Member Profile

Total number of comments: 75 (since 2015-05-19 04:15:47)


Showing comments 75 - 1

  • Saudi Prince: Turkey, Iran & Extremists are ME "Triangle of Evil"
    • It is true that the Quran does not spell out a specific political system. In the beginning it was a guided democracy by which leaders chosen only by the knowledgeable.

      There is nothing objectionable if parliamentarians are chosen by one person one vote.

      It can even be a benevolent constitutional monarchy under which a dedicated, committed and honest ruler is more efficient, more progressive and more honest than some of the horrendous corrupt democracies (Pakistan for instance)

      The Qur'an speaks of kings, both good and bad, and never refers to other forms of government, such as a republic. It encourages political administration by consultations

      The fact that there have been differences of opinion, at the death of the Prophet, shows that he had not left positive and precise instructions regarding his succession.

      Certain groups wanted that the state power should rest, as an heirloom, in his family - and since he had left no male issue, his uncle 'Abbas, or his cousin 'Ali were the next of kin to succeed him.

      Others wanted an ad hoc individual election. And inside this group, there were differences as to the candidate to be chosen. An overwhelming majority rallied in favour of an election.

      This is something that Muslim political scientists should solve by what we call ijtihad (independent reasoning based on the situation, environment, social and educational development of the people.

      But a very narrow based nationalism is discouraged in Islam

    • You nailed it

  • Top 5 Reasons why Trump's Threats to UNGA over Jerusalem are Empty
    • Trump administration is riven by a profound division between those determined to avoid deep entanglements in the Middle East, such as Donald J. Trump himself, and the hawks he is putting in key positions,

      Trump has put out mixed signals about Israel/Palestine, as well. At one point he urged a more even-handed policy.

      Then he appointed a man as ambassador to Israel who more or less believes that Palestinians have no rights at all and all their property may be stolen at will. Likely, the Palestinians will be screwed over, as they usually are by Washington (which only pays lip service, occasionally, to their rights).

      Trump’s announced Iran policy is a mess, and it remains to be seen if he can shape it into something meaningful.

      The US has intervened too much and too incompetently in the Middle East. Trump’s initial idea of leaving it alone has virtues. But can he really leave it alone?

      He is unpredictable and lacks diplomacy

  • Does Religion Cause Violence?
    • When Norwegian terrorist Anders Breivik planted a bomb in an Oslo government building, killing eight people, and later killed 68 others (mostly teenagers) at a Labor Party Youth Camp in Norway's Utoya Island, fingers immediately were pointed at a possible Al Qaeda or "jihadist" connection.

      But in the days that followed, the motivation for Breivik's horrendous terrorist attacks became very clear through his 1,500 page manifesto: to fight the "ongoing Islamic Colonization of Europe."

      In his manifesto, Breivik made reference to numerous American "experts" and bloggers whom he considered experts on Islam's "war against the west,"

      including prominent anti-Muslim writers and pundits like Robert Spencer (of "Jihad Watch") and Pamela Gellar (who writes the blog Atlas Shrugs)—both of whom are co-founders of the organization "Stop Islamization of America."

      And thus a disturbing fact became clear: that anti-Islam rhetoric put forth by anti-Muslim activists, or Islamophobes, can have an alarming influence on extremists seeking to do violence.

    • For instance Christianity is usually presented as a peaceful religion and Islam as a violent religion

      What about the peaceful Buddhists and what do they do to Rohingyas in Burma or Tamil Hindus in Sri Lanka?

      But nobody talked about Christianity when Christian Serbs horribly slaughtered eight thousand Muslims in Srebreneca.

      Nobody accused Christianity of being an inherently dangerous and violent faith.

      because most people knew enough about this complex religion to understand that in would be quite inappropriate to make such an accusation

      But most Western people (most non-Muslims) have such an inadequate understanding of Islam that they are not equipped to judge Islam fairly or to discuss this matter in a constructive way

      The article does not discuss anything about the military interventions, initiating regime changes by the U.S. and its allies and the devastating consequences of such a move as we witnessed in Iraq, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen etc

      Quote "we can disguise the real issue under the umbrella of political correctness, or hide behind a victim ideology - but that does nothing to change the reality."

      that statement applies to both the organised state terror and the unorganised non-state militancy and terrorism at times by the victims, more often by mercenary militias

  • Dear John Kelly: Yes, Slavery was wrong in 1860s & Muslims helped Convince Americans to end It
    • Introduction of the laws, precepts, and teachings of Islam extended over twenty years, it is naturally to be expected many of the pre-Islamite institutions, which were eventually abolished, were, at first, either tacitly permitted or expressly recognised .

      In one of these categories stood the usage of slavery. The evil was intertwined with the inmost relations of the people among whom Mohammed flourished.

      Its extinction was only to be achieved by the continued agency of wise and humane laws, and not by the sudden and entire emancipation of the existing slaves, which was morally and economically impossible.

      Numberless pro-visions, negative as well as positive, were accordingly introduced in order to promote and accomplish a gradual enfranchisement.

      A contrary policy would have produced an utter collapse of the infant commonwealth.

      The Prophet exhorted his followers repeatedly in the name of God to enfranchise slaves, " than which there was not an act more acceptable to God." He ruled that for certain sins of omission the penalty should be the manumission of slaves.

      He ordered that slaves should be allowed to purchase their liberty by the wages of their service ; and that in case the unfortunate beings had no present means of gain, and wanted to earn in some other employment
      enough for that purpose, they should be allowed to leave their masters on an agreement to that effect.

      He also provided that sums should be advanced to the slaves from the public treasury to purchase their liberty. In certain contingencies, it was provided that the slave should become enfranchised without the interference and
      even against the will of his master.

    • Abu Mas'ud al-Ansari reported: "When I was beating my servant, I heard a voice behind me (saying): Abu Mas'ud, bear in mind Allah has more dominance over you than you have upon him.

      I turned and (found Muhammad ) to be Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him).

      I said: Allah's Messenger, I set him free for the sake of Allah. Thereupon he said:

      Had you not done that, (the gates of) Hell would have opened for you, or the fire would have burnt you. (Translation of Sahih Muslim, The Book of Oaths (Kitab Al-Aiman), Book 015, Number 4088)"

      If a Muslim beats his slave or slaps him on the face, then he must set him free:

    • Islam is the only religion and Quran is the only scripture which makes freeing of slaves as a commandment

      There is no other religious scripture on the face of the earth which speaks against slavery as loud as Islam

    • It is true Arabs ( not God conscious Muslims) were partners in slave trade and made wealth out of it but the following Quran verses testify their wrong doing. I am not sure whether the same thing applies to the teachings of both OT and NT

      Islam put forward a plan to abolish it. Slavery has been gradually abolished by Islam where Islam first rooted, please ponder on the below verses from HOLY QURAN.,

      “Righteousness is not turning your faces towards the east or the west.

      Righteous are those who believe in GOD, the Last Day, the angels, the scripture, and the prophets; and they give the money, cheerfully, to the relatives, the orphans, the needy, the travelling alien, the beggars,

      and to FREE THE SLAVES; and they observe the Prayers and give the obligatory charity (Zakat); and they keep their word whenever they make a promise; and they steadfastly persevere in the face of persecution, hardship, and war. These are the truthful; these are the righteous

      Quran Chapter.90: Verses .10-13,

  • UN: Saudi Bloc attempt to close Al Jazeera is attack on Freedom of Expression
  • Why Saudi Extremism, Instability is an Argument for EVs, Wind and Solar Energy
    • pamohamedameen 06/14/2017 at 8:56 am

      Some critics of Islam keep parroting that Islam is a totalitarian ideology controlling behavior of Muslims all over the world in all aspects of their life.
      There is no fact in this criticism

      It would be more accurate to say:
      A very small minority of Muslim give an interpretation of Islam that is totalitarian and extremist.

      The actions of a few hundred or even a few thousand people who adhere to a certain religion in a certain way, do not mean that the close to 1.5 Billion other adherents of spiritual and religious systems under that same general heading (Islam) feel at all the same way – That is the error.

      Take the example of Quran burners movement in USA. If I run around calling all Americans as criminals due to the Quran-burners – I am foolishly wrong.

      The exact same is true with generally maligning Islam.

  • Trump's Ally: Saudi Arabia's drive for Aristocratic Hegemony in the Middle East
    • While the American President was on a historical visit to KSA a few weeks ago the Arabian rulers were rubbing noses against each other

      Suddenly the scenes changed at the theater of the absurd.

      What was Qatar’s wrongdoing?

      The Saudis accused it of supporting “terrorism”. It is unbelievable that they support terrorism as such

      If that is true that support applies to other Arab states too

      Qatar’s real wrongdoing is that it has been supporting the Muslim Brotherhood that the Saudis, Egyptians and Emiratis have targeted.

      Also Qatar refused to sign the ‘Riyadh Declaration’ that the Saudis put in front of Muslim rulers in Riyadh on May 22 to sign when Donald Trump was visiting.

      Is this declaration a new sort of Muslim NATO or a plan to destabilize Iran and try a regime change in Iran with American help later on?

      It is true Qatar has played a role in the war on Yemen but rather very minor role but the Saudis are not getting anywhere in Yemen either with or without Qatar.

      It is terribly a sad story that the relations between Arab nations are not related to the unity of the Ummah but are manipulated by the policies that are linked to American Empire

  • Terror and Geopolitics: Manchester 2017 and 1996
    • pamohamedameen 05/25/2017 at 5:10 am

      Any terrorist act by any human brute must be strongly condemned by one and all

      It is an immoral retaliation for what have been happening may be in the Middle East

      We do not know yet the real perpetrators at Manchester but it may be a retaliation whereby poor and innocent people have been targeted

      The punished group of innocent people had no direct association with the geopolitical developments

      It is true that in times of war and armed conflict, collective punishment has resulted in atrocities, and violation of the laws of war and the Geneva Conventions.(It is happening right now in Syria by all fighters)

      Historically, occupying powers have used collective punishment to retaliate against and deter attacks on their forces by Resistance movements (e.g. destroying entire towns and villages where such attacks have occurred).

      But two wrongs do not make a wrong ( a terrorist act) right

    • pamohamedameen 05/25/2017 at 4:59 am

      well said, spot on

    • pamohamedameen 05/25/2017 at 4:55 am

      The threat of Muslim radicals and extremists to the Western nations is rooted in "how easy it is for rebellious Muslims to see, hear, experience, and hate the some of the Western policies

      In general western countries support for Israel that keeps Palestinians under the crushing boots of Israel

      The occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan is as unacceptable as Vietnam was in 1970s

      U.S. support for apostate( defactors from genuine Islamic spirit), corrupt, and tyrannical Muslim governments that pretend to serve Muslims but enhance their personal wealth make Muslims in the streets unhappy

      Iraq War has affected some of the terrorists groups such as Al-Qaeda and it has affected the Western nations too

      The instability in the Iraq War has benefited Al-Qaeda and similar groups without serving the interests of Western nations .

      The terror threat to the western world continues to grow due to the stupidity of some lone wolf Muslim name bearing terrorists and simultaneously these terrorist acts do a lot of harm to the peaceful lives of Muslim minorities living in the West but at the same time the Western nations fail to grasp the nature of the struggle in which they are engaged:

  • Israel to vote on Bill making it a "Jewish State," demoting Arabic
    • pamohamedameen 05/08/2017 at 4:11 am

      ... The law now defines Israel as a Jewish state or state for all Jews.

      This law automatically renders non-Jews, e.g. Muslims and Christians who constitute nearly a quarter of Israel's total population, as second-class citizens, or worse.

      And to deceive the world, the definition also incorporates the word "democratic" into the definition of Israel.
      However, it is very clear that Israel cannot be both Jewish and democratic since this constitutes a clear contradiction in terms.

      According to data published by the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics, 6.1 million Palestinians lived in historic Palestine (between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean) by the end of 2014, and this number is expected to rise to 7.1 million by the end of 2020 based on current growth rates.

      This is certainly bad news for Israel and Zionism. It means that Palestinians are either already a numerical majority or going to be a majority in a few years. It is well known that Israel is not going to allow the Zionist enterprise to fall down before its eyes. But Israel's choices are limited and utterly unattractive.

      Israel is really at loss as to what to do to prevent the Palestinians from becoming a solid majority in Israel/Palestine, and most observers would agree that time is not on Zionism's side...

    • pamohamedameen 05/08/2017 at 3:35 am

      Golda Meir, 1969-1974

      "There is no such thing as a Palestinian people... It is not as if we came and threw them out and took their country. They didn't exist.”
      Statement to The Sunday Times, June 15, 1969.

      "How can we return the occupied territories? There is nobody to return them to.”
      March 8, 1969.

      "Anyone who speaks in favour of bringing the Arab refugees back must also say how he expects to take the responsibility for it, if he is interested in the state of Israel. It is better that things are stated clearly and plainly: We shall not let this happen.”
      1961, in a speech to the Knesset, reported in Ner, October 1961

      "This country exists as the fulfilment of a promise made by God Himself. It would be ridiculous to ask it to account for its legitimacy.”
      Octobre 15, 1971, Le Monde


      Yitzhak Rabin, 1974-1977, 1992-1995

      "We walked outside, Ben-Gurion accompanying us. Allon repeated his question, ‘What is to be done with the Palestinian population?’ Ben-Gurion waved his hand in a gesture which said 'Drive them out’.”
      Leaked, censored version of Rabin memoirs, published in The New York Times, October 23 1979.

      "[Israel will] create in the course of the next 10 or 20 years conditions which would attract natural and voluntary migration of the refugees from the Gaza Strip and the West Bank to Jordan. To achieve this we have to come to agreement with King Hussein and not with Yasser Arafat.”
      Rabin, a ‘Prince of Peace’ by Clinton’s standards, explaining his method of ethnically cleansing the occupied land without stirring a world outcry, quoted in David Shipler in The New York Times, April 4, 1983 citing Meir Cohen’s remarks to the Knesset’s Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee on March 16.


      Menachem Begin, 1977-1983

      "[The Palestinians] are beasts walking on two legs.”
      Speech to the Knesset, quoted in Amnon Kapeliouk, ‘Begin and the ‘Beasts’,’ New Statesman, June 25, 1982.

      Yitzhak Shamir, 1983-1984, 1986-1992

      "The past leaders of our movement left us a clear message to keep Eretz Israel from the Sea to the River Jordan for future generations, for the mass aliyah (Jewish immigration), and for the Jewish people, all of whom will be gathered into this country.”
      At a Tel Aviv memorial service for former Likud leaders, November 1990. Jerusalem Domestic Radio Service.

      "The settlement of the Land of Israel is the essence of Zionism. Without settlement, we will not fulfil Zionism. It's that simple.”
      Maariv, February 21, 1997.

      "[The Palestinians] would be crushed like grasshoppers... heads smashed against the boulders and walls.”
      In a speech to Jewish settlers, New York Times, April 1, 1988

  • Trump, al-Sisi and Tightening up the Pressure Cooker
    • It has been a well proved political American history of America giving lip service to democracy but supporting juntas, dictators, autocrats and monarchs throughout the world
      In the Middle East this policy helps Israel and enhances the rewards of MIC of USA

  • From Bernie Sanders to Harel: Why is Acknowledging Israeli Apartheid a Shock?
    • Peace Plans that Israel rejected and Israel will continue to reject peace plans as it has totally a different hidden agenda :

      1 -1967-1971: The UN Jarring Mission peace plan.

      2 -1969: The Rogers plan.

      3 -1971: As soon as he assumed power, Sadat offered Israel full peace in 1971.

      4 -1976: January, the PLO offered Israel full peace.

      5 -1977: The Carter Comprehensive Peace Plan (later modified to meet Israeli conditions).

      6 -1981: The Prince Fahd Peace Plan.

      7 -1982: The Reagan Peace Plan.

      8 -1982: The Arab Fez Peace Plan.

      9 -1988: The PLO Peace Plan.

      10 -1989: The Bush Peace Plan.

      11 - The Arab Peace initiative of Beirut, 2002.

      12 - 2004: The Roadmap (effectively).

      13 - 2007: The Arab Peace Plan (readopted by Arab leaders in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, on March 28, 2007.

    • Israel won't permit viable Palestinian self-determination. Two states once were possible. No longer. Israel controls too much land. It steals more daily.

      Conflict resolution depends on ending Israel's occupation.

      It means one state for all its people at peace with equal rights. It requires everyone be treated equitably, justly and fairly.

      Nothing else works. Current conditions aren't sustainable. Israel wants permanent occupation. Palestinians deserve sovereign freedom.

      Democratic legitimacy requires one nation for all its people. It does so irrespective of race, religion, ethnicity, or other differentiating factors.

      It requires mandating equal rights, observing international law principles, and ending decades of occupation, colonization and apartheid.

      It requires treating Arabs and Jews equally. It means establishing binding statutes. It requires enforcing them.

      It's about commitment for the right thing.

    • P.A.Mohamed Ameen 03/03/2017 at 11:30 pm

      Most God fearing people have faith in the potential goodness of human nature, a potential that has to be liberated by the truth of history,

      The Jews are the intellectual elite of the Western world and the Palestinians are by far the intellectual elite of the Arab world.

      Together in peace and partnership in One State for all (yes, that does mean the end of Zionism), they could change the region for the better and by doing so give new hope and inspiration to the whole world.

      To put it another way, in peace and a partnership of equals, the Jews minus Zionism could become, with the Palestinians, a light unto nations. Surely that's a better option than allowing Zionism to put the light out?

      Quotes from Alan Hart’s article on Israel Palestine Conflict

      If Harkabi was alive today (he died in 1994) I would suggest to him that in 2014 there is no chance of Israel opening itself to self-criticism because the vast majority of its Jews have been brainwashed by Zionist propaganda to the point where they are beyond reason on the matter of justice for the Palestinians.

    • P.A.Mohamed Ameen 03/03/2017 at 11:24 pm

      Last year this time, Secretary of State John Kerry was trying to put together a huge peace deal between Israel and the Arab world, according to Aron Heller and Matthew Lee of the Associated Press.

      The proposal built on the 2002 Arab peace plan, which offered Israel full recognition by its Arab neighbors, with trade and other ties, on condition that it give up the Palestinian territories it occupied in 1967 and which it is illegally colonizing.

      That 2002 Arab League initiative had been roundly rejected by then prime minister Ariel Sharon, who was from the same hard line far-right party, the Likud, that current PM Binyamin Netanyahu hails from.

      The plan allegedly offered Israel full recognition as a Jewish state and Jerusalem as joint capital of Israel and Palestine, with peace treaties with a much wider array of Arab countries, and an end to Palestinian demands for the right of return to the homes in Israel from which the Zionists expelled them in 1948.

      In return Israel would have to withdraw from the West Bank, where it has hundreds of thousands of illegal squatters.

      Apologists for the Israeli right wing are always going on about the alleged willingness of Israel to make peace if only it could find a partner to negotiate with.

      Kerry was delivering to them large numbers of such partners.

      Netanyahu turned the offer of wide-ranging negotiations down flat.

      From an earlier article by Juan Cole

  • Is Trump right to doubt that Islam is a Religion?
    • P.A.Mohamed Ameen 03/03/2017 at 7:20 am

      O mankind! Lo! We have created you male and female, and have made you nations and tribes that ye may know one another. Lo! the noblest of you, in the sight of Allah, is the best in conduct. Lo! Allah is Knower, Aware.

      Quran Chapter 49: Verse 13

      And unto thee have We revealed the Scripture with the truth, confirming whatever Scripture was before it, and a watcher over it.

      So judge between them by that which Allah hath revealed, and follow not their desires away from the truth which hath come unto thee.

      For each We have appointed a divine law and a traced-out way.

      Had Allah willed He could have made you one community.

      But that He may try you by that which He hath given you (He hath made you as ye are).

      So vie one with another in good works.

      Unto Allah ye will all return, and He will then inform you of that wherein ye differ

      Quran Chapter 5 Verse 48

    • P.A.Mohamed Ameen 03/03/2017 at 4:43 am

      Prof Juan Cole mentions an idea of Wilfred Canwell Smith

      The same stalwart says the following

      A quote from W.C.Smith Not a Muslim

      History has been such that the West’s relations with Islamic world have from the first been radically different from those with any other civilisation….

      Europe has known Islam fourteen centuries mostly as an enemy and a threat. It is no wonder that Muhammad more than any other of the world’s religious leaders has had a “poor press” in the West and that Islam is the least appreciated there of any of the world’s other faiths.

      Until Karl Marx and the rise of communism the prophet had organised and launched the only serious challenge to western civilisation that it has faced the whole course of history….the attack was directed both, both military and ideological. And it was powerful

      Quoted from the Book Islam in Modern Histroy (Page 109)

      Author Wilfred Cantwell Smith.

    • spot on, you have nailed it Sal, Shukran for the brief but telling fact

    • Absolutely you are right

  • Trump plots to keep Palestinians Stateless forever
  • Is Lt.-Gen. Flynn Right that Islam is not a Religion?
    • pamohamedameen 11/22/2016 at 9:46 am

      link to

      Superb kaleidoscopic history of religion, from an English nun- turned-scholar Karen Armstrong

      Here, her basic message is that ``religion is highly pragmatic. We shall see that it is far more important for a particular idea of God to work than for it to be logically or scientifically sound.''

      In an extraordinary survey, Armstrong traces the development of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam from their inception to the present day, and shows how they were created and shaped by their historical surroundings--which, in turn, they helped form and alter.

      Although this approach is standard among religious scholars, Armstrong uses it to particular advantage in underscoring the historical correspondences among the three faiths- -for example, examining the messianic fervor that surrounded the career of the Sabbatai Zevi (the 12th-century rabbi who built up an enormous apocalyptic cult among diaspora Jews prior to his imprisonment and conversion to Islam) in light of the early Christian response to the crucifixion of Jesus or of Jeremiah's prophecies about the destruction of Jerusalem.

      It's particularly in the mystical traditions, according to Armstrong, that the different faiths corroborate each other--in large part, she says, because the mystical apprehension of the divine is more abstract and therefore less dependent upon the traditional symbols by which most religions distinguish themselves.

    • pamohamedameen 11/22/2016 at 9:30 am

      Shukran Jack......Thomas Aquinas in his great work the "Summa Theologica," he says

      yes, now here are some proofs to show that something brought something into existence when there could have been nothing.

      But then he pulls the rug out from under our feet and says, but we don't know what it is we've proved. All we've proved is the existence of a mystery.

      We have no idea what God is. And that's basically the way religion was left at the time.

      Religion wasn't about answering questions that we could answer perfectly well by our powers of logos, of reason and science.

      Religion has been helping us to deal with aspects of life, facts of life for which there are no easy answers.

      whether we like it or not, the vast majority of human beings on the planet wants to be religious, want to live in relation to transcendence.

      And it seems to me that you don't want to wipe out a species or to exterminate it.

      You want to nudge it, perhaps, into a more healthy form of evolution, if I can put it that way, and I don't like the aggression of freethinkers .

      I think that in our very polarized, dangerously polarized world, we can't afford yet another divisive discourse that puts us at odds with one another the West against the East or Muslims against the Christians

    • pamohamedameen 11/22/2016 at 7:11 am

      Anti-Muslim voices, like anti-religious perspectives of all kinds, are not necessarily phobic.

      And to be sure, a similar list could be assembled with people whose agendas are anti-Christianity, anti-Jewish, and so on.

      But as a new report from the Center for American Progress argues, anti-Islam rhetoric in particular has lately become a powerful shaper of American discourse.

      When Norwegian terrorist Anders Breivik planted a bomb in an Oslo government building, killing eight people, and later killed 68 others (mostly teenagers) at a Labor Party Youth Camp in Norway's Utoya Island, fingers immediately were pointed at a possible Al Qaeda or "jihadist" connection.

      But in the days that followed, the motivation for Breivik's horrendous terrorist attacks became chilling clear through his 1,500 page manifesto: to fight the "ongoing Islamic Colonization of Europe."

      In his manifesto, Breivik made citations to numerous American "experts" and bloggers whom he considered experts on Islam's "war against the west," including prominent anti-Muslim writers and pundits like Robert Spencer (of "Jihad Watch") and Pamela Gellar (who writes the blog Atlas Shrugs)—both of whom are co-founders of the organization "Stop Islamization of America."

    • pamohamedameen 11/22/2016 at 6:59 am

      Fanatical rightist politicians in the West want a total ban on Sharia law

      This would ban the application of even personal religious practices such as daily Prayers, Charity (Zakah), Haj , Fasting etc

      Personal and private ritual practices have become a political issue in several non-Muslim majority countries, with a petition to ban Sharia practices and councils

      Are the Shariah Laws given in the Quran (example follows) political? And radical?

      Should American or European rightist politicians throw them out of the Quran and ban the Muslims from following them even in their personal daily lives at home

      For example the following verses from the Quran talk about cleaning (ablution) before prayers, charity etc

      Quran Chapter 4: Verse 43

      “O ye who believe! Approach not prayers with a mind befogged, until ye can understand all that ye say,- nor in a state of ceremonial impurity (Except when travelling on the road), until after washing your whole body.

      If ye are ill, or on a journey, or one of you cometh from offices of nature, or ye have been in contact with women, and ye find no water, then take for yourselves clean sand or earth, and rub therewith your faces and hands.

      Quran Reference 5:6

      O ye who believe! when ye prepare for prayer, wash your faces, and your hands (and arms) to the elbows; Rub your heads (with water); and (wash) your feet to the ankles. If ye are in a state of ceremonial impurity, bathe your whole body.

      [4:101] When ye travel through the earth, there is no blame on you if ye shorten your prayers, for fear the Unbelievers May attack you: For the Unbelievers are unto you open enemies.

      The following talks about writing a will before death

      [5:106] O ye who believe! When death approaches any of you, (take) witnesses among yourselves when making bequests,- two just men of your own (brotherhood) or others from outside if ye are journeying through the earth, and the chance of death befalls you (thus).

      [7:31] O children of Adam, you shall be clean and dress nicely when you go to the masjid (mosque).

      And eat and drink moderately; Surely,

      Allah does not love the gluttons.


      Those who rehearse the Book of Allah, establish regular Prayer, and spend (in Charity) out of what We have provided for them, secretly and openly, hope for a commerce that will never fail:(29)

      The following is about congregational prayer on Fridays


      “O ye who believe! When the call is proclaimed to prayer on Friday (the Day of Assembly), hasten earnestly to the Remembrance of Allah, and leave off business (and traffic):

      That is best for you if ye but knew! (9) –

      And when the Prayer is finished, then may ye disperse through the land, and seek of the Bounty of Allah: and celebrate the Praises of Allah often (and without stint): that ye may prosper. (10)”


      And they have been commanded no more than this: To worship Allah, offering Him sincere devotion, being true (in faith); to establish regular prayer; and to practise regular charity; and that is the Religion Right and Straight.

      Are these scriptural regulations politically or ideologically threatening?

    • pamohamedameen 11/22/2016 at 6:56 am

      These tiny groups of terrorists in all religions do not represent the values of their respective religions, their actions are overtly anti-divinity, and can only be condemned.

      There can be no justification for the killing of innocents, for attacks on civilians and public institutions. While criticism of the State of Israel, like that of any other state, is legitimate and justifiable it cannot excuse—in any way, shape or form—anti-Semitism, which is likewise anti-Islamic.

      In fact, recognized Muslim scholars (Sunnites and Shiites alike) along with the overwhelming majority of ordinary believers firmly condemn the violence of extremists and the actions of Salafi jihadists, wherever they raise their ugly heads. The world must hear this message, and the Muslims must repeat it continuously. About this we must be perfectly clear.

      Western military intervention is never far behind.
      We quite often tend to overlook the root cause of cross border based and international terrorism.
      Terrorism has been successfully used to justify increased military operations abroad once public opinion had been primed to accept it (as the jihadist threat had become plausible at home).

      So intense is the demonizing of Muslim extremists today that, in dealing with individual suspects, everything seems to be permitted.

      While it is normal to detain persons who are acting suspiciously in order to forestall terrorist actions, the arrest and indefinite preventive detention of individuals without respecting their right to a legal defense cannot be considered legitimate.

      Today, men who are imprisoned do not know what they are accused of and without judgment.

      They find themselves in a judicial “black hole” where all is permitted in the name of the “terrorist threat.”

    • Religion is an important human need which cannot easily be discarded or pushed to the sidelines, no matter how rational or sophisticated societies are.

      None of us can dismiss religion as irrelevant to the chief concerns of our century.

      The religious instinct is extremely powerful and can be used for good and ill. We must, therefore, understand it and examine its manifestations carefully in all cultures.

      Our dramatically shrunken world has revealed our inescapable connection with one another.

      We can no longer think of ourselves as separate from people in distant parts of the globe and leave them to their own fate. We have a responsibility to each other and face common dangers.

      It is also possible for us to acquire an appreciation of other civilisations that was unimaginable before our own day.

      For the first time, people all over the world are beginning to find inspiration in more than one religion and many have adopted the faith of another culture.

      For example after centuries of virulent Christian anti-Semitism, we see Jewish and Christian scholars attempting to reach a new understanding.

      We will never be able to see either our own or other peoples' religions and cultures in quite the same way again.

      The possible result of this has been compared to the revolution that science has effected in the outlook of men and women throughout the world.

      But why Islam seems to be outside this circle of goodwill and, in the West at least, to have retained its negative image.
      People who are beginning to find inspiration in Zen or
      Taoism are usually not nearly so eager to look kindly upon Islam, even though it is the third religion of Abraham and more in tune with our own Judaeo-Christian tradition.

      In the West we have a long history of hostility towards Islam that seems as entrenched as our anti-Semitism, which in recent years has seen a disturbing revival in Europe.

      At least, however, many people have developed a healthy fear of this ancient prejudice since the Nazi Holocaust.

      But the old hatred of lslam continues to flourish on both sides of the Atlantic and people have few scruples about attacking this religion, even if they know little about it.

      The hostility is understandable, because until the rise of the Soviet Union in our own century, no polity or ideology posed such a continuous "challenge to the West as Islam.

      When the Muslim empire was established in the seventh century CE, Europe was a backward region.

      Islam had quickly overrun much of the Christian world of the Middle East as well as the great Church of North Africa, which had been of crucial importance to the Church of Rome.

      This brilliant success was threatening: had God deserted the Christians and bestowed his favour on the “Muslim” infidel?

      Even when Europe recovered from the Dark Ages and established its own great civilisation, the old fear of the ever-expanding Muslim empire remained.

      Ideas read from the books of Author Karen Armstrong

    • Author Juan Cole’s definition view of religion is rather limited . The religious concept goes far deeper than that

      The root of the three Abrahamic religions (Judaism , Christianity and Islam) is the same. The Muslim scripture mentions the names of 24 Biblical prophets by names

      American rightist politicians who hate Islam have been weaving fearful fantasies and distorted image of Islam, which reflected their own brutal colonial history of occupying America itself

      Western scholars denounced Islam as a blasphemous faith and its Prophet Muhammad as the Great Pretender, who had founded a violent religion of the sword in order to conquer the world. '

      In Mummers' plays ( for example) prophet Muhammad was presented as the enemy of Western civilization,

      This inaccurate image of Islam became one of the received ideas of Europe and now America and it continues to affect Western perceptions of the Muslim world.

      The problem has been compounded by the fact that, for the first time in Islamic history, Muslims have begun to cultivate a passionate hatred of the West (Look at Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria and Libya ).

      In part this is due to European and American behaviour in the Islamic world particularly in Palestine and in brutal invasion of Iraq

      It is a mistake on the part of West to imagine that Islam is an inherently violent or fanatical faith, as is sometimes foolishly suggested.

      Islam is a universal religion and there is nothing aggressively oriental or anti-Western about it.

  • Saudi Bigot-in-Chief Declares Iranian Shiites "Not Muslim"
    • pamohamedameen 09/07/2016 at 2:09 am

      Rand Study a non Muslim study shows an increased sectarianism that suggests exploiting Sunni Shia and Arab non-Arab divides to promote U.S. Policy.

      A Muslim scholar Imam Sa’dullah Khan points out that Political ideas often deepen the wounds of division,

      And the historical Sunni-Shi’a differences are still deeply used by people with vested interests for political or religious hegemony or regional domination

      The unhealthy hands which strengthen the differences between the Shi’ites and Sunni Muslims, belong neither to the Shi’ites nor the Sunnis.

      They are the forces of new imperialism which plan to destabilize Islamic countries

    • Both sides ( the Saudi scholars and the Ayatullahs of Shih sect) have made mistakes, blaming each others recently due to Saudi Iran regional and global politics

      And both sects are getting into more troubles. And some of us are pouring more fuel into the fire

      It is not desirable to keep this controversy getting kindled ruining the peaceful understanding between sects and by keeping the fire burning the Ummah loses politically, militarily, economically in our international relations with other hostile non-Muslim nations,

      The Shiah leadership should come out openly asking their followers to completely stop insulting the Sahaba ( Prophets companions), the wives of the prophet and contemplate changing their views on the infallibility of their Imams

    • pamohamedameen 09/07/2016 at 1:31 am

      When a person openly calls himself a non-Muslim, i.e. he accepts that he is a Christian, Jew, Hindu, etc. He is confirmed as a non-Muslim

      But followers of Shia sect are those who do not negate the basic principles of Islam, but have a difference of opinion with the Muslims for example, they say Ali (Radiyallahu Anhu) was the most superior amongst all the Sahabah (Radiyallahu Anhum).

      Such Shias will not be regarded as non-Muslims,

  • French Court lifts Municipal Burkini Ban; & Why should you care what other people wear?
    • pamohamedameen 08/31/2016 at 4:13 am

      Why are the French lovers of fashion — and well known for a favourable multicultural attitude are dead against the burkini.

      A Sikh professor tweeted a comparison of the banned burkini with the utterly accepted wet-suit..
      “If you agree, we must enact a #BurkiniBan to keep us safe, than you’ll agree that wetsuits definitely #MustBeBanned” Simran Jeet Singh@SikhPro

      Human rights activist Ken Roth posted a picture of nuns frolicking in the surf in their habits ( traditional nuns dress) and wondered if they too, would be banned.

      Why do the French hate the Muslim women’s attire? Can not they agree to disagree on the cultural diversity of immigrants?

      Why do the French expect immigrants to abandon cultural symbols of difference? —

      The nuns are white French women so their habits(covering) are OK but burkinis are something to do with Islam and so NOT OK?
      But after all, all religious laws are based on cultures acceptable by the and for the God's messengers, or prophets such as David, Solomon, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad
      (peace on them)

      No religious culture propagated, amplified and advocated by a God’s messenger allowed women not to cover their breasts or genitals.

      If any culture allows (allowed) that, then God-consciously talking, that culture is (was) outside the receivers of the divine messenger or they changed and nullified the teachings of the God chosen messengers.

      So garments of both men and women are something to do with the Islamic jurisprudence.

      French politicians security argument is completely bogus. This is 100% about electoral politics, an incomprehensible nonsense

      This is taking blaming the victim to new lengths.

      The Paris Mayor initially said he did not mean to ban “the veil, the kippa or the cross.”

      He said that other than the burkini, the only swim garb that might prompt an arrest was an Indian sari, because it could interfere with a life-guard’s rescue efforts!
      Let him go to Varanasi, where he can see hundreds of women bathing, and indeed modestly changing their saris, without any apparent risk of drowning.

      Intelligent people wonder what he would do if someone complained that a topless bathing suit was not reflective of “good morals.”

  • Juan Cole, "The Idea of Peace in the Qur’an" (Kluge Center Blog)
    • William and Juan Cole .............

      These terms ( Darul Islam and Darul Harb) were coined by Muslim jurists after many years of the advent of Islam with respect to the situation which prevailed in their contemporary world.

      Moreover, the scholars coined different terms for different regions according to the situations prevailing therein like
      Dar al-amn (territory of security),
      dar al-silm (territory of peace) and
      dar al-muwada’ah (territory of mutual peace) etc.

      As is obvious from these terms, they were applied to various regions according to the practical or legal conditions prevailing therein vis-a-vis the Muslim state and its citizens.

      The basic concept behind this was that law and shari’ah prevail only in Dar al-Islam (territory of Islam) while

      dar al-harb (enemy territory) territories were lawless where rulers and dominant people forced their whims on residents and therefore one’s life or property was not safe there. This is why Muslims were discouraged from living in such areas.

      In other words, the basic difference between dar al-Islam and dar al-harb was the rule of law in the former and the lawlessness in the latter. So it is a dar al-Islam wherever Muslims’ lives and properties are legally safe and they are legally allowed to follow their religion.

      A place is not a dar al-Islam where Muslims’ lives, property and faith are not safe although its ruler may be a Muslim.

      It is evident today that in many ‘Muslim’ countries Muslims’ lives, honour and right to follow Islam are not safe while there are ‘non-Muslim’ countries, like India or European nation or in North America where Muslims’ lives and properties are safe legally.

      Moreover, we enjoy legal rights to follow our religion and preach it.

      Therefore, it is a mistake to apply the old concept of dar al-Islam and dar al-harb on the contemporary world. It is an indication of one’s ignorance of the wisdom of his religion. No new category is needed today.

      It is sufficient to understand that it is a dar Islam wherever Muslims enjoy religious freedom and wherever Muslims do not enjoy such freedom is a dar kufr (rejection) although its ruler or majority may be ‘Muslim.’ 

    • P.A.Mohamed Ameen 08/21/2016 at 11:44 pm

      India presents a good example of how the Sufism brought a revolution among the untouchables(outcastes in Hindusim) Millions of Harijans, Dalits (untouchables )came into the fold of Islam because of Sufism and such converts have now risen on the social ladder .

      Many earlier Dalits and now Muslims have become Imams (leaders ) of mosques and thousands pray behind them. Something impossible in Hinduism even today

      India, whose social structure was fossilized by the caste system, was ready to accept a universal concepts of Sufism

      In a predominantly Hindu society, the position of a person was determined at birth.

      The untouchables were denied the use of public wells and were condemned to drink any filthy water they could find.

      Their children were not admitted to schools attended by the caste Hindu children. Though they worshiped the gods of Hindus and observed the same festivals, the Hindu temples were closed to them.

      These untouchable Hindus were treated by the caste Hindus as sub-human, less then men, worse than beasts . . .”

      In this social matrix, the message of Sufism with its emphasis on the brotherhood of man and the transcendence of God found a ready reception.

      But the most important reason for the success of the Sufis lay in the spiritual bent of the Indian mind.

      During the Dark Ages in Europe it was the monk.

      In medieval Japan it was the Samurai.

      In the Muslim Middle East it was the traditionalist.

      In India, it was the sadhu and the rishi. Gautama Buddha personified this archetype; so did Shankara Acharya and Tulsi Das.

      These men of faith enjoyed and continue to enjoy an honor and respect that is the envy of kings and emperors.

      As Islam entered the subcontinent, it adapted its mode to fit the spiritual paradigm. The Sufi could intuitively and immediately relate to the Indian psyche in a manner that the learned doctors of law could not.

      Thus it was the great Sufis who not only succeeded in introducing millions of Indians to Islam based Sufism but also contributed to the evolution of a unique Hindustani language, culture, poetry and music which amalgamated the ancient inheritance of India with the vibrancy of Islam.

    • pamohamedameen 08/21/2016 at 4:54 am

      This is wrong perception based on prejudice

      Selective reading by many readers makes them blind to the real Islamic spirit of Jihad

      There is a well known saying of Muhammad(pbuh). He was returning from a battle.

      He said,


      The little Jihad he mentioned was the battle and the greater Jihad he mentioned was conquering the forces of evil in oneself and in one’s own society in all the details of daily life.

      The Quran amplifies this forcefully,


      “ Had God not driven back the people, some by the means of others, the earth had surely been corrupted ; but God is merciful unto all beings.”

      When the people of a territory were chased out of their land like morbid dogs by the merciless hordes and aggressors ( as it happened in Palestine) the people of Palestine can engage in Jihad but strictly under the laws of Islam following their spiritual leader. You want a present day example , you got one.

      The Quran says

      “Fighting is an evil thing, but to bar people from God’s way, disbelief in Him and the Holy Mosque, and to expel its people from it ---that is more evil in God’s sight. And persecution is worse than
      killing.” Holy Quran 2: 213.

      So the example the persecuted Palestinians have every right to do physical fighting if necessary to get back their stolen lands

    • pamohamedameen 08/21/2016 at 4:43 am

      During the 10 years between Muhammad leaving Mecca and his death (in the year 632)the Muslims were engaged in desperate struggle for survival against his opponents in Medina and the Quraysh of Mecca all of whom were ready to exterminate the militarily and politically weaker Muslim community. Muhammad was not only a spiritual leader, he was the Head of a nation.

      Hence he had to engage in defensive war to save his nation. He never fought an aggressive war. Once he took 3000 of his followers to perform pilgrimage and his followers were camped at Hudaibiah 15 miles away from Mecca.

      The Meccans refused to let him visit the Temple and his followers were ready to fight it out but Muhammad negotiated a deal and withdrew agreeing to perform the pilgrimage a year later.

      In the West Muhammad had been presented as a warlord who forced Islam on reluctant world by force of arms. The reality was quite different. Muhammad was evolving a theology of the just war in the Quran with which most Christians would agree.

      He never forced anybody to convert to his religion. In the Quran war is held to be abhorrent, the only just war is war of self defence. Sometimes it is necessary to fight in order to preserve decent values, as christians believed it to fight against Hitler.

      Muhammad took over the city of Mecca without bloodshed. If any Muslim King/s had violated the Islamic principles, the blame is not on the Quran but on the wronged politicians

    • pamohamedameen 08/21/2016 at 4:31 am

      No one’s interpretation is the last word on war and peace or other such principles on Islam.

      But it was and remains a duty for Muslims to commit themselves to a struggle on all fronts- moral, spiritual and political-¬--to create a just and decent society, where the poor and the vulnerable are not exploited, in the way that God had intended man to live.

      The Quran amplifies this forcefully¬, quote

      “ Had God not driven back the people, some by the
      means of others, the earth had surely been corrupted ; but God is merciful unto all beings.”

      The Quran says “Fighting is an evil thing, but to bar people from God’s way, disbelief in Him and the Holy Mosque, and to expel its people from it---that is more evil in God’s sight. And persecutio¬n is worse than killing.”

      Holy Quran 2: 213”

      Every Ayat ( verse) must be interpreted against the background of the Quran as a whole.

      Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors. Sura 2: 190 and turn against you, you shall fight them, and you may kill them when you encounter them in war. You shall not accept them as friends, or allies.

      [4:91] You will find others who wish to make peace with you, and also with their people. However, as soon as war erupts, they fight against you. Unless these people leave you alone, offer you peace, and stop fighting you, you may fight them when you encounter them. Against these, we give you a clear authorization.
      Thus the Quran does allow fighting in self defence with a further condition that if they desist behold God is much forgiving a dispenser of grace ( 2:192)

  • Five truths about the Hijab (Muslim Veil) that need to be told
    • pamohamedameen 08/23/2016 at 8:39 am

      Male dominance and women's rights are two different issues.

      Male dominance is against the shariah law but a Muslim woman's garments fall within the Quranic laws.

      Islam gave more rights to women 1400 years ago, more rights than any other culture then.

      It was Islam that gave the women the right to divorce her husband 1400 years ago. There is no need to confuse both.

      Forty five years ago (1970s) the male domination was greater for instance in South and South East Asia among all religious groups including Muslims.

      But 45 years ago fewer educated ladies were using even head scarves.

      But now in Malaysia alone for instance the University male female ratio is 50:50.

      More women get liberated, more educated but at the same time more educated women wear head scarves, far more than 45 years ago.

      This indicates an Islamic revival, initiated by the organised state terrorist and aggressive policies of the West, supporting the oppressive dictators and monarchs and un-democratic regimes throughout the Muslim world,


    • pamohamedameen 08/23/2016 at 8:30 am

      Distinction between Islamic and 'Western' cultures is highly problematic

      But we see it in practice throughout the world.

      Compare the statistics on divorce rate in Europe, USA and in Muslim nations for instance

      Can we morally judge divorce?

      Would we say that the cause of divorce has no moral angle to it?

      Children are brought up with far better discipline when the parents both take care of them but children tend to go wrong ways when more often in broken families.

      Men and women have separate roles- that is part of an approach towards gender inequality in a sense.

      But child rearing and caring is not biologically determined

      Child rearing and caring when they are babies are more biologically related to the mother due to breast feeding for example.

      Equal opportunities to all is true, but it is equally true that men get more under a certain circumstances and a women get more under a certain circumstances.

      Women's bodies, their sexuality, etc. is their own choice and no body should have a right to tell them what to do with those personal aspects of their life That includes veils by Muslim women .

      By all means the West can have its freedom and it is up to the women to follow a certain traditional, scriptural laws or ignore them them as they do in the West

      A culture gets destroyed not by wars but by loose sex morality

    • pamohamedameen 08/23/2016 at 8:11 am

      How many women Heads of States that Muslim nations had had before the great empire Amarikiya has been considering giving an opportunity in 2017 to the lesser evil, sure people know Pakistan, Bangladesh, Turkey, Indonesia, Kosovo and so on

      There is a strong generalisation in the views of mostly western based apologetics

      The ideas of captainship has been forcefully amplified by Prophet Muhammad as follows.

      Abdullah ibn Umar reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said,

      “Every one of you ( both male and female)is a shepherd and is responsible for his flock.
      The leader of people is a guardian and is responsible for his subjects.
      A man is the guardian of his family and he is responsible for them.
      A woman is the guardian of her husband’s home and his children and she is responsible for them.
      The servant of a man is a guardian of the property of his master and he is responsible for it.
      No doubt, every one of you is a shepherd and is responsible for his flock.”

      Source: Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī 6719, Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim 1829

      These ideas have been wrongly abused in some tribal and less progressive societies and many authors like you heavily misinterpret it

      Did any religion 1 400 years ago give the woman the right to divorce or inherit parental properties
      Islam was the only religion

    • pamohamedameen 08/23/2016 at 5:24 am

      Absolute gender equality is a myth Many who support gender equality in their personal life know they are bluffing

      Any man made system or organisation can't sustain itself within normal functioning if it has two person at helm having same powers , same duties and same rights.

      Can you imagine a country with two prime ministers or presidents, an army with two chiefs , a company with two CEOs, a film with two directors, a team with two captains ? .....

      it is against human nature and a clash is inevitable. As there are proverbs that there can't be to lions in same jungle ....or there can't be two swords in a single scabbard.

      Same applies to a couple in marital relation, equality can't be in form of absolute identicality, no doubt there is a need for mutual trust and respect but only that is not enough , certainly one should have a slight edge over the other in decision making over crucial matters and slight differences in duties , rights and powers.

      Islam took human psychology, anatomy, physiology everything into account for its all rules relating to all aspects of human life.

      While West , secularists, atheists and rationalists failed to realise this very basic fact of life while postulating attractive looking (on face value) slogan of absolute GENDER EQUALITY in every matter.

      Results of which we can see in western societies in statistical terms mainly in form of promiscuity, crumbling family structures, very high divorce rates, teenage pregnancies, drug addictions, single mothers, moral degradation of society, high incidances of sexual offences, live in relations , psychiatric illnesses etc.

    • pamohamedameen 08/23/2016 at 5:12 am

      such women are doing a bad job in trying to sharpen the clash of civilization and many like Salman Rushdie have been doing this because they get a tremendous support in the West and potentially become powerful political participants and aim for designations in the future political set up

      There are intellectual mercenaries in all nations and cultures

  • Rep. Steve King, White People and 'Civilization'
    • P.A.Mohamed Ameen 07/20/2016 at 4:37 am

      Interpretations vary depending on who the interpreter is.

      What appears in the West to be the emergence, return to, or resurgence of culture is in fact a struggle within societies over the definition of culture and faith

      No one person, authority or institution has total control over that definition. But some writers assume their own definition and interpretation.

      Same way there is contest in defining Islam among the sects and sections. Fundametalism’s epistemological mistake is to think that “fundamentals” are ahistorical categories, not subject to and therefore outside the critical scrutiny of true believers.

      A number of critics tamper with the beliefs of sincere believers and cast doubts on their beliefs and try to show such beliefs to be fraudulent and non-divine. There is blind gloating, uncritical patriotism, extreme xenophobic nationalism and downright rather unpleasant chauvinism.

      May not all agree, but many faith based persons individuals like me feel that we need some strong religion based moral foundation to stand on, even if it is meant outside the statute books.

      Some critics overtly or covertly want to accomplish a materialistic empire that is attached to the imperialism of yesteryears by forcing people to declare themselves to be Westerners or Easteners forgetting the unity of humanity.

      They are under the impression that ethnic minorities in the West can not represent themselves nevertheless, out of political neccessity the minorities can be represented only by the majority race.

      The opposition between Orient and Occident, Christians and Muslims or even secular and religious, is both misleading and highly undesirable in the fast changing globalising world that moves towards multiculturalism rather than the xenophobic and aggressive cultural nationalism.

      Cultures are hybrid and heterogeneous and cultures and civilizations are closely interrelated and interdependent to beggar unitary description of their individuality

      A handful of western values and ideas none of which have any meaning outside the history of conquest, immigration, travel and the mingling of peoples that gave West its present mixed identity.

  • Newt Should Check out Mike Pence's Christian Sharia
    • P.A.Mohamed Ameen 07/20/2016 at 10:45 pm

      Washington is quite consistent in its policies everywhere, that is liquidating the enemies of Israel and those who rebel against American interests.

      Without enemies, the USA is a nation without purpose and direction.

      Iraq. has already experienced the most ferocious sustained bombing of a nation in the history of the planet at the hands of the U.S. and its allies together with a regime of economic sanctions that amounts to genocide.

      How many of us knew the History of United States Global Interventions, 1945 to the Present"

      How many of us are aware of the "The US versus the World at the United Nations," which compiles 150 examples of General Assembly resolutions on which the United States was outvoted by mind-boggling margins.

      These include resolutions "declaring that education, work, health care, proper nourishment, national development, etc. are human rights calling for "Protection against products harmful to health and the environment" and, of course, seeking the end of the economic embargo against Cuba with only Israel joining the U.S. in opposition

    • P.A.Mohamed Ameen 07/19/2016 at 3:59 am

      What the law says is about punishment is one thing and the actual punishment given for violating the law is something entirely different .

      Here the Judge uses his powers and interpretation and circumstances of the incident
      So my point is we have to make a difference between the law and its application

      Example : death penalty by hanging for instance in Indian law for causing death of a person

      About 40,000 people on the average are murdered annually in India Do the India judges pass judgment hanging 40,000 murderers every year

      Even those who assassinated Rajiv Gandhi have not been hanged They have been in prison
      We are concentrating heavily on the law here Not its application On this respect both I think Sufi Muslim has some strong valid points

    • P.A.Mohamed Ameen 07/19/2016 at 3:48 am

      Rulers are allowed to suspend and amend Shariah laws


      Umar ibn al-Khattab set aside the penal laws for penalty for stealing during the year of the famine because people were STEALING to EAT and they had no means of provisions whatsoever.

      He also forbade selling the female slave who has borne a child to her master and who is immediately considered free after his death, and marrying the women from ahlul kitaab.

      He did all these for the sake of Istihsaan, a well known issue in Usul al Fiqh which means "equity" in the Shariah.

      So he didn't change the law in any way by doing this.

      This can be found in the book Usul al Fiqh by Muhammad Kamali and Early Development by Ahmad Hassan

    • P.A.Mohamed Ameen 07/19/2016 at 3:43 am

      The following are a major moral sharia teachings of found in the Quran and in all major religions.

      Would American republican politicians blindly support forbidding all these simply because these are part of the religious duties

      praying five times a day

      fasting for a month during the 9th Arabic month called Ramadan

      Paying 2.5% of the excess wealth to the poor as wealth tax (called Zakah)

      Going on pilgrimage to Mecca at least once in a Muslims life time

      How do the above prevent a Muslim being a good American citizen?

      AND ALSO the following moral sharia laws or obligations

      obligatory feeding the poor

      protecting the orphans

      punishment for misappropriating the wealth of the orphans

      Fighting against the oppressors and those who chased people from their homes and lands,

      Charity and social justice and selling provisions at subsidised prices to the poor

      laws of war such as protecting the women, children, sick, aged, not cutting down the fruit trees, forbidding mutilation,

      cancelling out the money lent to the poor who are unable to pay,

      solving matrimonial disputes by arbitration,

      protecting the places of worship of all religions,
      respecting the parents .

      God's morals is an essential compendium of laws based on moral code that every Govt has included in their constitutional laws, the substance is there but the form is different.

      Will anybody dare to say that there is no such thing as morality when a Government drafts laws and regulations?

    • P.A.Mohamed Ameen 07/19/2016 at 3:33 am

      The bottom line in my opinion the most telling and convincing

      That is

      Yes there are “clear” laws and injunctions that have come directly out of the Quran and the Prophetic person,

      But, context, sensibilities, applications and Mercy must be part of the equation or we surely could use these so-called “clear” laws and injunctions to oppress others for power and obedience to corrupt individuals and systems that keep the letter of the law, but not the spirit

      And since the spirit is ever with us, it must have its voice, lest the Shariah become a hardened hammer than what it was intended to be, a doorway to rebalancing what has become imbalance.

    • P.A.Mohamed Ameen 07/19/2016 at 3:24 am

      In Islamic jurisprudence ijtihad( independent reasoning) is a vital aspect . It is not reaffirmation but reinterpretation based on new ideas, discoveries, situations and circumstances.

      One specific circumstance is, whether a Muslim individual lives in a Muslim majority country( example Turkey) or a Muslim minority country (example USA)

      Some examples

      1. A decade or two ago Muslim scholars were against organ transplantation surgery but now they say it is not against Shariah law,

      2. Restricted abortion under a certain conditions

      3. Artificial insemination ( making use of a woman’s husband’s semen but not any other relation or outsider)

      4. Muslim scholars did not allow Muslims to establish banks as banking business is based on Riba : that is interest based business in the 19th or 20th century .

      But based on new Shariah interpretations and new definitions of “interest”, there are hundreds of Islamic banking net works through out the Muslim world and even conventional non-Muslim owned banks have Shariah friendly banking and investment services

      5. Same thing about the business of both life insurance and general insurance
      These were forbidden according to Shari rules of yesteryear Muslim clerics. But now by new Shariah interpretations they have allowed what they call in Arabic Takaful

      (a type of insurance system devised to comply with the sharia laws, in which money is pooled and invested. )

      6. Buying, for example, houses by mortgage was not allowed by the Muslim clerics in 1950s or even 60s, but now by a new interpretation based on the fall in the purchasing power of money over time due to high rate of inflation, the scholars allow Muslims buying houses by a Islamic system of mortgage based on outright buying.

      Under this system the price of the house is fixed at the time of signing the agreement and the monthly instalment is paid towards the original cost of the building (house/flat/apartment etc)

      7 Birth control under an old interpretation of Sharia was totally forbidden by the clerics fifty years ago but now they do allow sterilization, birth control pills, copper T ( "IUD" stands for "intrauterine device." Shaped like a "T" and a bit bigger than a quarter, an IUD fits inside a woman's uterus. It prevents pregnancy by stopping sperm from reaching and fertilizing eggs.)

      Shariah regulations are a continually evolving concept as any Statute law or constitutional, criminal and civil laws.

    • P.A.Mohamed Ameen 07/19/2016 at 3:14 am

      The U.S. is one of the most Shariah-compliant nations in the world

      Shariah originally, much like Torah law in Judaism, was about the rules and regulations that allowed for proper worship, and proper societal conduct.

      This includes equal rights for all, and fair treatment under the law.

      The non-Islamic perversions of Shariah that most people in the West consider to be Shariah - are not. They are an attempt by extremists to return to their mistaken view of "original Islam".

      Islam is not the enemy.

      Shariah is not the enemy.

      Extremists are the enemy -

      and the three unbeatable weapons held by the peaceful majority are

      1. sincerity, 2, respectful communication and 3 . education.

      What exactly is the God Given superiority of English common law regarding civil functions like marriage contracts, divorce settlements, grievances, wills & estates?

      As long as they fit under the universal umbrella of American legal precedent (no polygamy or abuse of minors, no spousal abuse, acceptance of written will where present, etc).

      If two Muslims are in a car accident or a fist fight and have a traditional method to settle their civil infraction, why are the US courts going to try to supersede?

      The same might be said of the mafia. They had their own 'tradition' of resolving civil matters (restitution, apology, debt of honor), and the US courts kept out unless it broke US law (crime, murder).

      Even the Catholic Church has councils to decide if a priest can bless a mixed-religion marriage; if a catholic marriage is "annulled" to allow remarried spouses to take communion, or if individuals can enter or stay in cloisters. Should we fear these "church courts"?

  • Top 3 Signs Bill Clinton didn't kill himself to "give" the Palestinians a State
    • It is important to remember that without U.S. authorisation and support , Israel can do very little. Israeli commentator Amir Orn was accurate in observing that the boss man called partner is the U.S. Administration

      On its present course, Israel has virtually no alternative to serving as a U.S. military base in the Middle East and complying with the U.S. demands

      Israel could accept peace and integration into the region or insist on expansion and confrontation and it has to inevitably depend on the US

      Israel has expanded its settlements with continued financial backing by the Us and now control 42% of the west B, according to B’Tselem, the Israeli Human rights Orgn.,

      There are cantons of Palestinians that are reminiscent of the distasteful regimes from the past, such as the Apartheid Regime of South Africa

      Head of General Security service (Shabak, Shin Bet) Ami Ayalan said that those who want victory against terror without addressing underlying grievances want an unending war

      For decades israel had been kidnapping and killing civilians in Lebanon or on the high seas holding them in Israel for long periods, often as hostages, sometimes in secret torture chambers like camp 1391.

      What would break the cycle of violence. The basic outline of solution are familiar and have been supported by a broad international consensus for thirty years, a two state settlement on the international border, perhaps with minor and mutual adjustments.

    • P.A.Mohamed Ameen 05/15/2016 at 1:52 am

      Arafat was ambushed by Clinton and Barak, when both presented him a deal that was much more favorable to Israel than to Palestine.

      In a nutshell, Arafat was presented with "a take it or leave it deal" either Palestinians had to give up their claims to most of East Jerusalem and forfeit their Right of Return,

      and in return Palestinians would "gain" a non-contiguous state on parts of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, or the whole Clinton-Barak offer had to be rejected outright; which he did.

      According to Barak's offer, the proposed Palestinian areas would have been cut from East to West and from North to South, so that the Palestinian state would have consisted of a group of islands, each surrounded by Israeli settlers and soldiers.

      No sovereign nation would accept such an arrangement-that could hinder its strategic national security and interests,

      The occupied West Bank and Gaza strip have more Israeli Jewish colonies and bypass roads than ever,

      The Oslo Agreement's fundamental flaw was that it had attempted to scratch the surface of the core issues of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, and not to necessarily solve them.

      Any agreement, similar to the Oslo Agreement, is destined for failure if it won't address the core issues of the conflict, such as the Palestinian Right of Return, the status of Jerusalem, water allocations, and the borders of the emerging states.

      link to

  • Hillary Clinton goes full Neocon at AIPAC, Demonizes Iran, Palestinians
    • P.A.Mohamed Ameen 03/22/2016 at 7:44 am

      Oslo itself was a failure

      Arafat was ambushed by Clinton and Barak, when both presented him a deal that was much more favorable to Israel than to Palestine.

      In a nutshell, Arafat was presented with "a take it or leave it deal" either Palestinians had to give up their claims to most of East Jerusalem and forfeit their Right of Return,

      and in return Palestinians would "gain" a non-contiguous state on parts of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, or the whole Clinton-Barak offer had to be rejected outright; which he did.

      According to Barak's offer, the proposed Palestinian areas would have been cut from East to West and from North to South, so that the Palestinian state would have consisted of a group of islands, each surrounded by Israeli settlers and soldiers.

      No sovereign nation would accept such an arrangement-that could hinder its strategic national security and interests,

      The occupied West Bank and Gaza strip have more Israeli Jewish colonies and bypass roads than ever,

      The Oslo Agreement's fundamental flaw was that it had attempted to scratch the surface of the core issues of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, and not to necessarily solve them.

      Any agreement, similar to the Oslo Agreement, is destined for failure if it won't address the core issues of the conflict, such as the Palestinian Right of Return, the status of Jerusalem, water allocations, and the borders of the emerging states.

      link to

  • Winners and Losers in 5 Years of Syrian Civil War
    • Basically millions of Muslim people( and others ) around the world want major changes in the repressive and corrupt political administration of Muslim nations. Massive changes in the regimes. No denying

      We want more of God conscious ISLAMISTS to become political leaders of Muslim nations

      But trying to bring this about by violent peoples’ movement (or some sort of revolution as of Iran 1979) has proved to be a terribly wrong idea as we have seen in Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan , Syria, Egypt, Tunisia and so on

      Look at those nations. More sufferings and the loss of lives of tens of thousands of people and millions becoming refugees, more inter-tribal and sectarian killings

      Does it mean that we better allow the repressive regimes to continue?

      I would say YES and YES once again, the option is lesser of the evils

      I would say that we have to be patient, pray hard and should not try to create anarchy, confusion, violence, massive civilian deaths and sufferings in Muslim societies (or others) for the sake of political power.

      There are hard lessons for the Muslims from these tragedies. A sort of Unity ( example as it was existing in Syria five years ago) is far better than the terrible losses and tragedies

      Let us wait until One God Almighty Bring about a change in leadership believing the following verse of the Quran

      Quran 3: 26

      Say, "O God , Owner of Sovereignty,
      You give sovereignty to whom You will and
      You take sovereignty away from whom You will.
      You honor whom You will and You humble whom You will.
      In Your hand is [all] good. Indeed, You are over all things competent.”

    • pamohamedameen 03/14/2016 at 3:45 am

      Juan Cole has forgotten a very big loser

      The Palestinians They have been removed from the good books of all parties, Assad's , the Saudis and the Iranians and they were caught in the cross fire and suffered humiliation

  • Islam: Do you know the difference between Sunni & Shiite?
    • I think Sunnism has been greatly influenced by the petro dollar puritanism.

      Anti Shia attitude spread so that now many Sunnis make really unreasonable criticisms which historically are new.

      It was only when I looked behind the petro dollar and saw what Sunni Islam in this respect, did things start to fall into place and explain why we experience some of the criticism toward ahul bayt amongst some, a attack never expressed in classical Sunni Islam.

      I'm sure anything I say can be debated , but this is loosely what I thought:

      A Shia' scholar said he envied Sunni ulama for their beautiful poetry of love for the Prophet s.a.w. and it started me thinking that yes Shia spend quite a lot of energy into negative thoughts towards companions etc where as Sunnis have a positive or neutral view of it all.

      It therefore looked somewhat reactionary to an event, rather an 'off shoot' than the core of Islam

      It also seemed rather far fetched that people that had suffered exile in the desert eating leaves for many years etc would suddenly apostacise on the Prophet's s.a.w. demise.

      And this might be corroborated by the Quran 9:100 since the companions are described as the foremost - ahul bayt are not mentioned.

      Also whilst I understand the concept of the infallible Imam - and it is certainly serving Shi'ism well in keeping order and avoiding the extremism of some 'Sunni' groups - I believe that a friendly and respectful approach is more correct.

      One thing I did find hard was that propaganda exists from both sides,

      Spend may be an hour reading non Muslim academic readings of Islamic history to get a more objective view.

      Anyway, overall I actually think Sunni Islam (in the sense of what that used to mean) has more in common with Shia Islam than say Wahhabi, Salafi Islam.

      There will be that valid question hanging over the succession and the questionable actions of the Ummayyads and their unforgivable, paranoid driven, oppression of the ahul bayt, which we may disagree over.

      However, in terms of fiqh and tasawwuf which really have been the life blood of Islam (one observation I have made as a difference with Christianity is that we have not focused on theology) we can work happily together as Muslims.

      Perhaps Mustafa Akkad's - Allah have mercy and ever increase him amin! - approach of creating a film of the Prophet s.a.w. that was approved by both al Azhar and the Lebanese Shia Council is the way forward for us all.

      Since the split was so early both Sunni and Shia contributions to Islamic history have to be nothing but praised.

      So we each do our best, remain silent over what we disagree on as it is NOT actually a matter of belief/disbelief and 1400 years of debates haven't categorically convinced either, and leave the rest to Allah
      Ideas of a blogger William Voller

    • Very good analysis Jack Thanks for the insight

      The 2003 American invasion and occupation of Iraq created the pre-conditions for radical Sunni groups, like ISIS, to take root.

      America, rather unwisely, destroyed Saddam Hussein’s secular state machinery and replaced it with a predominantly Shiite administration.

      The U.S. occupation caused vast unemployment in Sunni areas, by rejecting socialism and closing down factories in the naive hope that the magical hand of the free market would create jobs.

      Under the new U.S.-backed Shiite regime, working class Sunni’s lost hundreds of thousands of jobs.

      Upper class Sunni’s were systematically dispossessed of their assets and lost their political influence.

      Rather than promoting religious integration and unity, American policy in Iraq exacerbated sectarian divisions and created a fertile breading ground for Sunni discontent, from which Al Qaeda in Iraq took root.

      These are the present day issues that add to the discontent between Sunni and Shia, it is political rather than religious

  • Israel: Friedman of the NY Times surrenders to One-State Solution, sees ME Apocalypse
    • The two state solution, advocated tirelessly by mediocre politicians who lack historical vision, is therefore unrealistic, unworkable and dangerous.

      Unrealistic and unworkable because one can’t unscramble an egg, and dangerous because genuine grievances can’t be suppressed permanently by shortsighted political decisions.

      Moreover, Jews, Muslims, Christians and others would be perfectly free to practice their religious beliefs and, unlike the current situation, would enjoy unfettered access to their respective holy places. And all would be treated equally before the law as citizens.

      Furthermore, every citizen would be free to live wherever he or she likes in accordance with the law. For example, a Jew would be free to settle anywhere in Israel/Palestine. A Palestinian would be accorded the same right.

      Nonetheless, the two communities must realize by now that that they have to reform and amend their old, anachronistic ways and especially their views of each other.

      Palestinians will have to discard, once and for all, their dreams of cleansing Palestine of Ashkenazi and other Jews who arrived in the country following WWII.

      Likewise, Jews must come to terms with the fact that Palestinians have at least an equal right to this land of Israel/Palestine.

      This vision of one-state for all, where Jews and Palestinians live equally and peacefully in a unitary, democratic, civil state is not too idealistic to be practical. It happened in South Africa; and it is practiced in many countries all over the globe.

  • Israeli PM: 'Arab terror and Jewish terror' are different
    • Zionist leaders always believed that the creation of a Jewish state meant imposing the will of Zionism on the Palestinian population. Jabotinsky said

      “…colonisation can continue and develop only under the protection of a force independent of the local population – an iron wall which the native population cannot break through…

      this is our policy towards the Arabs and to formulate it in any other way would be hypocrisy…

      The Jewish question can be solved either completely or it cannot be solved at all. We are in need of a territory where our people will constitute the overwhelming majority…and one must not be afraid of the word ‘segregation’ ”.

      Jabotinsky believed that only ‘an iron wall of bayonets and Jewish armed garrisons’ would be able to secure Jewish sovereignty on both sides of the Jordan River. Like Weizmann and Ben-Gurion before him, he had only contempt for the indigenous Arabs.

      He once said: “we Jews, thank God, have nothing to do with the East. The Islamic soul must be broomed out of Eretz Yisrael”.

    • The following is from Prof Noam Chomsky says in his book Fateful Triangle,

      According to the Israeli army, the ratio of killings is/was almost 20 to 1(20 Palestinians and 1 Israeli)

      The world media blew far out of proportion when a Palestinian killed a settler describing it as Jews being killed in cold blood.

      But a Zionist settler/soldier killing 20 Palestinians is described as Israeli security measure to protect its citizens.

      It looks as if human beings had different values based on their race and religion. After all, violence begets violence and its consequences hurt the innocent on all sides.

  • Top 6 Times US government Excluded Millions based on Race or Religion
    • pamohamedameen 12/10/2015 at 6:45 am

      In a democracy people could on occasions be swept away by the power of demagogues like Donald Trump

      The politicians who voted into power invite little participation by the electorate. This is where the good concept of democracy and its erratic practice receive a hit below the belt.

      National constitutions state that a democracy must put its military under civilian control. On paper, that is where the U.S. military but in practice it is a different story.

      The U.S. economy is largely influenced by military corporations, and where much of its budget is off the record, there certainly is no democracy in the control and running of the U.S. military. The world wonders whether America is a democracy or an effective plutocracy well controlled by the super rich and the Military Industrial Complex.

      This provides an interesting contrast to the U.S. spectacle of never ending election cycles, and election processes that carry on for months and years and require hundreds of millions of dollars for success - a grand spectacle but hardly a democratic process in an almost single party ( it looks like two branches within the same party particularly as for as foreign policy goes) state.

  • Islam: Acceptance of Diversity & Pluralism is Key to the Qur'an's Theology
    • paluvakkamohamedameen 09/21/2015 at 10:54 pm

      This is for God Almighty to decide on every human being based on his beliefs and practices, a person who has never believed in God may be given a place in paradise by God based on the fact that he was not given the right knowledge and no body took the message of God to him.

    • paluvakkamohamedameen 09/21/2015 at 10:52 pm

      I quote the Quran

      “God has created you into nations, clans and tribes so that you recognise each other, and in the sight of God the one closest to God is one who is righteous"

      The same Quran sets only three preconditions for salvation/redemption
      1. Belief in one True Almighty God (Tawhid in Arabic)
      2. Belief in accountability after death
      3. Good and righteous deeds.

      Those who fulfil these conditions whatever their brand of religion will have no grief, no sorrow and they will have their rewards with God.

      We have to stop stereotyping and generalising an entire community. A hard core ignorant extremist is an out caste in all religions

  • New Poll: only 1 in 4 in US want more American involvement abroad; Cuba & Iran lower on List
    • pamohamedameen 08/17/2015 at 3:14 am

      Who cares about these polls and their results. In American democracy people elect their leaders but the elected leaders decide the foreign policy based on the requirements of the filthy rich, the Israeli firstsers, the neo cons and the people who control the Military Industrial Complex,

      America is the best example of a PLUTOCRACY but pretend to be a successful democracy

  • How Mainstream is Bernie Sanders?
    • he has a chance if democracy returns to America, but right now USA is a plutocracy , money politics and neo-con influence decide the president of the US who is remote controlled by hidden forces

  • Who does Jerusalem belong To?
    • you have said it forcefully and tellingly May God Bless you. What had happened to Jerusalem by aggression had happened many times in history but it pains people like us much as the sad history is repeated right in front of our eyes in the civilized 21st century

Showing comments 75 - 1