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

"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, 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 !!