A Sunni Muslim Declared an "Islam Hater"
It is hard to keep quiet when one is being defamed, and colleagues vilified, thanks to two yellow journalists (Noah Shachtman and Spencer Ackerman, both working for Wired ) grasping for a "story."
The Wired article distorts a military course that also discusses possible scenarios. The Mecca/Medina one did take me aback as imprudent when I first saw it in this hit piece by Wired, but I recognize LTC Dooley's intent of provoking a scenario-based discussion (the US military has been known to war game invading Canada for example).
And, I will 100% defend LTC Dooley's professional right to provoke such a discussion in a non-attribution forum of a scholarly/educational military setting, where knowledge is sought from multiple sources.
As one of the speakers, and a Sunni Muslim born to a Muslim father, I'm labeled an "Islam hater." If anyone cared to take a closer look at my presentation slides (which were not intended for dissemination without permission), they would realize that my views are the truth and nothing more.
It is tiresome to be labeled an "Islamophobe" because one dare critique/question the current state of affairs (as well as the historical context) vis-a-vis my religion.
The contradictory, and frequently violent/intolerant, views of the ulema/mullahs/scholars of the orthodoxy who love to declare fellow Muslims as "deviant (mushriq), hypocrites (munafiq), or apostate (murtad)" if they don't subscribe to their narrow bigoted and cruel agendas (especially vis-a-vis the non-Muslim) are fact not fiction.
The ugliness of much of this propagated doctrine is reflected in haram actions like suicide attacks; obscene demands in foreign lands; growing and violent intolerance towards all minorities in the Muslim world; rampant domestic violence; child marriages etc etc. It is us Muslims who should be ashamed of our behavior/projection.
Should the US have invaded Iraq and Afghanistan (I know this is how the counterattack will begin) post 9/11? No. Those were dumb and costly moves. There were better ways to handle this IMO. But the 'US did have every right to defend itself within its own borders from any future threats after almost 3000 civilians were killed by enemy combatants out of uniform who adhered to a specific sub-ideology of Islam.
Timely and firm action would have served notice on the enemy within and without who harbored ill will towards us. Yet, over a decade later, we've ended up with 1000s dead in combat, spent billions with little to show for it as we continue "nation building" overseas.
A task which frankly should have been led/funded by wealthy "brotherly" Muslim states (the Umma), and not by the "kuffar" (who are being taken for a ride AND demonized simultaneously).
Historically, Islam's saving grace was the widespread Sufi movement which made Islam somewhat palatable, attractive and tolerable to the indigenous populace in Africa, Far East, Central Asia etc. That is just a fact. One of many that the "Islamists" reject as lies as they condemn the Sufis (the only "softer" face of Islam) to death.
Another ugly truth (and there are many which we Muslims know having been indoctrinated according to scripture by mullahs) is that it is fellow Muslims (the so-called near-enemy) who are terrorized the most by those with the various agendas. It isn't the infidels who are killing Muslims in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Syria and elsewhere, but their so-called Muslim "jihadi brothers" and others are busy at work.
When Muslims begin to acknowledge what are painful truths rather than the nonstop blame games; only then can there be a genuine concerted effort in such societies to seek a different way rather than the current trajectory towards oblivion.
