Tuesday, February 13, 2018

US Acknowledges a New Age of World Competition.

<a change from "war on terror">

Though it assumes to be strong, offensive and decisive, the national security strategy (known as NSS) document released by US president Donald trump a week ago is defensive in nature, realistic in content, and somehow contradictory.
The document acknowledges a very important point as it recognizes that USA is entering a new age, an age of competition with other world rival powers, namely Russia and China.
The strategy has assigned four important strategic goals for Washington to:
1- protect the American people, land, and way of life.
2- promote American prosperity.
3- preserve peace through strength.
4- advance American influence.
To achieve this, USA has designated its rivalries and enemies. Atop of its rivalries come Russia and China, whereby Washington should engage against both of them. USA accused Russia, in collaboration with Iran of trying to displace her from the Middle East, while it accused China of attempting the same thing in East Asia. It went further; accusing the two states of attempting to undermine US system of values and norms.
Iran and North Korea had their shares of American hostility; depicted as two rogue states using Bush administration terminology, the US promised to build partnerships and alliances to thwart their attempts to target America.
Iran was prioritized as a top threat to American interests along with Russia and China; Hezbollah, portrayed by America as a terrorist organization, was equally put under active surveillance with promises to neutralize its capabilities and disrupt its actions.
The document has designated the responsibilities that Washington opt to shoulder under two categories: high politics and low politics, high politics are those which involve confronting Russia, China, Iran and North Korea and what Washington calls the terrorist organizations. While low politics are issues related to disputes with US allies over the climate, commerce, immigration and issues of similar nature.
The document does not convey an American policy of warfare, nor it promises to engage in military confrontations with enemies, it rather stresses the necessity to build alliances and partnerships to involve others with this responsibility.
It is apparent that Washington under Trump is seeking to build a deterrence force that could defend America and its interests without dragging itself into open military confrontations.
America wants to perpetuate itself and come into revivalism period under trump, yet this has drawn harsh criticism from his opponents, how come this could be materialized when trump shuns allies, draw hostilities and gather enemies at one time, and dream to regain the US majesty at a time when he applies inappropriate policies, like the immigration hardline policy!
The document was inked as a blue print, it is an achievement to Trump due to its comprehensive and organized nature, and the short time he took to produce it, compared to other US presidents. All this is true, that not all what is written on paper could be materialized in reality. This prompted some to describe the document as virtual and illusory; nonetheless, it continues to be considered one of the strategic documents that guides the US administration actions that are in most times misguided.
Source: Al-Manar Website

Thursday, August 3, 2017

Trump Considers Prolonging Afghan War to Secure $1 Trillion in Untapped Mineral Deposits

3 Aug 2017 - On Wednesday, two U.S. soldiers died in Afghanistan after a suicide car bomber rammed a NATO-led convoy near a major U.S. base in Kandahar. The attack came a day after at least 33 worshipers died when suicide bombers attacked a Shiite mosque in the city of Herat. The self-proclaimed Islamic State claimed responsibility for the attack. The latest round of violence comes as The New York Times reports that Trump may have found a reason to prolong the nearly 16-year-old war: Afghanistan's untapped mineral deposits, which could be worth nearly $1 trillion. Trump reportedly discussed Afghanistan's vast deposits of minerals with Afghan President Ashraf Ghani and is considering sending an envoy to Afghanistan to meet with mining officials. We speak with Jodi Vittori, senior policy adviser for Global Witness on Afghanistan policy. Jodi spent 20 years in the U.S. military, where she served in several countries, including Afghanistan. She has received numerous military awards, including two Bronze Stars. We also speak with Kathy Kelly, co-coordinator of Voices for Creative Nonviolence, a campaign to end U.S. military and economic warfare.

Sunday, July 23, 2017

The Fiqhi Fact of The Fiat Fiasco

A talk by Ustaz Noor Deros during MMJ Seminar in 3rd Dec 2016 in IIUM Gombak.

Saturday, July 22, 2017

A Bill to Criminalised any BDS supporter.

Di euro ada undang2 - Criminalised Holocaust deniers. Di usa kini ada bill nak di jadikan undang2 - Criminalised penyokong BDS terhadap Israel.

Will it be a Felony in America? — Democracy Now news July 21, 2017

Monday, June 26, 2017

SHR 1438 : keluarga anakmatlesen

- Keluarga di Alor Setar Njang & Arwah Kak Ah

Maaf tak dapat nak dapatkan iframe widget untuk "get it embedded", mungkin pasal privacy setting! Url (Universal link located), click di sana untuk lihat video.
kalau nak lihat kena copy the link & place dalam navigation bar / (bagi google) omnibox!

- Keluarga Besan (Mll Zam/Inaq) Arwah Kak Ton

- Keluarga Na

Wednesday, June 21, 2017

A brief on Kashmir:

Novelist Arundhati Roy on Kashmir 
For decades, Kashmir has been one of the most militarized zones in the world. It’s also a territory that, according to acclaimed Indian writer Arundhati Roy, is nearly impossible to capture in nonfiction writing. But Roy has not shied away from writing about Kashmir in her second novel, "The Ministry of Utmost Happiness," which has just been published. Excerpt from - DN https://youtu.be/C6UvWvFJqkw

Qiblat Fasting & War - history: By Sheikh Imran N Hosein

Excerpt from - Importance of Ramadan Part 2 By Sheikh Imran N Hosein https://youtu.be/gcavfND3rOo

Friday, February 10, 2017

Exposing the Myths of Neoliberal Capitalism:

An Interview With Ha-Joon Chang

Wednesday, February 08, 2017By C.J. Polychroniou, Truthout | Interview

Author and economics professor Ha-Joon Chang. (Photo: New America; Edited: LW / TO)
Author and economics professor Ha-Joon Chang. (Photo: New America; Edited: LW / TO)
For the part 40 years or so, neoliberalism has reigned supreme over much of the western capitalist world, producing unparalleled wealth accumulation levels for a handful of individuals and global corporations while the rest of society has been asked to swallow austerity, stagnating incomes and a shrinking welfare state. But just when we all thought that the contradictions of neoliberal capitalism had reached their penultimate point, culminating in mass discontent and opposition to global neoliberalism, the outcome of the 2016 US presidential election brought to power a megalomaniac individual who subscribes to neoliberal capitalist economics while opposing much of its global dimension.
What exactly then is neoliberalism? What does it stand for? And what should we make of Donald Trump's economic pronouncements? In this exclusive interview, world-renowned Cambridge University Professor of Economics Ha-Joon Chang responds to these urgent questions, emphasizing that despite Donald Trump's advocacy of "infrastructure spending" and his opposition to "free trade" agreements, we should be deeply concerned about his economic policies, his embrace of neoliberalism and his fervent loyalty to the rich.
C. J. Polychroniou: For the past 40 or so years, the ideology and policies of "free-market" capitalism have reigned supreme in much of the advanced industrialized world. Yet, much of what passes as "free-market" capitalism are actually measures designed and promoted by the capitalist state on behalf of the dominant factions of capital. What other myths and lies about "actually existing capitalism" are worth pointing out?
Ha-Joon Chang: Gore Vidal, the American writer, once famously said that the American economic system is "free enterprise for the poor and socialism for the rich." I think this statement very well sums up what has passed for 'free-market capitalism' in the last few decades, especially but not only in the US. In the last few decades, the rich have been increasingly protected from the market forces, while the poor have been more and more exposed to them.
For the rich, the last few decades have been "heads I win, tails you lose." Top managers, especially in the US, sign on pay packages that give them hundreds of millions of dollars for failing -- and many times more for doing a decent job. Corporations are subsidised on a massive scale with few conditions -- sometimes directly but often indirectly through government procurement programs (especially in defense) with inflated price tags and free technologies produced by government-funded research programs. After every financial crisis, ranging from the 1982 Chilean banking crisis through the Asian financial crisis of 1997 to the 2008 global financial crisis, banks have been bailed out with hundreds of trillions of dollars of taxpayers' money and few top bankers have gone to prison. In the last decade, the asset-owning classes in the rich countries have also been kept afloat by historically low rates of interests.
In contrast, poor people have been increasingly subject to market forces.
In the name of increasing "labor market flexibility," the poor have been increasingly deprived of their rights as workers. This trend has reached a new level with the emergence of the so-called "gig economy," in which workers are bogusly hired as "self-employed" (without the control over their work that the truly self-employed exercise) and deprived of even the most basic rights (e.g., sick leave, paid holiday). With their rights weakened, the workers have to engage in a race to the bottom in which they compete by accepting increasingly lower wages and increasingly poor working conditions.
In the area of consumption, increasing privatization and deregulation of industries supplying basic services on which the poor are relatively more reliant upon -- like water, electricity, public transport, postal services, basic health care and basic education -- have meant that the poor have seen a disproportionate increase in the exposure of their consumption to the logic of the market. In the last several years since the 2008 financial crisis, welfare entitlements have been reduced in many countries and the terms of their access (e.g., increasingly ungenerous "fitness for work tests" for the disabled, the mandatory training for CV-making for those receiving unemployment benefits) have become less generous, driving more and more poor people into labor markets they are not fit to compete in.
As for the other myths and lies about capitalism, the most important in my view is the myth that there is an objective domain of the economy into which political logic should not intrude. Once you accept the existence of this exclusive domain of the economy, as most people have done, you get to accept the authority of the economic experts, as interlocutors of some scientific truths about the economy, who will then dictate the way your economy is run.
However, there is no objective way to determine the boundary of the economy because the market itself is a political construct, as shown by the fact that it is illegal today in the rich countries to buy and sell a lot of things that used to be freely bought and sold -- such as slaves and the labor service of children.
In turn, if there is no objective way to draw the boundary around the economy, when people argue against the intrusion of political logic into the economy, they are in fact only asserting that their own 'political' view of what belongs in the domain of the market is somehow the correct one.
It is very important to reject the myth of [an] inviolable boundary of the economy, because that is the starting point of challenging the status quo. If you accept that the welfare state should be shrunk, labor rights have to be weakened, plant closures have to be accepted, and so on because of some objective economic logic (or "market forces," as it is often called), it becomes virtually impossible to modify the status quo.
Austerity has become the prevailing dogma throughout Europe, and it is high on the Republican agenda. If austerity is also based on lies, what is its actual objective?
A lot of people -- Joseph Stiglitz, Paul Krugman, Mark Blyth and Yanis Varoufakis, to name some prominent names -- have written that austerity does not work, especially in the middle of an economic downturn (as it was practised in many developing countries under the World Bank-IMF Structural Adjustment Programs in the 1980s and the 1990s and more recently in Greece, Spain and other Eurozone countries).
Many of those who push for austerity do so because they genuinely (albeit mistakenly) believe that it works, but those who are smart enough to know that it doesn't still would use it because it is a very good way of shrinking the state (and thus giving more power to the corporate sector, including the foreign one) and changing the nature of state activities into a pro-corporate one (e.g., it is almost always welfare spending that goes first).
In other words, austerity is a very good way of pushing through a regressive political agenda without appearing to do so. You say you are cutting spending because you have to balance the books and put the house in order, when you are actually launching an attack on the working class and the poor. This is, for example, what the Conservative-Liberal Democrats coalition government in the UK said when it launched a very severe austerity program upon assuming power in 2010 -- the country's public finance at the time was such that it did not need such a severe austerity program, even by the standards of orthodox economics.
What do you make of all the talk about the dangers of public debt? How much public debt is too much?
Whether public debt is good or bad depends on when the money was borrowed (better if it were during an economic downturn), how the borrowed money was used (better if it was used for investment in infrastructure, research, education, or health than military expenditure or building useless monuments), and who holds the bonds (better if your own nationals do, as it will reduce the danger of a "run" on your country -- for example, one reason why Japan can sustain very high levels of public debt is that the vast majority of its public debts are held by the Japanese nationals).
Of course, excessively high public debt can be a problem, but what is excessively high depends on the country and the circumstances. So, for example, according to the IMF data, as of 2015, Japan has public debt equivalent to 248 percent of GDP but no one talks of the danger of it. People may say Japan is special and point out that in the same year the US had public debt equivalent to 105 percent of GDP, which is much higher than that of, say,South Korea (38 percent), Sweden (43 percent), or even Germany (71 percent), but they may be surprised to hear that Singapore also has public debt equivalent to 105 percent of GDP, even though we hardly hear any worry about public debt of Singapore.
A number of well-respected economists are arguing that the era of economic growth has ended. Do you concur with this view?
A lot of people now talk of a "new normal" and a "secular stagnation" in which high inequality, aging population, and deleveraging (reduction in debt) by the private sector lead to chronically low economic growth, which can only be temporarily boosted by financial bubbles that are unsustainable in the long run.
Given that these causes can be countered by policy measures, secular stagnation is not inevitable. Aging can be countered by policy changes that make work and child-rearing more compatible (e.g., cheaper and better childcare, flexible working hours, career compensation for childcare) and by increased immigration. Inequality can be countered by more aggressive tax-and-transfer policy and by better protection for the weak (e.g., urban planning protecting small shops, supports for SMEs). Deleveraging by the private sector can be countered by increased government spending, as the Japanese experience of the last quarter century shows.
Of course, saying that secular stagnation can be countered is different from saying that it will be countered. For example, the quickest policy that can counter ageing -- that is, increased immigration -- is politically unpopular. In many rich countries, the alignment of political and economic forces is such that it will be difficult to reduce inequality significantly in the short- to medium-run. The current fiscal dogma is such that fiscal expansion seems unlikely in most countries in the near future.
Thus, in the short- to medium-run, low growth seems very likely. However, this does not mean that this will forever be the case. In the longer run, the changes in politics and thus, economic policies may change policies in such a way that the causes of "secular stagnation" are countered to a significant extent. This highlights how important the political struggle to change economic policies is.
What is your professional opinion of Donald Trump's proposed economic policies, which clearly embrace neoliberalism and all sort of shenanigans for the rich but oppose global "free-trade" agreements, and what do you expect to happen when they collide with Ryan's austerity budget?
Mr. Trump's plan for American economic revival is still vague, but, as far as I can tell, it has two main planks -- making American corporations create more jobs [at] home and increasing infrastructural investments.
The first plank seems rather fanciful. He says that he will do it mainly by engaging in greater protectionism, but it won't work because of two reasons.
First, the US is bound by all sorts of international trade agreements -- the WTO, the NAFTA, and various bilateral free-trade agreements (with Korea, Australia, Singapore, etc.). Although you can push things in the protectionist direction on the margin even within this framework, it will be difficult for the US to slap extra tariffs that are big enough to bring American jobs back under the rules of these agreements. Mr. Trump's team says they will renegotiate these agreements, but that will take years, not months, and won't produce any visible result at least during the first term of Mr. Trump's presidency.
Second, even if large extra tariffs can somehow be imposed against international agreements, the structure of the US economy today is such that there will be huge resistance against these protectionist measures within the US. Many imports from countries like China and Mexico are things that are produced by -- or at least produced for -- American companies. When the price of iPhone and Nike trainers made in China or GM cars made in Mexico go up by 20 percent, 35 percent, not only American consumers but companies like Apple, Nike and GM will be intensely unhappy. But would this result in Apple or GM moving production back to the US? No, they will probably move it to Vietnam or Thailand, which is not hit by those tariffs.
The point is that, the hollowing out of American manufacturing industry has progressed in the contexts of (US-led) globalization of production and restructuring of the international trade system and cannot be reversed with simple protectionist measures. It will require a total rewriting of global trade rules and restructuring of the so-called global value chain.
Even at the domestic level, American economic revival will require far more radical measures than what the Trump administration is contemplating. It will require a systematic industrial policy that rebuilds the depleted productive capabilities of the US economy, ranging from worker skills, managerial competences, industrial research base and modernised infrastructure. To be successful, such industrial policy will have to be backed up by a radical redesigning of the financial system, so that more "patient capital" is made available for long-term-oriented investments and more talented people come to work in the industrial sector, rather than going into investment banking or foreign exchange trading.
The second plank of Mr. Trump's strategy for the revival of the US economy is investment in infrastructure.
As mentioned above, the improvement in infrastructure is an ingredient in a genuine strategy of American economic renewal. However, as you suggest in your question, this may meet resistance from fiscal conservatives in the Republican-dominated Congress. It will be interesting to watch how this pans out, but my bigger worry is that Mr. Trump is likely to encourage "wrong" kinds of infrastructural investments -- that is, those related to real estate (his natural territory), rather than those related to industrial development. This not only will fail to contribute to the renewal of the US economy but it may also contribute to creating real estate bubbles, which were an important cause behind the 2008 global financial crisis.
Copyright, Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.


C.J. Polychroniou is a political economist/political scientist who has taught and worked in universities and research centers in Europe and the United States. His main research interests are in European economic integration, globalization, the political economy of the United States and the deconstruction of neoliberalism's politico-economic project. He is a regular contributor to Truthout as well as a member of Truthout's Public Intellectual Project. He has published several books and his articles have appeared in a variety of journals, magazines, newspapers and popular news websites. Many of his publications have been translated into several foreign languages, including Croatian, French, Greek, Italian, Portuguese, Spanish and Turkish.

Thursday, December 29, 2016

The world of Sharks & Sardines

Neither Friends nor Allies - by Imran N. Hosein
Articles - Understanding Islam
Wednesday, 10 Rajab 1428

The Qur’an firmly prohibits Muslim friendship and alliance with a Jewish-Christian alliance. Yet around the world of Islam today most governments violate that divine prohibition. They, their supporters and followers, pay a price for such conduct. They lose their Islam and become, instead, part of the Euro-Jewish/Euro-Christian alliance that is waging war on Islam. It is the first such alliance ever to have emerged in history, and it wages that war on behalf of the Euro-Jewish State of Israel. Both the Qur’an and Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah Most High be upon him) have provided information that makes it possible for us to locate [Gog and Magog] within the ranks of those two actors, i.e., Euro-Christians and Euro-Jews, who wage that war on Islam.

Suriname’s Shaikh Ali Mustafa and I climbed a hill in Morvant (in my native Caribbean island of Trinidad) to the top where a Christian Church was located, and we then sat down to catch our breath (mine more than his) and to eventually participate in what we expected to be a friendly Christian-Muslim exchange of views.

The false and vicious attack on the Qur’an and on the person of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), to which we were subjected, was hardly friendly. It was indeed shocking and manifestly sinful. However, we quickly located the source of that distinctly un-Christian behaviour in the ‘war on Islam’ that the [Gog and Magog] ruling alliance was waging around the world. We also understood the motive for that strange behavior in their frantic need to contain the spread of Islam among the poor in the hills of Laventille and Morvant.

“Friendship between Christians and Muslims is prohibited by the Qur’an itself”, thundered the Christian speaker to ringing applause from his congregation. He was, of course, depending on an English translation of a verse of the Qur’an that has often been misunderstood. Here is the verse as translated by this writer:

“Oh you who believe (in this Qur’an), do not take (such) Jews and Christians as friends and allies who themselves are friends and allies of each other. And whoever of you (Muslims) turn to them (with friendship and alliance) becomes, verily, one of them; behold, Allah does not guide such evildoers.” 
(Qur’an, al-Maidah, 5:51)

At the time of the revelation of the Qur’an, and for more than a thousand years thereafter, Christians and Jews were locked in a relationship of such mutual hatred that it was impossible to conceive of a future Christian-Jewish reconciliation, friendship and mutual alliance. After all, the Gospel itself had recorded the exclusive Jewish role in the demand for Christ’s crucifixion, in addition to the fact that the Roman government had opposed it (John, 19:4-7). 

Christianity consistently, and quite correctly, blamed the Jews for demanding that crucifixion. It created eternal hostility between the two religious communities.

However, this extraordinary verse of the Qur’an actually anticipated a time when the world would witness a strange and mysterious reconciliation between these two foes, and the emergence of a Judeo-Christian alliance. It is only in the modern age, when Gog and Magog have attacked Euro-Christianity and Euro-Judaism and have transformed Europe into an essentially godless secular society where men can legally marry men, that the world has witnessed the amazing fulfillment of the divine prophecy in this verse of the Qur’an (See chapter on Gog and Magog in ‘Jerusalem in the Qur’an’).

It should be clear that the Qur’an has prohibited Muslims from maintaining friendly ties with only that Judeo-Christian alliance and not with all Christians and all Jews. The Qur’an has also warned those Muslims who established ties of friendship with that Judeo-Christian alliance that is now ruling the world, that Allah Most High would recognize them to be members of that alliance (rather than the Muslim community), and would thus consider such conduct the ultimate betrayal of Islam.

Euro-Christianity and Euro-Judaism have today joined in an unholy alliance in order to conquer and rule the world from London, Washington and Jerusalem while waging war on Islam. They do so in order to deliver the rule over the world to an imposter Euro-Jewish State of Israel - a state which they themselves created, and then seduced the oriental Jews (i.e., the Israelite Jews) into accepting. That alliance is also waging war on the religious way of life and in the process is transforming almost the whole world to a state of decadence and godlessness.

In his widely-read English translation of the Qur’an, Abdullah Yusuf Ali ranslates verse 51 of Surah al-Maidah as follows: 
“O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: they are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust.”

Muhammad Asad, who is a highly respected European Muslim translator of the Qur’an and a distinguished scholar of Islam, translated the verse in this way: 
“O you who have attained to faith! Do not take the Jews and the Christians for your allies: they are but allies of each other - and whoever of you allies himself with them becomes, verily, one of them; behold, God does not guide such evildoers.”

Muhammad Marmaduke Pickthal, the English Muslim translator of the Qur’an, is no different in his translation: 
“O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for friends. They are friends one to another. He among you who taketh them for friends is (one) of them. Lo! Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk.”

M. Shakir, the Pakistani Muslim, translates the verse the same way: 
“O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.”

T. B. Irving, the American Muslim translator of the Qur’an, has a similar translation: 
“You who believe, do not accept Jews or Christians as sponsors; some of them act as sponsors for one another. Any of you who makes friends with them becomes one of them. God does not guide such wrongdoing folk.”

If we were to accept any of the above translations of the verse to be correct, grave contradictions with both the Qur’an and the example of the blessed Prophet himself would emerge.

Consider the following: 

• The Qur’an specifically permits marriage of a Muslim man to a Christian or Jewish woman: “This day are (all) things good and pure made lawful unto you. The food of Ahl al-Kitab (i.e., the Christian and Jewish peoples who possess a divinely revealed scripture) is lawful unto you and yours is lawful unto them. (Lawful unto you in marriage) are (not only) chaste women who are believers but chaste women among the

Ahl al-Kitab revealed before your time when ye give them their due dowers and desire chastity not lewdness nor secret intrigues. If anyone rejects faith fruitless is his work and in the Hereafter he will be in the ranks of those who have lost (all spiritual good).” (Qur’an, al-Maidah, 5:5)

If we accept the above translations of the verse to be correct, a Muslim man would have to inform his Christian or Jewish wife that while she could be his wife, ‘friendship’ between them was strictly prohibited.

• The Qur’an also permits Muslims to eat Christian and Jewish food (provided such food was made Halal for Christians and Jews) and reciprocates by permitting them to eat Muslim food (Qur’an, al-Maidah, 5:5). The Muslim who invites his Christian neighbor for a meal would have to confess to him, with quite some embarrassment, that while the Qur’an permits him to break bread with his Christian neighbour (i.e., share a meal with him), it has strictly prohibited friendship between them. 

• Prophet Muhammad advised his weakest followers, who were severely persecuted by the pagan Arabs, to flee to black Christian Abyssinia and to seek security and protection there. They did so, and a just Christian King welcomed and protected them. Many years later when the Prophet got the news of that Christian King’s death, he actually offered a funeral prayer for him from the distant city of Madina. Such conduct would be quite inconsistent with the Qur’an if those translations were accepted as correct. 

• Prophet Muhammad himself entered into a political and constitutional alliance with Jews in Madina that brought into being the city—State of Madina; however, the above translations of the verse of the Qur’an prohibited such an alliance.

• Finally, the Qur’an is specific when it declares that there is no prohibition on Muslims preventing them from maintaining friendly ties with any people (Hindu, Christian, Buddhist, Jew, white, black, brown or yellow) who do not wage war on Islam and do not oppress Muslims by expelling them from their homes and their territory in which they reside: “Allah forbids you not with regard to those who fight you not for (your)Faith nor drive you out of your homes from dealing kindly and justly with them: for Allah loveth those who are just.” 
(Qur’an, al-Mumtahana, 60:8)

As was previously explained, the verse of the Qur’an (5:51) does not prohibit Muslims from maintaining friendly relations with all Christians and Jews. Rather it prohibits friendship with only those Christians and Jews who enter into a Judeo-Christian alliance. It does so because such would be the Gog and Magog world-order that would wage war on Islam and expel Muslims from their homes and from the territory in which they reside.

The Qur’an is quite explicit when it anticipates a time when Jews would be the most hostile of all peoples to Muslims. At that time, says the Qur’an, there would be Christians who would be your best friends:

“Thou wilt surely find that, of all people, the most hostile to those who believe (i.e., in this Qur’an) would be the Jews, as well as those who ascribe divinity to aught beside Allah (such as the worship of idols) and thou wilt surely find that, of all people, they who say: “Behold, we are Christians” come closest to feeling affection for those who believe (in this Qur’an): this is so because there are priests and monks among them and because they are not given to arrogance.” 
(Qur’an, al-Maidah, 5:82)

The above does not constitute an indictment of all Jews. Rather it is applicable to only those Jews who wage war on Islam and who expel Muslims from their homes and territory (as has occurred in the Holy Land). It also provides Muslims with a means whereby they can recognize those whom the Qur’an recognizes, in that age, as Christians. They would be a people who would show the closest of affection for Muslims at a time when Jews and idol-worshippers show great hatred for Islam and Muslims.

Translations of (5:51) based on a misunderstanding of the Qur’an would certainly obstruct the development of fraternal ties between Muslims and such Christians and Jews (and by implication Hindus and Buddhists) on the other, who do not participate in today’s war on Islam.

The Latin-American stateman, Juan Domingo Alvorado, once declared that the world today was comprised of ‘sharks’ and ‘sardines’. The Morvant Christians, who were all of African origin, were ‘sardines’. So were we Muslims who climbed up to the top of the hill to meet with them. We were thus at pains to part from them without hostility. We hoped to reach out to them to unite in opposition to this war, not only on Islam but also on all that is sacred. We hoped to join hands and hearts in a common struggle against the ‘sharks’ of the world now waging war even with bombs that explode in garbage bins and garbage dumps in downtown Port of Spain.

An alliance of ‘sharks’ has invaded and occupied Afghanistan and Iraq, and is threatening to attack Iran as well. There are many in the world today, Christians, Hindus, Jews and others, who recognize the great injustice of that war on Islam and Muslims, who oppose that unjust war, and who would consequently welcome this brief explanatory essay.

There are also those Muslims, usually in government, who reap a harvest from their friendship with the alliance of ‘sharks’ that rules the world from London, Washington and Jerusalem. They do not want to understand this subject because of their great embarrassment that the Qur’an has so clearly exposed their ultimate betrayal of Allah Most High, and has declared them part of that Judeo-Christian alliance rather than part of the community of Muslims.

Wednesday, December 21, 2016

The box created, where we are in is the reason?

Brexit Trump & ...elections in Euro zone soon
Economist Who Predicted Brexit & Trump Brilliantly Explains Capitalism's Collapse

Published on 17 Nov 2016 - Mark Blyth, who accurately predicted Brexit and Trump explains in clear language how globalization and capitalism are failing people throughout the world and why that means more Brexits and Trumps are on the way.

Sunday, December 4, 2016

Why America wants regime change in Syria?

Published on 27 Oct 2016 - The conflict in Syria is directly related to plans for massive competing pipelines and West vs East geo-politics. Jimmy Dore breaks it down.

Thursday, December 1, 2016

Amrika - Amnesty International Vs Dept Of Justice?

Rakyat Amrika, di negara sendiri dah jadi macam warga West Bank di Palestine?

Saturday, November 26, 2016


Wild fires in Israel?

Act of God or False Flag operation?

Whatever the case, will Israel use this opportunity to...
1. To move some locals to already built settlements
2. To get American money & support to develop defense against major fires in case of war?
3. To get American help (under Trumps) for R&D of the above, in preparations of future wars.
4. Will not proceed with lawn mowing practice while there's a change in POTUS this time.
5. This single event stage for that purpose 2&3 (Easier for Trump to handle)
6. To locate newcomers from Israel Aliyah programs & settle them in the evacuated cities.

7. To label Arab citizens of Israel as Terrorists
8. To isolate (by promoting hatred) more Arabs Citizens of Israel from the Israeli Jews.
9.  Make Arabs Citizens of Israel to leave Israel by making it unbearable to them.

Friday, November 25, 2016

Larang Azan di Israel jadi Undang-undang?

Salah seorang MK Arab Azan dalam Knesset (Parlimen Israel)

Why all (including Americans) should support BDS movement?

For Israeli - US Military industrial Complex from where weapons & Military/Police trainer contractors goes worldwide! Based on : An Israeli Soldier's Story - Eran Efrati 
Water Protectors Attacked! — November 21, 2016 

Tuesday, September 13, 2016

Peneliti Dunia dan Barat Takjub Dengan Tata Cara Islam Menyembelih Sapi

Jelang Hari Raya Idul Adha atau hari raya kurban, jangan pernah makan daging sapi tanpa disembelih, ternyata syariat Islam ini membuat orang barat terkejut. Simak penelitian ini.

1. Rasulullah tak pernah belajar cardiology tapi syari'atnya membuktikan penelitian ilmu modern.

2. Melalui penelitian ilmiah yang dilakukan oleh dua staf ahli peternakan dari Hannover University, sebuah universitas terkemuka di Jerman. Yaitu: Prof.Dr. Schultz dan koleganya, Dr. Hazim. Keduanya memimpin satu tim penelitian terstruktur untuk menjawab pertanyaan: manakah yang lebih baik dan paling tidak sakit, penyembelihan secara Syari’at Islam yang murni (tanpa proses pemingsanan) ataukah penyembelihan dengan cara Barat (dengan pemingsanan)?

3. Keduanya merancang penelitian sangat canggih, mempergunakan sekelompok sapi yang telah cukup umur (dewasa). Pada permukaan otak kecil sapi-sapi itu dipasang elektroda (microchip) yang disebut Electro-Encephalograph (EEG). Microchip EEG dipasang di permukaan otak yang menyentuh titik (panel) rasa sakit di permukaan otak, untuk merekam dan mencatat derajat rasa sakit sapi ketika disembelih. Di jantung sapi-sapi itu juga dipasang Electro Cardiograph (ECG) untuk merekam aktivitas jantung saat darah keluar karena disembelih.

4. Untuk menekan kesalahan, sapi dibiarkan beradaptasi dengan EEG maupun ECG yang telah terpasang di tubuhnya selama beberapa minggu. Setelah masa adaptasi dianggap cukup, maka separuh sapi disembelih sesuai dengan Syariat Islam yang murni, dan separuh sisanya disembelih dengan menggunakan metode pemingsanan yang diadopsi Barat.

5. Dalam Syariat Islam, penyembelihan dilakukan dengan menggunakan pisau yang tajam, dengan memotong tiga saluran pada leher bagian depan, yakni: saluran makanan, saluran nafas serta dua saluran pembuluh darah, yaitu: arteri karotis dan vena jugularis.

6. Patut pula diketahui, syariat Islam tidak merekomendasikan metoda atau teknik pemingsanan. Sebaliknya, Metode Barat justru mengajarkan atau bahkan mengharuskan agar ternak dipingsankan terlebih dahulu sebelum disembelih.

7. Selama penelitian, EEG dan ECG pada seluruh ternak sapi itu dicatat untuk merekam dan mengetahui keadaan otak dan jantung sejak sebelum pemingsanan (atau penyembelihan) hingga ternak itu benar-benar mati. Nah, hasil penelitian inilah yang sangat ditunggu-tunggu!

8. Dari hasil penelitian yang dilakukan dan dilaporkan oleh Prof. Schultz dan Dr. Hazim di Hannover University Jerman itu dapat diperoleh beberapa hal sbb.:

Penyembelihan Menurut Syariat Islam

Thursday, July 7, 2016

Iraqi Exile: U.K. Iraq Inquiry Confirms the War Was Based on a Lie

Published on 6 Jul 2016 - In Iraq, the death toll from Saturday’s car bombing in Baghdad has topped 250, making it the deadliest car bombing in Iraq since the 2003 U.S. invasion. While Iraq is in a state of mourning, a long-awaited British inquiry into the Iraq War has just been released. It blames former British Prime Minister Tony Blair for deliberately exaggerating the threat posed by Saddam Hussein in the lead-up to the Iraq War. We speak with Iraqi exile Sami Ramadani, who campaigned against U.S.-led sanctions and the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Monday, April 18, 2016

The ‘Hybrid War’ of Economic Sanctions

U.S. politicians love the “silver bullet” of economic sanctions to punish foreign adversaries, but the weapon’s overuse is driving China and Russia to develop countermeasures, as British diplomat Alastair Crooke explains.

By Alastair Crooke 1 Apr 2016

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei told a large group of people in the holy city of Mashhad on Sunday that “The Americans did not act on what they promised in the [Iranian] nuclear accord [the JCPOA]; they did not do what they should have done. According to Foreign Minister [Javad Zarif], they brought something on paper but prevented materialization of the objectives of the Islamic Republic of Iran through many diversionary ways.”

This statement during the Supreme Leader’s key Nowruz (New Year) address should be understood as a flashing amber light: it was no rhetorical flourish. And it was not a simple dig at America (as some may suppose). It was perhaps more of a gentle warning to the Iranian government to “take care” of the possible political consequences.

Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei speaks to a crowd. (Iranian government photo)
Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei speaks to a crowd. (Iranian government photo)
What is happening is significant: for whatever motive, the U.S. Treasury is busy emptying much of the JCPOA sanctions relief of any real substance (and their motive is something which deserves careful attention). The Supreme Leader also noted that Iran is experiencing difficulties in repatriating its formerly frozen, external funds.

U.S. Treasury officials, since “implementation” day, have been doing the rounds, warning European banks that the U.S. sanctions on Iran remain in place, and that European banks should not think, even for a second, of tapping the dollar or euro bond markets in order to finance trade with Iran, or to become involved with financing infrastructure projects in Iran.

Banks well understand the message: touch Iranian commerce and you will be whacked with a billion dollar fine – against which there is no appeal, no clear legal framework – and no argument countenanced.  The banks (understandably) are shying off. Not a single bank or financial lending institution turned up when Iranian President Hassan Rouhani visited Paris to hold meetings with the local business √©lite.

The influential Keyhan Iranian newspaper wrote on March 14 on this matter that: “Speaking at the UN General Assembly session in September, Rouhani stated: ‘Today a new phase of relations has started in Iran’s relations with the world.’ He also stated in a live radio and television discussion with the people on 23 Tir: ‘The step-by-step implementation of this document could slowly remove the bricks of the wall of mistrust.’”

Keyhan continues: “These remarks were made at a time when the Western side, headed by America, does not have any intention to remove or even shorten the wall of mistrust between itself and Iran. … Moreover, they are delaying the implementation of their JCPOA commitments. Lifting the sanctions has remained merely as a promise on a piece of paper, so much so that it has roused the protest of Iranian politicians.

“The American side is promoting conditions in such a way that today even European banks and companies do not dare to establish financial relations with Iran – since all of them fear America’s reaction in the form of sanctions [imposed on those same banks]. Actually, the reason for the delay in the commencement of the European banks’ financial cooperation with the Iranian banks and the failure to facilitate banking and economic transactions, is because many of the American sanctions are still in place, and Iranian banks’ financial transactions are [still] facing restrictions. Moreover, given their continuing fear of the biting legislations and penalties for violations of the Americans’ old sanctions, European financial institutions are concerned about violating the American sanctions that continue to be in force …

“It is pointless to expect the US administration to cooperate with Iran given the comments of the US officials, including [National Security Advisor] Susan Rice, since the Americans’ comments and behaviour reveal their non-compliance with their obligations and speak of the absence of the US administration’s political will to implement even its minimum obligations.”

Here Keyhan is specifically referring to Susan Rice’s observation to Jeffrey Goldberg in the Atlantic that, “The Iran deal was never primarily about trying to open a new era of relations between the US and Iran. The aim was very simply to make a dangerous country less dangerous. No one had any expectation that Iran would be a more benign actor.”

Keyhan continues: “Any action on the international scene calls for suitable and appropriate reaction. Therefore, we cannot expect a government like the US administration that seizes every single opportunity to restrict our county, to lift the sanctions. Rice’s recent comments are only a small part of the increasing anti-Iranian rhetoric of the American officials in recent months. These remarks should actually be regarded as a sign … that the dream of the JCPOA is nothing but wishful thinking and far from reality.” (Emphasis added).

The Supreme Leader’s nudge therefore was intended for the ears of the government: Do not build too much politically on this accord: beware its foundations may turn out to be built on sand.

‘Silver Bullet’ Worries
Recently U.S. Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew gave a talk at Carnegie, on the Evolution of Sanctions and Lessons for the Future, on which David Ignatius commented: “Economic sanctions have become the ‘silver bullet’ of American foreign policy over the past decade, because they’re cheaper and more effective in compelling adversaries than traditional military power. But Jack Lew warns of a ‘risk of overuse’ that could neuter the sanctions weapon and harm America. His caution against overuse comes as some Republican members of Congress are fighting to maintain U.S. sanctions on the Iranian nuclear program despite last year’s deal limiting that Iranian threat.”
White House chief of staff Jack Lew
U.S. Treasury Secretary Jack Lew

So what is going on here? If Lew is warning against sanction overreach, why is it that it is precisely his department that is the one that is so assiduously undermining sanctions relief for Iran – “particularly since Lew’s larger point is that sanctions won’t work if countries don’t get the reward they were promised — in the removal of sanctions — once they accede to U.S. Demands”, in the paraphrase by Ignatius himself?

One reason for this apparent contradiction implicit in Lew’s remarks probably is China: Recall that when China’s stock markets were in freefall and hemorrhaging foreign exchange, as it sought to support the Yuan – China blamed the U.S. Fed (U.S. Reserve Bank) for its problems – and promptly was derided for making such an “outlandish” accusation.

Actually, what the Fed was then doing was stating its intent to raise interest rates (for the best of motives naturally!) – just as those, such as Goldman Sachs, have been advising. U.S. Corporate and bank profits are sliding badly, and in “times of financial depletion,” as the old adage goes, “bringing capital home becomes the priority” – and a strong dollar does exactly that.

But the Peoples’ Bank of China (PBOC) did a bit more than just whine about the Fed actions, it reacted:  It allowed the Yuan to weaken, which induced turmoil across a global financial world (already concerned about China’s economic slowing); then raised the Yuan value to squeeze out speculation, betting on further falls in the Yuan; then let it weaken again as the Fed comments started to slide in favor of interest rate hikes, and a strong dollar – until finally, as Zero Hedge has noted:

Zerohedge: And since Janet delivered, PBOC has strengthened the Yuan Fix by the most since 2005!!
Zerohedge: And since Janet delivered, PBOC has strengthened the Yuan Fix by the most since 2005!!
“It appeared the messaging from The People’s Bank Of China to The Fed was heard loud and understood. Having exercised its will to weaken the Yuan (implying turmoil is possible), Janet Yellen (Fed Chair) delivered the dovish goods [i.e. indicated that global conditions trumped the advice of the likes of Goldman Sachs to strengthen the dollar], and so China ‘allowed’ the Yuan to rally back. In a double-whammy for everyone involved, the biggest 3-day strengthening of the Yuan fix since 2005 also pushed the Yuan forwards, back to their richest relative to spot since Aug 2014 – once again showing their might against the dastardly speculative shorts.”

In short, the Ignatius’s “silver bullet” of foreign policy (the U.S. Treasury Wars against any potential competitor to U.S. political or financial hegemony) is facing a growing “hybrid” financial war, just as NATO has been complaining that it is having to adjust to “hybrid” conventional war – from the likes of Russia.

So, as the U.S. tries to expand its reach, for example by claiming legal jurisdiction over the Bank of China, and by blacklisting one of China’s largest telecom companies, thus forbidding any U.S. company from doing business with China’s ZTE, China is pushing back. It has just demonstrated convincingly that U.S. Treasury “silver bullets” can fall short.

Zerohedge: Crushing shorts as Yuan forwards collapse back to their ‘richest’ relative to spot since Aug 2014
Zerohedge: Crushing shorts as Yuan forwards collapse back to their ‘richest’ relative to spot since Aug 2014
This, we think, may have been Lew’s point — one directed, possibly, at Congress, which has become truly passionate about its new-found “neutron bomb” (as a former Treasury official described its geo-financial warfare).

In respect to Russia, this is important: Russia and America seem to be edging towards some sort of “grand bargain” over Syria (and possibly Ukraine too), which is likely to involve the Europeans lifting, in mid-2016, their sanctions imposed on Russia. But again, the U.S. is likely nonetheless to maintain its own sanctions (or even add to them, as some in the U.S. Congress are arguing).

Source of three graphs: Zerohedge
Source of three graphs: Zerohedge
So, if Russia, like Iran and China become disenchanted with promises of U.S. sanctions relaxation – then, as the Keyhan author noted, a suitable and appropriate (i.e. adverse) reaction, will ensue.

Boomerang Effect

What the Fed and Lew seem to have assimilated is that the U.S. and European economies are now so vulnerable and volatile that China and Russia can, as it were, whack-back at America – especially where China and Russia co-ordinate strategically. Yellen specifically signaled “weakening world growth” and “less confidence in the renormalization process” as reasons for the Fed backtrack.

Ironically, David Ignatius in his article gives the game away: Lew is not going soft, saying that the US needs to use its tools more prudently; far from it. His point is different, and Ignatius exposes it inadvertently:

“U.S. power flows from our unmatched military might, yes. But in a deeper way, it’s a product of the dominance of the U.S. economy. Anything that expands the reach of U.S. markets — such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership in trade, for example — adds to the arsenal of U.S. power. Conversely, U.S. power is limited by measures that drive business away from America, or allow other nations to build a rival financial architecture that’s less encumbered by a smorgasbord of sanctions.”

This latter point precisely is what is frightening Lew and Ignatius. The tables are turning: in fact, the U.S. and Europe may be becoming more vulnerable to retaliation (e.g. Europe, with Russia’s retaliatory sanctions on European agricultural products) than China and Russia are, to unilateral Treasury or Fed warfare.

This is the new hybrid war (and not the hot air issuing from NATO). Lew and Ignatius know that a parallel “architecture” is under construction, and that Congress’ addiction to new sanctions is just speeding it into place.

So, why then is the U.S. Treasury so zealous in undermining the effectiveness of JCPOA’s agreed lifting of sanctions? Well, probably because Iran has less leverage over the global financial system than either China or Russia. But also perhaps, because “Iran sanctions” are (erroneously) viewed by U.S. leaders as the Treasury’s “jewel in its crown” of geo-financial success.

What may be missing from this hubristic interpretation, however, is the understanding that Iran’s experience will not be lost on the others, nor on the SCO when it convenes its next meetings on how to combat Western “color revolution” operations (with Iran likely joining that organization as a member, rather than an observer, this summer).