More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Yursil Kidwai

Yursil Kidwai

Posted: October 6, 2010 12:10 PM

Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad entered the courtroom today with a mission of self-proselytization.

"If I am given 1,000 lives, I will sacrifice them all for the sake of Allah," said Shahzad." ... Decree whatever you desire to decree, for you can only decree regarding the life of this world," he proudly stated to the court.

This is a precursor of the rhetoric that the world can expect to hear from apprehended terrorists everywhere. These words are a powerful trifecta: they are a warning, a calming maxim, and a recruitment vehicle for al-Qaeda.

As a warning to his enemies, they are an effective tool to demonstrate Mr. Shahzad's level of commitment to his cause. As a calming maxim, they allow Shahzad to take comfort in the idea that his suffering is finite. And finally, as a recruitment tool, they strike at the heart-strings of all Muslims. Every Muslim wants to sacrifice for God. Isn't every act of charity, at its fundamental level, a sacrifice of personal wealth to the poor for God's sake? Here we have someone who was ready to sacrifice his life (and others) for God.

Doubts can easily creep into a Muslim youth's heart. There must be something we don't understand, how can he be evil when he's suffering for no selfish cause, no personal gain? Here we are enjoying good food and good times, and he is in a prison cell.

What Shahzad means to emphasize is that suffering doesn't matter to him; he is unaffected no matter what the court would throw at him. His hope isn't for material gain or a comfortable life in this world, he is after the afterlife. When it is convenient and in the public eye, Shahzad wears the pious cloak of the martyr, ready for torture or death.

However, there are tremendous contradictions in his few public statements. They demonstrate a deep confusion of basic orthodox Islamic principles and outright hypocrisy.

When the Sufis said similar words about the fleeting nature of this worldly life, they embodied that understanding in totality. They universalized that concept to allow people to understand that personal suffering was transient. Whether it was a mother who lost her child or someone stricken with bankruptcy, everyone found benefit in considering their own mortality. This is the faith that allows Muslims to face terminal illnesses with perseverance, acceptance and strength.

Yet, Shahzad rebels against universal suffering:

"If you call us terrorists ... then we are proud terrorists ... and we will keep on terrorizing until you leave our land and people at peace," Mr Shahzad also stated in the courtroom.

So while it has been established that he, ostensibly, doesn't care for his own personal welfare in this world, he is clearly enraged at the suffering of some land and unnamed people.

One wonders if Shahzad will rage against God, should he finally become aware that God permits many to suffer?

These types of contradictions shine through Shahzad's words even when dealing with himself. In one breath the court can do him no harm, yet in another he complains, " ... I asked for the Miranda. And the FBI denied it to me for two weeks, effecting harm to my kids and family, and I was forced to sign those Mirandas."

Shahzad's words reek of a disconnection to the truly spiritual elite of Islam, and even the accomplished warriors of Islamic history. They are remembered not for their hypocrisy (a grievous sin in Islam) or their proud proclamations which they acted contrary to. They are remembered for their consistency in faith and practice, and results which delivered Muslims into a closer relationship with their Lord.

Newsday states:

In other comments, he brushed off a question from the judge about the oath of loyalty he took when he became a U.S. citizen last year -- "I did swear but I did not mean it".

So Muslims say:

In the Name of Allah, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful

"They (hypocrites) swear to you by Allah in order to please you, but it would be more fitting for them to please Allah and His Messenger if they are believers." (Holy Quran 9:62)

 

Follow Yursil Kidwai on Twitter: www.twitter.com/yursil

 
 
  • Comments
  • 62
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
photo
Ahmed Ahmad
Atheists Unite!
04:05 PM on 10/14/2010
Is it not a fact that islam was created by a warrior, who killed inside and outside the battle field? Why do you people insist in deleting all my posts, when all I am doing is providing an insight into this article by referencing FACTS extracted from islamic scripture?
04:25 AM on 10/11/2010
{A} problem concerning law and order {with respect to Muslims in dar al-harb} arises from an ancient Islamic legal principle -- that of taqiyya, a word the root meaning of which is "to remain faithful" but which in effect means "dissimulation." It has full Quranic authority (3:28 and 16:106) and allows the Muslim to conform outwardly to the requirements of unislamic or non-Islamic government, while inwardly "remaining faithful" to whatever he conceives to be proper Islam, while waiting for the tide to turn. (Hiskett,Some to Mecca Turn to Pray, 101.)
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 269; Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah: The Prophet said, "War is deceit."
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Yursil Kidwai
03:25 AM on 10/12/2010
I went to the link you provided and read the article.

Lying is not permitted by Christianity. Jesus did not lie and He never taught His followers to lie. You are wrong Christianity does not sanction lying for any reason period.

Do some Christians rationalize to themselves that telling a lie to spare pain, hurt or embarrassment is allowed? Yes. That is the difference.

Mohamed permitted lying in times of war. Mohamed divided the world into two.

Dar al Islam, the place where Islam is supreme and "Allah's" law the Sharia rules.

Dar al Harb the place of the unbeliever, the place of war.

Because of this Islam is in perpetual state of war.

Islam is at war with the unbelieving West.
04:23 AM on 10/11/2010
Why did he try to blow up an SUV in Time Square again?

9:29. Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
9:33. It is He {Allah} Who has sent His Messenger (Muhammad) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islam), to make it superior over all religions even though the Mushrikun (polytheists, pagans, idolaters, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah) hate (it). Umdat al-salik: (Islamic law)

8:39. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allah) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah Alone [in the whole of the world]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allah), then certainly, Allah is All-Seer of what they do.

Was he a terrorist before or after he tried it?

No he had a good job, education , house in the suburbs. He had the American Dream.

What happened?

He went to Pakistan and became a devout Muslim.

If someone tells you he is your enemy and tells you why believe him. Look at what he uses to defend his belief.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Yursil Kidwai
07:41 AM on 10/11/2010
I am Pakistani, and a devout Muslim. I've been to Pakistan, India, Turkey, Cyprus etc... for religious pilgrimages.

There is a reason that I've encountered the same clips of text and accusations over and over again, its because people refuse to engage at a conversational or personal level on the internet and on something they've made up their mind about.
photo
Ahmed Ahmad
Atheists Unite!
04:26 PM on 10/11/2010
And when others try to have honest factual based discourse in forums like this, YOU PEOPLE delete those comments. Grand, just grand...
03:31 AM on 10/12/2010
As do I.

I am not accusing anyone I simply state facts.

The fact is Islam has two faces, one that is for the believer, and one that is for the unbeliever.

Mecca vs Medina.

I believe the real truth is the one told in Dar al Islam.

http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/4650.htm
photo
ideasmatter
Knowledge is free
09:42 PM on 10/09/2010
"Isn't every act of charity, at its fundamental level, a sacrifice of personal wealth to the poor for God's sake?" No, it is not. I am an atheist, and I commit plenty of acts of sacrifice for fellow humans, but not for God, because there is none.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
kodimirpal
teacher
12:34 PM on 10/09/2010
My enemy’s enemy is my friend, and my enemy’s friend is my enemy, is an immoral policy. Nevertheless too many countries follow this.

Probably the US and Israel are exceptions, as they are capable of RUNNING WITH THE HARE AND HUNTING WITH HOUNDS as we see them doing it in India and Pakistan and much more vividly in the Middle East: Turkey's relation with Israel and Iran, US's relation with saudi Arabia and Israel.

The most horrendously fundamental and oppressive State is Saudis. They are best friend of the US, the rogue state in the ME is Israel, again the best friend of the US. Is it not the best definition of double standard? STRATEGY or OPPORTUNISM?
photo
ideasmatter
Knowledge is free
09:39 PM on 10/09/2010
What does this have to do with anything? How about some logic?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
kodimirpal
teacher
12:14 AM on 10/10/2010
It is a continuation of my ideas posted earlier on, if you read between lines it implies some of the causes for the frustration and anger of some radical individuals who commit violence.There are political, economic, and issues of oppression, social injustice in the Middle East to which the pro-American regimes are indifferent.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
kodimirpal
teacher
12:26 PM on 10/09/2010
American definition of terrorism is violated first and foremost by America itself: Following is the US DEFINITION of TERRORISM. "[An] act of terrorism, means any activity that (A) involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life that is a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State; and (B) appears to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping." (United States Code Congressional and Administrative News, 98th Congress, Second Session, 1984, Oct 19, volume 2; par 3077, 98 STAT. 2707[West Publishing Co., 1984]).

USA and Israel are the biggest violators of their own definition of TERRORISM, as you read above. France, United Kingdom, Italy, Australia, Poland, Canada do have a big share in aiding American butchery and destabilisation of the third world.

Unless and until we address the root cause of the Western intervention in the affairs of other nations, the counter terrorism in some measures is likely to go on. Revenge unfortunately runs in the veins and vessels of humans. Western and Israeli neo-imperialism and political domination of the world should come to an end and we have to accept social justice and fair distribution of the world’s wealth.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
01:32 PM on 10/09/2010
Your post leaves no doubt which side of the war you are on. Given your orientation, what you write makes perfect sense.

Those of us on the other side see the conflict differently.

You are suggesting a capitulation to Islamism by the West. Some Americans and Europeans agree with you, but not enough yet to raise the white flag. You will no doubt continue to explain to Westerners why they are guilty of so many sins that they should stop resisting the jihad. I will continue to resist the jihad.

Unfortunately for you, it appears right now that about 70% of Americans feel as I do.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
kodimirpal
teacher
12:44 AM on 10/10/2010
I doubt your 70% figure. If 50% participate in american elections, your 70% means that only 35% americans feel as you do feel.

Affected third world nations(Vietnam, Columbia, Laos, Iran of 1953, Nicaragua, Haiti etc) knew the US’s immoral policies around the world. But American voters allow the organised American State terrorism and unfair foreign policy to continue because

A vast majority of Americans are ignorant of American foreign policy objectives, as a matter of fact they have been brain washed.

A vast majority do not bother about the US's foreign policy; they are more concerned about their domestic bread and butter issues

A huge majority, I would say 60% of the politically aware and intellectual americans do not go anywhere near the polling booths simply because American democracy (plutocracy is a better term) itself is a myth.

They know that there is no credible option, either the democrats come to power or the republicans come to power. Probable that they have a secret deal between them in foreign policy objectives: that is dominating the world politically, economically and militarily.

For instance no party can bring a change in the US's policy on Palestine simply because majority of the politicians depend on the Jewish political bribes and financial contributions.,
Palestinians are poor, unkempt and “uncivilized” and hence can be ignored.

It is the money and the Zionist proxies that control the policies. Obama listens to Netanyahu or he be ready to lose his second term in office
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
kodimirpal
teacher
12:50 AM on 10/10/2010
"You are suggesting a capitulation to Islamism by the West." Definitely no.
But I am suggesting is, let us put an end to the futile and hostile clash of civilizations and try to have mutual understanding and work towards co-existence.
photo
Oblongato
My micro-bio defines me.
08:18 AM on 10/10/2010
The general term "western intervention" is a misrepresentation and oversimplification of the actual situation. Muslims are not a monolithic block with a single opinion. You speak as if opinion in predominately Muslim countries is not divided on matters of trade, military aid etc. It is obvious that the U.S. would desire to support those who share a mutual interest in cooperation and trade and would oppose those who attempt to sabotage those efforts.

Governments, in particular, bear the responsibility of ensuring the long-term prosperity and well being of their people. The necessity of trade with the west in order to accomplish these goals is, however, not a fact well understood by poor, uneducated citizens whose anger at at their situation is easily manipulated by terrorists and militants into religious zeal with isolationist tendencies.

Does the solution lie in allowing democratically elected Islamists to take office?

The Palestinian people, for instance, did themselves no favors when they elected an anti-western Hamas government. It is difficult to work in the interests of people who have declared you to be their enemy. Terrorist attacks have given Israel a genuine claim to an ongoing security risk.

While I support your goals of social justice and fair distribution of wealth (assuming you mean fair wages for work done), I am not convinced that the most effective strategy is a simple vilification of the west.
photo
Oblongato
My micro-bio defines me.
12:23 PM on 10/09/2010
"Every Muslim wants to sacrifice for God. ... Here we have someone who was ready to sacrifice his life (and others) for God.

Doubts can easily creep into a Muslim youth's heart. There must be something we don't understand, how can he be evil when he's suffering for no selfish cause, no personal gain?"

I found these lines quite disturbing. Is the author really suggesting that Muslim youths are this close to sympathizing with terrorism - that their religious fervor is so close to overwhelming their respect for human life and the law?

If Kidawi's portrayal is correct, the only thing keeping Muslim youths from sympathizing with and perhaps emulating someone prepared to sacrifice his own life (and others) for God (i.e. a terrorist) is their ability to understand what Kidawi claims are contradictions in Shahzad's own belief. The contradiction, according to Kidawi, is to simultaneously "wear the cloak of the martyr" while at the same time failing to completely let go of earthly concerns such as his Miranda rights.

Are we then to understand that if Shahzad had dropped the comments about this world and stuck to comments befitting a martyr he would truly be admirable?

Kidawi shows a shocking disregard for the crime committed by Shahzad, instead criticizing him for his ideological inconsistency; I certainly hope his views on the matter are not shared by others.
photo
Oblongato
My micro-bio defines me.
12:56 PM on 10/09/2010
The author's name, of course, is Kidwai. Please excuse the error.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Yursil Kidwai
02:25 PM on 10/09/2010
I appreciate your concern. The other way to look at it, is that many Muslim youths are dismayed about the state of the world. There are many outlets for expressing these feelings. A few like Shahzad can get manipulated onto this path. The rhetoric which they use to justify channeling their feelings into evil actions *results* in theological confusion and necessitate (as in the case of the oath) hypocrisy and incoherency. Straight forward examples of this can be found at all levels of terrorist organizations. All of which run counter to Islamic traditional values.
photo
Oblongato
My micro-bio defines me.
03:37 PM on 10/09/2010
Thank you for your reply.

Perhaps I simply do not like to think that there are large numbers of young people out there who are prepared to ignore the aspect of murder when it is in the context of selfless sacrifice for God. It is not only Muslim youths who are dismayed about the state of the world. If the Muslim youths you refer to do in fact harbor such views, I am inclined to seek the cause in a religious belief so strong that this world and the lives of one's fellow humans have only a secondary importance when it comes to serving God. If the desire to serve God can be manipulated into the willingness to commit murderous acts, I must say that I have misgivings regarding that desire to serve God.

What disturbs me about what you describe is that it is only the result of the channeling of feelings of dismay into evil actions that results in theological confusion. There is apparently no fundamental principle to prevent the evil in the first place. Is there nothing in Islam like the Golden Rule that I live by?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
11:18 AM on 10/09/2010
It could be argued that Shahzad is following Sharia law and Muslims who are not performing jihad while infidel troops occupy Islamic lands are neglecting their Islamic duty:

Umdat al-salik, o9.0:

"Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and it is etymologically derived from the word mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the religion. And it is the lesser jihad. As for the greater jihad, it is spiritual warfare against the lower self (nafs), which is why the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said as he was returning from jihad,

“We have returned from the lesser jihad to the greater jihad.”[....]

THE OBLIGATORY CHARACTER OF JIHAD

O9.1 Jihad is a communal obligation (def: c3.2). When enough people perform it to successfully accomplish it, it is no longer obligatory upon others (O: the evidence for which is the Prophet’s saying (Allah bless him and give him peace),
“He who provides the equipment for a soldier in jihad has himself performed jihad,” […]

I wonder why the author mentions none of this.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Yursil Kidwai
11:48 AM on 10/09/2010
Simple, it was not mentioned because the text you quote from was written in 1368, nearly 700 years ago with it's own political and international environment. It's an interesting text to read, but hardly authoritative in Muslims lives. It would be akin to questioning US law based on law from the 1692 Salem witch trials. The Ottomans, who ruled the Islamic Khalifat for nearly 700 years didn't exist in a state of constant total war. All Islamic leaders state there is no physical jihad today.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
kodimirpal
teacher
01:00 PM on 10/09/2010
I beg to differ. Even physical Jihad may be necessary should circumstances warrant it.In Islam JIHAD signifies a physical, moral, spiritual and intellectual effort.

But it is true that Jihad is NOT the central prop of the religion despite the common view of non-Muslims.

But it was and remains a duty for Muslims to commit themselves to a struggle on all fronts- moral, spiritual and political---to create a just and decent society, where the poor and the vulnerable are not exploited, in the way that God had intended man to live.

Fighting and warfare might be necessary.

The Quran amplifies this forcefully, quote “ Had God not driven back the people, some by the
means of others, the earth had surely been corrupted ; but God is merciful unto all beings.”


When the people of a territory have been chased out of their land like morbid dogs by the merciless hordes and aggressors ( as it happened in Palestine), the Palestinian victims can engage in Jihad but strictly under the laws of Islam following their spiritual leader. This is a present day example for those who ask for one.

The Quran says “Fighting is an evil thing, but to bar people from God’s way, disbelief in Him and the Holy Mosque, and to expel its people from it---that is more evil in God’s sight. And persecution is worse than killing.” Holy Quran 2: 213
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
11:07 PM on 10/09/2010
This is from the Al-Azhar certification on page xx of Umdat:

[….] “conforms to the practice and faith of the orthodox Sunni Community (Ahl al-Sunna wa al-Jama’a).”

It is signed by the General Director of Research Writing and Translation
Muhammad ‘Umar Muhammad ‘Umar, and is dated 26 Rajab 1411 A.H./ 11 February, 1991 A. D."

Umar is confirming that in 1991 Umdat conformed to the practice and faith of the orthodox Sunni Community. The appropriate official of Al-Azhar is stating that Umdat is present Sharia law of the Shafii school. What else can that sentence mean?

WHO IS OBLIGED TO FIGHT IN JIHAD
o9.4 Those called upon (O: to perform jihad when it is a communal obligation) are every able-bodied man who has reached puberty and is sane.
[…]
o9.6 It is offensive to conduct a military expedition against hostile non-Muslims without the caliph’s permission (A: though if there is no caliph (def: o25), no permission is required).
[…]

Please point out to me where in Islamic law these passages have been abrogated
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
kodimirpal
teacher
12:42 PM on 10/09/2010
http://www.counterpunch.org/richman07292010.html
A quote from Richman's "Those who understand the exploitative nature of big government suspected that the U.S. response to the 9/11 attacks had little to do with the security of the American people and much to do with power and money. Still, the magnitude of the scam, as revealed by the Washington Post last week, is astonishing.

Naturally, the politicians justify the growth in intelligence operations on national security grounds. To make sure such attacks never happen again, they said, new powers, agencies, personnel, and facilities were imperative.

Now the truth is out: the post–9/11 activity has been an obscene feeding frenzy at the public trough. Any resemblance to efforts at keeping Americans safe is strictly coincidental."
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
01:41 PM on 10/09/2010
Your (and Richman's) cynical attitude is probably shared by many. May I ask if you are an American citizen?

Do you have a positive suggestion to increase our security or are you indulging in schadenfreude?
photo
ideasmatter
Knowledge is free
09:49 PM on 10/09/2010
Yeah, really, the US invaded Afghanistan for its riches, and for the power that comes with occupying the middle of nowhere.
09:54 AM on 10/08/2010
Why Are There M16s Outside Macy's? http://bit.ly/9zoKdS
09:46 AM on 10/07/2010
When will "the truly spiritual elite of Islam" succeed in reigning in the psychopathic non-elites among their co-religionists? Until that is accomplished the spread of Islam will be synonymous with the sprad of violence, intolerance, oppression and terrorism.
12:41 PM on 10/07/2010
C.W. maybe that is a general western view, but that does not mean its true. I'm sure a Eurocentric world view lends itself to this conclusion, but the world is a big place and its a two way street. When will the humane elite of the U.S or west reign in the psychopathic war mongers who have unleashed such misery on the Muslim world. Palestine and Iraq west props up Wahabi monarchy in Saudi Arabia, Egypt.
So yes, the list is long and the greviences among muslims many and it dosen't help when they are ignored, but Yursil is right, acts of terrorism is wrong because two wrongs don't make a right, but please save us the polemics of painting the entire muslim world or religion which constitute 1/4 of all humanity. How many of U.S. 'Elites" have condemened the nearly 1M killed and 5M displaced in Iraq. Yes Muslims have a responsibility to reign in the extremists, but the west has its responsibilites also.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
kodimirpal
teacher
11:56 AM on 10/09/2010
Good points Friend:
Let us take the specific case of Abdullah Al-Ajmi who was locked up at Guantanamo. After four years of brutal treatment in Guantanamo, he was sent back to Kuwait. Later he found his way to Iraq to teach terror to Americans. In March 2008, he drove a bomb-laden vehicle into Iraqi military compound killing himself and 13 soldiers.

An act of horrible violence committed by a former Guantanamo detainee. Of course what Abdullah did was a crime in Islam, in any religion, but what caused him to do this. This was the direct result of his abusive treatment in the hands of civilized Americans.

The use of torture by the US elicits no useful information to stop terror but in fact it has proved so counter productive that many more US soldiers have died due to such terror than the number of civilians killed in 9/11. Organised State Terror by powerful nations have played havoc in the world urging spirited youngsters to do something, kill irresponsibly, violently and against the teachings of islam. It is very difficult to put the blame on them squarely if their kith and kin are brutally slaughtered for no blame of theirs. Revenge and retaliation runs in human veins
In short we have to address the root cause of the terror.
05:56 PM on 10/06/2010
Congratulations on your first write up for HP and inshAllah hope to read more of them in future. But here is a my disagreement - you are trivialising the whole Shehzad thing into a very Western perspective. Really no sane person supports this guy and no Muslim can support him for his murderous intents but he is a grieving soul in himself and that is what no one seems to be looking at unfortunately. These "martyrs" remind me of the Christian martyrs from the streets of Cardoba who would insult Prophet just to enrage Muslim rulers and get executed for that to rally their people. And in the end they did succeed!
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Yursil Kidwai
08:05 AM on 10/07/2010
The problem is, there are people who support his attitude. Visit any number of jihadi forums you will find them. Prominent ex-mainstream speaker such as Alwaki support this type of activity. Muslims need to be able to address the incoherence of their thinking and the inherent hypocrisy in their actions, and this article is a small step in that direction.
05:27 PM on 10/06/2010
This is a very nice article, well written and throughtful. But while this goofball soapboxes, he's not getting locked up for being a Muslim. He's being locked up for trying to murder random people. He can ponder the will of God (or Allah) all he wants in his concrete box for the rest of his life, and practice the five pillars (well, hope he got that pilgrimage out of the way) to his hearts content. He just won't be doing much else, and certainly not what the creator probably intended for him.
photo
ideasmatter
Knowledge is free
09:55 PM on 10/09/2010
Right on!
03:32 PM on 10/06/2010
So here's where I have issues with people like this guy. He seems to be convinced that he's doing this for God and that God is pleased with it. But then he doesn't bother to question that if Allah was truly pleased with this, then why didn't the bomb go off? It almost looks like *gasp* God does not want this shit to happen and prevented the bomb from working. They just don't think about stuff like that I guess :/

Go figure eh?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
RockyMissouri
'You must be carefully taught to hate'...
03:00 PM on 10/06/2010
Thank you for your beautiful and truthful words... Every religion has its' hypocrites.....ALL of them...thank you for pointing out this difference....thank you for pointing out the lovely aspects of Islam..
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Yursil Kidwai
03:15 PM on 10/06/2010
Thank you for your kind comment :) My first article on HP, I hope to have many more.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
RockyMissouri
'You must be carefully taught to hate'...
02:16 PM on 10/06/2010
Just as extreme Christians, that same kind of fanaticism....like the right to life nuts who would take a life to preserve a zygote....those same kind of folk would gladly sacrifice their children to war but scream and yell to save that zygote....this makes NO amount of sense to me.