Halloween Jihad

It’s rather apparent that I’m new at this whole blog business. Aside from the fact that my “blog archive” spans only one-week, many of you probably realize that I’m using a generic, pre-formatted template, default font, and have links to only two other websites. So I wanted to learn more about what makes certain blogs more successful than others—and by successful I mean daily readership. I looked at blogs of friends of mine, their friends, random people I didn’t know, and in the process, somehow ran across a list of the the 50 most (English-read) blogs.

Given today’s cultural mentality to view everything with either a red-state/blue-state frame of reference, it was not surprising to me that political blogs (both left and right-leaning) were at the top of the list. Specifically, blogs highlighting the threat posed by Islamic fundamentalists / Muslim terrorists / Islamic terrorists / Islamic extremists / militant Muslims / Wahhabis / Islamists / Islamic fanatics/ jihadists / Mujahideen / Islamic radicals / Islamofascists / the boogeyman, run supreme. ---Interesting aside, apparently “blog” is not a recognizable word in my version of Microsoft Word but “Islamist” is. I always knew Bill Gates was a closet Zionist.

Anyways, I ended up on the website of the well-known syndicated conservative columnist—or bitch—Michelle Malkin. Commensurate with her archetypical ball-busting I’m holier than thou commentary, Malkin was aghast over a photo that showed Amy Gutmann, the president of the University of Pennsylvania, posing with a student costumed as a “suicide bomber” (in the student’s words, “freedom fighter”) at an annual Halloween party Ms. Gutmann holds at her house. Here is what Michelle had to say:

"Here is how they celebrated Halloween at the prestigious University of Pennsylvania:"
















"The woman on the right is the president of the university, Amy Gutmann. Sick, sick, sick."


I would have to agree with Malkin that the costume is distasteful, disrespectful, and hurtful. The kid simply shouldn’t have done it. Michelle also posted additional pictures that either she or someone with a UPENN email address obtained from facebook.com, showing the costumed student ‘holding people hostage’, pointing the toy gun at people while reading the Quran, and other pretty inappropriate actions.

For Gutmann’s part, she should have maintained herself as a representative of the university—I mean, she’s the friggin president. That is to say, even if Gutmann believed that the student was well within his right to accoutre himself with whatever costume he deemed fit, she should have not posed with him given the controversial nature of the costume and her position within the university.

The end.

It could have been the end. (I wish it had been). I mean, what is there more to say?

As my research on “what constitutes a successful blog” revealed, making a simple point—hell, simply making A POINT—is not the making of a popular blog. You need overkill; you need to engage the reader. And you don’t engage readers by logical, coherent arguments. Humdrum methodical argumentation is for loser academicians, who must go through some silly process known as “peer-review” before they actually publish something. But in Blogistan, you become well read (and a Fox News contributor as in Mrs. Malkin’s case) by going into frothy, apoplectic diatribes, self-centered in ignorant opinion—appealing to your dimwitted audience on a visceral “It’s us-against-them” level.

You see, Michelle is a heroine, or at least on it. What I saw as a stupid costume by some puerile college kid who probably didn’t fully realize the offensive nature of his costume, Michelle amplifies as the inner workings of an ivy-league terror cell. As CIA Operative Malkin righteously points out, the student is of Syrian ancestry (strike 1), is an engineering student (strike 2), and apparently participated in an anti-Bush video which he and his friends posted on GoogleVideo (strike 3 homeboy). If that’s not a clear casus belli for enemy combatant status, I don’t know what is.

But wait, there’s more! (I’m starting to feel like an infomercial announcer). Apparently, the Halloween Terrorist recently traveled to Turkey and Syria. How do we know? Because Malkin was so gracious enough to come down from her pedestal, and provide links to the student’s personal websites. Nothing screams terrorist more than a family picture in front of the majestic “Blue Mosque”. Oh crap, did I just say mosque?



Sultan Ahmad Mosque (“Blue Mosque”)Istanbul, Turkey













source: Wikipedia

Can "Fitra" be Scientifically Proven?

NY Times Thread:
Books on Science: An Evolutionary Theory of Right and Wrong


A recent book by Harvard biologist Marc Hauser entertains the idea that humans are born with an innate moral rectitude--or what he coins a "moral grammar". In his book Moral Minds, Dr. Hauser posits that at birth--and suggestively throughout our life—we possess an inborn knowledge of right and wrong, good and evil. The origin of these judgments is firmly rooted deep within our neural circuits, and from there, it generates quick, instantaneous moral judgments. Given its very nature --and partly because quick decisions must often be made in life-or-death situations --Dr. Hauser argues that the origin from where the grammar is transcribed remains inaccessible to the human consciousness.

Hauser attempts to attribute the phenomenon to our evolutionary history. He argues that during the "hunter-gathering" phase of human history, societies who were more compassionate had a better chance of survival. Thus, these societies--more specifically, these genes--had a greater chance to be passed on. However, most evolutionary biologists note that the frequency of a gene cannot increase unless it benefits the individual. Dr. Houser's idea argues that the evolutionary concept of "group selection" also increases gene frequency. This idea contradicts the established belief among evolutionists that altruism decreases the fitness of the individual, and inevitably the species.

Houser knows that he faces an uphill battle, and himself concedes that his book offers a starting point for further discussion rather than affirms any definitive conclusions. Although my personal convictions about evolutionary science are middling at best, Dr. Houser's book is important because it attempts to bring a scientific rationale to an idea that has long been an area for moral philosophers and theorists. Even law—that redoubt of moral uprightness—concedes a modicum of partiality to the idea that humans possess an innate moral judgment. For example in Criminal Law, offenses are often categorized into one of two categories. Malum in se , a Latin phrase meaning wrong in itself, confers that an act is illegal because it is inherently wrong or evil (rape, murder, etc.). This is distinguished from Malum prohibitum, which dictates that acts are wrong not because they are inherently immoral or hurtful, per se, but by established statute (tax evasion, selling products w/o a permit, etc.)

To most people—agnostics and organized religion followers alike—the idea seems self-evident. People just “know” (either by rationality or feeling) what is right and wrong, even in the absence of a law. But for me, a Muslim, the idea extends beyond that. In fact, I am so confident that the concept of a “moral grammar” exists within all humans at birth that, even if science proved the exact opposite, I would still believe in the idea without the slightest bit of uncertainty.
In Islam, the idea that all humans possess a moral grammar is embodied, to some degree, in the concept of Fitra. But a verbatim translation of Fitra as moral grammar belies its importance in the Islamic tradition. So, I will briefly describe the concept to those who may be unfamiliar with it:

It is said in the Quran that not even a leaf falls without God’s knowledge of it. In fact, every thought, action, dream, occurrence, what have you that happens in the universe does not happen without God’s command. For example, Allah (SWT) says in Surah Yaseen: 82: “Verily, His command when He Wishes a thing, He just says to it “Be”, and it is.” The words Muslim and Islam come from the Arabic root word for “submission” (to God’s Will). Muslims greet each other with greetings of peace (Salaam), its root is also manifested in the idea of submission.

In taking a liberal definition, then, everything is 'Muslim' (that which submits to God’s will). Trees submit to God’s will all the time. They possess neither the ability nor free will (nor intelligence, nor know-how) to be anything else. The same rationale applies to the sun, moon, weather, clouds, earthquakes, and angels (there are no such thing as ‘bad’ angels in Islam). Herbivores, carnivores, the food chain, and predator-prey relationships among animals are also not “chosen” by the individual animal. However, God has made mankind different. We possess a free will and choice to submit or not submit. In so doing, we have the ability to be among the best of God’s creation, or quite possibly, the exact opposite. Although God knows what we are going to do, we constantly choose the avenues that we take.

Of course, the onus of responsibility only applies to humans who reach the age of critical, analytical, and independent thinking. This leads us to the idea of Fitra—that people are born with an innate consciousness to accept God, submit to his will, and be among the best of His creations. Fitra has often—and wrongly—been defined that everybody is born Muslim. This is not the case. But the idea of Fitra indicates that all humans are born with this inherent consciousness to accept that there is one God, live righteously, and believe in His plan. Whether we do or not, that is an entirely different issue.

In a recent conversation with a self-described atheist coworker of mine, we began discussing this idea of Fitra. An honest and decent person, she agreed that the concept of Fitra—albeit in different verbiage— indeed exists. However, this is not always the case, even among organized religions. Catholicism, for example, maintains the notion of “original sin”. Diametrically opposite to Islam where humans are born blameless and innocent, Catholics assert that a baby must undergo a baptism to “cleanse” his/her sin. (The placement of unbaptized babies in either Purgatory or Hell has recently been discussed and debated at the Vatican. Notwithstanding, there is unanimous consensus among Catholic theologians that one cannot enter Heaven without having been baptized).

Scientists who have studied the Quran have already found its scientific accuracy on issues of life in the womb, parturition, the planets orbits as well as other scientific phenomenon. Perhaps, soon, the concept of Fitra may be added to the list.