Jump to content
Islamic Forum

yusufar

IF Guardian
  • Content count

    250
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by yusufar

  1. By Michael James in Frankfurt, Germany 2-20-6 FRANKFURT, Germany -- Governments, police services and prison authorities around the world are reportedly "overjoyed" by the launch of a new prescription drug that cures people who are suffering doubts about the veracity of the so-called Jewish Holocaust. Shares in israel-based Goy & Goy Pharmaceuticals Incorporated rocketed to 89 US dollars following the long-awaited announcement of a miracle cure for Holocaust Denial Syndrome (HDS). Soon to be marketed and sold under the name Holozac, the drug works by rapidly closing down the brain's centre of intellectual inquiry. It also blocks the re-uptake of politically incorrect neurotransmitters involved in critical thought processes, making it more difficult to distinguish between truth and lies. "We're simply overwhelmed by the response of the governments we control in the Zionist West," says Ari Scheister, Marketing Director for Goy & Goy's regional office in Germany. "Particularly so in the European Union where prisons are bursting at the seams with professors, journalists and academics who are all suffering the symptoms of advanced and potentially fatal HDS and other diseases associated with human awareness and a passion for the truth." Europe's most prominent sufferers, Ernst Zundel, Germar Rudolf and David Irving are said to be in a stable condition following incarceration in high-security prison facilities for People Who Read Books (PWRBs). "Next to People Who Have the Audacity to Actually Write Books (PWHTATAWBs), the PWRBs are our most urgent concern," says Guenther Gutmensch, Parliamentary Chairman of the Federal Commission for Confiscating and Burning Books That Make People Think Something Ain't Right (FCFCABBTMPTSAR). "They ask lots of questions and they have an unnatural and very unhealthy obsession with finding out the truth. They simply do not believe a word we say." Goy & Goy Pharmaceuticals were given the green light by EU health regulators yesterday following extensive double-blind tests involving twenty HDS sufferers. Over a seven-day period, the patients were allowed unrestricted access to a library of detailed and scientifically authenticated studies of the so-called Jewish Holocaust. Ten of the patients were given a placebo, whereas each of the other ten was administered 500 mg of Holozac twelve times a day. "The results were astonishing," says Dr Ron Haggler, who supervised the trial. "On the first day, both groups quickly found all three volumes of the 1948 'Report of the International Committee of the Red Cross', and 'The Hoax of the Twentieth Century' by Arthur Butz. On the second day, patients were still reading and discussing Germar Rudolf's 'Lectures on the Holocaust' and Juergen Graf's seminal 'The Giant with Feet of Clay'." "However," continues Haggler, "by Wednesday morning the group treated with Holozac had actually pushed aside Carlo Mattogno's 'Auschwitz: Rumor and Reality' and Norman Finkelstein's 'The Holocaust Industry' in favour of the semi-mythical 'Schindler's List'. At the end of the experiment they were actually fighting over the only available copy of Germany's favourite self-loathing, government-controlled newspaper 'Bild Zeitung'." There are however side effects associated with Holozac. It's active ingredient Zionine has been shown to cause a pathological hatred of Palestinians and Muslims in general. "It's not for cartoonists or editor's of Mossad-controlled newspapers," Haggler explained. "We are also cautioning doctors not to prescribe to patients who have a habit of harming either themselves or complete strangers and who then blame that harm on imaginary Arab terrorists." Haggler's colleagues also stress that giving the drug to Christians who have been artfully persuaded to believe a false, unscriptural, satanic doctrine known as the Zionist Dispensation would be sheer overkill. "Cyrus Scofield and the Rapture crowd did to American Christians what this drug can do to the Holy Remnant," says an israeli team coordinator, smiling. "Pastors and Ministers in the United States, who have deliberately confused the pristine Kingdom of God with a stretch of worthless real estate on a spinning ball of dirt, have all but made medical treatment with Holozac unnecessary. A Scofield Reference Bible believer on just one milligram of Zionine would make the Irgun death squad look like the Cub Scouts on a paper chase. Buying stock in Caterpillar Bulldozers would be a smart move. Here's my broker's phone number." Despite such reservations about possible side effects, the European Union has already invested 15 billion euros in what it describes as the most ambitious mental health campaign in modern times. "We're talking about targeted pre-emptive measures," says an EU spokesman for Mental Hygiene and Correct Thinking. "Holocaust Denial Syndrome begins at home and in the classroom. Does your child ask questions? Does he or she read books? Does he or she get bored with television news programmes and surf the Internet for uncensored history sites and the truth about September 11? If the answer is 'yes' to any one of these painfully necessary questions, then your child should be treated with Holozac immediately before his or her brain has a chance to fully develop its dangerous critical faculties." Much to the delight of Goy & Goy shareholders, that recommendation was heartily echoed by bought-and-paid-for psychiatric professionals throughout the European Union yesterday. "We often find ourselves being called out at short notice to help the police deal with highly intelligent people who question the official version of history and who therefore require urgent medication," says first-responder Heidi Stomp. "At the end of the day, all we want is a society of normal, well-adjusted people who watch television, trust the government, don't ask questions, pay their taxes and love israel." "Governments are limited in terms of what they can do to keep young men dying in wars for israel premised upon our cleverly scripted history and other scams," reiterates Ari Scheister. "They can burn books and lie and deceive over and over again, but there's always a hard core of dangerously self-educated and wilfully informed people who persist in asking troublesome questions about our precious and wonderfully unique Holocaust, despite the threat of imprisonment or worse. The only way to deal with this terrible disease and stop the truth from infecting other people is by treating sufferers with our new miracle Holozac." "To paraphrase one of our cleverest non-attributable disinformation slogans of all time," concludes Scheister, "it may not be the only solution, but it's sure as hell the final solution. Pass the Sushi, will ya?" Michael James is a British freelance journalist and translator, resident in Germany for almost 14 years. All of his online journalism is public domain and may therefore be republished freely in any media without permission.
  2. Unembedded, Independent

    Unembedded, Independent An exclusive, in-depth interview with journalist Dahr Jamail on what is really going on in Iraq by Charles Shaw, Editor-in-Chief, Newtopia Newtopia: The US Corporate media consistently characterizes the Iraqi resistance as "foreign terrorists and former Ba’athist insurgents". In your experience, is this an accurate portrayal? If not, why? Dahr Jamail: This is propaganda of the worst kind. Most Iraqis refer to the Iraqi Resistance as “patriots.” Which of course most of them are-they are, especially in Fallujah, primarily composed of people who simply are resisting the occupation of their country by a foreign power. They are people who have had family members killed, detained, tortured and humiliated by the illegal occupiers of their shattered country. Calling them “foreign terrorists” and “Ba’athist insurgents” is simply a lie. Newtopia: Give us a little background on yourself. Where did you grow up, go to school? Where have you lived? What's been your professional background? What were your main social, political, and cultural influences? DJ: I was born and raised in Houston, Texas and attended college at Texas A&M University where I majored in Speech Communications. After graduating, I moved to Colorado, then Utah, then Washington State where I worked for awhile on a Masters in English Literature. Funds ran out, so I took a job working in an air monitoring laboratory on Johnston Island, a US territory in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. We monitored the air at a chemical demilitarization plant that incinerated 6% of the chemical weapons (now obsolete) of the military. While there I traveled around the world on my breaks from the monotonous job. The perspective and experiences I gained from my travels opened my mind and heart to the world-seeing the unearned and unfair privilege we in the US had struck me whilst traveling to so many developing countries like Indonesia and Palau, then later Nepal. I had a calling to move to Alaska to climb Denali. I moved there in 1996, climbed Denali the next summer, and have stayed ever since. There I worked as a mountain guide during summers, as well as assisting in rescues with the park service. My life there for 5 years centered primarily on climbing and being in the mountains. Climbing found me traveling to Mexico, Pakistan, Chile and Argentina. One of the largest influences on me was a job I took in the climbing off-season which was working as a personal assistant for my dear friend Duane French, who experiences quadriplegia. I saw the efforts he went to just to exist, and how government policy directly affected his life. Here I was awakened politically. Our daily discussions of policy and political parties got my wheels turning, pulling me out of the classic American comfort-zone of apathy and ignorance. Then of course watching the stealing of the presidency in 2000 by the Bush regime shocked me further into action, followed by the military response to 9/11, then of course the selling of the Iraq invasion. During the media sell job, I could take no more and knew that this was an information war. I had done some freelance writing for various magazines and continued this by writing in our alternative weekly rag in Anchorage. We did a good job showing the alternative view after the events of 9/11, showing the US support of bin Laden, who the Reagan administration funded and trained them, etc. Shortly thereafter our editor was fired, so the entire staff left in protest within one month. So I started saving my money and came to the front lines to start telling the truth from Iraq in November, 2003. Newtopia: How long have you been reporting on Iraq, and what brought you there? DJ: I have spent 6 of the last 12 months in Iraq. As I mentioned, what brought me here was the nearly total failure of the US ‘mainstream’ media to show the truth of this illegal invasion and occupation. How it affected the Iraqis, as well as US soldiers. Overall, they just weren’t doing their job, and this has grown even worse. I had done all the usual actions of attempting to speak up and effect change at home-calling and writing Senators/Congresspeople, attending teach-ins, spreading information. After watching the worldwide demonstrations on February 15, 2003 be brushed aside as a “focus group,” I knew then that the minds of the American public had been misled by the corporate media who mindlessly supported the objectives of the Bush regime, and reporting the true effects of the invasion/occupation on the Iraqi people and US soldiers was what I needed to do. Newtopia: What is it like being one of the only "unembedded" journalists operating in the country? Do you fear for your safety, and what have you done to ensure your safety? Whom do you fear more, random kidnappers or the American Military? How do you manage to move through Iraqi society now when it appears that, in the wake of Margaret Hassan's murder, all Westerners are viable targets? And on that same note, what do the Iraqis think of the kidnappings, murders, and beheadings? DJ: It’s tough. Working in this environment of media repression and danger is always an uphill battle. Blinking electricity, car bombs, kidnappings are the playing field. I constantly monitor my safety factor and those who work with me. I grew a beard, dress like locals, and only travel around covertly with one interpreter in a beat up car. I minimize my time on the street, while at the same time spending enough there to get the Iraqis reactions to what unfolds here each day. My greatest concern is the reaction of my own government. I’m reporting information that the Bush regime wants kept under wraps. I fear reprisal from both the government and military far, far more than being kidnapped or blown up by a car bomb. Iraqis are of course shocked and outraged by the beheadings and kidnappings of people like Margaret Hassan. So many also believe it was a CIA/Mossad plot to keep aid organizations and journalists out of Iraq in order to give the military and corporations here a free hand to continue to dis-assemble and sell of the country. Newtopia: On Nov 18 in one of your dispatches you wrote, "Journalists are increasingly being detained and threatened by the U.S.-installed interim government in Iraq. Media have been stopped particularly from covering recent horrific events in Fallujah." What are the predominant differences between your reporting and that of the corporate media and embedded reporters, or that of Iraqi and Muslim journalists? In other words, what does each group do with the same pieces of information? Do you feel you have a freer hand by being "unembedded"? Have you or anyone you know been intimidated or harassed in any way? DJ: Myself and most Arab and western independent journalists here show the costs of war. Report the massacres, the slaughter, the dead and wounded kids, disaster that this occupation truly is for the Iraqi people. Report on the low morale of most soldiers here, report on how doctors now state openly that due to lack of funds and help from the US-backed Ministry of Health, they feel it is worse now than during the sanctions. I do feel I have more freedom because I am “unembedded.” I’m flying under the mainstream radar of censorship. I have been attacked from some mainstream sources and pundits. Fox propaganda channel invited me on after I accurately reported the sniping of ambulances, medical workers and civilians in Fallujah last April…I declined the set up because I didn’t have a desire to have my character assassinated. My website has taken some attacks by hackers…but so far we’ve managed the onslaught. I receive some hate mail via my site, and have received one death threat…so far. Newtopia: The US Corporate media consistently characterizes the Iraqi resistance as "foreign terrorists and former Ba’athist insurgents". In your experience, is this an accurate portrayal? If not, why? DJ: This is propaganda of the worst kind. Most Iraqis refer to the Iraqi Resistance as “patriots.” Which of course most of them are-they are, especially in Fallujah, primarily composed of people who simply are resisting the occupation of their country by a foreign power. They are people who have had family members killed, detained, tortured and humiliated by the illegal occupiers of their shattered country. Calling them “foreign terrorists” and “Ba’athist insurgents” is simply a lie. While there are small elements of these, they are distinctly different from the Iraqi Resistance, who are now supported by, very conservatively at least 80% of the population here. There are terrorist elements here, but that is because the borders of Iraq have been left wide open since the invasion. These did not exist in Iraq before. The Bush regime like to refer to anyone who does not support their ideology and plans for global domination as a “terrorist.” Here, these fighters in the Iraqi Resistance are referred to as freedom fighters, holy warriors and patriots. Newtopia: We rarely see any substantial imagery coming out of Iraq in the US corporate media. What does Iraq look like now? What aren't the people in the United States seeing, and what do you feel they should be seeing? DJ: The devastation. The massive suffering and devastation of the people and their country. Baghdad remains in shambles 19 months into this illegal occupation. Bombed buildings sit as insulting reminders of unbroken promises of reconstruction. Bullet ridden Masjids with blood stained carpets inside where worshippers, unarmed, have been slaughtered by soldiers. Entire families living on the street. 70% unemployment with no hope of this changing. Chaotic, clogged streets of Baghdad and 5 mile long petrol lines in this oil rich country. Engineers and doctors, unemployed, driving their cars as a taxi to try to feed their families. The seething anger in the eyes of people on the streets as US patrols rumble past. Iraqis now cheering when another US patrol or base is attacked. Dancing on the burning US military hardware. Dead and maimed US soldiers. The wounded screaming and writhing in agony. Their shattered families. The mass graves of innocent Fallujans after the utter destruction of their city. Children deformed by Depleted Uranium exposure lying in shattered hospitals, suffering from lack of treatment, or even pain medications. Dead, rotting bodies in the streets of Fallujah of women and children being eaten by dogs and cats because the military did not allow relief teams into the city for nearly two weeks. Newtopia: What are the sentiments of the Iraqis you have spoken with towards the Americans? Is there any good will left? Was there any to begin with? What do they think of Alawi, the pending "elections", the continued occupation, the American-trained Iraqi security forces? Do they have any hope or belief that the Americans will leave, or are they thinking this will be a generation-long occupation? DJ: There was support by most Iraqis for the removal of Saddam Hussein. But that started to ebb quickly on in the occupation as people watched family members killed, detained, tortured and humiliated by the occupation forces. Then there was Abu Ghraib. I cannot stress enough how devastating this was to US credibility in Iraq, and the entire Middle East. Throw on top of that the April siege of Fallujah, nearly complete lack of reconstruction, importation of foreign workers to do jobs Iraqis are far more qualified for, the installation of an illegal interim government, and you have a complete PR disaster for the US here. Any credibility for the occupiers, and I doubt there was much to speak of, after the destruction of Fallujah has been lost. Iraqis I speak with are infuriated at the US government. While they are well aware that what is most likely the majority of people in the US being in opposition to the Bush regime, they believe the US government and those who support it are guilty of war crimes of the worst kind. I see rage, grief, and the desire for revenge on a daily basis here. They hate Allawi. They have no respect for him or any other of the puppets in the US-installed interim government, because they don’t see how any self-respecting person would allow themselves to be a puppet of the US in this illegal, brutal endeavor. They are well aware that he is an exile who has been linked with the CIA and British intel for a long, long time. He and the rest of the interim government are views as thieves, rapists and US pawns. They are utterly loathed, as everyone here knows these people do not have the interests of the Iraqi people in mind. The elections are viewed as a joke. Most here now believe there is no way they can be held in an honest, transparent and truly democratic way. Most are also too afraid to vote. I’ve heard people say things like, “The Americans won’t even allow a legitimate election in their own country, so why would they want to have one here!” The Iraqi “security” forces, being the police and national guard, are viewed by most as surrogates of the US military. They are viewed as collaborators and traitors by most. While people understand many of these forces join out of desperation because there are no jobs, they remain loathed, along with the foreign occupation forces. It doesn’t help when many of the police are actively involved in organized crime. Lastly, the occupation is viewed as endless. Iraqis know there are already 4 permanent military bases here, and more soldiers coming. There is little hope amongst those I talk with about this topic that the occupation will end. Newtopia: We've read substantive reports recently that over 100,000 innocent Iraqi civilians have been killed since the war began. What is your take on this report, and what have you seen that either supports or contradicts it? Is the US military indiscriminately targeting civilians, or are they just hopelessly inept, or is it something in-between? DJ: I think this report has understated the death toll. From what I’ve seen during my six months here, it is increasingly difficult to find a family here who has not had at least one member killed by either the military or criminal activity. Entire neighborhoods in Fallujah have been bombed into rubble. Houses with entire families have been incinerated and blown to pieces. The random gunfire of soldiers nearly every time a patrol or convoy is attacked almost always results in civilian deaths. Keep in mind there are now over 100 attacks per day on US forces in occupied Iraq. Then we have the infrastructure-people dying from lack of food, water borne diseases, inadequate health care…the list is longer than any of us know. I think the military is killing so many civilians for several reasons. Primarily, because they have been put in an untenable situation by their Commander in Chief-that is, a no-win guerilla war against an enemy who now has the massive support of the populace. Thus, anyone, anytime could be an attacker. So they are shooting first and asking questions later because they are scared to death. They are using a conventional military to fight a guerilla war-and just as in Vietnam, it is a disaster and utter failure. Then there are the soldiers who have completely dehumanized Iraqis, and I’ve spoken with some who seem to actually enjoy killing them. Of course it doesn’t help that this is sanctioned and encouraged by the US government, and that blinding religious ideology appears to have filtered down into many of the soldiers here. “You are either with us, or you are against us.” Iraq is now full of fields of death. There is carnage in the streets everyday in Baghdad, as well as other cities throughout much of the country. Newtopia: There has been a lot of speculation about the role of oil in the occupation. Americans were told that Iraqi oil revenues would pay for the war and reconstruction, but there is no oil coming out of Iraq after more than 18 months. Certain journalists and activists ranging from Jim Marrs to Mike Ruppert to Peter Camejo have all stated, in some form or other, that this was never the intention, that the idea was to first remove Iraqi oil from the world market, thereby driving up oil prices (the profits mainly landing in the pockets of the Saudis), and eventually to co-opt the oil supply to sell to China and India as their energy demands skyrocket. What have you seen in regards to oil activity? Also, Iraq Coalition Casualty (icasualties/oif/default.aspx) was the only outlet to report on a series of coordinated attacks on the Iraqi oil infrastructure all this week. This has gone completely unreported in the US corporate media. Do you believe this lack of reporting is intentional and who do you think is sabotaging the infrastructure? DJ: Iraq is still importing all of its gasoline. And from what I know, they are exporting all of the oil from here, as well as that which is refined in Iraq, which isn’t much at all, if any. I think the lack of reporting on the sabotaging is akin to the lack of reporting that there are nearly 100 attacks per day on US soldiers, or lack of reporting of lack of infrastructure, etc. I think it all falls under the umbrella of the mainstream media’s successful efforts to whitewash the Iraq catastrophe for the Bush administration. It looks as though it is the resistance who are doing the sabotaging. An open question though, regarding what you asked, is why is there not better protection of the oil infrastructure? Newtopia: We have conflicting reports in the US about the Shia and Sunni putting aside their historical differences to team up against the Americans. Do you see this happening, and what do you believe the eventual outcome will be. US policy makers claim that an American withdrawal would only result in a widescale civil war between these two factions and the Kurds in the north. Do you believe this will be the case? Are the Iraqis in a situation now where they are dammed any way they turn? DJ: I do see this happening. During the siege of Najaf, collections for aid at Sunni Masjids were organized, as well as resistance fighters from Fallujah who provided guns and supplies to the Mehdi Army there. During the siege of Fallujah last April, Shia weighed heavily in donating aid, and participated in a non-violent action that pushed supplies into Fallujah through a US military cordon. The Shia/Sunni rift is largely a CIA generated myth. There are countless tribes and marriages alike that are both Shia/Sunni. There are Masjids here where they pray together. There is the possibility of war if the Kurds go independent, but the more likely possibility of that war would be Turkey invading Kurdistan before any Shia/Sunni action would occur regarding this. Remember the Arab proverb; “Me against my brother. Me and my brother against my cousin. Me, my brother and cousin against the stranger.” The Iraqis are in a situation where they are damned as long as the US continues to occupy and subvert their country, as they have been doing. Newtopia: It is critically important that Americans begin to understand the psyche of the Iraqi resistance. What is really going on in Fallujah, Ramadi, Mosul, and Baghdad? Is this a legitimate, coordinated uprising against the occupation, or is it a defensive response to the US escalation of the war? Or both? Considering that the US claims they have opened a front to "take the battle to Al Qaeda", do you see any evidence of an Al Qaeda presence, or the presence of "foreign fighters streaming in from the Syrian border" as is also reported here? DJ: The resistance is complex because it has so many facets. Parts of it are simply Iraqis who don’t want their country to be occupied. Iraqis who have had family members killed, tortured or humiliated by the military…so they are exacting revenge. Other parts are more organized, where individual cells are operating in coordinated attacks with other cells, but they remain largely decentralized. This is why the conventional US army will never defeat it. Because the resistance has no face, no leader, no fixed organization. It is really both a defensive reaction to the occupiers, but also is going more on the offensive as the occupation continues. As one Iraqi man old me once, “The invasion was America’s war on Iraq. Now we are seeing the Iraqi’s war against the Americans.” I have yet to see any evidence or meet any Iraqi who has seen evidence of Al-Qaeda here. There are certainly other fighters entering Iraq from different countries, but they are a relatively small number. When we say “foreign fighters” here, we must recall that every Iraqi I’ve spoken with views the occupiers as the foreign fighters, and not any other Arab who is coming here to fight in the resistance. Most Iraqis I speak with view these Arab fighters as brothers, and the occupiers as the “foreign fighters.” Newtopia: Tell us about the raid on the Abu Hanifa Masjid, and what it means in the larger scope of the war? DJ: At 12:30pm on Friday, November 19th, US troops and Iraqi National Guard sealed the Abu Hanifa Masjid in the al-Adhamiya district of Baghdad. The Imam, a longtime outspoken critic of the occupation, was detained. The raid occurred during Friday prayers, and people began praying loudly because they were very afraid due to the fact that over 100 armed soldiers were pointing guns at them. They were instructed to be quiet, but the worshippers continued to pray, and were fired upon. Four people were killed and at least 9 wounded, along with 30 people detained. This Masjid had been raided at least 5 times previously, with no weapons ever having had been found. Abu Hanifa is the largest and most prominent Sunni Masjid in Iraq, as well as one of the most important in the entire Muslim world. This blatant act of provocation (the Imam could have just as easily been detained on any given day in his office or home) has resulted in heavy fighting throughout Baghdad and a new curfew in al-Adhamiya, along with home raids and more detentions. This action will draw in even more fighters to the resistance. This is obviously just one step in the attempt to crush a largely Sunni resistance. Newtopia: Have you had much contact with American troops, and if so, what are they saying, and what is your impression of them? Do you support NBC reporter Kevin Sites' decision to film and report on the murder of an unarmed and wounded Iraqi prisoner this week? Do you believe this was a relatively "isolated" incident, or did these guys just get caught? DJ: I’ve had a fair amount, but not so much this trip. I make it a point to avoid them now since they are such constant targets. They are being attacked at least 100 times a day as of late. But when I interacted with them my last two trips I found most of them to be quite scared, and morale depended on how long they’d been here. The newer folks were keeping a stiff upper lip and staying on message. The folks who’d been here 6, 9 or 12 months were angry, aiming their guns at everyone, and sometimes high on drugs. Not to generalize-not all were like this. But I saw many who were, and it reminded me of everything I’ve read about what happened to the psyche of US soldiers in Vietnam. I do support Kevin Sites’ decision to film what he did of the execution of the old, unarmed Iraqi man in the Masjid. 100% I support this. People need to see that this is what is occurring here-and this is NOT an isolated incident. Nearly every refugee from Fallujah I’ve interviewed has spoken of mass executions, tanks rolling over the wounded in the streets, bodies being thrown in the Euphrates by the military, and other atrocities. The footage of the execution in the Masjid is akin to the photos that came out of Abu Ghraib. They are only the tip of the iceberg of atrocities that have been occurring here from the beginning. Atrocities that are occurring right now. Indeed, those soldiers just got caught. This is not news, however-because we’ve even had military commanders come out in the media and admit that they gave orders to soldiers to shoot anything that moved in Fallujah. What we will see in Fallujah is that it has been a genocide. Newtopia: Lastly, what do you see happening in both the immediate and distant future in Iraq? How long do you plan to stay? Do you believe you will sill safely be able to report the truth to us when so much of your reporting flies in the face of the so-called "official" reports and media blackout? Do you envision an even greater information clamp-down, or do you think Independent reporting is going to become a stronger force as the US digs itself into a deeper and deeper hole? DJ: I see more bloodshed and chaos. Sending more troops will only speed up the spiral here; increase the fighting. I see a continuing degradation of the infrastructure and failing of the occupation. It has already failed. It had failed even before the April siege of Fallujah and the Abu Ghraib scandal (which is ongoing). The real question is, how many more Iraqis and soldiers die before the US admits to its colossal failure, makes reparations for the countless war crimes that have been committed and pulls out. The long term-that depends on how long the US stays here. It is rare when I speak with an Iraqi who wants the US to stay-they say, “Civil war? It can’t possibly be worse than this-so the US should leave. Then we’d at least have the chance to run our own country.” Another man pointed out that if there were a civil war, no Shia or Kurdish attack on Fallujah could ever possibly compare to the devastation the US military has caused there. I think he makes a good point. I am concerned about my safety, of course. This is the most dangerous place in the world for a journalist to be, especially those of us who are reporting the reality of what is occurring here. I have concerns of reprisal from the military and my government-because they don’t like to have the facts get out. I’ve consistently been a minority voice with my reporting in Iraq-which has led many to discount my reports and call me biased. Yet I have consistently been shown to be accurate, as have the other independents here. An example would be that several of us were reporting on Abu Ghraib months before the mainstream decided to do their job and run the story. And at the end of the day, those of us who have been reporting that this occupation failed months ago, and the vast, vast majority of Iraqis oppose the occupation and support the resistance, will end up again being proven right. But I’m afraid with the media blackout in the mainstream of the US, in general, being as stunningly effective as it has been, I think this is going to be a long time before this comes to light. But it will. I do envision a deepening of the clampdown we are now experiencing. We’re watching this in the US media now, with NPR having even jumped on the propaganda bandwagon. However, as with repression of any kind, the more the “powers that be” attempt to muzzle independent media and the truth, the more they create a growing, powerful, diverse entity that finds new and creative ways to work here. For example, the closing of the Al-Jazeera office here has simply caused their journalists to go underground and decentralize, making it impossible for the government to control them. In this way, the repression naturally creates a smarter, more diverse and creative resistance in the form of increased independent reportage. In the end, people know the truth when they see it. I taste this by mail I get from my readers-those who read many sources and thank me for reporting the truth, as well as those who support the occupation who send hate mail and try to tell me I’m reporting from Idaho and making everything up. Their ugly reactions indicate that they prefer not to know the truth-that their government has deceived a large percentage of the American people into supporting an illegal invasion that has cost at least 100,000 Iraqi lives, as well as those of over 1,200 US soldiers. Many people would rather lash out to protect their denial rather than accepting responsibility for supporting such atrocities. In the end, the truth will come out, no matter how intense the repression becomes. And in the end, those in America who support this occupation will eventually see that virtually the majority of people in every other country on the planet oppose the American agenda in Iraq. It is only a matter of time. Make sure to read Dahr Jamail's Iraq Dispatches at (www.)"http://dahrjamailiraq"]dahrjamailiraq[/url]
  3. God Forgive America

    Instead of “God Bless America,” we should put “God Forgive America” bumperstickers on our cars. Americans, as participants in horrendous war crimes, should ask for forgiveness. America is a killer nation—not only do we kill Iraqis and Afghans, but we are in the process of killing ourselves. “After forming microscopic and submicroscopic insoluble Uranium oxide particles on the battlefield, they remain suspended in air and travel around the earth as a radioactive component of atmospheric dust, contaminating the environment, indiscriminately killing, maiming and causing disease in all living things where rain, snow and moisture remove it from the atmosphere,” writes independent scientist and international expert on radiation, Leuren Moret. “Global radioactive contamination from atmospheric testing was the equivalent of 40,000 Hiroshima bombs, and still contaminates the atmosphere and lower orbital space today. The amount of low level radioactive pollution from depleted uranium released since 1991, is many times more (deposited internally in the body), than was released from atmospheric testing fallout.”... Carry on to the rest of the article at kurtnimmo 23.3.06 (www.)"http://kurtnimmo/?p=299"]kurtnimmo/?p=299[/url]
  4. Fisk is more determined than ever to prosecute a case against the injustices of the west against the Arab and Muslim world. Agree with him or not, his presentations are suffused with passionate belief in change for the better. This talk was recorded recently in Sydney, as part of the Sydney Ideas 2006 public lecture series organised by the University of Sydney. Transmission date: 03/26/06 ABC Australia (www.)"http://informationclearinhouse.info/article12611.htm"]informationclearin house.info/article12611.htm[/url]
  5. To prevent terrorism by dropping bombs on Iraq is such an obvious idea that I can't think why no one has thought of it before. It's so simple. If only the UK had done something similar in Northern Ireland, we wouldn't be in the mess we are in today. The moment the IRA blew up the Horseguards' bandstand, the Government should have declared its own War on Terrorism. It should have immediately demanded that the Irish government hand over Gerry Adams. If they refused to do so - or quibbled about needing proof of his guilt - we could have told them that this was no time for prevarication and that they must hand over not only Adams but all IRA terrorists in the Republic. If they tried to stall by claiming that it was hard to tell who were IRA terrorists and who weren't, because they don't go around wearing identity badges, we would have been free to send in the bombers. It is well known that the best way of picking out terrorists is to fly 30,000ft above the capital city of any state that harbours them and drop bombs - preferably cluster bombs. It is conceivable that the bombing of Dublin might have provoked some sort of protest, even if just from James Joyce fans, and there is at least some likelihood of increased anti-British sentiment in what remained of the city and thus a rise in the numbers of potential terrorists. But this, in itself, would have justified the tactic of bombing them in the first place. We would have nipped them in the bud, so to speak. I hope you follow the argument. Having bombed Dublin and, perhaps, a few IRA training bogs in Tipperary, we could not have afforded to be complacent. We would have had to turn our attention to those states which had supported and funded the IRA terrorists through all these years. The main provider of funds was, of course, the USA, and this would have posed us with a bit of a problem. Where to bomb in America? It's a big place and it's by no means certain that a small country like the UK could afford enough bombs to do the whole job. It's going to cost the US billions to bomb Iraq and a lot of that is empty countryside. America, on the other hand, provides a bewildering number of targets. Should we have bombed Washington, where the policies were formed? Or should we have concentrated on places where Irishmen are known to lurk, like New York, Boston and Philadelphia? We could have bombed any police station and fire station in most major urban centres, secure in the knowledge that we would be taking out significant numbers of IRA sympathisers. On St Patrick's Day, we could have bombed Fifth Avenue and scored a bull's-eye. In those American cities we couldn't afford to bomb, we could have rounded up American citizens with Irish names, put bags over their heads and flown them in chains to Guernsey or Rockall, where we could have given them food packets marked 'My Kind of Meal' and exposed them to the elements with a clear conscience. The same goes for Australia. There are thousands of people in Sydney and Melbourne alone who have actively supported Irish republicanism by sending money and good wishes back to people in the Republic, many of whom are known to be IRA members and sympathisers. A well-placed bomb or two Down Under could have taken out the ringleaders and left the world a safer place. Of course, it goes without saying that we would also have had to bomb various parts of London such as Camden Town, Lewisham and bits of Hammersmith and we should certainly have had to obliterate, if not the whole of Liverpool, at least the Scotland Road area. And that would be it really, as far as exterminating the IRA and its supporters. Easy. The War on Terrorism provides a solution so uncomplicated, so straightforward and so gloriously simple that it baffles me why it has taken a man with the brains of George W. Bush to think of it. So, sock it to Iraq, George. Let's make the world a safer place. -- From Terry Jones (Monty Python)
  6. Apostasy in Islam

    Deleted by yusufar - repetition
  7. Apostasy in Islam

    Hmmm, what happened to a large part of my post? Seems to have been reversed, although I'm quite sure it was all right earlier. Are hackers at work in this forum? Or is it some glitch we are not aware of? Regards, yusufar islamicunityfoundation One God One Religion One Community One Nation Anti-Arab = Anti-Semiticism Anti-Muslim = Anti-Peace Anti-Islam = Anti-Civilisation
  8. Sorry Makko, My main text as above (and below) appeared in your "Quote" section... heheh, too fast on the addreply button. I never said that the authors were absolutely truthful neither did I even think it. Nevertheless I think they did raise many valid points. Whatever happened to the much-vaunted Western freedom of speech? Whatever happened to the right of anyone to say what they liked and be defended for it? It appears to have mysteriously vanished. As Sherlock Holmes would have said, "something's afoot, Watson...", and I think we all know what it is... I care not for whether the two schools were associated with the paper or not but rather how they cowardly withdrew their names from it under pressure from the israel lobby, thereby justifying the very theme of the paper. Perhaps the israel lobby refuses to see the inherent contradiction, as they deliberately refuse to listen to absolutely any criticism at all of what israel does. I would give no weight at all to the name "Harvard" or anything associated with it, even more so in the face of such scholarly cowardice and bias. It is rather presumptious of you to think that I or any other Muslim would not have gone beyond the document itself. Scholars whether notorious or otherwise may accept or reject the paper. There are also many who have. Are their views to be rejected as well? Unfortunately (or perhaps fortuitously) the mere singling out of Marvin Kalb's comment in the article which you yourself quoted shows the bias of the author of the article, Jeff Jacoby - surely not another Jew as well? I also do understand why you would be happy to dismiss any criticism of israel and some Jews on the flimsiest of notions. Regards, yusufar islamicunityfoundation One God One Religion One Community One Nation Anti-Arab = Anti-Semiticism Anti-Muslim = Anti-Peace Anti-Islam = Anti-Civilisation
  9. Greetings Makko, I also do understand why you would be happy to dismiss any criticism of israel and some Jews on the flimsiest of notions. Regards, yusufar islamicunityfoundation One God One Religion One Community One Nation Anti-Arab = Anti-Semiticism Anti-Muslim = Anti-Peace Anti-Islam = Anti-Civilisation
  10. Greetings Makko, And this Marvin Kalb is an independent scholar whose word we should take as the absolute truth or whose scholarly achievements and credentials are completely undoubted? Perhaps he should declare his bias and vested interests before he casually condemns another scholar's work. But then Jews like him never have to do they, being protected by the israel lobby? Regards, yusufar islamicunityfoundation One God One Religion One Community One Nation Anti-Arab = Anti-Semite Anti-Muslim = Anti-Peace Anti-Islam = Anti-Civilisation
  11. Brothers And Sisters In Humanity

    Greetings Stickybackplastic, No need for such suspicion, brother. I have many Christian and other non-Muslim friends who address me in this manner and whom I address likewise. I even have actual brothers and sisters who are Christian. There is absolutely no truth that having non-Muslim friends is frowned upon in Islam. Even in the context of an Islamic Forum personally I don't think it is reserved only for Muslims. Ultimately we are all members of one race, the human race and it is in those terms that Islam would consider everyone to be brothers and sisters in humanity. The Qur'an states that the Prophet (pbbuh) was sent as a "mercy" for all mankind, not just Muslims. Regards, yusufar islamicunityfoundation One God One Religion One Community One Nation Anti-Arab = Anti-Semite Anti-Muslim = Anti-Peace
  12. Assalamualaikum/Greetings, Forgive me for belabouring on this point. I am always a little disturbed that anti-semitism is almost always (even among Muslims who should know better) taken to mean anti-Jewish. This probably goes to show how much media conditioning has influenced people's mindsets. Much goes on behind the scenes as well that we are not aware of. I suspect that this is due in no small part to the israel lobby as well. I'm not surprised that the immense pressures this lobby brings to bear can not just merely influence public perception but also manipulate it. Opinion polls? Haha... tell that to George Bush! If everyone believes what they read in the mainstream news and see on mainstream TV (which needless to say are among the major focii of the israel lobby), then America is indeed a bastion of peace, freedom, liberty and democracy and israel is the shining example of the same in the Middle East. The American Military are actually the Peace Corps and their forays into foreign lands are missions of enlightenment, and we should all be pleasantly shocked and awed when American bombs come raining down on us. The 700 Palestinian children killed by the israeli "Defence" Forces since September 2000 were all terrorists (or at the very least potential terrorists). Now THAT is LOGIC! No intellectual rubbish here! The fact that the Harvard and Kennedy School logos were removed from the israel lobby study under the pretext of lacking academic credibility only shows the actual strength of the lobby and the amount of arm-twisting (and whatever else) they can pull off even in the realm of academia. Coming back to my point, which I have made elsewhere in this forum, the Arabs, being descended from Ismail (pbuh), brother of Isaac (pbuh), are also a semitic race (surprise, surprise!) so why is it that being anti-Arab is not also normally taken to be anti-semitism? Is it because they (or the majority of them) are Muslims? Who are the anti-semites now? Mere criticism of Zionism and some of the things that some Jews do is deliberately translated into rabid anti-semitism, while insults and even extreme atrocities against Arabs and other Muslims - even children - is excused on the grounds of free speech and collateral damage (they just happened to be in the way of a greater cause and in any case they or their kind deserve it). In this regard credit (in USD) must be given to the Jewish or rather Zionist/US imperialist propaganda machine. Wake up, Muslims! Personally, even in the face of such extreme provocation, I am more inclined not to let blind hatred get the better of us in response, while at the same time trying to avoid meekly being led to the slaughter. One of the ways which Muslims in general and Arabs in particular can deal with charges of anti-semitism is to challenge it at ALL times and to lay the very same charges against ANY anti-Arab sentiments they dare to express. This will not only confuse them but put them in some disarray. "Anti-semitism" should then die a natural death. Wassalam/Regards, yusufar islamicunityfoundation One God One Religion One Community One Nation ALL Anti-Arabs are Anti-Semites
  13. Guide To Fighting Terrorism

    OK old chap, my apologies then... I can understand what you mean when you say religious fervour... this is indeed a problem which affects non-radical Muslims as well - they are normally the first targets of the radicals. But when you thank your lucky stars every morning please do consider the extreme effects of a world that is DOMINATED by your non-islamic country and others of similar ilk. I have nothing against the golden arches of a McDonalds, the smell of a starbucks and the voice-overs to hollywood movie trailers nor would the majority of Muslims who cannot afford any such thing, but ultimately we all must consider the effects of what we do on others, especially the less fortunate. Britain may not outwardly mourn the loss of its empire but it still does many things that show its imperialist tendencies are still there and its slavish support for American imperialism does it no good either. Muslims hardly mourn the loss of empire, at least I don't, but in the face of increasing attacks from imperialist powers, Muslims do need a modern United Islamic State that will protect or at least insulate them from such attacks. To achieve this they will need to overcome many internal obstacles, not the least of which are the vested interests of their own rich and ruling classes who are hardly any different from those in the West. There are no absolute differences old chap. Regards, yusufar islamicunityfoundation One God One Religion One Community One Nation
  14. Guide To Fighting Terrorism

    Greetings Stickybackplastic, I suspect that the inherent goodness of the Irish could only shine through with less Brit - or is it rather English - intervention. Who caused the rot anyway? Wasn't it Cromwell and his fellow Englishmen who wiped out 40% of the adult Irish population in his days? All things change, my friend... that is the nature of life. Do I therefore detect a streak of prejudice when you say that this will never be the case with radical muslims and their communities? They, like everyone else, can change too. All it takes is for the Brits and the Americans to stop interfering with their lives and communities, stop terrorising, shooting and bombing them and stop supporting anyone else who does so. Do you really think that Muslims, radical or otherwise, have no desire for peace and harmony? Do you think they should wait until they have been practically exterminated? Have you ever really thought about what radicalised them in the first place if not the very actions of imperialist-minded Brits and Americans? Perhaps therein lies the real difference. Regards, yusufar islamicunityfoundation One God One Religion One Community One Nation
  15. America'a Empire Of Bases

    Assalamualaikum freedslave, A very good article. Do you have the link to it? If you do I would be most grateful if you could let me have it as I'd like to link to it from the Islamicunityfoundation website, thank you. American imperialism and all its various manifestations, including its own brand of terrorism from land, sky and sea, is a fascinating if somewhat bizarre but necessary, field of study. Most Americans themselves suffer from the 3 monkey syndrome, like any other people (including some Muslims as well) who put race, sect, tribe, affiliation, company, party or nationality before all else, especially truth and justice. Such people therefore refuse to see the truth or are unable to do so. The roots of American imperialism, much as they themselves would not admit it, has everything to do with the crass materialism of their whole lifestyles. Initially of course the Europeans fleeing starvation and dire conditions came to America more concerned about mere survival. But when they realised that they had a whole brand-new and very unspoiled continent at their disposal to lay waste to (to "develop", heheh) and that the way forward to wealth in the new frontier was hindered only by the backward heathen natives who knew no better and were not even Christian, they easily justified the mass extermination of the native "red indians" on the grounds that the latter were savages. They could probably have found ways and means of co-existing peacefully with the natives but being superior in numbers and the technology to wage war chose eradication and extermination instead - the reasons were pure greed and economics coupled with a dogged and prejudiced refusal to accept anyone, especially non-whites, who had different ideas and lifestyles. American foreign policy backed by its military power has never deviated from this mindset and has always sought to portray those who stand in the way of its "development" and "progress" as backward savages liable to eradiction at will and to be bombed back to the stone ages, notwithstanding its own portrayal of itself as a beacon of "freedom" and "democracy". The contradictions inherent in this were quite easily justified in their own eyes and any negative reaction to its rain of death, destruction and devastation in foreign lands could be blamed on unreasonable and unbalanced foreigners' jealousy of American "freedoms" and superior lifestyles. Such contradictions could therefore easily be swept aside without any conscience at all in the jingoistic euphoria bred by excessive patriotism and nationalism cleverly cultivated by the ruling class and its minions at the behest of military-industrial complex. This was the military-industrial complex that Eisenhower warned America (and the world) about. Being a soldier himself he knew what he was talking about. Yet today that military-industrial complex has established its "footprint" all over the globe, ostensibly to "defend" freedom and democracy but in reality to aggressively promote America's (economic) interests and the health and survival of the military-industrial complex itself and those whose "wellbeing" depended upon it - any opposition be damned. Do most Americans realise what their government, captive to vested interests that they are completely ignorant of, is doing around the world today in their name and on their behalf? Some do, many don't - largely due to the 3 monkey syndrome I have already mentioned, but this very syndrome is caused by media manipulation acting under the guise of freedom of speech and information. Every unsuspecting (and even suspecting) American could therefore be misled into supporting their government's unprovoked attacks on and subversions of sovereign nations. How could it be otherwise when they stood to lose their "freedom" and the American Way as they are warned, every other nation be damned? Most Americans have never really stopped to think whether their wasteful lifestyles can continue to be sustained at the expense of the rest of the world's resources. They either fail or refuse to realise the truth staring at them in the face that they have wrested control (through means both fair and foul) of a disproportionate part of the planet's resources, yet continue to want more and more. It is hardly surprising therefore that the American deficit is now the basis of the biggest threat to the security and well-being of the entire planet. America's military-industrial complex, which has itself contributed to the largest portion of that deficit, must protect itself and this deficit - which will continue to grow at unprecedented rates - at ALL COSTS and in every way it can. For strategic reasons and purposes, Muslims and Islam have gotten into the way of this nefarious American agenda and will be the ones to suffer the most collateral damage. Until the Muslim world wakes up and realises the extent of the threat facing them, the harsh reality is that any Muslim country is now at immediate risk from the forward bases of the evil American Empire. Wassalam, yusufar islamicunityfoundation One God One Religion One Community One Nation
  16. Assalamualaikum/Greetings, I am always disturbed that anti-semitism is almost always (even among Muslims who should know better) taken to mean anti-Jewish. This probably goes to show how much media conditioning has influenced people's mindsets. The Arabs, being descended from Ismail (pbuh), brother of Isaac (pbuh),are also a semitic race (surprise, surprise!) so why is it that being anti-Arab is not also normally taken to be anti-semitism? Mere criticism of Zionism and some of the things that some Jews do is deliberately translated into rabid anti-semitism, while insults and even extreme atrocities against Arabs and other Muslims - even children - is excused on the grounds of free speech and collateral damage (they just happened to be in the way of a greater cause and in any case they or their kind deserve it). In this regard credit (in USD) must be given to the Jewish or rather zionist/US imperialist propaganda machine. Wake up, Muslims! Personally, even in the face of such extreme provocation, I am more inclined not to let blind hatred get the better of us in response, while at the same time trying to avoid meekly being led to the slaughter - now THAT is the fine line. Wassalam/Regards, yusufar (www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.islamicunityfoundation(contact admin if its a beneficial link)"]The Islamic Unity Foundation[/url] One God One Religion One Community One Nation
  17. Islamofascist

    Assalamualaikum/Greetings, Generally, terms such as "Islamofascist", "Islamic Terrorism" and the like should not be used when referring to Islam - these are extremely prejudicial insults which do not reflect the actual teachings of Islam. Nevertheless, Muslims have to face the fact that Islam's detractors will continue to use such terms deliberately and often provocatively, knowing that some Muslims will lose their cool and inevitably react in extreme ways which are actually unIslamic, thereby self-justifying such epithets. This of course happened in the case of the cartoon controversy. Violent reactions by Muslims in the face of the gravest provocations do not of course help the cause of Islam and must be avoided at all costs. It is of course extremely difficult not to react in some manner, sometimes angrily, when one's religion and Prophet (pbuh) are insulted, as Muslims tend to take it very personally, as they have every right to (without going overboard). Nevertheless, Muslims must always take the moral high ground and refuse to yield it to extreme emotions. Islam is a religion of truth and reason and truth and reason must prevail notwithstanding what some "Muslims" do. Even non-Muslims would find it difficult (probably even more so then Muslims) not to over-react under such extreme provocation, yet they expect Muslims to be tolerant of such abuse. If only they could feel what it was like to live under such circumstances practically every day of their lives, perhaps then they may have an idea of how patient Muslims really are. Any way to come back to the point, whatever the Handschar SS and the Muslim Brotherhood may or may not have done, if it is clearly against Islamic principles then there can be no justification for laying the blame on Islam or Muslims or giving it and the majority of Muslims highly insulting and pejorative "Islamic" labels. In this day and age, this cannot be excused as ignorance and must be condemned as deliberate. Truly there are none so blind as those who refuse to see yet expect to lord it over those with sight. There is a simple formula for this, but one which the West in general will find difficult to implement, given their vested interests in maintaining their unsustainable lifestyles at the expense of the vast majority of the poorer people of this earth (especially Muslims) - just leave Islam and Muslims alone. Islam and Muslims can deal with their own problems and will have no need, excuse or justification for disturbing the West if not for the West's own penchant for interference at the behest of its elites, avaricious multinational corporations and the greed, power-crazed rapaciousness of its military-industrial complex (forgive the rant! but actually I am putting this as matter-of-factually and unemotionly as I can). It is also a fact that there are many, though a minority, in the West who see what their own societies and countries are doing and do speak out against it, while there are also many Muslims, also a minority, who aid and abet in the exploitation and oppression and insults against their own religion, community and people. Wassalam/regards, yusufar islamicunityfoundation
  18. Apostasy in Islam

    My view is that the penalty for apostasy in Islam is as stated in the Qur'an below: "Those who believe, then disbelieve, then again believe, then disbelieve and thereafter go on increasing in disbelief, Allah will never forgive them, nor guide them to any way of deliverance". (4:137) I think that it would immediately be obvious that if a person were to be put to death for apostasy, i.e. for disbelieving, it would not be possible to "believe, then disbelieve, then again believe, then disbelieve..." A basic tenet in Islam is that there is no compulsion in religion. Death for apostasy therefore does not make any sense, unless such apostasy was accompanied by a betrayal of or treason or enmity/fighting against the Islamic state/community. Perhaps it may be useful to look into the context and circumstances of the hadiths decreeing the death penalty so that this controversial (and to me unnecessary) subject is laid to rest. Unfortunately I cannot as yet post links here, but my opinion is close to that in the following article: "Is Killing An Apostate in the Islamic Law?" by Ibrahim B. Syed, Ph. D. President of the Islamic Research Foundation International, Inc. Ridda or Irtidãd: Literally means "turning back". The act of apostasy -- leaving Islam for another religion or for a secular lifestyle. Murtadd: Literally means "one who turns the back." An apostate. Murtad Fitri: Literally means apostate - natural. A person born of a Muslim parent who later rejects Islam. Murtad Milli: Literally means apostate - from the community. A person who converted to Islam and later rejected the religion. Due lack of education and critical thinking several myths have taken root in the Muslim world over the ages, and there have not been any efforts in the past to clear these doubts. On the contrary, there has been a sort of effort to strengthen these myths and misconceptions. These misinterpretations of Islamic teachings have taken their toll on the Muslim world and have strengthened a misplaced perception that Islam is a symbol of obscurantism, a religion of intolerance and answers everything with the sword. And there is no bigger misconception-strengthened with misunderstanding of Islamic beliefs over the years-other than the belief that Islam doesn't tolerate apostasy. The Christian missionaries and the Western world are cashing in on it. Ulama have tried to strengthen their point of view and several leading Muslim reformists have failed to tackle the issue. This misconception has also presented Islam as a medieval and killer religion. Islam bashers have time and again tried to carry the point by pointing out that Islam orders the killing of a person if he or she reverts to another religion from Islam. No body is forthcoming to challenge this widely held belief as well as put forth a convincing argument about the misinterpretation of Qur'anic teachings by Ulama. The Qur’an is completely silent on any worldly punishment for apostasy and the sole Tradition that forms the basis of rulings is open to many interpretations. Prophet (pbuh) is reported to have said: ‘Whosoever changes his religion, Kill Him (man baddala Dinahu faqtuluhu)’”. It is this last quote from the Prophet that forms the basis of the said ruling. While jurists are agreed on the authenticity of this tradition, they differ very widely on the appropriate interpretation and thus, the law concerning apostasy. Understanding the different viewpoints, and arriving at the truth is crucial to our discussion of this subject. This tradition does not refer to Muslims who leave the religion of Islam for other religions. Finally, there is the crucial dispute over the nature of the punishment and the crime. Al-Nakha’ee and, according to Sha’rani, al-Thawri, hold that the apostate is a grave sinner who should however be continuously called back to the fold for the rest of his life, and not killed. By implication, they do not consider the offence a hadd (fixed penalty) offence with a fixed punishment that must be carried out. This view is similar to the view that apostasy is a sin that carries no fixed punishment, and any penalty for it is discretionary (ta’zeer). This is a view held by the Hanbali scholar, Ibn Taimiya and he attributes it as well to the Maliki Imam al-Baji. Among Hanafites, the jurist Shamsuddeen al-Sarakhshi holds the same view. He says in al Mabsut that the fixed penalties or hudud are generally not suspended because of repentance, especially when they are reported and become known to the Imam. He then adds in the case of apostasy “renunciation of the faith and conversion to disbelief is admittedly the greatest of offences, yet it is a matter between man and his Creator, and its punishment is postponed to the day of Judgement. (“fa’l jaza’ ‘alayha mu’akhkhar ila dar al-jaza”). If repentance is accepted, then apostasy is not a hadd offence with a fixed punishment. Secondly, once scholars accept that a Muslim apostate has the right to be given the opportunity to repent, they lose the right to set a time limit for his repentance. Allah (SWT) says in the Glorious Qur’an (39: 53-54: Say: “ O you servants of Mine who have transgressed against your own selves! Despair not of God’s mercy. Behold God forgives all sins, for verily He is much forgiving, a dispenser of grace! Hence, turn toward your sustainer and surrender yourselves unto him before the suffering (of death and resurrection) comes upon you for then you will not be succored.” Any scholar who says the death sentence applies to leaving the faith, then the convict is to be given a life-time to repent, and this is the view of Sufyan al-Thawri, Ibrahim al-Nakha’ee, Shamsuddeen al-Sarakhshi, Imam al-Baji and, by strong implication, Ahmad Ibn Taimiya. One must conclude that the death sentence is not for “simple apostasy” (mujarrad al-ridda), but for apostasy accompanied by treason and sedition, or by the abuse and slander (sabb) of the Noble Prophet. Freedom to convert to or from Islam "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance." Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Glorious Qur'an says, "Let there be no compulsion in the religion: Surely the Right Path is clearly distinct from the crooked path." Al Baqarah, 2:256. "Those who believe, then disbelieve, then believe again, then disbelieve, and then increase in their disbelief - Allah will never forgive them nor guide them to the path." Surah An-Nisa', 4:137. For example, the Qur'an says: "Let him who wishes to believe, do so; and let him who wishes to disbelieve, do so." (Al-Kahf: 29) In another verse, Allah Almighty says: "Yours is only the duty to convey the message; you are not a guardian over them." (Al-Ghashiyah: 21- 22) The quotation from Surah An-Nisa', 4:137, shown above, seems to imply that multiple, sequential apostasies are possible. That would not be possible if the person were executed after the first apostasy. From the above verses it can be argued that religious freedom and the absence of compulsion in religion requires that individuals be allowed adopt a religion or to convert to another religion without legal penalty. Hence the death penalty is not an appropriate response to apostasy. The former Chief Justice of Pakistan, SA Rahman, has written that there is no reference to the death penalty in any of the 20 instances of apostasy mentioned in the Qur'an. Muslims who support the death penalty for apostasy use as their foundation the above cited hadith, in which the Prophet (pbuh) is reported to have said: "Kill whoever changes his religion." But this is a weak foundation because this hadith was only transmitted from Muhammad (pbuh) by one individual. It was not confirmed by a second person. According to Islamic law, this is insufficient confirmation to impose the death penalty. The Shari`ah has not fixed any punishment for apostasy. The hadith is so generally worded that it would require the death penalty for a Christian or Jew who converted to Islam. This is obviously not the prophet's intent. The hadith is in need of further specification, which has not been documented. Many scholars interpret this passage as referring only to instances of high treason. (e.g. declaring war on Islam, Muhammad (pbuh), God, etc.). There is no historical record, which indicates that Muhammad (pbuh) or any of his companions ever sentenced anyone to death for apostasy. The issue of killing a murtad or the apostate is not a simple one. Scholars have debated it from various angles and it is not simply an issue of killing someone for choosing one religion or another. The question of apostasy has been debated among scholars based on their interpretations of some hadiths since the Qur'an does not specify any worldly punishment for it. For example, there was a case at the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) where a man came to him in three consecutive days and told him that he wanted to apostate. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) never took any action against him, and when the man finally left Madina, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) never sent anyone to arrest him, let alone kill him. This is why some scholars distinguished between individual apostasy and apostasy which is accompanied by high treason. So, it cannot be confused with the freedom of conscience for every individual, which has been guaranteed in the Qur'an through hundreds of verses. For example, one version of a hadith narrated by `A'isha (RA) concerning apostasy relates to one who left his religion and fought against Muslims. QUR'ANIC VIEWS The Qur’an has referred to the issue of apostasy at more than one place (for example see Al-Baqarah 2: 217, Al-Baqarah 2: 108, A’l Imra’n 3: 90, Al-Nisa’ 4: 137 and Al-Nahl 16: 106). But at none of these places does the Qur’an mention the punishment of death for such people who change their religion. The Qur’an does mention that such people shall face a terrible punishment in the hereafter but no worldly punishment is mentioned at any of these instances in the Qur’an. This situation obviously raises a question mark in the mind of the reader that if Allah had wanted to give the punishment of an apostate a permanent position in the Shari`ah, the punishment should have been mentioned, at least at one of the above mentioned places. If the Qur’an had kept completely silent about the apostate, the matter would have been different. But the strange thing is that the Qur’an mentions apostasy, and still does not mention the punishment (if any) it wants the apostate to be subjected to. Furthermore, the Qur’an has strictly disallowed the imposition of the death penalty except in two specific cases. One of them is where the person is guilty of murdering another person and the other is where a person is guilty of creating unrest in the country (fasa’d fil-ardh) like being involved in activities that create unrest in a society, for example activities like terrorism etc. The Qur’an says: Whoever kills a person without his being guilty of murder or of creating unrest in the land, it is as though he kills the whole of mankind. (Al-Ma’idah, 5: 32) Obviously, apostasy can neither be termed as "murder" nor "creating unrest in the land". Thus, in view of the above facts, we are left with one option only. We can only say that either the saying has been wrongly ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh), as it is clearly contradictory to the Qur’an and the Prophet could not have said anything contradictory to the Qur’an, or that the saying ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh) relates not to all apostates but to a particular and specific people. Shaykh Subhani Shaykh Inayatullah Subhani (author of the Book Apostasy doesn't carry death penalty in Islam) says that neither Islam forces any person to embrace neither Islam nor it forces him to remain within its fold. He writes, "Apostasy has been mentioned several times in Qur'an. It also describes the bad treatment that will be meted out for committing apostasy, but it never talks of punishment for the crime in this world." The learned scholar mentions three Ayaat (verses) from Qur'an on apostasy (Al-Baqara 217, Muhammad 25-27 and Al-Maida 54) and then says that none of these Ayaat prescribes any punishment for that though these Ayaat pass strictures on the people who commit it. There are several other Ayaat on the same issue and none of them prescribes either death penalty or any other punishment for apostasy in this world. He then adds that had there been some punishment in Islam for apostasy there was no reason as to why the issue was mentioned repeatedly in Qur'an but no punishment was prescribed. Misinterpretation of the hadith, Man baddala Dinahu faqtuluh (kill him who changes his religion) has caused the problem. This order has been made to look general and permanent, though it was said in a particular circumstance for a particular group. Shaykh Subhani writes that this order was made to counter a scheme prepared by Jews of Madinah. They had planned that some of them embrace Islam for some time and then return to their old religion. Then some other people do the same. It was aimed to create restlessness among Muslims against their own leadership so that the strong Muslim unity should start crumbling. It was made clear in Qur'an in (Aal Imran, 3: 72-73). To counter this planning the Prophet (SAW) ordered his companions to act in such a manner. Despite this order lengthy investigations were made to ascertain that the case was true and the person concerned was given adequate time to explain before the punishment was carried out. Shaykh Subhani says lack of clear grasp of Qur'an misguided even leading Ulama. Otherwise it was not difficult to understand the hadith. Qur'anic teachings on the issue were not kept in mind. He emphasizes that people who were awarded death penalty for reverting to other religions from Islam during the time of the Prophet (SAW) or during the reign of his caliphs were not given the punishment for the crime of apostasy but for the fact that they were at war with Muslims and Islamic government. Shaykh Subhani regrets that punishment that was prescribed for certain people under special circumstances was made to look like a general order. He says that it was the order for people who posed threat to Islamic state and became at war with Islam and not for any person who reverts to other religion. A number of Islamic scholars from past centuries, Ibrahim al-Naka'I, Sufyan al-Thawri, Shams al-Din al-Sarakhsi, Abul Walid al-Baji and Ibn Taymiyyah, have all held that apostasy is a serious sin, but not one that requires the death penalty. In modern times, Mahmud Shaltut, Sheikh of al-Azhar, and Dr Mohammed Sayed Tantawi have concurred. In conclusion, we must never confuse the issue of killing a murtad with the freedom of conscience guaranteed in the Glorious Qur'an. For a detailed discussion, one should read (1) the Dr. Yusuf Al-Qaradawi's book on this issue: Jareemat ar-riddah wal murtadd (The Crime of Apostasy and Apostate) - published by Ar-Risalah foundation. (2) Apostasy doesn't carry death penalty in Islam (Book: Tabdili-e-Mazhab aur Islam) by Maulana Inayatullah Asad Subhani)-published by Idara Ihya-e-Deen, Bilariya Ganj, Azamgarh (UP, India) Pages: 108, Price Rs 30. REFERENCES 1. (www.)"http://religioustolerance#####/isl_apos.htm"]religioustolerance #####/isl_apos.htm[/url] 2. "Islam, Apostasy and PAS," 1999-JUL-22, at: (www.)"http://muslimtents/sistersinislam/"]muslimtents/sistersinislam/[/url] 3. S.A. Rahman, "Punishment of apostasy in Islam," Kazi Publ., (1986). Limited availability from Amazon online bookstore).
  19. Muslims, A Virtue To Mankind?

    Assalamualaikum freedslave, This is quite an interesting statement and I can't help but wonder what technology it is that some Muslim scholars term as "bidaah" (undesirable innovation) to religion. Most technology would probably come under the term "bidaah hasanah" or good innovation and most technology is neutral (other than technology for making things which are illegal in Islam, such as say that of brewing alcohol). Perhaps you may have some examples? Perhaps sometimes these scholar's personal prejudices (which have nothing to do with Islam) could have led them to make such rulings. The Prophet (pbuh) exhorted Muslims to seek knowledge even to China. I do not see anything wrong with technology and the knowledge of technology per se. Western science and technology owe much to Muslim science and technology, but for some reason Muslims generally became complacent and lost out in the quest for such knowledge. Do our religious scholars share the blame for this? Or perhaps our leaders? Wassalam, yusufar islamicunityfoundation
  20. Muslims, A Virtue To Mankind?

    Greetings Darla, I'm afraid that those who pointed out that the Shariah isn't suitable to today's world only betray their lack of knowledge of the Shariah or prejudice against it. The Shariah as a legal and judicial system is highly developed and sophisticated. It is misinterpretations by some (and this includes Muslims as well) that make it appear to be not. It is not just about whether you can sleep with your sister, etc. and this is not only insulting but completely uninformed. Differences of interpretation will always arise in any legal system, but the foundations of its jurisprudence will ensure that the system, while retaining its basic rules, will remain relevant for all time. This is the case with the Shariah just as it is with any other legal system. It is inconceivable that the Shariah was relevant only during the time of the Prophet (pbuh) and for not long after. The Shariah is clear and applies to all equally and there is no necessity of going through and creating "a judgement for every imaginable situation in advance of it occuring" as you put it. That would be ridiculous and totally unnecessary. The Shariah is quite capable of being the basis of decisions of 21st century judges and modern Islamic law (still part of the Shariah) can develop out of such decisions as well. It can and will therefore remain relevant for as long as Muslims remain Muslims. Regards, yusufar islamicunityfoundation
  21. Muslims, A Virtue To Mankind?

    Greetings Makko, This was thought of a long time ago and this is exactly what Islam is against - that anyone should put his race, tribe, sect, nation or whatever other affiliation above Islam. We are only dissatisfied not with nation status per se but with ideas like nationalism which do not conform to Islam. As put by Khalid Baig "...We complain about the particular tribal leaders that happen to be there today but forget about the tribalism that seats at the root of all this. This tribalism of the nation-states has been enshrined into the constitutions, legal structures, bureaucracies, and the entire apparatus of government in every Muslim country. Its language and thinking, though anathema to Islam, has gained widespread acceptance. While we condemn its outcome, we do not sufficiently examine or challenge the system itself. We constantly talk about the Muslim brotherhood and the need for Muslim unity. We assert that Muslims are one Ummah. Simultaneously – and without much thought – we embrace the symbols, ideas, and dictates of its exact opposite. We have lived under our nation-states, celebrated our national days, and sang our national anthems all our lives. As a result the realization that the gap between the idea of the nation-state and that of one Ummah is wider than can be patched with good leaders of individual nation-states does not occur easily. We do not realize that we may be trying to simultaneously ride two different boats going in opposite directions.” Which Muslim would not be justified in feeling unhappy about such a situation? The path in Islam has been clearly set – worship of Allah, prayer, righteousness, piety, knowledge, good thought, good action, good behaviour, good deeds, trust, humility, kindness, tolerance, justice, equity, legitimacy, faith, reason, rationale, charity, peace, forgiveness, compassion, mercy, brotherhood and love. Enlightenment, not darkness. And what Muslims want for themselves they must also want for non-Muslims and treat them well. This is also fundamental to Islam. Regards, yusufar islamicunityfoundation
  22. Muslims, A Virtue To Mankind?

    Greetings Livius, Please excuse me if I say that perhaps you may have misunderstood me. I definitely do not blame the West entirely, although the West must share a large part of the blame for what is happening in the Middle East. Muslims too are to blame, especially Muslim governments. Each and every Muslim shares a part of the blame too, either for keeping quiet or refusing to be enlightened. Part of the enlightenment process is to find out what went wrong and what is still going wrong, and if in conclusion one can generally say that the West is largely to blame, then what is wrong with that? It is only when you know the roots of the problem that you can suggest the solutions. An Islamic State would not (or rather should not) interfere in the affairs of other nations except by way of self-defence. Saying that "it is the nature of the world" is not an excuse. If the "nature of the world" was evil, would that make it right for everyone to go along with it? This is the result of amoral and secular thought philosophies, processes and systems liberally fostered by the West and forced upon others. Power is not to be abused in any way. Might is not always right and what powerful states do cannot always be excused. However, I would agree with you that if Muslims want to change things then they have to do it themselves. It is quite easy to say that Muslims are stuck because of themselves and have to assume responsibility for their own problems. What is not so easy is to find a solution for problems which the West has forced upon the world (not just the Muslim world mind you), and yes Muslims will also have to find solutions for problems created by their own people as well, especially their leaders. This is a constant struggle (the real "jihad") - whether within one's self or society in general - between good and evil, and that is what life is all about. The cycle will definitely continue but that does not mean that one just gives in. Regards, yusufar (www.)"http://islamicunityfoundaon"]The Islamic Unity Foundation[/url]
  23. Muslims, A Virtue To Mankind?

    Greetings Darla, It is not easy for any Muslim country or government to behave properly when in the first place that is not what they want to do and secondly they are doing the bidding of other more powerful countries such as the US and the UK. It is a fact that there is meddling by Western governments in the Middle East (and elsewhere as well) and the question is whether it is the "right" type of meddling done for altruistic reasons or some other agenda? While the Taliban's record in Afghanistan can be questioned on many grounds, including Islamic, I think we would all agree that we would not like to see what is happening in Afghanistan today as a result of American intervention to happen in any Muslim country as well. Please see Prof Marc Herold's analysis of present-day Afghanistan under the heading (www.)"http://cursor/stories/emptyspace.html"]"The perfect Neo-Colonial state of the 21st Century"[/url] Untramelled "liberalism" does have its drawbacks too, just as extreme "conservatism", neither of which is Islam. Regards & Peace to you too, yusufar (www.)"http://islamicunityfoundaon"]The Islamic Unity Foundation[/url]
  24. Muslims, A Virtue To Mankind?

    Greetings Darla, My above post was in response to yours, sorry for not making that clear, but of course anyone else can comment as well... Regards, yusufar (www.)"http://islamicunityfoundaon"]The Islamic Unity Foundation[/url]
  25. Muslims, A Virtue To Mankind?

    Greetings, Western opposition to a United Islamic State would be hardly surprising since it was largely the West which split up the Islamic world with ideas of "nationalism" so that it would be easier to "divide and rule". This is a very complex issue but worth studying in greater detail. Most of the states which call themselves "Islamic" today may rule by what they consider to be Islamic law and outwardly this would appear so, but without any element of Islamic spirit or justice, thereby negating the very foundation of the law itself. Most Western governments would be quite happy to deal with such "Islamic" states, since they can very easily be corrupted and influenced. The only reason they apply "Islamic" law is to control their population so that only the ruling elites will benefit. They oppress their own people to benefit their ruling class and the West. There will certainly be a lot of "support" amongst all Muslims when you talk about unity and union, but the sad fact is that no one really knows how to go about it and most of the present governments of purportedly Islamic and Muslim countries would only pay lip-service because they cannot be outwardly seen to be going against such an idea. Yet would anyone of them take any concrete step to implement it? You are quite right when you say that what we have are highly repressive states who are very nationalistic, beligerent and tribal, the very things which the Prophet (pbuh) warned Muslims against in his last sermon. While I would agree to some extent with you, but for different reasons, that opposition to an Islamic superstate in the Middle East as it stands at the moment is understandable, rational and logical, please remember that there are probably more Muslims outside of the Middle East today than there are in it and an Islamic superstate would have to comprise of more than just the Middle East component. Regards, yusufar (www.)"http://islamicunityfoundaon"]The Islamic Unity Foundation[/url]
×