US Indymedia Global Indymedia Publish About us
Printed from Boston IMC :
IVAW Winter Soldier

Winter Soldier
Brad Presente

Other Local News

Spare Change News
Open Media Boston
Somerville Voices
Cradle of Liberty
The Sword and Shield

Local Radio Shows

WMBR 88.1 FM
What's Left
WEDS at 8:00 pm
Local Edition
FRI (alt) at 5:30 pm

WMFO 91.5 FM
Socialist Alternative
SUN 11:00 am

WZBC 90.3 FM
Sounds of Dissent
SAT at 11:00 am
Truth and Justice Radio
SUN at 6:00 am

Create account Log in
Comment on this article | View comments | Email this article | Printer-friendly version
News ::
Advertising American Values (english)
03 Nov 2002
Modified: 06:23:06 PM
Can really America convince the Muslims that the American way is better?

By: Ali Sina

The United States is going to spend $15 million dollars in ad campaign in Islamic countries to show the Muslims that America is a tolerant country where Muslims are not discriminated. The idea is to teach the Muslims some American values; hopefully they will see that tolerance is a good thing and they too will become more tolerant of America and the Americans.

What a noble thought! But unfortunately it underlies the sad reality that the American government does not have a clue about Islam and because of that makes assumptions that are not correct.

The fact is that the Muslims know about American values but they reject them. They prefer Islamic values. The proof of that are the homegrown Muslims. Do you think that John Walker Lindh, Jose Padilla and John Allah Mohammad do not know the American values? They were born and grown up in America. But when they converted to Islam, they adopted Islamic values. Islam and democracy, for example, are not compatible at all. You cannot preach to a Muslim about the virtues of democracy because you are undermining his religion that opposes democracy. Tolerance is good as long as the Muslims are at the receiving end, but Islam and tolerance are not compatible. The book of Quran contains hundreds of disparaging and violent teachings when it comes to the treatment of the non-Muslims. So what is it that the American government hopes to achieve with those ad campaigns? To encourage the Muslims to be tolerant? That would mean to overrule the explicit teachings of the Quran! That would mean to disregard the sunnah (tradition, examples) of the Prophet who massacred and banished the Jews and Christians from Arabia and in his deathbed ordered that Arabia be cleansed from these infidels, a will that his successor Omar carried out a few years later.

Muslims are aware of the American values. Many of the mosque-going Muslims have been living in America for decades. They have grown up here, studied here, work here and live here. They are very much familiar with American values. But they are first Muslims and then American or anything else. Their first allegiance is to Islam and their main objective is, as Ibrahim Hooper, the chairman of CAIR (The Council of American Islamic Relations) has said, to convert America into an Islamic country. Muslims want to get rid of the American values and implement Islamic values. Therefore wielding the American values in their face, hoping that they would be attracted to it, would only work if they leave Islam. To become tolerant, Muslims must denounce Islam; to practice democracy, they must relinquish Islam, which is a theocratic religion par excellence. But how can that be done when the American President keeps telling, “This is not about Islam” and “America is not fighting against Islam”? The very fact that you prefer democracy, tolerance and equality of rights between men and women are enough evidence that you are against Islam and Islamic values.

Some people wonder why Muslims become so irritated when you criticize their religion. To understand this phenomenon you have to understand Muhammad. Muhammad was a narcissist. He craved for attention and demanded his followers to love him more than their own parents, and more than their own selves. Personality cult is part of the despotic rule. Muhammad could make such demands by putting his wishes in the mouth of his imaginary Allah. Also because he was a narcissist he could not tolerate dissent and because of that he had no regards for human lives. Killing those who differed with him was as easy for him as killing bugs. Nothing mattered to him except his own self and his reveries of grandiosity.

Muslims echo that mindset. They have lost their own identity as independent human beings. They see themselves as part of Muhammad’s extended ego. They see their own existence as a function to appease him or and now to appease his ghost. They have accepted to become supplies to that man’s narcissistic cravings.

Muhammad convinced his followers that those who serve him more, love him more, and sacrifice themselves for him more are the best. Obedience to Allah actually meant obedience to him and fear of Allah was also fear of him. Allah was his own alter ego. So Muslims of his time competed with each other to meet his approval. The great historian Al Tabari, writes that Muslim tribes and individuals vied with each other to do for him a service that would attract his attention and approval. He would promise them heaven and they were elated with those promises. Tabari writes: if someone would assassinate an opponent of Muhammad and he would praise the assassin for getting him rid of that opponent, other Muslims would come to him and tell him that so and so is also badmouthing his holiness and would ask his permission to kill that person. This sycophantic sprit lingered and is accentuated by the passage of time. Muhammad is dead but the apple-polishing spirit has survived. Muhammad is dead but his intolerance has survived. Muhammad is dead but the community that he forged continues to live by the standard that he left. There are several stories about Omar, the second caliph, who would pull out his sword asking permission to slay the man who would question Muhammad’s claim in front of him. Why would Omar behave in such manner? Obviously he was encouraged by Muhammad's approval. In this way he would show his total devotion to him and would demonstrate that he is a loyal believer. If you say a word against Muhammad and Muslims today behave as if they want to slit your throat is because that legacy of violent and sycophantic zealotry condoned and encouraged by Muhammad has survived. Therefore the source of all Islamic bigotry and intolerance must be traced to Muhammad himself. This is a colossal catastrophe that a billion people follow the whims of an emotionally insane narcissist man.

So what is the solution? But before that let me tell you what IS NOT the solution. Fighting Muslims is not the solution. Discriminating against them is not the solution. Hating them is not the solution. Remember that Islam thrived with hate. Islam needs an enemy to survive. If there is no enemy it invents one. Doctrines of hate cannot survive without enemy. The communists had the bourgeoisie to hate, the Nazis had the Jews to hate and the Muslims have the non-believers to hate. So by becoming their enemy you are fueling their fire. They grow stronger when they have enemies. Hating the Muslims will only harden them. Muslims want to believe they are the victims to justify their violent behavior as “self-defense”. So what is the solution?

Understanding them is the solution. You have to understand why they behave in this way. When you understand that, you realize that they are victims of Islam and instead of hating them you try to help them. But how? The answer is by exposing the fallacies of their belief. We must undermine the foundation of their beliefs. That is the solution. We should not attack the Muslims but Islam. Just as a doctor would not destroy the patient but the disease, we should view Islam as the disease of the Muslims. Mr. Bush is wasting the taxpayer’s money by trying to teach Muslims the American values. That is not going to work. Many Muslims live in America; many of them are American converts. They know perfectly what are the American values. There is no need to show them what they already know. They know it and they still cling to Islam. They are against democracy. They are against equality of genders. They are against freedom of dress code for women. They know what are the American values and they are against them. So why waste money telling Muslims in Indonesia, Malaysia and other parts of the world things that they already know and reject?

The solution is to demolish their values. And that is what Faith Freedom International at is doing. We are demonstrating that Muhammad was a narcissist, like Hitler, Stalin and other despots. We are showing he was a plunderer, a liar, a murderer, an assassin, a pedophile and we are proving our claims with the very Islamic sources. We have challenged the Muslims, their scholars and their western apologists like Karen Armstrong, John Esposito, Prof. Sells of UNC and others to disprove us. They did not have the guts to show up. FFI is nuking the foundation of the Islamic beliefs. We are sowing the seeds of doubts. We are making them think. We are revolutionizing their accepted wisdom. And we are having an impact. The beauty of this war is that at the end our enemy is converted into our ally and best friend. We are not apart from them. We are from them. We know how they feel and we can help.

This is a new dawn for the followers of Muhammad. This is the beginning of the renaissance of Islamic world. And this renaissance is going to take place now and in our own lifetime.

But there is no free lunch, as they say. We cannot expose Islam if the Media and Press are sycophantic towards the Muslims. I acknowledge that the President Bush and Tony Blair have no other alternative than to sing the same old tune “It is not about Islam” and “Islam is a religion of peace”. But the rest of us do not have to play this PC game. We can speak out. We do not have to lie in order to appease the Muslims. All of us who care for Humanity and want our children to live in peace and care about Muslims must defend the truth even if that truth hurts someone. It is much better that we hurt the “sensibility” of the Muslims than the devout believers among them inspired by the teachings of the Quran murder us just because we are disbelievers.

More writings of Ali Sina at
Add a quick comment
Your name Your email


Text Format
Anti-spam Enter the following number into the box:
To add more detailed comments, or to upload files, see the full comment form.


The Dangers of Generalization (english)
03 Nov 2002
To be honest, after reading the article presented by Ali Sina, I was quite appalled at the pessimistic tone of the entire work, and found it to be a poor representation of Muslim Americans at large. To speak on such a grand scale for a fast-growing portion of the United States population requires an objective view, and I'm sorry to say I don't believe one was achieved in this particular example.

If the question at hand is one of democratization in other countries' governmental systems, then the argument that Islam as the religion of the state does not promote democracy would be more understandable. Lipset's theory of preconditions applies handily, in its statistical view that Christian (more specifically Protestant) populations will fall under democracy more easily than other religions that do not support the idea of the individual's importance in the face of the majority. Lockeian liberalism simply isn't an integral part of, for example, Catholicism or Islam, and that is a fair estimate as to why predominately Catholic or Islamic states rarely take on and maintain democratic governments.

That much was understandable, but to generalize that the United States population of Islamic Americans had a desire to break off western (not American values, as that would lend far too much credit to the U.S. alone) values and replace them with their own solely is questionable. There is a decidedly large percentage of immigrant Muslims that came to the United States because the regimes put in place with Islamic values in mind were too oppressive. Does that not indicate that in that case, they would rather have some percentage of western values in combination with Islamic ones?

They need not be in solid cells, where THESE values are separate and irreparably blocked together from THOSE values that are likewise conglommerated and inexorable. If I might be so bold as to make an example, a Muslim woman may prefer to follow the traditions of her household and be married at seventeen, but still wish the freedom to wear what she likes and go where she pleases without male escort or being under threat of a beating if her feet or arms are visible.

As far as the issue of tolerance allows, that is a question based in cultural roots that cannot be simply written off as a good-guy-bad-guy issue. The United States, while riddled with its own hypocracies that should not be ignored, was based on the idea of being a collection of peoples from all corners, and so tolerance was a given, and unavoidably necessary. To say that Islam's group mindset is only an extension of their prophet's ego is to belittle the strong bonds it forms amongst the people.

Perhaps I've ranted too long, but this needed to be said, and taken into account. I do hope another will add their thoughts also, perhaps Ali Sina, to provide a rebutal or agreement, or dissention, as debate is the only true way of seeing things from all sides.

K. Linnamaa