend to revisit that little sermon as well. You see the problem is that no one really follows Sh. Abdul-Wahhab, like for instance Qadiyanis follow Mirza Ghulam or like Mormons follow Joseph Smith, etc. So, you will be hard-pressed to find a Muslim that follows Sh. Abdul Wahhab in everything like someone would if they were to be rightfully called Wahhabis.

With that introduction, a little assignment: find references for everyone who calls anyone Wahhabis... for instance, I know Pipes calls CAIR and pretty much every Muslim in America Wahhabi, Braelwis call Deobandis wahhabis, etc... You get the point. Let's collect all a list of those called Wahhabis and those calling them such. Of course, with references. My purpose is to debunk this term's usage, so lend me a bit of your time...

Media Inquisition of Muslims Continues...

Here is an article sent to me by a good friend, which appeared yesterday in one of the more Muslim-friendly newspapers in UK-- the Guardian. It seems to me that the media's attempt to continue thrusting a less than thrilling image of Islam is becoming almost desperate. Every time there seems to be the slightest lull, someone has to break it-- either one of our jihadi friends or the media with another "insider story" (NOTE: "jihadi friends" was meant to be sarcastic-- I don't have any jihadi friends; this disclaimer in itself is testimony to what positions we find ourselves in!).

So, it seems that the media cannot have enough of Islam/Muslim-related stories. Every outlet wants to break its own 'sleeper-cell' story! And I bet ya that the story sells each and every time. Of course, the good Muslim stories are never reported or buried somewhere deep, where no one can find it. Good stories, of course, don't sell. I mean a Muslim soup kitchen serving the hungry and desolate on Houston streets may be reported by one paper, but how much more attention does that deserve! On the other hand, the same soup-serving people, a bunch of barely-adults practicing to shoot arrows or guns for fun, in a camp owned by an Islamic society, is considered extremely news worthy, deserving of massive distribution since of course, stupid, they were members of a "sleeper-cell" and their "fun" activities was nothing but part of a "training camp". Remember Brandon Mayfield, the poor white-convert lawyer, who the media desperately wanted to be another John Walker Lindh? Remember how this guy had never left American shores, yet somehow his fingerprints were magically found on evidence in Spain? Well, remember how the story made front-page on all the papers? Now, fast-forward a bit, and his exoneration hardly made a dent in any of the headlines. So, what do you think the average American remembers? Another convert to Islam, with a fancy degree, out to get America!

Back to the Guardian story about the upcoming Channel 4 documentary (on UK TV). In 12 months of investigation (that is an awful long time), they found only one or two instances of what one might call outrageous and "break the law" type speech. Yet the whole commentary was labeled "Preachers' message of hatred". Some other examples of 'egregious' behavior (as defined by this journalist) were things stated by a preacher, directly from Islamic law, such as disciplining the children if they do not pray! Whoa... so, we can't even quote a hadith now? We can't even discipline our children now? To make them practice what is the most basic rights of Allah, i.e. to pray. I mean would we not hit our children if they did not study, or started to smoke, or do drugs? Most parents would answer in the affirmative. So, for Muslims, it is worse not to pray than to do any of these social wrongs. Please parents, don't get me wrong! Everything in Islam is in proportion, so hitting has its constraints: no hitting on face or head, not hitting so hard to leave bruises, etc. What is funny is that even the non-Muslim Western society is divided on the benefits/cons of child-spanking, and many religious Americans, esp. from the south, will tell you straight-up that a little spanking goes a long way. For Muslims, spanking of children is not encouraged, some say it is actually forbidden. But, the only place for its permissibility is for prayers, since prayers forms the minimum basis for a person's Islam.

What gets under my skin is that these dang investigative journalists (I assume there was more than one)... did they not see any good in 12 months? I mean they must have! Yet, to just ignore all the goodness for the sake of a few bad apples, for the sake TV ratings, at the expense of Muslim sentiments and Muslim image, is just plain incitement. What do they want?? A few lynchings? Will that satisfy their hunger for Islamophobic stories?

Channel 4, here's my message for you: The anti-Muslim sentiments are already resounding in the West, a large chunk of people already think Muslims are inherently violent or evil, Islamophobia is already rampant; so let me tell you straight-up that you have succeeded, that the media has ALREADY succeeded in destroying our image. Your "icing on the cake" with this documentary will now only serve to enrage those who already hate. That rage will lead to violence against Muslims: bodily or to property. And guess where the blame will squarely lie: at YOUR hands. As for the few Muslim extremists, they will continue preaching what they need to; they will just move around. Your story will neither bother them nor hurt them. In fact, it may embolden them. What you should have done INSTEAD, was to spend 12 months locating positive stories in the mosques. So, that you could help heal the wounds, not add insult to injury. So, that you could perhaps turn the heart of one of those bigots planning violence against Muslims, and perhaps even save a life. SHAME ON YOU, and shame on your channel, and shame on all those who support you with advertisement revenue. Prepare your hands for Muslim blood, I guarantee you that your story will lead to it, may Allah protect all our Muslim brothers and sisters. And Allah knows best.
------
Here's the story:
Revealed: Muslim Preachers' messages of hate

Muslim worshippers are being urged by radical clerics to ignore British law
By Jamie Doward
The Observer

An undercover investigation has revealed disturbing evidence of Islamic extremism at a number of Britain's leading mosques and Muslim institutions, including an organisation praised by the Prime Minister.

Secret video footage reveals Muslim preachers exhorting followers to prepare for jihad, to hi t girls for not wearing the hijab, and to create a 'state within a state'. Many of the preachers are linked to the Wahhabi strain of Islam practised in Saudi Arabia, which funds a number of Britain's leading Islamic institutions.

A forthcoming Channel 4 Dispatches programme paints an alarming picture of how preachers in some of Britain's most moderate mosques are urging followers to reject British laws in favour of those of Islam. Leaders of the mosques have expressed concern at the preachers' activities, saying they were unaware such views were being disseminated.

At the Sparkbrook mosque, run by UK Islamic Mission (UKIM), an organisation that maintains 45 mosques in Britain and which Tony Blair has said 'is extremely valued by the government for its multi-faith and multicultural activities', a preacher is captured on film p raising the Taliban. In response to the news that a British Muslim solider was killed fighting the Taliban, the speaker declares: 'The hero of Islam is the one who separated his head from his shoulders.'

Another speaker says Muslims cannot accept the rule of non-Muslims. 'You cannot accept the rule of the kaffir [non-Muslim],' a preacher, Dr Ijaz Mian, tells a meeting held within the mosque. 'We have to rule ourselves and we have to rule the others.'

The 12-month investigation also recorded a deputy headmaster of an Islamic high school in Birmingham telling a conference at the Sparkbrook mosque that he disagrees with using the word democracy. 'They should call it ... kuffrocracy, that's their plan. It's the hidden cancerous aim of these people.' The Darul Uloom school said it no longer employed the teacher and that one of the reasons he resigned 'was the incompatibility of many of his opinions with the policies of the school'.

When contacted by The Observer, UKIM said: 'We are a nationwide organisation and hold different programmes in our mosques. We are very concerned about this. We have instructed all our branches not to allow any more speakers with radical or fundamentalist views. This has occurred as a result of a n internal problem. We hired out Sparkbrook community hall, and some of the organisations that hired it allowed some speakers with views that are not our own. As a result, no more external groups will be allowed to hire the community hall at Sparkbrook.'

Elsewhere the documentary records the huge popularity of DVDs and internet broadcasts produced by extremist preachers. At the Islamic bookstore at Regent's Park Mosque in central London, DVDs of a preacher called Sheikh Yasin are sold. In one DVD, Yasin, who is promoted on the mosque's website, accuses missionaries from the World Health Organisation and Christian groups of putting the 'Aids virus' in the medicine of African people, 'which is a conspiracy'.

Another DVD on sale features Sheikh Feiz, a Saudi-trained preacher. Feiz says: 'Kaffir is the worst word that can ever be written, a sign of infidelity, disbelief, filth, a sign of dirt.'

In a statement the company that runs the bookstore said: 'We sell and supply a wide range of material and we do not necessarily agree with it. It is totally unfair to blame [us] for any of the views expressed in these lectures.'

Elsewhere, another preacher at a mosque in the East Midlands is caught on film, praying: 'God help us in our fight against the kaffir, in every field, in every department of life. We beg you to help us fight against the enemies of our religion.'

Inside the Green Lane mosque in Birmingham, a preacher is recorded saying: 'Allah has created the woman deficient.' A satellite broadcast from the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, Sheikh Abdul Aziz al-Sheikh, beamed into the Green Lane mosque suggests that Muslim children should be hit if they don't pray: 'When he is seven, tell him to go and pray, and start hitting them when they are 10.' Another preacher is heard saying that if a girl 'doesn't wear hijab, we hit her'.

Another preacher says: 'The time is fast approaching where the tables are going to turn and the Muslims are going to be in the position of being uppermost in strength and, when that happens, people won't get killed - unjustly.'

In a statement to Channel 4, Lord Ahmed, the convener of the government's Preventing Extremism taskforce, said he was worried about the programme's consequences: 'While I appreciate that exaggerated opinions make good TV, they do not make for good community relations.'

A spokesman for Green Lane mosque said Islam does not denigrate women and that the instruction to hit a child was merely a smack. He accused C4 of intensifying the 'witch-hunt' against Muslims.

'Undercover Mosques', Dispatches, goes out at 8pm on Monday, 15 January

Kindergarten Logic -- Musings of Sr. Ruth

A must-read. Very well-written.
Begins: "Sometimes talking about Islam to non-Muslims is exhausting because there are so many preconceptions to overcome - preconceptions often perpetuated by repetition throughout the blogosphere.

The biggest obstacle I've faced so far is the conflation of beliefs and circumstances - people blending together ideologies, purposes and religious practices regardless of the characteristics, history, circumstances and goals of the many, many Muslims and groups of Muslims worldwide. Thus it is that some of my readers have told me my compatriots are beheaders and "throat slitters." [MORE]
Click here to go to the article.

America's Frankenstein Executed in the Gallows

Finally, it's over! The chapter on Saddam closed yesterday, perfectly timed on the eve of Eid-al-Adha, presumably as a gift to the Shias of Iraq. The gift was well received, it so seems, based on the celebrations in Sadr city, under the control of devil's own brother, Muqtada al-Sadr. Yesterday Saddam laughed and Muqtada cried tears of sorrow, today Saddam is dead and Muqtada cried tears of joy, and tomorrow, Muqtada will be in the same gallows, and both him and Saddam will see the fate that they have sowed for themselves. Who has killed more, no one really knows. Perhaps Saddam, as he had much time, but Muqtada was catching up quickly. I also don't want to get caught up in the Muqtada vilification. He is just the obvious one, I am sure the other Shia "Imams" share some of his work-load. I do wonder though how the 'moderate' Shias of the world see these Shia leaders, so I would love to hear from one of the Shias. Killing Saddam on the eve of Eid-al-Adha was another chapter of follies in America's Iraqi misadventure. While America tries to curb the sectarian violence, what a message to send to Iraqi Sunnis! I mean, stuffing it to them will only enrage, and confirm for Iraqi Sunnis that Iraq is firmly in the hands of the Shias, and that they (the Sunnis) will eventually be wiped out. Hello America Iraqi policy-makers, is anyone home? Interestingly, the final exchanges and the sound bytes from the gruesome execution video (the complete, "raw" one; viewer discretion advised) included typical Shia chants (the way they say Allahuma Sale ala Muhammad). I wonder if the Iraqi government had contracted out the execution to Sadr's family?

Saddam and Frankenstein, I am sure many of you have probably picked up on the analogy. In fact, I'd like to refer to him as Saddamenstein. I don't know if you have heard the story of Saddamenstein, so if you haven't, here's your new bed-time story.

You see Saddamenstein is America's own creation that went oh, so wrong. As with America's many woeful tales of failed foreign policies, Saddamenstein was America's man in their proxy war against the Iranian Satan. For 8 years, America supplied weapons, including chemical ones, otherwise referred to as WMDs. I remember seeing a cartoon that showed Uncle Sam asserting, "We KNOW Iraq has them [WMDs]; here, we still have the receipts". As Saddamenstein used his weapons on Iranians (not that Iranians did not respond equally brutally), he became more brazen [Br. Chao's favorite word- inside joke], and used a few of them in his destructive campaign against the Kurds. Many of you may not be aware that he had prison camps, where Kurds were systematically tortured and killed, with names such as "Camp Abu Bakr", "Camp Umar", etc., names of the righteous Caliphs. And he planted hatred of Muslims and Islam in the hearts of the Muslim Kurds. Is it any wonder now that there are 3 camps in Iraq: Sunnis, Shias, and Kurds, even though Kurds are Sunnis themselves?!

So, Saddamenstein continued to go down the road of other America's failed experiments (Bin Laden also comes to mind). He next attacked Kuwait. In a thousand years, he would have never dreamed that his "creator" would turn against him, and not accept his unapproved invasion. What a folly! That marked the serious decline of Saddamenstein, as his creator was now on the crusade to take him out. After all, Saddamenstein was out of control, and the last thing you want is to have your experiment blow up in your own face. So, America's might was shipped off to the Persian Gulf to remove Saddamenstein (newly crowned as a "dictator"). Of course, America's media, partners in crime as always, started ripping Saddamenstein apart, reminding people how bad he really was. The fact that they had slept so long on these crimes against humanity mattered not. Because, before Saddamenstein was our friend, his crimes were simply 'friendly fire', merely 'collateral'; after his Kuwaiti adventure, the same crimes took on their true reality.

Once removed from Kuwait, the elder Bush made the right strategic decision for once. He let the dictator of Iraq, Saddamenstein, stay in Iraq. After all, Saddamenstein was an evil dictator, but he could be controlled, and a big Iraqi mess is not where Bush wanted to be in. Saddamenstein's rag-a-tag army was roundly defeated. His wrath was limited to some scuds that mostly didn't do much damage. In the process of course, Israel benefited, getting some extra cash and weapons to protect itself from Saddamenstein. I mean, what's wrong with that? Saddamenstein was a mean dude, and Israel needed to protect itself from this mean dude. Just like the mean Palestinian kids with rocks. Once Saddamenstein was forced to retreat to his enclave, America wanted all of its WMDs back. Saddamenstein was not so thrilled. He had gotten used to those toys, their affect was painful, and he liked to try them on people. Perhaps it was a fetish for him; perhaps the power he had been granted by the world's superpower had gone to his head. Either way, he didn't want to give up these precious toys.

In order to keep Saddamenstein happy, the mad scientists around him told him that he they were on the verge of creating nuclear weapons. The fact that Iraq did not have any materials for it, neither any technical expertise, mattered not to Saddamenstein. He was tickled pink that he could be sitting on the bomb that he so wistfully recalled, had vaporized thousands in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, used by his own creator. So, why couldn't he use it? Of course the world knew that Saddamenstein was a crazy punk, he didn't really have anything of value. The so-called WMDs were limited to a few chemicals, which had probably expired by now. But, how else could America control Saddamenstein? Sanctions, ruthless sanctions. For many, many years, these sanctions crippled Iraq, crippled its economy, and killed millions of its children, mostly under 5 years of age. Saddamenstein didn't seem affected; he was eating well of course in his palace, while the country was slipping into an improvised nation.

Finally, a few years ago, our President, surrounded by his neocon crooks, felt that they had to take out Saddamenstein, because he was thumbing his nose at his creator. Of course, it mattered little that the Inspectors had found nothing, that Iraq under the sanctions could not have developed a toy bomb, let alone a nuclear one; the only thing that mattered was that America's weapons were getting old and the army out of practice. The remote threat that Iraq posed to Israel of course did not help; as remote as aliens attacking Israel. But the facts were not important. The 'war on terror' had to go on; where it went on, and against who, were details that could be worked out later. In that, Iraq obviously had nothing to do with 9/11, was not so obvious to the American people, as a poll several months after the Iraqi invasion showed. 70% Americans were duped into believing that Iraq was responsible for 9/11, another evidence of the complicity of America's media in this error of grand proportions.

A year or so ago, when you questioned America's failed experiment in Iraq, you would be bombarded with the questions straight from the Republican play-book, "Isn't Iraq better without Saddamenstein", or "Are you saying that you support Saddamenstein". Well, now more people are asking the same question, and more and more the answer is, Saddamenstein was a freak accident, a ruthless dictator, but he killed less people in his many years in power, than have been killed since the Iraqi invasion. Henry Blix, the former Arms Inspector thinks that Iraq is far worse off. I would venture to say that many, many Americans are following suit now. Most of the world, of course, agreed with Blix a long time ago. Iraqis seem to agree with Blix too, at least about the security situation.

So, on the false pretence of WMDs, America invaded Iraq, a decision that most Americans rue. A short honey-moon, when Bush's approval sky-rocketed, was followed by reality. The bee-hive had been disturbed, and the different factions in Iraq declared a killing feast on each other. Perhaps, Iraq needed a freak like Saddamenstein to keep control. Perhaps, Iraqis would themselves eventually change the situation for themselves, in more of a controlled fashion. After all, did not America itself have its own civil war? We learned too that you can't force democracy down someone's throat, but it took 3000 American lives, and anywhere from 400,000 to 800,000 Iraqi lives.

So, Saddamenstein is dead. But, we in America, love villains. So, who's next?

Check it out: "Got proof Islam is violent? Let's hear it!"

Sister Ruth has taken on the blog circles by storm, google her name and you will find that it is going around fast. Considering the thousands of blogs out there begging for attention, the rapid growth of her blog, with some entries receiving 50+ comments, is quite remarkable.

So, to my few (but growing) readers & friends, I say join the crowd. Let’s keep pushing the “Straight Path” blog so that it may become a light of reason in the sea of bigotry online.

An interesting discussion is raging on Sister Ruth’s “Straight Path” blog residing with the Houston Chronicle, entitled “Got proof Islam is violent? Let's hear it!”. Although I may disagree with this approach since the basic premise of the challenge puts Muslims on the defensive, I have been wrong enough times to respect differences of style and dawah. I added a few words of my own that Sister Ruth has graciously posted in the comments to this entry. This was in response to those who are calling for Muslim to mass-protest against terrorism, as if we (the Muslims) are somehow responsible for it:

“I'll join the MMM (Million Moderates March) when the cause is to rally against injustice and terrorism of all forms, including that committed in the name of Islam, but extending to the state-sponsored terrorism committed by Israel, Russia, Uzbekistan, and the list goes on. I do recognize that nation-sponsored terrorists have killed many, many more in the name of their states, but Muslims will overlook the lop-sidedness, and will be happy to join people like you Al-Ozarka.
Seriously, do those who affix the terrorist label to Muslims, consider for a minute why this phenomenon (of Muslims involved in terrorism) is only a story of the last few decades? It leads me to wonder why so many Americans have such lack of general historical perspective. Consider for instance, when Hitler killed millions, or before that the Crusades killed tons, Muslims have not resorted to labeling Christianity terrorist. We understood and understand that true Christianity or true Judaism does not promote the killing of innocents, regardless of how many people are killed under that label. Why don't the non-Muslims spare us the same justice? Count, if you are truthful, count the numbers. Put the innocent Muslims killed in one column, and innocent non-Muslims killed in the other. While both are equally reprehensible, the numbers will be clear that it is the Muslims who are bearing the brunt of terror.
Coming back to the terrorists among the Muslims, have the people not considered that some among the Muslim masses have lost all hope, due to a combination of their own governments, and then as a lesser result of Western complicity. When there is no hope, when there are no jobs, nothing to look forward to... then the vacuum is filled by the terror-recruiters. Intelligent people then do what is against humanity, and against Islam, and put on belts to die and kill. Even though the Quran tells believers that to kill one innocent life is to kill humanity. Yet, these people give up their life in futility. Has anyone asked why? Has anyone of our enlightened Western minds thought why?
Whenever Muslims bring up reasons for these episodes, namely the Middle-Eastern conflicts, Muslim sufferings, etc.; immediately there is a reaction from them. It is called "you are justifying it" reaction. This was put into place by the powerful Israeli lobby right after 9/11...why? Because people were bringing up the Israeli occupation as a root-cause, so the best way to take attention away was to instead accuse the person of justifying the crimes of 9/11. Let me ask you, since you all are indeed intelligent human beings: If you continue to have a certain crime perpetrated by people from a certain locality, would you not ask what is behind it? Let me be clear: Of course you would not let the criminal go. The criminal has to face his punishment, but in the course of the trial, you will examine circumstances that led to the person's criminal disposition. Other researchers will examine the background of that locality, to see what the root-causes of the disproportionately higher criminal behavior are. Asking about the causes or examining the circumstances does not justify or exonerate the criminal or the crime. Absolutely, America, along with true Muslims needs to go after the terrorists who are bent on killing and destruction of innocent life. And indeed, the terrorists need to face the worst consequences. But, at the same time, one must examine why this historical juncture is leading to a violent breed of Muslims-- minority yes, but still painfully growing. Examining the root-causes of this phenomenon is not justification, rather it is wisdom! Recently, the Baker-Hamilton report did mention the Israeli occupation as an issue that needs to be addressed, but that portion was conspicuously not highlighted too much by the media. Ex-President Carter made a similar argument, but he was countered with cries of anti-Semitism.
My point in this post is not to go into the conflict in the Middle-East, but it is a plea to readers to consider all sides of the issue. It is a plea to the readers to educate their own selves of the historical perspective of the conflicts through objective reading. My point is that labeling 1+ billion people in a certain way will not solve the problem. Rather, addressing and removing the root-causes of the hatred, growing rapidly in the Muslim world, is the better alternative for all of us Americans- Muslims and non-Muslims alike. We have seen that going in with a big stick in Iraq did not work, in fact it INCREASED hatred and the recruitment of terrorists. So, why don't we learn? Why don't we stop acting like we are in 3rd grade, calling the ones who we don't like vile names, and drowning the voices of reason? Why are we being led on by the hate-mongers on TV (e.g. FOX), radio (e.g. Savage, Hannity, etc.) and on paper (e.g. Wash Times)? They are the same ones who helped carry the drum-beat, and sold the nation on a war that is bleeding America and killing our soldiers. Why should anyone believe them again?In conclusion, Read, Learn, Think, then Say or Act."

A Must-See for Everyone, and Here's Why....

It is not propaganda, rather it counters it. Very professional, and objective. Why is it important for us to see this? Because an understanding of the 'other' perspective, and how that other perspective is formed, and more importantly, why our perspective is so different, will help increase our comprehension of world events, and it will improve our understanding of what breeds violent extremism.

Many of us in America wonder why there is such a different view of the Israel-Palestine conflict in the rest of the world (Europe, Middle East, Asia, etc.). While most Americans feel that the world is biased against Israel, this documentary will perhaps elucidate for you that things may not be quite that way. Rather, perhaps, what we see and hear is only one side of the coin.

An important note... most of the narrators in the documentary are Jewish. Why is this important to point out? In our time, any critical discussion of Israel is criticized and discarded as anti-Semitism.This phenomenon of labeling everything critical of Israel as anti-Semitic chokes discussions and critical analysis. It makes our nation an unfair arbitrator, and it leads to injustice in our dealings with the non-ally in this conflict. Injustice breeds hatred, and our nation is now more despised by the world than ever before, and by more people in the world than any other country. It is easy to dismiss this by resorting to 'who cares?'. Well, we should care. We live in an age of globalization, and if we want to rid the world of the scourge of terrorism, or win the so-called 'war on terror', we sure are not going to do it alone. And unless we understand what some of the root-causes of the hatred are, and unless we open our eyes to what the rest of the world sees and hears, we will have difficulty succeeding.

Let the learning, and hopefully the healing, begin. Pls view the documentary with an open mind... and if you believe it contained useful information, please send it to others...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6604775898578139565

Islamic Fascism??

The following was published in Delaware News Journal on 8/29/06 & Galveston Daily on 8/31/06(slightly modified version):

http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060829/OPINION10/608290324/1004

http://news.galvestondailynews.com/story.lasso?ewcd=3c8f68e65a141381

It is disheartening to see the president of our country engaging in despicable politics at the expense of Muslim sentiment. What I'm referring to is Bush's use of the term "Islamic fascism."

The president is not the first one to use this phrase; rather he has borrowed it from the briefcase of hate terms carried around by right-wing nuts such as Hannity, Savage, and the like. Instead of being careful and deliberate with his choice of words, the leader of the world's strongest nation has opted to rely on a sensationalist terminology, terminology that is illogical and deeply offensive to Muslims.

Your readers should know that the definition of fascism: "a system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator." If one were to look at the different militant outfits around the world that purport to be Islamic, it is easy to see that there is no central authority that runs through these groups. For instance, Hezbollah claims to be staunchly Shia, while al-Qaida claims to follow a staunchly Sunni ideology. Both these groups would as easily consider each other infidels as they would non-Muslims.

The political purpose of Bush in using the phrase "Islamic fascism" is obvious; it is an attempt to shore up his faltering popularity by pandering to the extreme right wing, and by engaging in fearmongering (in the phrase's allusion to Hitler).

While it may actually prove politically helpful in today's climate of Islamaphobia, it is a complete disservice to President Bush's role as the leader of all people in America, including Muslims.