-------------- --------------- -------------- --------

"O you who believe! Be careful of your duty to Allah, and be with the truthful." [Noble Quran 9:119]

"If you obeyed most of those on earth they would mislead you far from Allah's way." [Noble Quran 6:116]

Return to the QURAN only - the complete and final STAND-ALONE Divine Message which also contains the authentic sunnah of the beloved Prophet Muhammad (SAAW)


I bear witness that NONE is worthy of worship except ALLAH, He has NO partner nor partners, and I bear witness that Muhammad is the slave and Final Messenger of Allah.


Zainabs Lounge blog tracker

Wednesday, December 26, 2012


The date of December 25th coincided with a particular festival among the Romans in the pre-Christian era called Saturnalia that was observed during the winter solstice.  This festival was dedicated by the Romans to one of their pagan gods named Saturn.  It was considered a big event and celebrated for an entire week.

Depending on the shift of the calendar, the event of the winter solstice occurs between December 20th and 23rd each year in the Northern hemisphere, and between June 20th and 23rd in the Southern hemisphere.  It is supposed to be the shortest day or the longest night of the year.  Though the Winter Solstice lasts an instant, the term is used to refer to the full 24-hour period. 

Winter festivals in ancient Rome associated with the winter solstice were known as 'Yule.'

As Wikipedia puts it - "Christmas is an annual holiday that celebrates the birth of Jesus...  The date of the celebration is traditional, and is not considered to be his actual date of birth.  Christmas festivities often combine the commemoration of Jesus' birth with various customs, many of which have been influenced by earlier winter festivals."

After the Romans embraced Christianity, the church thereby offered people (many of whom were new converts to Christianity still devoted to their pagan traditions) a Christian alternative to the pagan festivities that re-interpreted many of their old pagan symbols and actions in ways acceptable to Christian faith and practice.

Not just Christmas, but several Christian holidays were put around the pagan dates and customs, and replaced with Christian names by the Church in Rome.  For example:

Valentines Day (pagan title, Imbolgc)
Easter (pagan title, Ostara)
Halloween (pagan title, Samhain)
Christmas (pagan title, Yule)

Edward Gibbon writes: "The Roman Christians, ignorant of his (Christ's) birth, fixed the solemn festival to the 25th of December, the Brumalia, or Winter Solstice, when the pagans annually celebrated the birth of Sol" 

Grolier's encyclopedia mentions:  " .. under the Emperor Aurelian, Rome had celebrated the feast of the 'Invincible Sun' on December 25th. In the Eastern Church, January 6th, also associated with the winter solstice, was initially preferred. In course of time, however, the West added the Eastern date as the feast of the Epiphany, and the East added the Western date of Christmas."

Thus, December 25 got selected as the official birth date of Jesus.  But all historians and biblical scholars are convinced that it's unauthentic.  They are sure the birth was in some other season, most likely fall.

Was December 25 the birth date of Jesus, son of Virgin Mary?

Jerusalem on Dec.28 of 2006

A 3rd century theologian of the Catholic Church in Rome named Hyppolytus was the first person who proclaimed December 25 as the birth date of Jesus.  Very little is known about Hippolytus in history except that he was a 3rd century priest, a Greek speaking Roman cleric and an anti-pope who often came into conflict with the popes.  He was exiled in the island of Sardinia in southern Italy where he died.  He was given the title of 'saint' much later.

The earliest mention of some sort of observance of the birth of Jesus on December 25th is in the Roman Calendar, which indicates that this festival first began being observed by the church in Rome by the 2nd century (or the year 336 A.D.).  Later, most influential Christian personalities began favoring the same date.  Thus, the practice began and got established gradually.

All known figures in the history of the Church who asserted and confirmed the 'correctness' of this date did so by accessing the Roman birth census.  There is absolutely no record prior to that indicating December 25th as the birth date of Jesus.  Thus, it eventually became the officially recognized date for Christmas.  However, there's little doubt that this was entirely arranged by the authorities in Rome for purposes of convenience rather than any historical truth.

It's interesting to consider the weather conditions at that time of the year in Bethlehem where Jesus was born. The Jewish month of Chislev (corresponding to November/December) was a month with cold and rainy weather. The month after that was Tebeth (December/January). It saw the lowest temperatures of the year with occasional snow in the highlands. The Bible does not say when Jesus was born, but it does give sound reason to conclude that the birth of Jesus did not take place in December.  Let's discuss what the Bible mentions about the climate of that region, and the Bible's own contradiction of the period of Jesus' birth.

Bible writer Ezra shows that 'Chislev' was indeed a month known for cold and rainy weather.  After stating that a crowd had gathered in Jerusalem "in the ninth month [Chislev] on the twentieth day of the month," Ezra reports that people were "shivering . . . on account of the showers of rain." Concerning weather conditions at that time of the year, the congregated people themselves said: "It is the season of showers of rain, and it is not possible to stand outside." (Ezra 10:9, 13; Jeremiah 36:22).  The shepherds living in that part of the world made sure that they and their flocks were no longer out of doors at night in December.  The Bible reports, however, that shepherds were in the fields tending their flocks on the night of Jesus' birth.  In fact, the Bible writer Luke states that at the time of the birth of Jesus, shepherds were "living out of doors and keeping watches in the night over their flocks" near Bethlehem. (Luke 2:8-12).   Notice that the shepherds were actually living outdoors, not just strolling outside during the day. They had their fields at night. Does that description of outdoor living fit the chilly, rainy and sometimes even snowy weather conditions of Bethlehem in December?  It obviously doesn't.  Judean winters were too cold for shepherds to be watching their flocks outdoor, particularly at night.  Many historians and scholars note that Luke's descriptions of shepherds' activities at the time of Jesus' birth suggest a spring or summer birthdate.

For the purpose of upholding the tradition of December 25th, many orthodox Christians argue by refuting the actual climatic conditions of Bethleham and the regions around.  They claim that these regions come under the umbrella of the Mediterranean climate of mild winters with February at its coldest.  Thus they argue that December can be balmy enough to graze sheep.  However, according to weather analysts and the residents of this part of the world, such a claim completely contradicts the actual and existing winter conditions of the region.

Palestinian and Western meteorologists tracked December weather patterns for many years and concluded that the climate in this region has been essentially constant for at least the last 2,000 years. The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible states that, "broadly speaking, weather phenomena and climatic conditions as pictured in the Bible correspond with conditions as observed today" (R.B.Y. Scott, Vol. 3, Abingdon Press, Nashville, 1962, p. 625).

The temperature in and around Bethleham in December averages around 44 degrees Fahrenheit (7 degrees Celsius) but can drop to  below freezing, especially at night.  Snow is common for two or three days in Jerusalem and nearby Bethlehem in December and January. These were the winter months of increased precipitation at the time when the roads became practically unusable and people stayed mostly indoors.

This important piece of evidence along with the narration of Luke 2:8 stating: "Now there were in the same country shepherds living out in the fields keeping watch over their flock by night" goes much against a December birth date for Jesus.   A common practice of shepherds was keeping their flocks in the field from April to October, but in the cold and rainy winter months they took their flocks back home and sheltered them.

The Roman census presided by Roman officials took place every year by law in every province under Roman rule.  Census was also imposed on Syria and Judea (ancient name of a portion of Palestine) when these two provinces came under direct Roman rule.  It involved the enrollment of every citizen for evaluating their assets for tax purposes.  It was mandatory for every person living within the jurisdiction of the Roman Empire to participate in the census every year.

The Roman census recorded by Luke is yet another evidence arguing against a December birth.  Let us read the census described by Luke 2:1-7 that mentions: "And it came to pass in those days that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered... So all went to be registered, everyone to his own city. Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem..., to be registered with Mary, his betrothed wife, who was with child. So it was, that while they were there, the days were completed for her to be delivered. And she brought forth her firstborn son..."

Authors, historians and scholars argue that the Roman and Judean rulers knew that taking a census in winter would have been impractical and unpopular.  Generally a census would take place after the harvest season, around September or October, when it would not seriously affect the economy, the weather was good and the roads were still dry enough to allow easy travel. According to the dates for the Roman census, this would probably be the season of the birth of Jesus, son of Mary -- perhaps September or October.

It's important to know that in the first 200 years of Christian history, no mention is made of the calendar date of Jesus' birth.  Not until the year 336 A.D. does one find the first mention of a celebration of his birth.  Why this omission?  According to the church, for 3 centuries after Jesus, the event considered most worthy of commemoration was the date of his "death."  In comparison, the date of his birth was considered insignificant.  As the Encyclopedia Americana explains, "Christmas... was, according to many authorities, not celebrated in the first centuries of the Christian church, as the Christian usage in general was to celebrate the death of remarkable persons rather than their birth..." (1944 edition, "Christmas").  Origen, a Christian theologian in the early days of the Christian church (185-254 A.D.) strongly recommended against birthday celebrations. "In the Scriptures, no one is recorded to have kept a feast or held a great banquet on his birthday. It is only sinners who make great rejoicings over the day in which they were born into this world" (Catholic Encyclopedia, 1908 edition, Vol. 3, p. 724, "Natal Day").

Speculations on a specific date of birth of Jesus began as late as the 3rd and 4th centuries. A loud controversy arose among the various church leaders. Several of them were strongly opposed to such a celebration. During this time, eight specific dates during six different months were proposed by various theologians.  December 25th, although one of the last dates to be proposed, was the one finally accepted by the leadership of the Church in Rome.

Just as all authentic Biblical history is completely lost at present, so is the authentic birth date of Jesus, son of Virgin Mary. 

Saturday, December 22, 2012

Ablution washes away immorality? False and disgraceful Hadith!

This disgusting humbug from Hadith leaves me speechless.  Of course, it needs to be trashed immediately.  It is completely unauthentic.

Although the Noble Quran has made it crystal clear that wudu (ablution) is only for the purpose of physically cleansing ourselves prior to offering prayer, much to the contrary, Hadith insists that ablution washes away sins like tangible dirt resulting in one's complete innocence within minutes.  Is it that easy to attain piety from the view point of Hadith?

Please check the following FALSE narrations:

“Abu Huraira reported: Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: When a bondsman-a Muslim or a believer-washes his face (in course of ablution), every sin he contemplated with his eyes, will be washed away from his face along with water, or with the last drop of water; when he washes his hands, every sin they wrought will be effaced from his hands with the water, or with the last drop of water; and when he washes his feet, every sin towards which his feet have walked will be washed away with the water or with the last drop of water with the result that he comes out pure from all sins." (Muslim Book 2, Number 475)

“Usman b. ‘Affan reported: The Messenger of Allah (way peace be upon him) said: He who performed ablution well, his sins would come out from his body, even coming out from under his nails." (Muslim Book 2, Number 476)

“Ablution removes the sins of the face, mouth, and the nostrils…(Sahih Muslim, 4.1812)"  
It's also shameful that one of the above Hadiths have labelled Usman bin Affan as the narrator which is a lie.  Usman was the third righteous Caliph and he never concocted any such horribly sinful rules in blatant contradiction to the Noble Quran.
These disgusting Ahadith have had a shattering affect on the morals of many Muslims. 
Several staunch and selfish Hadithists are seriously convinced that no matter what they do, after they perform ablution, all of their Haram acts are erased.  Even if they realize the awfulness of such Hadith, they still adhere to it because it condones their Haram behavior and allows them to be misled by their lower desires.
These lies have made it simple for those who follow Satan to make light of their sins.  These lies mock the Noble Quran which emphasizes so greatly upon high morals and modesty.  These terrible lies deride the exemplary character of our beloved Prophet (sw) by FALSELY attributing distortions and deceit to him.  
The following is a SHOCKING excerpt from a document of a Hadithist posted at Scribd.

"The most important reward from ablution is that it is a cleansing process—not for the body itself, for, even after ablution plenty of dirt and pollution might stay in the body, but from all sins. In reality, a Muslim can commit any number of sins, and just by performing ablution all the sins committed prior to ablution will be expiated. Sahih Muslim (2.0476) writes that if you perform ablution all sins will come out of your body even from your nails. To entice the Muslims to the complete surrender to this endless daily ritual, Sahih Bukhari (1.4.161) writes that if a Muslim performs perfect ablution Allah forgives sins committed between two prayers. In Sahih Muslim (2.0475) we read that during ablution Allah forgives all sins (committed by eyes) for washing eyes. Ditto for hands, and other parts of the body.

The above few sentences will explain why many Muslim students/residents in non Muslim countries such as Australia, USA, Canada…and so on demand exclusive ablution facilities in campuses and in other public toilets. They want to do perfect ablution so that whatever sins they commit in infidel lands, such as doing sex with boy friend (infidel), girl friend (infidel), visiting brothels, watching pornography, drinking wine, eating non halal food, joining disco dancing, enjoying infidel parties. Having committed such sins, all they need is to perform a perfect ablution within twenty four hours to absolve themselves from the contrition.Then they can start all over again.

Mind you, the ritual of ablution does not always end with prayer. In Sunaan Abu Dawud (1.1.0220) we read that one must perform ablution between two sexual intercourses."


So this means that everyday they commit sins and every following day they "start all over again" only to commit the same sins all over again and that becomes a cycle.  These lowly and filthy hypocrites need a sound thrashing, don't they?! 

Abu Dawud is apparently trying to express that if anyone commits zina , it's okay as long as they perform ablution in between every such act of sin.  What a vulgar and despicable monster!  These writings only confirm that the  Hadith writers were a bunch of lowlife dirtbags and slimes otherwise it's impossible for anyone with an iota of decency to even conceive of such ideas, let alone write them for the purpose of being circulated.  This is pure Satanism on the Hell bound train!  

Complete REJECTION of the above Ahadith by the Noble Quran:

The Noble Quran categorically states:

"And those who, when they do an evil thing or wrong themselves, remember Allah and implore forgiveness for their sins - Who forgiveth sins save Allah only ? - and will not knowingly repeat (the wrong) they did. "  (4:17-18).

"Those who avoid enormities of sin and abominations, save the unwilled offences - (for them) lo! thy Lord is of vast mercy."  (53:32)

"And when they do some lewdness they say:  We found our fathers doing it and Allah enjoined it on us.  Say:  Allah verily enjoineth not lewdness.  Tell ye concerning Allah that which ye know not?"  (7:28).

We seek refuge in Allah, The Greatest, from all such gross misguidance by the evil ones.   Ameen ya Raab.

Thursday, December 20, 2012

HISTORY: Meyerling murder-suicide incident, not "suicide pact"

The Meyerling incident happened in Austria in the late 1800s within the "royal" circles.

The 30-year-old Austrian Crown Prince, Rudolf, the only son of emperor Franz, was married with a child but also had a mistress named Mary who was the daughter of one of the courtiers. 

Initially the emperor and his wife ignored their son's extra-marital affair.  But after a while when too many rumors began spreading, they opposed the relationship and adamantly told the crown prince to end it.  He was terribly upset.

Then .. some day in the winter of January 1889, crown prince Rudolf went to spend a few days in his hunting lodge at a place called Mayerling with his mistress, Mary.  He was also accompanied by his valet and a hunting companion.  The next morning when they didn't hear from the couple for a long time, the valet and the hunting companion had to break open the bedroom door to find the couple shot dead.

First a false rumor spread that he died of blockage of an artery in the heart.  But that sounded too unreal.  No one believed it.   And the question remained, how did his mistress die too?  

After a much closer and careful examination, the truth was disclosed only within the close circles.  Rudolf had first shot his mistress while she was asleep and then shot himself a little later.  The cause was his sadness for not being allowed to wed Mary.  But the official version disclosed to the public was a "suicide pact" although every shred of evidence was against it.    Though Mary was enjoying romancing with the prince as a frivolous teenage girl, yet she never expressed to anyone of her desire to kill herself for her lover's sake.   Neither was any evidence found that the prince shot her with her consent on the understanding that he would also shoot himself later.  Everyone who knew Mary were of the opinion that it was very unlikely, if not impossible, she would have agreed to that. 

Prince Rudolf was a jealous and possessive lover.  When he realized that his parents would never allow him to divorce his wife and marry his mistress, he couldn't bear the thought of his mistress going on her life without him and marrying someone else.  Committing suicide was not enough. He had to kill her too - a murder of passion.  

When Rudolf and Mary died, they were 30 and 17, respectively.  The love affair was supposed to have lasted for three years.  Thus, when the affair began, Mary was 14 and Rudolf 27.  Apart from being guilty of a murder of passion, according to the present European and North American laws, the crown prince of Austia was also a "pedophile."

Tuesday, December 4, 2012

Egypt's Morsi exposed beyond all doubts

How come Morsi grabbed sole legislative power last November disallowing the judiciary from striking down any of his laws or those of the Constituent Assembly?   Prior to that, he also kicked out the entire set of old military officers associated with Mubarak's regime. One might ask, how come the Egyptian military is so silent that has always played such a dominant role?

The answer to the queries is simple.  Here is how the trick is planned. On December 15, Morsi intends to put up a snap referendum on the draft constitution which not only establishes Salafist Sharia rule but also guarantees the Egyptian military complete power, benefits, control over its budget (it receives $2 billion/year from US) and almost total control over Egypt's foreign policy.  Furthermore, Egypt's peace deal with Israel and US financial assistance for the Egyptian army stays intact.  No wonder when Morsi curtailed the power of the judges (a move unthinkable to promote people's rule), Obama's administration ignored it and quietly looked the other way.    

When Morsi kicked out the top brass that worked closely with Mubarak, many unsuspecting Egyptians were happily duped.  They have been secretly hoping since long that the Egyptian "revolution" would eventually be a success, resembling the great Islamic Revolution of Iran 1979 granting total sovereignty to Egypt.  But the reality exposed is so different!  Those dozens of military officers associated with the old regime were booted out only to be replaced by the a new set of officers playing an identical role in the country's political arena. 

The snap referendum and draft constitution coming up are little beyond a decorative piece of window dressing to fool the Egyptians yet again. The old brass has been replaced with a new one with the same institutional and economic power - a change of faces, not a change of regime.  Morsi's promises have been confirmed as false.  The senior members of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood are not working with the Egyptian people, they are working with the Egyptian military which primarily supports Zionist interest (as Mubarak did), not the interest of the Egyptians.  It's surmised that several of Morsi's inner circle are just as puzzled over his actions as are the Egyptian people and those watching around the world.

Thousands of Egytians have been protesting against Morsi's recent move.  Juan Cole reports:

"The toll from fighting in Egypt between pro- and anti-Morsi activists all over Egypt was 2 dead, 451 wounded (160 or so police) and about 250 people were arrested on Sunday. (Most of the arrestees were from Muhammad Mahmoud St. off Tahrir Square in downtown Cairo.  Clashes and back and forth fighting continued all day Sunday in the Tahrir area, and the number of people camping out in tents increased." 

However, many who aren't supportive of Morsi haven't joined the protest against him for they are too fed up of the unrest that's been going on since February of 2011.  All they want is stability, no matter how it comes.  Wrapped up in their disgust and frustration, they forget to ask themselves realistically - how can stability be acquired in the presence of corrupt politics?  

Morsi's supporters have been wary, fearing that Morsi's plan might enable the opposition to awaken the Egyptian people.  To thwart the effort of the opposition, government supporters have been calling for mass confrontational rallies mainly from the Salafist segments of the country.  Almost all Egyptian Salafists and hardliners (which are many within the country) support Morsi despite his deceitful policy.  While rallying for Mubarak's ouster, members of the Muslim Brotherhood made plenty of promises and assurances to the people that they would never use the revolution as an opportunity to grab power.  They went to the extent of claiming they were not interested in political power at all and would never collaborate with pro-West and pro-Zionist elements.  All forgotten by the leaders and their supporters!  The shame is unspeakable!!  

Through the upcoming referendum, Morsi will try to seek support for his new constitution which is largely rejected as seen.  More than 20 members of the Constituent Assembly consisting of 100 members have quit already, accusing Morsi that he rigged the process of writing the new constitution with only the Muslim Brotherhood having a role in preparing it.  Supporters of the Freedom & Justice Party of Egypt (FJP) were particularly angry to see Morsi trying to grab absolute power, no different from his predecessor.  The big purpose of the snap referendum is to get the approval of FJP supporters by portraying the referendum as being a contest between "Islam and secularism."   In addition of all his other tricks, Mr. Morsi is also not refraining from using Islam as leverage for political gain. 

Though the next 10 days will be crucial, having the full support of the Egyptian military and the United States, Morsi will almost certainly get his way through.      

Wednesday, November 28, 2012

Erdogan's partnership with Barzani - this time the target is Baghdad

Tensions are mounting between Iraq and the autonomous Iraqi Kurdistan.  A car bomb yesterday in Kirkuk killed 5 and seriously wounded 16, carrying the fingerprints of the Kurdish militia.  Iraq and autonomous Kurdistan have deep disagreements over various issues mainly oil.  Kurdistan will bear the sole responsibility in case civil war breaks out in Iraq - not an impossibility - as Masoud Barzani has been behaving in defiance of the Iraqi constitution concerning his foreign policies and agreements on oil deals.  Barzani, a known stooge of the West, has signed agreements with various foreign oil companies without the approval of Baghdad.  According to the constitution, oil agreements must be concluded by the Central Government.  Iraqi Kurdistan is also making friendly overtures toward Israel which is flatly opposed to the policies of Baghdad.   All that make it fairly clear that Iraqi Kurdistan does not consider itself a part of Iraq any longer but an independent entity even though 17% of Iraq's oil revenue goes to Kurdistan.  At present, Baghdad has little or no control over border crossings and airports in Kurdistan.  The situation is getting serious more rapidly than expected.  

Though Turkey is infamously known for using excessive force repressing the movement of the PKK (Turkish Kurds) fighting for an independent homeland, in the conflict between the Iraqi Government and Iraqi Kurdistan, Turkey is firmly behind autonomous Kurdistan .. based on selfish interest of course .. big time!

Ever since Turkey promised the Gulf Arab leaders of co-operating with their foreign policies, it began financing and training Al Qaeda terrorists and dispatching them to Syria. Turkey's interference and the role of a trouble-maker in Iraq/Kurdistan conflict is very similar to its approach involving Syria.  Turkey is not happy with Nuri al-Malki's Shiia Government.  PM Erdogan has hardly been able to conceal his eagerness to replace it with a Sunni regime in Baghdad and thus derive maximum benefits of Iraqi natural resources.  And now, Turkey is using the Kurdish government as leverage against Baghdad.  In the meantime, close ties with Masoud Barzani with promises of supporting him against Iraq will help Turkey to benefit from the oil resources of Iraqi Kurdistan and just as important, it will also greatly sever ties of cooperation between the separatists of Turkish Kurdistan (PKK) with their counterparts in Iraqi Kurdistan.  Furthermore, as a bad neighbor it's very advantageous for Turkey to have a weak and unstable Iraq as that would make it easier for the regional powers to steal Iraq's enormous wealth and deprive her of an important position in the geopolitical sphere.

Another distasteful part of this story:  Tareq Hashemi, former Iraqi PM and a top Sunni Muslim official in Iraq's Shiite Muslim government, is now a fugitive in Iraq and wanted for terror related activities. He was sentenced to death in absentia in 2011 by an Iraqi court for running death squads in occupied Iraq against Shiia Muslims.   For quite sometime Hashemi hid in autonomous Kurdistan, protected by Barzani.  In April of 2012, he visited Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey.  In September 2012, Erdogan confirmed that he would not hand over Hashemi to Iraq and he could stay in Turkey as an asylum seeker for as long as he wanted.   Barzani, Erdogan and Hashemi make up the destructive trio rolling up their sleeves to once again wreck Iraq while imperialist leaders watch with pleasure. 

Iraqi officials have been fearful of a civil war if the Kurdish dispute continues unabated.  It's also an invitation to the U.S. to return and resume its occupation in Iraq.  Despite majority of the American people being against all occupations by their government, the type of growing political instability that's being pushed ahead in Iraq by autonomous Kurdistan in alliance with Turkey will give an excuse to the U.S. Government to convince its people and the world that U.S. presence in Iraq is necessary to maintain "peace and order."    

Saturday, November 17, 2012


Who started it?

By Patrick Higgins
November 15, 2012

For days now, Israel has been launching aerial attacks on Gaza, resulting in many dead and many injured. The attacks are part of a larger and massively depressing spectacle of a usurping colony forcing a population into a wall-enclosed ghetto and bombing them in the name of Judaism and the Jews.

A New York Times article, published November 14th reports on the death of Hamas military commander Ahmed Jabari, killed by one of Israel’s recent (“pinpoint,” according to the article) airstrikes. Naturally, the article makes sly non-mention of the others—including the children—killed in the strikes. One phrase in the article reflects the Israeli government’s logic regarding the matter: “The ferocity of the airstrikes, in response to what Israel called repeated rocket attacks by Gaza-based Palestinian militants…”

The article goes on to bolster this logic when considering the always-tenuous ceasefire between Hamas, the governing body of Gaza, and Israel:

“Since [2008-2009] Hamas has mostly adhered to an informal, if shaky, cease-fire and at times tried to enforce the smaller militant groups to stick to it. But in recent months, under pressure from some of the Gaza population for not avenging deadly Israeli airstrikes, it has claimed responsibility for participating in the firing of rockets.”

So the question posed is, Who started it? When one reads the above words, one gets the sense that the “starting” of “it” amounts to a recent phenomenon, and that the question’s answer is to be found in recent events, circa last weekend. This logic upheld by the Israeli government and the U.S.’s “newspaper of record” is also upheld by—I apologize in advance for the astonishing lack of surprise here—the U.S. government.

At the end of his presidency, George W. Bush justified Operation Cast Lead—Israel’s massacre of around 1,400 Palestinians—by saying Hamas started it by breaking a ceasefire with rocket fire.

First of all, that was never even true. Israel broke the ceasefire on November 4th 2008, when it raided the Gaza Strip and killed six Hamas members. The raid was reported by the Guardian at the time. The event wasn’t really mentioned in the mainstream discussion of the U.S., which reveals something about the predominant U.S. attitude towards Israel and Gaza.

Supporters of Israel often brag about how Israel “withdrew” from Gaza, as if Gaza’s transition from formally occupied territory to open-air prison constituted a grand Israeli peace effort. But Israel breaches Gazan territory at will and becomes quite pestered when it’s met with resistance for doing so. This is perhaps unexceptional. Israel’s sponsor, the United States, similarly believes it owns everything and can do what it likes to whatever territories at any time. Just think of its vast drone network, always busy murdering civilians in places from Pakistan to Yemen.

Technically, Hamas and other Palestinian factions in Gaza offered Israel a truce as recently as November 12th. But let’s ask the question in a deeper sense: Who started it?

The question is easily answered, but it should be asked with more specificity: Who started the murderous settler-colonialism? (“Murderous settler-colonialism” is redundant, but I will nonetheless employ the phrase to make the point as clear as possible.)

Israel did, of course. The question of settler-colonialism is important. It clarifies. After all, settler-colonialism is a process. In Palestine, it’s always underway. More important to note is that it’s always violent.

Built into the settler-colonialist project is a plan to separate the people of the subject population from each other, severing individuals from their communities. In order for this to occur, the subject population’s present must become its past and that past must then be erased. This happens both through appropriation and through sheer destruction.

Sheer destruction is another art Israel has learned exceptionally well from its sponsor, the United States. One task undertaken by settler-colonialists in the U.S. was the mass extermination of North American bison (which, unbeknownst to far too many, still goes on today), dramatically changing the land that Native Americans knew so intimately. Similarly, Israel has for years been undertaking the mass extermination of olive trees, dramatically changing the land that Palestinians knew so intimately.

Indeed, the U.S. and Israel share values. Moreover, they share tactics. Their special relationship is drenched in a common genre of imagery: the imagery of death, as evidenced by the countless corpses of buffalo and olive trees, to say nothing of the countless corpses of people.

The blockade of Gaza is one form the violence of Israel’s settler-colonialism has taken. It’s not commonly regarded as violence in the U.S. After all, supporters of the U.S.’s sanctions on Iran so often consider them alternatives to violence.

Actually, sanctions are horrifyingly violent. The 500,000 Iraqi children murdered by Bill Clinton’s sanctions in the 1990s are testament to the fact that those seeking to “cripple” economies are seeking to starve children.

The reality is the same in Gaza. One report by the United Nations has declared that it will become “unlivable” by 2020 if present conditions continue. Under these conditions, perpetual and vicious, rockets—made with the few materials to which access is possible—are resistance symbols, declarations of struggle, promises that Israel’s violence will not be accepted by Gaza, despite the military power of the forces arranged against it.  

In summation, those who observe the violence in Palestine and feel compelled to scream to Palestinians about the necessity of recognizing Israel’s right to exist either cannot or will not recognize murderous settler-colonialism.

How about that question: Does Israel have a right to exist?

It is not typically good form to answer a question with a question, but because this particular question is a trick, I feel comfortable doing so. So: Can “Israel” be separated from the murderous settler-colonialism in which it has been engaged since its foundation?

Let’s suppose the answer is no. By that I mean that the Palestinian right of return continues to be denied and Israel’s racist system built on paranoia over demographics continues its violence. In that case, the answer to the question of whether Israel has a right to exist is as easy as the answer to the question of whether murderous settler-colonialism has a right to exist.

That is answer is no.


Not a chance.

Some images of the stench of death all around Gaza - mid November 2012 - if you can muster the courage to see these heart wrenching images!  Just a few of children out of many, many more of people of all ages, slaughtered, maimed. 

Interior Ministry Gaza - Nov.16, 2012.

A mother saying goodbye.

On November 16, Gaza PM Ismail Haniya said farewell in Twitter along with
reciting the Shahadah, in case he is unable to survive the madness of Israel's
indiscriminate attacks on Gaza.

This 15-month-old baby died shortly this picture was taken.

A man saying goodbye to his young family.

That's called bravery and perseverance!

20,000 Iranian Basij forces have expressed their readiness to be deployed to Gaza.

Gaza burns - more than 20 Israeli air raids within a few mintues, Nov.16, 2012.

President al-Assad directs the Ministry of Information full-time for the transfer of
the proceedings of the aggression on Gaza.  Syria was the first (and only) Arab country
to raise her voice against Israeli mass murder in Gaza while Morsi of Egypt despite its
connections to Hamas through Muslim Brotherhood has shown no "brotherhood" toward


Monday, November 12, 2012

Obama starts his new term with appreciation of the Myanmar killers

Assalaam Alaikum dear sisters, brothers and friends.  The situation of Rohingya Muslims is uniquely difficult and extremely genocidal in Burma.  The awful genocide that began in June 2012 shows no signs of getting any less intense.

The Rohingya Muslims are subjected to color-coded citizenship which no law in the world has yet implemented except Nazi Germany and the Zionist state of Israel.

Burma is the ancestral land of the Rohingya Muslims; yet they have been declared homeless and stateless on their own land by the fascist Buddhist regime zealously patronized by the West.

The brutal treatment of the Rohingya Muslims by the Buddhist fascists is religiously motivated.  Additionally, the fascists have also brought the issue of race despite the fact the the Rohingya Muslims are ethnically Burmese.  The Burmese fascist government and opposition have labelled the Rohingyas as the "dark skinned" people as if this can justify murder.  Absolutely staggering !!

To make matters still worse, the role played by neighboring Bangladesh has been shameful, to say the least.  Instead of helping their innocent Muslim brethren fleeing one of the world's most horrific genocides, the Bangladesi authorities have refused to give asylum of the Rohingyas.  Not just that, but they have also disallowed any charity to be offered to those few Rohingyas who are taking refuge in the border villages of Bangladesh and Burma.  The Banglades authorities went as far as arresting a Turkish parliamentarian who visited the Rohingya refugee areas of Bangladesh recently and offered them some sacrificial meat during the occasion of Eid-al-Adha.  Absolutley unspeakable !!

President Barack Obama who was given a second term at the White House after winning a pointless and orchestrated "election" will be the first American president to visit Burma by end November 2012.  This man will be the first president in the world who, after winning a "democratic" election, will pay a friendly visit to a land guilty of murdering over 60,000 Rohingya Muslims since June 2012 which it officially acknowledges to be religiously & racially motivated.  Obama has not yet spoken a  word on the systematic and bloody persecution of Burma's minorities.  Obama's visit to Burma will be a clear endorsement of Burma's  brazen fascism in the name of a "reformist state."   Injustice, lies and deceit must not be so very boundless !!!!

Amnesty International is planning a rally to urge President Obama not to forget human rights while in Burma. The rally will be from noon to 1:30 p.m. Thursday, Nov. 15 outside the White House, in Lafayette Park. Amnesty is urging the president to meet with the victims of human rights abuses and with ethnic minority leaders, including the Rohingya, while in Burma. They are also appealing to the president to call for an immediate stop to abuses against the Rohingyas.  Of course the demands of Amnesty International will fall on deaf ears.  But speaking up is better than staying mute like a stupid dummies.

Extra ordinary human rights concerns have been raised by countless organizations in the United States, the European Union and U.N. human rights investigators - ALL BLACKED OUT BY THE MAINSTREAM WESTERN MEDIA !!!!   What "free" and "fair" countries we are living in, aren't we ??

For all uncencored information on the truth about the merciless killings of Rohingyas in Burma (Myanmar) you won't find in the government controlled media, visit the website BURMA TASK FORCE:


Friday, November 2, 2012

Emergence of the Ommayads and the beginning of the end of Islam

The Ommayad dynasty that came to power in 661 AD is the root of Sunni Islam.


The Ommayads are also commonly referred to as the "Arab kingdom" reflecting disapproval of the secular nature of the Omayyad state.  Unlike their predecessors, the Ommayads were hardly focused on the Quranic ideology. They concentrated on developing their empire economically and politically through ways and means that benefited them, regardless of principles.

The Ommayad dynasty was the first hereditary system of governance established in the Muslim world after Prophet Muhammad (sw) and his four immediate successors, Abu Bakr, Umar, Usman and Ali.  Needless to say, kingships and rule of the "royals" are completely contrary to Quranic principles.


The tribe of Qureysh has two major clans - Banu Hashim and its rival, Banu Ommaya.  The Prophet (sw) belonged to Banu Hashim.

Banu Omayyah means, "sons of Omayyah."  The name "Ommayad" dynasty is derived from Ommaya bin Abd-Shams (a pagan name meaning, "slave of the sun"). This man was the great-grandfather of the first Omayyad caliph, Muawiyah bin Abu Sufian.  The Ommayads were also known by their pagan family title, "Banu abd-Shams."


Abu Sufian was the father of the first Ommayad ruler, Muawiyah, and the leader of Mecca in pre-Islamic Arabia when the Prophet (sw) had set up the first Islamic Government in Medina.   Thus, Abu Sufian was one of the Prophet's arch enemies. 

Abu Sufian of the Ummayad clan came from a merchant family and was the governor of Mecca when the Prophet (sw) immigrated to Medina. Most of the invasions against the Prophet (sw) carried out by the idolaters of Mecca were done under the leadership of Abu Sufian. When Abu Sufian eventually converted to Islam after the peaceful conquest of Mecca, he did so not on the basis of any grand principles but for materialistic reasons and a prosperous political future for his family. Abu Sufian's enemity and crimes against Medina were so many that soon after the conquest of Mecca he fled the city. He returned some weeks later after being told that the Prophet (sw) had granted general amnesty to everyone in Mecca. The conquest of Mecca is also known as the Prophet's (sw) victory over the Ommayads.

During the entire lifetime of the Prophet (S), Abu Sufian remained a bitter enemy of Islam and the Prophet (sw). He viewed the Prophet as a threat to his power and as a "blasphemer of Qureysh gods."  The enemity between the two clans of Banu Hashim and Banu Ommaya deepened after the Battle of Badr in which the Ommayads were defeated with Abu Sufian as their chief.


-  Muawiyah (son of Abu Sufian) - The first "king" of the Ommayad dynasty, and a shrewd and unethical politiican.

-  Yazid (son of Muawiyah) - The second "king" of the Ommayad dynasty who ordered the murder of Imam Hussein, grandson of the Prophet, on the field of Karbala.  Yazid looked upon the rising popularity of Hussein as a threat to himself.

-   Hind (wife of Abu Sufian) who planned and executed the killing of the Prophet's uncle, Hamza, by brutally mutilating his body on the battlefield of Uhad. 

Also, the wife of Abu Lahab (another arch enemy of the Prophet who has been condemned by name in the Quran) was the sister of Abu Sufian.  
  Going through the annals of history, we are informed of the basic practices introduced by the Ommayads which are vivid examples of internal strife, feuds, murders, concept of "family nobility" etc., a political and social set-up that were very similar to pre-Islamic Arabia. These were abolished by Prophet Muhammed (sw) based on the commandments and principles of the Glorious Quran, but were unfortunately and gradually re-introduced by the leaders of Banu Ommaya after the passing away of the fourth Caliph, Imam Ali.  It ushers an era noted in history as the start of the destruction of Islamic values. 


Soon after the conquest of Mecca, the power-hungry and ambitious Ommayads remained silent for a while. After the passing away of the Prophet (S), they re-ignited their old conflicts with those loyal to the Prophet as a symbol of their rejection of the authority of Banu Hashim. Their hostilities became intense after the assassination of the third righteous Caliph, Osman bin Affan.   Caliph Osman belonged to the Ommayad clan.  But he ignored the tradition of tribal loyalty and was a staunch loyalist of the Prophet.   Muawiyah bin Abu Sufian manipulated Caliph Osman's family ties to Banu Ommaya and used the tragic event of his assassination of blame Imam Ali (Osman's successor) for not doing enough to nab and punish his murderers.

Both Arab historians and the orientalists have come up with their own versions on Osman's policy as the Caliph.  Some have hinted at political nepotism based on clan connections that Caliph Osman (though inadvertently) helped to consolidate Muawiyah's power by making him the governor of Syria with control of areas in that region.  Though Muwiyah was the governor of Syria during this period, there is no reliable historical evidence that Muawiyah received any special favors from Caliph Osman.   What we do know for sure is:  Keeping in line with the Prophet's method of administration and that of his immediate predecessors, Caliph Osman did NOT name his successor - a clear indication that Osman did not support the hereditary system of governance either.

Imam Ali succeeded Osman.  He was chosen as the fourth Caliph by the Shura or the Counsel. At this time, Muawiyah, the son of Abu Sufian, was the governor of Syria. He wanted to grab power from Ali whom he saw as his arch political rival. Ali faced a long and difficult time with civil wars and differences among various factions primarily because of Muawiyah's very scheming and destructive intentions.


The first civil war or "fitna" was fought between Ali and a man called Talha in which Ali was victorious.

After Ali's victory at the Battle of the Camel, another civil war in late 656 AD, most of the Arab garrisons shifted to his side in opposition to the Omayyads, whose supporters were concentrated in the province of Syria and Mecca. 

Muawiyah indulged in plenty of intrigues and political games. Just as Ali was on the verge of routing the Omayyad forces at the battle of Siffin in 657 AD, he was won over by a plea for mediation of the dispute. Imam Ali's decision to accept arbitration was fatal to his cause. Some of his most fervent adherents rejected his leadership and rebelled. This gave the opportunity to the Ommayads to re-group themselves and takeover Egypt. In 660 AD, Muawiya, now the leader of the Omayyads, was proclaimed "caliph" in Jerusalem, thereby directly challenging Ali's position. A year later, Ali was tragically assassinated.

The people of Kufa (capital of Ali's caliphate in Iraq) pledged allegiance to his eldest son Hasan. But, by this time Muawiyah commanded large areas of the Arabian peninsula, the region of Palestine and Egypt. He declared himself 'caliph' and marched his army into Iraq, the seat of Hasan's caliphate. Hasan was pressured by the Omayyads into renouncing his claims to the caliphate.


Quoting an excerpt from Wikipedia - "Muawiyah's hostilities toward Ali"

"Muawiyah's army invaded and plundered cities of Iraq, which Ali's governors could not prevent and people did not support him to fight with them. Muawiyah overpowered Egypt, Hejaz, Yemen and other areas. .... Muawiyah's vicious conduct of the war revealed the nature of his reign. As for the people, except for a small minority, the majority supported Ali. They distrusted and opposed Muawiyah."

Another excerpt from Wikipedia - "Subversive schemes of Muawiyah to topple Hasan"

"War ensued during which Muawiyah gradually subverted the generals and commanders of Hasan's army with large sums of money and deceiving promises until the army rebelled against him. Finally, Hasan was forced to make peace and to yield the caliphate to Muawiyah. In this way Muawiyah captured the Islamic caliphate and in every way possible placed the severest pressure upon Ali's family. Regular public cursing of Imam Ali in the congregational prayers remained a vital institution which was not abolished until 60 years later by Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz. Muawiyah also established the Omayyad caliphate which was a centralized monarchy."

German historian, Wilferd Madelung, writes:

"Omayyad highhandedness, misrule and repression were gradually to turn the minority of Ali's admirers into a majority. In the memory of later generations Ali became the ideal Commander of the Faithful. In face of the fake Omayyad claim to legitimate sovereignty in Islam as God's Vice-regents on earth, and in view of Omayyad treachery, arbitrary and divisive government, and vindictive retribution, they came to appreciate his [Ali's] honesty, his unbending devotion to the reign of Islam, his deep personal loyalties, his equal treatment of all his supporters, and his generosity in forgiving his defeated enemies."


Some Eighty percent of the 1.3 billion Muslims around the world at present follow the concepts instilled by the Ommayad rulers after the systematic destruction of the infrastructure established by the Prophet (sw).  They replaced Islam in original with a pirated brand followed by plenty of annexations by a chain of despots.  The Ommayad rulers had an autocratic trend similar to the pre-Islamic tribal leaders of Mecca. Because of their numerous political blunders, they were in need of the theory of Predestination (humans are not responsible for their deeds) that starkly contradicts one of the basic concepts of the Noble Quran.  For references, check Quranic verses 13:11, 8:23, 8:29, 8:53 and most importantly 91:8-10.   No surprise that more than 13 centuries have passed yet the school known as "Sunnism" is only sliding from bad to worse, proudly using acts of corruption, treachery and extravagance as the ideals of life.

Much too tragic for words !! 

Sunday, October 21, 2012

From Syria to Lebanon - a carefully planned "spillover"

No one claimed responsibility for the assassination of the Lebanese security chief, Wissam al-Hassan, in Beirut on October 19.  Yet BBC reported that the assassination "is a message to anti-Syria Lebanese to fall inline or they're next" despite the fact that only a week earlier CIA's FSA (Free Syrian Army aka al-Qaeda) vowed that it would carry out bombings in Lebanon to widen its terrorist activities in the region.  There have been three deadly attacks during three consecutive days including the killing of the Lebanese security chief. 

- Oct.19 - car explosion in Beirut killing Wisssam al-Hassan;
- Oct.20 - car explosion in the Christian quarters of Damascus;
- Oct.21 - car explosion in a police station of Damascus.

The FSA (mostly consisting of Al-Qaeda fighters), trained by the GCC and heavily funded by CIA and MI6, has recently expressed its intention to spread terrorist attacks in neighboring Lebanon as well.   It's prime target - Hezbollah.

A representative of FSA who spoke to the  London-based daily newspaper Ash-Sharq-al-Awsat stating that the "FSA would expand the proxy war in Syria to 'the heart' of Beirut’s southern suburb of Dahiyeh," a Hezbollah stronghold.

 FSA is reportedly holding 13 members of Hezbollah captive in Homs. 

No better example of casting stones from a glasshouse.  While the U.S. is heavily involved in a terrible proxy war against Syria and training hardened terrorists to unleash chaos and destruction, last month it accused Hezbollah of "deep involvement" in Syria and assisting Assad's Government.  As surmised by most analysts, the purpose of this accusation was apparently to impose sanctions on Syria. 

Hezbollah has already signed a declaration with the Lebanese Government confirming that it would keep Lebanon out of this conflict;  Lebanon's stance has thus been very neutral. Despite that, a large number of armed men comprising of the FSA's Al-Qaeda hoodlums have barged into Lebanon territory twice, attacking a Lebanese army post in the North along its border with Syria last September.   

Earlier this month, a large number of CIA's proxy fighters were killed at the Lebanon / Syria border.

It's interesting to read the findings of investigative journalist, Seymour Hersh, back in 2007 that such a strategy was already in the pipeline.  Efforts were underway by the United States, Israel, and Saudi Arabia to assemble an 'army' of extremist-mercenaries to confront Hezbollah, destabilize and overthrow Assad in Syria and create a united front of Sunni fanatics against Iran. 

Another excellent analysis by Tony Cartalucci on Global Research in May 2012 titled "Lebanon's Turn?" is worth reading.  Quote: "The forces recruited for this effort would come from the ranks of the CIA-created 'Arab foreign legion,' Al Qaeda itself – extremist groups fresh back from fighting US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, including listed terror organizations like the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) from Libya ....... While being depicted as violence 'spilling over' from Syria, it is clear that the violence is indigenous, sectarian in nature, and directly related to the larger conflict envisioned by US-Israeli-Saudi machinations in 2007 – pitting Sunnis against Shi’ia."

A smart leader like Hassan Nasrullah of Hezbollah had sensed exactly the same.  Almost 5 years ago, he accused Bush and his White House cronies working with Israel to "instigate fitnah"  (insurrection and fragmentation within Islam).   

Needless to say, if you piece together the observations of Hersh, Cartalucci and Nasrullah, the efforts of the West, GCC leaders and their mercenaries are identical at present as we watch and read almost daily.   The process is underway with the possibility of getting far worse in future, and the spillover being beyond Lebanon.

Al-Qaeda's nuisance value has been America's greatest savior.  "A friend in need is a friend indeed."   To ignite sectarian violence and an atmosphere of polarization across the Middle-East has long been an American dream.  Its acknowledgement by a member of the Council of Foreign Relations (CFR) confirms it beyond all doubts.   CFR is one of the most crooked and calculating independent organizations within the US that provides "daily analysis of foreign policy issues facing the nation."  Ed Husain of the CFR and an expert in Middle-East studies writes: "The Syrian rebels would be immeasurably weaker today without al-Qaeda in their ranks .. The influx of jihadis brings discipline, religious fervor, battle experience from Iraq, funding from Sunni sympathizers in the Gulf, and most importantly, deadly results."   That says it all.