Make Your Emotions Be Based on Your Beliefs Not Vice Versa

I've met countless number of people who have beliefs based on their desires.

What I mean by this is when it comes to believing in something, whether it be a religion or lack thereof, the criterion for them embracing the belief is whether or not it agrees with their emotions and desires, regardless if it is the truth or not.

Like if a person has their beliefs refuted in front of them and there is no possible way for an intellectual rebuttal to respond to the refutation and this person continues to live in a world of denial of reality and truth, then he is basing his beliefs on his desire, not truth nor reality.

A person who used to be a drug addict, gang member, prostitute, suicidal, and so on now is a "born again" whatever will preach to you to death, and when you refute his beliefs, it doesn't faze him because he believes not because of intellectual reasons but for emotional reasons. In other words, his beliefs are based on emotions and not his emotions are based on his beliefs. Truth to him is what makes him happy not what is based on irrefutable reality.

Emotions change. It can betray you. It doesn't explain anything to you; it just makes you react. Reaction without thought is not what you want to base your beliefs on; it is thought that drives the reason to believe: only thought can process reality, emotions can only respond (not process) to reality.

So if I confused anyone of you, let me break it down in simple terms and you then think about what I meant by the words I am typing right now:

Base your emotions on beliefs and not your beliefs on emotions...

African-American But Not European-American?

I can't stand the term "African-American" used for American blacks. The term is flawed in so many places and it is not at all accurate, and you wonder why whites are not called European-Americans. It is also inconsistent and racist and don't worry, I will explain how and why.

For one, the term "African-American" is something black nationalists came up with in an attempt to try find their true identity. The descendent of blacks are from Africa so therefore, these people thought why not call ourselves "African-American". There is a problem, African-American is not just being treated as an ethnic group but a race, and African is not a race.

Here is an example: when filling out an application, you will see white, hispanic, asian, other and then you see "African-American/black". For one, if you are not American but you are black, checking the box where it says African-American is not something that would accurately describe your ethnic background. I remember giving out a survey on a college campus in Baltimore and I will never forget the several Jamaicans who filled out the survey. Instead of checking the "African-American/black" box, they check "other" and explained that they are "Jamaican" not "African-American".

Also, MOST blacks in America are not purely African. Because of slavery, many blacks have white ancestors. Furthermore, relationships with American Indians and other ethnic groups have made black people less black, that's why many blacks claim to have some "Indian" in them, especially when explaining why they got "nice hair".

I am mixed myself, with black, Persian (aka "Iranian"), white (because of a slavemaster), American Indian, and also Turkish. Now how can I call myself "African-American" without calling myself all these other ethnic groups?

Now to the white part. Whites are NEVER called European Americans. Sometimes whites are called caucasian or anglo but never European-American, despite the fact that they are mostly purely European and their descendents of course come from Europe. So why the inconsistency?

Maybe because of racism, non-whites are always trying to figure out who they are. Even Hispanics have been called Spanish to now Latino. Asians have been called Orientals. For Asians, calling them "Asian-American" is more politically correct than calling them Orientals (they are not rugs as someone once made clear to me), but is also accurate because Asian (or as scientists will say Mongoloid) is a race and most Asians are pure Asians.

We can't deny that there exists various ethnic groups and so-called races. But true identity should not lie in race. If you were to ask me what I am, I will say Muslim. Identifying yourself by a belief that defines who you are is something truely unique to humans, because animals don't bond on beliefs, they bond on species and the human equivalent to species is race. Last time I checked, we are better than animals so why not bond and identify yourself by a belief?

Many biracial people who are half black have decided to call themselves as only black (aka American-American). Because of peer pressure and a need to "fit in", these people have in a sense negated half of who they are. It is because of nationalism that made them do this. I remember one famous celebrity who is half black and half white explaining why she calls herself black and not anything else (like biracial). She said it is because society shes her as black so she calls herself black. What a weak excuse. The same society at one point regarded blacks are 3/5th of a human being. Would she back then regard herself as less than fully human? Of course not. What is society thought that all blacks were dumb, would she call herself dumb because society sees her that way? Of course not, so why call yourself something that is not accurate, just because society sees you that why?

And this nonsense of "one drop of black blood makes you black" is PURELY RACIST and scientifically inaccurate as well. It's funny that white racists use this idea to say how black blood makes you racially impure while black nationalists will use the same idea to say how black blood is racially superior and dominant. How racists and nationalists from thing alike without even knowing it!

Without Islam, I would of have been a lost person. Lost about everything, including racial identity. On Sunday when church services are held, it is the most racially segegrated hour in America. Blacks go to their churches, whites go to their churchs, Asians and Hispanics go to their respective churchs, and so on. On the other hand, Friday where Jumu`ah (Muslim congegration prayers on Friday) are held, it is the most racially INTEGRATED hour in the world. People of all races attending the same mosques is an amazing thing.

Now that's the cure to racism and "racial identity confusion"....

The Meaning of Love and Soulmate: My Take on the Whole Thing

Let me change the pace for once. I know, I was doing good with my usual rants now let me digress for a moment.

Today's topic is love. Love is in many forms. Love of God, love of mate, love of family, love of friends, love of belief, etc, in the end of the day, the different forms of love have a common thing that makes it called love: there is a special, deep attachment to whatever the thing is.

What about finding your "soulmate"? What is a soulmate? I *used* to believe that a soulmate is someone who fell in love with, a person whom makes your day, the thought of the person gives you a special feeling and the lost of the person will make you depressed and even hopeless in life. You think the signs are there, that God made this person special for you and you will be with that person forever.

But this is what I realized: when you fall in love, you will always think in some capacity that you found your soulmate, even if you are not aware of it or you don't believe you have.

When the person you are in love with does not stick with you through thick and thin, then what you thought is your soulmate no longer is your soulmate. He or she becomes an ex.

Now we get back to what is a soulmate? A person whom you love that will stick with you thick or thin, almost to the point that it is unconditional. Love is not just about convenience or being totally happy with a person but it is something that goes beyond emotion.

There is a difference between falling in love and loving a person. Falling is love is a process, loving a person is just a state. When you fall in love, your mind is totally focused on that person and no on else. You act differently, you in a special state where words cannot describe. It is an amazing feeling. You have found what you thought is your soulmate, a person that no one can replace, no matter what.

But as a relationship progresses, problems often occur. And when these problems occur, sometimes it can lead to anger and even hatred, and what you thought was your soulmate, your one till the day you die, the one that no one can even come close to replacing, becomes an ex.

When you become an ex and the attempts to reconcile fail, you make become depressed. A horrible illness to have, and very hard to overcome at times. You want to move on, but it's hard. If you can overcome this depression, you have won the war and the battle.

Now you go back to find what you call your soulmate. You thought you had one, you thought God placed all these signs, but you realized the person was not your soulmate.

As I said, a soulmate is a person whom you are in love with and will stick with you through thick and thin, if not, the love was more something of convenience and guess what else I found out...

YOU CAN HAVE MORE THAN ONE SOULMATE.

Since When Was it a "Religion of Peace"?

"Love thy enemy" is commonly used by right-wing conservatives (mostly white of course) to try to paint Christianity as this compassionate religion while Islam is this war-mongering, hegemonic belief system that wants to "kill the infidels" and so on.

But looking at the history of Christianity, it was never touted as a religion of peace. From the beginning, Christians forced their beliefs unto people with a sword looming over their necks. The Unitarians were being killed by the Trinitarians, lands were colonized and Christianity was forced on the people. Religious wars like the Crusades and many others were started by the Christians and supported by the Church and the clergy. Killing for Jesus was not a sin, and the term "love thy enemy" really meant you loved him by killing him and taking over his land.

Today, the biggest supporters of war, ESPECIALLY against the Muslims are these white (or pro-white non-whites) right-wing Christian conservatives who insist Jesus was about love and mercy and forgiveness but since when did war become about love and forgiveness and mercy. How is blowing up a person or blowing his head apart with a high-powered rifle loving thy enemy? How is humilating him with sexual and physical torture as in Abu Ghurayb (Abu Ghraib in the mistransliterated version) a sign of Christian love?

It is not. History and even the teachings of the Bible support killing in the name of God. Reading Ezekiel 9 to Matthew 10:34, peace was never something that invalidated violence in the name of God. It has been recently that Christian fundamentalists used this "love, peace and forgiveness" as a tool of conversion, quoting only the passages of the Bible they want and ignoring the passages in the Old and New Testament that called for violence in God's name.

BUT REMEMBER, many of the verses in the Bible can be taken out of context. We need to read the verses before and after and know the story behind them. We cannot say that Christianity or Islam advocate killing innocent people because one misinteprets verses. Islam and Christianity have been misunderstood but now the war is now against Islam, now the MOST misunderstood.

And who could forget SLAVERY. Millions of Africans were stolen from their lands, brought to America and many of them forced to abandon their religions and traditions and adopt instead the religion and tradition of the slave master, i.e., Christianity.

Also, whites have used Christianity as a tool of trying to assert the white man's role of saviour of the world. Whites are a minority in the population of Christians, but nearly ALL of the missionaries who go to other lands and try to convert people to Christianity are whites. So do the math: whites minority; white majority in trying to convert the world. Something is wrong here...

Oh Yeah, Ex-Muslims in Muslim Clothing

Not Hijab but I mean the title of "reformist" Muslim. Take Dr. Wafa Sultan and Irshad Menji, both ex-Muslims who now thanks to 9/11 and the right-wing extremist campaign of bashing Islam, got the greenlight to get famous by you guessed it, BASHING ISLAM IN THE NAME OF TRYING TO 'REFORM' IT. I will get back to them later.

Check this out, this is the funny thing. We know for centuries now Christianity went through a reformation of sorts, but this reformation was not influenced by religious Christians but by secular thinkers, non-believers in the Christian religion! In Europe and even in America, people were often killed, tortured, persecuted, even raped, in the name of Christianity. People were killed for just being accused of being witches for crying out loud, once again, in the name of Jesus and sanctioned by the church and the clerics in the Christian religion.

And the wars done in the name of Christianity, sanctioned by the Church and the clerics in the Christian religion like of course the most famous one, the Crusades. Mass murder and atrocities of all kinds were done in the name of Jesus, the god of the Christians, a different god that Jews and Muslims worship.

Now if we had cameras back then, today, many people will bash Christianity as they bash Islam. If we tally up the kills in the name of the respective religion, Christianity far leads the pack by a looooong shot. But we didn't have cameras back then and people tend to forget or not read up on history.

So now because we have cameras, Muslims have been doing some naughty things on tape so guess what, the ignorant ones bash Islam and Muslims when they forget they their own ancestors killed a lot more in the name of their religion not too long ago.

But Jesus should not be blamed for the crimes done in his name. Unlike the fellow Islamophobes, blaming a religion for the evil things done it is name is not what Muslims should do. On the other hand, exposing the history, practice and beliefs of the hypocrities who dare to bash Islam is what we should do in order to tell people the truth. You say "well, it happened back then not now" and let's say you're right, it STILL HAPPENED! Who cares if it happened back then, it was done, it was sanctioned, and it received its blessing from the highest levels of the clergy and guess what folks, the Bible was used a reference to justify the atrocities!

Now back the ex-Muslims in Muslim clothing. Now this is getting interesting: some Christians realize that their religion has been reformed by non-believing secular thinkers and they think why not use secular ex-Muslims to "reform" Islam?

There is a problem: Muslims don't believe that their religion is imperfect, but rather they believe Muslims are imperfect because come on folks, ignorance of Islam mixed with being human makes a perfect recipe for imperfection. And this alone contradicts everything the "reformers" of Islam and their supporters believe in. They think that Muslims will sooner or later accept heretics and non-Muslims as reformers of a religion that the followers believe is perfect. Let alone the fact Muslims see the reformers as puppets and agents of the Islamophobes.

Islam is from the Creator. It is a perfect system of life that covers all aspects of life. Roles are assigned to the men and women and this is a balanced system. No one complains when the animal world have roles assigned to the males and females of a particular species so why complain when humans are assigned it? Isn't it ironic that those who believe that humans are animals would ever complain about assign roles based on gender?

But the "reformers" do not believe in the above. They want Muslims to use secularism as a reference for all their affairs, not God. They want Halaal and Haraam to be determined by humans, not by God. They want a society where out of wedlock births, sex outside of marriage, eating disorders based on trying to be sexy, latch-key kids, extremely high divorce rate, disrespect of parents and elders, etc., etc., etc., are COMMON PLACE. Yes, the fruits of secularism: create chaos in the name of "progressive". I thought progress was supposed to alleviate problems not create more of them.

Finally, let me get to the ex-Muslims who are now touted as Muslims in remission aka "reformist Muslims". God has set the criterion His Book the Quran for what makes someone a Muslim or not. If you disbelieve in anything that was revealed to the Prophet Muhammad (saaws), then according to God, you are not a Muslim. Now the Islamophobes want to create a class of "nominal Muslims" or Muslims in remission where they question, challenge, doubt, and even disbelieve in their religion while claiming to be Muslim. In other words, Muslim is not a believer in Islam but a person born to Muslim parents who for some reason still identify themselves as Muslim even if they don't believe in Islam as a whole.

Major Annoucement from Me

I realized something today: the lack of Muslim commentators in the press is depressing. Muslims who know how to debate are silent, afraid of the McCarthyism that exists today.

I think we need Muslims who can speak for Islam to speak for Islam. I don't mean the defensive, apologetic Muslims but the Muslims who can only defend Islam with the truth but expose the hypocrisy of the people who attack Islam -- show the flaws of their beliefs and history and I say we got a debate on our hands.

So having said that, I think it's time that I speak up for the truth so that all people can know...