Former US Army Soldier Mike Prysner found his calling while serving in Iraq. He will share his experiences and insights as the keynote speaker at the Muslim Link's Saturday, March 27m 2010 fundraising event "Operation Blackout: Truth Needs a Voice".

As described at Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW):

Mike Prysner describes a mission he took part in which his unit forced Iraqis out of half a dozen homes, with no compensation, so the US military could use them. “One family in particular, a woman with two small girls, very elderly man, and two middle-aged men—we dragged them from their houses and threw them onto the street, and arrested the men because they refused to leave.” Since he left, he has been plagued by guilt “anytime I see a mother with her children, like the one who cried hysterically and screamed that we were worse than Saddam as we forced her from her home, …anytime I see a young girl like the one I grabbed by the arm and dragged into the street.” Prysner also describes the physical abuse of a wounded prisoner, with a sandbag over his head and his hands tied behind his back. “We were told we were fighting terrorists; the real terrorist was me, and the real terrorism is this occupation.”

Click here to watch his testimony.

February 19, 2010 "Salon" -- Yesterday, Joseph Stack deliberately flew an airplane into a building housing IRS offices in Austin, Texas, in order to advance the political grievances he outlined in a perfectly cogent suicide-manifesto. Stack's worldview contained elements of the tea party's anti-government anger along with substantial populist complaints generally associated with "the Left" (rage over bailouts, the suffering of America's poor, and the pilfering of the middle class by a corrupt economic elite and their government-servants). All of that was accompanied by an argument as to why violence was justified (indeed necessary) to protest those injustices:

I remember reading about the stock market crash before the "great" depression and how there were wealthy bankers and businessmen jumping out of windows when they realized they screwed up and lost everything. Isn't it ironic how far we've come in 60 years in this country that they now know how to fix that little economic problem; they just steal from the middle class (who doesn't have any say in it, elections are a joke) to cover their asses and it's "business-as-usual" . . . . Sadly, though I spent my entire life trying to believe it wasn't so, but violence not only is the answer, it is the only answer.

Despite all that, The New York Times' Brian Stelter documents the deep reluctance of cable news chatterers and government officials to label the incident an act of "terrorism," even though -- as Dave Neiwert ably documents -- it perfectly fits, indeed is a classic illustration of, every official definition of that term. The issue isn't whether Stack's grievances are real or his responses just; it is that the act unquestionably comports with the official definition. But as NBC's Pete Williams said of the official insistence that this was not an act of Terrorism: there are "a couple of reasons to say that . . . One is he's an American citizen." Fox News' Megan Kelley asked Catherine Herridge about these denials: "I take it that they mean terrorism in the larger sense that most of us are used to?," to which Herridge replied: "they mean terrorism in that capital T way."

All of this underscores, yet again, that Terrorism is simultaneously the single most meaningless and most manipulated word in the American political lexicon. The term now has virtually nothing to do with the act itself and everything to do with the identity of the actor, especially his or her religious identity. It has really come to mean: "a Muslim who fights against or even expresses hostility towards the United States, Israel and their allies." That's why all of this confusion and doubt arose yesterday over whether a person who perpetrated a classic act of Terrorism should, in fact, be called a Terrorist: he's not a Muslim and isn't acting on behalf of standard Muslim grievances against the U.S. or Israel, and thus does not fit the "definition." One might concede that perhaps there's some technical sense in which term might apply to Stack, but as Fox News emphasized: it's not "terrorism in the larger sense that most of us are used to . . . terrorism in that capital T way." We all know who commits terrorism in "that capital T way," and it's not people named Joseph Stack.

Contrast the collective hesitance to call Stack a Terrorist with the extremely dubious circumstances under which that term is reflexively applied to Muslims. If a Muslim attacks a military base preparing to deploy soldiers to a war zone, that person is a Terrorist. If an American Muslim argues that violence against the U.S. (particularly when aimed at military targets) is justified due to American violence aimed at the Muslim world, that person is a Terrorist who deserves assassination. And if the U.S. military invades a Muslim country, Muslims who live in the invaded and occupied country and who fight back against the invading American army -- by attacking nothing but military targets -- are also Terrorists. Indeed, large numbers of detainees at Guantanamo were accused of being Terrorists for nothing more than attacking members of an invading foreign army in their country, including 14-year-old Mohamed Jawad, who spent many years in Guantanamo, accused (almost certainly falsely) of throwing a grenade at two American troops in Afghanistan who were part of an invading force in that country. Obviously, plots targeting civilians for death -- the 9/11 attacks and attempts to blow up civilian aircraft -- are pure terrorism, but a huge portion of the acts committed by Muslims that receive that label are not.

In sum: a Muslim who attacks military targets, including in war zones or even in their own countries that have been invaded by a foreign army, are Terrorists. A non-Muslim who flies an airplane into a government building in pursuit of a political agenda is not, or at least is not a Real Terrorist with a capital T -- not the kind who should be tortured and thrown in a cage with no charges and assassinated with no due process. Nor are Christians who stand outside abortion clinics and murder doctors and clinic workers. Nor are acts undertaken by us or our favored allies designed to kill large numbers of civilians or which will recklessly cause such deaths as a means of terrorizing the population into desired behavioral change -- the Glorious Shock and Awe campaign and the pummeling of Gaza. Except as a means for demonizing Muslims, the word is used so inconsistently and manipulatively that it is impoverished of any discernible meaning.

All of this would be an interesting though not terribly important semantic matter if not for the fact that the term Terrorist plays a central role in our political debates. It is the all-justifying term for anything the U.S. Government does. Invasions, torture, due-process-free detentions, military commissions, drone attacks, warrantless surveillance, obsessive secrecy, and even assassinations of American citizens are all justified by the claim that it's only being done to "Terrorists," who, by definition, have no rights. Even worse, one becomes a "Terrorist" not through any judicial adjudication or other formal process, but solely by virtue of the untested, unchecked say-so of the Executive Branch. The President decrees someone to be a Terrorist and that's the end of that: uncritical followers of both political parties immediately justify anything done to the person on the ground that he's a Terrorist (by which they actually mean: he's been accused of being one, though that distinction -- between presidential accusations and proof -- is not one they recognize).

If we're really going to vest virtually unlimited power in the Government to do anything it wants to people they call "Terrorists," we ought at least to have a common understanding of what the term means. But there is none. It's just become a malleable, all-justifying term to allow the U.S. Government carte blanche to do whatever it wants to Muslims it does not like or who do not like it (i.e., The Terrorists). It's really more of a hypnotic mantra than an actual word: its mere utterance causes the nation blindly to cheer on whatever is done against the Muslims who are so labeled.

UPDATE: I want to add one point: the immediate official and media reaction was to avoid, even deny, the term "terrorist" because the perpetrator of the violence wasn't Muslim. But if Stack's manifesto begins to attract serious attention, I think it's likely the term Terrorist will be decisively applied to him in order to discredit what he wrote. His message is a sharply anti-establishment and populist grievance of the type that transcends ideological and partisan divisions -- the complaints which Stack passionately voices are found as common threads in the tea party movement and among citizens on both the Left and on the Right -- and thus tend to be the type which the establishment (which benefits from high levels of partisan distractions and divisions) finds most threatening and in need of demonization. Nothing is more effective at demonizing something than slapping the Terrorist label onto it.

Many of us are still in a state of shock over the guilty verdict returned on Dr Aafia Siddiqui.

The response from the people of Pakistan was predictable and overwhelming and I salute their spontaneous actions.

From Peshawar to Islamabad, Karachi, Lahore and beyond they marched in their thousands demanding the return of Aafia.

Even some of the US media expressed discomfort over the verdict returned by the jurors ... there was a general feeling that something was not right.

Each year February Valentine’s Day is celebrated the world over; from the stone-paved streets of Paris to the dust-laden alleys of Delhi, couples remind themselves of why they even put up with their partners at all. Although some may argue that the celebration of Valentine’s Day is not permissible in Islam, the fact of the matter remains that many Muslim households do celebrate the season. Often times this may be done with the husband buying cake, flowers, a special gift (perfume perhaps?), or all three for his wife. Hallmark Cards, too, I am sure, benefit from Muslim clientele during their second busiest season after Christmas.

Happy (Muslim) New Year! While the Gregorian calendar turned twenty-ten at the stroke of midnight on December 31, 2009, the Muslim calendar clocked 1431 a few weeks later.

The past year brought not only a vision of hope with the swearing in of the first African-American president but also a dark cloud of despair with the economic meltdown catalyzing high unemployment rates. The human spirit was tested the world over, from the farmers of a fishing village in Sri Lanka to the executives who once paraded Wall Street, all felt the sting of the "R-word." And once again, like the brave individuals who survived the Great Depression and the Great Wars we, too, pulled through. Well, almost. There is still a lot to do. Non-profit organizations, for instance, still face severe shortcomings financially.

Each year, many of us create New Year's resolutions, and each year, by the time March rolls around we forget what was even on the list. Sure, many resolutions are well intended, maybe even beneficial to our health, but let's face it: sometimes old habits just die hard. Remember the twenty pounds you swore to throw off by next Eid? Is the treadmill is still collecting dust?

So perhaps this year we could strive toward creating more realistic or - even better - more altruistic goals. For those of us who wish to increase our Taqwa more, perhaps reading just one page of the Quran a day with translation and interpretation would do our souls good. For those who wish to help the needy more, a change jar kept in a central location of the house could go a long way for a person in need when full.

A personal battle I face is maintaining a level of respect with my parents during conversation. I am more inquisitive by nature, and perhaps due to the type of education I receive at the university level, I am constantly assertive and defensive during conversations to win my case - characteristics that come off as, well, "rude" to my parents. I don't mean to declare war with them each time I have something to say, but sure enough, tension often hangs above our heads like the dense smoke of a shot canon. I am sure others may agree: sometimes it's just hard to talk to parents without the conversation snowballing into an argument. Still, as the Prophet (peace be upon him) stressed, parents always deserve more than we could ever pay.

So one of my New Year's resolution this year is to learn when to keep my mouth shut when talking to my parents and when to (politely) state my case.

This year think carefully about your New Year's resolution and try - even when the heavy rains of Spring slide down you window, even when the sweltering heat of the Summer bears down on your back, and even when the cool winds of Fall caress your face with whispers of the next year - remember your resolutions and follow through with them. Insha'Allah, don't just have - make - it a good year.

Subhan Allaah. A group of us from Al-Muyassar Tours, led by Shaykh Muhammad Alshareef of AlMaghrib Institute, almost didn’t complete our Hajj, as the Prophet sal Allaahu alayhe wa salam said, "The Hajj is (staying in) ‘Arafah."

On the 8th of Dhul Hijjah, a day before ‘Arafah as we boarded buses to travel to Mina, the wind picked up and drops of rain started to fall.  In the middle of the desert terrain, we wondered if this was a Sign.  Did it mean that Allaah subhanahu wa ta'ala would wash our hearts during Hajj, forgive us and grant us Jannat Al Firdaus?

In Response to Attacks on Sheikh Anwar Al-Awlaki
In last month's edition of The Muslim Link, an article titled "Spokespersons Busy in Fort Hood Aftermath" (November 20, 2009) raised some serious concerns for this writer. The article quoted Imam Johari Abdul Malik, Imam Yahya Hendi and Asra Nomani in ways that required a response - both in the interest of balance and justice.