Governments against Islam

The so-called religious conflict between Christians and Muslims is more political than religious. For one thing, it is not in Muslims’ nature to kill Christians, on the contrary Muslims have always, since the beginning of Islam, thought of Christians as neighbors, many say “cousins”, and have gotten along rather well in communities with Christians, whom the Qur’an calls “people of the Book” respecting the origins of the Christian tradition, being from the same source.

When it comes to religious tensions and wars, we often hear the media talk about the old problem of ‘hatred’, which we are led to believe is inherent due to the fact that Muslims have a strange and opposing religion; they are the ‘cousins’ of the Christians (because the two sons of the Prophet Abraham, according to Christians and Jews, especially the evangelizing kind of Christian and the Zionists, were the ‘cousins’ born of two distinct figures, one a legitimate son (Isaac, according to the Christian/Zionist view) and one an usurper, the ‘younger’ Ishmael.

The problem with the logic of the story is that Ishmael (Ismail, A.S.)was the first born, not Isaac (Ishaq). Muslims also believe them to be equally legitimate sons of Prophet Ibraheem (Abraham, A.S., the father of monotheism). Then it follows, that Ishmael’s and Isaac’s descendents would have been equally believers, and Muslims have no problem with this. They don’t see that there was any source of conflict between peoples (from the beginning). There are no ‘stories’ to support such a conflict or hatred.

An important realization (which Muslims get) is that the conflict in the Middle East is about Crusades as much as terrorism; or the Christian governments and Israel holding onto power. From the beginning of Islam, it’s true there was always conflict; it was more political than religious, however. Talk of “war on terror” is an excuse to renew religious hatred in the name of “security”, citing frightening statistics of Al-Qaeda’s presence worldwide, while maintaining bases in the ME to reap the imperialist rewards of tension. But religion is merely a pawn in a chess game of land grabbing. And the UN sponsored Peace talks i.e. Camp David, or what have you, are always unsuccessful, but enough participation by all sides keeps the facade of genuine concern for ME and European stability and human rights in the fore, while in reality land is grabbed away from Muslims (i.e. Palestine, Bosnia, Kosovo). It is the Jews or Muslims who really look bad, while the Christian governments and their representatives are spinning a good story; they are believable, which makes opposition impossible or politically disadvantageous. The Jews can afford the spin, too and are good at it. Muslims, their leaders and representatives (Hamas, etc in Palestine, Taliban in Pakistan, even American Muslims like CAIR, which has some success in media, or at least more savvy)are not viewed as positive, even given the spotlight. The media is more than not controlled. Even with YouTube, Muslims can’t get their positive message across. Most Westerners still don’t know what that is/’might be’.

When Muhammad, SAWS, in Mecca began preaching his message of monotheism, it was the leaders that refused the message, and put up the most fight. They didn’t want to lose their position of power and respect. Islam made them appear ignorant, blind and arrogant. When some of the leaders saw the power Islam possessed they decided within themselves to wait. They thought, if Muhammad wins, then we will join him, but not before. This shows that despite their clinging to the old ways, they were willing to follow Muhammad in the end, and didn’t deny that he was the most truthful among them, which is often stated in the authentic prophetic traditions.

Abu Jahl, the ‘pharaoh of the Arab nation’ even commented that it was not Muhammad he denied, but it was the message he denied. Once, he bragged that there was a prophet from his tribe whereas the other tribe, which his own was always in competition with, didn’t have a prophet of God to boast.

Likewise, the Christians didn’t want to be unseated from their position as the premier religion. They were adamant that God had meant them to be the ‘faithful’ that would enter paradise. They didn’t know that the bible had literally been rewritten, by men, including the story of the garden of Eden which relegated women to the role of a betrayer of the first man and Prophet of God, Adam. She would have to suffer and pay each time for that mistake, in the throes of childbirth. The majority of Christians clung to their traditions, unwilling to give an ear to the new religion, a follow up to the same basic monotheism preached at the core of some of the oldest Christian churches, such as the Unitarian tradition. Basically, Christianity believes in God, and Prophets, and the books of revelation, but they didn’t accept Muhammad, also largely because he was an Arab.

As with many conflicts, fear is a motivating factor, and the ones to use that fear to their advantage is the leadership, fanning it to create a phobia that will buffer their followers from the new tradition emerging. With so much misinformation, Christianity has continued to remain largely in the dark about Islam for 1430 plus years.

While Christianity is misogynistic, Muslims are painted as more misogynistic. While the crusaders were barbaric, Muslims are painted as more barbaric, and so on. Even to the point that despite the complete and eternal ban on alcohol in Islam, the only religion that forbids drinking as well as gambling (two great vices among modern Christians), Muslims are painted as the fat and drunk sultans; always mentioned is the whoring that was supposed to be accompanying this revelry.

The Islamophobic beliefs aside, Christianity (the Church) in the past and Western nations and the Zionists in the present want to hold onto power.
("Who Values Peace?" is similar)

Perhaps the highly touted ‘multiculturalism’ is just a western tool to control Muslims after all. While manpower is essential to any nation’s ability to sustain growth, countries such as Canada, France, etc. benefit greatly from immigration, but the government has a lot of control over what Muslims can and cannot do when they live in Canada. They cannot practice polygamy, for one, except illegally, or in the shadows. Recently in America, there was a feeler sent out of stopping Muslims from performing their five daily prayers.

In Britain, the government banned the niqaab, with no legitimate reason. As facial recognition/racial profiling doesn’t help curb crime (not something Muslim women are accused of as such) and women with hiijab will often look very similar if not identical, to most Brits, the only reason to ban the niqaab would be to hurt Muslims.

“Multiculturalism then becomes a tool which can be used to herd Muslims into the “melting pot” with promises of greater freedom; they can be dealt with more easily; as the (present or sitting) government sees fit; by new laws enacted to stifle expressions of religion or culture different from the majority of Brits.” (newer, revised)

“O Mankind, your injustice is only against yourselves, (being merely) the enjoyment of worldly life” (10:23, Al-Qur’an)

Learn more about Islam's Prophet

@comments

@Greenapple
 to you, hope you read this:

I encourage you to go to my blog. I often speak about the things being discussed by me in comments. There is more time and space in a blog post than there is in a small comment on YouTube. This is my email Diamondraw4Real@gmail.com.

If you have anything to add, or later send me your perspective on things, you're welcome. I find your attitude to Muslims (surprise, I'm Muslim!) kind of a downer. You sound brainwashed to me. I was born in Canada, and grew up Christian; my parents were very strict. I believe Islam is the truth. I know why ppl think the Qur'an tells Muslims to kill Christians, but that's not true. However, there is always going to be conflict. I rather there wouldn't be, but that is the nature of the world.

The Qur’an exhorts Muslims to strive in killing; to cut off, or amputate the enemy’s hands, or hit their necks. This is combat training, not “murder”. As soldiers in Afghanistan should know, the whole country is like a war zone, anytime they are going in they should beware of the ‘enemy’; yet they should also, not go into villages with the attitude that ever Afghan is an “enemy combatant”. They are the ones who came (voluntarily) halfway across the world, to “smoke out” bin Laden, and the rest of the terrorists. That doesn’t give them a free hand to do whatever they like in a sovereign country, even if they don’t agree with the religious or cultural practices of the majority of the people living there. I don’t agree with the attitudes expressed in the media that somehow these volunteer soldiers are anything than wholly responsible for maintaining a high level of professionalism. There should be no excuses for “bad apples”, no matter how miserable a situation they find themselves in. They signed up for “war” not a day at the beach. As such they should follow the rules (and military laws) in every situation, every task.

There are many aspects in Islam which non-Muslims don't get. You have to be Muslim to understand.Many people would consider me fundamentalist (my practice varies from day to day), but it only causes more confusion when ppl label others. You never know who is behind the veil, or the beard, that's for sure. But don't be spooked, most Muslims I've been around are normal ppl. Not all of them practice like me; maybe some are more "modern" than I am.

(Then also, some are more toward extremist; that means, they are doing some things wrong; like their preaching becomes very tough on other Muslims; some of them think, for example that Muslims like them (they pray on time, and follow the rules strictly, which is good, but they judge others more)shouldn’t supplicate in a certain form (say, “God bless you” for example) if one of the other Muslims who isn’t so strict about prayers, etc. but is not very bad, does something like give up a seat on the bus for him, he won’t say “God bless you” like he would for a Muslim like himself. The fact is, those guys have some wrong things in their ‘beliefs’ which makes them act this way.

Yet, they consider themselves Salafi, as I consider myself Salafi. It’s just the degrees to which we comply in some duties probably does vary. Some people pray at night, some people don’t. It’s not an obligation, but it was the “way” of the Prophet and his companions to do so. Many people wish they could pray at night, although they just haven’t gotten in the habit. Everything is usually a habit, or not. Most Muslims will also eat store-bought products instead of making from scratch, which some people think is wrong, because they believe that most of those product s probably have pork derivatives in them. I’ve taken readymade cake, from a shop, which is made in the stores kitchen, yet certain people still think it is not “halaal” enough. I would say they are being ‘cautious’ and I don’t mind, but I don’t want them to think badly of me for eating those things, either. But these same Muslims don’t mind buying phones for their kids, (maybe not a blackberry) or using internet for their work. (of course they panic if they get email with “haram” content, but then they usually have “computer savvy” friends, too, who will volunteer their time to help them out.) Many of their friends are professionals; esp. lots of doctors of medicine attend Islamic lectures, probably not surprisingly, because they are very caring and God-conscious (among the population) for the most part.

I consider myself a “practicing” Muslim, but here I am on the internet along with so many others. I don't believe we are being left behind. We are just a little slower, in some countries, because of lack of resources, sometimes. I am told Libya doesn't have internet everywhere, but I have spoken to relatives (in-laws) on Skype from Sirte or Bengazi, so it goes to show...

Any lack of education, modernity, or advances we are lagging in, may soon be just a think (or thing) of the past because soon there will be more Muslims from Western nations, either born Muslims; second generation, third generation, or newly converted Muslims, who will bring those things into the “tribe”.

My greater worry is that Muslims will not advance as much in their outlook on life (life is just “enjoyment for a time”) their duties to God and people, their duties to Muslims, their responsibilities to preach Islam in the best way. I’m afraid Muslims will not learn Islam properly, or else, if they are knowledgeable, they won’t put into practice their Islamic knowledge. Allah has warned us against ignorance as well as arrogance.

Sincerely wishing you a good day, D,J.

American Interference and Life - Part Two

Legalities and Life

The wording is so important;

Will the AUMF apply in 2021 in Somalia, as it does in 2001, in Afghanistan? Now, I want to clarify something, although I’m not familiar with law. If something is right in 2011, isn’t it right in 2001, or 2021? And if it’s wrong in 2021, isn’t it wrong in 2011 or 2001?

You see, the Islamic law, called Shari’a, as most people who read about Islam at all will know, hasn’t changed in over 1,440 years! The Shari’a hasn’t changed, but applications can change, depending on different variables, and so on.

Slavery wasn’t completely abolished in Islamic Shari’a, because, as some people surmise, if slavery were abolished to the Muslims (no longer would they be allowed to have slaves), but somewhere in the future the non-Muslims align against the future Muslim state (under a Khalifah) for argument’s sake, and they decide it is in their best interests to have Muslim captives become their slaves, you can see how it would be really difficult for Muslims to retaliate in wise.

Whereas alcohol and pork are forever and always will be considered “haram”, slavery isn’t. “Slaves” doesn’t mean “blacks”, but anyone who is made a slave. In Islam, racism is totally, forever and always will be “forbidden”. During the early period of Islam, there were slaves among Muslims and non-Muslims. The Islamic state, under the Prophet Muhammad’s guidance, taught the people that one of the best forms of repentance was to “free a slave”. That’s why it was done so extensively. Since that time Muslims freed their slaves liberally and the number of slaves dwindled in the first few centuries of Islamic rule. Just one point, they are not permitted to free another’s slave, only a slave in their possession.

Did you ever think about Saddam Hussein’s trial; why was it done so quickly? Saddam was probably one of the few Iraqis, or Muslims in the ‘war on terror’ privileged enough to (avoid a long and dragged out) “due process”. However, the medical examinations he had to endure could be seen as “unusual punishment” (because he was a prominent figure).

There are lots of detainees still in Guantanamo or in black sites (as “disappeared” persons), who are in effect being held illegally, without trial, without charge, without legal representation, is this not the case? Isn’t this scenario against International law? What is being done about these men, (or if there are any women, about them)?

Can a Muslim government also use AUMF in/for their own country? Or is AUMF only okay for America, or American forces, but not Muslim governments or their forces? Also, is brutal use of force by law enforcement, or military - even “torture” justified in some instances? We are led to believe that “torture” is not justified, yet isn’t “torture” used even by America; as such America’s black sites are there for this specific purpose, to extract confessions out of people? Although he was innocent, Khaled El – Massri is a case in point - he was kidnapped and tortured in Afghanistan for five months, then dumped in Albania, left to find his way home. You can find out more about the ongoing case he’s fighting against the American government at WikiLeaks.

 Faced by “terrorism”, and “extremists” torture or “enhanced interrogation” techniques is still an option most governments (will) use as a final option, whether it gets the desired results or not.

(The Authorized Use of Military Force)

For America as it stands now, the congress needed some powers to get Al-Qaeda, and Bin Laden or their operatives inside and outside America, so AUMF was used. Bush said, “We’ll smoke ‘em out”, or was it “him (Bin Laden) out”? At any rate, AUMF allows for long detentions, detention without trial and interrogation tactics, which may or may not look like torture to some of us, to name a few.  The AUMF must be extended to 2011, now, or the date of the explanation by Ho, I read at opinionjuris.org.  

Some problems:

A new bill – what’s wrong with the old one? Apparently these things run out, and have to be renewed.

The new language – the Obama administration (maybe) wants to Veto (the) (some) new language because (it) “if the set of detainee related provisions are included” (must be bad for the detainees). Mainly as explained by Deborah Pearlstein, the language being objected, more vigorously this time, has to do with “Gitmo (detainees) prosecution -and-transfer restrictions.”(opinionjuris.org)

Spaulding says, “[OBL] sparked the Global war”.

The reason that conspiracy theories exist, and by the theory of relativity, the opposite of them exist; I mean arguments (equally as unbelievable as the conspiracy theories and just as improbable) against the conspiracy theories (i.e. the 9-11 truthers theories, are the most recent and maligned of these), obviously can’t and shouldn’t be ignored, whichever side of the argument you fall on. The fact is, nothing has yet been proven or disproven to the whole population. Actually, the 9-11 camp has a lot of supportive evidence, which if someone is honest with himself, would realize is not all “crazy”.  We should be as honest and straightforward as the truthers are being, should we not? (I’m speaking here as an omniscient outside voice, not taking sides, apparently). To tell the truth, I know what side I’m on, have no ambivalence about it whatsoever, but I’m trying to add my bit to keep the debate alive, otherwise it might die, and become another historically forgotten matter. But what about the next event, national disaster in America, or global jihadist group that comes along; it will...Is there a lesson, to be learned here, in the here and now?

It’s not true, what Spaulding says in her report; that America was pulled into the war with OBL and Al-Qaeda, at least, not completely true. There are ‘forces’ at work, or clandestine” men in black”, in the shadows who make conflicts happen.

Suzanne Spaulding, who wrote her report for the Senate Select Committee, “[The]events of 9-11 provoked the United States into declaring its own Global War, which Bin Laden used to support his own claim that Muslims were called to join in the Global Jihad”

I can’t believe, even in light of the fact that some 3,000 innocent people (innocent of attacking Bin Laden)were killed in New York in 2001, that America decides to start a Global War in ‘retaliation’.  Was it not only to play the blame game, name OBL the mastermind, throw in a global Jihad, the Taliban, Mullah Omar, some Arabs the Pakistanis decide to turn in for the cash reward, who turn out to be largely innocent of a connection to 9-11, Khaled El Massri who is trying to get justice, or a highly paranoid KSM, who ranted in his diaries about all kinds of stuff, obviously mentally disturbed and possibly mentally handicapped, too, to plaster his photo, unkempt hair, chest hair and in undershirt to make one of the supposed “brains” of the operations; should we believe he is brilliant, yet deranged, taking a cheap shot at Muslims and their supposed  “cream of the crop”, the leader who goes into hiding, in caves, and a one-eyed religious icon, Prophet, according to media hype, it all played out so well, in the hysterical aftermath of the crash of the stock markets, in the hysterical aftermath of the crashing of the ‘twin towers’ (in the financial center), never mind that at least one man, Silverstein made a lot of money when he agreed to sign, as he clearly says, in video footage (Loosechange, or other 9-11 theory information gatherers didn’t plan this, it just happened) to have his building (one of the no 5, or no 7, I’ll have to watch the video again to be sure) demolished, “brought down” with “controlled explosions” because as he casually, under no duress explains, his decrepit building is worth a lot torn down, and he wouldn’t have paid for the cost of refurbishing it, because his building had asbestos, an expensive do-it-yourself project on its own, he decides just before the “terrorist attacks” that anytime will be good to “bring (it) down”. The environmental impact of the attacks, and the destruction of the buildings which contained asbestos, clearly was terrible, and the impact on people’s lives continues, to this day. The insurance he got after the attacks (for that building alone) was 3 billion! I think.

The government claimed (i.e. Condoleezza Rice made statements which contradict her earlier actions, or statements) or members of the administration did, that they had no advanced knowledge of “the attacks”. < a href = http://www.opinionjuris.org > Condoleezza </a> received advanced notice, via  information she received in a folder from then President Bill Clinton.

About the AUMF, if America could do so, please try using it to “target” those “belligerent individuals” in Libya ( who must surely exist) if America is involved in a campaign there (revised June 29), as opposed to an entire population in the urban centers which Nato is bombing daily; that might help cut down on the “collateral damage”, as some like to call non-military people in the crossfire or “run” of apache helicopters and “bombing raids” in a ‘war zone’, the civilian casualties. I happened to hear from a close family member that his sister saw a lone school girl outside of  the school she attends get hit with fire from an apache helicopter, as it flew overtop the area. One of many “bringing freedom and democracy” to Libya - or is it too soon to hope? I see that beleaguered country and its people, most of all, facing a future, I’m afraid will be as much as Iraq, one of destruction and mayhem, and above all, occupation.