Do as I say, not as I do

We muslims are a supremely hypocritical people. We are ready to condemn any and all for real or perceived slights against us or our religion. But on the other hand, we ourselves are not ready to respect neither other religions, not their adherents. A simple case in point, the Jaish-e-Muhammad (JeM, or Army of Muhammad) is a militant Islamic organization in Pakistan. They have declared that "France is hostile to Islam" and that France promulgates texts that are "threatening the belief of the muslims of France".

Now, would someone please ask these dumb fucks of the JeM whether Pakistan allows as much religious freedom as France? Islamiyat (the study of the Islamic religion) is a compulsory subject in Pakistani schools, isn't that a promulgation of a system that threatens or diminishes the faith of christians in Pakistan? In Saudi Arabia, that paradise of Islam, it is forbidden by law to try to convert a muslim! Yet muslim tableeghi jamaat (missionaries) go everywhere in the western world trying to convert people to their faith. Would the JeM like it if christian missionaries arrived in Pakistan and started asking people to attend church? I already know what the answer is, those intolerant motherfuckers would probably go into incoherent fits and start foaming at the mouths.

Their rather lame excuse is that Islam is the religion, the true religion, therefore preaching it is our right and duty. Will someone ask them if they believe that followers of other religions don't think exactly the same way about their own beliefs? Does a christian missionary have any less faith in the divinity of his own religion than an Islamic cleric?

Unless and until we as muslims cannot begin to be tolerant of other religions and adherents of those religions, we have no right whatsoever of criticizing others of being intolerant towards us. As long as our governments do not relax their draconian grip on the spiritual lives of its citizens (whether muslim or otherwise), we have no right to criticize other countries and governments for real or perceived hurdles in the practice of Islam in those countries.

My innocent victims, your collateral damage

I know the names of each and every one of the victims of the London bombings of 7/7. I can look up the stories of all of them here, along with photos for most of them. There was a vigil held in Trafalgar Square for them, tens of thousands attended. I wanted to go too, I swear to God I really did. I wanted to say that I deplored these terrorists acts, I wanted to light a candle and say a prayer for them. But the only thing that stopped me was her, the lovely young girl with tears welling up in her eyes. The sad thing is, I don't even know her name, no one does. She doesn't matter. Her story doesn't matter, the reason for her tears is inconsequential, because she's Iraqi. If she's crying because of a parent killed by US bombs or tank shells, then we can't call them innocent victims, for they are "collateral damage". Innocent victims are only those that wear a shirt and tie (or a skirt), that speak english, and most of all, innocent victims only live in the west. In the east live the dirty, worthless sandniggers and terrorists (and their progeny).

Coming back to the Trafalgar Square vigil and why I couldn't attend it, even though I wanted to. A voice in my head kept asking me, "has anyone ever held a vigil for the thousands that have died in Iraq and Afghanistan?". In all good conscience, I couldn't ignore that nagging voice. What makes one human life so much more valuable than another? What makes one person an innocent victim, and another one collateral damage? At first, I thought maybe it's the color of the skin that's the deciding factor, but then I noticed that there were black and Asian people among the London victims. "Is it perhaps nationality that's the determining factor?", thought I, but then was forced to reject that as there were Polish nationals, Italian nationals and a Turkish national among the innocent victims. Finally, the answer hit me:

It's the killers! If the killers are terrorists, then the dead are innocent victims, if the killers are wearing a uniform (a western one), then the dead are collateral damage. But how much difference does it make whether someone is killed by a bomb-toting Islamic fanatic with a death-wish, or a gun-toting Christian fanatic with a thirst for oil? The end result is the same: another innocent person dead. So why make this distinction between innocent victims and collateral damage? Simple, so people back home (State-side and in the UK), who have watched this entire war from the comfort of their sitting rooms, don't get pangs of conscience when they see their boys in khakhi blasting holes in homes with their howitzers.

This distinction is made so that you and I can calmly pat our inquisitive 4 year old daughter's head and say reassuringly, "don't worry sweetheart, there's no innocent victims in that house they just blew up, just collateral damage" while we cuddle up with her on the sofa and channel surf through the news. Only let's just pray to God that our 4 year old daughter doesn't see the picture of the 4 year old daughter at the beginning of this post.

Dear Bush Administration,

It has now been well over two years since you've been in Iraq, with well over 100,000 soldiers. I just have one question:

Where are the fucking WMDs Saddam was supposed to be amassing?

I mean come on! Before the invasion you sent your secretary of state over to the UN with detailed intelligence info about where the WMDs were, he even showed us all images of trucks and installations where Saddam was making them. You said that he posed an imminent threat to the US.

Are you telling me that when you had no human assets in Iraq, you knew exactly where the WMDs were (Rumsfeld stated "we know where they are, they're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad"), and now, after more than two years of combing through Iraq, you can't find them?

Another thing, if Saddam had those nukes, and you haven't found them, it means they are still out there. Don't you think that it is imperative that now you find them ASAP, considering that your invasion of a sovereign nation has opened its doors to al-Qaeda and related terrorist organizations due to the breakdown of law-and-order and border security? With al-Qaeda insurgents roaming around, isn't it likely that one of them might stumble upon those elusive WMDs which your multi-billion dollar campaign has failed to unearth? Are you planning for such a contingency? Or are you quite calm because you know, and always have known, that there were no WMDs to begin with? That Saddam's nuke capability was destroyed in 1983 by the Israeli airstrikes at Osirak? That would be more inline with what your secretary of defence said early in 2001 when he stated that Iraq did not possess nuclear weapons.

You also added the baggage of "removing a despotic dictator" to your pre-war rhetoric, just in case the WMDs wouldn't be found (which you, of course, knew). So you succeeded in removing a despot. But why start (or stop) with Iraq; the world is full of despotic dictators: Castro of Cuba, Assad of Syria, Musharraf of Pakistan, Akayev of Kyrghyzstan, Fahd/Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. Why not go "liberate" them while you're at it? Why is it that you expediently ally yourself with despotic dictators when it is useful for you to do so? As examples, I give you the following cases:

• Musharraf of Pakistan, who has turned his country into a frontline state against terrorism
• Shaikh Jabir as-Sabah, king of Kuwait, whose country you used to stage your invasion
• Akayev, ruthless president of Kyrghysztan, whose airbases are used for Afghan operations

But I shouldn't fault you for this, you are only doing what your administrations have done for ages. During the Afghan-Soviet war, the Raegan administration supported and armed to the teeth General Zia of Pakistan, who had taken power in a military coup. al-Qaeda is a legacy of that era, in fact, bin Laden was a frontline fighter against the Soviets and was perceived as a hero.

Your Orwellian control of the daily lives of the world's citizens will come to an end one day. And you will be remembered not as the valiant leader of a nation under seige, but as the blithering idiot who couldn't remember "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me" on national TV and who went on to engulf the world in flames of hatred and intolerance.