OK, I found your post (the entire one, much longer than the one you posted above) and found it in whole very naive, at times self-contradicting and as feared opportunistic.

I have chosen to respond to a few of your comments where I felt there may be a benefit.

Where I have not responded I believe our readers will see that your comments speak for themselves.

May Allah guide all of us to what is best.

Iesa

—

The whole point in my first response to you is that I have not put forward an argument… The points I have put forth are someone else’s, furthermore most of the questions asked were from our readers which you can view: here.

About the attacking nature of your posts, when you have cooled down, re-read them and it should be clear via the tone, and your own admission of your having previous issues with this website, that you were, indeed attacking. Secondly, regards to assumptions, Islam considers intelligence to be in the heart, (Qur’an, 6:25), (Qur’an, 7:179). By deducting my positions based solely on my interview questions you are assuming knowledge of my beliefs…

Your “challenging” viewpoints that are expressed by an interview, is assuming that I and George Galloway have the same exact stance – your words here: “How do you, Iesa, justify the fact that there is no space between your position and the position of a non-believer when it comes to the issue of our Muqaddasat (holy places)?” By doing that you’re equating Muslim Matters and me to secular nationalism. I for one believe that being labeled a secular “anything” is a insult to any Muslim. (To me a Muslim is one who actively attempts to submit to Allah’s will, not a race, culture or heritage).

About your counterpoint #1)

Talk about conspiracy theories, as stated earlier the majority of the questions came from our readers, (who are predominately Muslims) so let’s end this agenda setting idea.

Secondly, you mentioned Salahudeen, please study the man beyond his eventual military success in liberating Palestine. You will see that he is praised by his opponents and had made many treatises with them. Next, it is clear that the saying – if the only tool you have in your tool box is a hammer than every problem looks like a nail – applies here. What I am getting at is that I believe the Sharia encourages us to use multiple means to stand against oppression, not only a military answer. This is exemplified by the life of our beloved Prophet, the Salif and the pious predecessors as well. Furthermore, with no Amir of the Believers, no Islamic state, no unity among the Ummah, the authoritative representation of a unified Muslim position – let alone, just military action – is not pragmatic.

Lastly, every believers heart has to be attached to the issue of Palestine (and ALL the areas where Muslims are being slaughtered and oppressed). Palestine (special because of Masjid Al Aqsa of course) is vastly more complex than the limited narrative frame you are attempting to view it through. Understand, by the meaning of the word deen (religion) which for us should equate to the complete way in which we live our lives, means we should not separate or reserve Islamic guidance for specific issues or parts of our lives. Rather, we should try to please Allah with all of our actions. You see, this whole dialogue is about limiting what Islam is. My position that Islam allows for much more variety of action than you seem comfortable with.

About your counterpoint #2)

First, as a convert, the primary tie I have to Palestine is a religious one, I credit Islam as the reason Muslims should have a compassionate view on suffering in general. (refer to my first question of George Galloway)

Next, are you calling then for taking back Spain? And please do inform us of this form of government that the Shari’a is calling for… In my understanding, there is no single type of governmental system enshrined in the Shari’a, however the Shari’a does give us the principles (moral guidance) from which a system of government can be administered correctly.

About your counterpoint #3)

No, they have not done the same… many politicians go on Israeli guided and Israeli funded tours and get a much planned exposure to the region. One that is pro-Israel only…

About your counterpoint #4)

It is clear that you have a lot of studying up to do on the situation in Palestine and the people (esp. the Israeli population as well as the American Jewry.) The majority of which are not Orthodox Jews (who have their own spectrum). Many of these two populations have secular and reactionary influences (the never again, no matter who is effected, survival mindset).

Your arguments are far too simplistic, for another example, your bit about “Americans” taking over Mecca, sounds exactly like far right neo-con Christians.

Lastly, we have to care about our brothers and sisters in Palestine and never overlook any of their aspirations (political or other).

Here are my thoughts:

First off, the reason I started off my comment with a statement that I recognize looks very desperate is because I have had a bitter experience in the past with systematic censorship here on MM. For the most part, I thought my comment would be considered “too radical”. Thankfully, that was not the case but as a future gauge to see who is really “immature” and employs a “very intellectually weak tactic” I hope the rest of this short back and forth (short, I hope) can proceed with sharing of opinions and not deleting my comments when I feel I haven’t done anything wrong.

Secondly, with regards to what you perceived to be a personal attack on yourself I would like to put you at rest and say that I am neither making Takfeer of you or Tabdee’ (nor am I qualified to do so), or even calling you a traitor or a hypocrite. I am simply challenging the arguments made in this article. Can I do that without being accused of dangerous “assumptions” or somehow having a knowledge of the Ghayb that is in peoples hearts? When did I say I knew what was in your heart? I am simply debating the points you have openly put forth in your article. Nothing more.

Thirdly, another unfair move on your part I believe is your constant insinuation that “this appears to be something else…”. Why would you suggest that my thoughts and comments are some sort of sinister personal attack on you or a “character-assassination” conspiracy…I don’t even know you, lol. I don’t feel there was any personal dimension to my comments because since I don’t even know you personally how could I and why would I attack you on a personal level? Yes, I have a different viewpoint then yours and rather than a personal attack I felt I was simply challenging your views and arguments. Can’t I simply comment and make what I feel are relevant points without being accused of some sort of ulterior motive?

Fourthly, yes when I debate I hope to discover the truth, Insha’allah, but if I include “you’s” or “I’s” in my comment I am simply referring to my or your arguments.

That said, I would like to address some of the points in your reply:

1) What I intend to discover when I ask you your position on Masjid Al-Aqsa and Al-Ard Al-Muqaddas (The Holy Land) is this: do you take responsibilty for the nature of the agenda-setting you do here on MM? Brother Iesa, I believe you are a very smart an educated individual, and I believe you understand more than anybody the importance of what you say and what you don’t say. By the consistent promotion of non-believers like Galloway as “the authority” on this issue you establish the basis upon which this issue will be approached… and I think you realize this. That means the issue of our holy mosque and holy land is presented as an issue of:

-Secular nationalism
-Civil rights
-Human rights
-Self-determination
-Political activism

I think its fair to say that to the bulk of the 1 billion Muslims on this earth, when you bring up this issue these are not the words that immediately come to mind. I think this issue is about:

A religious entitlement to the land of Bayt ul-Maqdis on the basis that this is a land from the land of the Muslims, ever since the likes of Umar Al-Khattab (R) liberated it and Salahuddin Al-Ayyubi (Rah) and the Muslim heroes after him, and due to the consensus of our Fuqaha’ (jurists) old and new that if even one inch of the land of the Muslims is occupied by the disbelievers it becomes Fard ‘Ayn on every Muslim the world over to liberate that land. You see that has nothing to do with the secular nationalist arguments about “Palestine” and the “2-state solution”, or the Munafiq United Nations’ ideas about human rights when it was the U.N who gave Bayt ul-Maqdis to the Yahood in the first place, or this so-called “activism” that gets in bed with those who firebomb women and children, or any of these other ideas and ideologies that were invented by the kuffaar and have no basis in Islam.

So it’s a question of who you interview, which video clips you put up, which viewpoints you cover and which ones you don’t. I think that is the issue.

2) I don’t understand your point about being a convert to Islam with regards to the issue of nationalism. Bottom line: Do you advocate for that part of the world on the basis of the western concept of secular nation-state self-determinism, such that it is no different than the case of the Tamils in Sri Lanka, Irish in Ireland, or the Abkhazians in Georgia, or does your advocacy base itself in the concepts of the Qur’anic and Prophetic teachings about the land belonging to Allah and that He inherits it to whomever He wills of His slaves, that the state based on the Shari’a of Allah is the only legitimate form of government, that once a land is conquered for Islam it is forever a land of the Muslims, and so on and so forth?

3) Kudos for your efforts in getting to the region and getting first-hand knowledge of the region but I would have to say…hasn’t every U.S president, congressmen, or representative done exactly the same thing? Does that stop them from supporting and joining the Yahood in the slaughter of women and children? Absolutely not. So is a field trip really enough?

4) The reason I bring up the issue of Masjid Al-Aqsa so prominently is because that is what I feel most Muslims believe symbolizes this issue. This is directly tied in with the oppression of the people of Filistine because precisely the reason the Yahood chose this land for their so called “Jewish state” is because of the “holiness” of the place (for some time, it was thought the British would give them Uganda!). It would be the equivalent of the Americans moving the military troops and civilian personnel they already have based on Bilad al-Haramayn (The Land of the two Harams-Mecca and Medina) directly to Mecca, announcing a “Christian State”, desecrating the Ka’ba, digging under the Ka’ba with hopes to build a church in its place to hasten the second coming, and massacring thousands upon thousands of the Muslimeen for good measure. On that occasion would we talk about “the political aspirations of the Saudi people”? So you can see its a farce. My question is: Where is Al-Aqsa in your discourse? As far as I can see it doesn’t have a place.

From what I can tell you are posting under every article on our site with multiple names… you obviously have no platform of your own and you also feel so entitled that as a guest here you try use threats and bully tactics.

At this point you are succeeding at undermining your own creditability, due to lack of manners, lack of patience and whining. What I find on the site is you complaining and stating that “you are getting angry” all over the place with a me, me, me… attitude. Try and focus that energy on something more beneficial and less egocentric.

When I get a chance I will look into the comments you are mentioning… but this is exactly what I was speaking about when I said that as believers we should be more humble.