It's terribly unfortunate to refer to "terrorism" as a family to which one belongs when wringing one's hands about one's divided loyalties between it and the family of American society.

I presume it's just a tortured attempt at implying some moral equivalence between jihadist and U.S. military violence, but it cries out for an editor who will prevent further damage to what remains of the good name and credit of the Muslim community in America.

"Lord, protect me from my friends."

It is all about the flaws in the foundations of contemporary religions. Come to grips with them, eliminate the brainwashing as most of us were bred, born and brainwashed in these religions and then there will be religious peace in the world:

For Hafsa Arain's perusal and response:

A synopsis of the flaws in the foundations of today's contemporary religions:

1. Abraham founder/father of three major religions was probably a mythical character. If he was real, he was at best a combination of at least three men. 1.5 million Conservative Jews and their rabbis have relegated Abraham to the myth pile along with most if not all the OT.

2. Jesus, the illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter possibly suffering from hallucinations, has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth. Analyses of his life by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, On Faith panelists)via the NT and related documents have concluded that only about 30% of Jesus' sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian, Jewish and Pagan sects.

The 30% of the NT that is "authentic Jesus" like everything in life was borrowed/plagiarized and/or improved from those who came before. In Jesus' case, it was the ways and sayings of the OT and John the Baptizer and possibly the ways and sayings of traveling Greek Cynics.

3. Mohammed, an illiterate, hallucinating Arab, also had embellishing/hallucinating/plagiarizing scribal biographers who not only added "angels" and flying chariots to the Koran but also a militaristic agenda to support the plundering and looting of the lands of non-believers.

This agenda continues as shown by the conduct of the seven Muslim doctors in the UK, the 9/11 terrorists, the 24/7 Sunni suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers , the 24/7 Shiite suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers , the Bali crazies, the Kenya crazies, the Pakistani koranics, the Palestine suicide bombers/rocketeers, the Lebanese nutcases and the Filipino koranics. And who funds these acts of terror? Islamic Iran, the Third Axis of Evil and also the "Wannabees" of Saudi Arabia.

4. Luther, Calvin, Smith, Henry VIII, Wesley et al, founders of Christian-based religions, also suffered from the belief in/hallucinations of "pretty wingy talking flying fictional thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immaculate conceptions).

5. Hinduism (from an online Hindu site) - "Hinduism cannot be described as an organized religion. It is not founded by any individual. Hinduism is God centred and therefore one can call Hinduism as founded by God, because the answer to the question ‘Who is behind the eternal principles and who makes them work?’ will have to be ‘Cosmic power, Divine power, God’"
The caste/laborer system and cow worship are problems when saying a fair and rational God founded Hinduism."

6. Buddhism- "Buddhism began in India about 500 years before the birth of Christ. The people living at that time had become disillusioned with certain beliefs of Hinduism including the caste system, which had grown extremely complex. The number of outcasts (those who did not belong to any particular caste) was continuing to grow."

"However, in Buddhism, like so many other religions, fanciful stories arose concerning events in the life of the founder, Siddhartha Gautama (fifth century B.C.):"

Archaeological discoveries have proved, beyond a doubt, his historical character, but apart from the legends we know very little about the circumstances of his life.

http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/BUDDHISM/SIDD.HTM

Bottom line: There are many good ways of living but be aware of the hallucinations/embellishments and myths surrounding the founders of said rules of life. Then, apply the Five F rule: "First Find the Flaws, then Fix the Foundations".

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus for an analysis of Jesus' life to include his illiteracy

Indeed, Amy. Some self-reflection on the character of your first foray in this thread would be useful.

But again, the person who matters here is Ms Arain, who truly ought to attempt a defense of herself -- or better yet, critically engage with her internal contradictions.

Mr. Trevino,

Thank you for being so condescending. It makes me certain that you are actually as intelligent and well-traveled as you seem to be.

Gracius... Hitler was a Christian. The Crusades were lead by the Catholic Church. You're picking your atrocities quite conveniently.

Remember the muslim wars of agression against the Christian West.

Remember the crusades were in every way a defensive response to muslim takeover of Spain, constantinople (now istanbul) and Byzantium in general. Don't Forget to learn your History. Radical Islam is real. Islam will not stop until Dar al-harb becomes Dar al-islam.

Ms Arain writes: "....I do not have to defend Islam against you...."

My dear girl: you are being asked, not to defend your faith, but to defend yourself.

Hafsa, it was by accident that I stumbled onto this site, but when I read your piece I found it poignant and refreshingly candid. Thank you for your honesty and courage.

I am disappointed by the response this piece has received. So many of us, at one point or another in our lives, struggle to reconcile seemingly conflicting identities and search for the in-between space in which we can comfortably be/find ourselves. Is there really so little compassion for those whose primary identities are suddenly cast as two sides of a worldwide war? Who are called on by each side to condemn the other?

Regardless of who has done the most damage to whom, regardless of whose ideologies and actions are more (or less) defensible, good people can usually agree on the tragedy of innocent lives lost on each side. Can’t we also agree on the tragedy of those caught, through no fault of their own, between two increasingly polarized worlds?

Dear Barrett,

*Why should Muslims have to work harder to be embraced as friends*,because,all terrorists are muslims and there is an absolute *islam terror* all over the world.
*Islam is inherently a flawed religion/cult* is not *the prevailing ignorance*,but completely a *reality* and,writing the realities are not *hateful comments*.

Dear Amy,

Where have you been ?
Islam,cult of desert,not only validating,but encouraging the violence as well.
Islam,repressive cult,insults and humiliates the women.*It is not outside the box*.
*Comfortable putting labels on things they dont understand*.No,Dear Amy,everything is clear and understandable.Islam,the stone age mentality,threatens the Humanity and Civilization.Am I mistaken ?

I thank you to read my post.

Sorry - the point about the ISNA seminar is that they promote topics to arouse hate for the US. They offer the potential terrorist a step up the terrorist ladder by feeding anger and resentment.

Some might even call such activities treasonous.

Topics at this year's conference include sessions on faith and social justice and community service, and one called "U.S. Sponsored Torture: A Concern for Muslims and All People of Faith."

No one is forcing you to make that choice - if you supported the Muslim moderate and progressive movement instead of the ISNA cloaked Muslim Brotherhood, the words terrorism and Islam have nothing in common. But you have been raised in the very heart of Brotherhood territory and probably have been programed to believe that Muslims who support the US Constitution and Democracy are traitors. We are not traitors. Get to know Pamela Taylor for starters and be among people who want to contribute to society rather than destroy it.

Thank you, Barret and Amy. I know that someone actually understood my rhetoric in this post because of you two.

As for everyone else has posted on here, I do not have to defend Islam against you, and that is not why I am here. It would do no good, because you will be thinking about your retort before you read my statement, and that especially is true ignorance.

Ms. Coates, no offense, but did you even bother to read Hafsa's profile at the top of this page? She's actively involved in an interfaith group. The point of this very blog project is to create the kind of dialog you're calling for... Except repeatedly in response to Hafsa's posts there are intolerant and hateful comments being voiced.

The idea that all Muslims don't want the friendship of non-Muslims is so wholly ignorant I can't believe you'd say it aloud. "Only I am not sure that BLACKS want the friendship of non-BLACKS." Change a word and we're in 1950 again.

Why should Muslims have to work harder to be embraced as friends? The prevailing ignorance that Islam is inherently a flawed religion and Muslims need to overhaul their image is based on what EXTREMISTS do with the religion.

And I am bowing out from here. I don't want to speak for Hafsa, but as someone who knows her personally and from someone who reads this blog regularly, I just find it wholly ridiculous the kind of double-standards, ignorance, and hateful comments that find there way here.

Ms Arain: As an American you can join with other Americans to influence national policy. As a Muslim you can join with other Muslims to deplore terrorism and subjugation. As a believer in God (who is above and beyond our attempts to limit him) you can join inter-faith groups and learn how to promote religious tolerance. Maybe you can even lead other Muslims to do these things, then non-Muslims would have more reasons to embrace you as a friend. Only I am not sure that Muslims want the friendship of non-muslims.

It's true, Barrett: I am ignoring you.

Ms Arain would do well do re-engage in this discussion she began.

Mr. Trevino, you're just blatantly ignoring what I had to say about the reasons behind terrorism and straddling cultures because you're approaching this entire topic with a skewed and bigoted perspective to begin with. That's not reasonable or fair and I hope in the future those who might oppress you don't use such stubborn argumentation.

Now, Amy. Atlantic Avenue in Brooklyn doesn't count.

I, too, have been to the Muslim world, Mr. Trevino, and I believe that much of what you saw there (as you put it, "a religious doctrine validating violence") was simply what you wanted to see.

This is often the case of travelers in any country, they can't think outside the box enough to look at people for people. They're much more comfortable putting labels on things they don't understand.

Barrett writes: "You don't think Muslim people as a whole have suffered the brunt of the fear of terrorism?"

Not especially, no. The "brunt of the fear of terrorism" falls most squarely upon the objects of that terrorism. Meanwhile, Muslims like Ms Arain pursue liberal-arts degrees at major universities, and are given perches in major media outlets -- from which to complain of societal unfairness(!). Well.

Further: "....taking a peep outside of the American fear box and examining the true reasons terrorism or Islamic jihad happens."

At bottom is the combination of a religious doctrine validating violence, and political issues. Having been to the Muslim world several times -- in east Africa, in Jordan, in East Jerusalem, and in Turkey -- I have found no reason to believe otherwise.

You don't think Muslim people as a whole have suffered the brunt of the fear of terrorism? America has labeled the global Muslim community as terrorists whether it likes to admit that or not. If not blatantly, then by the carelessness of it's more recent militaristic pursuits.

And again, I think what Hafsa was saying is that she has been forced into polarizing her two cultures. One has been equated as the same as the terrorists and the other with the righteous hand of America. If forced into that label, you can't help but see things from a broader perspective -- including taking a peep outside of the American fear box and examining the true reasons terrorism or Islamic jihad happens.

Barrett write: "Terrorism is deplorable and no one is debating that."

I suggest reading the piece under discussion. Hafsa Arain explicitly identifies "terrorism" as one of her "two families," and holds forth there, and in comments, on how she cannot abandon either "family." She appears to be using "terrorism" as a metonym for "Islam," but she has yet to clarify that. In any case, beyond Ms Arain, the sad fact is that in the Muslim world, terror in the name of jihad finds a rather shocking number of people who don't find it deplorable in the slightest. If "no one [were] debating that," we wouldn't be having this discussion. But many people are.

"However, the reaction to the Muslim community, in America and abroad, is equally deplorable...."

Equating the treatment of Muslims in the West with acts of murderous terror is absurd on its face. This is simple ignorance.

I feel that there are a few points that need to be drawn out of this and expanded on. First of all,We need to be free to practice our own religion. Who says that being a Lutheran, or Baptist, for example is better, is better than being a Catholic. It is not about your religion, but about your spirituality and who you are as a person. Our nation was founded on the basis of freedom and also religion. Too bad everything changes. Also, people who immigrate to the U.S. need to integrate into the culture (keep their own, if it is peaceful but adopt American values-well, not all of them) that should be the basis for living in the U.S.

People should not be so xenophobic. We are all God's people. We need to love each other and not be afraid to give God's love away. To give people a chance.

Not all Muslims are terrorists, are they? We need to be strong enough to put our prejudices aside. Keep America safe! Definitely, we all need to feel a sense of security. There are enough unknowns in our life as it is. And things that we are trying to make sense of.

May we all live at peace and love one another and accept our differences.

I think you're missing the point, Mr. Trevino. Terrorism is deplorable and no one is debating that.

However, the reaction to the Muslim community, in America and abroad, is equally deplorable -- specifically the hate, the misunderstanding of what true Islamic beliefs are, and the pressure of Muslims to "pick a side" or justify their faith.

The War on Terror is a war on people who are poor and mislead. Calling them inherently evil avoids the real issues birthing terrorism. It polarizes people against the Muslim community because terrorists (or those pursuing jihad if you prefer) are assumed to be drawing their beliefs from the same core values, which is just not the case.

For all the good it has done, the War on Terror has destroyed the lives of innocent people on both sides.

I think what Hafsa is saying (and correct me if I'm wrong, Hafsa), is that because of how the world has reacted to the Muslim community, it becomes a battle you can't win. The war has branded things in black and white terms. It's between terrorists and Americans. Muslims vs. the U. S. of A. When the fact of the matter is, that's an illusion.

There are those who label terrorists "evil" and those who say it's despicable circumstance. There are those who say terrorists draw from the core of Islam and those who say its a complete bastardization of the faith.

I think you're just forgetting there are many shades of gray people must live in, especially those who straddle two cultures in their upbringing. And when one of those cultures is unfairly labeled as "part of the problem," they are forced to sympathize or at least look at the entire situation more objectively.

Hafsa, if you choose to implicitly equate Islam and "terrorism," as you do here, you cannot expect any other reaction. Whether or not Islam demands the violence done in its name is for Muslims to decide: but to expect sympathy, as you make that decision, from a non-Muslim audience that is too frequently the object of that violence is absurd in the extreme.

The choice to turn against those who would kill your fellow citizens is easy for everyone else. Why not for you?

You write: "There is no right side, no undeniable good that is overcoming an undeniable evil."

This is false. For all of our country's faults, at bottom, it remains the liberal democracy in this contest, with all the values attendant to that. Set against it are fanatics, jihadists, and murderers of every stripe. It's an easy choice between the two for Democrats, Republicans, and nearly everyone in between. What a pity you, almost uniquely, find it immensely difficult.

I was very afraid this post would be taken this way. I suppose I have only myself to blame, I should have made my point much more clearly.

I do not, and can never, choose between America and Islam. That is the point I am trying to make. I should never have to make that choice, but others are, in a way forcing, me.

And people have made this into a battle between America and Islam, when all the American Muslims are stuck in between. It should never have been this way to begin with.

I wish I could have said all these things much more beautifully, but they are blunt for a reason.

My post was meant to be an insight into the struggle of American Muslims. I would be kidding myself if I said I was the only one who thought these things, have pondered over allegiances.

In this so-called War on Terror, there have been many faults on all sides involved. There is no right side, no undeniable good that is overcoming an undeniable evil. You tell me, when you are stuck in between, which would you choose? The lesser of the two evils?

There is no lesser for me. Neither is fulfilling what I believe is good for humankind.

This is a truly striking passage:

"The fight between these two ideas, between the ideas of the American democracy and terrorism has really been the war between my two families. Because the innocent people behind those ideas are the people I identify with."

A couple of points for Ms Arain:

1) If you find it difficult to choose between "American democracy" and "terrorism," you have moral quandaries that do you no credit. In that light, if you "[feel] like a traitor constantly," well -- you should. Your fellow Americans are not bound to respect your thoroughly indefensible divided loyalties on this count.

2) There are no "innocent people behind [the] ideas" animating the "terrorism" that you feel pulls you. Supporting terror -- or jihad, as it should properly be known -- is a conscious moral decision, and as such, ought to have appropriate consequences.

All in all, a profoundly disappointing piece from a troubled mind.