The Thinking Brother's Blog

Are Slavery, Racism, Sexism, etc. "Judeo-Christian Values"?

2007-05-29T17:39:00.000-07:00

People have said that "America was founded on Judeo-Christian values". Okay, let's say this is true.

Slavery existed at the time when the country was founded and well instituted into the 19th century.

Racism, which still exists today, became a way of life and institution at the time the country was founded. The most racially segregated hour in America is Sunday every week when church services are conducted.

Sexism, such as women not being to vote until the early part of the 20th century was institutionalized when the country was founded.

So it begs the question: should we be afraid of any resurgence of Judeo-Christian values in America?

Kinda of a sarcastic question to those silly Islamophobes who fear "Islamic values" taking root in their society.

Touche!

My Problem with CAIR

2006-11-22T22:04:00.000-08:00

I got a problem with CAIR. I mean, may Allah bless the brothers and sisters who fight hard against Islamophobia and their efforts in trying to educate people about the true message of Islam.

They got several issues I disagree with from an ISLAMIC point of view which I won't get into but the one issue I will get into is is their apologetic defensiveness when they deal with Islamophobes, either in print or on TV. Their tactics are so weak that it actually adds fuel to the fire and make the Islamophobes more arrogant and convinced they are right.

What do I mean? When they debate an Islamophobe on TV for example, they will always say how Islam is this and not that, etc. without really citing references from the Quran or Hadith or Islamic history. They often do not refute the anti-Islamic claims with effective clarity but often allow the Islamophobe to have the momentum in his or her Islam and Muslim bashing. Also, since nearly all Islamophobes are white (or those who think "white" but are racially something else), it does not help if you have a Middle Eastern or Asian (or even white convert) always representing your organization when these hateful ignorant bigots feel extremely arrogant and cocky towards non whites but for some reason have some reservation in their arrogance and cockiness when dealing with black Americans, especially one who is more street smart (because they think that they do not want a backlash and be accused as a racist by black people and/or they are afraid of blacks).

And worst of all, they NEVER go on the offensive and giving the Islamophobe a clear reality check. If one of these Islamophobic pieces of trash ever debate me, I will ask him or her about the number of murders, rapes, and other crimes that happen in their societies and the MILLIONS of people killed in world wars and why they are turning a blind eye to their own problems which are far worse than what Muslims are doing and at a much higher rate and let them go on the defensive. People will see the utter hypocrisy of the Islamophobes and truth of Islam and Muslims. They will re-think what they have been told.

I urge CAIR to stop being so weak and stop just putting people who just say Islam and this and that without evidence and start going on the offensive and exposing the hypocrisy of the Islamophobe and start having a more diverse lineup of people representing you, instead of just having the Middle Eastern, Asian, or white convert whom the Islamophobe will feel utterly arrogant and cocky towards.

What Good Have Muslims Done for Us Lately?

2006-10-20T20:16:00.000-07:00

There is something that the Islamophobes don't want you to hear about: the true side of Islam.Right here in Los Angeles, just one example of how Muslims are following the teachings of Islam. A clinic of volunteer doctors and physicians working to help the poorest of the poor in one of America's poorest community in South Central Los Angeles. Nearly all of the patients are non Muslims and they provide free health care to the people and this is an example of following Islam.

Now please watch these videos, especially the Islamophobes who are too scared to visit the neighborhood where Umma Clinic is at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_p9dU5s3vg&NR

Here is a speech by Maxine Waters in the House about the contribution of Muslims in her district (South Central Los Angeles):http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7AXl4kvbOINow ask the people what they think of Muslims...

Is Islamophobia Racism?

2006-10-17T00:02:00.000-07:00

The probably the last kind of "acceptable" racism, Islamophobia is just an manifestation of the unbroken chain of racism launched against a "minority" in a time of paranoia and ignorance.

During WWII, it was "acceptable" to refer to the Japanese as "Japs", a racist slur meant to degrade those of Japanese origins. The press used the term, it was used on movies and even in cartoons and no one got in trouble or feared any backlash. Many justified it as treating the Japanese as the enemy and as the enemy, there is no need to respect them.

Although America was at war with the Germans, Italians, and Japanese, only the Japanese Americans were made to suffer persecution and eventually forced into internment camps. The Japanese were seen by the ignorant and racist people as all or mostly sly and sneaky and people who cannot be trusted. German and Italian Americans did not suffer such a fate because they were white, and just from appearance alone, you cannot tell if someone is a German or an Italian or if he or she is Irish or French.

Now blacks back then were called Negro or colored. If a black person did anything or even was mentioned in the news, his race was always identified. If a white person did anything or even was mentioned in the news, his race was not identified except on rare occasions. It took many decades to fight the double-standards and racism against blacks to even come to this point where the race of the individual is not always mentioned if they are not white, and we still have a long way to go to seeing the evil of racism go away for good.

Now to the current reality. There is an acceptable racism today and it is Islamophobia. Islamophobes try to justify this in the same way and approach as the racists trying to justify calling people "Japs" or fearing racial integration because it might lead to problems between the races and what not. It's a time of war, it's a time where we need to know the enemy, it's a time where we cannot afford to be politically correct because that can cause us to have more problems from our enemies in the future and so on. The endless list of justifications continues to be the tool for trying to make Islamophobia acceptable to the public.

But the racists never learn from history. History has shown that there has been a momentum in movements that are preaching racism and paranoia of a people, but decades, and some cases centuries later, people realized the flaw and the evil of such things. But unfortunately, racism has managed to pop its ugly head out and control the minds and actions of many people who have fallen into its wicked traps over and over again. We are supposed to learn from mistakes not repeat them, thinking that someday these mistakes will no longer be mistakes.

Hate crimes have origins from ignorance and paranoia. It is a reaction to something a person thought was wrong or not good. If an ignorant person is fed with constant stream of information that are negative about a people and their culture and beliefs, he or she might react in a negative way.

But are Muslims a race? Of course not, so how can Islamophobia be defined as racism?

Simple. Nearly all Muslims are non white, while the overwhelming majority of Islamophobes are white. But that per se does not make it racism unless the pattern follows a certain trend.

You may ask, what is this trend? The trend of shifting racism from one group to the next and create a case or even a cause to justify the racism. Decades ago, whites had no problem being openly racist against blacks. Decades later, most racist would not dare to be openly racist against blacks because the fear of a backlash. Now there is a new bogeyman and it happens to be Muslims.

It would be totally politically incorrect to say blacks are more prone to crime, even though some people will say that statistics will prove that to be the case. But for some reason, it is acceptable to say that Muslims are more prone to terrorism and people will say that statistics will prove this to be the case. Why the double-standard? Because today, it is unacceptable to be openly racist against blacks and to even say blacks are more prone to crime would be politically incorrect, but to say Muslims are more prone to terrorism is acceptable. So now we see a clear shift of open racism against one minority group (blacks and other non whites) to another (Muslims).

So why when a Muslim does a violent act, his religion affliation is always mentioned, even if was not done in the name of Islam? Why did the press decades ago always mentioned the race of a person who happened to be black, regardless of what he did? The trend of double-standards and racism continue today and we must learn from the mistakes in the past and try not to repeat them.

But for some reason, we continue to repeat what is wrong instead of what is right....

Churches and Mosques in the Ghettos

2006-10-15T10:21:00.000-07:00

I was shown a link where a black preacher in Florida is protesting the building of a mosque because he thinks that Islam is evil and the mosque will probably bring terrorism to his city or whatever the silly argument is.

Black Islamophobic preachers are quite rare, but they DO exist. He never read the Quran and let's say you take the less than 200 verses in the Quran related to Jihad (according to some people it is much less than that), there are nearly 6,700 verses in the Quran, so the Islamophobes are leaving out nearly all of the Quran and focusing on just a few that take out of context of course. He must of not read the Bible, he needs to start on Ezekiel 9 and end it with (after reading the whole Bible) Matthew 10:34. Will he now insist that the Bible will need a disclaimer since it has much more verses regarding violence and killing in the name of God than the Quran does?

If anyone has been to the ghetto, they are churches all over the place. In many cases, there are more churches in the ghettos than they are in the suburbs, and yet there is MORE crime generally in the ghettos than they are the suburbs. Crime ranging from drug dealing to gangs to prostitution to robberies and so on plague the inner cities of America and the world for that matter.

So the idiotic, ignorant Islamophobic preacher who want to say that the building of the mosque will be a bad thing will need to answer this: since there are so many churches in the ghetto, where is there so much crime? I see crime as terrorism, does he? Doesn't he see his community TERRORIZED by the crime that occurs? The suburbs have less churches and less crime, so if the ghetto has less churches, would there be less crime?

Of course the answer is no but I have a point. If 99% of the rapes, murders, gang violence, drug dealing, robberies, etc., that happen in the streets of America are committed by non Muslims in a country where nearly 20,000 people are murdered every year, then why fear Muslims if the risk of being hurt by one is far less than by a non Muslim!

Hate Creates More Hate Not Less (Unless If That is What You Want!)

2006-10-13T15:48:00.000-07:00

My recent post and replies to the Islamophobes have cause an interesting amongst these people that I would like to talk if you want to hear me out folks.

The purpose of preaching hatred is to spread hatred, more of it and not less. Bashing religions never created more understanding or peace amongst people, it creates more hatred and less peace.

Now if the Islamophobes want to make Muslims as these evil fifth columnists who cannot be trusted and will lie under "taqiyya" (dissumulation), then they choose to be ignorant and hateful. But don't be naive to those who believe that the are "exposing" or "speaking out against 'radical' Islam" that they are really doing that for the betterment of the world. They think Muslims are scum and bad people who will lie they way in making you all think that they are good people. Pure racism folks, and with these sick racists, there is no hope. No matter what you do, they will hate and insist Muslims are evil and scum and what not. It's the nature of hate, they are blinded so much by it that facts do not matter.

No, they want to eradicate and destroy what they hate, shedding more blood in the process. Isn't it ironic that the biggest supporters of the war in Iraq and the continued violations against the Palestinians are the Christian Zionists? They talk about their religion being about peace and yet they are the biggest supporters of war, even a destructive war like Armegeddon? In a sense, there are the biggest "Jihadis" there is? Since when did war because a sign of love and mercy?

Is loving thy enemy really mean that you must kill them to love them?

I mean, why spread hate? It won't lead to understanding, it won't lead to peace, it won't lead to unity. So knowing this, what purpose does it serve other than to create more and not less problems?

So the answer is solved: hate mongers are not "speaking out against extremism" because the hate mongers are extremists themselves. They are not here to "make people wake up and deal with their problems" because their hatred is creating more problems and provocations. They know their actions lead to more of what is bad like violence, hatred, etc., but they don't care.

They are racists and racists are sick, evil sadistic people. Knowing that you are creating more problems and violence and insist on doing it is a sign of pure wickedness.

Here is a solution: try to find ways to create peace, unity and understanding amongsts people. Instead of bashing, find a way to try to come to common terms.

Will the hate mongers ever listen....

Speaking to the "Infidels" Who Call Themselves "Infidels", Matthew 10:34 and Ezekiel 9 and White Racism

2006-10-12T23:45:00.001-07:00

My response to another Islamophobe rant is to go more on the offensive. Not to offend, but to rather expose the Islamophobes of who they are and what they are about. Not to bash Christianity, but to show the Islamophobes that they are more skeletons in your closet than you want to admit to.

Your hatred does not bring peace or understanding or unity but more hatred, less unity and less understanding. So why do you hate?

Now back to our regularly scheduled program: Okay, you Islamophobes, you call yourselves infidels. What, do you think it is cute trying to use reverse psychology thinking that you're mocking Muslims and Islam by using an "offensive term" like infidel to describe yourself? Well, infidel, you call yourself that so infidel, listen to this.

Anyway, there has been a lot of Internet chatter regarding free speech on websites like Youtube after a white person named Michelle Malkin (wait a minute, she's Filipino not white!) whined that her attack on Islam was really an attack on Jihadis and extremists and her cartoons mocking the Prophet Muhammad (saaws) was to speak out against the Jihadis and extremists. Yeah, it is like the Crusaders who murdered and raped people in the name of Jesus forcing mostly non whites to be Christian (from Jerusalem to Spain to the Americas to Africa and elsewhere) were the only ones that would be offended if a person decided to mock Jesus. Jesus is revered in Christianity and mocking him does not only upset the "extremists" but the non extremists as well just like mocking the Prophet and trying to say that your video was attacking Jihadis and extremists because you cleverly used footage from terrorist attacks to mask over your true hatred of Muslims and their religion Islam.

Interesting enough, the biggest killers in the name of religion have been Christians and this is proven by history. From the Crusades, Inquisition, to even more recently Bosnia, the only that stole land and resources, raped women, forced natives to convert by the sword, more than ANYONE ELSE has been Christians. It was just in the past few centuries when the agnostics and atheists (yes, the true "infidels and heathens") were the ones who had to reform Christianity so that Christians did not kill people who believed that the earth was not flat. My ancestors were stolen from Africa, forced to abandon their culture and even religion, and most often converted to Christianity. So thanks to the heathens and infidels, it reformed Christianity and Christians to the point that they have killed and enslaved less people than they did a few centuries ago.

Non believers reforming a religion they don't believe in, how hilarious. And it wasn't Muslims who murdered 6 million Jews but Germans, most of them are Christians not atheists. And it wasn't Muslims who murdered over 200,000 civilians in Japan with a nuclear weapon, it was Christians. And it wasn't Muslims who started WWI, WWII, Cold War, etc., it was Christians. Hundreds of millions have died and these same people have the damn audacity to say that Muslims are violent and fanatical! Most of it started by white Christians, who make a small minority in the world today but start most of the major wars and have the highest rate of racism of any ethnic or racial group. It is no coincidence that nearly all of the Islamophobes are white or those who mainly associate themselves with white racists.

What, so you will tell me that it happened back then but not now! What! Look at the nearly 20,000 people who are murdered every year in America, the 100s of thousands people raped every year, the crime that has TERRORIZED communities from east to west. And guess who commit these acts of crime and terror? You guessed it, 99% of them are done by non Muslims! And where just talking in AMERICA, I am not even mentioned South America, Europe, Africa or Asia! How can you overlook all the murders, rapes, robberies, assaults, etc., committed by non Muslims in your country every year and insist that Muslims are a violent bunch? How often do you see Muslims on TV shows like Cops?

And these hateful hypocrites hate it when people defend Muslims and Islam. If you make Muslims look anything less than evil, you to them are evil. The devil has took over their hearts and minds and replaced it with hatred, ignorance and pure and utter hypocrisy that cannot be match by anyone or anything else. They have shifted their racism from mostly and historically black and other non white ethnic groups to now Muslims. It's like it is something inherited from generation to generation, racists just can't stop hating. Now in post 9/11 America, they feel safe to bash Islam and Muslims because it is okay to. They won't bash blacks or latinos because they will get so much negative reaction that they don't want to deal with, so instead of giving up hatred for good, they shifted their racism to Muslims.

Now I have seen the very same hypocritical Islamophobes who misquote verses in the Quran regarding Jihad (that make up less than TWO PERCENT OF THE QURAN, THEY REFUSE TO QUOTE THE REMAINING 98 PERCENT!!!!) and insist they are knowledgeable of the meaning of the verses and that they are not twisting the meaning the Quran. But when these lying racist hypocrites are told to read verses in the Bible like Matthew 10:34 or Ezekiel 9 and MANY OTHER VERSES, they cry foul. They say, "oh no, you cannot read it literally. There is a metaphorical meaning to what Jesus said when he said he did not come to bring peace or the sword". My question is, what part of it is metaphorical? The part when he alleged to have said that he did not come to bring peace really meant he came to bring peace or that the sword really means flowers and candies?

And don't forget the classic Ezekiel 9 where God orders people to murder men, women, children and the elderly all the name of God. But no, they either say that was the God of the OT or once again, that we cannot take these verses literally.

When these hypocrites are told that they are misinterpreting the Quran, they will often say that the Quran needs no interpretation and verses are meant to be taken literally. A whole science of interpreting the Quran called tafseer was developed in the early days of Islam just to deal with the fact that you cannot literally interpret every verse in the Quran, even the Quran says that there are verses that are "mutashabbihaat" (verses that are not clear in meaning; see the Quran 3:7). But those with hatred and ignorance do not care for the truth. They shifted they long standing and traditional hatred of blacks and picked a new enemy: the Muslims. The same ignorant traits shown by the Islamophobes can be seen by those who hate blacks and other non whites.

And getting back to Mrs. Malkin. Ethnically she is Filipino, but mentally she is as much of a white racists as any white racist. Being white is not confined to just the Caucasoids, and being a white racist is not just confined to the racist Caucasoids that are out there.

Hatred does not resolve problems but creates more problems. What is there in offending 1.5 billion people except in more hatred, more ignorance and more violence? Are these people sadists or what?

A "Muslim Response" to the Jill Carroll Story

2006-08-24T08:11:00.000-07:00

I've been following the Jill Carroll story on http://csmonitor.com for some time now, waiting till all the parts have been published to give my response.

Why am I so interested in this story? There are several reasons and the purpose of responding is to really give an interesting perspective on the issue and in a sense, re-invite Jill Carroll to the Truth. She or you might say "whatever, give me a break, you know what she went through, why on earth would she even want to be Muslim?"

Don't ask me, but ask Yvonne Ridley who was kidnapped by the Taliban and to many people's shock and surprise ended up converting to Islam. Yvonne Ridley and her story made me even more interested in Jill Carroll's story. Both were white Western women kidnapped by Muslims. One embraced Islam after promising her captors to study it and the other didn't.

What works for "you" is not what pleases your desires. What works for you is what the Creator ordered you and the rest of humankind to follow and embrace: a system of life from God that agrees with human nature and what guides people if truly understood and practiced properly.

Converts to Islam don't go from not fornicating to fornicating. To not drinking to drinking. To thinking when it comes to religion and reality to not thinking. To using no profanity to using it all the time. The fact that both Islam and Christianity forbid things like profanity, fornication, etc., but for some reason when one converts to Islam from Christianity he or she usually drops the things that her previous religion forbid should tell you something if you are a thinker. A religion can tell you what's right or wrong, but only God can guide you and it is done through truth and not just any "religion" that makes you feel good or more "spiritual".

Back to her story. She was kidnapped and her friend murdered. She was held captive for almost three months and made to endure a lot of things. But that part to me is not the most interesting part. The one that interests me the most is the part where she as a person had to deal with Muslims and Islam. To me, her interest in Islam is not an issue of truth or falsehood or what God wants His creation to follow but rather something that will help in her reporting. If I am correct, I would like to ask her why not deal with the question of Islam not on a level of a subject to be studied for the purpose of work but rather is Islam is the truth and so on. If she delved into the subject of Islam's truth and still not embraced it, I would then try to do da`wah in a way she might not of have received due to the fact she didn't encounter converts to Islam while in the Middle East (that I know of).

Trust me, I am well aware of the phenomenom of non Muslims studying Islam and Muslims, even risking their lives and for what? To never embrace it. I always have been intrigued by this, and have studied the Orientalists for years. They treat us Muslims like subjects, it's now time we treat them the same way but we do it for the purpose to help, not exploit or spread lies.

I lived in America all my life and met many, many converts. Their stories are very interesting but the one thing that gets me the most is how they changed: from impiety to piety to not thinking to thinking, a Muslim submits not to the will of his or her desires but rather to the will of God. Some of them even hated Muslims and Islam with a passion, but now they're Muslims. You ask yourself how and they will tell you but the point is this: anyone who is sincere will embrace "the" Truth. If they are not and would rather follow their desires and live in a delusion will not.

Furthermore, I am not at all naive when I am trying to re-invite her to Islam. I heard practically all the arguments for and against converting to Islam from people who lived amongst Muslims or at least observed them and/or studied Islam. From what I read, Jill Carroll is a Catholic or just a nominal Christian. But does she really believe in it and if she does, why? She has observed how Islam plays a major role in Muslims' lives, where most Muslims do not openly live in the sin of let's say fornication or adultery while most Christians have had sex outside of marriage. Are Christians to her guided by God? The reformation of Christianity and the Church in the past few centuries was greatly influenced by secularists; how can disbelievers in God or your religion reform it? Does that prove something wrong to you? One of the most segegrated hours is when church services are held? Does this prove that Christianity cannot unite people of different races?

She might ask similiar questions about Islam, but all such questions can receive a good response from me.

While I wait for all the parts of her story to be published, I ask myself, will this response do anything? Only Allah knows, and whom Allah leaves astray, none can guide, and whom Allah guides, none can lead astray.

Just don't get the impression that I never propagated Islam to a non-Muslim before, even one who lived amongst the Muslims and studied Islam. It's all about inviting them not to a "religion" but the irrefutable truth via the process of making them to think...

The Proof of God (Part Four - Save the Best for Last)

2006-08-17T19:07:00.000-07:00

Because we cannot see God physically does not mean that it is impossible to prove His existence.
Just like when a person said they had a dream and described the dream as such and such, it is impossible for anyone else other than the person who had the dream (or claimed that they had the dream) to physically prove it. In this case, they have to have trust in the person that what they claim they have dreamt did really occur in their dream.

So the lack of actually seeing the tangible representation of something does not mean it is impossible to improve. Surely, the person who had the dream knows without a doubt that their dreamt of what they dreamt, even if OTHER people cannot see it. Just like we cannot see God does not mean that it is impossible to prove His existence via just physically seeing Him.

That is why we need to focus on arguments that deal with creation or existence of things to prove or “refute” the existence of God.

The Proof of God (Part Three)

2006-08-17T19:02:00.000-07:00

The materialists’ argument that energy is not finite is completely inaccurate. For one, it has a beginning and it has attributes. The power of the energy is released via force for example shows that it can be measured. So if something can be measured, then it is finite. Materialists believe that there is no beginning and that material itself is infinite, but they have nothing but assertions.

Regarding the materialists’ theory of energy can’t be created or destroyed and that it is constantly transforming, etc. What they don’t mention that energy CANNOT EXIST WITHOUT A SOURCE that is causing it to be. So in other words, without the source, there is no energy there energy is not infinite!

For one, the fact that anything with attributes is finite by default. It is defined by preset characteristics that makes it distinguishable from other things. Two, as I said before, anything that can be measured is finite.

God is the exception for one, He is not finite so the argument of finiteness does not apply to Him.

The Proof of God (Part Two)

2006-08-17T18:59:00.000-07:00

God was never designed, created, or had a beginning. He is eternal, no beginning, no end.

If God were created, than who created God and who created the creator of God and who created the creator of the creator of God and so on. It will become an endless cycle.

But if God is eternal which He is, then He had no beginning therefore He was not created or “designed”.

Everything else other than God is finite with attributes. These attributes are not haphazard but are clearly there with a purpose to define that object. Without a creator, there will be no limitations.

Why have limits when there is nothing to put the limit or attribute on the object? Without organization, there is no need for limits. It’s like chaos. But since God is the Creator, there are limits imposed on the creation. That’s why everything have attributes.

The Proof of God (Part One)

2006-08-17T18:55:00.000-07:00

Need some good arguments when debating people who want proof of God's existence? Now here you go guys and girls:

The process one goes through in trying to prove something must be based on evidence in order to establish a fact. One cannot use any faulty reasoning such as circular reasoning to trying to prove something. Now concerning complaints about the validity of these and similar arguments, let’s examine some of the issues that were raised.

As for the material objects in the Universe, it can be established that each one has defined and limited attributes. These attributes make the object in question unique and distinguishable from other objects. Now this pattern of unique, distinct attributes in every object indicates that each object has certain limitations that makes it what it is. It is not an assertion to say that these objects with all of its defined attributes were assigned by something that gave it its attributes because of what can be observed from the object in question.

When one places a barrier on something, then whatever was meant to be blocked or hinder in growth, strength, etc., was given this barrier by someone so that the distinctive qualities in the object can be manifested and given a purpose. So if I am 6 feet tall and look a certain way, the reason why I don’t continue to growing till eternity is because of a barrier that someone place that cause my body to grow a certain length. This is the nature of finite objects, that all of creation in the Universe has a beginning and an end, even if something expanding it still had a beginning, negating the possibility that it was always eternal and existing.

In pondering and discussing the issue of whether or not there is a Creator or were we and the Universe created, the issues of the finite nature of all of creation must be taken into consideration. To imply or say that saying that the body parts of a human being is proof of Creator is “assertive” is to dismiss without right and dismiss with cynicism. What the issue here is what I am talking about finite creation is really finite creation, and does this creation has a purpose in its creation. To give the simple analogy of a car, we can observe how it works and why it works. You can say that the wheels, doors, steering wheel, etc., all have a predefined purpose and each of these objects is serving its purpose according to how it was created. To say this is not being assertive or using circular reasoning. To look at creation and see the finite quality of it and see the objects with its definedattributes, you can conclude through examining it that it was designed with a purpose because it has a role to play it whatever thing it is involved in.

And when an object needs another object to accomplish something, then this in itself establishes a purpose in the relationship of these objects. When hydrogen and oxygen are added, the purpose of this union is to create water. To say this is an assertion is to deny reality. We can see the purpose of the relationship between these entities, and we can conclude through examining creation that all of Creation works in a similar way, i.e., that one object needs another and this in itself of course show the purpose in the relationship of these things. So to question ones use of this argument as faulty or assertive is to say without knowledge nor without a justifiable reason.
On the other end there are those who want to believe that chance has a “chance” of creating what some may “perceive” as according to them as a planned creation, with the need of a creator or plan. Now they want to present an argument of not dismissing the possibility of chance, so to create a tit-for-tat, vain argument that it intended to lead one side to the point of frustration. The atheists for example want to inject in an argument that there can be a realistic chance that chance could of cause all of this, and the “theists’ assertion” of the need for a Creator with a plan is just an assertion.

When one is confronted with this type of argument, one always must refer to method of deducing evidence to establish a fact. When Muslims are asked why do we believe in God, the correct answer is that our Imaan (faith) is based on proof not on desires or wishful thinking. To believe in something that cannot be proven is to have blind faith not Imaan. To try to first prove that we and the rest of creation are indeed finite with define attributes, we must then try to prove that was it an eternal entity that assigned these attributes and created all of Creation. Looking at how things develop and work in the world, one can observe any normal occurrence in the Universe and see what it takes for whatever to happen and develop. To conclude that there is a chance that “chance” can be involved is being assertive because there is no proof that chance exists, because what one sees as chance the others sees as creation. Now as for the belief that seeing it as creation is an assertion, one must prove that chance can create something from nothing or that something itself can create something from nothing, and we know that this is impossible. It is Allah alone that is able to create something from nothing, and it is Allah alone who is eternal. So to include an impossibility into an equation and give a possibility the label of an assertion is not being fair. The flaw in the argument of those who suggest that chance exists is very clear to see, because we know for a fact that something cannot created something from nothing, and we know that there is no evidence of chance.

To reiterate, the purpose of having this discussion is not to indulge in some vain, philosophical debate. The reason why Muslims in the past, present, and Insha’ Allah future raised issues such as the existence of Allah was because to establish a basis for belief through believing in proof. Proof can be proven and proof is what Imaan is built upon, not blind faith. To prove the source of Islam to be from Allah is to leave the Kuffar or anybody else no excuse to disbelieve in Allah and Muhammad (saaw). We cannot say Islam is the truth without being able to prove that Islam is from Allah. Allah challenged the Kuffar to an intellectual challenge in the Quran, to give the Kuffar a chance to intellectually validate their kufr if what they believe we true. As we know, the Kuffar’s beliefs are proven falsehood while Islam is proven truth.

Coming Soon: How to Prove God!

2006-08-17T08:37:00.000-07:00

I often get the "how do you prove the existence of God" requests and challenges once in a while.

As some of you may already know, I have a knack for debating atheists and agnostics putting in check so to speak. I basically heard all of their arguments but they haven't heard all of mine.

People need to know that faith in God does not have to be based on wishful thinking or desires; it can be based on real evidence. Although we can't see God, it doesn't mean He doesn't exist just like when you have a dream and you tell me that this and that happened in your dream, although no one else but you could of have seen the dream, it doesn't mean because others can't see it that the dream didn't exist.

So aside from this teaser post, be ready to view some of the arguments I used in regarding to prove that God really does exist.

Islamophobe Watch: All Shapes and Sizes, Literally

2006-08-05T11:53:00.000-07:00

Since 9/11, self-styled "experts" on Islam and Muslims have been popping out all over the place. From Daniel Pipes to Robert Spencer to now Laura Mansfield, the public has a demand and these Islamophobes have the supply. Sometimes, the public does not have the demand, but the paranoia and McCarthyism created by these hate-mongers creates a demand. If you scare them enough, they will call on the cavalry...

One interesting Islamophobe is Laura Mansfield. Her story reads like one of those "stupid, fat ugly American woman who can't get a decent looking American man finds love with a man from overseas who will look beyond the physical appearance..."; yeah, that type of story.

As the story goes, she married a Muslim man from the Middle East, the relationship went downhill, he hurt her feelings, now she has decided with vent her hatred of Muslims and Islam into a money making business, even appearing on CNN as an "expert" on of course "Islamic terrorism". The bitter fat woman's crusade has lead her to even go to mosques as an "undercover agent" to try to to spread the McCarthyistic love of "you can't trust these people, they are really after to destroy you and your values..."

Don't get it twisted folks, these people are not here just to expose "Islamic terrorism". On their websites, they highlight stories of ex-Muslims who bash Islam, link to websites that try to "refute" Islam, and of course, they refuse to translate "Allah" as "God" (like I mentioned in my previous post on this issue). They hate Islam and Muslims, and ANYTHING that can use to attempt to discredit Islam will be used to "expose Islamic terrorism".

SO it is clear to all those that think. If their focus was truly on just the extremists in Islam, why then focus on the very essence of Islamic belief? UNLESS, they want people to think that a "true Muslim" is a terrorist because Islam to them promotes terrorism. In other words, they want to outlaw Islam or at least alter Islam to a religion that is compatible with secularism.

Interesting enough, they are the biggest enemies of so-called "free speech". Any display of anti-Zionism is translated into "Islamic extremism". Any display of disdain of American foreign policy is an example of the Muslims' "Islamic extremism". They hate the fact that people have these views and are allowed to express them; even Laura wants to have Myspace accounts banned as a result of her disdain of "unAmerican" sentiments!

And does she say anything when people display hatred of Islam and Muslims? Of course not, even if they call for the blood of Muslims, the desecration of their books and holy places, she is as silent as she can be. Why speak out against Islamophobia when you are one yourself? Islamophobes are never one for justice and fairness for all!

Okay to bash Islam, wrong and evil to bash anything else like Christianity.

Their hatred did not come from a vacuum. Nine out of 10 of them are white, and most of them are Christian fundamentalists and we know the history of some whites and Christian fundamentalists' long standing hatred of Islam and Muslim. Even before 9/11, they hated Islam and Muslims, and when 9/11 happened, they felt it was their calling to lauch their crusade and get money while doing it.

I mean, why doesn't the American public get it? Because they lack real knowledge of Islam and this is post 9/11 America, ignorance and even hatred of Islam and Muslims runs high nowadays. Ignorant and fanatical Muslims feed this stereotype and all the Islamophobes will say is that "We told you so..."

Laura Mansfield is touted as a fluent Arabic speaker who ironically never appeared on any Arabic-language show speaking Arabic (so how do we know she is fluent in Arabic). She has not formally studied Islam, and yet she is somehow an "expert". So her credentials are a bit shady but let's say she does speak Arabic fluently (we already know that she is not an expert of Islam, so I won't even put up that as a hypothetical), it just shows how much she hates Muslims and Islam.

One of the hardest languages to learn, learning Arabic requires dedication and passion. People learn Arabic for one of the following reasons: to learn Islam (to propagate it); to bash Islam; to learn more about Arab culture and finally to become an Orientalist (aka bashing Islam). People don't learn Arabic fluently just because they wanted to understand an Arab soap opera and be able to smoke hooka in Cairo. So Laura Mansfield, for the sake of this example does speak Arabic fluently, we know she learned it not because she wants to understand Islam. We know that it is not for the purpose of loving the Arab culture. Her dedication to learn such a hard language stems from her Islamophobia disguised as "being an expert on 'Islamic terrorism'".

Today, even fat, ugly women are on the band wagon of Islamophobia and they are not here to expose just "Islamic terrorism". Their hypocrisy, hatred for free speech, their use of antiIslamic websites that try to discredit the very doctrine of Islam (not just "extremist Islamism"), etc., are clear indicators that they are not here to protect America from "Islamofacism" but instead, it is a crusade they hope will make them victorious over Islam and Muslims.

TRUE Unity Between Different Groups

2006-08-03T22:38:00.000-07:00

Unity often makes thing better, wouldn't you agree?

How do we achieve unity in a time where intolerance is at a all-time level?

Well, when we say unity, what do we mean? Do we mean being nice to each other or does it mean being nice to each other, unifying under the same cause or do we mean being friends with each other unifying under the same cause in a system that is conducive to unity?

I prefer the latter.

Muslims, Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, pagans, atheists, etc., all can be united without having to convert to another belief. They can unite under the same cause without having to convert to another belief.

So a system that create this harmony must be conducive to unity. It must be a just system, a system that can only come from the Creator who is the Most Just. A system that gives people their rights regardless of their religious affliations.

That system is Islam, but the way Muslims practice it and misunderstand it, we would have no clue.

Take for example the protection tax (jizya) for non-Muslims. It is imposed on those who can afford it (males with the cash flow) and not on the poor, the elderly, women, etc. But it is imposed in a time where the Muslims can protect the non-Muslim population; if the state is too weak, then the jizya is not imposed. There has been many incident (including a famous one during the time of Khalid bin Waleed, a companion of the Prophet Muhammad) where the jizya was returned to the non-Muslims.

Non-Muslims practiced their faith. Their churches and temples were protected not destroyed, true unity became a reality. Muslim Spain, the time during the Ottoman Caliphate (when Islam was correctly understood and implemented) are examples of this.

But true unity cannot exist in a system that tolerates intolerance. Many people can unite, but the society is not truly united. We allow racists to hate and bigots to incite hatred, and because of this, society will never be truly united. Why complain about racism when you believe in a system that allows it?

Is tolerating intolerance worth the price of allow hatred and bigotry? You be the judge....

Why the Islamophobes Like Memri TV Have a Problem with Allah

2006-07-10T22:14:00.000-07:00

Translation can reflect your beliefs and even your biases.

Memritv.org and other Islamophobic, right-wing bigots have a problem with Allah.

The word "Allah" in Arabic means "The God (al-ilah). In the Arabic Bible, "Allah" appears all over the place.

In Arabic period, the word for God (the capital "g" one) is Allah. The word for god (the lower case "g" one) is ilah. The word for "the" in Arabic is "al", hence the world "Allah".

By why when the word Allah is said or written by a Muslims that these translators all of a sudden get a case of "I forgot to translate the word correctly"?

It is because they want people to think of Allah as the "muslim god" who is different from the God of the Jews and Christians.

This is done despite the fact that Jews do not worship Jesus as a god like the Christians do, and yet these same people who refuse to translate Allah when said by a Muslim as "God" insist that Jews and Christians worship they same God. Jews do not believe that God is a trinity and yet Christians insist their god is the same god as the Jews! Go figure!

To make it appear that Muslims worship a different God than from the Bible, these bigots can justify their attacks on Islam as a religion that from an evil source and something that either must be eradicated or at least "reformed" to conform with the wishes and desires of these Islamophobes.

If it is the case of "worshipping the same God", it would be the Jews and the Muslims who believe that God is one in one. But if an Arab Christian, Jew, or atheist/agnostic say the word Allah in reference to the ultimate deity, it is not translated as "Allah" but as God by these same translators!

Memri TV and other Islamophobic translators and organizations scour the media of the Muslim world to find anything they can consider as "inflammatory" to tell the world that "this is how these Muslims think and behave". They want the Muslim world to be secularized and not have Islam as their reference for their life. They present these edited clips in a way that it justifies their agenda, not showing the normal, everyday TV shows, programs, movies, etc., of the Muslim world.

Believe it or not, many Muslims have a problem with translating Allah as "God". To be honest, they either don't understand English or Arabic. The words "God" and "god" are not the same. The ultimate deity, the one and only, the one referred to in the Bible and the Quran is God. The lower-case "god" is just an object of worship.

But the Islamophobes do not misunderstand English. They know darn well that translating Allah as "Allah" and not God gives the unsuspecting and ignorant audience an impression that "Allah" is not the same god of the Bible but this "Muslim god" that tells them to "kill the infidels" and "beat and oppress your women".

I wonder if anyone reading this will ask Memri TV and Co. as to why they refuse to translated Allah as "God" when a Muslim says it...

Make Your Emotions Be Based on Your Beliefs Not Vice Versa

2006-04-12T18:07:00.000-07:00

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?

2006-04-05T09:24:00.000-07:00

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

2006-04-04T21:30:00.000-07:00

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"?

2006-04-04T11:46:00.000-07:00

"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

2006-04-03T21:12:00.000-07:00

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

2006-04-03T21:05:00.000-07:00

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...

My First Blog

2005-09-19T08:29:00.000-07:00

My first blog, I mean, at least on this website.

Anyway, I decided to write down what I feel is important or at least interesting enough to report to the rest of the people in the world.

Insha Allah (God willing), I will make the long anticipated trek to LA to begin a new life and a new career. My good friend Baba Ali (the man behind Muslim Games [www.muslimgames.com]) was the one who really made me realize that I needed to move. Insha Allah, I plan to make a documentary with him dealing with Islam and Muslims. What exactly will the movie be about is not known at this time because we're still in beginning stages.

I guess for know I will inform you all kind folks out there my preparation for the looooong cross-country trip...