Category Archives: politics

Take the right

if you dont watch all at least watch this bit

For me its real, this is what I’ve come from, what I care about…There’s going to be a revolution, it is going ot happen, this is the end, it is time to wake up, I remember seeing you on that programme where you look at your ancestors, your gramdmother who…. got f*** up by the aristocrats, you cried because you knew it was unfair and unjust, that was over a century ago, I have just come from a woman who is being treated like that….today, if we can engage that feeling instead of a moment of sentimentality trotted out on the TV for people to pour over emotional porn, if we can engage that feeling and change things, why wouldn’t we?why is that naive, why is that not my right? I am taking that right, I do no need it from you, I’m taking it”

Is it not all of our rights?

Should we not all take this right??

Advertisements

 

Voting is tacit complicity with the system

 

It doesn’t work. The system needs changing.

Capitalism exists to serve the needs of corporations

A huge disparity between rich and poor. Cutting benefits and criminalizing claimants while going to EU court to defend the right to give bankers bonuses.

Should we comply with the system to vote in people who do not represent us, and defend our interests? does voting make a difference?

 

Rabaa Massacre – Egypt

WARNING GRAPHIC CONTENT

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10201428800577064&set=vb.202148153155039&type=2&theater

Young Tunisian Suprises audience with Nasheed

 

This is beautiful. The brother was asked to sing a song live on Tunisian TV. He sings an Islamic nasheed about the honour of being a Muslim and then criticises the secular Tunisian regime.

Trayvon Martin vs Abdul Rahman al-Awlaki

Lauren Booth shared George W. Obama‘s photo.
"President Obama publicly grieved for the apparently senseless death of 17 year old Trayvon Martin.  It hit home especially hard for the President, he said, because "[i]f I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon." This week, under mounting criticism that the President is politicizing Martin’s death, an Obama spokesperson claimed that the President "spoke from the heart" when he grieved for Martin, and I, for one, refuse to dispute that.  Indeed, it is always a tragedy when such a young life is extinguished without cause and with no possibility of justice, especially when we can identify with the victim on a personal level as President Obama did with Trayvon Martin. 

That is precisely why President Obama’s statement is so appalling.

Allow me to explain.  On October 14, 2011, another young American boy was senselessly murdered.  His name was Abdulrahman al-Awlaki.  He was born in Denver on August 26, 1995, six months after the birth of Trayvon Martin, making him just 16 at the time of his murder.  His family, like Trayvon’s, described him as a happy teenage boy with a bright future.   He shared Trayvon’s dark complexion and jet black hair, enough so that Barack Obama’s imagined son may well have looked just like him.   Maybe Barack Obama didn’t know that when he ordered the drone strike that ended Abdulrahman’s young life at a family barbecue.  Maybe that’s why there was no grief-stricken statement from the President, no protest on the floor of Congress, no calls for vengeance.  Maybe that’s why Spike Lee never felt compelled to tweet "1600 Pennsylvania Ave." to his bloodthirsty followers.

Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was never charged with a crime (nor was his American father Anwar, who was killed in another drone strike two weeks earlier).   The Obama Administration, to this day, refuses to provide any evidence that Abdulrahman or anyone else at the barbecue it bombed was a threat to anyone or wanted for any crime.  In fact, the Obama Administration lied and said that Abdulrahman was an al-Qaeda militant in his 20s until the al-Awlaki family came forward with photographs and a birth certificate (at which point the Obama Administration simply changed Abdulrahman’s description to "military-aged man").

No, Abdulrahman was simply another in an increasingly and appallingly long line of innocent people killed by American missiles in a war our government still refuses to acknowledge.  Another young life destroyed for reasons too illogical or too insidious for the government to admit publicly.

The circumstances around Trayvon Martin’s death have rightly generated national outrage, debate, and increased the momentum of efforts to overhaul the institutional injustice that has claimed far too many young lives in our country.  The circumstances around Abdulrahman al-Awlaki’s death generated no national outrage, no national debate, and the executive branch’s unilateral war on anyone it declares an enemy continues unchallenged and underreported.

I do not mean to diminish the death of Trayvon Martin or what it represents.  I am, however, begging those outraged at the death of Trayvon Martin to take a look behind the Obama Administration’s curtain and see what horrors are being done in their name and with their money."

http://tinyurl.com/8a2tcnm

"With wall-to-wall coverage of the Zimmerman-Trayvon Martin trial over the past few weeks, one might be led to believe that the cable news networks actually give a damn about justice. One would, however, be sorely mistaken.

Reports TV Newser:

"The biggest beneficiaries of the Zimmerman trial coverage seem to be HLN and MSNBC, which are seeing higher ratings than typical during the hours for which it has covered the trial live. CNN has seen some hours do very well covering the trial (particularly in total viewers), and others where it has not. Fox News hasn’t really seen a ratings spike from covering the trial, although it remains the clear ratings leader overall."

In other words, the jackals who run the mainstream media freakshow care less about justice than they do about boosting their ratings. To them, this isn't about Trayvon Martin. It's not about George Zimmerman. It's not about racism, the justice system, or any particular core issue. To them, it's merely about lining their own pockets. If the networks weren't able to hijack and exploit this trial for their own gain, it would have probably been dropped weeks ago.

None of this is to imply that the Zimmerman-Trayvon Martin trial is undeserving of coverage or attention from the public. But the skyrocketing ratings definitely explain why this story has dominated the cable news landscape for the last several weeks. Such coverage also says a great deal about the networks when they direct endless amounts of attention to one murder - which took place with a weapon purchased by George Zimmerman - while simultaneously neglecting hundreds of thousands of murders, which took place with weapons purchased by U.S. taxpayers.

To be clear, the "hundreds of thousands of murders" being referred to here isn't some imaginary number. Estimates of civilian casualties from the unnecessary invasion of Iraq in 2003 are, at a minimum, at least 100,000. That's 100,000 taxpayer-funded murders of innocent human beings that never had to happen. And who is being held accountable? Did I somehow miss the trial of George W. Bush? Where is the media on this?

There has been no accountability, and it doesn't help that the current President is aiding in the rewriting of history to cover up the crimes of his predecessor.

Reports Ewen MacAskill of The Guardian:

"Obama failed to mention Iraq once during his speech at the opening of the George W Bush library and museum in Dallas on Thursday. Instead, he opted for kind words about the man he once castigated day after day on the campaign trail, to cheers from Democratic supporters. In Texas, Obama spoke of Bush's "generosity",  "strength", "resolve" and "compassion"."

If Bush authorizing the invasion of a non-threatening country and effectively slaughtering hundreds of thousands of people makes him "generous" and "compassionate", someone had better give Merriam-Webster a call and let them know that they've been erroneously defining these words for decades. Or maybe the problem here isn't Webster, but President Obama, who seems to be pulling an "Ace Ventura" and speaking a bit too much out of his ass.

Such abhorrent revisionism by Obama for Bush only seems explainable if one understands just how much Obama has behaved like Bush since taking office, especially with regard to foreign policy, where Obama is responsible for building up his own pile of innocent human corpses. Hundreds have been slaughtered by his administration's use of taxpayer-funded aerial death robots (aka "predator drones"). Many of these casualties have been children. And in Yemen, the Obama administration even executed two U.S. citizens - a father, Anwar al-Awlaki, and his son, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki - without due process. Again, where's the accountability? Where's the mainstream media coverage?

To reiterate, none of this is to imply that the Zimmerman-Trayvon Martin trial lacks significance, especially if it was racially motivated. One report last year from the Malcolm X Grassroots Movement found that in the first six months of 2012, the police, security guards, and self-appointed "agents of justice" killed 110 African-American men, women, and children - which balances out to be about 1 killing every 36 hours. But if racism is what concerns the public, the ongoing "War on Terror" should be right up at the top of the list, as it is clearly one of the most blatantly racist campaigns of this generation.

Reports Glenn Greenwald of The Guardian:

"Many Americans can (a) say that they oppose the targeted killings of Americans on foreign soil while simultaneously (b) supporting the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen because, for them, the term "Americans" doesn't include people like Anwar al-Awlaki. "Americans" means their aunts and uncles, their nice neighbors down the street, and anyone else who looks like them, who looks and seems "American". They don't think those people - Americans - should be killed without charges by the US government if they travel on vacation to Paris or go to study for a semester in London. But the concept of "Americans" most definitely does not include people with foreign and Muslim-ish names like "Anwar al-Awlaki" who wear the white robes of a Muslim imam and spend time in a place like Yemen.

Legally - which is the only way that matters for this question - the New-Mexico-born Awlaki was every bit as much of an American citizen as the nice couple down the street. His citizenship was never legally revoked. He never formally renounced it. He was never charged with, let alone convicted of, any crime that could lead to the revocation of citizenship. No court ever considered revoking his citizenship, let alone did so. From a legal and constitutional perspective, there was not a single person "more American" than he. That's because those gradations of citizenship do not exist. One is either an American citizen or one is not. There is no such thing as "more American" or "less American", nor can one's citizenship be revoked by presidential decree. This does not exist.  But the effort to depict Muslims as something other than "real Americans" has long been a centerpiece of the US political climate in the era of the War on Terror. When it was first revealed in 2005 that the Bush administration was spying on the communications of Americans without the warrants required by the criminal law, a Bush White House spokesman sought to assure everyone that this wasn't targeting Real Americans, but only those Bad Ones that should be surveilled (meaning Muslims the Bush administration decided, without due process, were guilty).

This decade-long Othering of Muslims - a process necessary to sustain public support for their continuous killing, imprisonment, and various forms of rights abridgments - has taken its toll. I'm most certainly not suggesting that anyone who supports Awlaki's killing is driven by racism or anti-Muslim bigotry. I am suggesting that the belief that Muslims are somehow less American, or even less human, is widespread, and is a substantial factor in explaining the discrepancy I began by identifying. Does anyone doubt that if Obama's bombs were killing nice white British teenagers or smiling blond Swiss infants - rather than unnamed Yemenis, Pakistanis, Afghans and Somalis - that the reaction to this sustained killing would be drastically different? Does anyone doubt that if his overhead buzzing drones were terrorizing Western European nations rather than predominantly Muslim ones, the horror of them would be much easier to grasp? Does it really take any debate to know that if the 16-year-old American suspiciously killed by the US government two weeks after killing his father had been Jimmy Martin in Sweden rather than Abdulrahman al-Awlaki in Yemen, the media interest and public outcry would be far more substantial?"

The type of "othering" Greenwald refers to here of Muslims undoubtedly also applies to African-Americans, evident by their treatment on the domestic front in the only war currently outlasting the "War on Terror": the "War on Drugs". But as mentioned previously, the big cable news networks have no genuine interest in core subjects like racism. If they did, they'd give more coverage to the racism of U.S. foreign policy. They'd give more coverage to the racism of the "War on Drugs". And they'd do this alongside coverage of issues like the case of Trayvon Martin. But instead, these networks have one main priority, which is ratings, and they will apparently go to any length to achieve them. If that means peddling incorrect or speculative information about the Zimmerman-Trayvon Martin trial, so be it. If that means selling a destructive and unnecessary war to the public, so be it.

It never ceases to amaze me that people still give CNN, FOX, and MSNBC their attention after these three networks have lied to them without a shred of remorse time and time again. They deceived their viewers about the 2003 Iraq invasion; they deceived their viewers about the 2011 bombing of Libya; and they continue deceiving their viewers about Iran's non-existent nuclear weapons program, as well as the U.S.-backed "revolution" in Syria.

To see such an important trial being exploited in such a way, and to see many of the aforementioned stories regarding U.S. foreign policy being ignored or drastically neglected, is nothing short of disheartening. I long for a day when these networks are treated like the snakeoil salesmen that they are and ignored instead of wielding the undeserved power to set the national conversation, but until that world comes, we all have to deal with the reality of their hideous existence."

http://tinyurl.com/oj7sxs6
“President Obama publicly grieved for the apparently senseless death of 17 year old Trayvon Martin. It hit home especially hard for the President, he said, because “[i]f I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon.” This week, under mounting criticism that the President is politicizing Martin’s death, an Obama spokesperson claimed that the President “spoke from the heart” when he grieved for Martin, and I, for one, refuse to dispute that. Indeed, it is always a tragedy when such a young life is extinguished without cause and with no possibility of justice, especially when we can identify with the victim on a personal level as President Obama did with Trayvon Martin.

That is precisely why President Obama’s statement is so appalling.

Allow me to explain. On October 14, 2011, another young American boy was senselessly murdered. His name was Abdulrahman al-Awlaki. He was born in Denver on August 26, 1995, six months after the birth of Trayvon Martin, making him just 16 at the time of his murder. His family, like Trayvon’s, described him as a happy teenage boy with a bright future. He shared Trayvon’s dark complexion and jet black hair, enough so that Barack Obama’s imagined son may well have looked just like him. Maybe Barack Obama didn’t know that when he ordered the drone strike that ended Abdulrahman’s young life at a family barbecue. Maybe that’s why there was no grief-stricken statement from the President, no protest on the floor of Congress, no calls for vengeance. Maybe that’s why Spike Lee never felt compelled to tweet “1600 Pennsylvania Ave.” to his bloodthirsty followers.

Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was never charged with a crime (nor was his American father Anwar, who was killed in another drone strike two weeks earlier). The Obama Administration, to this day, refuses to provide any evidence that Abdulrahman or anyone else at the barbecue it bombed was a threat to anyone or wanted for any crime. In fact, the Obama Administration lied and said that Abdulrahman was an al-Qaeda militant in his 20s until the al-Awlaki family came forward with photographs and a birth certificate (at which point the Obama Administration simply changed Abdulrahman’s description to “military-aged man”).

No, Abdulrahman was simply another in an increasingly and appallingly long line of innocent people killed by American missiles in a war our government still refuses to acknowledge. Another young life destroyed for reasons too illogical or too insidious for the government to admit publicly.

The circumstances around Trayvon Martin’s death have rightly generated national outrage, debate, and increased the momentum of efforts to overhaul the institutional injustice that has claimed far too many young lives in our country. The circumstances around Abdulrahman al-Awlaki’s death generated no national outrage, no national debate, and the executive branch’s unilateral war on anyone it declares an enemy continues unchallenged and underreported.

I do not mean to diminish the death of Trayvon Martin or what it represents. I am, however, begging those outraged at the death of Trayvon Martin to take a look behind the Obama Administration’s curtain and see what horrors are being done in their name and with their money.”

http://tinyurl.com/8a2tcnm

“With wall-to-wall coverage of the Zimmerman-Trayvon Martin trial over the past few weeks, one might be led to believe that the cable news networks actually give a damn about justice. One would, however, be sorely mistaken.

Reports TV Newser:

“The biggest beneficiaries of the Zimmerman trial coverage seem to be HLN and MSNBC, which are seeing higher ratings than typical during the hours for which it has covered the trial live. CNN has seen some hours do very well covering the trial (particularly in total viewers), and others where it has not. Fox News hasn’t really seen a ratings spike from covering the trial, although it remains the clear ratings leader overall.”

In other words, the jackals who run the mainstream media freakshow care less about justice than they do about boosting their ratings. To them, this isn’t about Trayvon Martin. It’s not about George Zimmerman. It’s not about racism, the justice system, or any particular core issue. To them, it’s merely about lining their own pockets. If the networks weren’t able to hijack and exploit this trial for their own gain, it would have probably been dropped weeks ago.

None of this is to imply that the Zimmerman-Trayvon Martin trial is undeserving of coverage or attention from the public. But the skyrocketing ratings definitely explain why this story has dominated the cable news landscape for the last several weeks. Such coverage also says a great deal about the networks when they direct endless amounts of attention to one murder – which took place with a weapon purchased by George Zimmerman – while simultaneously neglecting hundreds of thousands of murders, which took place with weapons purchased by U.S. taxpayers.

To be clear, the “hundreds of thousands of murders” being referred to here isn’t some imaginary number. Estimates of civilian casualties from the unnecessary invasion of Iraq in 2003 are, at a minimum, at least 100,000. That’s 100,000 taxpayer-funded murders of innocent human beings that never had to happen. And who is being held accountable? Did I somehow miss the trial of George W. Bush? Where is the media on this?

There has been no accountability, and it doesn’t help that the current President is aiding in the rewriting of history to cover up the crimes of his predecessor.

Reports Ewen MacAskill of The Guardian:

“Obama failed to mention Iraq once during his speech at the opening of the George W Bush library and museum in Dallas on Thursday. Instead, he opted for kind words about the man he once castigated day after day on the campaign trail, to cheers from Democratic supporters. In Texas, Obama spoke of Bush’s “generosity”, “strength”, “resolve” and “compassion”.”

If Bush authorizing the invasion of a non-threatening country and effectively slaughtering hundreds of thousands of people makes him “generous” and “compassionate”, someone had better give Merriam-Webster a call and let them know that they’ve been erroneously defining these words for decades. Or maybe the problem here isn’t Webster, but President Obama, who seems to be pulling an “Ace Ventura” and speaking a bit too much out of his ass.

Such abhorrent revisionism by Obama for Bush only seems explainable if one understands just how much Obama has behaved like Bush since taking office, especially with regard to foreign policy, where Obama is responsible for building up his own pile of innocent human corpses. Hundreds have been slaughtered by his administration’s use of taxpayer-funded aerial death robots (aka “predator drones”). Many of these casualties have been children. And in Yemen, the Obama administration even executed two U.S. citizens – a father, Anwar al-Awlaki, and his son, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki – without due process. Again, where’s the accountability? Where’s the mainstream media coverage?

To reiterate, none of this is to imply that the Zimmerman-Trayvon Martin trial lacks significance, especially if it was racially motivated. One report last year from the Malcolm X Grassroots Movement found that in the first six months of 2012, the police, security guards, and self-appointed “agents of justice” killed 110 African-American men, women, and children – which balances out to be about 1 killing every 36 hours. But if racism is what concerns the public, the ongoing “War on Terror” should be right up at the top of the list, as it is clearly one of the most blatantly racist campaigns of this generation.

Reports Glenn Greenwald of The Guardian:

“Many Americans can (a) say that they oppose the targeted killings of Americans on foreign soil while simultaneously (b) supporting the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen because, for them, the term “Americans” doesn’t include people like Anwar al-Awlaki. “Americans” means their aunts and uncles, their nice neighbors down the street, and anyone else who looks like them, who looks and seems “American”. They don’t think those people – Americans – should be killed without charges by the US government if they travel on vacation to Paris or go to study for a semester in London. But the concept of “Americans” most definitely does not include people with foreign and Muslim-ish names like “Anwar al-Awlaki” who wear the white robes of a Muslim imam and spend time in a place like Yemen.

Legally – which is the only way that matters for this question – the New-Mexico-born Awlaki was every bit as much of an American citizen as the nice couple down the street. His citizenship was never legally revoked. He never formally renounced it. He was never charged with, let alone convicted of, any crime that could lead to the revocation of citizenship. No court ever considered revoking his citizenship, let alone did so. From a legal and constitutional perspective, there was not a single person “more American” than he. That’s because those gradations of citizenship do not exist. One is either an American citizen or one is not. There is no such thing as “more American” or “less American”, nor can one’s citizenship be revoked by presidential decree. This does not exist. But the effort to depict Muslims as something other than “real Americans” has long been a centerpiece of the US political climate in the era of the War on Terror. When it was first revealed in 2005 that the Bush administration was spying on the communications of Americans without the warrants required by the criminal law, a Bush White House spokesman sought to assure everyone that this wasn’t targeting Real Americans, but only those Bad Ones that should be surveilled (meaning Muslims the Bush administration decided, without due process, were guilty).

This decade-long Othering of Muslims – a process necessary to sustain public support for their continuous killing, imprisonment, and various forms of rights abridgments – has taken its toll. I’m most certainly not suggesting that anyone who supports Awlaki’s killing is driven by racism or anti-Muslim bigotry. I am suggesting that the belief that Muslims are somehow less American, or even less human, is widespread, and is a substantial factor in explaining the discrepancy I began by identifying. Does anyone doubt that if Obama’s bombs were killing nice white British teenagers or smiling blond Swiss infants – rather than unnamed Yemenis, Pakistanis, Afghans and Somalis – that the reaction to this sustained killing would be drastically different? Does anyone doubt that if his overhead buzzing drones were terrorizing Western European nations rather than predominantly Muslim ones, the horror of them would be much easier to grasp? Does it really take any debate to know that if the 16-year-old American suspiciously killed by the US government two weeks after killing his father had been Jimmy Martin in Sweden rather than Abdulrahman al-Awlaki in Yemen, the media interest and public outcry would be far more substantial?”

The type of “othering” Greenwald refers to here of Muslims undoubtedly also applies to African-Americans, evident by their treatment on the domestic front in the only war currently outlasting the “War on Terror”: the “War on Drugs”. But as mentioned previously, the big cable news networks have no genuine interest in core subjects like racism. If they did, they’d give more coverage to the racism of U.S. foreign policy. They’d give more coverage to the racism of the “War on Drugs”. And they’d do this alongside coverage of issues like the case of Trayvon Martin. But instead, these networks have one main priority, which is ratings, and they will apparently go to any length to achieve them. If that means peddling incorrect or speculative information about the Zimmerman-Trayvon Martin trial, so be it. If that means selling a destructive and unnecessary war to the public, so be it.

It never ceases to amaze me that people still give CNN, FOX, and MSNBC their attention after these three networks have lied to them without a shred of remorse time and time again. They deceived their viewers about the 2003 Iraq invasion; they deceived their viewers about the 2011 bombing of Libya; and they continue deceiving their viewers about Iran’s non-existent nuclear weapons program, as well as the U.S.-backed “revolution” in Syria.

To see such an important trial being exploited in such a way, and to see many of the aforementioned stories regarding U.S. foreign policy being ignored or drastically neglected, is nothing short of disheartening. I long for a day when these networks are treated like the snakeoil salesmen that they are and ignored instead of wielding the undeserved power to set the national conversation, but until that world comes, we all have to deal with the reality of their hideous existence.”

http://tinyurl.com/oj7sxs6

Syria Cat Food fatwa

Many of you may have heard the rumour that Syrians have been granted a fatwa that they can eat cat food out of neccessity due to the dire situation they are facing. Is it true?

The Chairman of Sharia Office, Abu Salim is reported to have said:

Our office was formed after the merger of the four different groups. This office consists of sections ; section of a fatwa, part of the court and etc..Sharia courts was established to dispute resolution. Due to the war, security fell to the lowest level in many areas. Some people trying to oppress the weaks. We have established these courts in order to prevent it.

At the same time we have invitation and act of showing the true path sections. Invitation part is also working for other groups who resisted. It is a general section both inviting civilians and the insurgents. This section offers Islamic education. Some of these ; oratory , The Holy Qur’an ,canon law and etc..

Also we have an office established for training. As is known the education stopped after the war. To close the gap a little bit institutes were established depending on Ahrar. Fatwa decisions taken in the office are applied in Ahrar movement. It does not include the people. Court order is applied for the civilian population.

It is said that a fatwa given that the cat can be eaten due to starvation in Homs. Is this true? What is demanded from you in similar cases?

In case of necessity cat meat even human flesh can be eaten. In case of necessity some restrictions may permissible. The questions are mostly about jihad. Commanders, and the questions about life and property.

http://www.timeturk.com/en/2013/02/21/starving-people-in-syria-ask-for-fatwa-to-eat-cat.html

Apart from this, the only evidence of truth I can find is some tweets and facebook posts.

If anyone knows where this news originates from please let me know. We should always make sure of the authenticity of something before we share it.

 

EDIT:
Please remember our brothers and sisters in Syria in your Du’as this blessed month

I have already spoken with the main team and they are inaundated with clothes and tinned food put on alot of weight for the convoy. If you have any other food pack alternatives at home, baby milk powder, toys I know they are desperate for medicines (paracetamol, aspirin and first aid kits) nappies, or money! It is easier to purchase all these goods in Turkey so please try and give what ever you can. The collection is happening at the Buttercup primary school 59-66 Greenfield Rd, London E1 1EJ. The Convoy is leaving in the last 10 ten days of Ramadan to get to Syria for eid – drop off at school or give items to me and InshaAllah My husband will do the bulk drop off this Saturday to deliver the goods. Please pass this message to ur families and friends – you will be rewarded highly. Br Khalil (07811399380) for High Wycombe/Slough pick up or
Zara Rahman (School contact)
02074883010/ 07429112217 Please circulate may Allah (swt) reward you ameen

People are political concepts?

There’s a time when we need to stop looking at people as political concepts; the belongings of a certain nation, the responsibility of those within particular political boundaries.We need to start remembering these are real people. With real emotions, real feelings, real pain. If they come to us for help, it is mind boggling to think we can say no, or we make them stay locked up in a prison, after knowing the trauma and ordeals they have been through.

Why do we say no?

Because of politics. Because of man made, random, political boundaries, which determine which person deserves the help and which doesn’t based on where they happened to be born. Because we need to look after our own first, make ourselves richer first, those other people aren’t our problem.

 

Where is common humanity? Where are the common ideals? the brotherhood of man? Universal human rights? They seem for the most kind to be hidden in pockets of “activism”. Not part of the mainstream consciousness. How many of us really reach out and put sustained effort in to helping those who need help. How many of us sacrifice some of our own comforts for those more in need?

If mankind can make their own laws, and it can work, and they don’t need God to give them morals, then why is nationalism such a disease and we don’t even realise it? We think it is normal to turn people away, to lock people up who are not guilty of any crime.

Mehdi Hasan blasts Islamophobes in Oxford University Debate

Mehdi Hasan blasts Islamophobes in Oxford University Debateby ABDULLAH AL ANDALUSI • JULY 4, 2013On the 23rd May 2013, the Oxford Union held a debate entitled ‘The House Believes Islam is a Religion of Peace’ between three speakers arguing for the motion, and three speakers arguing against the motion.The speakers spoke in this order:[For] MATTHEW HANDLEY, Student from St Hugh’s College, Oxford[Against] ANNE-MARIE WATERS –  A prominent journalist and campaigner, and is a member of the Labour Party.[For] ADAM DEEN – Muslim Speaker and Debater[Against] DANIEL JOHNSTON – journalist and editor of magazine Standpoint[For] MEHDI HASAN –  Britain’s most prominent Muslim journalist. Political editor of the Huffington Post.[Against] PETER ATKINS is former Professor of Chemistry at the University of Oxford and now a fellow of Lincoln College.I watched the debate, and found Mehdi Hasan’s performance to be striking and compelling. He lambasts the Islam-critical opposition, and brings some common sense refutations of their misguided argument in his inimitable entertaining style. A good example of a Muslim engaging with Islamophobic critique and making a palpable case for Islam being a religion of peace. I’ve included the video of his part of the debate below (videos of the other speakers can be found on the same channel). Enjoy:

via Mehdi Hasan blasts Islamophobes in Oxford University Debate.

Shia infertility candies

Seriously, who believed the shia infertility candies story? and even if one Shia commited a crime why would it prove anything about all the shia? We complain when that happens to Muslims, yet we are so ready to believe it about others, even when the story is incredulous. If there was such a thing as infertility candies do you not think that it would be an easy alternative to permanent contraception for those who get it done for health reasons etc?

When we say we don’t trust the media, that doesn’t mean we don”t trust the media when they talk about Muslims, but when they talk about others is ok!

Published: July 2, 2013 at 8:45 AM

MEDINA, Saudi Arabia, July 2 (UPI) — A man wore a black-robe dress to mix with female worshippers at a Saudi Arabia mosque and steal from them, officials said.

The man was arrested inside the Prophet’s Mosque and was wearing an abaya, which women in Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries wear, police told the Gulf News Tuesday.

Thousands of worshippers attend the five daily prayers at the mosque, which is the second most important holy site for Muslims.

Police said men often wear abayas and cover their faces to avoid police checkpoints or to beg for money in front of mosques.

A police spokesperson said a social media report about an arrest of an Iranian man who was dressed in an abaya and giving children poisoned sweets is not true.

“We would like to stress the need to avoid spreading rumours and allegations. Anyone with a question can always contact the reliable sources to know the facts and the truth,” he said.

Read more: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2013/07/02/Thief-arrested-in-Saudi-Arabia-mosque/UPI-86861372769118/#ixzz2Y6IvB2Hh

Evaluating Sources – History 101

In the light of recent events in Woolwich, as in the Boston bombings there have been many claims and counter claims of falsification, false flag ops, media manipulation and conspiracies.

So how do we process all of this information and come to our own conclusions of what we believe to be fact, and what we believe is fiction?

I feel we need to take a step back and go back to basics. Forget all this high tech mumbo jumbo that most of us are not qualified to comment on and don’t fully understand, as people who do understand it are just as easily able to manipulate us as anyone else.

Let’s look at History 101, evaluating sources as in the UK, contrary to popular opinion, our education system does actually teach us to think.

Some sources are more useful than others.

When reading/viewing a story, do we always believe what we read or see?

Obviously we shouldn’t. We make judgements on the reliability of the sources, in the same manner that we make judgements when told things by individuals in every day conversation.

For example:

Some people will have a hidden agenda,

Some people will be giving evidence for a specific reason,

Some people will leave out crucial pieces of information,

Some people will be repeating the words of others.

When studying history, newspaper articles and news broadcasts need to be examined using the same stringent methods as any other source. The official version of events is never beyond reproach, or above judgement.

We judge using simple analysis;

Purpose – why? what is the intent behind the piece of information.

Limitations – what? does it not tell you? What is missing? What would you like to know that is not apparent?

Author  – who?  made it, and what is their expertise, or involvement in event? what are the implications of this.

Content – what? Does it tell you

Type – Primary or secondary?

Purpose

Is it informational, fictional, is it to attract people to a page or site, get more you tube hits? Is it to report an officially recognised and sanctioned version of events? Is it to propogate a particular ideaology? What are the authors motives? What was the intent behind it?

Limitations

Could it have bias? Could it have information which is missed out, deliberately or otherwise? If it is a secondary source does it take in to account all of the primary information?

Author

Who wrote it? Who produced it? what is their history of accurate reporting? Do they support a particular view or ideology? Are they free to speak?

Content

What does it tell us? what new information do we learn from it?

Type

Eye witness account, at the time or after?

Other considerations

– Intended audience, why are they telling who they are telling? who is it aimed at and how would that effect it?

 – Tone, threatening, persuasive, conciliatory

 – Action Does the source motivate action? why? Who benefits? what action?

I hope the above will be helpful when determining what to believe. It is a reminder for us all, firstly myself. Don’t believe a clip saying something is doctored if you dont know anything about film making, the same way you wouldn’t accept the official version without research.

May Allah guide us all to truth.

%d bloggers like this: