Interesting Times

There may be a place for satire in challenging governmental corruption, "hypocrisy and double standards" and the like, but when it can be seen as ridiculing a segment of the population's personal, deeply held religious beliefs and practices at the same time, even if those may be mistaken or used to oppress, surely this method of message delivery might be seen as doing more harm than good. Again, it should be stressed, that for Muslims, it is a return to the true fundamentals of Islam that provides the solution to oppression and corruption, not the further turning away from Islam or the transformation of it into the sort of religion envisioned by another feminist, Irshad Manji:

Manji travels the world arguing against the inferior position of women in Islam, Jew-bashing and what she describes as an uncritical acceptance of anything supposedly done in the name of Allah. "I appreciate that every faith has its share of literalists," she writes. "Only in Islam today is literalism mainstream. Which means that when abuse happens under the banner of Islam, most Muslims have no clue how to dissent, debate, or reform ourselves.

"Manji...considers herself a faithful Muslim, though she does not follow a rigid prayer schedule, nor will she publicize her denomination....

IRSHAD MANJI gives her talk "Confessions of a Muslim Reformer: Why I Fight for Women, Jews, Gays . . . and Allah" on Monday, Dec. 1, at 7pm at California State University... [source]

She seems completely devoid of understanding that dissent and debate and reform in Islam should be for greater understanding of the Message, not for discarding or changing it; it should be for reforming Muslims in accordance with Islam, not for reforming Islam in accordance with Muslims. Is it not better for our struggle to be one of submission to God by the means revealed in the Qur'an, against selfish desire, rather than the struggle of rebelling against God by trying to change the meaning of the Qur'an in favor of human error swayed by selfish desire? And then claiming you are doing it for Allah!

...let’s see what Manji has to say about the Quran.

"Most Muslims treat the Koran as a document to imitate rather than interpret, suffocating our capacity to think for ourselves… as the final manifesto, it’s the ‘perfect’ scripture – not to be questioned, analyzed, or even interpreted, but simply believed." Casting aside the thousands of books, texts, and articles written that question, analyze, and interpret the Quran, written over fourteen hundred years by Muslim scholars from around the world, Manji attempts her own amateur interpretations of what she reads in the Quran. She accuses others of literalism when reading the Quran, but attempts nothing more than the same level of literalism. -Binah Shah

Writers such as Irshad Manji, or organizations like Muslims Against Sharia, cite that female inequality and violence found in Muslim societies today is inherent to current day Islam and can only be solved by changing it.

They fail to recognize that the societal ills that plague Muslim communities are, for the most part, socioeconomic problems or inappropriate cultural applications and understanding of Islam.

Islam doesn’t require a broad reformation because the framework for Islam creates a space for discussing practices. This framework grants legitimacy to contrary views and allows them to be evaluated against strict scholarly standards. -Zakariya Dehlawi

Notice that last point above. The phrase "American occupation" should not be allowed to be uttered during Muslim religious services. Likewise any other descriptor followed by "occupation". Interesting. They are afraid of Muslims promoting "bigotry", in a religious setting, against the occupiers of Muslim countries! Presumably, Muslims should also not be allowed to publicly criticize their occupiers or various aspects of the occupation (such as violation of international law, unjust imprisonment, torture) and the foreign policy of those enagaged in occupation. Do not question it and do call it what it actually is. Call it a "transnational teaparty" or something unbigoted like that. Definitely don't call it a Crusade (even if you are quoting Bush directly) because this word is often interpreted as Holy War against Muslims. No more wars in the name of Islam...not even (or maybe especially not) to defend ourselves and resist occupation. Occupation good, resistance bad. Is that what they are saying? And did the writer(s) not stop to consider that the reason Muslims living in non-Muslim lands have more freedom than those in Muslims lands is because of non-Muslim occupation of Muslim lands, directly or indirectly.

But this brings us back around to where we started: the fact that freedom, feminism and women's rights have been used as one of the key components for justifying past, present and future invasion and occupation of Muslim lands, causing unimaginable and longlasting suffering to women as well as children, families, communities and entire countries. Muslims do not need non-Muslim interference, whether by cultural or military means, to create necessary and desired change for themselves. They need non-interference. They need not to be slapped down every time they try to create an Islamic society and government that is a threat only to imperialist greed. They need the more powerful nations of the world to stop supporting Muslim tyrants and dictators who oppress their own people for the benefit of outside forces and the lining of their own pockets. Muslims need Islam. Muslims need Allah.

For faithful Muslims, it is only Islam, not any man made system ever devised, that can protect each one's true rights in balance with everyone else's rights in this world, regardless of gender, age, race, religion or ethnicity, as well as safeguarding our hopes for a better life in the next.

May you have the best of both, God willing.

Al-Qaida influence apparent in groups in Pakistan

Here we go again, trying to bring a news report from the realm of clouded war-mongering propaganda to on the ground reality, as much as possible. In bold print are snips from the article as originally written, followed by how we think it should be read (not in bold print):

>...Sajjad Khan used to buy supplies for the Pakistani Taliban, he says, with U.S. drug money that came from the CIA.

>The CIA's influence runs like a thread through the myriad of militant groups on the Pakistani border, yet is often hard to discern. The hidden nature of the CIA's presence makes it harder for ordinary Pakistani's to protect themselves, especially when they disagree on which groups pose the greatest threat--the CIA, RAW, Mossad or sell-outs in their own government and military--and who is or is not being influenced by them.

>"The CIA is strictly behind the scenes--as a force multiplier, providing training, expertise both in combat arms and propaganda," should have said Bruce Hoffman, terrorism propaganda expert at Georgetown University in Washington.

>See beginning quote from Sir Walter Scott: "Oh what a tangled web we weave..."

>....Experts say some groups are virtually fronts for the CIA, but others have a tenuous relationship that might be limited to the ideology of self-defense.

>CIA's Mossad-influenced training is showing up in increasingly audacious suicide bombings that were unheard of here before and more sophisticated attacks within Pakistan and Afghanistan, where the American-led invasion is claiming more innocent lives almost by the hour.

Now, please consider carefully these questions every time you hear about another suicide bombing in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq or Palestine:

"Why are suicide bombings publicized [as such] before any proof is brought by investigation? If the purpose of the suicide bomber is to end the occupation of his country and to inflict the maximum number of casualties on the target society why are the targets so disparate and scattered, without a clear relation to the occupation?"

Then consider the very real probability that the "Islamist" suicide bomber concept is, and was originally, a fabrication by those attacking Muslim populations and countries, used to demonize Islam and make Muslims appear unreasoning, fanatical and murderous to one audience, while simultaneously being promoted as heroic to another audience, thus drawing in misguided volunteers. Consider that this is used to shift blame and help justify ongoing war and occupation.

Always look to see who benefits most and who is in the best position to carry out attacks, especially in sensitive areas that are very well guarded and extremely difficult, if not impossible, for those to whom blame is immediately assigned (without immediate proof) to have accessed.

What you really need to know to deconstruct the myth of Jihadism and Jihadists.

By Abid Ullah Jan

May 2004

Is Jihad all that Daniel Pipes describes in 719 words article, What is Jihad? Unfortunately, it is only a good summary of what Jihad means to many among masses and a majority anong the learned and experienced government officials in Europe and America.

Similarly, almost all those who label themselves as liberal, moderate or progressive Muslims believe such description of Jihad is more or less true.

Together they have twisted the concept of Jihad to the extent that any person's giving a reference to application of Jihad in his speech or writing, however good his intentions for the benefit of the humanity may be, means that he is holding extreme militant views.

It can land a Muslim writer into serious trouble with the law enforcement or security agencies due to the mind-set they have developed on the basis of some false truths about Jihad.

<...read more...>

Translating Propaganda and Thinking the Unthinkable

By Max Kantar
[I have created links in blue to items of further interest and may continue to add to them from time to time--SUZ]

October 20, 2008 "Information Clearinghouse" --- When you go to a foreign country, it is common to bring a translation dictionary to help curb the confusion that comes with trying to understand a foreign language. Likewise, in American politics, we also need a translation guide to understand mainstream discussion given the universal double standards, egotistical national chauvinism, and internalized elite values.

Propaganda in the US rests mostly in what is not said, but rather assumed. Such a system of indoctrination is extremely powerful as it serves the purpose of making certain thoughts not so much undesirable, but unthinkable, strikingly reminiscent of Orwell's depiction of totalitarian control and manipulation of the English language in his novel, 1984.

The language of US propaganda is indeed a foreign tongue to anyone who takes seriously the factual historical record, the nature of powerful institutions, and fundamental human decency with respect for human rights.

Included here is a list of commonly used terminology in American politics and the mainstream media. The definitions provided are the unspoken, assumed meanings of the terms, which are in fact quite different, sometimes diametrically opposed to their dictionary definitions.

For any serious social and political discussion to materialize, it is imperative that we understand the vocabulary put forth by our cultural managers in order to dismantle the prevailing system of thought control and indoctrination.

Peace Process

: Whatever the US is doing at the time [1]

Department of Defense:

Department of aggression and acceptable terrorism

Terrorism

: 1) Legitimate resistance to the terror/aggression of the US and its clients, or 2) Terrorism committed by those out of favor with Washington

Counter-Terrorism

: Terrorism and aggression carried out by the US and its client states

War on Terrorism

: Any violence the US or its client states use to advance the US agenda of global dominance by stifling independent nationalism, assuring control over natural resources, squashing 'good examples' of independent economic development, and creating conditions to benefit foreign (US) investors instead of the populations at hand. Basically the ideological twin and subsequent replacement of the rabid anti-communism of the Cold War.

Terrorist:

1) Anybody that the US fights against, 2) People who defend themselves from US attack, and 3) Perpetrators of terrorism whose terror doesn't serve US power

Privately Contracted Security Forces:

Mercenaries or paid killers unaccountable to the public

"Protecting our way of life"

: A justification for US-based violence and economic exploitation that is driven by a desire to 'protect' private concentrated wealth of the richest 1% ('our') of the country.

"Failed policy"

: Usually refers to an unlawful war policy which has come to cost too much money. It reinforces yet again, the imperial rights of the US to use violence at will in violation of human rights, the public will, and international law.

Blunders, Mismanagement, Mistakes, etc:

Terms used to describe US foreign policy when large sectors of business power and the population turn against [the respective policy]...the implication being clear that US initiatives are by definition, rooted in morality and altruism, despite natural human errors of strategy, not of motives, meaning that US foreign policy "means well."

To "Spread Democracy":

To extend US control over a foreign country, usually in an attempt to undermine popular democratic efforts that threaten US political, business, and ideological interests.

"Support the Troops":

Support our policy of unlawful aggression

"The Surge worked"

: The perceived success of the US escalation of the illegal occupation of Iraq renders our initial/continued illegal aggression legitimate according to this proclamation.

Nevertheless, this catchphrase also ignores the actual reasons for the decrease in violence including the non-related cease fire maintained by the Shia resistance, increased segregation through extensive ethnic cleansing, and most importantly, significantly less people to kill as half the country is dead, exiled, displaced, mangled, or in prison. [2]

Democracy:

Refers to a foreign government that favors the interests of elite foreign (US) investors instead of the respective population

Moderate:

a foreign leader who follows orders from Washington [1]

Extremist:

a foreign leader who pursues a course independent from Washington's orders [1]

Human Rights:

Things that the US supports and that our enemies violate

Weapons of Mass Destruction:

Weapons (sometimes nonexistent ones) that are held by states out of favor with Washington. Notice that the US and its clients by definition do not possess anything or pursue anything that would cause "mass destruction." Therefore the definition of WMD's is purely ideological, void of physical facts.

Free/Fair Trade:

Trade policies that favor the ultra wealthy and trample labor rights, ignore environmental regulations, and prevent independent development for the poor nations involved and prevent meaningful democracy for the populations of both the rich country and the poor country in any given case.

Communist, Marxist, Socialist

(concerning foreign political parties or governments): Governments that pursue independent economic development without concern for foreign investor interests or the neoliberal development model.

Unilaterally:

A term used to describe the final measure taken by the US resort to lawless violence. In other words, when the Clinton administration noted they would act "unilaterally" if they "must," they meant that the US will act in violation of the UN and international law if international law and the UN don't support and conform to US military actions and US will.

Anti-American

(concerning various international opinion): 1) Those who oppose US crimes and exploitative economic policies, and 2) Open supporters of applying the standards of international law universally.

Anti-Semitism:

An accusation usually used to deflect criticism of Israel's ongoing war crimes as cited uncontroversially by the UN, Israeli/Jewish human rights groups, and Amnesty International, all in accordance with the Geneva Conventions on human rights.

Israel's "Right to Exist":

Israel's right to continue outwardly racist policies against its Palestinian-Arab citizens within its borders and Israel's right to maintain a racist apartheid civil/military system in the Palestinian West Bank, a genocidal siege on the heavily populated Gaza Strip, and an illegal military occupation of both the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Hamas 'Militants' or 'Terrorists':

Anybody Israel kills in the occupied territories

Nuclear weapons:

Benevolent instruments of peace for US and client states, tyrannical instruments of genocide when held by everyone else.

Arab/Muslim:

Terrorist, usually inherently irrational, violent, and deceitful. A hater of freedom, democracy, Christians, and Jews.

Well, who is NOT an Arab then?:

According to the honorable McCain, "decent, family men" who we may or may not have "disagreements" with. By implication, an Arab then cannot be "decent" or family orientated. For further elaboration, see the above definition.

Domestic Politics: Economic policy and Authority

Wall Street Bailout:

Well, this means exactly what it sounds like, which is why the public was opposed to the whole thing. Publicly funded (we pay) bailouts for wall street, and polite condolences for workers, children, the poor, and the sick.

Socialism, Communism, Marxism

(concerning public policy and advocacy): Policies where the public's tax money is spent on the public welfare, as opposed to transferring public funds to the ultra wealthy.

Market Based Solutions:

"Solutions" to social problems that put profit as the driving force, rather than human need by eliminating the public role in decision making, transferring additional and un-calculated costs to the public and forcing working families and the poor to bare most of the burden of market forces.

Business Community:

The richest of the rich, the elite millionaire/billionaire corporations, investors, and banks—the ones who own the country and are unaccountable to the public. Not a "community" in the friendly sense that we understand it to be. (Does not include small business owners like your local friendly family-run restaurant.)

Labor Flexibility:

Due to a significant level of desperation and sizable unemployment in the labor force, conditions are ripe for business managers and owners to slash living wages, cut benefits, disregard reasonable working condition standards, and destroy workers' unions in order to increase their power and profits.

Entitlement:

The use of this word in referring to social programs for the public is chosen specifically to imply that those receiving the much needed social benefits are "freeloaders" and "sponging off of the government." Refers exclusively to the poor, working class, and middle class. Entitlements for the wealthy, such as tax breaks and other gifts, are not included in this categorization.

Welfare:

Huge sums of money stolen from the pockets of taxpayers received mostly by rich blacks who cheat the government and are too lazy to work.

Corporate Welfare/Subsidies:

What? There's no such thing! And if there was, it would never be exponentially larger than social welfare...

Personal Responsibility:

Social Darwinism or the 'law of the jungle' for the working class, poor, uninsured, and disenfranchised. Note that "personal responsibility" doesn't apply to the elite, who enjoy government protection and public safety nets.

Economic Freedom:

Unrestricted free reign for multinational corporations, billionaire investors, and massive banking institutions to run the country in their interests at the expense of the general population whose role is to work, go into debt, and supply the funds (taxes) to erect barriers to market forces for big business. Also commonly known as "liberty".

Small Government:

A massive government designed in the interests of military dominance and in the interests of the rich, while making sure public dollars cannot be spent on public interests and much needed social programs. Simply put, big government for sectors of power, small government for the needy.

Free Enterprise, Free Market:

An economic system of "public subsidy and private profit," where the government intervenes in the market regularly to protect elite business interests from market forces. [1]

Privatization:

The removal of economic institutions from the public sphere into private, unaccountable hands. By definition, a radical reduction of democracy.

'Hope or Change':

Change of face and rhetoric, maintenance of the status quo

Democracy, Democratic Process:

Elections every few years between two factions of business representatives, public ratifications of concentrated power.

Balanced Media Coverage:

A lively debate between a "liberal" and a "conservative" within a narrow framework of assumptions that serve the interests of power.

Crime:

Refers exclusively to small criminals from the lower classes like drug dealers, petty thieves, some violent behavior. Does not include the massive crime and corruption on Wall Street, or the much bigger and more serious war crimes (which have kill millions of people) committed by presidents and congress.

War on Drugs:

a one-trillion-dollar-and-climbing policy of insanity (by Albert Einstein's definition) which shamefully and disproportionally targets Blacks and Latinos...a policy which is no more a "war" on drug use than the t.v. show "Cheaters" is a "war" on infidelity.

Full Investigation:

a term used by government officials to calm down an angry population in light of police brutality, political corruption, government misconduct, etc. The "investigation" either produces no results or simply sacrifices a scapegoat for PR reasons, while neglecting to address the deeply rooted institutional problems. [3]

Getting public unrest "under control":

Subjugating, often using violence, those who attempt to participate in decision making outside the ballot box.

Anti-American

(in the case that the accused is an American): 1) Those who love their country and aspire to improve it by challenging their government, and/or, 2) Americans who do not identify themselves or their moral values with the Washington-Wall Street power structure.

National Security:

An all purpose catch phrase used to justify US military aggression and restriction of civil rights.

National Interest:

Corporate interests [1]

and lastly,

Universities:

Fronts for socializing the cost of Research and Development for corporations and the military. They also serve the invaluable function of making sure that the educated community understands the right version of history, world affairs, and of course, the proper meaning of relevant terminology and the rules of polite discussion.

Notes

1 Chomsky, Noam, What Uncle Sam Really Wants, Odonian Press, Berkeley, CA, December 2002.

2 Blum, William, "When is a holocaust not a holocaust?" Counterpunch, October 2008

3 Abu-Jamal, Mumia, All Things Censored, Seven Stories Press, New York, July 2003.

The  above  was  sent  to  me  by  a  friend  who  once  thought  she  would  like 
to  be  a  Muslimah.  She  is  now  of  a  very  different  frame  of  mind.  My  response (revised):

by Daniel Pipes
New York Sun
July 26, 2005

What do Islamist terrorists want? The answer should be obvious, but it is not.

A generation ago, terrorists did make clear their wishes. Upon hijacking three airliners in September 1970, for example, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine demanded, with success, the release of Arab terrorists imprisoned in Britain, Switzerland, and West Germany. Upon attacking the B'nai B'rith headquarters and two other Washington, D.C. buildings in 1977, a Hanafi Muslim group demanded the canceling of a feature movie, Mohammad, Messenger of God," $750 (as reimbursement for a fine), the turning over of the five men who had massacred the Hanafi leader's family, plus the killer of Malcolm X.

Such "non-negotiable demands" led to wrenching hostage dramas and attendant policy dilemmas. "We will never negotiate with terrorists," the policymakers declared "Give them Hawaii but get my husband back," pleaded the hostages' wives.

Those days are so remote and their terminology so forgotten that even President Bush now speaks of "non-negotiable demands" (in his case, concerning human dignity), forgetting the deadly origins of this phrase.

Most anti-Western terrorist attacks these days are perpetrated without demands being enunciated. Bombs go off, planes get hijacked and crashed into buildings, hotels collapse. The dead are counted. Detectives trace back the perpetrators' identities. Shadowy websites make post-hoc unauthenticated claims.

But the reasons for the violence go unexplained. Analysts, including myself, are left speculating about motives. These can relate to terrorists' personal grievances based in poverty, prejudice, or cultural alienation. Alternately, an intention to change international policy can be seen as a motive: pulling "a Madrid" and getting governments to withdraw their troops from Iraq; convincing Americans to leave Saudi Arabia; ending American support for Israel; pressuring New Delhi to cede control of all Kashmir..

Any of these motives could have contributed to the violence; as London's Daily Telegraph puts it, problems in Iraq and Afghanistan each added "a new pebble to the mountain of grievances that militant fanatics have erected." Yet neither is decisive to giving up one's life for the sake of killing others.

In nearly all cases, the jihadi terrorists have a patently self-evident ambition: to establish a world dominated by Muslims, Islam, and Islamic law, the Shari'a. Or, again to cite the Daily Telegraph, their "real project is the extension of the Islamic territory across the globe, and the establishment of a worldwide ‘caliphate' founded on Shari'a law."

Terrorists openly declare this goal. The Islamists who assassinated Anwar el-Sadat in 1981 decorated their holding cages with banners proclaiming the "caliphate or death." A biography of one of the most influential Islamist thinkers of recent times and an influence on Osama bin Laden, Abdullah Azzam declares that his life "revolved around a single goal, namely the establishment of Allah's Rule on earth" and restoring the caliphate.

Bin Laden himself spoke of ensuring that "the pious caliphate will start from Afghanistan." His chief deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, also dreamed of re-establishing the caliphate, for then, he wrote, "history would make a new turn, God willing, in the opposite direction against the empire of the United States and the world's Jewish government." Another Al-Qaeda leader, Fazlur Rehman Khalil, publishes a magazine that has declared "Due to the blessings of jihad, America's countdown has begun. It will declare defeat soon," to be followed by the creation of a caliphate.

Or, as Mohammed Bouyeri wrote in the note he attached to the corpse of Theo van Gogh, the Dutch filmmaker he had just assassinated, "Islam will be victorious through the blood of martyrs who spread its light in every dark corner of this earth."

Interestingly, van Gogh's murderer was frustrated by the mistaken motives attributed to him, insisting at his trial: "I did what I did purely out of my beliefs. I want you to know that I acted out of conviction and not that I took his life because he was Dutch or because I was Moroccan and felt insulted."

                 Comment: Murder is also a crime in Islam.

Although terrorists state their jihadi motives loudly and clearly, Westerners and Muslims alike too often fail to hear them. Islamic organizations, Canadian author Irshad Manji observes, pretend that "Islam is an innocent bystander in today's terrorism."

What the terrorists want is abundantly clear. It requires monumental denial not to acknowledge it, but we Westerners have risen to the challenge.

 Am I a Terrorist Just Because I Want the Caliphate?

by Salmah UmmZainab
25 August 2008

Let's talk a little more about the Caliphate, or Khilapha, of which Mr. Pipes is warning Americans. What is it? In what sense would it be global? Is it only Muslim terrorists who want it? What is a terrorist? Should anyone who wants a caliphate be automatically classified as a terrorist or a terrorist supporter? Is a caliphate a legitimate desire? Do those who want it have a right to establish and defend it? Are Muslims required to do so? Do those who oppose it have a right to do so by any means they deem necessary? Is it a threat to the rest of the world? In what way or ways?

First, the definitions I use.

Caliphate/Khilapha: "a political system from the ideology of Islam that enshrines: the rule of law, representative government, accountability by the people through an independent judiciary and the principle of representative consultation. It is government built upon a concept of citizenship regardless of ethnicity, gender or creed and is totally opposed to the oppression of any religious or ethnic grouping." (http://caliphate.eu/caliphate.htm)

Muslim(ah): one who submits to The One God (Allah in Arabic) in faith and obedience and accepts His message through the final Prophet, Muhammad (saws).

Terrorist: one who causes terror in a civilian population through violence in order to effect political change.

Next, I will tell you what little I understand of terrorism in regard to Muslims and the enemies of Islam:

Through my own experience, I know that people lie about Islam and Muslims.

After becoming a Muslimah, I continued to question, research, learn about my faith, and often felt provoked to defend it from those who were repeating the lies they had read, heard and accepted without bothering to look into it for themselves.

I have also become aware of the use of lies, spies, infiltrators, provocateurs, sabateurs, hackers, propaganda and false flag operations used to undermine Islam and destroy the work of Muslim individuals and groups. This, along with my awareness of the lies American administrations have used to justify war and to mold public perception, has made it very difficult for me to determine the truth in the reports I read about Muslim terrorists in the press.

I know that in Islam it is recommended for us to cause terror to our enemies by appropriate means, but I also know that we are not allowed to kill or harm civilians--children, the elderly, women and other non-combatants--nor to torture anyone. Added to this is the perspective that it is the American government that is engaged in terrorism on a far greater scale than they can accuse anyone else of being. It is similar with Israel and their terrorizing of the Palestinians resisting occupation and ethnic cleansing. I have also learned that they covert instigation and support of terrorism in pursuit of their own often undisclosed aims.

After my initial exploration of the modern day call for unity in the Ummah, I can say that I support the establishment of an Islamic Khilapha by means that definitely do not include attacks on civilians but will likely include fighting.

In my opinion, according to what I have read in the Qur'an and Sunnah, Muslims and Muslimahs have the right and the obligation to liberate and defend ourselves and defend each other and our freedom of worship. We have the right and the obligation to live as Muslims under one Islamic government embracing all Muslims. We have the obligation to invite others to follow Islam but we do not have the right to force them into it. We have the obligation to make peace with non-Muslims that want peace with us, and we have the right to go to war with those who oppress, attack and fight against us.

Who or what is most threatened by an Islamic Caliphate overseeing Muslims? Neo-colonialists and neo-imperialists are threatened. Corporatists that take advantage of the poor and weak are threatened. American hegemony is threatened. Muslim dictators are threatened. Muslim monarchies are threatened. Muslim secularists are threatened. Zionists are threatened. Elitists are threatened. And rightly so. But those who seek peace and justice need not feel threatened.

In today's world, it is difficult for those who want to establish and support a Caliphate, or even a smaller, more localized Islamic government, to make any sustained attempt at doing so. They are quickly villified, demonized, outlawed and threatened. They face character assassination, physical assassination, torture and outright war, as individuals and as groups, as civilians and as soldiers.

I wonder: could I be disappeared tomorrow for making my views on this known? Sent away to be detained and tortured at some facility outside (or even inside) of America? Put on trial for conspiracy or support for terrorism, even though I do not support terrorism, but do support an Islamic Caliphate?

Am I a threat? I wear hijab and jilbab. Am I a threat? I speak my mind. Am I a threat? I invite others to Islam and try to make my life a testimony of my faith. Am I a threat? I defend the truth of Islam against lies according to my best understanding. Am I a threat? I believe there is no god worthy of worship but Allah and Muhammad is His Messenger, I strive to pray 5 times per day, I fast during Ramadan, I give in charity, and I hope to make the Hajj one day.  Am I a threat? God willing, I am a threat to the unjust and oppressive, the liars and the looters.

Even though Muslims obviously have more to fear from the people of the West than those of the West have to fear from Muslims, there is such a climate of fear and ignorance being built up among non-Muslims in the US and Europe that I see a dangerously genocidal attitude steadily growing. I know of people who wish that there was a button they could push that would instantly kill all Muslims (yes, ALL Muslims) so they can feel safe again; who think it would be a good idea to expell or incarcerate all Muslims in America; who believe that threatening to bomb the ka'abah would be sound foreign policy; who think that leveling Iraq and Iran and Afghanistan with nuclear weapons would set things straight, and yet are horrified by the perceived threat that Iran plans to do that very thing to Israel.

My family motto, on our coat of arms, is Fear God and Serve the King. I wonder if  it would be appropriate for me to change that now for myself into Fear Allah and Serve the Khalipha? However much there is for us to fear in this world, Allah swt is the One we should all fear most, and if I can serve Him through supporting Islamic governance for Muslims, I will, God willing.

If anything I have said is wrong, may Allah (swt) forgive and correct me. Ameen.

In comparison, while there are courageous individual liberals, there's no real liberal party anywhere in the Middle East, no liberal-controlled media or liberal proselytizing university. In Egypt the only liberal organization has been taken over by the Muslim Brotherhood.

So while the great majority of people want a good life for themselves and their children - while they breathe air, drink water and bleed when they are pricked - as they did in Ice Age caves, ancient Rome, medieval France, imperial China, Inca Peru and the central deserts of Australia - that does not mean everyone thinks the same, or that all societies and governments are basically equivalent.

Anyone who doesn't understand history is doomed to be battered by it.