Enough with the Human Rights already!

We want humanitarian interventions against Syria because we think Asad is guilty of human rights abuses.  "Because the life, liberty, security and happiness of Syrians is in danger," shouts every media headlines, "intervention in Syrian is necessary."  Well, I am here to tell you that I am sick of the propaganda of Human Rights' claims in Syria. This article will prove that Human Rights is a tool to create perpetual war in the world, not peace. Humanitarian interventions are imperial instruments of the West through which they satisfy their economic and political interests.

Human Rights became essential after the American Revolution, as stated in their Declaration of Independence. But the rights were limited to rich, wealthy, well educated property-owning white men. It excluded women and minorities. Europeans were also selective in confirming rights to African slave workers and their colonial subjects. The Universal Declaration of Human rights was passed in 1948. The resolution was in response to the ordeal of the first two World wars. Yet, strangely enough, to this day, while the mass holocaust and degradation of humanity continues apace by the United States and Europe.  They use it as a lip service to shape normative discourse but do not really acted upon it themselves nor enforce it upon their governments. The United States and Europe are the first to engage in human rights violations wherever they see it is fitting to their own goals. Throughout history, US and Europe have used violence, war, exploitation, torture and mass murder for some natural resource gain or economic benefit, prestige or political advantage.

Human rights and International Relations can be understood in four levels. The first level is that of International Law. The second stage is that of the United Nations. The third stage is that of state behaviour. The fourth stage is that of non-governmental organizations. In terms of International Law, the United Nations had made resolutions regarding human rights in three main areas: that of economic and cultural rights; resolutions against torture and degrading treatment. These in turn has become a form of customary law that is slowly becoming international law. It binds nations in how they behave towards others.
In the United Nations, there is the International Criminal Court in which the United States refused to ratify because it could jeopardize their citizens who has committed major war crimes and crimes against humanity. The International Criminal Court does not cover all crimes. They are largely concerned about war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. However, the ICC and the Security Council has never  prosecuted Americans for war crimes or brought a single European person to trial.  The United Nations, on the other hand has many Human Rights Councils and the Human Rights Commissioners. They are concerned about informing the media of Arab nations that do not comply with the Human Rights resolutions, but have no teeth against against the US. They don't even report against the US. When was the last time sanctions were enforced against the US or import linkage was broken to prevent monetary support to the US from the International community? When did the US use domestic cords to indite war mongers?

The rhetoric of human rights are largely very Euro-centric and even the leaders who claim to be following human rights are themselves hypocrites because human rights is a tool for them to justify military or economic warfare against states that are not aligned with Western imperialist agendas. There is a large disconnect between principle and practice for Western leaders who charge others on human rights but who themselves are more than willing to bomb, pillage, rape, maim, torture, and commit mass genocide on other people whenever it suits their goals. Mearsheimer said human rights is just a veneer and a façade for imperialism, and that even though it is a great normative standard that is worthy of political rhetoric, no state with any real power is willing to follow it to the letter or spirit because of their own national interests and strategic interests in other states.
with the growing role of non-governmental organizations or NGOs, they help to promote the value of human rights and making us aware of certain violations of states against their own citizens (although it is very selective and biased because it does not and never does target their own home state – like the United States for example). The NGOs has the power of shaming and degrading other states and making them look bad so that the international community can react and demand some kind of action must take place. The boomerang pattern says that actors with no resources of their own appeal to NGOs in order to get their message out and in turn this strikes back at the state doing the human rights abuses. This was the case in states like Afghanistan, Iraq Libya, and Syria where NGOs acted  as missionaries of empire and new imperialism under the cover of seemingly legitimate human rights concerns.
Its like a script...specific human rights are enforced upon states whether or not they like it because the US and Europe are doing it. Hence, there is a kind of pressure upon the Middle East to adopt Western values even if we have no need for them. Its like, in order to be seen as legitimate by the West, we must play by their rules.  According to the non-statist constructivist’s perspective by Keck and Sickink, normative mobilization encourages other states to adopt human rights values and liberalism in order to be accepted into the world community itself. In turn, this creates a normative cascade in which everyone eventually joins in on the group.

Human rights are largely Western-centered and focus too much on individual liberty, capital growth with little emphasis on religious and social values. Others say that human rights are a cover for other motives and generally as a means to sell empire and wars. It is also used as a tool to bring down those states that do not conform to western values and economic policies. There is also the inherent tension between state sovereignty and individual human rights. This tension is the cause of much debate ever since the notion of, “responsibility to protect” and, “humanitarian intervention” has been adopted by western corporate media and political analysts as a sacrosanct occult of a sort that on the surface sounds good but which really justifies the right to project power and the right to pillage and plunder, as well as purge the world of “wasteful” human beings, and endorses torture and other inhuman activities. In other words, human rights are simply a covert mask for insidious and often inhumane treatment of human beings. It is also a great public relations stunt to justify wars and imperialism in the new world order in which nations must comply and obey western imperialists or else.
The Middle East has always been a realm of human security. I grew up in the Middle East and I know i had more personal, economic, health, political, community, food and environmental security than I ever had living in the West. What I mean is that people in the Middl East are free from fear and free from the fear of want. Although we live under dictators and monarchs, we have the essential jobs, work and opportunities to be safe and secure. We have the opportunities, resources and skills to survives.  The West is the godfather of atheism, social darwinism and consumerism, which is far more deadly, lethal and destructive than any actions by authoritarian regime, real or imagined because the West uses these fake freedoms to control its grid over humanity.

Moving onto Just War theory and intervention, there are many traditions that try to justify the reasons to go to war, and the practise of warfare itself. In the western tradition, Cicero discusses that man has the means to resolve disputes by reason, and that violence is for brutes. In turn, going to war should be a last resort and only if it is for a just cause. War should not be applied to innocent human beings, but only to opposing professional soldiers. Secondly, Augustine argued that wrongdoing by the other side justifies war itself. Aquinas stated that sovereign sources can go to war, and that they should have a good reason for doing so as well. Michael Walzer argued that the common principles of just war theory are that of jus ad bellum, the reasons to go to war. These include justification to use force, self defense, helping an ally, and protection of innocents; as a last resort; right intentions; and reasonable chance of success. On the other hand, jus in Bello says that wars should be conducted in such a way that protects non-combatants; proportionality; and a civil, humane conduct of war that does not damage civilian life.
In practise, however, just war theory has caused more casualties than ever, and that it is in itself a justification to go to war. For example, the bombing of Libya was not justified because it grossly violated human rights and the concept of a just war. It also caused much unnecessary suffering and pain. The Americans could have settled for something less than unconditional surrender but they chose to bomb most of Libya, the only developed country in Africa half to hell. What happened to Human Rights then?

Obama in his Nobel Peace Prize message stated that the instruments of war do have a role to paly in the preservation of peace…which is to say that war is peace. Although Obama laid out the principles of just war, jus ad bellum and jus in bello, the reality is that Obama contradicted everything that he promised to the American people, and betrayed the world once again by going on murderous wars of peace. In fact, in Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize speech, the word, “war” had been used 33 times. September 11 itself was later used as a justification to wage a just war on Afghanistan, and then Iraq because of its past invasion of Kuwait and alleged weapons of mass destruction, which later when they were not found was then forgotten and instead, the war and invasion was justified as imposing democracy throughout the region by using Iraq as a test-ground for “democracy.”  Yet, even the conduct of wars does not match what Obama said in his Nobel Peace Prize speech. The real conducts of wars to this day are still as barbaric, precise, and deadly as ever. Depleted uranium for example is still used in most missiles and bombs which in turn do a lot more harm than just a “clean” bomb. The Geneva Conventions, even though so many states have signed them has no real meaning because every state whenever it can, still abuses human rights, and engaged in torture. 

The Responsibility to Protect Doctrine was created by Gareth Evans and backed up by the Canadian government in order to sell the right to project force and power throughout the world under the cover of protecting civilians by bombing them to prevent them from being killed by other rogue elements within a state.  The Responsibility to Protect outlined the reasons why states should intervene in other nations’ affairs by stating the oppression by other states justify intervention; and that non-intervention should yield to human rights because civilians are much more important than national sovereignty. 
In the 2005 World Summit, R2P was adopted except by a few other states that abstained. It also mentioned collective security, diplomatic and humanitarian intervention by military means; and it also cited Chapter 7 of the United Nations Charter which authorizes the uses of force. R2P is extremely subjective; it justifies war and human rights abuses itself; it exasperates and worsens the situation; and it is also a failure. It is also easy to abuse, hypocritical, and is simply a means of projecting empire whenever it is convenient for western imperialists to do so.
In practice,  the intervention in Somalia did not work out according to United Nations diktats because the United States engaged in human rights abuses themselves before they were forced to pull out under Clinton. In Libya, the entire state is a failed quagmire of death and destruction while it is being Balkanized and broken apart into warring factions. Libya is a modern case of the failure of R2P and its use as a means by American forces (pretending to be NATO) to “save” the civilians by actually engaging in discriminatory bombing sorties and human rights abuses of their own. According to Walzer, Libya violates the norms of what is considered a just war because of the end consequence, while the Council on Foreign Relations (an American neoliberal/neoconservative thinktank) which said that Libya is a model case of the “success” of the responsibility to protect doctrine which is so subjective, vague, and open to abuse that it is a failure in and of itself as an imperial marketing ploy to sell wars based on lies from start to finish (all wars are based on lies from beginning to conclusion).

Humanitarian intervention is so full of holes and errors in reasoning, judgment and usage that experience teaches us that R2P (responsibility to protect) is nothing more than the right for western imperialists to engage in wars of aggression; to pillage, plunder, and purge the world into a chaotic bloodbath for profits sake; and to project their own powers wherever they find that they have some vital interest at hand that under the cover of humanitarianism can be utilized to justify the war itself as a “just war.” No war is ever just because war itself is a grave injustice upon humanity, it is not natural for humans to go to war, and its destructive power is simply psychopathic, sadistic, and barbaric.

Playing Chess with the United States

Source: Soft Balancing against the United States

Pape, Robert Anthony, 1960- International Security, Volume 30, Number 1, Summer 2005, pp. 7-45 (Article)

Published by The MIT Press

I should have technically written about this long time ago but considering my perceptions have no supports in the political arena, why bother? But then I thought, would Tony Stark do this? Would he back down because no one could get a read on him? No he would say, "I shouldn't be alive, unless it was for a reason. I'm not crazy...I just finally know what I have to do. And I know in my heart that it's right." The US has bullied the world for far too long. It has unilaterally abandoned the Kyoto accords on global warming, rejected participation in the International Criminal Court, and withdrawn from the Antiballistic Missile (ABM) treaty, among other foreign policies. It has invaded Afghanistan and Iraq on false pretexts and maimed millions of civilians in the process. Undermined  the Geneva Convention. It has threatened Iran and Syria. Effectively launched a rhetorical global crusade against Islam. It refuses to be give accountability to its misdeeds. Why hasn't anyone done anything to stop the US? Why are we all sucking our thumbs reading the horrors of US led war on terror?

Did you know WWII was preventable? If the League of Nations prevented Hitler from breaking the Treaty of Versailes, achieved disarmament and enforced collective security instead of appeasement, there would have been no such thing as the Holocaust! UK and France believed  that Hitler would be appeased if allowed to invade  Poland, Czechoslovakia and neighbouring states - that he would stop after amassing some power, territory and wealth. They wanted to weaponize Hitler's fascism to defeat Stalin's communism. But appeasement only encouraged Hitler. He didn't stop at anything until he had destroyed half of Europe. So should we keep appeasing the US?

BTW,  all this is legit history, grade 10 stuff.
Well here is how the international community can play chess against the US:
(a) traditional hard-balancing measures, such as military buildups, war-fighting alliances,
(b) Soft balancing using international institutions, economic statecraft, and diplomatic arrangements.

Although soft balancing may be unable to prevent the United States from achieving specific military aims in the near term, it will increase the costs of using U.S. power, reduce the number of countries likely to cooperate with future U.S. military adventures, and possibly shift the balance of economic power against the United States. For example, Europe, Russia, and China could press hard for the oil companies from countries other than the United States to have access to Iraqi oil contracts, which would increase the economic costs of U.S. occupation of the country. Europeans could also begin to pay for oil in euros rather than in dollars, which could reduce demand for the dollar as the world’s reserve currency and so increase risks of inflation and higher interest rates in the United States. Most important, soft balancing could eventually evolve into hard balancing. China and European states could also increase their economic ties with Russia while ontinuing or even accelerating support for Iran’s nuclear program, a step that would eventually bring the US to its knees.

The United States may be the sole superpower, but it is geographically isolated. To project power in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East, it depends greatly on basing rights granted by local allies. Indeed, all U.S. victories since 1990—Iraq, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Afghanistan—relied on the use of short-legged tactical air and ground forces based in the territory of U.S. allies in the region. Without regional allies, the United States might still be able to act unilaterally, but it would have to take higher risks in blood and treasure to do so.
Turkey mashaAllah did an awesome job by refusing to allow U.S. ground forces on its soil. This reduced the amount of heavy ground power available to the US against Iraq by one-third, thus compelling the it to signifcantly alter its preferred battle plan, increasing the risk of casualties etc.

France, Germany, Russia, and China could help by pressing hard for the UN rather than the United States to oversee the administration of oil contracts in Iraq, perhaps even working with the new Iraqi government for this purpose. Even if they did not succeed, U.S. freedom of action in Iraq and elsewhere in the region would decline. If the United States gave in, it would lose control over which companies ultimately obtain contracts for Iraq’s oil, and so pay a higher price for any continued presence in the region.
Speaking of oil, Today Europeans buy their oil in dollars, a practice that benefits the United States by creating extra demand for dollars as the world’s reserve currency. This extra demand allows the United States to run outsized trade and government budget deficits at lower inflation and interest rates than would otherwise be the case. A coordinated decision by other countries to buy oil in euros would transfer much of this benefit to Europe and decrease the United States’ gross national product, possibly by as much as 1 percent, more or less permanently.

Perhaps the most likely step toward hard balancing would be for major states to encourage and support transfers of military technology to U.S. opponents. For example provide nuclear technology to Cuba, Venezuela, Vietnam etc,  states that U.S. plummeted. The major powers block U.S. steps to put pressure on Pakistan and Syria. For instance, if the United States attempts to make military threats or impose economic sanctions, European countries should open their doors in wider in support for the victims. Without broad international support, the US will continue to spread of mass destruction to other countries using preventive war, aggressive illegal weapons and torture, which does not serve world peace interests. US has become a superpower authoritarian regime and menace to the world. Stop it before WWIII. 

In the near term, France, Germany, Russia, China, Japan, and other important regional states are unlikely to respond in this manner. Directly and indirectly confronting U.S. preponderance is too costly for any individual state and too risky for multiple states operating together, at least until major powers become confident that members of a balancing coalition will act in unison. Even then I know Europe and East Asia will never play chess with the US. This is something that we have to do. 

And this is why I must speak Arabic

Note: Did you know we are Christian, for most of the days in a year? Keep reading and you'll be just as shocked as I was when I began this research....I enjoy traveling and meeting people from different backgrounds. I respect multiculturalism but not at the expense of losing my own culture. 

It is understandable that there is a great concern as regards the various problems with one's original language in relation to second or third languages for communication. Most of our parents read and write a language other than English - Urdu, Panjabi, Maratti, Mandarin, Arabic or Portuguese.  Most of our kids speak English with different accent than ours'. And if we ever lived in a Scandinavian country then along with English, some of our family members can almost understand and somewhat even articulate in Dutch, Finnish, Swedish, French and/or German. Seems pretty cool innit?


Personally, I stoutly believe that a person's language constitutes his or her cultural, social and personal value. Our language is more than a tool of communication, it is a quantitative component of our existence. The way we perceive and comprehend the world ourselves and others is processed, structured and expressed by means of language. In this sense language makes our conscience, it formulates our identity as a person and distinguishes us from being simply a part of a mass, while, at the same time, language brings us closer to a specific group of people. The words of a language represents a collection of experiences, history, ethics and morals of a people who speak it. Thus, every language connects its speakers with the the past and the future, it gives them the physiognomy of a nation.  This is why language evolves and matures our beliefs and thoughts, it renews our commitments and our relations.


Learning a foreign language and replacing it with one's original languages means substituting one's reason, sentiments, morals and conception of the world with another. For example, my original language is urdu but I write, think, dream and speak in English. English is the unofficial language of present day Christianity and Paganism. Before everyone gets upset with me thinking I am calling English a Kafir language let me prove that deeply ingrained in English is an illustration of a "foreign" worldview.
For instance, English days of the week and months are named after pagan gods - Sunday is from sun god; monday, moon god; Tuesday is god Tyr; Wednesday is named after god odin, Thursday, god Thor, Friday, god Frigga and Saturday after god Saturn. January comes from Roman Janus, the god of power. Feb from Februa, the Roman festival of purification. March is named after the Roman god of war. April is from Aprilis, latin name for the goddess of fertility. May is Maia, Roman deity of growth. June is the name of the goddess of marriage, the wife of Jupiter. It is also attributed to Junius Brutus, the god of crop growth and ripening. July came from Julius Caesar and August is obviously Octavius Augustus Caesar. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. mean 7,8,9,10 in Latin.
English years are numbered after the birth of Christ. BC is Before Christ and AD is After Death of Christ (but Esa a.s never died, Allah saved him and he ascended to the Heavens). English academic school calendar revolves around polytheism, specifically prophet and saint worship - for example, there is the feast of St. Michael on Sept. 29, celebration of Trinity on Dec. 25th and festival of St. Hilary on Jan. 13th.  English special occasions are marked by observance of sin- Valentine's Day is a day of fornication. St Patrick’s Day is the day of drinking. Mother's Day originated with Christians going to "mother church" or cathedral. Halloween/ all Hallow's Day is appraising the powers of the devil. Even our food is contaminated. We eat Quaker Oats, Angel Delights, devil’s cake, brownies and hot cross buns.


This is how a language engineers a person. It gives meaning to our words that structure our articles of faith, our conventions, and approach. Today's Muslims are more of a reflection of "Bend it like Beckham" and "Bride and Prejudice culture" - a brew of Hollywood and Bollywood than an ambience of the lives of the Sahaba (r.a) - companions of the Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w). We are Muslims but we find modesty and covering, living on rent and taking the bus instead of mortgaging a house and leasing a car so estranged. We pity the Muslim who seek God instead of pride. We think its weird that some Muslims yearn for spiritual reward more than we lust after flesh, metal and plastic. We live for good taste and good looks and they are busy perfecting their intentions and actions. We think these type of Muslims are extremists, brainwashed, backward fundamentalists. But are they really losers or we are?


Back home and in the West we learned English, French or German for the sake of educational and professional improvement in terms of income or social prestige. The foreign language gave us material success and status but this did not come without a religious deficit. Foreign language divorced us from Islam and liaised us to Kafir customs and mores.
Shakespeare, Herman Melville and Scott Fitzerald taught us in Romeo and Juliet, Moby-Dick and The Great Gatsby that hedonism and nihilism is the way of life and happiness. Mary Shelley and William Golding convinced us in Frankenstein and Lord of the Flies that human beings are nothing but fickle, foppish and ferocious fiends. George Orwell desensitized us to totalitarian governments in 1984. J.D Salinger and J.K Rowling explained in Catcher in the Rye and Harry Potter that power is acquired through superstition, magic and occults. Louisa M Alcott's Little Women, Amy Sherman's Gilmore Girls and Marc Cherry's Desperate Housewives showed us the different shades of the female gender. Homer Simpson, Ross Geller (Friends) and Ashton Kutcher (Two and a Half men) set precedence for acceptable masculine behaviour.  Overall, our impressions of everything from personal hygiene and health, our choice of cars and cuisines, the dress we wear to the dreams we have -almost  everything is shaped by the language we speak. If we speak English then necessarily we'll read things which are English and watch English shows and unintentionally espouse English habits and philosophy on life. We may now pass as posh Canadians or Americans, integrated to the teeth but we have become very impoverished Muslims as a result. We don't even remember what real Islam looked like. And the worst part is, we don't even care.


"To have a second language is to have a second soul," said Charlemagne around 800 CE. If this is true then no wonder souls are devoid of a sense of Islamic identity, Qurni'c paradigm and sunnah consciousness because we do not understand the Islamic language - Arabic. Language doesn't just stir conversations but it allures our thoughts, perceptions, sensations, experiences and intuition. For example, in Arabic language, the duration of life is بِالْغَدَاةِ وَالْعَشِيِّ morning and evening. So an Arab person lives life, one day and night at time. There is really no grief about the best or anxiety over the future. An Arab speaker assumes that he only has one morning or a single evening to live so he makes the most of it so he lives a life without regrets or stress. But this doesn't mean an Arab speaker will gamble his life away for drugs and women because he does not hope to live very long. He understands الْحَيَاةَ life which is from the root ح ي ي to be lived with modesty ( حياء ) and in moderation. An Arab speaker knows that he is خَلَقَ created, the very word denotes that his formation has a God and purpose. Similarly, in Arabic, the verb tomorrow is interpreted as the next life and Hereafter or Day of Judgment. So Arab speakers grasp the notion for tomorrow as the time and place when they will stand before the Creator and answer for their their life and actions on earth. When you ask, in perfectly normal Arabic and in the present tense, “What is your plan for tomorrow?” The Arab speaker thinks of tomorrow as life after death, the time of recompense. So he won't say he has a day of or he is going somewhere tomorrow. He will think of Heaven and Hell. How do we fathom destiny in English? It was Buster's destiny to win the pizza eating contest or  Cinderalla's destiny to marry the prince. In Arabic, destiny is not the same as a lucky coincidence or the fruit of one's labour or the highest aspiration of one's life but God's Will and Decree. So the Arabic language comes with its very own and unique Islamic cognitive toolkit which we cannot truly appreciate and benefit from while speaking English or Urdu or French, Japanese or Italian. 


So I need to learn Arabic. I feel every day I am moving further and further away from Islam. I pray, wear Hijab, eat halal, read the Qur'an etc in routine. I feel I am not being a conscious Muslim. Like I need to change the way my brain is wired or something, reprogram myself so I am in Allah mode all the time. So that my ideas, emotions, reactions, gestures and speech are Rabbaani. I wanna run away the Kafir mentality, attitude and dress. I want to resurrect the time of the Sahaba (r.a). Reinstate the environment of Madina at the time of Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w). I cannot think of any better way of achieving this than through learning the Arabic language. I think it would be ideal to go to Bayyinah Institute but I think for now I should start with Madina Books by AburRaheem Fha and various Arabic dictionaries at home. Slowly do the exercises and memorize new vocab and grammar rules.

Why And How To Learn Arabic - Nouman Ali Khan - Bayyinah Institute   

Reference: HOW DOES OUR LANGUAGE SHAPE THE WAY WE THINK? [6.12.09]
By Lera Boroditsky http://edge.org/3rd_culture/boroditsky09/boroditsky09_index.html 
Does Your Language Shape How You Think? By GUY DEUTSCHER http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/magazine/29language-t.html?pagewanted=all

Syria DOES NOT need to be Saved

The world should just mind its own business. For instance, Canadians should worry about Canada. Why do we ignore reporters who invariably write in local news, "Never before has so much power been concentrated in the hands of the prime minister and a few key advisers." The Globe and Mail wrote a book describing Jean Chretien's regime as a "friendly dictatorship" and Paul Martin created within the Privy Council Office a miniature parallel bureaucracy. In Stephen Harper's government, a centralization has reached previously unimaginable levels. Simpson calls him "El Commandante." Cabinet ministers speaking off the record describe an administration run, in essence, by two men: Harper and Kevin Lynch, Clerk of the Privy Council. All policy goes through them and their coterie of advisers, and much policy comes from them. No report is released, no interview granted, no press release issues unless "the Centre" has signed off on it. Veteran bureaucrats report that never before in their entire careers have they seen a government in which the entire Parliament and so much decision making is so tightly grasped in the hands of the Prime Minister. 

Look at the following pictures ... this was the face of Toronto Canada in 2011!!  

 

With the government now censoring the internet, I probably shouldn't even be writing any of this. The Online Piracy Act (OPA) gives the government legal rights to the entire cyber domain. It gives the government jurisdiction to monitor any network, shut down any website, bug any ip address, block results on any search engine, implicate bloggers, censor ads and games. Tell me you are not worried about Canadian democracy? 

As for Syria, it does not need to be saved. The media is bluffing about Asad. 

1. CNN staged a pathetic story of pro-westerners posing to be refugees in a private orchard. How do I know this? Watch that news segment and you'll see at one point they show children playing a nearby stream. Its more of a toilet than a stream. The children in the scene are clearly taking their cue from someone off camera right, they keep looking up at this person and then "playing". But in the back of the shot, there is one girl that just stands there looking miserable at whoever is giving her directions. I would be miserable if someone made me stand in crap for a McDonalds cheese burger. The scene also shows a bunch of business class Syrians standing motionless in the water with their shoes off. 

The story also features some Muhammad pharmacist who brought his medication to the refugee camp. His medication is really a box of random supplies and his patient is one diabetic woman who has high blood pressure. Then there is this crying baby on the ground and one man looks like he is going to give it a shot but the camera doesn't show that. I guess it was ok to terrify the child by making it think it was going to get a shot would be too much for him. 

If the fake refugees and doctors aren't funny enough then get a load of the trees that are all certain size and there is a row of newly planted trees right on the other side of the dirt path between them and the older trees. You see working farm equipment in the background and at one point there is someone tending a cow that wandered into the shot. They even use the work truck that carried all the stuff to this location as a prop. It’s an orchard. Some wealthy business class resident has allowed them to set-up and shoot their “refugee” scene in their working orchard.

2. CNN did a story about Zainab al-Hosni, an 18 year old girl who was said to be abducted and mutilated by the Assad regime. The news caster said that she is looking at the pictures of the mutilated “Rose” and the pictures are too gruesome to show. But it turned out that "Rose" wasn't dead after all. 

Her family along with the CNN handlers, were all lying. They made the whole thing up. There was no mutilation or pictures. In Feb 2000, the European press ran a story reported by Alexander Cockburn concerning the employment by CNN of military psychological warfare specialists. The Dutch periodical Trouw confirmed this issue. The military influences CNN news. CNN is CIA's News Network. These psycho specialists pose as reporters, editors, news anchors, analysts, producers and publishers. CNN employees these spooks without journalistic cover. Other news agencies ... not so open. Thomas Collins, of the US Army information service acknowledged, "Psyops personnel, soldiers and officers have been working in CNN's HQ through our programme 'Training with Industry.' They worked as regular employees of CNN. Conceivably, they would worked on stories and production of news." See:  Abe de Vries "US Army Psyops Specialists worked for CNN," Trouw, Feb 21, 2001. Alexander Cockburn, "CNN and Psyops" Counterpunch, March 26, 2000. "Why were government propaganda experts working on News at CNN" Fair Action Alert, March 27, 2000. 


3. CNN ran another story ome “refugees’ hiding out in Homs Syria. And par for its course, it includes plenty of women, old and young, and tons of little kids. They are all sitting around in the dark wondering why the rest of the world doesn’t swing by and bomb Syria because they have to hide out now that the Syrian government and the rest of the Syrian people know that they are murderous traitors hell bent on handing over their country to globalist multinational companies and banks.
The journalist walks with phony stunned look on her face. When are these people going to realize that they aren’t good actors? She feels kids heads, tries to act like she is remaining neutral… keeps zooming in on the kids that look uncomfortable while rushing past the kids who are playing or have smiles on their faces. At one point the news segment shows a “gruesome” picture of someone’s brother who was supposedly killed by Assad’s forces, but of course, it offers up no proof of any of those claims. CNN should be sued! They sold Libya to NATO. CNN is responsible for the death of 30,000 Libyans in NATO air strike. CNN and other news agencies fake small paramilitary groups loyal to U.S. interests that claim to speak for the local population; these journalists then pose the militants attacking the targeted government the U.S. would like to see overthrown — including terrorist bombings — and when the attacked government defends itself, the news cries "genocide" or "mass murder,” while calling for foreign military intervention.


CNN has been telling us that we need to bomb Asad out of power in Syria. After spinning these lies, The New York Times was forced to admit, in several articles, that there have been massive rallies in Syria in support of the Syrian government. These rallies are larger than any pro-government demonstration that the U.S. government could hope to organize for itself. The New York Times reports,

"The turnout in Sabaa Bahrat Square in Damascus, the [Syrian] capital, once again underlined the degree of backing that Mr. Assad and his leadership still enjoy among many Syrians' support, nearly seven months into the popular uprising. That support is especially pronounced in cities like Damascus and Aleppo, the country’s two largest." (January 13, 2012). The New York Times is forced to admit that the two largest cities — in a small country — support the government, This was further confirmed by a poll funded by the anti-Syrian Qatar Foundation, preformed by the Doha Debates. According to the latest opinion poll  commissioned by The Doha Debates, Syrians are more supportive of their president with 55% not wanting him to resign." (January 2, 2012). That is more support than the votes Obama and Harper won in the last elections.


Q. Why are Muslim scholars supporting US overthrowing Arab leaders?
A. This has me confused too. I won't name any names but some of my own teachers wanted Ghaddafi and now Asad gone. I really do not know why. Ghaddafi was a proponent of the Palestinian cause. He wanted to unite all Muslim , possibly establish a khilafah.
Libya was composed of 150 tribes, Meghabra and Waffalllah were the two main ones. Despite Turkey and Italy trying to unify the country, the main tribes had split the country into two. in 1969 coup d'etat, Ghaddafi  won the country wide support and adroitly unified the nation. He retained oil wealth for the benefit of the people (King Idris siphoned the profits into the coffer of oil companies). He created a socialist Paradise - no unemployment, highest GDP in Africa, less than 5% of the population was poor (there are more people in the US living below the poverty than Libya). Most Libyans had a house and a car, free health care and education (literacy rate 82). Ghaddafi gave every Libyan citizen (all 6.5 million people including children) $500 a month! There was hardly any crime. Libya ranked 61 on the International Incarceration Index, US ranks 1 (the lower the rating, the lower the Human Rights Standard).  See: Escape to Hell, and other Stories - Muammar Qaddafi by David Seals, June 17, 1988. And What Ghaddafi do with his billions for Libya. Washington seized $32 billion of Libya's money and assets. That should help the US with the recession? But for how long, they need another war soon to get their economic juices flowing.
The other war will be Syria. For example, the news shows the same protestors dying over and over again in different Syrian attacks. Its a joke. There is another man whom the news shows with fake blood. Then they show some man who is shot, they zoom into his wound...his daughter is screaming in the background, pleading to let her take her father to the hospital but the camera men don't care. They are pulling his clothes off just so the viewers at home see his injury. They rather film a dying man than save his life so they can claim the Syrian army is responsible for yet another tragedy. The media will cry humanitarian crisis and US and NATO will be all over Syria.

I don't want to sound like a big mouth. I am not not better than anyone. My articles are just a reflection of my thoughts which may be wrong - I am the first one to admit, I speak from my nafs may Allah forgive me. But I sincerely feel our scholars should shed some light on the tafseer of Surah Hujurat. We are instructed to make peace and reconciliation between disputant Muslims وَإِن طَائِفَتَانِ مِنَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ اقْتَتَلُوا فَأَصْلِحُوا بَيْنَهُمَا until they both return to following the command of Allah حَتَّىٰ تَفِيءَ  إِلَىٰ أَمْرِ اللَّهِ And Allah specifically says to do be fair and do justice when reconciling. How would you describe Ghaddafi's last moments? Fair and Just? I blame the scholars for endorsing this violence. Allah says all believers are brothers and we should work hard to get along with each other إِنَّمَا الْمُؤْمِنُونَ إِخْوَةٌ فَأَصْلِحُوا بَيْنَ أَخَوَيْكُمْ Violent revolutions and murder should be the last thing on our mind. Allah even warns us and says we should fear Him (have taqwa) when dealing with our brothers in faith and joining relations with them. وَاتَّقُوا اللَّهَ لَعَلَّكُمْ تُرْحَمُونَ Good brotherhood will incur Allah's mercy and breaking the bonds of brotherhood between believers will incur His wrath. And what I see in the Middle East and Pakistan right now, is not really politics but Allah's wrath. 


I think we copy the Bani Israel even when it comes to killing each other.  Like I really love verse 85 of Surah al Baqarah, to me, its one of the best depictions of our time....

ثُمَّ أَنتُمْ هَـٰؤُلَاءِ تَقْتُلُونَ أَنفُسَكُمْ وَتُخْرِجُونَ فَرِيقًا مِّنكُم مِّن دِيَارِهِمْ تَظَاهَرُونَ عَلَيْهِم بِالْإِثْمِ وَالْعُدْوَانِ وَإِن يَأْتُوكُمْ أُسَارَىٰ تُفَادُوهُمْ وَهُوَ مُحَرَّمٌ عَلَيْكُمْ إِخْرَاجُهُمْ أَفَتُؤْمِنُونَ بِبَعْضِ الْكِتَابِ وَتَكْفُرُونَ بِبَعْضٍ فَمَا جَزَاءُ مَن يَفْعَلُ ذَ‌ٰلِكَ مِنكُمْ إِلَّا خِزْيٌ فِي الْحَيَاةِ الدُّنْيَا ۖوَيَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ يُرَدُّونَ إِلَىٰ أَشَدِّ الْعَذَابِ وَمَا اللَّهُ بِغَافِلٍ عَمَّا تَعْمَلُونَ

"Then, you are those [same ones who are] killing one another and evicting a party of your people from their homes, cooperating against them in sin and aggression. And if they come to you as captives, you ransom them, although their eviction was forbidden to you. So do you believe in part of the Scripture and disbelieve in part? Then what is the recompense for those who do that among you except disgrace in worldly life; and on the Day of Resurrection they will be sent back to the severest of punishment. And Allāh is not unaware of what you do."

We kill our own people, Muslim men women and children and evict them from their homes. We instigate aggression and abuse. We create the homeless and the orphans. The poverty and the handicapped people are our self made monstrosities. Then when we turn life into hell, we do fundraisers in the Masjid, collect non-perishable food items at schools. Send our Zakkah and Sadaqah for relief. What could be more hypocritical than this? Iraq, Libya and even Syria were calm and peaceful countries until our scholars supported US and NATO strikes and missiles against them. We are the biggest Jahil on this planet so no wonder Allah is recompensing us with humiliation upon humiliation. We are just that stupid.


Q. But they are brutal tyrants! They kill Muslims. We must stop them, should we not? 
A. What killing? Killing who? Ghaddafi was going to be awarded Amnesty International Rights Hero for 2011 . He was received the most votes and ranked 1000 points ahead of the second runner up. Just an hour before the contest was suppose to end, Amnesty fudged the data.
Ghaddafi assigned a team to search, investigate and liaise with the the Africans in Europe to check their situation. He said that he believed it was his duty and role towards the sons of Africa because he was a soldier for Africa. He was working for them, serving them. He created the first participatory democracy. He gave every Libyan a house. He created the biggest irrigation and engineering project to provide water for every African! So why didn't he win the award?  Maybe because Suzzanne Nossel, former assistant to Richard Holbrooke in his capacity as UN Ambassador and currently Hillary Clinton's Deputy Assistant for International Organization Affairs, has been selected as the new Executive Director of Amnesty International. She deleted Ghadafi's name as the rightful recipient of Amnesty International Hero Award to exploit human rights issue to benefit US imperial ambitions. At the time of the Award competition, Nossel has campaigning against Libya. She gave the Human Rights Council in Geneva the resolution to authorize war against Libya. The Security Council would not have accepted her resolution if Ghaddafi won the Amnesty award.
Keep in mind that Libya was invaded and Ghaddafi killed not because he was a dictator but because he had too much dirt on the European and American leaders . He knew too much and he was going to do something about it so he had to be turned into a boogie man and then silenced. The West was so afraid of his knowledge that they couldn't even afford to give him a trial. They had to kill him instantly and his entire family so their crimes never surface.

But suppose there are killings, suppose Aassad is as bad as Bush/Obama and Gitmo, Abu Gharaib and Baghram. BTW why don't our scholars make the same duaas against Bush and Obama as they make against Aassad? Why don't our scholars facebook and twitter every 5 minutes about American atrocities against Muslims in Gitmo? Why this two-faced attitude? If the White man kills a Muslim its okay, he has to ... he is right but if a supposedly a Muslim kills a Muslim he should be killed in retaliation? BS!  Anyway, suppose Aassad is as bad as Bush and Obama, I even heard someone say that Aassad was as bad as Pharaoh. Did Allah command Musa (a.s) to kill the Pharaoh? Actually Allah told Musa (a.s) to speak to him nicely فَقُولَا لَهُ قَوْلًا لَّيِّنًا لَّعَلَّهُ يَتَذَكَّرُ أَوْ يَخْشَىٰ [Qur'an, 2:44] and do his tazkiyah فَقُلْ هَل لَّكَ إِلَىٰ أَن تَزَكَّىٰ [Qur'an, 79:18] (spiritual purification - like give him Da'wah and soften his heart). Allah even said that his tyrannical behaviour is actually nothing more than a test for the believers for their sins and abandoning the religion وَإِذْ نَجَّيْنَاكُم مِّنْ آلِ فِرْعَوْنَ يَسُومُونَكُمْ سُوءَ الْعَذَابِ يُذَبِّحُونَ أَبْنَاءَكُمْ وَيَسْتَحْيُونَ نِسَاءَكُمْ وَفِي ذَ‌ٰلِكُم بَلَاءٌ مِّن رَّبِّكُمْ عَظِيمٌ [Qur'an, 2:49] If Allah is really testing us because of our sins and lack of religiousity then should we go off on a killing rampage or sit and do some major istighfaar? I personally want to sit and ask for forgiveness then throw everything aside and read the Qur'an until we find a solution - so help me God!

My [AWIS] Kids

A teacher is a little girl who had a bit more time to grow up than everybody.  One of her greatest assets is her knowledge and her experience - she has learned from her personal observations and her mistakes. A small boy knows he can bring his troubles to his teacher and she'll understand. She will help him plan and make his dreams a reality. She will never expect the boy to be perfect the way his parents sometimes do, but grace him to become better each day. A little girl knows no one can tell better stories than her. Troubles fade in her arms. Anything is possible when she is there. And she can always be counted on to take the underdog's part. Lucky, indeed, is a kid who can carry a good teacher image into the long hard years ahead - Asfiya 

For a teacher, her students are her biggest gift. They are like her own children; a part of her. She views each one of them is like beautiful shells; unique and vibrant. She notices and enhances their thoughts and manners. She awakens their Fitrah. She gives them positive image Muslims, and mends their broken ideas about Islam. She rekindles their enthusiasm for Paradise. She stands at the crossroads of the past and present, sculpturing her children for the future. She fashions their minds with care, Darussalam books and Da'wah experiences. With a guiding hand and gentle loving heart, she is there day after day to deft, polish and smooth them. She decorates them with love of Allah, His Book and His Messenger (s.a.w). She moulds them into good deeds. She works and aches so they can succeed.

Dear AWIS Kids ... I miss all of you everyday. I cannot express my sadness over parting from you. You were a marvelous bunch, all ninety-nine of you. We shared a kind of rapport that is only felt between close family members and friends. I remember Hazim, Hasan and Shaheer playing soccer with an eraser in the hallway. Farwah's jokes, Afra's beautiful handwriting and Hadia dropping cake crumbs on the table. I remember Fatima's speeches, Hafsa K's drawing and Sumaiya's serious smile. Huzaifa's funny car stories, Nabeeha's answers and Ahsan's cap. I never imagined how a few weekends together will change all of us. Insensibly, so many Qur'an verses and hadith stories intertwined, embedded their lessons in each of us. If I could change anything, I would teach you everyday, share with you my lunch and watch your presentations still. I would stick around to answer your questions and take you to conferences, museums and parks. We would do homework together and play football...You will remain an unforgettable part of my life. May Allah bless you and protect you all aameen.

   

God Exists

An expectant mother goes to the doctor for an ultrasound.

In the meantime, her two embryos are talking to each other.

Embryo 1: Do you believe in Mom? Do you believe in life after birth?

Embryo 2: No, I am an atheist!

Source: Brother Hamza Tzortzis
We may not be able to see God but He exists. All sciences and signs point inevitably toward His direction. When we reflect upon our own existence we will come to realize, that at some point in time, we began to exist. We had a "birth" day. Since we were once non-existent and are now in existence, it follows that we must have had a beginning. In light of this, we can make some interesting points: we did not come out of nothing because from nothing, nothing comes; we obviously did not create ourselves so there must be a cause or Creator of our existence.


Because the universe had a beginning...
The second law of thermodynamics strongly suggests that the universe had a beginning. Entropy was introduced to explain the direction of various processes that occur in the natural world. Entropy is a measure of how evenly energy is distributed in a system. For example, heat always flows from a body of a higher temperature to one of a lower temperature. In a closed system,  energy is always seeking equilibrium. Applying the second law of thermodynamics to the universe we will conclude that with enough time the universe will suffer a heat death or thermodynamic equilibrium. This is because entropy only increases over time. Therefore, as the universe continues to expand it will eventually become cold and dead. If the universe was infinite, it would have already reached equilibrium. But the fact that it hasn't, indicates that the universe is finite and it is gradually moving towards heat death, i.e. global warming has made North America a much warmer continent and Eastern regions of the world are increasingly cooler (snow in many Middle Eastern cities).
Some philosophers like Bertrand Russell argue that the universe is infinite, meaning it has no beginning and it will never end. However if we think about this we will conclude that this position is irrational. Does "infinite" even possible in the real world? If this blog article had an infinite number of paragraphs and I deleted 2 paragraphs, how many paragraphs will there be? Infinite or infinity minus 2? If it is infinity minus 2 then it isn't infinity is it - because I can count it! So the concept of infinity cannot be export to real life examples because it leads to contradictions and it doesn't make any sense. German mathematician David Hilbert said, "The infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought…the role that remains for the infinite to play is solely that of an idea."  Similarly the ancient Greek Philosopher Aristotle explained, "…the infinite is potential, never actual." So the idea that the universe is a infinite does not make any sense because the universe is not an idea, it is series of real life calculable events.


The universe began with the Big Bang. Edwin Hubble, an American Astronomer formulated through a series of observations while trying to understand the size of the universe. He observed that the Cepheid Variables (stars) were further away than initially anticipated, and that their colour was changing to red (red-shift). From this we were able to conclude the universe is effectively expanding. As time moves on the universe will continue to expand, but if time was reversed, the theory is that the universe will shrink, it will collapse and come together. Instead of the Big Bang, we'll have a Big Crunch.  In other words the universe began at a cataclysmic event which created space, time, energy and matter all at once. John Gribbin, an astrophysicist at Cambridge University, commenting on the importance of the ‘Big Bang’ said “…it is the discovery of the century, in cosmology at least, was without doubt the dramatic discovery made by Hubble, and confirmed by Einstein’s equations, that the Universe is not eternal, static, and unchanging.” This follows C.W. Davies question, “What caused the big bang? . . . One might consider some supernatural force, some agency beyond space and time as being responsible for the big bang.... It seems to me that we don’t have too much choice. It must be…something outside of the physical world….”

Because the universe did not create itself...
This nicely segues into my next point, what caused the Big Bang? Is it something really supernatural and outside the physical world? Or did the universe create itself? Everything happened on its no, there is no cause to the universe? We know the universe could not have come out of nothing, because out of nothing, nothing comes! This is an undeniable philosophical principle, as P. J. Zwart said, "If there is anything we find inconceivable it is that something could arise from nothing." But some physicists argue that the universe came out of the quantum vacuum. But the quantum vacuum is not nothing, it is actually something; a sea of fluctuating energy, which is part of the universe. The quantum vacuum does not pre-exist the universe, it came into existence along with and at the same time as the universe. So philosophically, the universe could not have created itself because that would imply a paradox. It would mean that the universe can exist and not exist at the same time. It is like saying your mother gave birth to herself. Thats absurd and self-refuting isn't it? So how can the universe create itself? How can it exist before it existed?


Since the universe had a beginning and it did not come out of nothing or create itself, the best explanation is that the universe must have been created or brought into existence by an uncaused entity. This cause or Creator must be uncaused due to the absurdity of an infinite regress. To illustrate this better, if the cause of the universe had a cause and that cause had a cause ad infinitum, then there wouldn’t be a universe to talk about in the first place. For example, imagine if a Stock Trader on a trading floor at the Stock Exchange was not able to buy or sell his stocks or bonds before asking permission from the investor, and then this investor had to check with his, and this went on forever, would the Stock Trader every buy or sell his stocks or bonds? The answer is no. Or imagine you are a soldier ready to fire a gun, but before you shoot you have to ask permission for the soldier behind you, but he has to do the same, and it goes on for infinity. Will you ever shoot? No you wouldn’t. In similar light if we apply this to the universe we would have to posit an uncaused cause due to this rational necessity. The Qur'an confirms that the Creator of the universe is uncaused. “He neither begets nor is born.” (112:3)


Because the universe was created by a cause....
The cause or Creator for the universe must be a single cause for several reasons. Occam’s razor enjoins that we do not multiply entities beyond necessity. In other words, we should stick to explanations that do not create more questions than it answers. In the context of the cause for the universe we have no evidence to claim multiplicity, in other words more than one. The Qur’an affirms the Oneness of the Creator, “Say: He is God, [who is] One.”  (112:1)
The cause or Creator must be non contingent meaning that its existence is dependent on nothing but itself. The Qur’an verifies this, “God is Independent of (all) creatures.” (112:2) He is free of need, Self-Sustaining. He gives life to and supports the universe.
The cause or Creator must also be transcendent, this means that the cause of the universe must exist outside of and apart from the universe. This is confirmed in the Qur’an, “There is nothing like unto Him, and He is the Hearing, the Seeing” (42:11) and  "Indeed, your Lord is Allāh, who created the heavens and earth in six days and then established Himself above the Throne. He covers the night with the day, [another night] chasing it rapidly; and [He created] the sun, the moon, and the stars, subjected by His command. Unquestionably, His is the creation and the command; blessed is Allāh, Lord of the worlds." (7:54)
This cause must have the power to create the universe. The Qur’an testifies to the Creator’s power, "Blessed is He in Whose Hand is dominion, and He is over all things competent - [He] who created death and life to test you [as to] which of you is best in deed - and He is the Exalted in Might, the Forgiving" (67:1-2)


So the Creator for the universe exists, He is one, All powerful, uncaused and immaterial.
Stop for a moment and observe your surroundings. "Indeed, in the creation of the heavens and earth, and the alternation of the night and the day, and the [great] ships which sail through the sea with that which benefits people, and what Allāh has sent down from the heavens of rain, giving life thereby to the earth after its lifelessness and dispersing therein every [kind of] moving creature, and [His] directing of the winds and the clouds controlled between the heaven and the earth are signs for a people who use reason." (2:164) What causes the alternation of night and day? Who made the sun and the moon? Why does the wind blow? How does it rain? Where does life come from? What is the origin and source of this phenomena? Lets reflect upon our own being. Descartes said, ‘I think, therefore I am…’ But who is this ‘I’? Where did 'I' come from? Who 'caused' me? Allah, the cause and Creator of the universe says, He "made the sperm-drop into a clinging clot, and made the clot into a lump [of flesh], and ... made [from] the lump, bones, and ... covered the bones with flesh; then... developed him into another creation. So blessed is Allāh, the best of creators." (23:14) 


I am a Believer =) alhamdulillah