Sunday, April 1, 2018

Muslim Association of Britain Open letter .....

to President of the Board of Deputies of British Jews

Following the Israeli massacre of 15 unarmed Palestinians in the Gaza Strip on 30 March, Dr Anas Altikriti wrote the following to the President of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, Mr Jonathan Arkush:
March 31st, 2018
Dear Mr Arkush,
Firstly, allow me to wish you and the entire Jewish community chag kasher v’somayach, wishing you all many blessed returns.
I am writing today to thank you and the Board of Deputies for your clear and unequivocal rejection of the Leave.EU tweet on the 29th of March, in which the bearer of that account claimed to be against one form of discrimination and prejudice, by promoting another. Your response made it clear that unless all and every form of this disease are fought in unison, the bigots will have their way, and that the presence of any form of racial or religious discrimination is a threat to all races, faiths and groups.
With that said, I was hugely disappointed with your tweet the very next day on Friday 30th of March commenting on the events that surrounded the Grand March of Return in Gaza, and allow me to explain why.
The ‘Alarming developments’ which you referred to in your tweet, were basically the killing of 15 and wounding of 1500 Palestinian marchers. None of the tens of thousands that attended the march were armed, and there was absolutely no threat of the march crossing the borders of the Gaza enclave. No Israeli, soldier or civilian, was ever under threat, let alone harmed. Yet as all the live TV coverage, pictures and clips clearly demonstrate, the Israeli forces and its snipers saw fit to take pot shots into the civilian crowd who were marching peacefully. The Gaza Ministry of Health reported 773 live rounds were fired and most of the dead and injured had wounds to their upper torso. Haaretz newspaper broadcasted a Palestinian youngster shot in his back while he was running away from borders. To not only deny the blatant truth, but actually turn the truth on its head by claiming that the victim was the aggressor, and to appear as though you are justifying the killing of unarmed civilians, is problematic to say the very least and does a grave injustice to your earlier commendable tweet. One cannot help but draw parallels between the events on Friday and your comment which coincide with the advent of Passover; which is hugely symbolic for the Jewish people breaking free from slavery, subjugation and oppression. How this could have escaped you is beyond me.
Further, you claimed that this march was organised by Hamas. This is factually untrue and incredibly unfair to the Palestinian people and to the organisers of this event. Everyone who followed the March from the very moment it was called for will know that it was a group of Palestinian youngsters, openly and undeniably non-partisan, who were behind this event, and your claim does an incredible injustice to a peaceful expression of longing for freedom and basic national rights which should otherwise be supported and encouraged.
You go on to suggest that the Palestinians should return to the ‘negotiating table’, yet you neglect to consider the built-up frustration of millions of Palestinians who for 50 years of unfulfilled UN resolutions condemning the Israeli occupation, the Separation Wall, the illegal settlements, the systematic expulsion of Palestinians, the illegal annexation of Jerusalem and much more, were met with a callous decision by the US President to decide on Jerusalem with one fell swoop, proving the futility, indeed wastefulness of those negotiations. Consider also if you will, the state of the almost two million residents of the Gaza strip, who have been living as virtual prisoners, suffering a strangulation in all but name for the past 11 years with absolutely no hope of any resolution.
If the battle against all forms of discrimination and prejudice are to be won, none of us can afford to be hypocritical or to play politics with human values of justice and truth. In the same way that I do not regard an attack on a Muslim state as having anything to do with Islamophobia, I fail to see how being critical of the practices and policies of Israel could be conflated with the evil of anti-Semitism.
I am sure you agree with me that as humans and regardless of our religious or political backgrounds or affiliations, we must defend each other’s rights. For us, it also means we will always be critical of any state, Muslim or otherwise, which adopts policies that violate our universal human values.
My hope is that you apply this maxim to the practices of Israel, rather than giving it carte blanche to do as it wishes with no accountability.
Kind Regards,
Dr Anas Altikriti,
President, Muslim Association of Britain

Mengaku ya! cuma sat saja?

Israel admits, then deletes, responsibility for Gaza killings

Relatives of Hamdan Abu Amsha mourn at his funeral in Beit Hanoun, northern Gaza, on 31 March, a day after he was killed by Israeli fire near the Gaza-Israel boundary.
 Ashraf AmraAPA images

The Israeli army posted a statement on Twitter on Saturday apparently accepting full responsibility for the killings a day earlier of 15 Palestinians as thousands took part in the Great March of Return in Gaza.
The army then quickly deleted the admission – as more evidence of war crimes by its soldiers came to light – but not before a copy was made by the human rights group B’Tselem.
The now-deleted tweet from the official @IDFSpokesperson account stated: “Yesterday we saw 30,000 people; we arrived prepared and with precise reinforcements. Nothing was carried out uncontrolled; everything was accurate and measured, and we know where every bullet landed.”


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