Asalaamu Alaykum,

I was contacted by Congressman Andre Carson and wanted to share it with the MM community. I also think it should be posted on the MM article that condemns his yes vote on the Israeli resolution.

“My vote wasn’t against my Palestinian brothers and sisters. In fact, I have met with Democratic leadership asking for increased humanitarian aid to my brothers and sisters. The yes vote was in support of a separate Palestinian State and humanitarian aid in which the resolution calls for. The resolution calls for America’s support of Israel’s right to defend itself and the condemnation of terrorism. As a muslim representing Indiana I have to consider both muslim and non muslim interests. I am always fighting for the downtrodden. Salaams!”

This was given as a response to my question on why he voted yes and why did he not at least condemn the civilian casualties.

Also, you can’t say let’s follow the jewish example and then be upset that someone gave you a hadith about NOT following their example.

Wallahu Alim, this is a sticy situation and I’ll give benefit of doubt, to a certain extent, with Keith Ellison.

But Andre Carson?
What are you doing…

So, what if I had said, “look at the jewish community and how they have won so many Nobel prizes in fields of science, engineering, etc., and how they have developed their academia”… would you throw that hadith at me? My point is that the applicability of that hadith is more in religious affairs, of how the past nations have gone awry in religious matters. It applies for instance where Muslims take saints for worship. There are many areas where we can try to emulate Jews and Christians, in public and civil life. That is where they have done well, and we can learn lessons from them. Throwing that hadith is not constructive in the context of this discussion.

my answer is look at the history of the Jewish people in America. See how they took their time, energy and patiently broke into the system. Once they got established, see how they are able to have a dominating position on foreign affairs of their interest, vis-a-vis Israel.

So our goal is to dominate foreign affairs in favor of our homeland country (not sure which one it is bro). Your statement reminded me of the following hadeeth:

Abu Sa’id al-Khudri reported Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) said, “You would tread the same path as was trodden by those before you, inch-by-inch and step-by-step, so much so that if they entered into a lizard’s hole, you would also follow them.”

We said, “Allah’s Messenger, do you mean Jews and Christians (by your words) those before you?”

He said, “Who else (than those two religious groups)?”

Washington is more like a pigpen, but anyway…

Siraaj

lastly, regarding “internet screamers” – amad – by virtue of this being a blog, aren’t all of us, by definition, internet screamers? :)

I’ll respond to you and by virtue of this, Suhail as well:

So, the answer Omar, is “no”. There are different flavors of speech and writings, even on blogs, by authors of posts and of comments. Some people are smooth and calm, and you can see a lack of emotion in their writings, which keeps them away from trouble (but also away from a lot of attention). Others like to scream in their writings, and love to editorialize. So, I would say many of my posts fall into the category of “internet-screaming” because it accomplishes my purpose of getting attention to my topic and sometimes seeking the emotions necessary to make the discussion interesting and even beneficial.

The bottomline: unlike what was assumed of this phrase, internet-screaming is good or bad, totally based on context. Hope that makes sense.

P.S. Br. Suhail, I hope you share your criticism of name-calling with some of the others that you hang out with online, because it seems that you are immune to some of the excesses there meted out to others, including me. I should also add that if all you could come up with is “kooks” as my “name-calling” repertoire, then I should remind you that that was something which was mistakenly assumed by one specific person to be attributed to him and then he took great pains to transmit that at every web point possible, while he himself constantly cursed and asked for Allah’s punishment upon others.

immediately before hudaybiyah though, was the bayat-ur-ridwaan. the muslims as you know, since they set out for hajj they only carried a bare minimum of weaponry. despite this, when they feared uthmaan had been assassinated, they pledged to fight and avenge it.

so in these 2 examples, i see instances where we compromise for a greater good, and i also see a time for taking a stand. for me personally, i feel that the gay rights,etc could be chalked up to that type of compromise, but i cannot bring myself in my heart to say the same for this issue of the massacre by israel. to me this seems more of the instance of taking a stand.

where do you draw the line? that is my fundamental question and it has yet gone unanswered. there is no denial of benefit, but we cannot let that make us turn a blind eye to when that benefit gets outweighed by the harm.

i feel i have not phrased some of my contentions properly, so allow me to try to ‘rephrase’ a bit – i am not trying to debate political involvement period. a more distinct way of saying it, is how do we assess the benefit/harms of mainstream political integration? that seems to be more of the core issue. i think the fact that in the interview with keith ellison posted above, that he admits siding against israel is “politically unsafe” – it something that merits discussion.

the way i see it, to engage politics – we see guys like kucinich and paul who are taking the stances that we agree with. could a different strategy be to engage the other “non-junior” congressmen with other types of campaigns to sway them, or bring more information to them, etc. i’m not saying thats the solution – but i am trying to show that other avenues do exist, even within politics. and if’ we’re honest about our specific objectives, we need to be open to seeing what legitimate ways they can be achieved. what i fear for though, is people just become attached to one solution – and as the article i quoted above says:

The other is the accusation that one is a “fundamentalist,” “fanatic,” or other such loaded term when one refuses to bless the latest expressions of what is termed “progressive,” or to acquiesce in the most recent assertion of the unalienable rights of “culture.”

i think too often a big dichotomy is unfairly created with no room for middle ground. you are either 100% behind every single one of these efforts, individuals, and organizations, or you are some kind of regressive/fanatic, etc. you know – with us or against us ;)

lastly, regarding “internet screamers” – amad – by virtue of this being a blog, aren’t all of us, by definition, internet screamers? :)