Topics

Peace all,

No hoods. No electric shocks. No beatings. These Iranians clearly are a very uncivilised bunch


by Terry Jones

Global Research, April 5, 2007
The Guardian - 2007-03-31


Email this article to a friend
Print this article


I share the outrage expressed in the British press over the treatment of our naval personnel accused by Iran of illegally entering their waters. It is a disgrace. We would never dream of treating captives like this - allowing them to smoke cigarettes, for example, even though it has been proven that smoking kills. And as for compelling poor servicewoman Faye Turney to wear a black headscarf, and then allowing the picture to be posted around the world - have the Iranians no concept of civilised behaviour? For God's sake, what's wrong with putting a bag over her head? That's what we do with the Muslims we capture: we put bags over their heads, so it's hard to breathe. Then it's perfectly acceptable to take photographs of them and circulate them to the press because the captives can't be recognised and humiliated in the way these unfortunate British service people are.

It is also unacceptable that these British captives should be made to talk on television and say things that they may regret later. If the Iranians put duct tape over their mouths, like we do to our captives, they wouldn't be able to talk at all. Of course they'd probably find it even harder to breathe - especially with a bag over their head - but at least they wouldn't be humiliated.

And what's all this about allowing the captives to write letters home saying they are all right? It's time the Iranians fell into line with the rest of the civilised world: they should allow their captives the privacy of solitary confinement. That's one of the many privileges the US grants to its captives in Guant?namo Bay.

The true mark of a civilised country is that it doesn't rush into charging people whom it has arbitrarily arrested in places it's just invaded. The inmates of Guant?namo, for example, have been enjoying all the privacy they want for almost five years, and the first inmate has only just been charged. What a contrast to the disgraceful Iranian rush to parade their captives before the cameras!

What's more, it is clear that the Iranians are not giving their British prisoners any decent physical exercise. The US military make sure that their Iraqi captives enjoy PT. This takes the form of exciting "stress positions", which the captives are expected to hold for hours on end so as to improve their stomach and calf muscles. A common exercise is where they are made to stand on the balls of their feet and then squat so that their thighs are parallel to the ground. This creates intense pain and, finally, muscle failure. It's all good healthy fun and has the bonus that the captives will confess to anything to get out of it.

And this brings me to my final point. It is clear from her TV appearance that servicewoman Turney has been put under pressure. The newspapers have persuaded behavioural psychologists to examine the footage and they all conclude that she is "unhappy and stressed".

What is so appalling is the underhand way in which the Iranians have got her "unhappy and stressed". She shows no signs of electrocution or burn marks and there are no signs of beating on her face. This is unacceptable. If captives are to be put under duress, such as by forcing them into compromising sexual positions, or having electric shocks to their genitals, they should be photographed, as they were in Abu Ghraib. The photographs should then be circulated around the civilised world so that everyone can see exactly what has been going on.

As Stephen Glover pointed out in the Daily Mail, perhaps it would not be right to bomb Iran in retaliation for the humiliation of our servicemen, but clearly the Iranian people must be made to suffer - whether by beefing up sanctions, as the Mail suggests, or simply by getting President Bush to hurry up and invade, as he intends to anyway, and bring democracy and western values to the country, as he has in Iraq.

[Salluh]

Salaamun alaykum

Could anyone please explain the meaning of Salluh in this Verse ? FM translated the whole ayat as : " Then to Hell cast him " . I have looked in Lane but could not find reference to this Salluh . Please give the Root and possible meanings .

My sincere thanks in advance

Cheers

[The father of any man among them ( us )]

Salaamu alaykum

Ahmad and Muhammad are two names widely believed by A lot of so called 'Muslims' as One and the same Identity . In the Quran 61:6 , Ahmad is clearly mentioned as the name of a Messenger to come after Jesus as we can see below : "When Jesus the Son of Mary, said: 'O children of Isra'el , I am God's Messenger to you , authenticating what is present with you of The Torah and bringing good news of a Messenger to come whose name will be Ahmad . But when he showed them the clear proofs , they said: "This is clearly magic" .

My problem with the above verse is : Why would Jesus bother to tell his followers about this messenger to come ( Ahmad ) if the Said Rasul Ahmad will not appear until some 500 odd years later ? Surely none of Jesus' followers will be around when this Ahmad finally came ? Unless this rasulullah Ahmad came immediately or shortly after Jesus' dis-appearance / death which is more probable . I just cannot see that this Ahmad from 61:6 morphed into Muhammad of 33:40 . No other mention of this Ahmad apart from that one verse.

On the other hand , Muhammad was mentioned in four Verses , namely ; 33:40 , 3:144 , 47:2 , and 48:29 . Let's look at 33:40 " Muhammad was not The father of any man among you , but he is the messenger of God and the Seal of the prophets . And God is fully aware of all things". This verse categorically denies that Muhammad is not The father of any man among them ( us ) . Or alternatively , this ayat is telling us that Muhammad only sired Daughters as the Sectarians alleged ? If ....." Not the Father of any man among you " means that Muhammad is devoid of Progeny then this verse will clash with another verse that says that ; " every messengers sent before him all had Spouses and Offspring" . Let us read 13:38 " Wa laqad arsalnaa Rusulan min qablika wa ja'alnaa lahum azwaajan wa Dzurriyatan wa maa kaana li Rusuulin ay ya'tiya bi aayatin illa bi idznillahi li kulli ajalin kitaab".
               13:38-" And we have sent messengers before you and have made for them mates and offspring . It was not for a messenger to come with any sign except by God's leave , but for every time there is a decree ". ( TM ) . According to this Verse all Messengers have ( had ) wives and Children , so in order to believe that Muhammad is the same as Ahmad , we will have to Rule Out Muhammad in 33:40 for obvious reason. Having said that , I can't find any more specific information in respect of Ahmad , or other evidence corroborating that this two distinct Individuals ( if indeed they are , and I am speculating here ) are in any way connected .

What we all know for sure is there three other Verses mentioning Muhammad by name if Muhammad is a proper name that is .....these verses are : 3:144-" Muhammad is no more than an apostle....................................."
then 47:2-" But those who believe and work righteousness , and believe in the revelation sent down to Muhammad..................." and finally 48:29-" Muhammad is the apostle of God........................................." . So can anyone clarify whether this "Ahmad" , the Messenger foretold by Jesus in 61:6 is the same as Muhammad ? and if they are , what and where are the evidence in the Quran ?

looking forward to an enlightening response

Peace be upon you All

almarh0m

Salaamun alaykum

I have just browsed through the "Arab Conspiracy" thread and wondering if Al_Quraishi has written a Rebuttal to Aidid Safar's Book ( essay ) ? Considering his Vehement Opposition or even hatred of the said Article, I really expect a decent rebuttal from Quraishi . Waiting with bated Breath .

Cheers

almarh0m

[on foot]

Salaamun alaykum

Can anyone explain why the word Rijaal is translated as "on foot( walking ) and the word Dhaamiri as Lean Camel ? My simple understanding for the former is "Man( male ) and the latter is Conjunction or Transport . 22:27 :" Wa adzdzin fin naasi bil hajji ya'tuuka rijaalaw wa ?laa kulli dhaamiriy ya'tiina min kulli fajjin ?miiq ".

   "And Proclaim the Pilgrimage among men: They will come to you on Foot and Mounted on every kind of Camel, lean on account of journeys through deep and distant mountain highways ".

I find this Translation a slight improvement from many others that i have read. But could anyone in the Forum explain the probable meanings of the above 2 Words without changing  the context of the Verse ? I am really interested to know what meaning(s) given to"Rijaal as It occurs in other verses.

My sincere Thanks in advance

almarh0m

[Holy]

Salamun alaykum

Could any expert Arabic Speaker in the Forum clarify the Real meaning of the word 'Haram' Please? Is it Holy or is it Forbidden or Both ?

Thank you

almarh0m

Salaamun alaykum

A Terrorists Attack within the U.S. might be manufactured as a pretext to Bombard Iran ? Read the following article from GlobalResearch.ca .

A political bombshell from Zbigniew Brzezinski: Ex-national security adviser warns that Bush is seeking a pretext to attack Iran


by Barry Grey

Global Research, February 4, 2007
World Socialist Web Site  


Email this article to a friend
Print this article


Testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Thursday, Zbigniew Brzezinski, the national security adviser in the Carter administration, delivered a scathing critique of the war in Iraq and warned that the Bush administration?s policy was leading inevitably to a war with Iran, with incalculable consequences for US imperialism in the Middle East and internationally.

Brzezinski, who opposed the March 2003 invasion and has publicly denounced the war as a colossal foreign policy blunder, began his remarks on what he called the ?war of choice? in Iraq by characterizing it as ?a historic, strategic and moral calamity.?

?Undertaken under false assumptions,? he continued, ?it is undermining America?s global legitimacy. Its collateral civilian casualties as well as some abuses are tarnishing America?s moral credentials. Driven by Manichean principles and imperial hubris, it is intensifying regional instability.?

Brzezinski derided Bush?s talk of a ?decisive ideological struggle? against radical Islam as ?simplistic and demagogic,? and called it a ?mythical historical narrative? employed to justify a ?protracted and potentially expanding war.?

?To argue that America is already at war in the region with a wider Islamic threat, of which Iran is the epicenter, is to promote a self-fulfilling prophecy,? he said.

Most stunning and disturbing was his description of a ?plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran.? It would, he suggested, involve ?Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks, followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure, then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the US blamed on Iran, culminating in a ?defensive? US military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan.? [Emphasis added].

This was an unmistakable warning to the US Congress, replete with quotation marks to discount the ?defensive? nature of such military action, that the Bush administration is seeking a pretext for an attack on Iran. Although he did not explicitly say so, Brzezinski came close to suggesting that the White House was capable of manufacturing a provocation?including a possible terrorist attack within the US?to provide the casus belli for war.

That a man such as Brzezinski, with decades of experience in the top echelons of the US foreign policy establishment, a man who has the closest links to the military and to intelligence agencies, should issue such a warning at an open hearing of the US Senate has immense and grave significance.

Brzezinski knows whereof he speaks, having authored provocations of his own while serving as Jimmy Carter?s national security adviser. In that capacity, as he has since acknowledged in published writings, he drew up the covert plan at the end of the 1970s to mobilize Islamic fundamentalist mujaheddin to topple the pro-Soviet regime in Afghanistan and draw the Soviet Union into a ruinous war in that country.

Following his opening remarks, in response to questions from the senators, Brzezinski reiterated his warning of a provocation.

He called the senators? attention to a March 27, 2006 report in the New York Times on ?a private meeting between the president and Prime Minister Blair, two months before the war, based on a memorandum prepared by the British official present at this meeting.? In the article, Brzezinski said, ?the president is cited as saying he is concerned that there may not be weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq, and that there must be some consideration given to finding a different basis for undertaking the action.?

He continued: ?I?ll just read you what this memo allegedly says, according to the New York Times: ?The memo states that the president and the prime minister acknowledged that no unconventional weapons had been found inside Iraq. Faced with the possibility of not finding any before the planned invasion, Mr. Bush talked about several ways to provoke a confrontation.?

?He described the several ways in which this could be done. I won?t go into that... the ways were quite sensational, at least one of them.

?If one is of the view that one is dealing with an implacable enemy that has to be removed, that course of action may under certain circumstances be appealing. I?m afraid that if this situation in Iraq continues to deteriorate, and if Iran is perceived as in some fashion involved or responsible, or a potential beneficiary, that temptation could arise.?

At another point Brzezinski remarked on the conspiratorial methods of the Bush administration and all but described it as a cabal. ?I am perplexed,? he said, ?by the fact that major strategic decisions seem to be made within a very narrow circle of individuals?just a few, probably a handful, perhaps not more than the fingers on my hand. And these are the individuals, all of whom but one, who made the original decision to go to war, and used the original justifications to go to war.?

None of the senators in attendance addressed themselves to the stark warning from Brzezinski. The Democrats in particular, flaccid, complacent and complicit in the war conspiracies of the Bush administration, said nothing about the danger of a provocation spelled out by the witness.

Following the hearing, this reporter asked Brzezinski directly if he was suggesting that the source of a possible provocation might be the US government itself. The former national security adviser was evasive.

The following exchange took place:

Q: Dr. Brzezinski, who do you think would be carrying out this possible provocation?

A: I have no idea. As I said, these things can never be predicted. It can be spontaneous.

Q: Are you suggesting there is a possibility it could originate within the US government itself?

A: I?m saying the whole situation can get out of hand and all sorts of calculations can produce a circumstance that would be very difficult to trace.


Global Research Articles by Barry Grey

Hope and Pray that this does not happen  

Peace Brethren

It gives me no Joy to write this post , but i feel i must do it. The un-healthy Obsession about Verse 17:36 in respect of Verification seems to be getting out of hand. Do we have to Personally Verify everything before we believe it to be true ? There are Numerous things that an Individual Can Never Personally Verify , Even if She/He is given 10 Life Times on this Earth. So why Turn Verse 17:36 into a 'New Idol ' ?? If we believe in the Whole Qur?n , Read It in Context , then why are there so many Issues such as Salat still Un-Resolved?

Remember Verse 54:17 ? '  - Wa laqad yas sarnal qur?na liz zikri fahal min mud dzakir ' " And We have made this Qur?n Easy to understand and Remember , then Is there any that will Receive Admonition ?".
This exact same Verse is Repeated 3 Times in The same Surah i.e 54:22 , 54:32 and 54:40 . So where is the Difficulty in understanding about Salat when the Author of The Qur?n Himself Says that The Qur?n has been made Easy to Understand ? Why always Insist on Verification based solely on 17:36?? Or Have they made 17:36 as the "New Idol " ? That's what It has become if we keep on insisting 17:36 as the Criterion instead of the 'Whole Qur?n.

If the above Verses are not adequate or even suficient to convince Believers that Qur?n is easy , there are other similar Verses that say GOD has made the Qur?n Easy to Understand in our own languages namely 44:58 and 19:97 .


Peace and Cheers

almarh0m


"He who Created me , it is He who guide me "

Salaamun alaikum


Is there a specific Verse int The Qur?n That States Expressly That Allah Revealed the Qur?n to Muhammad

If Muhammad was Indeed the name of the last Prophet / Messenger , why did Allah Not Address him by name like all the other Prophets and Messengers in the Qur?n

I am aware that the Word Muhammad is Mentioned 5 times in the Qur?n . Thanks to any Bro or Sis who can assist me on this .    Cheers


almarh0m