Friday, April 30, 2010

Thursday, April 29, 2010

On the Hypocrisy and Perversion of Yahya Snow

What can we say about our dear friend Yahya Snow? If you’ve been following his comments and blog, guess which of the following situations will upset Yahya most:

(1) A young girl dies as a result of her husband (following the example of Muhammad) having sex with her at nine years old.
(2) I point out the fact that a young girl dies as a result of her husband (following the example of Muhammad) having sex with her at nine years old.

While instances of (1) never seem to bother Yahya, instances of (2) send him into a rage. When young Muslim girls die from sex-related issues, or women are beaten or raped by Muslim men, or people are killed by Muslims in a terror attack, the most we’ll hear from Yahya is an empty “How sad.” But when we point out that young girls are dying from sex-related issues, or that women are being beaten and raped by Muslims, or that Muslims are killing people, watch out! Yahya suddenly goes on a rampage.

We’ve seen this over and over again, but it’s important to continue drawing attention to the fact that Muslims like Yahya have their priorities all wrong. Consider two recent examples.

After Yahya’s fellow Muslims threatened to murder Trey Parker and Matt Stone, I posted the cartoons that led to the threats. Now see if you can predict what’s more offensive to Yahya: (a) threatening to murder people for drawing a cartoon, or (b) posting the cartoons that Muslims are willing to kill for.

You guessed it. Yahya doesn’t seem to care much that his fellow Muslims are ready to slaughter Islam’s critics the way Theo Van Gogh was slaughtered. What bothers him is that I showed the world what his fellow Muslims will kill for. And here it is again:

Interestingly, Yahya attempts to rebuke me by saying that it is morally wrong to do something that will offend Muslims. This brings us to a major problem with Muslims like Yahya—hypocrisy. What did Muhammad do while he was in Mecca? Interestingly, the Muslim sources tell us that Muhammad was free to preach openly, until he started denouncing the religious beliefs of the pagans (in an extremely offensive manner). The pagans even promised that Muhammad would be free to preach if he simply stopped denouncing their religious beliefs:

The Messenger of God proclaimed God’s message openly and declared Islam publicly to his tribesmen. When he did so, they did not withdraw from him or reject him in any way, as far as I had heard, until he spoke of their gods and denounced them. When he did this, they took exception to it and united in opposition and hostility to him . . . (al-Tabari, Volume VI, p. 93)

They sent one of their number, whose name was al-Muttalib, to Abu Talib to ask permission for them to enter. He said, "Here are the shaykhs and nobles of your tribe asking permission to visit you." He told him to ask them to come in, and when they had done so they said, "Abu Talib, you are our elder and our chief, so give us justice against your nephew and order him to desist from reviling our gods, and we will leave him to his god." (al-Tabari, Volume VI, pp. 94-95)

Muhammad refused, of course, and instead promised to slaughter the unbelievers:

Ibn Humayd- Salamah- Muhammad b. Ishaq- Yahya b. ‘Urwah b. al-Zubayr- his father ‘Urwah-‘Abdallah b. ‘Amr b. al-‘As: I said to him, "What was the worst attack you saw by Quraysh upon the Messenger of God when they openly showed their enmity to him?" He replied, "I was with them when their nobles assembled one day in the Hijr and discussed the Messenger of God. They said, ‘We have never seen the like of what we have endured from this man. He has derided our traditional values, abused our forefathers, reviled our religion, caused division among us, and insulted our gods. We have endured a great deal from him,’ or words to that effect. While they were saying this, the Messenger of God suddenly appeared and walked up and kissed the Black Stone. Then he passed by them while performing the circumambulation, and as he did so they made some slanderous remarks about him. I could see from the Messenger of God’s face that he had heard them, but he went on. When he passed the second time they made similar remarks, and I could see from his face that he had heard them, but again he went on. Then he passed them the third time, and they made similar remarks; but this time he stopped and said, ‘Hear, men of Quraysh. By Him in whose hand Muhammad’s soul rests, I have brought you slaughter.’ They were gripped by what he said, and it was as though every man of them had a bird perched on his head; even those of them who had been urging the severest measures against him previously spoke in conciliatory ways to him, using the politest expressions they could think of, and said, ‘Depart in true guidance, Abu al-Qasim; by God you were never ignorant.’ (al-Tabari, Volume VI, pp. 101-102)

Let’s review. Yahya Snow tells us that it’s morally wrong for me to post a cartoon showing people why Muslims are issuing death threats. He says it’s wrong because it’s offensive to people. But why was it okay for Muhammad to offend the pagans? Why was it okay for Muhammad to deride their traditional values, abuse their forefathers, revile their religion, cause division among them, and insult their gods?

The answer, if Yahya is honest, is simply this: Muslims don’t need to practice what they preach. It’s okay for Muslims to condemn people for what they themselves do. This is the foundation of Muslim morality. Thus it was unacceptable (death penalty in fact) for the pagans to keep the Muslims from taking the pilgrimage to Mecca, but it was perfectly acceptable for the Muslims to keep the pagans from taking the pilgrimage to Mecca. It was unacceptable for unbelievers to write poetry against Muslims (death penalty in fact), but okay for Muslims to write poetry against the unbelievers. It was okay for Muhammad to condemn the beliefs of others, but totally unacceptable for anyone to criticize Islam (death penalty again).

But this is absurd to anyone who isn’t a Muslim, which is why Yahya’s cries of “You’ve offended me” are so hollow. How offensive was it when Muhammad conquered Mecca and smashed the idols of the pagans? It was extremely offensive to the pagans. And yet it’s okay to smash the idols of the pagans, but not to draw a cartoon of the idol of the Muslims (i.e. Muhammad).

We’re therefore forced to regard all of Yahya’s complaints as sheer hypocrisy. (If only he would spend this much time complaining about the atrocities committed in the name of his religion!)

We see something quite similar in Yahya’s reaction to the short film that got Theo Van Gogh brutally murdered. “Submission” was a little over ten minutes long, and was meant to draw attention to the plight of women in Islam (who are beaten, raped, murdered, etc.). See if you can guess which of the following will offend Yahya Snow most:

(1) Theo Van Gogh makes a video of abused Muslim women asking Allah why his teachings lead to so much suffering.
(2) Muslim women have been beaten, raped, and killed since Muhammad delivered the Qur’an and are still being beaten, raped and killed.
(3) Muslims brutally slaughtered Theo Van Gogh for criticizing Islam.

You guessed it. The video drawing attention to the suffering of women is the only thing that seems to upset Yahya. He just doesn't want anyone to see what Theo Van Gogh was slaughtered for (or what Islam does to women).

His complaint this time is that the video is pornographic. Let’s look at a few dictionary definitions of pornography to see why Yahya’s complaint is disturbing.

Pornography—Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal.

Pornography—material that depicts erotic behavior and is intended to cause sexual excitement.

Pornography—obscene writings, drawings, photographs, or the like, esp. those having little or no artistic merit.

Now watch the following video and see if it fits the above definitions:

Artistic merit? Absolutely. It’s the most artistically brilliant and moving critique of Islam I’ve ever seen.

Is there anything here meant to cause sexual arousal? Nothing whatsoever. Indeed, until Yahya started complaining about pornography, I never thought the women in the video were naked. There’s nothing in these videos that one couldn’t see on a sandy beach in the summer (no nipples or other images). I always thought the women were wearing some kind of skin-colored body suits. (And we shouldn't ignore the fact that YouTube doesn't regard anything in the video as pornographic.)

But all of this is beside the point. To think of these videos as sexually arousing would be absolutely monstrous. Who gets sexually aroused by watching women talk about being beaten and raped? This is why I’m highly disturbed that Yahya regards this video as sexually arousing. My repugnance at Yahya’s mentality just went through the roof.

Like it or not, there’s a massive difference between a porn film and, say, the Venus de Milo. The former is meant to arouse sexual desire, while the latter is art. To claim that the Venus de Milo is pornographic would display a perversion, not in the sculpture, but in the mind of the critic. Similarly, to say that a brilliant and moving video addressing fourteen centuries of abuse is pornographic displays a perversion, not in the film, but in the mind of Yahya Snow.

But regardless of whether we find “Submission” tasteful or offensive, wouldn’t every non-Muslim on this site agree that it’s far more offensive to beat and rape women (and little girls) than to make a movie drawing attention to the plight of women in Islam? Wouldn’t we agree that Yahya should be far more offended at Surah 4:34 and 65:4 than he is at a video? Should Yahya spend so much time trying to convince us that Islam is against violence and abuse, and so little time doing something about the violence and abuse committed every day in the name of Islam? Shouldn’t Muslims have more of a problem with slaughter in the name of their religion than with pointing out Islamic atrocities?

Welcome to Islam, my friends. It's about more than violence and oppression. It's also about inconsistency and hypocrisy. There are Muslims reading this post at this very moment, thinking about how they would love to saw my head off because I’ve said these things. And if Muslims one day manage to saw my head off, you can rest assured that people like Yahya will be fine with the killing, but outraged if you point out the killing.

If Yahya's inconsistency, hypocrisy, and callous attitude towards the victims of Islam aren't offensive, I don't know what is.

The Qur’an and the miracle of the female talking ant

A number of Islamic proponents have proposed the idea that Sura 27: 18-19 depicturing the prophet Solomon hearing the words of a female ant reveals two clear modern scientific discoveries, which were virtually unheard off prior to Islam and not confirmed until the recent era.

This is the passage:

When they approached the valley of the ants, one ant said, "O you ants, go into your homes, lest you get crushed by Solomon and his soldiers, without perceiving." He smiled and laughed at her statement, and said, "My Lord, direct me to be appreciative of the blessings You have bestowed upon me and my parents, and to do the righteous works that please You. Admit me by Your mercy into the company of Your righteous servants" (Sura 27: 18-19).

Muslim exponents presuppose two miraculous predictions here:

1. The ant can communicate by talking

2. The ant is a female

Both claims are drastically portrayed in this youtube video in a response to the ‘answering-islam’ website:

Lets assess these claims:

Does the Qur’an predict the female nature of worker ants?

That the Qur’an addresses the ant as feminine is accurate, it is also accurate that the worker ants are females. However, contrary to what Muslims believe this idiom is not suggesting that the Qur’an describes a female creature. In a number of languages not only human female and males are referred to by their gender as male or female but entire species and objects are referred to as either male, female or neuter gender. In the Arabic language the ‘ant’ (naml) is simply generic female, it does not indicate natural gender or a biological female or male at least not in its singular and this particular ant is referred to as singular.

For further study read:

This completely debunks and refutes the popular claim that the Qur’an predicts the discovery that worker ants are female.

Does the talking ant predict modern scientific discoveries?

Similar exaggeration is utilized to introduce divine miraculous revelation through the prediction of a talking ant. Solomon supposedly heard an ant warning the ant community to escape into their dwellings do evade Solomon’s proceeding army.

To prove their case Muslims have recently turned to a very recent discovery which involved microphones to detect the communication between ants. The discovery revealed that some ants indeed communicate with sounds.

A Muslim youtube which appears to represent Osama Abdallah’s website ‘answering-Christianity’ praises this discovery:

This particular and very recent discovery which Muslim exponents quote is found here:

Unfortunately for the Muslim the claims are typically exaggerated and the discovery does not effectively render that much support to the Muslim use of the passage.

In the article we read:

‘Professor Thomas said it remained unclear how much the ants relied on sound for
language but he suspected that further analysis would reveal a wider vocabulary
than had been seen yet.
“The most important discovery is that within the ant
colony different sounds can provoke different reactions,” he said. “I would be
very surprised if we didn't get different types of sound.
“It's within the
power of the ant to play different tunes by changing the rhythm with which they

Hence, far from what the Qur’an supposes, ants do not talk, they make sounds by rubbing body parts together. The sound might according to professor Thomas ‘provoke different reactions’.

However Thomas also concedes that it still remains unclear to what extent ants rely ‘on sound for language’ and that the variety in sounds is still a matter undiscovered.

Hence contrary to what the Qur’an states an ant cannot by talking vocabulary warn a community of ants about an imminent disaster.

But there is more, lets for a moment presume that the Qur’an actually provides insight into a natural fact that virtually remained unknown until recent times; are when then correct to deem the Qur’an as miraculous in its statement.

Not really.

A pre-Islamic scientific description of much greater details than the Qur’an describes this same ability to ants and appears much closer in word and details to the modern discoveries of Professor Thomas and others.

The text is found in the writings of the Christian philosopher Origen in his writings against Celsus, chapter 84, written in the third century and therefore predates Islam with 350 years; it reads:

And since he asserts that, "when ants die, the survivors set apart a special
place (for their interment), and that their ancestral sepulchres such a place
is," we have to answer, that the greater the laudations which he heaps upon
irrational animals, so much the more does he magnify (although against his will)
the work of that reason which arranged all things in order, and points out the
skill336 which exists among men, and which is capable of adorning by its reason
even the gifts which are bestowed by nature on the irrational creation. But why
do I say "irrational," since Celsus is of opinion that these animals, which,
agreeably to the common ideas of all men, are termed irrational, are not really
so? Nor does he regard the ants as devoid of reason, who professed to speak of
"universal nature," and who boasted of his truthfulness in the inscription of
his book. For, speaking of the ants conversing with one another, he uses the
following language: "And when they meet one another they enter into
conversation, for which reason they never mistake their way; consequently they
possess a full endowment of reason, and some common ideas on certain general
subjects, and a voice by which they express themselves regarding accidental
337 Now conversation between one man and another is carried on by means
of a voice, which gives expression to the meaning intended, and which also gives
utterances concerning what are called "accidental things; "but to say that this
was the case with ants would be a most ridiculous assertion.

Notice that Origen in his writings against Celsus 350 years prior to Islam describes a view of his time that ants talk and converse with each other:

For, speaking of the ants conversing with one another, he uses the following
language: "And when they meet one another they enter into conversation, for
which reason they never mistake their way; consequently they possess a full
endowment of reason, and some common ideas on certain general subjects, and a
voice by which they express themselves regarding accidental things."

Ants were in fact considered unique in the writings of antiquity; in this same passage Origin described them as highly intelligent, possessing gardens, etc. Plato, Aristotle, Pliny and others referred to the ant as a political animal and Aelian the Greek-Roman philosopher ‘noted that ant colonies and ant highways were very much like the famous buildings and roads of Greece and Crete’:

While most of these noted that ants communicated by other means rather than sounds, the source of Origen nevertheless reveals that speaking ants was a theory that existed 400 years prior to Muhammad and indeed the effective observation of ants within that era might certainly have led to such a conclusion by a number the thinkers of antiquity.

Yet I am not proposing that Muhammad or another Qur’anic author borrowed straight from Origen or even from an oral tradition deriving from such a source or even that the Qur’anic author had access to Origen’s writings. The Qur’anic description appears much more fairytale-like than then description of Origen and apart from Origen there were indeed tales existing prior to Islam of talking ants.

Hence I am inclined to believe that the author of the Qur’an did not depend upon a Greek Philosophical source.

Here ancient tales fit Islam a much as philosophy, Islam is a religion in which trees bow before prophets and where the dinner on your table has the capability to speak to you and stones possess the ability to steel you possessions. Solomon in Jewish fairytales possessed the ability to communicate with animals, to understand them and even to mobilise them in his battles against human enemies, hence the reason for this story. It reveals nothing of scientific significance but merely the belief that Solomon had extraordinary abilities. Desperate Muslim apologists read far too much into this fairytale.

Osama Abdallah, Haran Yahya and others nevertheless propose that the passage is miraculous in its incredible prediction of modern science; just take Osama Abdallah for example:

Again, the Holy Quran and Islam are filled with scientific statements and
notions. These are statements of Allah Almighty describing how He created things
on earth and in the Universe. What's most amazing is that all of these
scientific statements and notions had been proven to be in perfect agreement
with science and our modern-day scientific discoveries. Allah Almighty made the
Noble Quran be Prophet Muhammad's (peace be upon him) Everlasting Divine Miracle
and proof for Prophethood. The Holy Book certainly stood the test of time 1,500
years ago with Its Claims, Prophecies and Miraculous language eloquence, and it
does again and again in our day today with Its overwhelming agreement with
science and discoveries that were not known to man 1,500 years ago.

If Abdallah is correct then Origen’s source was indeed inspired by God some 400 years prior to Islam:

For, speaking of the ants conversing with one another, he uses the following
language: "And when they meet one another they enter into conversation, for
which reason they never mistake their way; consequently they possess a full
endowment of reason, and some common ideas on certain general subjects, and a
voice by which they express themselves regarding accidental things.
I am sure that Osama Abdallah will not ascribe such divine honour to Origen as to the Qur’an despite the fact that Origen provided more insight and details than the Qur’an?
Furthermore, Osama Abdallah also needs to consider the divine inspiration upon pre-Islamic Roman writers and their tales, such as Aesop who wrote the fable ‘The ant and the Grasshopper’:

The Fable reads:

‘The ants were spending a fine winter's day drying grain collected in the
summertime. A Grasshopper, perishing with famine, passed by and earnestly begged
for a little food. The Ants inquired of him, "Why did you not treasure up food
during the summer?' He replied, "I had not leisure enough. I passed the days in
singing." They then said in derision: "If you were foolish enough to sing all
the summer, you must dance supperless to bed in the winter."’

It is obvious that the Qur’anic description is much more of the same nature as the tale of Aesop rather than that of Origen, yet neither Muslims nor scientists would recognise the tale of Aesop to provide us with anything of scientific nature. Here Muslims might argue that ants deploy the ability to communicate to each other and not to grasshoppers, however Aesop does describe the ants as communicating by language or sounds.

Note here, I am not saying that the author of the Qur’an plagiarized Aesop’s tale, I am pointing out that such tales were common in Muhammad’s time.

So, Harun Yahya and Osama Abdallah, do you guys 1) recognise the source of Origen and Aesop as divinely inspired? 2) Do you still claim that the ability of ants to speak in detailed language (if that should be proven right in future) is a scientific fact unheard of until the rise of Islam?

The above sources do not agree with you and I suggest that since your claims have been debunked and refuted that you remove these particular deceptive articles about the ant from your websites and ones again apologize to the readers you have mislead.

Monday, April 26, 2010

Obama Rebuilding Bridges with Muslims

It seems Obama is doing all he can to placate the Muslims of the world:

President Barack Obama on Monday renewed his commitment to a "new beginning" with the Muslim world, vowing no let-up in U.S. efforts to promote Middle East peace, curb militant violence and boost economic development.

Seeking to build on his outreach to Muslims in a speech in Cairo last June, Obama used a U.S.-hosted Muslim business conference to underscore what his administration has done so far and to pledge further work to overcome mistrust. (Reuters)

Personally, I think we should be engaged in showing love to Muslims - that is a command from Christ that I will always follow (cf. "greatest commandment"). I just wish we'd be allowed to criticize the violent ideology of our neighbors without being accused of hating them.

But, alas... I'm no political analyst. What do the rest of you think about Obama's rhetoric to the Muslims of the world?

Iranian Woman: "Islam Is the Most Horrible Thing I Have Experienced in My Life"

This is what we're supposed to submit to.

Sunday, April 25, 2010

Speaking of Cartoons . . . Hamas Mocks Gilad Shalit and Vows More Kidnappings

In 2006, Hamas kidnapped Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit. They have demanded the release of 1000 Palestinian prisoners (many of them known terrorists) in exchange for his return. In the following cartoon, Hamas declares that other Jews will be like Gilad.

And here's another:

And another:

Saturday, April 24, 2010

Cartoonists Strike Back: Everybody Draw Mohammed Day on May 20th (Send Your Complaints to Revolution Muslim)

To clarify my position ahead of time, I'll say that I don't advocate offending people just for the sake of offending them. However, I don't believe in backing down from terrorist threats either. When terrorists threaten someone, and people do what the terrorists want, it only encourages further threats of violence. Thus, whether we find it tasteful or not, it's difficult to condemn cartoonists for standing up for their rights in response to terrorist threats.

If terrorists hadn't threatened to kill Trey Parker and Matt Stone, other cartoonists wouldn't be calling for the First Annual "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day." This means, of course, that Muslims around the world should be blaming Revolution Muslim for the avalanche of Muhammad cartoons that will be coming next month.

Associated Press--After Comedy Central cut a portion of a South Park episode following a death threat from a radical Muslim group, Seattle cartoonist Molly Norris wanted to counter the fear. She has declared May 20th "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day."

Norris told KIRO Radio's Dave Ross that cartoonists are meant to challenge the lines of political correctness. "That's a cartoonist's job, to be non-PC."

Producers of South Park said Thursday that Comedy Central removed a speech about intimidation and fear from their show after a radical Muslim group warned that they could be killed for insulting the Prophet Muhammad.

The group said it wasn't threatening South Park producers Trey Parker and Matt Stone, but it included a gruesome picture of Theo Van Gogh, a Dutch filmmaker killed by a Muslim extremist in 2004, and said the producers could meet the same fate. The website posted the addresses of Comedy Central's New York office and the California production studio where South Park is made.

"As a cartoonist I just felt so much passion about what had happened I wanted to kind of counter Comedy Central's message they sent about feeling afraid," Norris said.

Norris has asked other artists to submit drawings of any religious figure to be posted as part of Citizens Against Citizens Against Humor (CACAH) on May 20th.

On her website Norris explains this is not meant to disrespect any religion, but rather meant to protect people's right to express themselves. Source.

WOOD'S PREDICTION: Despite the fact that the cartoons next month are a direct result of threats from Revolution Muslim (and the worldwide massacre that took place as a result of the Danish Cartoon Controversy), even "moderate" Muslims will be more upset about these cartoons than they are about the brutal murders that took place in the name of Islam.

Revolution Muslim: Who Are They Actually Willing to Debate?

No one doubts that South Park is offensive to practically everyone. But most people do not make a connection between (a) being offended by silly cartoons, and (b) butchering the people who make the cartoons. To make such a connection, we need a bridge between offending and killing. That bridge is Islam, which calls for the deaths of those who insult Muhammad.

However, the validity of this bridge depends on whether Islam is true. That is, if Muhammad was a false prophet, no one should be killed for insulting him. If, however, Muhammad was a true prophet, then his commands to murder critics should be followed today.

There's very little disagreement between me and Revolution Muslim when it comes to Islamic teachings. But there is a massive difference between me and Revolution Muslim when it comes to whether Islam is true. If I believed that Islam is true, I might be threatening Trey Parker and Matt Stone too.

It seems that much could be solved by resolving the question of Muhammad's prophethood. I'm perfectly willing to address this issue in public debate. Unfortunately, while Revolution Muslim loves to instigate their fellow Muslims to violence in defense of Muhammad, they refuse to defend Muhammad rationally.

If you watch Revolution Muslim's videos, you'll see them constantly challenging people to debate. Even in their response to criticisms over their threats against Trey Parker and Matt Stone, Revolution Muslim says they're ready to defend their views in debates. Yet Sam, Nabeel, and I are all ready to debate, and I've challenged Revolution Muslim to defend their prophet in public.

Why do they back down? Are they bluffing? Are they tossing around debate challenges because they don't think that anyone will actually debate them? Well, we're waiting. I live right down the street from them, and I'm ready.

Thursday, April 22, 2010

Want to Speak? Just Don't Speak the Truth about Islam

Unless your TV has been irreparably damaged for the past 5 years and you have had no access to the internet (how are you reading this?) you will certainly be aware of the shift taking place in our nation where the people at large pander to the sentiments of an increasingly sensitive Muslim minority. Some Muslim organizations (certainly not all but probably the most prominent) have gained a voice in the media which has instilled fear in various groups prohibiting them from speaking their mind about Islam. A detailed must-read article is David Wood's post from earlier today, tracing the recent trends of this phenomenon. In short, hundreds of innocents have lost their lives at the hands of belligerent Muslims because of free speech; yet, instead of defending our rights and pursuing the criminals, our society has tended towards conceding our rights to placate the criminals. This has shown the perpetrators they have a deathgrip over the first amendment through fear and intimidation, and they continue to use these tactics to actualize their ends.

With this background in mind, it should be no shock that simply speaking the truth about Islam is enough to ban the government from inviting you to their events. Rev. Franklin Graham had been invited to speak to the Pentagon on this year's National Day of Prayer. This invitation has recently been rescinded because of what Graham has said about Islam.

According to Reuters, Rev. Graham has said "true Islam" is too violent to be practiced in the United States. "You can't beat your wife. You cannot murder your children if you think they've committed adultery or something like that, which they do practice in these other countries... I don't agree with the teachings of Islam and I find it to be a very violent religion."

Col. Tom Collins, an Army spokesperson, provided an official reaction: "Once the Army leadership became aware that Reverand Graham was speaking at this event, we immediately recognized it as problematic... The bottom line here is that his presence would be inappropriate. His past statements are not consistent with the multi-faith emphasis and inclusiveness of this event."

"Inclusiveness" is valued more than truthfulness; "multi-faith awareness" is more important than an awareness of an imminent threat. When will this country realize it is sacrificing free speech on the altar of placating the overly-offended? The truths they stop us from speaking are truths which we need to hear to be awakened from our self-endangering slumber. This cycle needs to end.

Revolution Muslim Issues Media Release "Clarifying" Their Veiled Threat against South Park Creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone

I'm sure everyone's now familiar with the infamous "South Park vs. Revolution Muslim" controversy. Let's review the details before addressing Revolution Muslim's "clarification" of their post.

Prior to the Danish Cartoon Controversy, a 2001 episode of South Park ("Super Best Friends") featured images of Muhammad:

Three Years Later, Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh was brutally shot, stabbed, and practically beheaded for his role in producing the short film "Submission."

In 2005, the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published twelve cartoons, several of which contained images of Muhammad.

More than 100 people worldwide were killed over these cartoons, and one of the cartoonists barely escaped with his life when an axe-wielding Muslim invaded his house.

The following year, South Park again attempted to feature images of Muhammad, but the images were censored by Comedy Central.

This brings us to the past few weeks, when Trey Parker and Matt Stone yet again put together an episode featuring Muhammad, this time in a bear costume.

Enter Revolution Muslim, a Muslim Jihadist group (headquartered not far from my apartment), which produced a video suggesting that Trey Parker and Matt Stone should be killed for insulting Muhammad (the video and website have since been removed).

The media quickly picked up the story, with Anderson Cooper giving an uncharacteristically non-dhimmified presentation of the facts:

Bill O'Reilly, however, gladly brought the media back to dhimmi status, claiming that freedom of speech isn't really that important:

But O'Reilly wasn't the only one to submit to terrorist threats. Comedy Central bowed even further, censoring even the mention of Muhammad's name from future shows.

Now "South Park" can't even say the words "Prophet Muhammad."

After last week's episode of the Comedy Central series sparked a threat (and yes, it was certainly a threat) from a radical Islamic website, the network has cracked-down-for-their-own-good on creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone during last night's continuation of the show's storyline.

For those who missed the drama, the show's 200th episode last week mocked the one "celebrity" that the series has been largely unable to depict, the Prophet Muhammad, who was hidden from view in a bear costume. A U.S.-based website then warned Parker and Stone they could end up like Theo Van Gogh (the Dutch filmmaker who was murdered by Muslim extremists after depicting Muhammad on his show) and even posted the address of the show's production office. The site has since been shut down.

Last night, "South Park" continued the controversial Muhammad storyline, but with a key difference: every instance of the words "Prophet Muhammad" was bleeped out, making the episode practically incomprehensible, especially to anybody who missed the previous week.

The character of Muhammad was once again also hidden from view, covered by a large block labeled "censored."

A Comedy Central spokesperson confirmed it was the network's decision to bleep the words. Source.

So the network's decision was to submit to threats and intimidation, which will have two effects. First, Muslims worldwide will once again find out that they can prevent criticism of Islam by simply threatening to slaughter people. In other words, Comedy Central is encouraging other Muslims to respond with violence. Second, Revolution Muslim, a group that recruits Jihadists in the United States, just gained a great deal of respect from young Muslims looking to join a Jihadist group. Revolution Muslim has now single-handedly stopped a campaign of criticism against Muhammad, and has caused networks to self-censor even more than they were already doing. I can guarantee that Revolution Muslim's membership will increase as a result of their success (a success granted to them by Comedy Central).

Of course, no one should be surprised that Muslims are threatening violence in response to criticism of Muhammad. Such violence goes back to the time of Muhammad. Consider the following passages:

Sunan Abu Dawud 4348—Narrated Abdullah Ibn Abbas: A blind man had a slave-mother who used to abuse the Prophet and disparage him. He forbade her but she did not stop. He rebuked her but she did not give up her habit. One night she began to slander the Prophet and abuse him. So he took a dagger, placed it on her belly, pressed it, and killed her. A child who came between her legs was smeared with the blood that was there. When the morning came, the Prophet was informed about it. He assembled the people and said: I adjure by Allah the man who has done this action and I adjure him by my right to him that he should stand up. Jumping over the necks of the people and trembling the man stood up. He sat before the Prophet and said: Apostle of Allah! I am her master; she used to abuse you and disparage you. I forbade her, but she did not stop, and I rebuked her, but she did not abandon her habit. I have two sons like pearls from her, and she was my companion. Last night she began to abuse and disparage you. So I took a dagger, put it on her belly and pressed it till I killed her. Thereupon the Prophet said: Oh be witness, no retaliation is payable for her blood.

Sunan Abu Dawud 4349—Narrated Ali ibn Abu Talib: A Jewess used to abuse the Prophet and disparage him. A man strangled her till she died. The Apostle of Allah declared that no recompense was payable for her blood.

Ibn Ishaq, p. 675—Abu Afak was one of the B. Amr b. Auf of the B. Ubayda clan. He showed his disaffection when the apostle killed al-Harith b. Suwayd b. Samit and said:

“Long have I lived but never have I seen
An assembly or collection of people
More faithful to their undertaking
And their allies when called upon
Than the sons of Qayla when they assembled,
Men who overthrew mountains and never submitted,
A rider who came to them split them in two (saying)
“Permitted”, “Forbidden”, of all sorts of things.
Had you believed in glory or kingship
You would have followed Tubba.”

The apostle said, “Who will deal with this rascal for me?” Whereupon Salim b. Umayr, brother of B. Amr b. Auf, one of the “weepers”, went forth and killed him.

Ibn Ishaq, pp. 675-676—“When Abu Afak had been killed she displayed disaffection. Abdullah b. al-Harith b. Al-Fudayl from his father said that she was married to a man of B. Khatma called Yazid b. Zayd. Blaming Islam and its followers she said:

“I despise B. Malik and al-Nabit
and Auf and B. al-Khazraj.
You obey a stranger who is none of yours,
One not of Murad or Madhhij.
Do you expect good from him after the killing of your chiefs
Like a hungry man waiting for a cook's broth?
Is there no man of pride who would attack him by surprise
And cut off the hopes of those who expect aught from him?” . . .

When the apostle heard what she had said he said, “Who will rid me of Marwan’s daughter?” Umayr b. Adiy al-Khatmi who was with him heard him, and that very night he went to her house and killed her. In the morning he came to the apostle and told him what he had done and he [Muhammad] said, “You have helped God and His apostle, O Umayr!” When he asked if he would have to bear any evil consequences the apostle said, "Two goats won't butt their heads about her”, so Umayr went back to his people.

These and other examples show that both Muhammad and other Muslims had a habit of brutally murdering people who criticized Muhammad or Islam. The violent response of groups like Revolution Muslim is therefore to be expected. Whatever else we want to say about Revolution Muslim, at least they take the Muslim sources seriously.

I ended up on Revolution Muslim's mailing list when I challenged them to defend their prophet in public debate (a challenge they backed down from immediately). So here is their story about what they really meant when they (1) said that Matt and Trey would probably end up dead for insulting Muhammad, (2) played a sermon calling for the deaths of those who insult Muhammad, and (3) gave the addresses of Trey Parker and Matt Stone.


Unfortunately, the website is down after the host refused to continue working with us. We just want to say that the media is really exaggerating and turning a statement of prediction and warning into one of threat. In order to try to clarify we issued a release that follows and will work on hosting issues. For the time being, you may find us on as we will use that for now. Expect limited coverage until we can get some rest from the large amount of publicity. We hold to our views and believe that other Muslims and conscious people everywhere should be helping to spread them. Please read the article that follows.

Clarifying the South Park Response and Calling on Others to Join in the Defense of the Prophet Muhammad –

In the name of Allah the Beneficent the Merciful, all praise is due to Allah the Lord of all that exists, and may blessings and peace be upon the Messenger of Allah Muhammad, and I bear witness that there is no deity worthy of worship except for Allah, and I bear witness that Muhammad is His slave and Messenger,

As for what follows,

In light of the volume of attention being given to our response to the recent South Park episode we feel compelled to issue a statement clarifying the issue to both Muslims and non-Muslims alike. We would like to point out that we are not against a rational dialogue with either group and would like to take this opportunity to ask all to read and respond with an objective mind. We live in an age of media concision, and a consequential reality which tends to afford very little opportunity for in depth discussion.

Our intention with this explanation is only, Allah willing, to create the possibility that a deeper and more productive dialogue may be initiated. We seek to create an opportunity for correction of wrongs and the alteration of behavior that many may suggest is insignificant, but nevertheless is a behavior which we hold to be not only sacrilegious, but which we feel typifies a cancer which bites at the root of global injustice. The cancer we are referring to is that of American imperialism and its coincident culture of pagan hedonistic barbarism, a culture which drives to dehumanize the intrinsic morality of the rest of the world. As it stands today the vast majority of the world has witnessed the cloud of American debauchery, and those whom it has not hovered over have at the very least been affected by its dust.

This past week South Park aired an episode which insulted three of our beloved prophets: Musa (Moses), 'Isa (Jesus), and Muhammad, peace be upon them all. Not only did they do this, but within the episode the makers of South Park made it very clear that they knew how the Muslims would feel and potentially respond to their show. In an effort to cover their actual intention to incite, the creators of South Park carefully contrived a plotline that they believed could only stump those Muslim extremists that may arise to defend the honor of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). They wished to degrade and mock a man who is held in highest regard by Muslims and many Non-Muslims alike, and indeed many have categorized Muhammad (peace be upon him) as the most influential human being that ever walked on Earth.

By placing the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) in a bear suit, the creators of South Park sought to insult the sacred, and show their blatant and general disregard for religion. By insulting our beloved Prophet (peace be upon him) without the outright depicting of his image, the creators of South Park thought that they had found some loophole in the Muslim faith for them to mock.

If you were to ask any American how many people had been killed in the Iraq war, then he would give you some number around 4,000. The reality is that many estimates put the complete death toll of this war at figures above 1,000,000. America is a country which murdered 500,000 Iraqi children in the decade before September 11th, 2001 under the Iraq sanctions. This is a fact which the American Secretary of State at the time Madeleine Albright admitted to. The attacks on September 11th did not even equal a week of the murder inflicted on the Muslim people by the American imperialist agenda, yet the United States unanimously viewed these attacks as a justification to kill additional hundreds of thousands of Muslims. America props up brutal dictators on our soil simply because they are friendly and they control the oil. America’s military supports the Israeli regime which stole the land it controls from Muslims. The closest thing it has done to helping the Palestinian people is to periodically give fewer munitions to Israel for them to kill Palestinians with. How can anyone possibly champion the values of such a people? In the last century only the Soviet regime and the Maoist regime murdered more innocent people than America. Not even the tyrant of the twentieth century, Adolf Hitler, beats out America on this list. However, for some reason the makers of South Park in their self-righteous obscenity feel compelled to impose upon Muslims the values of this regime. Furthermore, they felt compelled to do it through the mocking of the man whom we hold in the highest esteem, whose honor we would die for, the Messenger of Allah Muhammad bin ‘Abdullah (peace be upon him).

Furthermore this is a regime which openly says it is in a “battle of the hearts and minds” to change Islam in its policy papers, but then its leaders stand on the pulpit and deny this. For one to understand this literal war on Islam, then I refer you to the document, “Civil Democratic Islam” by the RAND Institute. There are many more documents of this nature even emanating from organizations such as the Air Force. If America was openly engaged in a campaign to change Christianity or Judaism, do you not think there would be outrage and sensitivity from these communities? It sounds like a conspiracy theory, but anyone with half an hour of free time can easily find these comments in any number of policy documents. Furthermore they can find evidence of America supporting certain scholars of Islam and hiding others with American taxpayer dollars. It is only natural for a group which is under an ideological assault from the United States to be hostile toward anything coming from an American citizen which is mocking this group.

While the makers of South Park are probably unaware of these issues, and they are merely pawns in a dangerous game, they are playing right into the hands of those who wish to change our religion. The destruction of the Islamic identity is not something which Muslims can tolerate, and this is something being directly funded by the American regime. It is no secret that America’s military uses American goods to spread its culture and propaganda in order to create docile societies. Just look at Somalia where the World Food Program refused to buy domestic food in favor of American food. How do you think Obama would feel if the flag of Al-Qa’ida was stamped on his coffee mug and there was nothing he could do about it? The issue of the honor of our Prophet (peace be upon him) is an issue of honor for this entire nation. Perhaps honor is a dead value in the West, but it will never die in the hearts of this Ummah (nation).

Free speech is a vital tool in the staving of oppression, but this function has its limits. It is hard to understand how one can feel self-righteous while defending somebody as an "equal opportunity offender." Such an illogical state of mind could only emanate from a selfish culture in which the suffering of the many is justified by the enjoyment of the few. And it may be an American "value" that all speech should be free including that which is obscene and aimed at emotionally oppressing a specific group of people, but this is not a value that the Muslims share with America as a whole. In fact, one of the major reasons there is such little opposition to American domination today is the reality that the principle of free speech, as envisioned by the founding fathers of the United States and by wise men and women throughout the ages, is a universal principle that may protect citizens from political, economic, or religious persecution. Today it is understood much differently; today “free speech” is interpreted as the right to promote pornography, homosexuality, slander, and libel against even that which is considered sacred. Indeed, it is in the shifting away from this conceptualization that America first deviated from its position as republic and assumed the role of global empire.

Is there a purpose, other than evil, in insulting something someone holds sacred? While insulting Jesus, Moses, or any other prophet would remove someone from Islam, we Muslims are also forbidden to insult the deities that other religions hold in high esteem. Allah says in the Qur'an:

وَلاَ تَسُبُّواْ الَّذِينَ يَدْعُونَ مِن دُونِ اللّهِ فَيَسُبُّواْ
اللّهَ عَدْوًا بِغَيْرِ عِلْمٍ

Revile not those unto whom they pray beside Allah lest they wrongfully revile Allah through ignorance

Therefore, as Muslims we do not define speech which has no place in a moral society as "free speech." Furthermore, we will never tolerate the mocking or insulting of any one of the prophets, peace be upon them, from any source even if it was the Caliph (leader) of the entire Muslim world. It is truly sad that we did not speak out when they first insulted 'Isa (Jesus), Musa (Moses), or even the first time they mocked the final prophet Muhammad, peace be upon them all. However, simply because they have done something in the past and there was no outcry does not justify our silence in the present.

As for the Islamic ruling on the situation, then this is clear. There is no difference of opinion from those with any degree of a reputation that the punishment is death. Ibn Taymiyyah a great scholar of Islam says, "Whoever curses the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) -a Muslim or a non Muslim- then he must be killed...and this is the opinion of the general body of Islamic scholars.”

Likewise Ibn Mundhir, another classical scholar, said, "It is the consensus (ijma’) of our scholars that the one who curses the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) should be executed!"

This is also the opinion of Imams Malik, al-Laith, Ahmed, Ishaq, Shafi'i, and Numan Abu Haneefah.

This shows that taking this stance is virtually obligatory, but it does not mean that our taking this stance is in some way an absolute call toward the requirement that the creators of South Park must be killed, nor a deliberate attempt at incitement, it is only to declare the truth regardless of consequence and to offer an awareness in the mind of Westerners when they consider doing the same thing.

Many are proclaiming that the South Park episode’s insult was minimal and some might inquire about a situation where the insult is not that great. The renowned scholar Imam Malik said, "If someone says that the button of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) is dirty, then he should be executed!"

And then Qadi I'yad says, "And we don't know any different opinion, this is a consensus and we don't know any different opinion!"

Before continuing it must be made clear that anyone who knows anything about Usool ul-Fiqh (the fundamentals of jurisprudence) knows that ijma' (consensus) is a hujjah (proof) as the Prophet, salaa Allahu 'alayhi wa salam, said, "My Ummah cannot have consensus on something that is wrong." This means that the above opinions are the accepted opinions and these statements are proof that this is the case. While the details of this conversation may have lost our non-Muslim audience in evidences from the religion we implore you to read on and advise you that the system of law in Islam, known as shariah, is the most amazing thing the mind could ever encounter.

In the lifetime of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) two key events stand out that provide evidence for the permissibility and indeed preference for retaliation against those that insult him. In the first, a blind Muslim man who had a Jewish wife (and some say servant) assassinated his wife when she continuously cursed and mocked Muhammad (peace be upon him). In the other, a Jewish poet by the name of Ka’b bin al-Ashraf was killed for his poetry insulting the Prophet
even though he was living under peaceful covenant with the Muslims and was within his own territory. If anyone is in need of details and sources for these occurrences feel free to contact us and we will forward them to serious inquirers. At this point, it must be known that this is the position in Islam, that there is consensus in it and that for those that argue the harm coming as a consequence exceeds thebenefit, then they should know that this is at best an argument that entails a difference of opinion although the evidence suggests that adopting the platform that we ourselves have taken is best.

The law, known as shariah, in Islam is sacred and it is for no man to change, alter, or disregard when reacting to events like the recent degrading of the Prophet Muhammad (saws) on South Park. Indeed there is an Islamic ruling on nearly every affair and Muslims must seek their response in the religion and not in the personal desire and false manipulation of subjective introspection via philosophy or, as in most cases, emotional attachment to socialized norms.

Allah says in the Quran, “And do not clothe the truth with the falsehood, nor hide the truth while you know (2:42).”

It is not for us to convey what we desire but to convey the religion in its entirety no matter the consequence.

Allah also says in the Quran, “Surely you can have no true faith until you refer to the Prophet Muhammad in all your affairs. (4:65).”

Thus the postings that have caused so much controversy on with regard to this matter were actually not the publication of the opinion of some Muslims but a referral and deferment to Islamic Law, thus fulfilling our divine obligation to command the good and forbid the evil by teaching and preaching the religion of Islam no matter how strange that way of life may seem to some. This is a divine order, obligatory for at least some Muslims in any community to fulfill. Allah says,

وَلْتَكُن مِّنكُمْ أُمَّةٌ يَدْعُونَ إِلَى الْخَيْرِ وَيَأْمُرُونَ
بِالْمَعْرُوفِ وَيَنْهَوْنَ عَنِ الْمُنكَرِ وَأُوْلَـئِكَ هُمُ

Let there arise out of you a band of people inviting to all that is good, enjoining what is right, and forbidding what is wrong: They are the ones to attain felicity. (3:104)

Ibn Kathir, in his renown exogenesis of the Holy Quran says that this is not restricted to people with official authority, or in this case is not restricted to those that are seeking appeasements with the American Empire who are in actuality from amongst its staunchest allies, those who despite this claim to be Muslim and have been granted positions of leadership here in this country. Ibn Kathir states, “The objective of this Ayah is that there should be a segment of this Muslim Ummah fulfilling this task, even though it is also an obligation on every member of this Ummah, each according to his ability. Muslim recorded that Abu Hurayrah said that the Messenger of Allah said,

مَنْ رَأَى مِنْكُمْ مُنْكَرًا فَلْيُغَيِّرْهُ بِيَدِهِ، فَإِنْ لَمْ
يَسْتَطِعْ فَبِلِسَانِهِ، فَإِنْ لَمْ يَسْتَطِع فَبِقَلْبِهِ، وَذلِكَ
أَضْعَفُ الْإِيمَان

“Whoever among you witnesses an evil, let him change it with his hand. If he is unable, then let him change it with his tongue. If he is unable, then let him change it with his heart, and this is the weakest faith.”

Speaking out against ending this kind of insult toward the Prophet Muhammad is completely in line with the tenets of the religion. Indeed we find it to be a tragedy that there has been virtually no reaction from the so-called leaders of the Muslim community whom CNN and other organizations tout as representing “mainstream Islam.” We are saddened by the fact that this story is about what we have said rather than the impact it has on the Muslims as a whole.

Thus our position remains that it is likely the creators of South Park will indeed end up like Theo Van Gogh. This is a reality. The story is already getting international attention and the journalism oversees is not as objective as it is here. In fact, we can tell you with certainty that at least one Dutch newspaper has completely made up quotations to make their story more sensational. We are not trying to directly incite violence, but we are trying to explain the gravity of the situation and prevent this from occurring ever again. As stated in the words of the Prophet (peace be upon him) above, if one cannot alter the situation with their hand then they must speak out against it and try to change it that way.

We would also like Mr. Parker and Mr. Stone to understand the tastelessness of their portrayal, apologize and reflect on the words that follow. An apology or at least recognition of bad taste might not remedy the situation, but it would go a long way toward turning this situation from a gaping wound into an ugly scar. Any Muslim that condones this type of behavior or minimizes it does not fulfill the obligation of hating it with his or her heart and thus, as is stated emphatically in the hadith, may fall outside the necessary status of holding onto even the weakest of faith. Many conquered peopled become completely oblivious to the function of their oppressor in enslaving their minds so we seek no harm against them, but do hope that they may be inspired to adopt a proactive stance and work alongside us in the struggle to liberate Islam and Muslims from foreign control.

Individual Muslims may react in quite the same manner as those non-Muslims, claiming that we are making Islam look backwards and ancient, overreacting and bringing about more harm than good. These same individuals decry every act of so-called terrorism while remaining completely silent in the face of U.S. terror; every time a leader of those courageously defending occupied Muslim lands from occupation is killed or captured they applaud. They constantly sit silent as tanks and troopers are deployed and have little to say as the empire expands. In fact, they hurry to the American Empire to let them know they are with them, at least in some of the matter. Today, as Obama perpetuates a War on Islam, they perpetuate the tale that the United States is at war with a fringe group of extremists. Allah explains this phenomenon in the Quran by saying,

فَتَرَى الَّذِينَ فِي قُلُوبِهِم مَّرَضٌ يُسَارِعُونَ فِيهِمْ
يَقُولُونَ نَخْشَى أَن تُصِيبَنَا دَآئِرَةٌ فَعَسَى اللّهُ أَن

بِالْفَتْحِ أَوْ أَمْرٍ مِّنْ عِندِهِ فَيُصْبِحُواْ عَلَى مَا
أَسَرُّواْ فِي أَنْفُسِهِمْ نَادِمِينَ

Those in whose hearts is a disease - you see how eagerly they run about amongst them, saying: "We do fear that a change of fortune may bring us disaster." Ah! perhaps Allah will give you victory, or a decision according to His will. Then will they repent of the thoughts which they secretly harbored in their hearts

Today Muslims the world over run and say that Muslims like us do not represent Islam, as if in some way speaking out against imperialism is in fact causing it. In order to survive, empires must conscript support, and they usually impose loyal indigenous elite over the lands they conquer. Oftentimes these loyal elite find ways of influencing the home front as well. Empire is primarily concerned with preserving political, economic, and military dominance and therefore tends to portray itself as tolerant and pluralistic of the cultures and customs of they come to conquer. However, a closer objective analysis always reveals that this tolerance is a guise of strategy and is only apparent where the conquered are willing to retain personal customs and control in exchange for the sacrifice of indigenous sovereignty over wealth, natural resource, and political decision. Thus while empires rape and extract the material wealth of the people they dominate, they grant the seeming retention of indigenous language, custom, religion and the like.

In reality, this focus on power and control leads to the actual loss of spiritual, psychological, and emotional health and, as an oligarchy is imposed, the educated class is granted modest concessions and then political and economic rights of the general people are violated for the long term. This requires that what a conquered people consider sacred must be portrayed as backwards. While this process tends to occur subconsciously it leads to a sense of power and privilege on the home shores of the imperialist, and that serves as a justification for the atrocities committed and thereby minimized on the frontier. The term “sand-nigger” or “camel jockey” did not start with American soldiers on the ground in Iraq, but was a phrase coined during Britain’s imperialist adventure in the Middle East. The ‘other’s’ culture and custom must always be degraded in order to retain a justification for physical domination. Media always plays a role in perpetuating these ideas.

The process of imperialism thereafter splits a conquered people up into two camps: the good and the bad. The good are those who accept domination and vie for safety by adopting the position that the Empire is not an imperialist entity at all, but rather a liberator – the bad are those that refuse to sacrifice autonomy and continue to fight on…Americans should be all too familiar with the process; the very foundation of their nation is built upon the genocide of the indigenous Native Americans. So too then in its occurrence, ‘good’ Indians collaborated with American settlers against the ‘bad’ Indians; they demonized them for fighting and not accepting defeat and were subsequently displayed by the imperialist power as proof for the benign nature of America’s early expansion. The genocide of Indians would have been impossible without their collaboration. We face similar situations as Muslims today.

This phenomenon is true of Babylonian, Greek, Roman, Persian, Dutch, and British empires as well. Indeed all imperialist powers employ the same means of control. The creators of South Park so too emulate this process in their work and in their own right contribute greatly to the passive acceptance of a sick status quo. The contemporary American Empire is dependent on a hedonistic, consumerist mindset that effectively numbs the general world populace and keeps them ignorant and oblivious to the imperialist reality.

We saw this clearly when the attacks on September 11th, 2001 occurred. Americans were told that this was due to Muslims hating their freedom and democracy, and they were never told that the perpetrators of the attack cited the death of millions of Muslims at the hands of U.S. foreign policy. With the help of media, Americans are kept oblivious to the heinous crimes of the empire overseas and especially in Afghanistan and Iraq over the past eight years by a complacent news media and garbage consumerist television shows like South Park which serve as the new opiate of the masses. All one has to do to see the impact Matt Stone and Trey Parker have had in spreading Islamophobia already is to go on any rightwing extremist website like the Jawa Report and count the number of times the words “Derka Derka Muhammad Jihad” are written. Furthermore, when one logs on to these sites they will see the inconceivable volume of people who call for the eradication of all Muslims around the world.

While we are often labeled a hate site, we do not call people to this type of filth. In the past some members did do that and we wish to distance ourselves from that at this point. The genocide of the Jews was a terrible event that should never be allowed to repeat itself. However, their genocide is not a justification to replicate the Warsaw Ghetto in the city of Gaza. Similarly it is a justification for neither imposing an apartheid rule on a people nor even forcing them to change their preferred system of government.

One of the only ways we could ever end American Imperialism would be to take away the ideological justification it finds through its mainstream media outlets. It should be apparent that we perceive this incident not in isolation, but as part of a broader narrative that is part and parcel of a much more complex and deeply seeded crisis.

Thomas Friedman, a proponent of this empire, explains the contemporary order is sustained by, “the presence of American power and America’s willingness to use that power against those who would threaten the system of globalization… The hidden hand of the market will never work without the fist,” but it is also true that the hidden hand of the market would never work without a mind-numbing American media that can help to pacify those that would otherwise stand opposed to the economic domination and the military domination it is dependent upon. The stance that we have taken is a derivative of this much deeper war, and our intention is not only to fulfill the command of forbidding evil in Islam but to engage both Muslims and non-Muslims alike in a much deeper discussion. Certainly, the mainstream media will never allow that to happen, but there are massive alternative opportunities in this era known as the Age of Information. It should be understood that we will not lie down and accept America’s imperialist conquest of Muslim lands. We will speak against any and all activities that lead to the perpetuation of this empire. The South Park episode does that by portraying the most important individual for Muslims, presently the predominant one’s being conquered, as backwards and irrational. This gives cause and justification to the narrative the empire is not conquering at all and instead is attempting to liberate and this reality must be addressed and confronted head on. Finally, Allah says in the Quran,

انْفِرُواْ خِفَافًا وَثِقَالاً وَجَاهِدُواْ بِأَمْوَالِكُمْ
وَأَنفُسِكُمْ فِي سَبِيلِ اللّهِ ذَلِكُمْ خَيْرٌ لَّكُمْ إِن كُنتُمْ

Go forth, whether light or heavy, and strive with your wealth and your lives in the way of Allah! That is best for you if you but knew.

In the end, we seek justice and preservation of Islamic religious beliefs and culture. We will not stand passive and silent in these tumultuous times. We implore conscious people everywhere to do the same and we are open to the advice, suggestions, and general conversation with all those that would like to engage in detailed discussion, we plan on hosting some open dialogue opportunities as soon as our website is back up and running. We call humanity to the solution that is the religion of Islam and to recognize the beauty of this fabulous religion given by the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) to the entire world.

We hope that the creators of South Park may read this and respond, that before sending hate mail and condemning us that we may partake in dialogue, and that the Western media’s degradation of the most blessed of men ceases. Otherwise we warn all that many reactions will not involve speech, and that defending those that insult, belittle, or degrade the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is a requirement of the religion. As Osama bin Laden said with regard to the cartoons of Denmark, “If there is no check in the freedom of your words, then let your hearts be open to the freedom of our actions.”

Revolution Muslim


We hereby declare and make absolute public declaration that operates under the first amendment right to freedom of religion and expression and that in no, way, shape or form do we call for war against the U.S. government or adhere to the enemies of the United States elsewhere. We do however hold the belief, as stated honestly and openly in our mission statement, that the Muslim world should be permitted to unite under the banner of Islam. To suggest that this in some way implies that the reestablishment of the caliphate would require the dismantlement of the United States government is fallacy. We seek, rather, to witness the imperialist ambitions of the United States government and especially the private tyrannies (corporations, financial institutions, military-industrial complex) that control it subside in their quest for empire and "full spectrum dominance" and we call for the relinquishment of autonomy and respect for sovereignty across the Muslim world to the people and not in the hands of the dictators, and authoritarian regimes this structure keeps in power by continuing to engage in foreign policy we feel is the root cause of all the terrorism in the world. This statement is a disclaimer and any and all information published on this website is in accordance with all local, state, and federal law and all donations and funds distributed both domestically and to the island of Jamaica go solely to further the objectives of the organization and are operated in accordance with laws for nonprofit religious, educational and charitable organizations in the United States.

So observe the results. (A) People draw picture of Muhammad in a bear costume. (B) Muslims issue a veiled threat of violence. (C) American networks back down immediately and agree never to criticize Muhammad again. (D) Muslims hide behind the first amendment and face no repercussions for their threat.

Who won this battle over free speech? Revolution Muslim did. Who made it possible? Comedy Central.

Wednesday, April 21, 2010

Pakistani Christians Sentenced to Life Imprisonment for Defiling Qur'ans

Can any Muslim point out a pure Christian government that imprisons Muslims for handling the Bible incorrectly.

In Islamic countries (such as Pakistan) Muslims imply such harshness toward Christians:

Munir Masih and Ruqqiya Bibi are convicted on the basis of the blasphemy law. In January, they were released on bail; now they are in two separate prison facilities. Extremist fringe put pressure, and perhaps corrupted police to find the right evidence to justify the conviction.

Islamabad (AsiaNews) – A court in Kasur district, Punjab, convicted a Christian couple, Munir Masih and Ruqqiya Bibi, to 25 years in prison. According to the Centre for Legal Aid Assistance and Settlement (CLAAS), judge Ajmal Hussein convicted the couple for touching the Qur‘an without washing their hands.

Munir Masih and Ruqqiya Bibi were released on bail last January, but were re-arrested after the judge ruled against them. The husband was locked up in Kasur’s district prison; the wife was sent to the women’s prison in Multan. Both have started serving 25 years behind bars.

CLAAS, an association that fights for the rights of the poor and marginalised, said that the couple was accused of “contaminating” the Qur‘an when they touched it “without washing their hands”.

The incident, which dates back to December 2008, unleashed the fury of Muslim extremists who put pressure on police. Unconfirmed reports suggest that extremists paid off police agents to discover “new evidence” to justify the sentence.

At the end of the police investigation, husband and wife were charged with blasphemy.

The blasphemy law is the harshest tool for religious repression available in Pakistan. It was adopted in 1986 by then dictator Zia ul-Haq to protect Islam and its prophet, Muhammad, from attacks and insults.

In fact, it is actually comprised of sections 295-B and 295-C of the Pakistan Penal Code, which respectively punish with life in prison anyone who defiles, damages or desecrates a copy of the Holy Qur‘an, and imposes the death penalty on anyone who defiles the name of the Prophet Muhammad.

In the last two months, there were two more convictions against Christians in Pakistan.

On 11 January, a court in Faisalabad sentenced Imran Masih, a 26-year-old Christian man, to life imprisonment for insulting and desecrating the Koran. He was accused of deliberately burning Qur‘anic verses and an Arabic book in order “foment interfaith hatred and hurt the feelings of Muslims.”

On 25 February, a court in Karachi sentenced Qamar David, also a Christian, to life imprisonment for hurting the religious feelings of Muslims when he sent blasphemous SMS.

CLAAS announced that it was filing an appeal with the High Court in Lahore to have the 25-year sentence against Munir Masih and Ruqqiya Bibi overturned.,-gets-25-years-in-prison-17778.html

Does anyone have a clue to the extent of torture and pain these two will have to undergo at the moment and will suffer for the next 25 years? One of my Pakistani friends who sat in a Pakistani jail for a few months due to his faith and being accused of uttering his opinion was beaten continually, burned with hot iron, held in ice cold water for hours, finally the maulvies opened this belly.

If a Muslim was held in jail by a Western goverment for defiling the Bible try to imagine the media reaction and the all the Muslims rioting against Western suppression and islamophobia.

Saturday, April 17, 2010

Yemeni Child Brides, Aisha, and Qur'an 65:4

I'd like to welcome our friend Yahya Snow to the "Answering Muslims School of Qur'anic Instruction."

Western Muslims are typically quite embarrassed by the fact that Muhammad had sex with a nine-year-old girl, and Muslim apologists are doing everything in their power to rewrite history in order to rescue their prophet from criticism. But are they willing to rewrite the Qur'an as well?

According to Surah 2:228, if a Muslim man wants to divorce his wife, he should wait until she has gone through three monthly cycles (i.e. three periods). But the question later arose: What are men who want a divorce supposed to do when their wives, for whatever reason, do not have monthly cycles? The Qur'an answers this question in Surah 65:4, where it gives divorce rules for (1) women who do not have monthly cycles because they are too old, (2) girls who do not have monthly cycles because they are too young, and (3) women and girls who do not have monthly cycles because they are pregnant. The verse declares that, if Muslim men want to divorce girls who haven't yet reached puberty, they must wait three months (after having sex with them).

Here are some translations of Surah 65:4.

Qur'an 65:4 (Shakir)--And (as for) those of your women who have despaired of menstruation, if you have a doubt, their prescribed time shall be three months, and of those too who have not had their courses; and (as for) the pregnant women, their prescribed time is that they lay down their burden; and whoever is careful of (his duty to) Allah He will make easy for him his affair.

Qur'an 65:4 (Arberry)--As for your women who have despaired of further menstruating, if you are in doubt, their period shall be three months; and those who have not menstruated as yet. And those who are with child, their term is when they bring forth their burden. Whoso fears God, God will appoint for him, of His command, easiness.

Qur'an 65:4 (Yusuf Ali)--Such of your women as have passed the age of monthly courses, for them the prescribed period, if ye have any doubts, is three months, and for those who have no courses (it is the same): for those who carry (life within their wombs), their period is until they deliver their burdens: and for those who fear Allah, He will make their path easy.

Qur'an 65:4 (Hilali-Khan)--And those of your women as have passed the age of monthly courses, for them the 'Iddah (prescribed period), if you have doubts (about their periods), is three months, and for those who have no courses [(i.e. they are still immature) their 'Iddah (prescribed period) is three months likewise, except in case of death] . And for those who are pregnant (whether they are divorced or their husbands are dead), their 'Iddah (prescribed period) is until they deliver (their burdens), and whosoever fears Allah and keeps his duty to Him, He will make his matter easy for him.

Qur'an 65:4 (Sher Ali)--And if you are in doubt as to the prescribed period for such of your women as have despaired of monthly courses, then know that the prescribed period for them is three months, and also for such as do not have their monthly courses yet. And as for those who are with child, their period shall be until they are delivered of their burden. And whoso fears ALLAH, HE will provide facilities for him in his affair.

Qur'an 65:4 (Rodwell)--As to such of your wives as have no hope of the recurrence of their times, if ye have doubts in regard to them, then reckon three months, and let the same be the term of those who have not yet had them. And as to those who are with child, their period shall be until they are delivered of their burden. God will make His command easy to him who feareth Him.

Here are three classic Muslim commentaries on 65:4.

Tafsir Ibn Kathir (on Qur’an 65:4)—Allah the Exalted clarifies the waiting period of the woman in menopause. And that is the one whose menstruation has stopped due to her older age. Her `Iddah is three months instead of the three monthly cycles for those who menstruate, which is based upon the Ayah in (Surat) Al-Baqarah. [see 2:228] The same for the young, who have not reached the years of menstruation. Their `Iddah is three months like those in menopause.

Tafsir al-Jalalayn (on Qur’an 65:4)—And [as for] those of your women who (read allà'ï or allà'i in both instances) no longer expect to menstruate, if you have any doubts, about their waiting period, their prescribed [waiting] period shall be three months, and [also for] those who have not yet menstruated, because of their young age, their period shall [also] be three months.

Tafsir Ibn Abbas (on Qur’an 65:4)—(And for such of your women as despair of menstruation) because of old age, (if ye doubt) about their waiting period, (their period (of waiting) shall be three months) upon which another man asked: "O Messenger of Allah! What about the waiting period of those who do not have menstruation because they are too young?" (along with those who have it not) because of young age, their waiting period is three months.

For Muslims who want to say that this verse could refer to divorcing prepubescent girls whose husbands haven't had sex with them, the Qur'an refutes this claim. Surah 33:49 says that there is no waiting period if a man has not had sex with his bride.

Qur'an 33:49--O ye who believe! When ye marry believing women, and then divorce them before ye have touched them, no period of 'Iddat have ye to count in respect of them: so give them a present. And set them free in a handsome manner.

Hence, the Qur'an says that there is no waiting period if a man hasn't had sex with his bride, and the Qur'an prescribes a waiting period for men who want to divorce their prepubescent child-brides. This presupposes that the men have had sex with them, which means that the Qur'an allows sex with prepubescent girls. This shouldn't be surprising, since Muhammad himself had sex with a girl who hadn't reached puberty.

Friday, April 16, 2010

Jesus or Muhammad This Friday, Saturday, and Sunday

It's that time again. We'll be doing five episodes of "Jesus or Muhammad" this weekend (with special guest Walid Shoebat on Saturday and Sunday!). If you don't get ABN via satellite, you can watch online at ABN's website. Here's the schedule.

10:45 P.M. (Eastern Standard Time)

2:30 P.M.
9:45 P.M.

2:30 P.M.
9:45 P.M.

Wednesday, April 14, 2010

Another Yemeni Child-Bride Hospitalized with Sex-Related Injuries

Apparently, the Muslims in Yemen trust the Qur'an and Hadith more than they trust Yahya Snow and other Westernized reinterpreters of Islam. (Note that, according to religious authorities in Yemen, people like Yahya are apostates.)

An 11-year-old Yemeni girl who was was married to a man in country's Hajja province was hospitalized today with genital injuries, said a human rights group in Sanaa.

It was the second incident involving a child bride in the last week. A 13-year-old girl died after being sexually assaulted by her adult husband. Both girls were married in the country's rural Hajja province.

The 11-year-old girl was married last year only under the condition that the adult husband would wait until she reached puberty to consummate the marriage. He did not wait, nor do many of the men who marry young brides, says Amal Basha, director of the Arabic Sisters Forum.

An estimated 50 percent of women in Yemen are married before age 18, some as young as 8. Less than a week ago the Sana'a-based human rights group reported the death of a 13-year-old bride in the same rural area. The Associated Press reported the girl was allegedly raped, and that her 23-year-old husband is now in police custody.

"She looked like she was butchered," said the girl's mother, Nijma Ahmed. The AP also cited police a report saying the husband forced himself on his young bride, feeling under pressure to prove his manhood.

An average of eight women die each day in Yemen due to child marriage, many of them in childbirth, according to the Arabic Sisters Forum. The group runs a hotline for victims of domestic violence and has been lobbying in support of a minimum marriage age now under consideration by the Yemeni parliament.

Pushing against the proposed law is the strong hand of Islamic conservatives in Yemen. Clerics have declared women like Amal Basha apostates from Islam for opposing child marriage, which they see as divinely ordained. The government, she says, is intimidated by the religious and tribal customs.

"They say this is Islamic…and they declared jihad against... the UN treaty on women's rights," she said.

"They say my campaign is a Western agenda, that it will lead to sex out of wedlock and prostitution," Basha said.

International groups like UNICEF and Oxfam have also lobbied for the rights of child brides, but tread carefully around what has become a explosive political issue.

"It's a deeply embedded social habit," said Naseem Rehman, a UNICEF spokesman told ABC News last year from in Sana'a. "For every one child marriage we can stop there are five more." Source.

There's no way around it. We're doing another show on child-brides this weekend. (The sad part is that Muslims like Yahya will be more upset with us doing a show on child-brides than they are when little girls are hospitalized or killed.)

The Angel of the LORD vs. Yahya Snow - Part Four

“We must realise Shamoun’s views on the angel of the Lord would have been deemed heretical during the time of Jesus and indeed before the time of Jesus.” – Rabbi Yahya Snow
Given his trenchant ignorance regarding the Old Testament, I am sure others who are familiar with Yahya were just as surprised as I was to find out that he styles himself something of an authority on what Jewish people believed before and during the time of Christ. In this post I would like to return the favor and surprise Yahya by letting him know he is nothing of the sort. Since few people are likely to be taken in by Yahya’s rabbinic pretensions, I will be brief and will simply provide some relevant quotes from Jewish sources on Genesis 16, a passage I commented on in the first post.

The Septuagint (a Jewish translation of the Hebrew Old Testament into Greek before the coming of Jesus): “And the angel of the Lord said to her, Agar, Sara’s maid, whence comest thou, and wither goest thou? and she said, I am fleeing from the face of my mistress Sara. And the angel of the Lord said to her, Return to thy mistress, and submit thyself under her hands. And the angel of the Lord said to her, I will surely multiply thy seed, and it shall not be numbered for multitude. 11 And the angel of the Lord said to her, Behold thou art with child, and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ismael, for the Lord hath hearkened to thy humiliation. He shall be a wild man, his hands against all, and the hands of all against him, and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren. And she called the name of the Lord God who spoke to her, Thou art God who seest me; for she said, For I have openly seen him that appeared to me. Therefore she called the well, The well of him whom I have openly seen; behold it is between Cades and Barad. And Agar bore a son to Abram; and Abram called the name of his son which Agar bore to him, Ismael. And Abram was eighty-six years old, when Agar bore Ismael to Abram.”

[n.b. How could the Jewish translators of the LXX produce such a translation when it clearly communicates an idea that is supposed to be the heretical innovation of a 21st Century Christian named Sam Shamoun?]

Targum of Onkelos: "And the Angel of the Lord found her at the fountain of water in the wilderness, at the fountain in the way of Hagra. And he said, Hagar handmaid of Sara, whence comest thou, and whither art thou going? And she said, From before Sara my mistress do I escape. And the Angel of the Lord said to her, Return to thy mistress and be subject under her hand. And the Angel of the Lord said to her: Multiplying I will multiply thy sons, and they shall not be numbered for multitude. And the Angel of the Lord said to her, Behold, thou hast conceived, and shalt give birth to a son, and thou shalt call his name Yishmael, because the Lord hath heard thy prayer. And he will be untameable by man, and he will be needy to every one, and also all men will be needy to him, and before the face of all his brethren will he dwell. And she prayed in the Name of the Lord who had spoken with her; and she said: Thou art Eloha, seeing all: for she said, I also have begun to see after that He hath been revealed to me. Therefore she called the name of the well, The well at which appeared the Angel of the Covenant: behold, it is between Rekam and Hagra. And Hagar bare to Abram a son, and Abram called the name of his son whom Hagar bare Yishmael. And Abram was son of eighty and six years when Hagar bare Yishmael unto Abram."

Targum Pseudo-Johnathan: "And Abram said to Sara, Behold, thy handmaid is under thy authority: do to her what is right in thine eyes. And Sara afflicted her, and she escaped from before her. And the Angel of the Lord found her at the fountain of waters in the desert; at the fountain of waters which is in the way to Chagra. And He said, Hagar, handmaid of Sara, whence comest thou, and whither does thou go? And she said, From before Sara my mistress I have escaped. And the Angel of the Lord said to her, Return to thy mistress, and be subject under her hand. And the Angel of the Lord said to her, Multiplying I will multiply thy sons, and they shall not be numbered for multitude. And the Angel of the Lord said to her, Behold, thou art with child, and thou wilt bear a son, and thou shalt call his name Ishmael, because thy affliction is revealed before the Lord. And he shall be like the wild ass among men: his hands shall take vengeance of his adversaries, and the hands of his adversaries be put forth to do him evil; and in the presence of all his brethren shall he be commingled, and shall dwell. And she gave thanks before the Lord whose Word spake to her, and thus said, Thou art He who livest and art eternal; who seest, but art not seen! · for she said, For, behold, here is revealed the glory of the Shekina of the Lord after a vision. Wherefore she called the well, The Well at which the Living and Eternal One was revealed; and, behold, it is situate between Rekam and Chalutsa. And Hagar bare Abram a son, and Abram called the name of his son whom Hagar bare, Ishmael. And Abram was the son of eighty-six years when Hagar bare Ishmael to Abram."

Jerusalem Targum: "And Hagar gave thanks, and prayed in the Name of the Word of the Lord, who had been manifested to her, saying, Blessed be Thou, Eloha, the Living One of all Ages, who hast looked upon my affliction. For she said, Behold, Thou art manifested also unto me, even as Thou wast manifested to Sara my mistress."

[n.b. According to the above Targums, the Angel of the Lord is called “Lord”, “God”, “the Word of the Lord”, “the Shekinah of the Lord”, and “the Angel of the Covenant”; and the Angel is also distinguished from another person called God, for it is said that He “revealed” and “manifested” the Living and Eternal one, and also that Hagar prayed to God in “the name of the Lord who spoke to her” and in “the Name of the Word of the Lord”.]

In light of this, I think Yahya should stick to making pronouncements about Islam and stop pontificating on matters that are clearly beyond his competence.