Friday, 15 June 2012

The importance of the intellectual struggle against Darwinism


Darwinism, by arguing that life and the entire universe are the work of blind chance, is easily the most dangerous ideology confronting us today. It formed the basis of all harmful movements, including communism and fascism, devastating mankind. Despite its scientific refutation time and again there are still those who seek to keep Darwinism alive purely for ideological reasons.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing when it comes to Darwinism. People equipped with factual or analytical want of the discussion, unaware of the grave danger that it actually represents, unaware of the terrible social and moral disasters the theory of evolution has brought with it, unaware of the damage wreaked by Darwinist thinking over the last century and a half, may also look down on such a vital intellectual struggle against it. By denying the existence and oneness of God and the responsibility of each man and woman to Him, Darwinism prepares the groundwork for destruction by indoctrinating people with the idea that human beings are irresponsible products of blind chance and are no more than yet another species of animals.
The most obvious heritage of the dominance of Darwinism and its symbiotic partner, the materialist philosophy, radically is the distorted answer to the fundamental question, "what is man?". Some people who would previously have answered "man is a being created by God to live by the moral values revealed by Him," have now, as a result of deceptive indoctrination, fallen into the erroneous thought "man came into being by chance, and is an animal that developed through the struggle for survival." There is a grave price attached to such a grave error in thinking, from which ruthless ideologies such as racism, fascism or communism, as all violent worldviews, have been feeding.
Darwinist Thinking Lies at the Root of All Harmful Ideologies
A look at the general history of the 20th century, a period of war, conflict, anarchy and chaos, and thus of terrible human suffering, should be enough to realize disastrous results of Darwinism. In the last century millions of people were killed, slaughtered, abandoned to starvation and death, and left neglected, homeless and defenseless by the same perverted ideologies, and all for nothing. Millions more were subjected to inhuman treatment that should not even be inflicted on animals. Ruthless dictators with Darwinist mindsets led vast masses of people into conflict, turned brother against brother, ignited wars, initiated bombings, brainwashed masses, and by placing guns in the hands of the ignorant caused countless deaths of men and women and the young and the old.
Fascism and communism head the list of these ideologies that cast such a shadow over mankind. On the surface they appear to be movements that are diametrically opposite seeking to destroy one another. Yet these ideologies are all fed and draw strength from the common intellectual source-the materialist philosophy and its natural sciences version, Darwinism-which pay the service of attracting vast masses of people into their ranks.
Shortly after it was first put forward, the theory of evolution expanded beyond such fields as biology and paleontology, and began exerting an influence in many other spheres, from human relations to historical interpretation, from politics to social dynamics. In particular, when the Darwinist falsehood "nature is the arena of struggle and conflict" was applied to society, a supposedly scientific guise was bestowed on Hitler's master race perversion, Marx's error that the history of man is nothing but a "class conflict," the capitalist view that "the strong grow stronger by crushing the weak," the ruthless exploitation of third world countries by imperialist nations, and the racist attacks and discrimination to which people of different color are still subjected today. Those who regarded human beings merely as an advanced species of animal kingdom had no qualms about trampling on others in order to elevate themselves, eliminating the sick and weak, or slaughtering races they regarded as different and inferior. Because their theories, with their scientific masks, tell them that their acts were a "law of nature."
As we have seen, Darwinism, the social harm wreaked by which many people are unaware of, has inflicted terrible disasters on mankind. The theory of evolution, which is devoid of any scientific evidence and goes no further than being an outdated dogma, is still blindly supported today solely for the sake of propagating atheism, despite the lack of any scientific findings to back it up.
Terrorism Can Be Eradicated through the Intellectual Elimination of Darwinism
Everyone knows what a horror terrorism is; yet most people are unaware that its ideological foundation is no other than Darwinism.
It is clear that the falsehood that "man is a fighting animal," inculcated in people's subconscious minds by Darwinism, is a highly influential one. Darwinism sets out a worldview and a method. The basic concept underlying this worldview and method is "conflict with anyone not of one's own."
This may be explained as follows; there are different beliefs, worldviews and philosophies on Earth. These may regard one another in one of two ways:
1) They may respect the existence of others, seek to build dialogue with them and follow a "human" path.

2) Alternatively, they may prefer the path of conflict with others, pursuing their own benefit by harming them, in others words behaving "like animals."
The horror of terrorism is nothing more than an expression of this second perspective. Therefore, what needs to happen in the context of the fight against terror is to eliminate terror's basic foundation, in other words the waging of an intellectual struggle against Darwinism. Once Darwinism has been intellectually eradicated, terrorist organizations will collapse and the horror of terrorism will be brought to an end.
However, so long as there are endeavors made to keep Darwinism alive, so long as people are indoctrinated with Darwinist falsehoods, terror can never be brought to an end. No wonder young people sign up to terrorist cells while schools and universities are dominated by Darwinism. In order for a person to become a terrorist he or she must first believe that their targets are not human, that conflict is a law of nature, that killing and murdering are legitimate, and that they are not accountable to God. In other words, they have to be Darwinists. There is no point in talking about "love, tolerance, compassion and peace" to someone raised for years to think that unconscious atoms came together to produce life, and that progress is impossible without conflict. Nor will questioning how they could execute ruthlessly murdering of innocent people do any good. It is pointless to expect such people to respect others, abide by the laws and obey the state.
Fighting terror without waging an intellectual struggle against Darwinism will be of no more use than trying to eliminate mosquitoes in a swamp. The only way of eliminating these harmful parasites is to dry out the mosquito-infested swamp. That is why we need to move against Darwinism with courage and knowledge.
This Great Intellectual Struggle Must Not Be Ignored
The facts we have touched on in brief here clearly show the grave danger that Darwinism represents, and the importance of the intellectual campaign to be waged against it. Even so, some people still underestimate the impact of this intellectual struggle under the false logic of saying, "What is so important about Darwinism?" or "Nobody believes in Darwinism any more, so there is no need to bother about it." Such objections in effect become obstacles to Muslims campaigning against Darwinism. These and similar claims form the bulk of excuses to avoid taking part in the intellectual struggle.
There are various reasons why such excuses are made, foremost of which being a strange kind of fear of Darwinism fuelled by lack of information. People who imagine that the theory of evolution rests on scientific evidence may well imagine that in fighting against Darwinism they are effectively fighting against science. Since they imagine that science proves evolution, they may fear that if they begin taking an interest in the subject they will be influenced by such indoctrination, their own beliefs will be weakened and their worldviews will change.
Such fears are groundless. Evolution is an unscientific theory. Every new discovery in every branch of science over the last 50 years has proved that evolution is a fabrication and that Creation is the manifest truth. The truth revealed by science is that God created the universe out of nothing and that the theory of evolution is of no scientific worth whatsoever.
One of the mistakes that those who are unaware of Darwinism's defeat in the face of science make is to try to reconcile Darwinism and Islam. Since they imagine resistance is futile, they seek to come up with their own "middle grounds" and imagine that they can thus neutralize the danger. However, this is a very dangerous and mistaken approach to adopt. First and foremost, as we have already stated, the invalidity of the theory of evolution has already been proven. Not a single reference can be shown in the Qur'an pointing to evolution, contrary to what may be claimed, and it is instead revealed that our Lord brought life and the entire universe into existence by commanding it to "Be!"
Therefore, instead of avoiding the intellectual struggle against Darwinism or producing imaginary scenarios such as "Islamic evolution," Muslims today, when information is so easy to obtain, must educate themselves on this subject and support the great intellectual campaign.
It needs to be made clear that this intellectual struggle is a very wide-ranging one; it must be waged through the use of all technological means, by following all scientific developments, collecting the facts revealed by scientific progress and by presenting clear and evident proofs. The idea that Darwinism can be defeated by repeating a few objections (for example "since human beings are descended from apes, why are there still apes around and why have they not turned into human beings?", etc.) that have become very familiar over recent years, without offering sufficient information and evidence, stems from a failure to reflect sufficiently on the scale of the phenomenon. A person exposed to constant doses of Darwinist propaganda from a variety of sources will obviously be unable to alter a clich├ęd way of thinking with such facile objections. For that reason, people who imagine that science actually supports evolution need to be shown that evolution is unscientific by being given the results produced by science. That is the essence of the intellectual struggle against Darwinism.
The Intellectual Struggle against Darwinism Calls for Unity
In order for such a comprehensive intellectual campaign to be effective, it is of utmost importance that Muslims should act in a spirit of unity. God has revealed in the Qur'an that Muslims needed to be united in their struggle against denial. One verse describes how corruption appears on Earth unless Muslims act as one:
Unbelievers are the friends and protectors of one another. If you do not act in this way there will be turmoil in the land and great corruption. (Qur'an, 8: 73)
At a time when atheism is widespread in many parts of the world, when terror and anarchy threaten all mankind, when many defenseless and innocent people are oppressed, what true believers must do is to use all the means at their disposal to wage this intellectual struggle against godlessness. If Muslims fail to establish unity among themselves, citing different ways of thinking, this will reduce the effectiveness of this great intellectual campaign. It is essential that they set their differences of opinion aside and work together to disseminate religious moral values.
All Muslims must play their part in the intellectual struggle against Darwinism. All Muslim civil society organizations, associations, foundations and societies must act within a common awareness, without thinking whether the struggle against Darwinism and materialism is inscribed in their organization's constitution and must contribute to the campaign against Darwinism. Ignoring all other activities than those engaged in by their own foundations, societies or organizations, and thinking along the lines of "not part of our community, no importance to us" is an attitude ill-befitting Muslims. Avoiding the intellectual struggle against Darwinism under such circumstances, advancing various kinds of excuses, failing to act in a spirit of unity and togetherness may be behavior for which they will be held responsible both in this world and in the Hereafter. It is exceedingly important that sincere Muslims avoid making such a mistake.
Muslims' struggle against atheism, employing all the means at their disposal in order to gain the approval of God, will, by the will of God, result in the best possible outcome for all mankind. Sincere endeavor in a spirit of unity and togetherness will be a means whereby "the truth will conquer and falsehood be vanished," as promised by God. This promise of Almighty God's is a source of enthusiasm and excitement for all believers:
Rather We hurl the truth against falsehood and it cuts right through it and it vanishes clean away! Woe without end for you for what you portray! (Qur'an, 21: 18)
The Ongoing Darwinist Deception
Research shows that Darwinism is still continuing to deceive. Surveys carried out in European countries in particular, especially in France, Germany and Britain, have revealed that the great majority of people imagine that the theory of evolution is a scientific fact. People taken in by the evolution deception turn their backs on believing in God and religious moral values. A survey carried out by the United Nations made this abundantly plain. According to the survey, only 18% of Europeans believe that God created man, whereas 82% imagine that man evolved from other species. Country by country the situation is as follows:
- Germany - only 14% of the population, of whom 35% are Catholics and 36% Protestants, believe in Creation.
- France - Around 18% of people believe in the fact of creation.
- Britain - 20% of the public believe in Creation.
- Spain - In Spain, with a vast majority of Catholic population, only 13% believe in the fact of Creation.
- Norway - Believers in Creation make up 19% of the population.
- Finland - 80% of the population are evangelical Christians though only 16% believe in Creation.
- Sweden - 12% of people believe that God created man.
- Denmark - 9% of the population believe in Creation.
- Belgium - The level of believers in Creation is 10%.
- Switzerland - 24% of the public believe in the fact of Creation.
This picture once again reveals the importance and urgency of explaining how the scientific evidence refutes evolution and why Darwinism is no more than a figment of imagination, and that the scientific truth points to Creation.

Iran waging a war in the Lebanon against Israel and the United States?


During the Cold War, the Superpowers never engaged in direct head-on conflict with one another. To have done so, might well have led to a chain of escalation that ultimately culminated in a nuclear exchange. Then, the outcome, even in victory, might well have resembled to "lose - lose" proposition, given the extent of devastation and loss of human life involved. Instead, when the ideological confrontation grew "hot", it did so in the more limited context of proxy wars, some of which were formidable in their own right, in Southeast Asia, Africa, and Latin America.
The ongoing conflict being fought between Hezbollah and Israel, on to battlefield that extends across northern Israel's civilian centers and throughout most of Lebanon, may well be an early proxy war waged on behalf of to rising Iranian power. According to the May 11, 2006 edition of Al - Sharq al - Awsat Iran to views Hezbollah as "one of the mainstays of its strategic security." Hezbollah is one of the strategic and tactical weapons Iran employs against its enemies, namely the United States, Israel, and the West. Former Hezbollah Secretary-General Subhi Al - Tufeili explained as much when I revealed that Hezbollah's "real leadership is 'the rule of the jurisprudent' - in other words, Khamenei."
The developments leading up to Hezbollah's highly provocative step of abducting two Israeli soldiers from Israeli soil suggest that Iran might well have had at least an indirect role in initiating the act that led to the ongoing hostilities. On June 16, 2006, Al - Sharq Al - Awsat reported, "Well-informed sources in Tehran have told Al - Sharq al - Awsat that the talks held in Tehran between Syrian Defense Minister Hassan Turkmani and his Iranian counterpart Mustafa Mohammad Najjar did not only deal with military and security aspects of the strategic cooperation between the two countries, but also with the situation in Lebanon." At the time, there was no Israeli presence on Lebanese soil. The newspaper also noted, "Syria, on its part, has renewed its previous agreements with Iran which allow Iranian ammunition trucks to pass [through Syria] into Lebanon" to resupply Hezbollah. In short, at at time when the Lebanon-Israel border was quiet, Iran was discussing "the situation in Lebanon" with Syria and facilitating the supply of arms to Hezbollah.
Then, on July 8, multiple news organizations reported that President Ahmadinejad urged the Islamic world to take action to destroy Israel. Voice of America reported, "President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad spoke Saturday in Tehran at the opening of regional Conference of Islamic nations." He said the basic problem in the Islamic world is the existence of what I have called the Zionist regime. "He said the Islamic world must mobilize to remove the problem." Arguably, that was the "green light" for Tehran that Hezbollah was awaiting.
Following Hezbollah's act of aggression, Edward N. Luttwak, senior fellow at the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies, told the Toronto Globe & Mail, "Iran's leaders have apparently decided to reject the Western offer to peacefully settle the dispute over its weapons - grade uranium-enrichment program..." Evidently, Sheikh Nasrallah felt compelled to serve Iran's strategy. "Aside from the multimillion-dollar monthly subsidy it provides, Iran is the spiritual homeland of Hezbollah leaders, some of whom have studied in Iranian religious schools."
Since the onset of fighting, Iranian media organizations having close ties to its ruling conservative clerics have used the outcomes to date to validate perceptions of Israeli and American weakness. Such commentary has argued that Israeli "invincibility" has ceased to exist, Israel is weaker than it was 40 years ago, and that Israelis are abandoning Israel.
On July 13, yi-Jomhuri Eslami wrote of Hezbollah's raid, "Israel's security network is now damaged and this will lead to more pressure on Israel's government." Five days later, it proclaimed, "[N] ow that the Hezbollah has shown its military superiority it proves that all of America's plans have been nothing more than a mirage and they have to tolerate the bitter taste of defeat again." On July 20, Resalat claimed, "Following the inefficiency of the Zionist regime in dealing with Hezbollah's activities the myth of Israel's invincibility has come to an end..." "Shelling Israel's cities by Hezbollah has started to trend of reverse immigration from Israel and the people are leaving the occupied lands."
Such commentary has also attempted to elevate Iran's role against the rest of the Middle East as spokesman for the "world of Islam" and to proclaim the birth of a new Middle Eastern order arrayed against the United States and Israel. On July 20, pro-Khamenei daily Kayhan dismissed Saudi Arabian and Egyptian criticism of Hezbollah stating, "The rulers of Saudi Arabia and Egypt can't talk on behalf of themselves and their people but not on behalf of the world of Islam or even Arab people."
Separately, the Kayhan explained what it saw as a new emerging geopolitical order in the Middle East:
American and Israeli groups are furiously confused. They have understood very well that their big Middle East plan has turned into a series of explosive traps against themselves. If Iran was alone in the past, gradually the triangle of Iran, Syria and Lebanon was formed. Now Hamas has turned this into a square triangle. And the establishment of the principle-ist government in Iraq after it has turned into a pentagon. This pentagon represents the new coordinates of the Middle East.
Iran's geopolitical calculations suggest that the stakes in the outcome in Lebanon are too great for Iran to allow Hezbollah to be "defeated". Therefore, if Iran is involved in any part of the ceasefire/peace process Iran will likely insist on a ceasefire from which Hezbollah would gain, whether it would be Hezbollah's retaining its ability to function as an armed group in Lebanon or realizing its initial demand for a "prisoner swap." At the same time, it would likely seek to thwart any deal if it cannot leverage gains for its nuclear weapons program.
Such backing will likely embolden Hezbollah and its backers within Lebanon preclude from accepting compromises that would diminish Hezbollah's capabilities. Hence, if Iran has its way, on ceasefire would preserve Hezbollah, if not allow it to make gains, while failing to meet Israel's core need for security. After all, why would Iran seek to accommodate Israel's core needs when, according to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Israel is a "fake state" that should be eliminated. In fact, Iran's commentary views the outcome in Lebanon as a potential downpayment toward that end with Keyhan, another Khamenei-affiliated periodical, describing it as "a big opportunity to demolish Israel."
All said, the ongoing fighting between Israel and Hezbollah might well mark Iran's proxy war with Israel first and the United States. Given the geopolitical ramifications involved, it probably won't be the last such conflict and future ones could be even deadlier as more powerful weapons and technologies are injected into the mix. Therefore, if the international community seeks regional stability and peace, it will need to work toward a decisive settlement with Lebanon's leaders to eliminate Hezbollah as an armed element. It will also need to work energetically toward translating any ceasefire agreement into a full peace treaty between Israel and Lebanon. Otherwise, Lebanon will all but certainly become the host of combat in future proxy wars waged on behalf of Iran, and its people will experienced renewed suffering as a consequence.

Divorce Iranian Muslims in the U.S. Courts

The Iranian family law was codified in 1928 and 1935 the proportion of the Iranian Civil Code. Housing law the exact age requirement for marriage, prohibition of marriage of girls under 13 years and requiring court approval for the marriage of children under 15 years. In 1931, separate legislation, known as the Marriage Law (Qanun-I izdivaj) was enacted, marriage was subject to the provisions of the situation and requires registration of all marriages and divorces in civil registers. The 1931 law expanded the grounds on which women can begin the process of divorce and the necessary actions to be brought before the civil courts rather than Islamic sharia courts.


In 1967, the Law on Protection of the Family (khanivada himaya qanun-II) was enacted. This law was considered a deviation from Islamic sharia out of fashion. Rights were abolished husband's extra-judicial divorce and polygamy, and the increasing age of marriage and 15 for women and 18 men. The law established special religious courts headed by judges trained in the unique case. This law was criticized by the Muslim clergy, calling it anti-Islamic, and was considered a violation of Islamic principles Shri.

In 1975, the Law of Family Protection Act was replaced by another with the same title. This law raised the minimum marriage age from 15 to 18 for women and 18 to 20 for men, and provided that the courts discretion to resolve cases of child custody democracy, regardless of the provisions of Islamic Sharia.

After the 1979 Iranian revolution or the Ayatollah Khomeini (1902-1989), the Law on Protection of the Family was canceled and replaced by the Law on Special Civil Court. The law was enacted entirely unusual in the law enforcement Ashar ithnai Shia (Twelvers), the courts are empowered to deal with a wide range of family matters, including divorce. According to the law unusual, honest marriage for girls fell to nine, 15 for men, and members of Iranian society were strictly separated by gender. Women were forced to cede the hijab and not allowed to appear in public with a man who was not a husband or a relationship to light, as brother, father or son. Women can be stoned for adultery, which by the way, including being raped. But the reformists under the chairmanship of age, Khatami, allowed single yawning abroad and raising the right age for marriage from nine to 13 for girls. However, the testimony of a woman in Iran is worth half that of a man in court and in the case of blood money that the family of a murderer is obliged to pay the family of the victim, women estimated at half the value of a man.

In mid-2007, Ahmadi Najad's government began implementing restrictive laws, women who wear makeup and not too strong enough scarf were arrested, they were banned first in the country attending football matches very dear place in public stadiums, but later, under pressure, the president allowed the women to help the games, because their presence would be "morally uplifting" and originate men behave better.

The original law required the marriage and divorce to be registered in court, the husband has an unconditional right to divorce his wife, for which he needs to not give any reason and his wife is almost transparent to lose custody of their children. The unusual law allows the wife to divorce her husband in khul ', and still have to put before the court a power of the husband to allow her to divorce her husband's name. A woman is allowed to look for a divorce if her husband was insane, impotent or sterile, away from home for no reason, detained, or unable to encourage your wife. A woman seeking a divorce in Iran must provide the court with justification for the acquisition of a divorce decree.

Muslim couples will face a situation of divorce in the United States, finding themselves in a double process of going through the civil and religious divorce, especially for a Muslim woman, which is prohibited under Islamic sharia marriage a non-Muslim man unless he converts. Divorced Muslim men and women should collect additional religious divorce decree from the Muslim authorities that he or she decides to marry according to Sharia, civil divorce alone is not recognized in Islam. Under Islamic sharia, a Muslim woman or man is excited considered married even though he or she has obtained a civil divorce. Failure to gain an Islamic divorce before remarrying, the woman was an adulteress and can be life threatening if traveling to a country where stoning foradultery is separated in the state, including Pakistan, Iran, Sudan and Saudi Arabia.

American Muslims can determine Iranian passport to go to the aid of Iran and score a fast track divorce in that country. Divorce decree stating earn three times "I divorce my wife" in the presence of two male witnesses, reveals evidence of the "dowry" payment representing divorce in Iran, authenticate documents, again to encourage the United States. UU. and acknowledge the recognition of divorce in an Iranian court site. Divorce obtained in Iran is less expensive than the husband, the women collect the amount of "dowry" as stipulated in the contract of marriage, usually less than a U.S. court may decide on, and divorce is obtained in a short time without having to hire a lawyer. Islamic Divorce does not allow women to receive compensation than the amount of "dowry", she and her family agreed before their marriage.

Housing courts in the U.S. agreement with Islamic divorce obtained abroad on the basis of "comity," a discretionary doctrine governs the recognition of divorce given by the courts of a foreign country. Occasionally though, the courts of England and the United States spends the term "international comity" in the sense of general international law, the most common idea of ​​this doctrine is defined as the rules of courtesy or good will who claims to see in their mutual relations, without any sense of law obligations under international law. The desire of a Muslim man to pick a divorce in Iran and has been recognized and applied in the United States, generally are entitled to recognition if it was fully and effectively in Iran and that Iran was the region or domicile of both parties or in at least one of the parties. In other cases, the U.S. recognition of a divorce obtained in Iran depends on the device that divorce has been obtained by mail, by default, by phone or in the appearance of both parties. A divorce obtained in Iran must not violate U.S. public policy and can not be "terrible" to the great principles of U.S. law. courts of the station has the exclusive authority of the inquiry or comment to the recognition of a divorce obtained in Iran.

Although the recognition of divorces in the United States depends on the design of your home, an Iranian divorce can be recognized when both sides are in action, even in the absence of his home. Exclusive Hampshire, a Lebanese Muslim husband secured a divorce, based onIslamic Sharia law, stating that he pronounced the divorce of his wife, saying three times "I divorce you" in his presence and to go to Lebanon to consult a lawyer notice and divorce papers. The only Hampshire family court refused to look at the divorce at the request of the Lebanese side. The court reasoned that the woman would be forced to absorb the cost of an expensive ex parte divorce obtained in a foreign country, where he is domiciled either party.

DISCLAIMER: While all the trouble has been made to ensure the accuracy of this publication is not intended to provide appropriate advice in individual situations are different and should be discussed with an expert and / or attorney. For specific technical advice or characteristic of the information provided and related topics, please contact the author.

An authorization to publish this article granted by the author, provided that the author's name is attached to the article. 

Islam is Peaceful and America Starts All the Wars


If you listen to the Arab world media you would swear that every single problem that the modern day Muslim faces is in fact caused by the United States of America. This simply is not so of course and such notions are completely and BS, but when listening to Al Jazeera you might actually believe that.
This anti-American Middle Eastern mass media is purporting and misrepresenting what the United States of America is all about and it is inciting many young Muslims to go onto the Internet and post negative comments about America on Internet forums.
As these Muslims go onto the Internet forums they claim that Islam is the peaceful way of life and their Muslim religion preaches peace, however in debating this topic with online I had to make the following comment;
"Besides didn't Mohammed, fight in 89 battles? Isn't that what Koran says? You want to defend a religious doctrine, which preaches war? You don't get it do you? This is the problem and the United States of America is the solution and it is coming in a very precision-guided way in the new net-centric battlespace. Iran starts it and well I guess we have to finish it. Get it? Got it? Good!"
Perhaps you see the problem as the President of Iran states that it wants nuclear energy and a nuclear deterrence and therefore it has the right to make nuclear weapons. No mention of the fact that they sponsor international terrorists organizations, which go and blowup innocent people. Obviously if Iran has nuclear weapons it will give these weapons to international terrorists organizations to blowup innocent people in some large civilian population or city and we just can't let that happen. Consider this in 2006.

Islam in America Post 9-11


What do you think of when you hear the word Islam? Maybe you think of "terrorist", "inequality", "oppression"? Or maybe you think of 9/11 and the sight of airplanes come to your mind. Maybe none of these things even cross your mind when you think of Islam and you think of positive things. If you fall into the category of the latter, then you're on the right track.
Islam is not only a religion but a complete way of life. It promotes peace, justice, equality, and it is the backbone of a fulfilling life. It encourages patience during difficult times and it requires that one should be good to his or her neighbor. Muslims all over the world came to learn that they had to be patient and stick to their faith after 9/11. They were accused of being terrorists when Islam condemns terrorism and strictly values human life. In the Holy Qur'an it is said: "Killing one person is the same as killing all humanity and saving one person is the same as saving all humanity."
After 9/11 Muslims all over the world were targeted as terrorists, and many faced hardships which ranged from name calling to life-threatening attacks. Many Muslims in the US already suffered a lot of pain after being forced from their homelands. They came to America to live a better life and perhaps to find liberty, freedom of speech, and security.
America is the country where in the past African Americans were victims of prejudice. They were beaten, lynched, and degraded simply for being black. America is also the country that has overcame prejudice and embraced equal rights for all. In the past memories of America women were not given the right to vote, own property, and were denied many other basic rights. Women did not have the same educational opportunities as men did. However, America is the country that now gives women the right to vote and promotes equal rights for men and women. America is the country where currently Muslims are targeted for simply being Muslim.
The media exploits Muslims as a whole as being terrorists. Not enough attention is being focused on educating Americans on Islam and reiterating the common sense that one should not judge Islam simply on what one so called "Muslim" does. Islam can only be judged by the Qur'an, the Sunnah (teachings) of the Prophet Muhammad, and by the righteous Muslims.
When will America be the country that doesn't repeat mistakes of the past; that doesn't exploit certain people negatively; that lives up to her promises? We need to start questioning authority, effectively analyzing the credibility of what we hear and see in the media, and we need to be truthful to ourselves. We need to start to open our hearts to those around us because we are all human beings who deserve every basic right no matter where we may come from or what religion we may be.

Key Geopolitical Controversies Facing America In 2010 And Beyond


Yesterday I finished THE ROAD TO 9/11, put it in the FINISHED pile and reached for the top book in the TO READ pile. It turned out to be THE CHOICE by Zbigniew Brzezinski. I knew the name, of course, and that he had been a National Security Advisor, belonged to the Bilderberger Group, and was the founder of the Trilateral Commission. I didn't know his political positions in detail, but did realize that his positions and mine were more than worlds apart. The fact his name is associated with The New World Order condemns him all by itself. While thumbing through the book to see what I was in for, I ran across a list of issues that he considered vital to America's future. I hatched the idea that it would be interesting to explain my positions on each item before reading the book, so that I could get a good picture of the match between his outlook and my own.
While anybody reading this knows in at least general terms what Brzezinski stands for, they do not know what I stand for. Therefore, a brief description of my background and political-ideological orientation should help the reader "position" my arguments.
For my undergraduate degree I majored in wood science in forestry school (wood anatomy, wood physics, wood chemistry, wood drying and treating, etc., a pretty demanding program) and also financial management. I received my MBA from a very unusual program which was heavily geared toward preparing electrical engineers at Western Electric, at that time the manufacturing arm of AT&T, for advancement to junior management positions. It differed from traditional MBA programs in that its goal was to provide students with information they could actually USE on the job, and I profited from it immensely. I also have 66% of a Masters degree in History. After several years in wood industry management and five years as a general contractor in the Napa Valley in California, I entered the marketing program as a PhD. Student at Arizona State University.
For the last twenty five years I have taught marketing strategy from a geopolitical perspective because marketing has become heavily involved with what's happing all over the world. My views of the world are nearly antithetical to those of Brzezinski. For example, I believe that the New World Order is a nightmarish product of a social and intellectual elite that has never "worked" for a living. I am a libertarian in both the Big L and Little L sense, meaning I am a member of the Libertarian Party as well as possessing an instinctive belief in freedom and choice for everyone. Some would call me an Anarcho-Libertarian because I believe that we should have the most minimal government involvement possible in our lives. I served on the outposts of the New World Order in the early sixties, and firmly believe that the very concept of a New World Order is completely impossible. We should keep our troops at home and let the rest of the world kill itself off without bothering us. So, what follows are my own views on the questions raised by Brzezinski, without reference to his views.
1. What are the main threats to America?
One threat facing America involves the New World Order and its attempts to subvert our legitimate government and put it under the governance of agents of the Bilderbergers or the Trilateral Commission. Several people in our government or those in the past are connected with the Bilderbergers. It seems highly likely that Barak Obama was assisted into the presidency by Bilderbergers or associates. We appear to have been deliberately driven to near bankruptcy by Bush's policies which Obama has continued but at an even more ruinous level of spending. Some Web articles state that we are right at the verge of default, which Obama seems to have been working for. Now that the presidential eligibility issue is active in the courts, Obama may become more desperate and make more overt moves to cripple us before his time runs out. I am far from confident that Obama would go to extreme measures to protect us from terrorism. He seems prone to making huge concessions to Islam.
Another threat, which according to past experience is nearly as damaging as the Bilderbergers is Islamic terrorism. Although I don't believe that Muslims were behind the Trade Center destruction, it appears that they are carrying on a constant stream of relatively minor attacks such as bombing attempts on airliners. It appears that Iran is close to obtaining nuclear weapons and its desire to use them against the U.S. is clear. Until just lately it seemed that there would be no attempt to disrupt Iran's plans, but in the last few days it is seems that there is some sort of international effort under way against Iran, but the details are not yet clear.
Islam also poses a threat from another direction. There appears to be a major effort to build up the Muslim populations in selected countries, staying dormant until they reach a tipping point when they will go active. That's happened in several European countries and could happen here.
Obama's show of weakness has also enticed allies to act against our best interests. An alliance between Brazil and Turkey seems close to fruition if it has not already occurred.
Although our industrial might has been literally ripped out of the country, nobody from any political faction seems to have even made plans to stop this process or build new industries that we can maintain. The next presidential election is more than two years out but no one with any substantial political power has shown signs of preparing for such a move. Newt Gingrich has made vague musings about a run, and has revived his presence somewhat with the publication of a recent book, but there is no one showing signs of a serious run. Mitt Romney shows signs of interest, but I understand that he is a Mormon and therefore stands little chance of winning a national election. Everyone assumes Obama will seek a second term but judging by his aggressive actions on his agenda and the possibility of an adverse ruling on his eligibility to serve as President, I suspect that he knows a second term is unlikely, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if he intends to do all the damage he can and step aside. In that case, Hillary Clinton would seem to be a shoo-in.
Another threat is the immigration bomb. All the top people seem to assume that whites will be a minority in another decade or two. The real danger is not the addition to the population itself but the makeup of the increase. Mexicans and other Latin Americans will almost certainly dominate immigration by far, but it's not clear that they have those qualities needed to maintain and build a leading economy. I've written a paper that we should seriously consider bringing in Chinese, but this idea will probably not gain any traction.
2. Given its hegemonic status, is America entitled to more security than other nations?
A country is entitled to all the security it can afford and the willingness to spend
its financial resources. Security is not an entitlement so it's not a question of whether it is entitled to more security, but to what lengths it is willing to go to protect itself. A key security measure would involve bringing our entire military forces home instead of spreading them all over the world. When countries we spend billions on for protection begin building their own military facilities abroad to serve their own purposes, such as is the case with Japan building a base in North Africa, there is no justification to spend scarce financial resources protecting them. It has been made quite clear by Doug Bandow of the Cato Institute, that nation building is a no win undertaking for us. People need to be willing to do and spend what it takes to protect them. If the protection they need is beyond their reach, it is not our responsibility to provide it for them. They need to develop the alliances and mutual protection agreements necessary to protect themselves, or come to terms with a possible invader, not rely on us for their protection. We have worked hard and invested billions in our own defense. We are entitled to the protection are willing and able to pay for.
3. How should America cope with potentially lethal threats that emanate not from powerful rivals but from weak foes?
We should try to convert them from foes to at least neutrals. If this is not possible, we should target them with nuclear weapons and inform them of that fact. We should also deploy other damaging but not-lethal weapons, such as biological, chemical, or fuel-air bombs. I understand that there are at present approximately twenty five nuclear capable countries. Obama's wish to eliminate all nuclear weapons is a dangerous fantasy, these countries did not sacrifice to create these forces just to destroy them. A no first strike policy is unrealistic today. Rather than sending our citizens abroad to fight conventional wars that kill many and disable more, we should make it clear that as a last resort nuclear weapons are no longer off the table. Maintaining our President's intention to reduce nuclear weapons and his unwillingness to employ them only creates the opportunity for weak foes to nibble at our assets around the world as long as they maintain their aggression below the level that would provoke a response on our part.
We need to show the world, especially Islam, that we are no longer going to be bled to death. Today, the term "weak foes" essentially means Islamic countries. What weak non-Islamic countries threaten us? Islam is not a rational religion by our standards nor is there a rational Islamic country. The only thing that will deter them is the threat of overwhelming response to aggression, and there is no sense in risking our citizens' lives to limit their actions. If anyone attacks our citizens here or abroad, or our facilities, they should look up to see that incoming streak in the sky. We have to accept that SOMEONE, sooner or later, IS going to let the nuclear genie out of the bottle. Nuclear disarmament is not a realistic goal. Iran is not developing nuclear weapons in order to destroy them, and there is no force on Earth that could convince the Israelis to give up their nuclear weapons. We need to convince the rest of the world that we will not be a passive target. It might be possible with today's technology to use fuel-air bombs, or non-lethal chemical or biological weapons without resorting to nuclear weapons.
4. Can America manage its long-term relationship with the Islamic world, many of whose 1.2 billion people increasingly view America as implacably hostile?
NO. We have markedly different world views that neither we nor Muslims are going to change to any great extent. Psychologically, we live in different worlds, and we are not going to adapt too much to please them, and they are probably not going to adapt at all. In the past, the majority of immigrants to this country were European, and in a broad sense, were able and willing to adapt enough to live here with a minimum of violence. The same thing used to apply to Mexicans. While some, mostly elders, chose to cling to their own language and customs, by and large Mexicans fit in enough that discord, and especially physical hostilities remained at a minimum. Today, however, there is increasing hostility between two peoples that had lived together mostly harmoniously for several generations. Mexicans are taught by several nationalistic organizations and even by the Mexican government that they "own" western America and want it back. They not only don't attempt to acculturate, but intentionally abuse our social systems. They contribute considerably to our health care costs, consume public services and welfare payments, damage entire neighborhoods, drive without licenses or insurance, and vote illegally. Illegals are actually taken by busses from precinct to precinct by "community activists" to cast illegal ballots.
Geert Hofstede has developed a long accepted method of analyzing different cultures. The closer in culture people are, the more likely they are to get along. Conversely, the more different they are, the more likely they are to experience conflict. The latest statistics I've seen are about ten years old, but I think the conclusions still hold. Of the approximately fifty wars that rage constantly around the world at any one time, almost all of them are within countries between people of different cultures. From my own studies, it appears that as a rough rule of thumb, peace will tend to exist when one culture dominates all others. A very rude approximation seems to indicate that as long as a country remains roughly seventy percent of one culture, peace prevails even if uneasy. When there is no clearly dominant culture, conflict and war almost inevitably follow.
France and England provide good examples. When France consisted mostly of Frenchmen (what a quaint notion), Algerian Muslim residents caused almost no problems. As the balance of cultures changed, latent conflict increased. I don't know the exact percentages of each culture, but within the last ten years or so Muslims achieved near parity with native Frenchmen and started demanding more and more accommodations. They wanted restrictions on women's dress relaxed or increased. They demanded that schools adapt to Islamic standards, including teaching religion in public schools and adapt to Arab speaking youths. I don't know if Muslims have actually reached parity with the French, but articles on European web sites state that the French have lost control of their country to Muslims. They have allowed Muslims to choose to follow Sharia law, which seems incredibly strict toward women. So now citizens of France live under two different legal systems that are not very compatible.
England is obviously worried about the same trend there, but seems a little more determined to maintain its own dominance. While Muslims have adopted such tactics as creating huge traffic jams at rush hour, so far the English have refused to have a dual justice system. Reportedly, many English people recognized that the country needed more workers, but doubt that they made a good choice in turning to Muslims. Interestingly, England's population replacement rate is noticeably lower than ours.
To refocus on the question, I don't believe that we can maintain peaceful relations with a society that encourages suicide bombers, honors Islamic hijackers of all types, totally refuses to recognize the legitimacy of other religions, puts women to death for actions that we in the West consider normal, bury alive teenage daughters who have had sex, and whose leaders have repeatedly stated that they are going to rule the entire world according to Islamic law.
5. Can America act decisively to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, given the overlapping but legitimate claims of two peoples to the same land?
No, it is not going to happen. As explained above, Muslims do not believe that it is correct to tolerate other religions. Beyond the restrictions of the question, Muslims are never going to rest while there is a Jew alive in the world. Some Islamic leaders say that it is possible and desirable to share land with the Jews, but they are being less than forthright. I have several videos of important Islamic religious leaders yelling at huge crowds that Islam cannot rest while a single Jew remains alive. They are VERY convincing.
6. What is needed to create political stability in the volatile new "Global Balkans" located in the southern rim of Central Eurasia?
Aside from sorting out the various ethnic and religious groups and somehow keeping them apart, there is no chance of maintaining political stability in the area. And such a sorting process is extremely unlikely to occur.
7. Can America forge a genuine partnership with Europe, given Europe's slow progress to political unity but increasing economic might?
This question was asked six years ago when the phrase "Europe's increasing economic might" was not a joke. Again, we are talking about unifying people of very different cultures. Given my background in history and culture, I think it is irresponsible to claim that achieving a useful measure of unity in such a diverse group is even possible. Let's look at what they are trying to do. To start with an example, they want to accomplish a meaningful unity between Germany and Greece. Can we possibly imagine a greater clash of cultures and the "mental world" each country lives in? Germany is disciplined, Greece is not. Germany takes life seriously, Greece does not. Germany sees economic solvency as a fundamental and mandatory ingredient of nationhood, Greece has no idea what that means. Germany believes that sound and cross generational financial, economic, cultural, political, scientific and philosophic institutions are what really make a country. Greece says "Hunh?' Germany lost two world wars but was not "defeated." England won both wars but was "defeated."
And just what, exactly, do we mean by "economic might?" Do we mean Gross Domestic Product? Well, some are much bigger than others, so that won't do. Do we mean Gross Domestic Product per capita? I'm no economist, don't believe in them, actually, but this sounds reasonable. So when we say "Europe's increasing economic might," do we mean that all of the countries have the same Gross Domestic Product per capita? Uh, well, probably not. What I suspect it means is that a handful are doing pretty well, while all the rest are nealyr basket cases. What I expect we can honestly say is that Germany, and two or three others, are doing well, but most are not. What I think is, just like "the Emperor has no clothes," "there really is no "Europe." What I strongly suspect is the reality of the case of "Europe," is that you have Germany, Country B, Country C, and maybe Country D.
So the real question is, "Can we forge a genuine partnership with Germany?" I read somewhere that Germany and Russia are getting closer together. That probably makes sense for Germany, and definitely makes sense for Russia. But does this mean that we can't forge a genuine partnership with Germany? Or, to really think outside the box, could we include Russia? Do the United States and Russia HAVE to be at each other's throats? When I was just a kid, probably not even in school yet, Germany and Russia lost MILLIONS of men fighting each other over one city. Now the word is that they are working together. If THEY can do that, why can't we?
So, my answer to the question is no, because there is no "Europe." I spent all four years of high school in a Department of Defense high school in Frankfurt, Germany. I never learned German because I couldn't cough, choke, and gurgle all at the same time, but I met lots of Germans and even worked with them in the Post Exchange. They are GOOD people. Even the working class. We worked with them all through the Cold War. I see no hope of working with "Europe," but we could definitely work with the Germans if they wanted to. And the Russians? The Russians will always make us nervous because they MUST secure their borders, having no natural boundaries. But I don't think they want to conquer the world anymore, if they ever did. Sure we could work together as a Group of Three. But forget "Europe." There isn't one.
8. Can Russia, no longer a rival to America, be drawn into an American-led Atlantic framework?
Sure, but I don't think we should join in. The Bildergergers, the Trilateralists, and the CFRs all want that, but what's in it for us? Old wisdom is often very good wisdom. Either Washington, Jefferson, or Sam Jones said, "Friendly relationships with all, entangling alliances with none." We forgot that when Wilson wanted into World War I, even though we could have stayed neutral and saved the lives of thousands of American troops, Wilson suckered us into the war anyway. Did the sacrifice that resulted accomplish anything? Not for us.
We forgot that lesson when Roosevelt tricked us into World War II, even though we could have stayed neutral and saved the lives of thousands of Americans. Did their sacrifice accomplish anything? Nothing worth their death. But the Japanese ATTACKED us! Not until Roosevelt duped them into it. FDR really wanted to fight the Germans to help the British, but the country wasn't buying it. But Germany and Japan were allies, so if one got into a war with us, the other would declare war on us, too. So Roosevelt cut off Japan's oil. The only other place to get it was way down in the Pacific on the Dutch islands of Java and Sumatra. But Bull Halsey and his aircraft carriers stood in the way. So Japan attacked Pearl Harbor to sink the carriers, but they weren't there. But we were now at war with Japan so Hitler declared war on us, and Roosevelt was tickled pink. But one of my uncles was killed in the Pacific, and I'll NEVER believe it was for a good cause.
Let's get real for a minute. Unless we are attacked again, which is very unlikely, there is no reason for us to be in an Atlantic alliance framework. Europeans have been killing Europeans ever since there were Europeans, and chances are good that they will again. (They also killed a LOT of non-Europeans, but that doesn't count). But it is not our business. We don't need to be in a military alliance with anyone except probably the Canadians. They're good guys. All we would get out of an Atlantic Alliance Framework are dead Americans, and we don't need any more of those. Let the Europeans play the Bilderberger's game while we practice the excellent advice, "Friendly relationships with all, entangling alliances with none." We forgot this advice before. Let's promise ourselves "Never Again." Let someone else's kids die for David Rockefeller, and Kissinger, and Brzezinski, and all those other self-important One World Order Jokers. They're so sick they think our government works for them! I can hear it now: "But that's ISOLATIONISM!" You're damned right it is, and it's a damned good thing. If our kids have to fight someone, let it be the IRS.
9. What should be the American role in the Far East, given Japan's continued but reluctant dependence on the United States, as well as its quietly growing military might, and also given the rise of Chinese power?
America's role in the Far-East should be the same as our role in Europe, discussed in detail above. The short version: Be good trading partners.
10. How likely is it that globalization might breed a coherent counter-doctrine or counter-alliance against America?
Extremely likely, which is why we should stay out of "entangling alliances.
11. Are demography and migration becoming the new threats to global stability?
Not necessarily, but the people of some cultures will fit into ours better than those from a different culture. Political correctness aside, we should pursue people from the most compatible cultures. We should have the wisdom to say who we want here and who we don't, and not just accept anyone who manages to get into the country. Concerning cultural compatibility, review the discussion about Germany and Greece in question 7.
12. How should America respond to the emerging inequality in human affairs, which the current scientific revolution may precipitate and which globalization may precipitate?
If you look at any country there is inequality, including the US. But traditionally those with lots of money invested much of it here, which made most of us reasonably well off. In addition, governments and a lot of private organizations made a huge investment in schools, hospitals, physical infrastructure and invisible infrastructure (think radio). Lately, the extremely rich seem to think its better to invest abroad, which could lead to one of two states: (1) We could learn to adapt and accept a lower standard of living. (2) We could hang them and take all their money. After all, greed is a sin. (I assume my preference is obvious)
In many countries, however, such as India, there is a very tiny super-wealthy class that couldn't care less about the less fortunate. They plow very little of their money back into their country, so much of the population lives in extreme poverty and hunger, with huge child death rates. Persistent conditions like this usually end up in an extremely violent revolt against the wealthy. But the extremely wealthy, if they are in the country at all, keep their Lear Jets ready, and almost none of their wealth is in the country, so they leave little behind for the enraged poor to plunder. The end result of such an uprising is always the same as acceptance of the status quo: starvation, illness, and early death.
How should America respond? Our professional politicians are seldom wise in difficult disciplines like economics, and can be very harsh on business through regulation, taxes, bureaucratic harassment, and a very anti-business attitude.
Conversely, the present administration can't seem to shovel enough money to huge banks and corporations. Hopefully, a tiny bit of this will actually stimulate the economy, and rich economies tend to reduce inequality. Mainly, however, we should keep our requirements for immigration high so we don't become more of a dumping ground for the world's hopeless.
13. Is America's democracy compatible with a hegemonic role, however carefully that hegemony may be camouflaged? How will the security of that special role affect traditional civil rights?
"Hegemonic Role" means someone's kids dieing in some God Forsaken pest hole to save the money and property of the psychopathic rich. This usually means meddling in someone else's country, and leads to "blowback." This is Chalmers Johnson's term which basically means people don't like foreigners meddling in their affairs and they react to such intrusion violently.
As for how our "traditional civil rights" would be affected, Zbigniew obviously meant this as jest. Writing in 2006, he certainly knew that his class had already destroyed them very quickly after 9/11 with the Patriot Acts, the Military commissions act, Presidential Orders, FEMA's construction of concentration camps for citizens, and many other violations of the "Constitution Of Historic Interest Only."
For more information on the Bilderbergers, Trilateral Commission, and the Council of Foreign Relations, see The True Story of the Bilderbergers Group by Daniel Estulin.
Roger McIntyre, PhD., is a senior marketing professor at East Carolina University, Greenville, North Carolina

Being Muslim in Modern Day America


Islam is a way of life and a very simple one at that. It teaches piety, humbleness, peace, war, and chastity more things about life that I can think of. With all the stereotypes that circulate, it's hard for a Muslim to keep up with the who-said-what in this non Islamic country. Personally, I've heard my fair shares of "does Is that a pillow case on your head?" to "Are you wearing bomb strapped underneath your dress?" If anything can be said about Muslims, I should know the gist of the puns.
The ignorance of some non-Muslims is expected for the most part, that doesn't mean it gets any easier each time they come at us. It is tough because we have interaction with them every single day: work, school, bus, shopping and airplanes. They look at our customs as very foreign and not American. When we look at ourselves and see nothing wrong with our customs. We look at their customs and see contradictions all the time.
Take American television for example. If you could describe popular American broadcasts in a few words it would be sex, money, youth and homosexuality. The most popular shows in the U.S. have one of these characteristics or all four. That's not what the bible preaches and it's definitely not what our book teaches. Yet it's still here and popular to many Americans... including me. If this is what people are seeing and being fed since birth-no matter what religion or background-this is what they will end up engaging in as they grow older. How can you be a full blown Muslim if you have grown up here in America? It is not impossible but misleading. When I say misleading, there will definitely be many upon many obstacles, huge walls and tight barriers that you must get by to keep true to the Islamic customs. It is possible to adapt to the American ways while still engaging in Islamic tradition. Kind of like take the good and leave the bad.
You have anyone who lives in America ever wondered how we felt as non violent Muslims living on foreign territory? You have anyone ever asked themselves: how do Muslims in America who are not of the Middle Eastern descent feel about everything that's going on?
You have been cordially invited to take a peek inside the life of an African-American Muslim female. One of which who struggles with her identity between being a strong Muslim everyday who puts all her efforts into living here only for the next life versus living the American dream of riches and glam.
You may think we live normal lives... you have no idea. Every day we strive to do a little more than we did the previous day. Pray a little more. Give a little more. Cuss a little less. We are constantly trying to please and live our lives for mankind's creator. Unfortunately, we are still human and we have human urges just like everyone else. Do not think because we do what we do everyday does not mean we are not like the rest. We probably have more in common with non-Muslims than you think.
Human characteristics: lying, cheating, stealing, fornication, adultery, envy, lust, love and hatred. All things that we have done and you have as well. Our conscious is probably on the blitz while we are doing these things because we know we are going to get paid back for it either here or in the afterlife but it was still done by our own freewill.
So here's the big question: Why is it so hard to be a good Muslim when you happened to live in a non-Islamic country? There are a few reasons.
1. Born Into a Non-Muslim Society
I was born in Detroit, Michigan. My mother was not Muslim nor was she Christian. My father was a Mason and both never married. I don't remember much of my life before I became Muslim but I got the feeling that it wasn't what you would call to Muslim household. Around the age of six, my mother decided to convert to Islam with her three children. When I was growing up we had non-Muslim family member interaction, we had non-Muslim children coming to play with us, neighbors, grocery store clerks and the rest. Although, we did go to thousands prayer every Friday, only one day out of the week we got interaction with other Muslims solely. The rest of the six days it was my siblings and I against the foreign world. My mom instilled certain Islamic traits throughout the day but after that we went and watched non-Muslims on TV All these advertisements infiltrated our sponge like minds and shaped many of us Muslims who are today. We may not agree with it but it did have some effect on who we are in Islam.
2. Muslims Spend Alot of Time With Non-Muslims
I used to work a full time job. It was 44 hours per week. I was Manager at Walgreens Pharmacy. I spent anywhere from 8 to 10 hours per day there. I slept 8 hours per day and took an hour total to get to and from work. That left me about 5 to 7 hours of down time during those five days each week. The majority of my awake time had been spent at work, working and integrating with my non-Muslim colleagues. How does that make a person feel to spend the majority of their time working and fraternizing with people who have nothing in common with you? And because you're the minority you try your hardest to be less like a Muslim and more like them due to the pressures of "fitting in". Do They work and spend time with each other, why doesn't Muslim to get that same feeling of unity in the workplace? Why can't I pull another Muslim worker and say, "do hey, let's go pray on our lunch break?"
3 Wanting to Su to Fit In With the Rest
This coincide with the top example. We believe that if we fit in, it would be a lot
easier for us. But in reality we really just lose our identity. We are Muslim because we want to be. No one forced us to be this way. You don't have to act like a Muslim. Do But if that is the case then why do you claim it? I see the little Muslim teens on their way to school and instead of them wearing the Islamic wrap they look just like the rest of the kids. And it hurts me because they do not dress this way at home or in front of their parents but feel the need to be accepted by the rest. Children do not know the implications of not practicing their religion at a young age. For them not to wear Islam like a proud badge of honour is a disgrace. The goal is not to separate Muslims completely from other people or religions but to reinforce the religion throughout the day by being around other Muslims. No one wants to feel like an outsider.
Being a Muslim is a great thing for me because I have access to so many resourceful people of many different backgrounds. They come from all walks of life and diversity excites me as it does others that strive to be a well rounded human being. Staying true to ones religion brings about pride and a sense of well being like no other. We all want to belong to someone; something with Islam and I can say that we all feel this way about our religion. No matter what situation we are in that maybe un-Islamic or how many death threats, weird looks or snickers we will stand because the only entity that we must please God is strong.
Much Love,
Leah