It has been suggested that in a divorce case the father has the greater rights over the mother. In a non-industrialised nation [where wealth is difficult to earn and there is a lack of Government Funded Social Security Benefits] I would agree, since that alleviates the mother from having to worry about how to finance the children's upbringing (often by having to dishonour and humiliate herself through Mut'ah Prostitution-Filth). However industrialised nations have:
1. Reasonably easy access to wealth
2. Government funded Social Security Benefits
so any concerns [about the financial issues surrounding raising the children] are immediately eased. And since Al-Amin has already stated:
1. Paradise lies under the feet of the mother
2. The mother has '75%' more right [than the father] to be honoured by the children
I would argue that in such a context the female has the greater right over the children
Monday, March 24, 2008
What [exactly] is Military Jihad?
Let's consider the following two sentences:
1. He looked at her greedily
2. He looked at her hungrily
Whilst statement 1 is grammatically correct, its bad use of English. Sentence 2 would normally be used.
Now based on my Islamic Model, one would normally use 'Jihad' in the Military context to 'struggle/strive to achieve excellence as a Military Officer in a Military Academy'. On the battlefield:
1. Using 'Jihad' implies 'a struggle' to achieve victory
2. Using 'Harb' implies 'fighting ferociously' to achieve victory
One could use 'Jihad' in this context but it would be 'bad use of Arabic' - instead 'Harb' would be used. Bearing in mind demented Arabs keep screaming 'Jihad Jihad' instead of 'Harb, Harb', [forgive me if I'm wrong but] I am left somewhat bemused at the [apparent] poor use of their own language [by the Arabs]!
1. He looked at her greedily
2. He looked at her hungrily
Whilst statement 1 is grammatically correct, its bad use of English. Sentence 2 would normally be used.
Now based on my Islamic Model, one would normally use 'Jihad' in the Military context to 'struggle/strive to achieve excellence as a Military Officer in a Military Academy'. On the battlefield:
1. Using 'Jihad' implies 'a struggle' to achieve victory
2. Using 'Harb' implies 'fighting ferociously' to achieve victory
One could use 'Jihad' in this context but it would be 'bad use of Arabic' - instead 'Harb' would be used. Bearing in mind demented Arabs keep screaming 'Jihad Jihad' instead of 'Harb, Harb', [forgive me if I'm wrong but] I am left somewhat bemused at the [apparent] poor use of their own language [by the Arabs]!
Further Thoughts
I would argue that Islam's 'Golden Ages' were always based on Societies that implemented my Islamic Model in some form or other
Friday, March 21, 2008
My Islam
Having criticised Wahabism and Shi-itism, the natural question is: What do I believe?
| Profession | Applying skills to make positive constructive impact upon Society | Analysible |
| Law | Interface between Social and Profession | |
| Social | Manners & Behaviour | |
| Sexual and Social Discipline | ||
| Hygiene | ||
| Anti-Iblis Discipline and Protection: 5 times Salat | Non-Analysible | |
| Beliefs | Prophets | |
| Angels, Djinn | ||
| God, His Attributes | ||
| Shahadah |
Non-Analysible: We have no instruments for analysing such issues. Either we believe them or we reject them
Analysible: We either have or can develop instruments to measure such issues
After that we focus on Social Aspects beginning with Anti-Iblis disciple and protection through Salat etc etc Note Salat and Fasting are particularly effective protective shields against doubt created through constant attacks by Iblis and his minions
At the next level we focus on hygiene
Next we focus on Sexual and Social Disciple in order to control our nafs
The next level focuses on manners and behaviour.
By the time we reach the ‘Law Level’ we are ready to create a balanced Society (since we are ready to focus on the relationships between ourselves and those around us), and this level is such that it crosses the path from ‘Social’ entity to Profession
Once we enter the ‘Profession’ level, we focus on using our skills to make a positive constructive impact upon Society.
Strangely enough, emotions like ‘love’, ‘hate’ etc etc all fall under ‘Law’ since they affect two or more people. Whilst this may sound ‘cold and dispassionate’ it is critically important to protect the needs and rights of individuals when they are exposed to other people’s emotions
Jihad is the constant struggle to achieve excellence in our ‘Social’, ‘Law’ and ‘Profession’ responsibilities
Kafir is someone who suffers from irrational hatred of Islam. Such a person is akin to those people who suffer from irrational hatred of other racial profiles (eg African etc etc)
My ‘Islamic Model’ is quite complex, but it reflects my understanding of Islam
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Here come the [Shi-ite] Drug-Traffikers!
The Pakistani Sopranos [1] are back in town!! Will the Public string them up this time around?
Pakistan's kismet seems to be a choice between Mawdudi's children and the [Shi-ite] Pakistani Mafia! Ahh [Shi-ite] Women's Empowerment in Pakistan! The biggest hardcore criminals all using 'Female Liberation' as a cover to spread fitna and fassad throughout the Lands whilst filling their pockets with tax-wealth!
May Allah protect Pakistan in Her great time of need
References:
1. http://www.bakersfield.com/893/story/393575.html
Pakistan's kismet seems to be a choice between Mawdudi's children and the [Shi-ite] Pakistani Mafia! Ahh [Shi-ite] Women's Empowerment in Pakistan! The biggest hardcore criminals all using 'Female Liberation' as a cover to spread fitna and fassad throughout the Lands whilst filling their pockets with tax-wealth!
May Allah protect Pakistan in Her great time of need
References:
1. http://www.bakersfield.com/893/story/393575.html
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Obtuse Vision
Whilst the critic's arguments are sound [1], its a little difficult to analyse anything based on a single hadith (or even several individual ahadith). We have no context, no understanding of implications...nothing. All we know is the immediate story (which is a 'mere' 1400 years old) and from that a conclusion is being derived that Al-Amin was barbaric.
Let's apply this obtuse logic in a more modern setting...Pre-WWII Europe (only 70 years ago).
1. Pre-WWII Europe was powered by Enlightenment
2. Pre-WWII Europe was THE global power
3. Pre-WWII Europe was the MOST civilised and sophisticated peoples in Human History
4. Pre-WWII Europe is the origins of MOST Americans. Therefore USA is essentially European
5. Pre-WWII Europe was responsible for:
a. The Holocaust in which tens of millions of innocent civilians were slaughtered in the most brutal ways possible
b. WWII which claimed the lives of 100 million+ lives
Conclusion: Europeans are the MOST murderously barbaric nation in human history
Using obtuse logic can lead us to er...interesting conclusions. That's why thorough analysis is required BEFORE arriving at ANY conclusion.
References:
1. http://www.kactuzkid.com/excuses.html
Let's apply this obtuse logic in a more modern setting...Pre-WWII Europe (only 70 years ago).
1. Pre-WWII Europe was powered by Enlightenment
2. Pre-WWII Europe was THE global power
3. Pre-WWII Europe was the MOST civilised and sophisticated peoples in Human History
4. Pre-WWII Europe is the origins of MOST Americans. Therefore USA is essentially European
5. Pre-WWII Europe was responsible for:
a. The Holocaust in which tens of millions of innocent civilians were slaughtered in the most brutal ways possible
b. WWII which claimed the lives of 100 million+ lives
Conclusion: Europeans are the MOST murderously barbaric nation in human history
Using obtuse logic can lead us to er...interesting conclusions. That's why thorough analysis is required BEFORE arriving at ANY conclusion.
References:
1. http://www.kactuzkid.com/excuses.html
Fucking Shi-ite Bastards
Just as Wahabis have their '5 Pillars of Islam', I suspect Shi-ites have the following three:
1. Taqiyya: Basically pretending to be all sweet upfront whilst hiding devastating intentions
2. Mut'ah: Prostitution given a 'fancy' name
3. Poisoning Others: Best way of removing 'obstacles in life'
I also suspect their attitude towards females is:
1. Honourable females should remain housebound to rot til death
2. 'Bazaari' females (or Prostitutes) are the ones who foolishly choose to venture out of their homes. If Honourable females want to venture outside they need to wear the 'Black Tent' (to hide their identity) otherwise Shi-ites will treat them as 'Bazaari'
If we accept this as 'the truth' then:
1. Certain demented practices amongst Muslim Communities start to make sense eg using psychological pressure (which can turn to physical violence) on females to remain at home because "Aurat ki izzat ghar mein hai" (ie "a Female's Honour is in her Home")
2. May Allah totally and utterly annihilate this Shi-ite curse/disease (and their Hashemite Masters) that has afflicted [and unbalanced] the Muslim World
3. Ironically Wahabi-ism is the most effective immediate anti-dote to this Shi-ite curse, since Wahabis are obsessed with Self-Discipline (and 'avoiding doing the wrong thing')
Strangely enough I remember this [forceful] 'female in the home' culture prevalent amongst UK Households up until the early1990s, and I'm left wondering if these [fucking] Shi-ites [bastards] somehow managed to influence British Society with their disgusting Cultural Filth.
1. Taqiyya: Basically pretending to be all sweet upfront whilst hiding devastating intentions
2. Mut'ah: Prostitution given a 'fancy' name
3. Poisoning Others: Best way of removing 'obstacles in life'
I also suspect their attitude towards females is:
1. Honourable females should remain housebound to rot til death
2. 'Bazaari' females (or Prostitutes) are the ones who foolishly choose to venture out of their homes. If Honourable females want to venture outside they need to wear the 'Black Tent' (to hide their identity) otherwise Shi-ites will treat them as 'Bazaari'
If we accept this as 'the truth' then:
1. Certain demented practices amongst Muslim Communities start to make sense eg using psychological pressure (which can turn to physical violence) on females to remain at home because "Aurat ki izzat ghar mein hai" (ie "a Female's Honour is in her Home")
2. May Allah totally and utterly annihilate this Shi-ite curse/disease (and their Hashemite Masters) that has afflicted [and unbalanced] the Muslim World
3. Ironically Wahabi-ism is the most effective immediate anti-dote to this Shi-ite curse, since Wahabis are obsessed with Self-Discipline (and 'avoiding doing the wrong thing')
Strangely enough I remember this [forceful] 'female in the home' culture prevalent amongst UK Households up until the early1990s, and I'm left wondering if these [fucking] Shi-ites [bastards] somehow managed to influence British Society with their disgusting Cultural Filth.
Sunday, March 2, 2008
Bank of Crooks and Criminals
Can it be that the Afghanis are finally waking up to the reality of the crooks and criminals running the country [1]? I guess it is not particularly surprising that a bunch of ruthless criminals [in the White House] should be supporting their 'brothers' in Afghanistan.
The charge of Blasphemy for questioning Islamic Ruling is fallacious [2]. Blasphemy ONLY applies when spreading LIES about Islam.
References:
1. http://ww4report.com/node/5012
2. http://www.newspress.com/Top/Article/article.jsp?Section=WORLD&ID=565236065997555213
The charge of Blasphemy for questioning Islamic Ruling is fallacious [2]. Blasphemy ONLY applies when spreading LIES about Islam.
References:
1. http://ww4report.com/node/5012
2. http://www.newspress.com/Top/Article/article.jsp?Section=WORLD&ID=565236065997555213
A State of Failure
If Iran has been sponsoring Global Anti-Semitism, its because either:
1. Iran is a Failed State
2. Iran is on the way to becoming a Failed State
and She is desperate to identify 'Friendly Nations' using 'Anti-Semitism' as a 'Common Binding Diplomatic Platform'. If this is correct Shi-ites really are Shi-ites. Its also somewhat ironic if [as I believe] Muhammad is the direct descendant of King David (the Prophet-King who ruled the Israelite Tribes ~1000BCE. I suspect Muhammad is the direct descendant of David mentioned in 2 Samuel 7[2], since Islam is the ONLY Religion that God has Promised to Protect until the Day of Judgement. It would also explain why Israelite Tribes were in Yathrib awaiting 'that Prophet' and were totally crushed when he refused to 'destroy the Gentiles' and re-establish the old Israelite Kingdoms).
At this point I suspect Mut'ah Prostitution Industries practices by Shi-ites has resulted in an unbalanced population that the Iranian Economy cannot support, so the leaders thought 'Suicide Bombing' and Terrorism would help resolve the Population Crisis. This leads me to wonder what the purpose of the Iranian Revolution actually was. It appears to me its only purpose was to bring Mut'ah-Prostitution Temples back into the control of the 'Clerics' (presumably Mut'ah Prostitution Filth was run as a 'Free Market Enterprise' in Pre-Revolution Days), and now this Filthy-Industry has resulted in the Population running amok, the 'Clerics' are desperately looking for answers and 'quick-fixes'.
Perhaps its time to admit the Revolution has failed and fold it.
At this point I am left wondering if the Iranians and Jordanian-Hashemites working together to build this army of Terrorists/Suicide Bombers or were they working independently?
An interesting story that I noted [1] - maybe the Shi-ite boy was hoping to force her into Shi-ite Mut'ah Prostitution Filth - how typically Shi-ite!
Refererences:
1. http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/020508B.shtml
2. http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/2samuel/2samuel7.htm
1. Iran is a Failed State
2. Iran is on the way to becoming a Failed State
and She is desperate to identify 'Friendly Nations' using 'Anti-Semitism' as a 'Common Binding Diplomatic Platform'. If this is correct Shi-ites really are Shi-ites. Its also somewhat ironic if [as I believe] Muhammad is the direct descendant of King David (the Prophet-King who ruled the Israelite Tribes ~1000BCE. I suspect Muhammad is the direct descendant of David mentioned in 2 Samuel 7[2], since Islam is the ONLY Religion that God has Promised to Protect until the Day of Judgement. It would also explain why Israelite Tribes were in Yathrib awaiting 'that Prophet' and were totally crushed when he refused to 'destroy the Gentiles' and re-establish the old Israelite Kingdoms).
At this point I suspect Mut'ah Prostitution Industries practices by Shi-ites has resulted in an unbalanced population that the Iranian Economy cannot support, so the leaders thought 'Suicide Bombing' and Terrorism would help resolve the Population Crisis. This leads me to wonder what the purpose of the Iranian Revolution actually was. It appears to me its only purpose was to bring Mut'ah-Prostitution Temples back into the control of the 'Clerics' (presumably Mut'ah Prostitution Filth was run as a 'Free Market Enterprise' in Pre-Revolution Days), and now this Filthy-Industry has resulted in the Population running amok, the 'Clerics' are desperately looking for answers and 'quick-fixes'.
Perhaps its time to admit the Revolution has failed and fold it.
At this point I am left wondering if the Iranians and Jordanian-Hashemites working together to build this army of Terrorists/Suicide Bombers or were they working independently?
An interesting story that I noted [1] - maybe the Shi-ite boy was hoping to force her into Shi-ite Mut'ah Prostitution Filth - how typically Shi-ite!
Refererences:
1. http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/020508B.shtml
2. http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/2samuel/2samuel7.htm
Saturday, March 1, 2008
Shi-ite Delights
At least some people are [finally] beginning to express alarm at this disgusting Shi-ite practice [1]
References:
1. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/custom/religion/chi-wnwire_pleasure_wed_1219_013jan30,1,5668380.story?ctrack=1&cset=true
References:
1. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/custom/religion/chi-wnwire_pleasure_wed_1219_013jan30,1,5668380.story?ctrack=1&cset=true
Invasion of the Religion-Snatchers
According to the US Constitution, USA is NOT allowed to promote any one religion. You need to check/amend YOUR Constitution
References:
1. http://www.postchronicle.com/commentary/article_212127543.shtml
References:
1. http://www.postchronicle.com/commentary/article_212127543.shtml
Whose Fault Is It Anyway?
Here we have a demented Shi-ite blaming Yazid for Hussain's stupidity [1]. I agree Persian-Shi-ites have been whinging for centuries, and have now contaminated the Arabs with this disease. Iranians are the children of Mut'ah Prostitution Filth - that's why they're so demented, and they've spread this disease everywhere they've gone. I agree demented Mut'ah-Prostitution-Filth Lurving Shi-ites SHOULD abandon Islam, that way everyone will see them for the 'shi-ite' that they really are
I would also propose demented Mut'ah-Prostitution-Filth Lurving Shi-ites have rejected the Hadith because...Mut'ah is banned in Hadith!
As for 'being intelligent' if you're stupid enough to be brainwashed by the Hashemites into supporting their 'Shi-ite' cause, that's YOUR fault. Ali never held an obsession for Caliphate, it was you demented b*stards who forced him into accepting it after YOU helped murder Caliph Uthman. Ali ONLY accepted the Caliphate to prevent the Muslim World going into 'meltdown'. EVERYTHING is YOUR fault you fucking demented Persian Shi-ites.
Further evidence of YOUR stupidity - in 1400 years you demented Mut'ah-Prostitution Filth Lurving Shi-ites have failed to produce even ONE School of Law and Logic (we have produced at least FOUR). Even the one you follow (Ja'fari Law and Logic) was founded by...Al-Quraish!
More evidence of your stupidity - do normal people indulge in mashochistic activities? You Persians are a Nation stooped in stupidity and moronicness. The phrase "As stupid as a Persian" should be popularised throughout the entire world
In future guard your tongue you infantile Shi-ite trash and kindly stick to the ONE industry in which you excel - Mut'ah-Prostitution Filth (I would refer to 'Suicide-Killings' as your other industry specialism, except its a one way ticket to Jahannum).
References:
1. http://www.amilimani.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=92&Itemid=2
I would also propose demented Mut'ah-Prostitution-Filth Lurving Shi-ites have rejected the Hadith because...Mut'ah is banned in Hadith!
As for 'being intelligent' if you're stupid enough to be brainwashed by the Hashemites into supporting their 'Shi-ite' cause, that's YOUR fault. Ali never held an obsession for Caliphate, it was you demented b*stards who forced him into accepting it after YOU helped murder Caliph Uthman. Ali ONLY accepted the Caliphate to prevent the Muslim World going into 'meltdown'. EVERYTHING is YOUR fault you fucking demented Persian Shi-ites.
Further evidence of YOUR stupidity - in 1400 years you demented Mut'ah-Prostitution Filth Lurving Shi-ites have failed to produce even ONE School of Law and Logic (we have produced at least FOUR). Even the one you follow (Ja'fari Law and Logic) was founded by...Al-Quraish!
More evidence of your stupidity - do normal people indulge in mashochistic activities? You Persians are a Nation stooped in stupidity and moronicness. The phrase "As stupid as a Persian" should be popularised throughout the entire world
In future guard your tongue you infantile Shi-ite trash and kindly stick to the ONE industry in which you excel - Mut'ah-Prostitution Filth (I would refer to 'Suicide-Killings' as your other industry specialism, except its a one way ticket to Jahannum).
References:
1. http://www.amilimani.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=92&Itemid=2
Yours Sacrificially
Am I the only Muslim on the planet who believes Caliph Yazid was right and Hussain ibn Ali was wrong [1,2]? That Husain was guilty of treason and was actually given a most 'honourable' death [at Karbala]? - he should have been captured, bound, tried and [if found guilty of treason] publicly crucified along with his co-conspirators. Despite being warned about heeding the call of the fickle Persian-Kufans, Husain still chose to help them and when he turned up they [being cowards] failed to provide the support they promised, thus he was left humiliated. The Caliph's army allowed the females and children to leave the scene leaving the men to their fate. As for the Persian-Shias they scream and shout on this day because either:
1. They're still whingeing about their own cowardice
2. They're complaning about being 'second class' citizens born out of Mut'ah Prostitution filth - but since Shias lurve their Mut'ah, they should really celebrate such births!
I came to this conclusion (about Hussain ibn Ali) almost 25 years ago (I've been reading Islamic Literature since then!) and I've seen NOTHING to change my opinion. If anything the gruesome images of demented Shias ['proving their machoness' by indulging in masochostic activities] has merely hardened my opinion.
Additionally, Caliph Al-Khattab refused to make Ali ibn Talib his sucessor because...he found Ali very facetious. I can only imagine the VERY strange manner in which Fatima simply abandoned Ali left him unbalanced (he REALLY loved her VERY much, though it seems this love was never reciprocated) and he never recovered from the shock of her desertion. As years went by he became more and more bitter and sarcastic, alienating himself from the other Sahabi. Ali's 'downfall' was quite unfortunate, because I would suggest the [wealth and 'fresh flesh' obsessed] Hashemites saw his mental state as an opportunity to use him to grab power for themselves. They would also brainwash the Persians to act as their 'sword' so no-one would suspect them of being the real players in this deadly game of Politics
I guess the moral of this story is...never love someone so much that if they hurt you, you become unbalanced
References:
1. http://www.blackburncitizen.co.uk/news/newsheadlines/display.var.2033245.0.shia_muslims_commemorate_sacrifice.php
2. http://www.postchronicle.com/commentary/article_212126664.shtml
1. They're still whingeing about their own cowardice
2. They're complaning about being 'second class' citizens born out of Mut'ah Prostitution filth - but since Shias lurve their Mut'ah, they should really celebrate such births!
I came to this conclusion (about Hussain ibn Ali) almost 25 years ago (I've been reading Islamic Literature since then!) and I've seen NOTHING to change my opinion. If anything the gruesome images of demented Shias ['proving their machoness' by indulging in masochostic activities] has merely hardened my opinion.
Additionally, Caliph Al-Khattab refused to make Ali ibn Talib his sucessor because...he found Ali very facetious. I can only imagine the VERY strange manner in which Fatima simply abandoned Ali left him unbalanced (he REALLY loved her VERY much, though it seems this love was never reciprocated) and he never recovered from the shock of her desertion. As years went by he became more and more bitter and sarcastic, alienating himself from the other Sahabi. Ali's 'downfall' was quite unfortunate, because I would suggest the [wealth and 'fresh flesh' obsessed] Hashemites saw his mental state as an opportunity to use him to grab power for themselves. They would also brainwash the Persians to act as their 'sword' so no-one would suspect them of being the real players in this deadly game of Politics
I guess the moral of this story is...never love someone so much that if they hurt you, you become unbalanced
References:
1. http://www.blackburncitizen.co.uk/news/newsheadlines/display.var.2033245.0.shia_muslims_commemorate_sacrifice.php
2. http://www.postchronicle.com/commentary/article_212126664.shtml
A Secret Agenda
Taqiyya is a practice that God Permitted to Muslims living in aggressively Anti-Muslim Lands to allow Muslims to continue professing their faith in secret. It was practiced by Muslims stranded in Pagan-Makka who were unable to join their fellow believers either in Abyssinia or Madina, though Spanish Muslims also practiced this from 1493CE until recently [1].
I would propose that Banu Hashim were never actually interested in Islam and when they were hit by The Boycott [2, 3], this simply embittered them against both Islam and their fellow Al-Quraish. They would later practice Taqiyya would create the impression they embraced Islam, but really they were looking for an opportunity to strike back. After Muslims conquered Persia, the Hashemites packed their bags and emigrated to these new lands, slowly brainwashing the Persians into believing they were victims of their fellow Tribes-People.
When [the Politically-Sensitive] Uthman succeeded Umar Al-Khattab, the Hashemites saw this as an opportunity to create fitna and fassad by claiming the Ummayyads were obsessed with Power and preventing anyone else obtaining Seats of Authority. These would ultimately culminate the Political Crisis resulting in Assassination of Caliph Uthman and a succession of devastating wars [3] climaxing in the Battle of Siffin.
I would also propose that later on Banu Hashim (specifically the Sharifs[5] ) would encourage their Tribal Cousins the Abbasids (descendants of ibn Abbas [7,8]) to unite the Persians and overthrow the Ummayads [6], hoping they in turn would use their 'influence' over a united Persian Army to rebel against the Abbasids and instil them as leaders.
After the Abbasids overthrew the Umayyads, they discovered the Banu Hasim plot to overthrow them and started oppressing the latter. This would lead to the Banu Hashim 'going underground' and creating an entirely new type of Military Discipline: 'The Assassin' [9, 10]. I'm not sure how they ended up ruling Western Hijaz(967CE-1201CE) or Makka(1201CE-1925CE) respectively [11] but according to the book ibn Battuta's Travels (by HAR Gibb[17]) they seemed to wield considerable influence over the Mongols post-Apocalypse (the Mongol-Templar Alliance that destroyed much of the Muslim World between 1233 and 1300 [12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17]).
Also judging by the way they led the Arab Apostacy against the Othmani Khilafat, I would suggest that Banu Hashim's SOLE interest in life is Power.
Much of this is pure speculation simply because there is very little substantial evidence. However I do believe there was a Hashemite(Sharif)-Mongol-Templar Conspiracy that led to the near total obliteration [of the Muslim World], which I based on two fundamental questions:
1. Why did Hashemite(Sharif) Ruled-Makka survive the Mongol onslaught [unscathed], when they obliterated every other city they encountered?
2. Having destroyed each city and peoples, the Mongols reduced the survivors to a lifetime of barbaric slavery and servitude, except the Hashemites [who seemed to enjoy a great deal of 'favour' from the Mongols]. Why would the Mongols choose to provide special favour to the Hashemites?
Available evidence aside one thing is VERY clear. The Crusaders (irrespective of how they were represented ie Templars etc) were ALWAYS a bunch of arrogant mass-murdering bastards whose ONLY purpose in life was to kill, kill and...kill and they would ultimately lay the foundations for...the Nazis (I see NO difference between the Crusaders and The Nazis...well the former are hailed and the latter are reviled).
References:
1. http://www.secularism.org.uk/spanishanti-islamfestivaltoneddo.html
2. http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Articles/companion/06_ali_bin_talib.htm
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meccan_boycott_of_the_Hashemites
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muawiyah_I
5. http://www.kinghussein.gov.jo/hash_intro.html
6. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umayyad
7. http://www.pakistanlink.com/Commentary/2006/Sep06/02/03.HTM
8. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdullah_ibn_Abbas
9. http://www.skewsme.com/assassin.html
10. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashshashin
11. http://www.kinghussein.gov.jo/hash_intro.html
12. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Franco-Mongol_alliance/archive1
13. http://www.countyhistorian.com/cecilweb/index.php/Franco-Mongol_alliance#Early_contacts_.281209-1244.29
14. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Elonka/Archive_10
15.http://www.historyofjihad.org/crusades.html
16. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-Mongol_alliance
17. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Battuta
I would propose that Banu Hashim were never actually interested in Islam and when they were hit by The Boycott [2, 3], this simply embittered them against both Islam and their fellow Al-Quraish. They would later practice Taqiyya would create the impression they embraced Islam, but really they were looking for an opportunity to strike back. After Muslims conquered Persia, the Hashemites packed their bags and emigrated to these new lands, slowly brainwashing the Persians into believing they were victims of their fellow Tribes-People.
When [the Politically-Sensitive] Uthman succeeded Umar Al-Khattab, the Hashemites saw this as an opportunity to create fitna and fassad by claiming the Ummayyads were obsessed with Power and preventing anyone else obtaining Seats of Authority. These would ultimately culminate the Political Crisis resulting in Assassination of Caliph Uthman and a succession of devastating wars [3] climaxing in the Battle of Siffin.
I would also propose that later on Banu Hashim (specifically the Sharifs[5] ) would encourage their Tribal Cousins the Abbasids (descendants of ibn Abbas [7,8]) to unite the Persians and overthrow the Ummayads [6], hoping they in turn would use their 'influence' over a united Persian Army to rebel against the Abbasids and instil them as leaders.
After the Abbasids overthrew the Umayyads, they discovered the Banu Hasim plot to overthrow them and started oppressing the latter. This would lead to the Banu Hashim 'going underground' and creating an entirely new type of Military Discipline: 'The Assassin' [9, 10]. I'm not sure how they ended up ruling Western Hijaz(967CE-1201CE) or Makka(1201CE-1925CE) respectively [11] but according to the book ibn Battuta's Travels (by HAR Gibb[17]) they seemed to wield considerable influence over the Mongols post-Apocalypse (the Mongol-Templar Alliance that destroyed much of the Muslim World between 1233 and 1300 [12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17]).
Also judging by the way they led the Arab Apostacy against the Othmani Khilafat, I would suggest that Banu Hashim's SOLE interest in life is Power.
Much of this is pure speculation simply because there is very little substantial evidence. However I do believe there was a Hashemite(Sharif)-Mongol-Templar Conspiracy that led to the near total obliteration [of the Muslim World], which I based on two fundamental questions:
1. Why did Hashemite(Sharif) Ruled-Makka survive the Mongol onslaught [unscathed], when they obliterated every other city they encountered?
2. Having destroyed each city and peoples, the Mongols reduced the survivors to a lifetime of barbaric slavery and servitude, except the Hashemites [who seemed to enjoy a great deal of 'favour' from the Mongols]. Why would the Mongols choose to provide special favour to the Hashemites?
Available evidence aside one thing is VERY clear. The Crusaders (irrespective of how they were represented ie Templars etc) were ALWAYS a bunch of arrogant mass-murdering bastards whose ONLY purpose in life was to kill, kill and...kill and they would ultimately lay the foundations for...the Nazis (I see NO difference between the Crusaders and The Nazis...well the former are hailed and the latter are reviled).
References:
1. http://www.secularism.org.uk/spanishanti-islamfestivaltoneddo.html
2. http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Articles/companion/06_ali_bin_talib.htm
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meccan_boycott_of_the_Hashemites
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muawiyah_I
5. http://www.kinghussein.gov.jo/hash_intro.html
6. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umayyad
7. http://www.pakistanlink.com/Commentary/2006/Sep06/02/03.HTM
8. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdullah_ibn_Abbas
9. http://www.skewsme.com/assassin.html
10. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashshashin
11. http://www.kinghussein.gov.jo/hash_intro.html
12. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Franco-Mongol_alliance/archive1
13. http://www.countyhistorian.com/cecilweb/index.php/Franco-Mongol_alliance#Early_contacts_.281209-1244.29
14. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Elonka/Archive_10
15.http://www.historyofjihad.org/crusades.html
16. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-Mongol_alliance
17. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Battuta
Convertibles
If conversion is creating such a fuss [1], perhaps convertees should be required to sign a legal document to confirm they have converted religion.
References:
1. http://www.newspress.com/Top/Article/article.jsp?Section=WORLD&ID=565233248499009036
References:
1. http://www.newspress.com/Top/Article/article.jsp?Section=WORLD&ID=565233248499009036
My Home is my Paradise
Why is there an obsession in Islam with Heaven and Hell? Simply because human beings are really useless. We won't do the right thing unless God 'Bribes' us with promises of Heaven, and we won't avoid doing the wrong things unless God threatens us with Hell
Social Twins
Why is there Halal and Haraam?
Why didn't God make everything Halal?
Why do we circumcise, avoid pig and alcohol?
Why do we slaughter, wash our sexual organs and clip our nails?
One of the tests of life is our ability to trust the Judgement of God and His Prophet. God and His Prophet tell us what to do and what to avoid. If we trust their judgement we implement their Laws, otherwise we ignore it and 'do what we want'. This is one of the fundamental principles behind 'free-will'.
People say we should rely on Science for 'the right way'. The purpose of Science is NOT to 'show us the right way' because Science is 'The Study of Humans and our Environment'. In that respect, Science can teach us why things happen, and thus Science can explain the reasons behind the Judgement of God and His Prophet. Science can also make use of these judgments as scientific foundations for futher research. Unfortunately Science is unable to establish the 'Base Foundations of Society' because these are dependant on 'Absolute Truth and Knowledge', and [since Science is ultimately a human venture] humans are only capable of providing partial truth and knowledge
Why didn't God make everything Halal?
Why do we circumcise, avoid pig and alcohol?
Why do we slaughter, wash our sexual organs and clip our nails?
One of the tests of life is our ability to trust the Judgement of God and His Prophet. God and His Prophet tell us what to do and what to avoid. If we trust their judgement we implement their Laws, otherwise we ignore it and 'do what we want'. This is one of the fundamental principles behind 'free-will'.
People say we should rely on Science for 'the right way'. The purpose of Science is NOT to 'show us the right way' because Science is 'The Study of Humans and our Environment'. In that respect, Science can teach us why things happen, and thus Science can explain the reasons behind the Judgement of God and His Prophet. Science can also make use of these judgments as scientific foundations for futher research. Unfortunately Science is unable to establish the 'Base Foundations of Society' because these are dependant on 'Absolute Truth and Knowledge', and [since Science is ultimately a human venture] humans are only capable of providing partial truth and knowledge
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Golden Fleece
All the following couples:
1. Sylvester Stallone and Brigette Neilsen [1]
2. Joan Collins and Peter Holm [2]
3. Martina Navratilova and Judy Nelson [3]
4. Paul McCartney and Heather Mills [4]
have four things in common:
1. All involved couples that were on the opposite sides of the wealth scale
2. All collapsed within two years (except the Judy and Martina relationship which seems to be a little complicated possibly because it was an SGR)
3. All resulted in large amounts of wealth [in the form of 'Compensation'] being transferred from the wealthier person to the poorer spouse
4. Not one of them had a legally cast-iron prenuptial agreement in place that:
a. Limited the amount of compensation (if any) in the event of a marital breakdown (eg [8])
b. Banned the poorer spouse from 'kiss and tell' ie selling their story to the media for large sums of money (surprising as it may seem, even wealthy people like keeping their private/personal lives PRIVATE)
The 'Compensation' factor I find particularly puzzling. If either:
1. There were children involved whose needs the poorer spouse agreed to honour
2. The poorer spouse had to sacrifice his/her career before entering a marital relationship with the wealthier side
then I can understand the need for some form of compensation to be paid. However none of the couples involved qualify for either of these scenarios so therefore...
If I were being suspicious, I would propose that the poorer person:
1. Identified a suitable victim based on such characteristics eg loneliness, wealth etc etc
2. Produced a complete plan of entrapment to trap the victim
3. Married the victim with a temporary (or Mut'ah) marriage in mind
4. Complained of 'physical harm' etc after a couple of years [5]
5. Fleeced the wealthier victim for maximum finance compensation (in Heather's case this seems to be running into $100M+) [6, 7]
In a time when the Church of England bemoans that marriage has now become 'an ideal' rather than the norm, I would it particularly disgraceful if my suspicions proved correct.
References:
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigitte_Nielsen
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Holm
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judy_Nelson
4. http://arts.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,1776957,00.html
5. http://arts.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,1776957,00.html
6. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,200-2342183,00.html
7. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/sep/23/law.world
8. http://www.forbes.com/2007/04/11/celebrity-women-alimony-biz-cx_lg_0412womenpay.html
1. Sylvester Stallone and Brigette Neilsen [1]
2. Joan Collins and Peter Holm [2]
3. Martina Navratilova and Judy Nelson [3]
4. Paul McCartney and Heather Mills [4]
have four things in common:
1. All involved couples that were on the opposite sides of the wealth scale
2. All collapsed within two years (except the Judy and Martina relationship which seems to be a little complicated possibly because it was an SGR)
3. All resulted in large amounts of wealth [in the form of 'Compensation'] being transferred from the wealthier person to the poorer spouse
4. Not one of them had a legally cast-iron prenuptial agreement in place that:
a. Limited the amount of compensation (if any) in the event of a marital breakdown (eg [8])
b. Banned the poorer spouse from 'kiss and tell' ie selling their story to the media for large sums of money (surprising as it may seem, even wealthy people like keeping their private/personal lives PRIVATE)
The 'Compensation' factor I find particularly puzzling. If either:
1. There were children involved whose needs the poorer spouse agreed to honour
2. The poorer spouse had to sacrifice his/her career before entering a marital relationship with the wealthier side
then I can understand the need for some form of compensation to be paid. However none of the couples involved qualify for either of these scenarios so therefore...
If I were being suspicious, I would propose that the poorer person:
1. Identified a suitable victim based on such characteristics eg loneliness, wealth etc etc
2. Produced a complete plan of entrapment to trap the victim
3. Married the victim with a temporary (or Mut'ah) marriage in mind
4. Complained of 'physical harm' etc after a couple of years [5]
5. Fleeced the wealthier victim for maximum finance compensation (in Heather's case this seems to be running into $100M+) [6, 7]
In a time when the Church of England bemoans that marriage has now become 'an ideal' rather than the norm, I would it particularly disgraceful if my suspicions proved correct.
References:
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigitte_Nielsen
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Holm
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judy_Nelson
4. http://arts.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,1776957,00.html
5. http://arts.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,1776957,00.html
6. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,200-2342183,00.html
7. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/sep/23/law.world
8. http://www.forbes.com/2007/04/11/celebrity-women-alimony-biz-cx_lg_0412womenpay.html
Fatal Exposure
So you can print anything in 'Free Afghanistan' so long as it doesn't upset the authorities [1]. Once you do that you're hit with a blasphemy charge and sentenced to death. So much for 'Free Afghanistan'. Whatever you say about the Taliban, they were honest and up front, so reporters knew where they stood. If I had a suspicious mind I would say that the Authorities are undertaking criminal activity (eg Drugs and Mut'ah-Prostitution Rings) and protecting themselves [from exposure] by er...'interesting' use of the Blasphemy Laws.
References:
1. http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/MediaNews/2008/01/24/4791832-cp.html
References:
1. http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/MediaNews/2008/01/24/4791832-cp.html
Saturday, February 9, 2008
Here Today Gone Tomorrow?
Bearing in mind the British Government's recent decision to ban the fiery Scholar Yusuf Qaradawi from UK because of 'Incitement of Hatred' [1], I find their silence on the subject of Salman Rushdie extremely hypocritical. Even more interestingly The Queen has even honoured this apostate [2]- clearly insulting the Prophet and his Household is regarded as 'Contributing to British Society'.
If blasphemy against Islam is regarded is acceptable [and honourable] behaviour in UK then:
1. The phrase 'British Muslim' is an oxymoron
2. Muslims living in Britain need to determine whether they should really be making long-term plans to live elsewhere
Its all very well claiming that Muslims are 'safest' in UK, but if that comes at the expense of Intellectual Terrorism in the form of 'Free Speech' that insults Islam and Islamic Personalities, then Muslims are better off living as beggers in Muslim Lands
Of course its worth discovering whether Salman Rushdie's religious background is Shi-itism...
References:
1. http://politics.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,2253812,00.html
2. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6756149.stm
If blasphemy against Islam is regarded is acceptable [and honourable] behaviour in UK then:
1. The phrase 'British Muslim' is an oxymoron
2. Muslims living in Britain need to determine whether they should really be making long-term plans to live elsewhere
Its all very well claiming that Muslims are 'safest' in UK, but if that comes at the expense of Intellectual Terrorism in the form of 'Free Speech' that insults Islam and Islamic Personalities, then Muslims are better off living as beggers in Muslim Lands
Of course its worth discovering whether Salman Rushdie's religious background is Shi-itism...
References:
1. http://politics.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,2253812,00.html
2. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6756149.stm
Critical Success
'Michael' [1] is clearly unaware of the legal concept of 'Circumstantial Evidence' [3]. Where NO hard evidence exists, one analyzes the situation and builds up a picture [to the best of one's knowledge] of the likely scenario. To the best of my knowledge, having undertaken a substantial amount of background reading (and discounted several theories) I have come to the conclusion that 9/11 could ONLY have been planned by the White House. As for motive, well its staring your in the face if you care to look closely enough.
As for the 'put down', its so meek ("don't visit my house and I won't visit yours") that it didn't even occur to me the 'mighty' Oliver was attempting sarcasm. Clearly he needs to change his literary circles and spend more time with the likes of Ian Hislop [2]. Its also a little confusing since he wanted to see some sort of 'rational' argument. Perhaps Oliver was attempting more 'sarcasm'.
As for his being a Zionist [7], I don't see how that's relevant unless Oliver is one of those misguided fools who believes the White House is somehow serving Israel with Her policies in Iraq (the White House may be propagating this belief amongst Jewish-Americans to gain Political Support, but that's not quite the same thing...).
Anyway there seems to be a degree of confusion regarding the Blasphemy Laws in Islam. These Laws were initially revealed to prevent micreants (ie hypocrites and apostates) spreading lies about God, Muhammad and Islam. As a modern example, Salman Rushdie's accusation that 'The Prophet was a pimp and his household a brothel' [6] would be blasphemic.
The idea was to force people into using their Critical Faculties to make constructive negative comments about Islam, since these could then be used to develop a stronger more Positive Constructive Society [by evolving the Law]. Thus whilst 'those cartoons' [4] initially appeared blasphemic, in retrospect they seem to be 'Construction Criticism'. As an example, a popular accusation is that Muhammad was a paedophile because he married a 6 year old girl [and by Modern Social Standards] that would constitute 'Criminal Behaviour'. This is actually Valid Criticism, because we have a sound basis for a negative comment. And whilst there were critically important reasons for this marriage [of which I'm fully aware], I'll leave that as a exercise for others to contemplate.
Another point of mockery is the '72 virgins for suicide-bombing a kafir' accusation. Again this is valid criticism since [apparently] ignorant and extremely bigoted 'Sheikhs' appear to be plucking out stuff from the Quran and Sunnah to promote their own [hidden] agendas.
Hanafi Fiqh demands punishment for those who commit blasphemy. However its upto Jurists and Scholars to determine whether a statement is Blasphemic or Constructive Criticism [5].
References:
1. http://oliverkamm.typepad.com/blog/2008/02/battling-satani.html
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Hislop
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy
5. http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/archives/2008/01/24/index_on_censorship_on_sayed_parvez_kambakhsh.php
6. http://www.webcurrent.com/rushdie.html
7. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism
As for the 'put down', its so meek ("don't visit my house and I won't visit yours") that it didn't even occur to me the 'mighty' Oliver was attempting sarcasm. Clearly he needs to change his literary circles and spend more time with the likes of Ian Hislop [2]. Its also a little confusing since he wanted to see some sort of 'rational' argument. Perhaps Oliver was attempting more 'sarcasm'.
As for his being a Zionist [7], I don't see how that's relevant unless Oliver is one of those misguided fools who believes the White House is somehow serving Israel with Her policies in Iraq (the White House may be propagating this belief amongst Jewish-Americans to gain Political Support, but that's not quite the same thing...).
Anyway there seems to be a degree of confusion regarding the Blasphemy Laws in Islam. These Laws were initially revealed to prevent micreants (ie hypocrites and apostates) spreading lies about God, Muhammad and Islam. As a modern example, Salman Rushdie's accusation that 'The Prophet was a pimp and his household a brothel' [6] would be blasphemic.
The idea was to force people into using their Critical Faculties to make constructive negative comments about Islam, since these could then be used to develop a stronger more Positive Constructive Society [by evolving the Law]. Thus whilst 'those cartoons' [4] initially appeared blasphemic, in retrospect they seem to be 'Construction Criticism'. As an example, a popular accusation is that Muhammad was a paedophile because he married a 6 year old girl [and by Modern Social Standards] that would constitute 'Criminal Behaviour'. This is actually Valid Criticism, because we have a sound basis for a negative comment. And whilst there were critically important reasons for this marriage [of which I'm fully aware], I'll leave that as a exercise for others to contemplate.
Another point of mockery is the '72 virgins for suicide-bombing a kafir' accusation. Again this is valid criticism since [apparently] ignorant and extremely bigoted 'Sheikhs' appear to be plucking out stuff from the Quran and Sunnah to promote their own [hidden] agendas.
Hanafi Fiqh demands punishment for those who commit blasphemy. However its upto Jurists and Scholars to determine whether a statement is Blasphemic or Constructive Criticism [5].
References:
1. http://oliverkamm.typepad.com/blog/2008/02/battling-satani.html
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Hislop
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy
5. http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/archives/2008/01/24/index_on_censorship_on_sayed_parvez_kambakhsh.php
6. http://www.webcurrent.com/rushdie.html
7. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism
Monday, January 28, 2008
Virussed Off
I'm REALLY 'virussed off'. No-one wants to debate with me, so instead I'm having to waste my time removing viruses of my hard drive.
Its SO annoying. Everytime I say something 'controversial' I get whacked by a virus. If people have a problem with my thoughts, let's hear them so I can [at least] identify the 'roots of discontent'. After all isn't that the whole purpose of Democracy - to bring people together and identify solutions to problems and barriers they face?
Its SO annoying. Everytime I say something 'controversial' I get whacked by a virus. If people have a problem with my thoughts, let's hear them so I can [at least] identify the 'roots of discontent'. After all isn't that the whole purpose of Democracy - to bring people together and identify solutions to problems and barriers they face?
Saturday, January 26, 2008
Jihad, Jihad
Its seems many 'Jihadist' Scholars appear to scream delightfully "Jews are apes and pigs", or "Jews are brothers of apes and pigs" (or something to that effect), and they use a number of Quranic Verses [1] to justify this slander (and libel). So what's the deal?
Well the Quranic verses refer to incidents that happened ~2500 years ago (~500BCE) that were very specific to a group amongst the Israelites. They were punished for deliberate transgressions [despite a number of Divine Warning] by being transformed into apes and pigs, and the verses were revealed:
1. to prove Al-Amin really was a Prophet (since these incidents aren't to be found in traditional Israelite Scriptures)
2. as a warning to the Madinite Israelites if they continued transgressing against Al-Amin (by spreading lies eg he was insane, a liar etc etc)
So how is this relevant in the modern context? Actually I have NO idea! If the 'Jihadist Scholars' are suggesting the modern Jews are somehow related to those Israelites, then presumably they have complete Family Charts and Histories to justify this claim. If they're simply trying to be insulting, then the Jews can simply retort "Well you're the children of rapists, mass-murderers, incest, Devil-Worshippers, Pagans, Human Sacrificers, Bestialitists", etc etc since if one goes back up the Family Chain far enough (especially during their Pre-Islamic Days) one will find all these practices prevalent amongst their people.
And I'm sorry but this is COMPLETE bullsh*t [2]. I have NO idea what sources this 'Jihadist Scholar' has used but it doesn't reflect reality. Al-Amin was asked to go to Madina to bring peace and unity to a peoples wracked by decades of constant strife and warfare. Thus his focus and responsibilities lie in identifying and solving Social Problems, and rebuilding the nation. Whilst some Madinite Israelites were the source of quite a few problems Al-Amin encountered, it would be 'Intellectual Terrorism' to categorise all of them as THE ENEMY or 'The Source of All Evil'. It is equally irresponsible to invent history that implies Al-Amin was obsessed with destroying Madinite Israelites. However it would be correct to state that those Israelite Tribes that sided with the Pagans to destroy the Muslim Ummah were attacked and defeated. Unfortunately this interpretation significantly alters the entire context, and is no longer helpful to the Palestinians in their quest to eject the Israelis from Israel.
I can't help feeling that the biggest disaster [in Modern Islamic History] was when the Palestinians [fed up with bandying around the Arab Nationalist Flag to garner support for their cause] suddenly turned to the 'Islam Bandwagon' to try and gain sympathy and support. After that they seem to have [quite cleverly] re-interpreted history to imply "Jews are the BIG enemy that needs exterminating". I'm sorry dear Palestinians, whenever I see your miserable state my heart goes to you. But ultimately [in this equation] you ARE the Terrorists. You shot yourselves in the foot [by siding with the British against the Ottomans] and now you have to accept the consequences of your actions.
However as a 'fellow' Muslim I would like to see a Two-State Solution simply because judging by events like this [4, 6] Palestinians need time to evolve to the point they can respect Jewish Neighbours [instead of screaming 'hellfire and brimstone' at the mere mention of the word 'Jew'] (I think the Palestinians have lost sight of the reasons they are fighting. 'Resistance' only makes sense if they're attacking an immediate enemy. However since they're only targetting innocent civilians, surely that makes them guilty of murder...). But since the Palestinians have NO right to demand specific pieces of land (eg Jerusalem), they should just be grateful for whatever they're given. If after that anyone from Palestine attacks the Jewish 'Cancer', then that will be [correctly interpreted as] an 'Act of War' and they're on their own
As for 'Slave Girls', 'Slavery' was [more or less] globally abolished [3] around 100 years ago. The Quranic Verses relating to Slavery and 'those whom your right hand possess' ie Slave-Girls refers to a practice that existed 1400 years ago. However there are sufficient Hadiths requiring 'freeing of Slaves' for penance to suggest Islam actually wants to destroy this despicable industry so we should congratulate and honour any global attempts to do this. Besides how can we discuss global Brotherhood and Sisterhood if [in the same breath] we also want access to slave-girls?
Also [as far as I'm aware] Islam forbids enslaving free people (the idea being "Ok you can keep the slave industry that already exists, but you can't force any 'free peoples' into it") which should have resulted in the industry [slowly] withering away over 1000 years ago.
Rape is punishable by stoning to death for married men and 100 lashes (on the bare back with a jaldah/dirrah [5]) for the unmarried. The age/religion/gender etc of the victim is irrelevant.
Paedophilia is the same as rape (even though Al-Amin married a 6 year old girl).
Whilst Polygamy is permitted, there are a number of points that need to be made about this issue:
1. The male has to honour each wife as though he were ONLY married to her. Thus if he marries four wives, he is actually responsible for four SEPARATE households (yes that can be VERY expensive, time-consuming and require very sophisiticated Human-Management Skills, since each wife also has her parents and associated family).
2. Since the most successful Islam Social Systems have ALWAYS been those based on a Matriarchal System, with each Wife effectively a 'Queen' (with quite a hefty/frightening amount of Social/Political Power), only a brave/foolish soul would consider venturing down the 'Polygamy' path.
3. 1400 years ago wealth was scarce, and polygamy offered an effective solution for females [from poorer backgrounds] to gain access to it by marrying someone wealthy. However that hurdle has effectively been eradicated (especially in the Industrialised World) thereby allowing the female to make a more measured choice when deciding on a suitable spouse.
Al-Amin actually dissuaded a female from marrying a male "because he is a wife-beater". Because wealth was scarce 1400 years ago, females were more limited in their choice of husband. Thus once they married they were pretty much stuck, and simply had to hope the husband had a 'feminine side'. Since wealth is more easy to obtain now-a-days females have more of a choice, so the focus is on the males to show a degree of 'femininity'.
As for discipline, that just sounds like an excuse for 'female abuse' ie "I will beat you if you 'disobey' me" attitude.
Whilst I'm not happy about this, I've decided to support SGRs (Same Gender Relationships) as a Marital Union (as opposed to 'civil unions') [because of some very complicated social reasons].
This is just pure 'Intellectual Terrorism' [4], and seems to have been written by someone 'inspired' by Adolf Hitler, 'Mein Kampf' and the 'Jewish Conspiracy' rubbish he was promoting. It is such demented garbage that I have no choice but to accuse ALL the 'Jihadist Scholars' [mentioned in this article] of being Heretics. And the punishment for Heresy is...Public Crucifixion.
Islam is neither peaceful nor 'unpeaceful'. Islam teaches us to solve Social Problems (and that is ultimately the purpose of Law) by whatever means necessary.
References:
1. http://answering-islam.org.uk/Authors/Arlandson/jew_apes.htm
2. http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP68304
3. http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/459886/a-muslim-who-gets-it.thtml
4. http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sr&ID=SR2504
5. http://www.answering-islam.org/Books/Hughes/d.htm
6. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/7208969.stm
Well the Quranic verses refer to incidents that happened ~2500 years ago (~500BCE) that were very specific to a group amongst the Israelites. They were punished for deliberate transgressions [despite a number of Divine Warning] by being transformed into apes and pigs, and the verses were revealed:
1. to prove Al-Amin really was a Prophet (since these incidents aren't to be found in traditional Israelite Scriptures)
2. as a warning to the Madinite Israelites if they continued transgressing against Al-Amin (by spreading lies eg he was insane, a liar etc etc)
So how is this relevant in the modern context? Actually I have NO idea! If the 'Jihadist Scholars' are suggesting the modern Jews are somehow related to those Israelites, then presumably they have complete Family Charts and Histories to justify this claim. If they're simply trying to be insulting, then the Jews can simply retort "Well you're the children of rapists, mass-murderers, incest, Devil-Worshippers, Pagans, Human Sacrificers, Bestialitists", etc etc since if one goes back up the Family Chain far enough (especially during their Pre-Islamic Days) one will find all these practices prevalent amongst their people.
And I'm sorry but this is COMPLETE bullsh*t [2]. I have NO idea what sources this 'Jihadist Scholar' has used but it doesn't reflect reality. Al-Amin was asked to go to Madina to bring peace and unity to a peoples wracked by decades of constant strife and warfare. Thus his focus and responsibilities lie in identifying and solving Social Problems, and rebuilding the nation. Whilst some Madinite Israelites were the source of quite a few problems Al-Amin encountered, it would be 'Intellectual Terrorism' to categorise all of them as THE ENEMY or 'The Source of All Evil'. It is equally irresponsible to invent history that implies Al-Amin was obsessed with destroying Madinite Israelites. However it would be correct to state that those Israelite Tribes that sided with the Pagans to destroy the Muslim Ummah were attacked and defeated. Unfortunately this interpretation significantly alters the entire context, and is no longer helpful to the Palestinians in their quest to eject the Israelis from Israel.
I can't help feeling that the biggest disaster [in Modern Islamic History] was when the Palestinians [fed up with bandying around the Arab Nationalist Flag to garner support for their cause] suddenly turned to the 'Islam Bandwagon' to try and gain sympathy and support. After that they seem to have [quite cleverly] re-interpreted history to imply "Jews are the BIG enemy that needs exterminating". I'm sorry dear Palestinians, whenever I see your miserable state my heart goes to you. But ultimately [in this equation] you ARE the Terrorists. You shot yourselves in the foot [by siding with the British against the Ottomans] and now you have to accept the consequences of your actions.
However as a 'fellow' Muslim I would like to see a Two-State Solution simply because judging by events like this [4, 6] Palestinians need time to evolve to the point they can respect Jewish Neighbours [instead of screaming 'hellfire and brimstone' at the mere mention of the word 'Jew'] (I think the Palestinians have lost sight of the reasons they are fighting. 'Resistance' only makes sense if they're attacking an immediate enemy. However since they're only targetting innocent civilians, surely that makes them guilty of murder...). But since the Palestinians have NO right to demand specific pieces of land (eg Jerusalem), they should just be grateful for whatever they're given. If after that anyone from Palestine attacks the Jewish 'Cancer', then that will be [correctly interpreted as] an 'Act of War' and they're on their own
As for 'Slave Girls', 'Slavery' was [more or less] globally abolished [3] around 100 years ago. The Quranic Verses relating to Slavery and 'those whom your right hand possess' ie Slave-Girls refers to a practice that existed 1400 years ago. However there are sufficient Hadiths requiring 'freeing of Slaves' for penance to suggest Islam actually wants to destroy this despicable industry so we should congratulate and honour any global attempts to do this. Besides how can we discuss global Brotherhood and Sisterhood if [in the same breath] we also want access to slave-girls?
Also [as far as I'm aware] Islam forbids enslaving free people (the idea being "Ok you can keep the slave industry that already exists, but you can't force any 'free peoples' into it") which should have resulted in the industry [slowly] withering away over 1000 years ago.
Rape is punishable by stoning to death for married men and 100 lashes (on the bare back with a jaldah/dirrah [5]) for the unmarried. The age/religion/gender etc of the victim is irrelevant.
Paedophilia is the same as rape (even though Al-Amin married a 6 year old girl).
Whilst Polygamy is permitted, there are a number of points that need to be made about this issue:
1. The male has to honour each wife as though he were ONLY married to her. Thus if he marries four wives, he is actually responsible for four SEPARATE households (yes that can be VERY expensive, time-consuming and require very sophisiticated Human-Management Skills, since each wife also has her parents and associated family).
2. Since the most successful Islam Social Systems have ALWAYS been those based on a Matriarchal System, with each Wife effectively a 'Queen' (with quite a hefty/frightening amount of Social/Political Power), only a brave/foolish soul would consider venturing down the 'Polygamy' path.
3. 1400 years ago wealth was scarce, and polygamy offered an effective solution for females [from poorer backgrounds] to gain access to it by marrying someone wealthy. However that hurdle has effectively been eradicated (especially in the Industrialised World) thereby allowing the female to make a more measured choice when deciding on a suitable spouse.
Al-Amin actually dissuaded a female from marrying a male "because he is a wife-beater". Because wealth was scarce 1400 years ago, females were more limited in their choice of husband. Thus once they married they were pretty much stuck, and simply had to hope the husband had a 'feminine side'. Since wealth is more easy to obtain now-a-days females have more of a choice, so the focus is on the males to show a degree of 'femininity'.
As for discipline, that just sounds like an excuse for 'female abuse' ie "I will beat you if you 'disobey' me" attitude.
Whilst I'm not happy about this, I've decided to support SGRs (Same Gender Relationships) as a Marital Union (as opposed to 'civil unions') [because of some very complicated social reasons].
This is just pure 'Intellectual Terrorism' [4], and seems to have been written by someone 'inspired' by Adolf Hitler, 'Mein Kampf' and the 'Jewish Conspiracy' rubbish he was promoting. It is such demented garbage that I have no choice but to accuse ALL the 'Jihadist Scholars' [mentioned in this article] of being Heretics. And the punishment for Heresy is...Public Crucifixion.
Islam is neither peaceful nor 'unpeaceful'. Islam teaches us to solve Social Problems (and that is ultimately the purpose of Law) by whatever means necessary.
References:
1. http://answering-islam.org.uk/Authors/Arlandson/jew_apes.htm
2. http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP68304
3. http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/459886/a-muslim-who-gets-it.thtml
4. http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sr&ID=SR2504
5. http://www.answering-islam.org/Books/Hughes/d.htm
6. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/7208969.stm
Monday, January 21, 2008
Intellectual Terrorism
An 'Intellectual Terrorist' is someone who uses word to demonise and terrorise a target victim
eg Adolf Hitler used words to terrorise European Jewry
I accuse George W Bush of being an 'Intellectual Terrorist' who used words to terrorise and demonise Muslims and The Muslim World.
Just as a 'Ford Galaxy' is a type of Vehicle, so Nazism is a type/strain of Intellectual Terrorism, thus I propose the word 'Southernism' (and 'Southernist') to describe the type of Intellectual Terrorist who uses words to demonise Muslims (since Texas and the Southern States of USA seem to be the origins of this strain of Terrorism)
I also accuse George W Bush of planning 9/11 as part of the plan to 'Intellectually Terrorise' Muslims and the Muslim World. The 9/11 Report [4] clearly states a complete failure of implementation of internal systems, procedures, Best Practices etc etc led to 9/11 happening. What no-one bothered asking was:
1. If those internal systems, procedures, Best Practices were in place, would 9/11 have happened?
2. Who had to authority to override the internal systems, procedures, Best Practices thereby allowing 9/11 to happen?
I would also like to see the White House indicted for 'Crimes against Humanity' the way the Serbs and Nazis were similarly indicted and punished for their respective crimes.
As for these 'attacks' on Islam [1, 2, 3], Muslims should categorise them as examples of Southernism and simply ignore them. Once Society learns to recognise Southernism and Southernists as vile, pathetic creatures (similar to Nazis and other such dangerous filth), insha-Allah they'll be socially ostracised
References:
1. http://www.iviews.com/Articles/articles.asp?ref=IV0801-3496
2. http://www.anorak.co.uk/twitterings/179872.html
3. http://www.local6.com/news/15138651/detail.html
4. http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/
eg Adolf Hitler used words to terrorise European Jewry
I accuse George W Bush of being an 'Intellectual Terrorist' who used words to terrorise and demonise Muslims and The Muslim World.
Just as a 'Ford Galaxy' is a type of Vehicle, so Nazism is a type/strain of Intellectual Terrorism, thus I propose the word 'Southernism' (and 'Southernist') to describe the type of Intellectual Terrorist who uses words to demonise Muslims (since Texas and the Southern States of USA seem to be the origins of this strain of Terrorism)
I also accuse George W Bush of planning 9/11 as part of the plan to 'Intellectually Terrorise' Muslims and the Muslim World. The 9/11 Report [4] clearly states a complete failure of implementation of internal systems, procedures, Best Practices etc etc led to 9/11 happening. What no-one bothered asking was:
1. If those internal systems, procedures, Best Practices were in place, would 9/11 have happened?
2. Who had to authority to override the internal systems, procedures, Best Practices thereby allowing 9/11 to happen?
I would also like to see the White House indicted for 'Crimes against Humanity' the way the Serbs and Nazis were similarly indicted and punished for their respective crimes.
As for these 'attacks' on Islam [1, 2, 3], Muslims should categorise them as examples of Southernism and simply ignore them. Once Society learns to recognise Southernism and Southernists as vile, pathetic creatures (similar to Nazis and other such dangerous filth), insha-Allah they'll be socially ostracised
References:
1. http://www.iviews.com/Articles/articles.asp?ref=IV0801-3496
2. http://www.anorak.co.uk/twitterings/179872.html
3. http://www.local6.com/news/15138651/detail.html
4. http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/
Sunday, January 20, 2008
Texting for Talaq
I don't understand this issue [1]. Texting is principly no different from sending a letter or using Morse Code (or any form of long distance communication eg email, phone, telegram etc etc) so why is this problem vexing the Scholars?
As far as I'm aware Talaq can ONLY be accepted if the male says it in front of a qualified Judge with the wife alongside him. All these other exotic methods are irrelevant and inconsequential. Of course in situations where either party is unable to attend, he/she can be represented by legal representation. Isn't this beginning to sound like the 'Western' System?
1. http://www.montereyherald.com/ci_8025706?source=rss&nclick_check=1
As far as I'm aware Talaq can ONLY be accepted if the male says it in front of a qualified Judge with the wife alongside him. All these other exotic methods are irrelevant and inconsequential. Of course in situations where either party is unable to attend, he/she can be represented by legal representation. Isn't this beginning to sound like the 'Western' System?
1. http://www.montereyherald.com/ci_8025706?source=rss&nclick_check=1
Saturday, January 19, 2008
Living in Fear
Its unfortunate that Muslims are focused on "living in Fear of God's Punishment otherwise He'll Get you" [1]. Islam teaches us to be awestruck by His Power, Majesty and Beneficence etc etc and to worship Him because of these characteristics (this is the reason the Quran constantly exhorts us to study our environment to understand and appreciate God's Stunningly Powerful Design and Implementation Abilities - and surprising as it may seem those verses are NOT there as a 'Bible-bashing' exercise eg "Oh look how wonderful 'our' Quran is, it contains all this stuff about conception, does your cr*ppy Bible have anything similar?"). Whilst I agree we should fear His Punishment, that's only as a warning to avoid unlawful acts eg backbiting, Zina, Hedonism and Prostitution filth etc etc We're not supposed to live in fear 'just in case God Blasts us out of existence for scratching our noses the wrong way' - though I suspect some of us actually go to that extreme.
By the way is this really the way Presidential Elections are fought in USA [2]? People make their choice NOT because a particular candidate has weak management or political abilities but because...they don't like his name?!! Now I am concerned about the events in the world's SOLE Superpower. Mind you I do remember the 2004 US Election Theme being "God, Guns and Gays" so perhaps I shouldn't really be surprised by this obsession about a person's name.
References:
1. http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=196320&version=1&template_id=47&parent_id=27
2. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3216580.ece
By the way is this really the way Presidential Elections are fought in USA [2]? People make their choice NOT because a particular candidate has weak management or political abilities but because...they don't like his name?!! Now I am concerned about the events in the world's SOLE Superpower. Mind you I do remember the 2004 US Election Theme being "God, Guns and Gays" so perhaps I shouldn't really be surprised by this obsession about a person's name.
References:
1. http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=196320&version=1&template_id=47&parent_id=27
2. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3216580.ece
Speechless!
I wanted to rip The Vatican apart regarding the reasons for The Crusades. Then I saw stuff like this [1, 2] and I was left speechless! I can now see why initiatives like this [3] are treated with mirth and ridicule, and I don't really know what to say.
Muslims (including myself) like to boast of 'Islamic Superiority'. However this needs to be reflected by some form of evidence, and at the moment all the [winning] cards are in the hands of the athiests, cynics and other Non-Muslims. After all if the Quran [constantly] pleads with us to learn, understand and apply, then why aren't we? Ok so any reasonably educated Muslim can rattle off names like ibn Sina, Al-Biruni, Al-Khwarismi etc etc but these people lived over a millenia ago - what the hell have we been doing since?
I actually congratulate people like Ibn Waraq, Parvin Darabi etc [4] because they're challenging the Muslim World to break out of its current slumber with questions like these [5]. Whilst I can actually answer each and every one of them I refuse to do so. The sole purpose of such questions is to determine the ability of Muslims to think logically [based on Quran and Sunnah], but if I'm the only 'free thinker' out there then it says little about the Muslim World.
I want to speak proudly about my Islamic Heritage. Perhaps one day I will be able to do so without fear of mockery and ridicule.
References:
1. http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID={26CC3516-345F-4F9D-B448-3A027C0B1A46}
2 http://www.wikiislam.com/wiki/Persecution_of_non-Muslims_in_Muslim_countries
3. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=508901&in_page_id=1770&ito=1490
4. http://www.wikiislam.com/wiki/Muslims_who_left_Islam
5. http://www.wikiislam.com/wiki/Hundreds_of_Questions_to_Ask_a_Muslim
Muslims (including myself) like to boast of 'Islamic Superiority'. However this needs to be reflected by some form of evidence, and at the moment all the [winning] cards are in the hands of the athiests, cynics and other Non-Muslims. After all if the Quran [constantly] pleads with us to learn, understand and apply, then why aren't we? Ok so any reasonably educated Muslim can rattle off names like ibn Sina, Al-Biruni, Al-Khwarismi etc etc but these people lived over a millenia ago - what the hell have we been doing since?
I actually congratulate people like Ibn Waraq, Parvin Darabi etc [4] because they're challenging the Muslim World to break out of its current slumber with questions like these [5]. Whilst I can actually answer each and every one of them I refuse to do so. The sole purpose of such questions is to determine the ability of Muslims to think logically [based on Quran and Sunnah], but if I'm the only 'free thinker' out there then it says little about the Muslim World.
I want to speak proudly about my Islamic Heritage. Perhaps one day I will be able to do so without fear of mockery and ridicule.
References:
1. http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID={26CC3516-345F-4F9D-B448-3A027C0B1A46}
2 http://www.wikiislam.com/wiki/Persecution_of_non-Muslims_in_Muslim_countries
3. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=508901&in_page_id=1770&ito=1490
4. http://www.wikiislam.com/wiki/Muslims_who_left_Islam
5. http://www.wikiislam.com/wiki/Hundreds_of_Questions_to_Ask_a_Muslim
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Britain the Springboard for Global Jihad
Someone suggested Americans actually believe Britain has become some kind of 'springboard' for global 'jihadists' and we should be more concerned about this than the outcome of the American Presidential Elections.
Well based [purely] on this article [1], I would propose that we should be concerned about events in USA. After all Election Battles in the UK are focused on each candidate's ability to deliver results based on their past performances [in Cabinet] (Ok Tony Blair was the exception to the rule). I don't remember anyone ever 'raking up muck' (is it really a crime to be a Muslim in USA?) in the hope of personally humiliating the opposition - and I'm sure UK Candidates have plenty to hide themselves.
Anyway moving onto this piece [2], surely oxidisation is a 'miracle'! Seriously I think Pope Benedict should continue from his most honorable predecessor by continuing Pope John Paul's excellent work of seeking forgiveness [3] and building new bridges by asking forgiveness from the Scientific Community for atrocious crimes committed by the Church against Scientists. Who knows, the Pope may even [one day] seek forgiveness [from the Muslim Word] for the Crusades (particularly events in Ma'arra [4, 5, 6])
References:
1. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3194740.ece
2. http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/mark_steel/article3342149.ece
3. http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,230447,00.html
4. http://utah.indymedia.org/news/2003/10/6476_comment.php
5. http://www.crusades-encyclopedia.com/cannibalism.html
6. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ma'arrat_al-Numan
Well based [purely] on this article [1], I would propose that we should be concerned about events in USA. After all Election Battles in the UK are focused on each candidate's ability to deliver results based on their past performances [in Cabinet] (Ok Tony Blair was the exception to the rule). I don't remember anyone ever 'raking up muck' (is it really a crime to be a Muslim in USA?) in the hope of personally humiliating the opposition - and I'm sure UK Candidates have plenty to hide themselves.
Anyway moving onto this piece [2], surely oxidisation is a 'miracle'! Seriously I think Pope Benedict should continue from his most honorable predecessor by continuing Pope John Paul's excellent work of seeking forgiveness [3] and building new bridges by asking forgiveness from the Scientific Community for atrocious crimes committed by the Church against Scientists. Who knows, the Pope may even [one day] seek forgiveness [from the Muslim Word] for the Crusades (particularly events in Ma'arra [4, 5, 6])
References:
1. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3194740.ece
2. http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/mark_steel/article3342149.ece
3. http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,230447,00.html
4. http://utah.indymedia.org/news/2003/10/6476_comment.php
5. http://www.crusades-encyclopedia.com/cannibalism.html
6. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ma'arrat_al-Numan
Monday, January 14, 2008
Is anybody out there?
I think I've bored everyone off my blog. Ahh well I guess I'm not 'Mr Popular'.
Anyway I thought I'd share my views on a news items I picked up [1] - Is there any reason why the Lord's Prayer can't be recited over Loudspeakers instead of Church Bells?
References:
1.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/01/14/nchurch214.xml
Anyway I thought I'd share my views on a news items I picked up [1] - Is there any reason why the Lord's Prayer can't be recited over Loudspeakers instead of Church Bells?
References:
1.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/01/14/nchurch214.xml
Sunday, January 13, 2008
CIA v Pentagon
I'm sorry Alex but are you suggesting the 'War on Terror' is actually a low-intensity war between the CIA and The Pentagon? Please forgive me if I reply "At this point we're entering the Twilight Zone!"
Conspiracy conspiracy
I'm sorry Donald and Bob but is this [1] what you guys are referring to?
Perhaps I am a Muslim, or 'English' or just plain naive, but [to me] it seems a little extreme to engineer mass-murder and grand treason because of what may or may not be happening (or happen in the future) in Eurasia.
The Pearl Harbour atrocity was actually an act of war by one of two immediate major global threats (Nazism and Japanese Imperialism) who also happened to form a coalition. By contrast the recent atrocities were:
1. NOT conducted by ANY military power that was threatening USA
2. NOT going to directly benefit anyone immediately
I have heard rumours that the Taliban were actually removed because they were proving inflexible over the Caspian Sea deal [2] but:
1. political attitudes and interests tend to change over time
2. the longer you wait for a fossil fuel the greater its worth (especially when demand starts to severely outstrip supply)
So you'll have to forgive me if I find your suggestion [that this was some grand 'coalition' conspiracy plan hatched between The Pentagon and the Republican Hierarchy] a little difficult to consume.
By the way bearing in mind that [at least to my knowledge] Yemen is NOT regarded as 'US Territory' wouldn't it be foolish to 'switch off the radar' even if USS Cole was docked?
I'd like to add that just based on this article [3] I would propose Reverend Bill McGinnis is the most knowledgeable 'Muslim Scholar' out there [though bearing in mind 'Muslim Scholars' are busy screaming hellfire and brimstone declaring 'Holy War' on the 'Infidels', its not really surprising].
Incidentally [I believe] 'infidel' derives from 'Infidelity' and means 'Unfaithful', and was used during the Crusades to mean 'Unfaithful to the Cross'. I'm still unclear what 'Muslim Scholars' mean when they use this term.
If we then accept the Americans aren't 'infidels', 'kafirs' [or whatever other accusation is being aimed in their general direction] then I would propose that Colin Powell's warning to President Bush ("you break it you own it") [4] has more than a ring of truth attached to it.
References:
1. http://www.wanttoknow.info/brzezinskigrandchessboard
2. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/west_asia/37021.stm
3. http://www.opednews.com/articles/1/opedne_rev__bil_080112_the_qur_an_forbids_t.htm
4. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/03/AR2008010303259.html?wpisrc=rss_artsandliving/books
Perhaps I am a Muslim, or 'English' or just plain naive, but [to me] it seems a little extreme to engineer mass-murder and grand treason because of what may or may not be happening (or happen in the future) in Eurasia.
The Pearl Harbour atrocity was actually an act of war by one of two immediate major global threats (Nazism and Japanese Imperialism) who also happened to form a coalition. By contrast the recent atrocities were:
1. NOT conducted by ANY military power that was threatening USA
2. NOT going to directly benefit anyone immediately
I have heard rumours that the Taliban were actually removed because they were proving inflexible over the Caspian Sea deal [2] but:
1. political attitudes and interests tend to change over time
2. the longer you wait for a fossil fuel the greater its worth (especially when demand starts to severely outstrip supply)
So you'll have to forgive me if I find your suggestion [that this was some grand 'coalition' conspiracy plan hatched between The Pentagon and the Republican Hierarchy] a little difficult to consume.
By the way bearing in mind that [at least to my knowledge] Yemen is NOT regarded as 'US Territory' wouldn't it be foolish to 'switch off the radar' even if USS Cole was docked?
I'd like to add that just based on this article [3] I would propose Reverend Bill McGinnis is the most knowledgeable 'Muslim Scholar' out there [though bearing in mind 'Muslim Scholars' are busy screaming hellfire and brimstone declaring 'Holy War' on the 'Infidels', its not really surprising].
Incidentally [I believe] 'infidel' derives from 'Infidelity' and means 'Unfaithful', and was used during the Crusades to mean 'Unfaithful to the Cross'. I'm still unclear what 'Muslim Scholars' mean when they use this term.
If we then accept the Americans aren't 'infidels', 'kafirs' [or whatever other accusation is being aimed in their general direction] then I would propose that Colin Powell's warning to President Bush ("you break it you own it") [4] has more than a ring of truth attached to it.
References:
1. http://www.wanttoknow.info/brzezinskigrandchessboard
2. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/west_asia/37021.stm
3. http://www.opednews.com/articles/1/opedne_rev__bil_080112_the_qur_an_forbids_t.htm
4. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/03/AR2008010303259.html?wpisrc=rss_artsandliving/books
Saturday, January 12, 2008
A pattern of attacks
Actually I've just had a thought - what if 9/11 was the 'mother of terrorist attacks', a climax of terrorism activities that appears to have started with the 1996 Khobar Towers Bombing [1]?
And what if the purpose of all of these was simply to drag USA into 'endless conflict' in both Afghanistan and Iraq? Strangely enough at NO POINT did ANY GROUP publicly admit responsibility for all these atrocities (even Bin Laden refused responsibility for 9/11 [2], which is quite strange if he wanted to drag USA into Afghanistan and Iraq).
It's also worth noting that post 9/11, there hasn't been a single attack on US assets ANYWHERE [outside the areas of immediate conflict] , as though 9/11 was meant to be remembered as the 'Mother of Terrorist Attacks'.
That would explain 9/11, but it still doesn't explain what event lead to the attacks in the first place.
Actually there's something else I don't understand. Surely US Navy Warships contain the most sophisticated radar in the world - then how did a terrorist successfully slam a boat packed with explosives into the USS Cole? Do terrorist boats come fully equipped with stealth capability?
References:
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_U.S._embassy_bombings
2. http://911review.com/articles/usamah/khilafah.html
And what if the purpose of all of these was simply to drag USA into 'endless conflict' in both Afghanistan and Iraq? Strangely enough at NO POINT did ANY GROUP publicly admit responsibility for all these atrocities (even Bin Laden refused responsibility for 9/11 [2], which is quite strange if he wanted to drag USA into Afghanistan and Iraq).
It's also worth noting that post 9/11, there hasn't been a single attack on US assets ANYWHERE [outside the areas of immediate conflict] , as though 9/11 was meant to be remembered as the 'Mother of Terrorist Attacks'.
That would explain 9/11, but it still doesn't explain what event lead to the attacks in the first place.
Actually there's something else I don't understand. Surely US Navy Warships contain the most sophisticated radar in the world - then how did a terrorist successfully slam a boat packed with explosives into the USS Cole? Do terrorist boats come fully equipped with stealth capability?
References:
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_U.S._embassy_bombings
2. http://911review.com/articles/usamah/khilafah.html
Friday, January 11, 2008
First Blog
This is my first blog. I keep reading about "Jihad this" and "Jihad that" etc, how the Wahabbis etc have corrupted everything etc etc. Since every Tom, Dick, Patel and Mullah seem to be enlightening us (or should that be 'lighting up the skies'?) with their thoughts, I thought I would add my own...because I can!
I guess everything kickstarted from this article [1] (I'll remove the link if I'm infringing copyright)
I guess the fundamental quesion being asked is "Does the Quran justify violence?", and the answer is "Of course!". We wouldn't be here if we were "nice namby-pamby flim-flam".
The next question is, does this explain Iraq, Afghanistan, 9/11 and 7/7 etc etc
Well assuming 'Muslims' were behind all these atrocities, Islam teaches us to understand the root of the problem. What events happened that led to 9/11? It can't have been events in Iraq since that [rather devastating state of affairs] had existed since Gulf War I [in 1990].
Equally it can't be Israel, since the Arab-Israeli issue has existed since the mid-1930s. And I'm not aware of any other incident.
Additionally this 'kafir' stuff being thrown around is equally confusing. After all were the Allies 'kafirs' when they saved the Saudi-Wahabbis from an [apparently] aggressive Saddam in Gulf War I? And if not, at what point did they suddenly become 'kafir'? And moreover, how do they define 'kafir', and is it the same as the traditional definition?
In the meantime I guess I'll chuckle over this [2], though he could have used some other name instead of 'Achmed' (its actually pronounced 'A-hhh-mudh' and spelt 'Ahmad')
References:
1. http://phibetacons.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZmFiZWI4YTExODM3OWU1NGEyMWFhYTAxNzgzOTEwZmI=
2. http://youtube.com/watch?v=1uwOL4rB-go
I guess everything kickstarted from this article [1] (I'll remove the link if I'm infringing copyright)
I guess the fundamental quesion being asked is "Does the Quran justify violence?", and the answer is "Of course!". We wouldn't be here if we were "nice namby-pamby flim-flam".
The next question is, does this explain Iraq, Afghanistan, 9/11 and 7/7 etc etc
Well assuming 'Muslims' were behind all these atrocities, Islam teaches us to understand the root of the problem. What events happened that led to 9/11? It can't have been events in Iraq since that [rather devastating state of affairs] had existed since Gulf War I [in 1990].
Equally it can't be Israel, since the Arab-Israeli issue has existed since the mid-1930s. And I'm not aware of any other incident.
Additionally this 'kafir' stuff being thrown around is equally confusing. After all were the Allies 'kafirs' when they saved the Saudi-Wahabbis from an [apparently] aggressive Saddam in Gulf War I? And if not, at what point did they suddenly become 'kafir'? And moreover, how do they define 'kafir', and is it the same as the traditional definition?
In the meantime I guess I'll chuckle over this [2], though he could have used some other name instead of 'Achmed' (its actually pronounced 'A-hhh-mudh' and spelt 'Ahmad')
References:
1. http://phibetacons.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZmFiZWI4YTExODM3OWU1NGEyMWFhYTAxNzgzOTEwZmI=
2. http://youtube.com/watch?v=1uwOL4rB-go
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)