The Voodoo of fighting terrorism while cradling Islamism 

Following every terror attack in Egypt, secularists, myself included, engage in long conversations on the necessity of combating Islamist ideologies [Islam as a religion and constitution] for the sake of our country’s national security. We also urge the state to allow Muslim reformers to speak freely without fear of getting thrown in jail and to prevent government senior officials, especially in the ministry of Islamic affairs and Al-Azhar, from promoting extremist, fundamentalist, and Islamist ideas. High on adrenaline, we tend to forget that most Muslims in Egypt actually put Islam high above the Egyptian state: they are Muslims living in Egypt not Egyptians who believe in Islam. It is one of the reasons why some Europeans are rightly concerned about the increasing numbers of Muslims in Europe alongside declining birth rates. Islam, unlike Christianity now, supersedes the state. Sharia courts and FGM in England come to mind.

Islamists in Egypt, including the ones in the government and Al-Azhar and Salafists, hold great sway over the minds of Muslims, particularly younger ones. Islamism gives these men of God the moral and executive authority to mobilize millions of youths towards a particular goal should the situation arise and the need for action is true enough. If Sisi challenges the core ideas that enables Islamists to control Egyptian Muslims without a meticulously calculated plan implemented incrementally, the outcome can be devastating for him and Egypt. Islamists will not watch helplessly as the rug is pulled from under their feet and the authority they worked years to achieve evaporates. Sisi is surely well aware of what happened when Saddam Hussein and his party tried secularizing Iraq in an economy much better than Egypt’s. Islamists have the know-how and texts to label him an enemy of Islam if they sense he is sincere about delegitimizing the authority they derive from the interpretation of Islam they promote, preach, and write literature for; they also have the capability to turn millions of youths against him and Christians, like some of them do now but on a mass scale. It is delusional, for example, to think that Salafists believe in anything but an Islamic State, they are just currently relaxed because the government allows them to freely, absolutely freely, propagate the ideas ISIS is putting into action and instill them in the minds of children.

Islam Beheiry, who had been jailed for criticizing extremist interpretations of the Quran and Hadith, says Al-Azhar University’s curricula must be updated to remove all hard-line stipulations derived from the Quran and Hadith such as the ones on fighting infidels and hating non-Muslims or discriminating against them. According to Beheiry, former head of Al-Azhar Mohamed Sayed Tantawi had actually taken this step before the current Grand Imam Ahmed Eltayeb rescinded it. Sisi, on more than one occasion, called on Al-Azhar scholars to actively combat extremist texts, not Islamism, but was met with deaf ears time and time again. And while it is true that Sisi’s authority is unchecked and he can pretty much get away with anything, when it comes to religion, if his vision of reforming and modernizing Islam, which neither denotes nor connotes rejecting the principle of Islam as a religion and state constitution, is not fully aligned with the Islamists and Salafists inside and outside his government he can find himself up against a volcano of terrorism and disobedience.

Taking small but real and effective steps, and cementing them, towards a secular Egypt is the only viable way. Sisi, however, still seems reluctant to take it. Sisi and many Egyptians seem to think terrorism can be fought without challenging Islamism, but if the statement Islam is a religion and state constitution is true, does it not follow that Men of God should rule or fight until power is in their hands?!!

Islamosocialism in Egypt

The list of why leftists hated and revolted against Mubarak goes as follows:- systemized corruption, appalling education, terrible services, normalized favoritism and nepotism, and a vicious oligarchy. All of which Mubarak is guilty of, but he is also guilty of fostering the Islamosocialism ideology and lifestyle. Throughout his thirty years in power, socialists, read most Egyptians, kept circulating the rhetoric of victimhood; blaming the government for everything but never the people. On a parallel line, Islamists, with full power to preach freely, continued the work of fundamentalists to make an ideology out of Islam complete with overlords and marionettes; a mind prison.  

Can Mubarak be blamed for all of this? Yes, because when you wield absolute power you carry absolute responsibility.

Islamosocialism produces intolerant citizens who believe they have the right to organize every little thing in your life under the authority of Islam while being entitled to goodies from the government who should step into everything and regulate it. Islamosocialism puts up a great fight against human rights through true liberalism by creating an atmosphere of authoritarianism enacted by citizens on one another and by the police – who uses Islamism and the giant hand of the government to discipline people without any regard for any rights- on the people. Leftists cannot claim to be for progress as they have always worked with and supported Islamists’ right to be major political players and social influencers.  

When Sisi seized power from Morsi, he signaled what many thought was a battle cry against Islamism, and Islam Beheiry continued introducing new ways to contextualize the Quran and Hadith within modern understandings. Sadly, all hope was lost when AlAzhar’s word came louder and Beheiry was locked up.

I say we continue fighting though, not through dialogue and debate, neither will do anything with Islamists, but rather by living our lives and speaking our minds to the fullest, maybe while avoiding anything that could put us in jail.

We should let it be known that our conscience is a doctrine of god and music is one of his voices.

Beyond WWJD: Overtaking the Egyptian Muslim Critical Mind

Islamists have hijacked the Muslim critical mind. One can argue that the What Would Jesus Do motto undermines the individual’s judgment and character, Egyptian Muslims have gone beyond that. Starting in the seventies, Egyptian Islamists began, brilliantly, with extreme dexterity, convincing Muslims against even asking what would Mohamed do, but rather to ask a sheik to tell them what Mohamed would do. Their method involved:
1- Fear tactics: What if you don’t follow true Islam and keep incurring sins?
2- Employing fundamentalism and literalism: Promoting the idea that early Muslims, including those who leaned towards extremism even in their time, are the best representatives of Islam and their interpretation of it will lead to the rise of Muslims.
3- Mystifying Islam: Claiming that Islam is not simple enough to be understood by laymen and therefore they must be the ones in charge of explaining it to the public.

Islamists also managed to insert religion into all aspects of life via the rebirth of fatwas. Now, you have to ask a sheik to find out if your haircut is haram, if your shirt is haram, if working with infidels is haram, whatever you do has to be approved by a sheik.

This is by no means a very detailed or accurate description of their strategy because what Islamists did with the Muslims of Egypt is nothing short of sorcery. They have cemented Islam as a dogma in the minds of Muslims; a solid immovable rock only they can move. Yet, Muslims believe the version of Islam they currently adopt has nothing in common with the Christianity of Europe’s former Catholic Church. Sorcery.

Before Islamists taught Muslims they need to consult a sheik about the correct way to enter a bathroom, sheiks were not quite revered, now, they are walking Gods. From T.V. Shows and books to influencing politics, the sheiks are everywhere. Unlike Europe, we regressed to the shackles of men in costumes who know what God wants. The Muslim Brotherhood and Salafists have taken this to levels that border on servitude, other Muslims remain infected with the Sheik Virus, albeit less severely than the Brothers and Salafists, and Islamism remains in control of Egypt even though neither the Brotherhood nor Salafists is ruling.

If you control the mind you control everything.

However, as long as we are we have to fight. We have to challenge their ideas. Of course when we do this we risk prison, like Islam Behiery and possibly Sayed AlQemni, but hey, if you’re gonna die die with blood on your boots.

And we’re all gonna die.

And there is nothing more humiliating than submitting to Islamism.


Sheik: A Muslim cleric and advisor.

Salafists: Muslim fundamentalists.

Haram: Forbidden in Islam.

Islamism: Islam as a religion and constitution for a state.


Americans should not tolerate the culture of Niqab 

Some Muslim women wear the niqab to avoid being seen or identified by foreign men, foreign men here means all men but their husbands, brothers, and fathers. The Niqab is a sign of a culture that has stopped progressing and revising its main ideas one thousand years ago, a culture that puts women in a place clearly inferior to men. No matter what muslim feminists say, the version of Islam stuck in the past, yet continues to dominate Muslims’ thinking to this day, sees women as and makes them feeble, unequal sex objects that should be protected from the temptations of their own minds and men, niqab is one tool of this protection. Niqab’s Islam completely opposes what the second wave of feminism stood for and the basics of western women’s lifestyle. In fact, it is a culturally hostile foreign element, especially when factoring in the number of women in niqab who see other women as indecent, remember, most of these women are convinced niqab is a staple of Islam, which their understanding thereof is literal and absolute, thus contempt for women not wearing niqab is probably heavy. 

Let’s take a look at Egypt. This is not an analogy as the two countries are radically different, but there is something to consider in what happened here. Egypt in the sixties wasn’t the country you see today, girls didn’t wear hijabs, men and women didn’t religiously abide by what a preacher, who makes thousands of pounds through TV and youtube ads, says on his program, Sheiks had not hijacked the Egyptian critical mind yet, Christians were loved, arts were revered, and feminine beauty was celebrated. Egypt has changed, radically, and the state is the number one guilty party. Cultural transformation is possible. We must reserve the right to favor one cultural element over another, reject some, and defend others using reasoned arguments based on our understanding of what progress is. Taking stances and defending them is a sacred human right. From a universally objective perspective, marrying children and FGM are not bad things, because from a universally objective perspective everything is everything and everything is nothing, it takes vision, culture, and will for a civilization to become and stand.

 Americans should, without violence, take a stand against the culture of niqab as a foreign aggressive expansionist element on American soil. 

God bless America. 

There is no one “true” Islam

Ideas do not exist outside of our minds, that’s the difference between ideas and physical objects, an idea is what you make of it. With basic ideas things are relatively simple. As hundreds of main, secondary, and sub-secondary concepts are combined to form a belief system -with ambiguous and undefined sentences, words, and entities- each individual brain believing in said system becomes, more or less, one meaning of it, manifested in the individual’s interpretation of it and their actions that are influenced by it. Once a group of people has based a justification for terrorism on Islam, a violent manifestation of Islam has materialized. There is no use defending Islam against violence, we can only cut the arteries feeding the mad manifestation by publicly challenging the logic that led to its birth and introducing new interpretations.

People of faith are angered by atheists because when you stop believing in an idea you literally take away a part from its existence. Believers are then forced to debate in favor of the existence of their beliefs or, sometimes, take extreme measures, like Islamic terrorists. Indeed, in the mind of Nice’s psychopath, the hell he had unleashed is a manifestation of his ideas; he brought his ideas to life; into the realm of existence. One can also look at ISIS as a successful materialization of hell on earth for non-believers and sinners as defined by the ideas of ISIS.

There is no such thing as true Islam. When you pick up the book(s) of Islam and begin reading them/it you begin writing a new understanding of Islam, if you become a Muslim you become a new method for believing in and applying Islam.

Even the choice of the books and texts you will count as Islamic and the ones you will dismiss plays a part in what Islam you will understand or become.

With religions, ideas are sacred and are worth dying for in holy wars. There is no compromise.

Is there a manifestation of Islam somewhere that truly calls for tolerance of others without Taqqiyah? We should find and promote that Islam. Or make it.

Unchallenged Islam and the cloud of terror

Muslims have suspended history. The main ideas dictating their morals and behavior, and the foundations of their belief system, were never challenged publicly in Muslim countries, official representatives of the religious institution, preachers, and even ordinary citizens do not allow it. Texts, audios, and videos attempting to oppose or reread Islam’s main or secondary concepts and regulations are often, effectively, banned from circulating between people. Terrorists are not isolated elements in the Muslim community, they represent the far end, from that end to the middle you will find Muslims believing in ideas circling Takfirism to less extreme degrees, like Muslims who think now is not the time for establishing the Islamic state or Muslims who don’t condone terrorism but sympathize with its motives.

Takfirism: A radical approach to Islam by which Muslims who profess to believe in Islam but don’t follow the takfirists’ way are labeled infidels and become fair game to be blown up in pursuit of the caliphate or Islamic supremacy through terror.  

Muslims with the understanding that only a flourishing love for sciences and a booming economy can achieve prosperity for the Muslim world exist, but these Muslims are neither popular nor active enough, and Muslim youths would not find a science and economy discourse as attractive as the one with jihad against a well-defined enemy and gorgeous chicks in heaven.

After every terrorist attack by Muslims, mainstream western media begins appeasing Muslims and Islamists via the routine the-terrorists-were-not-really-Muslims articles, just a bunch of rogue elements from the Muslim world. This is not true because a dominant ideology in a group of people, including its extreme ends, exists in a spectrum or a cloud, not single, separated nodes. For example, in a society of Muslims, it is not one person loves music and life and the individual just next to him on the scale towards the extremist terrorist is a terrorist. Beliefs in a peaceful Islam and a terrorist Islam have a big blurred border.

When ideas conducive to terrorism are shielded from criticism they become more rancid and cancerous. Promoting moderate Islam as a counter-terrorism method is absolutely useless if not meaningless, how would you sell your version of Islam to extremists with the dogmatic conviction that they understand what Islam is and think their interpretation is the correct one? You cannot, not without challenging, deconstructing, and disintegrating their ideas, otherwise they will disintegrate us. And challenging the books of terrorism is not enough, Islam itself, as a religion and state, must be subjected to challenge, like Christianity is. Challenge will lead to skepticism and skepticism curbs extremism.

Instead of discussing whether or not we should kill infidels, apostates, and gays, we should discuss what is Allah, what is mercy, what is good, and what is evil, discussion means less absolutes means less negative motivation means less explosions.

Muslims suffer radical Islam almost weekly.

But no, the media doesn’t want to offend Muslims, or provoke Muslims? fearing a Charlie Hebdo? Have we been taken hostages by the religion of peace?


The Middle East’s swamp of stagnating ideas

The characters of The Office, Community, Scrubs, and Parks and Recreation are all flawed, some deeply, just like us, which makes them believable and able to reach international audiences easily. They don’t have a detailed code of ethics to stick to and make up their concepts about life as they live it. Every episode they have to reexamine something they believe in or learn, and even accept, something new, engulfing life with their flawed selves. A life understood is a life lived approach.


In the Middle East, things are different. We are feverishly attempting to enforce ancient sets of rules on modern life, make them fit, and pretend our lives would be miserable without them, even some artists and writers seek to cement them without criticism or analysis. These ancient rules and the stipulations we infer from what we perceive as their essence result in deformations, sometimes the deformations are literal like Female Genital Mutilation. Other deformations take place in our minds, exemplified by the desecration of individual conscience through relegating its responsibilities to the Sheiks and scriptures, which turns a human from a citizen of the world exploring life into a zombie chicken. Another deformation was meant to create synthetic psychopaths via the abolishment of music or female singers. Accidental deformations also happen, consider the creation of extremely sexually frustrated generations as a result of tons of moral and societal regulations on sex, forgetting that early Muslims, including Muhammad himself, had sex like Gulf countries have oil and modern preachers are often polygamous.


Michael Scott, Leslie Knope, J.D., and the Study Group gave us a third person view on our lives, reassessing life is not a job for philosophers only anymore, we practice it daily; we are open to discussing our ethics and everything we stand for. The majority of Middle Easterners, however, reject this, they want to revel in the rule of scripture. A peaceful, sane Middle East would actually be an anomaly.