Once in a while the news are filled about a group of extremist Muslims who slaughter people and commit the most unthinkable crimes under the name of Islam. ISIS is a recent example.
If you ask such people that why they are committing such obvious wrong deeds and still consider it the command of the God, they would answer that they are trusting a Muslim scholar and that they receive the commands of the God through him. Based on this trust they consider the scholar’s commands equivalent to the God’s commands and blindly follow the scholar’s instructions to make the God happy.
But does not this method sound too similar to shirk, the exact opposite of Islam’s primary message, which is not following anybody except the God? How did this happen? How did that origin with the most clear message came to this obvious contradictory point?
In the “Belief vs. Trust” article, we show that similarly to all modern religions, in the current understanding of Islam also believing in God is interpreted as trusting a religious package preached by the local religious scholars.
After analyzing the roots of such interpretation in all religions, the article shows that key element that legitimizes the incorporation of trusting scholars into islamic practice is considering Hadith as a pillar of Islam.
The current Islam which is mixed with Hadith has become so complicated that leaves an ordinary Muslim with no solution but seeking the advice of some Hadith experts (or scholars) about “what Islam says”. This blind obedience creates potential for extremism: if the religious scholar is extremist, the blind followers also apply the extremism in the name of religion.
Then in the “Islam without Hadith” article, we list the pros and cons of existence of Hadith in the current Islamic practice, and show that by eliminating Hadith not only we do not lose any of the core Islamic values but also we are given the chance to rediscover the Simple Islam, the religion which guides us to nothing but reasonable, beautiful deeds. In Simple Islam, which is free from the complexities of Hadith, there is no space for religious scholars to instruct their blind followers to such unbelievable crimes.
In the “Scope” article, we then revisit some of the controversial topics in Quran, such as slavery and women rights, and observe a Quran very different from what the scholars have been preaching for years.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ):
Q1: Those are bad scholars. But I am obeying good scholars!
A: Quran warns about blind obedience. Read Section D of Trust article.
Q2: Some extremists claim obeying no scholar and just following Quran!
A: They adopted a particular perverted interpretation of Quran stemmed from Hadith and backed by past scholars. They are essentially obeying those scholar’s viewpoint.
Q3: I read Quran myself. It says “kill the infidels”!
A: Taken out of context! Such verses are about a particular war with the criminals of Mecca. There were refereed to as “Kafir”, which means ungrateful, as they were ungrateful for the gift of the messenger. Quran uses the word “Kafir” sometimes even for Muslims. Mainstream translations offered by scholars however translate “Kafir” as “infidel” causing this confusion.
Q4: Extremists are using perverted Hadiths. There is a huge science of telling which Hadith is reliable. I am obeying good scholars who know this science well!
A: Extremists say the same about you. The bottom line is that both of you blindly obey, and both of you think that your scholar is the right one. Read trust article about blind obedience.
Q5: Why should I trust your article? are you a scholar?
A: Do not trust people. Read their arguments and decide by yourself
Q6: Without Hadith how could we know the details of rituals?
A: Section 4 of the article Islam without Hadith
Q7: Does not Quran itself tell us to follow Hadith?
A: No. Read here.
Q8: Ignoring Hadith is ignoring Muhammad (s.a.a.w.)?
A: No. Read Hadith-less Muhammad.
Q9: Can we understand Quran without Hadith?
A: Yes. Read Quran is understandable without Hadith
Q10: Did not Quran force conversion?
A: No. Islam in Quran means meeting the God with a heart filled with peace. What Muslims did along the history has nothing to do with what Quran describes.
Why did Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates provide a pulpit for a firebrand cleric who calls for the destruction of Shiites, Alawites, Christians, and Jews?
Saudi Arabia expands its involvement in wars across the Middle East, the kingdom has given a platform to an extremist cleric who seems to believe this struggle is not just against the Islamic State or rivals in Yemen. Saad bin Ateeq al-Ateeq, a Saudi preacher with long-standing ties to the kingdom’s government, recently called upon God to “destroy” Shiites, Alawites, Christians, and Jews.
Saudi King Salman insists that Sunni-Shiite hatred only motivates intervention in Yemen by other “regional powers” — meaning Iran. Ateeq, however, tells a different story: Speaking to the Saudi state news channel al-Ekhbariya one day after Riyadh went to war, he argued that Yemen’s lands were designated “purely for monotheism” and “may not be polluted, neither by Houthis nor Iranians.” He labeled these groups “rafidis,” a derogatory label bashing Shiite Islam, and ominously elaborated: “We are cleansing the land from these rats.”
Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates — the three most influential members of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) — have recently displayed surprising unity through their shared participation in multilateral military operations, first against the Islamic State in Syria and now against Houthi insurgents in Yemen.
Yet these three governments have another thing in common — each has provided a platform for the radical preaching of Ateeq, whose toxic incitement against other religions parallels the narrative of terrorist groups such as the Islamic State and al Qaeda. That America’s allies would tolerate a religious leader as extreme as this Saudi preacher poses a threat to U.S. interests and suggests the Gulf is failing to live up to its explicit commitments to repudiate the Islamic State’s hateful ideology.
It’s not like these Persian Gulf states can claim not to know about Ateeq’s hate-filled rhetoric — he has been repeating it for years in prominent, government-affiliated places of worship. Earlier this year, Ateeq delivered a televised sermon at Qatar’s state-controlled Grand Mosque beseeching God to “destroy the Jews and whoever made them Jews, and destroy the Christians and the Alawites and whoever made them Christian, and the Shiites and whoever made them Shiite.” He also prayed for God to “save [the] Al-Aqsa [mosque in Jerusalem] from the claws of the Jews.”
Yet calling for the wholesale destruction of other religions appears to be one of the preacher’s favorite refrains. In February 2013, Ateeq delivered a Fridaysermon at Qatar’s Grand Mosque using an almost identical formulation, once again urging God to destroy the Christians and Jews. Similarly, in October of that year, Ateeq declared from Qatar’s Grand Mosque that Jews and Christians are enemies of God, and this February he delivered anothersermon, apparently from Sudan, calling for the destruction of Christians, Alawites, Shiites, and Jews.
When approached for comment regarding Ateeq’s views, Ali Saad al-Hajiri, the director of the media office at the Qatari Embassy in Washington, D.C., said Doha “in no way endorses or supports this individual” and “rejects any divisions in Arab society along sectarian lines.” Hajiri added that Qatar “faces the challenge of balancing the needs of a free society and freedom of speech with the need to take the strongest possible stance against terrorism and hate speech.” The Saudi and Emirati embassies in Washington did not respond to requests for comment.
Despite Ateeq’s unmistakable incitement of religious hatred, he is treated as an establishment figure in the Gulf. He regularly preaches in Qatar, addressing crowds in the gas-rich emirate on at least 13 occasions since 2010, typically as a guest of Qatar’sMinistry of IslamicAffairs. Notably, half of these invitations transpired after his 2013 sermon under government supervision calling for the destruction of other religions. He has spoken several times to different branches of Qatar’s security services: According to localmedia, one lecture in July 2013 to the Qatari navy, a frequent U.S. military partner in the Gulf, was attended by the commander of the Qatari Royal Navy Forces; that same month, Ateeq gave another lectureto security officials organized by the Qatari Interior Ministry’s airport security and airport passports departments. Qatar has invested billions of dollars in its airports in hopes of becoming a global aviation hub, and the Interior Ministry is Washington’s main interlocutor for discussing terror finance.
But it’s not just Qatar, which has long been accused of turning a blind eye to Islamist radicals, that has lent official legitimacy to Ateeq’s message. The United Arab Emirates (UAE), which has arrayed itself against Islamist forces in Egypt and Libya, has also given him a platform: In July 2014, the preacherwas featured as a speaker at the Dubai International Holy Quran Award, a yearly competition promoting Quranic memorization and Islamic culture. The event was organized “under the sponsorship” of Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, the vice president and prime minister of the UAE as well as the ruler of Dubai.
According to Sheikh Mohammed’s official website, his advisor for humanitarian and cultural affairs — who chaired the contest’s organizing committee — announced that Ateeq would be attending as one of the “elite group of scholars and preachers” hosted by the event. Ateeq singled out the advisor in the audience by name, saying that he deserved the “thanks of God,” and the two were photographed shaking hands on stage.
Yet it is Saudi Arabia where Ateeq has most firmly embedded himself within government institutions. According to the biography on his website, heserves as a “supervisor for Islamic awareness” at the Saudi Education Ministry and directs an Islamic awareness council at the Riyadh regional government’s Department of Education. His involvement with Riyadh’s education department apparently goes back to the days when Saudi Arabia’s current king was the region’s governor. Ateeq has regularly been involved in educational events in the region, including lecturing to children.
Ateeq also exerts an influence over the next generation of the Saudi armed forces, serving as the director of the Guidance Office for housing at King Khaled Military Academy (KKMA). The academy is classified by the Saudi Arabian National Guard Ministry as one of its “departments and units,” and graduates of the academy automatically earn the rank of lieutenant. His role as a preacher at the university goes back to 1994, when Saudi Arabia’s late — supposedly reformist — King Abdullah was the commander in charge of the National Guard.
Ateeq also has contributed in other ways to shaping the ideology of members of the Saudi security forces. In 2013, the Interior Ministry’s Facilities Security Force (FSF), which is in charge of protecting Saudi Arabia’s oil facilities,hosted Ateeq at its headquarters to run a seminar under the direction of the FSF’s commanding general regarding the hajj, including how to treat pilgrims properly. The Interior Ministry is under the control of Prince Mohammed bin Nayef, who was just promoted to next in line to inherit the Saudi throne.
Further, Ateeq’s biography states that he chairs the board of a quasi-governmental Saudi religious authority known as the Cooperative Office for Preaching, Guidance, and Direction in the Neighborhoods of West Naseem in Riyadh. Such cooperative offices around Saudi Arabia have sponsored dozens of Ateeq’s lectures throughout the country, with fliers featuring the logo of the Ministry of Islamic Affairs, which supervises the government-subsidized offices. Saudi Arabia’s official news wire has similarly promoteddozens of lectures by Ateeq, going back as far as a decade.
This March, Ateeq delivered a lecture at Riyadh’s King Khaled Mosque. The mosque’s “religious and social activities” come with the “sponsorship” of the King Khaled Charitable Foundation, the board of which is overseen by six princes and princesses fathered by the late King Khaled. Fliers used by the mosque to promote Ateeq’s lecture included logos of the Saudi Islamic Affairs Ministry and the late king’s foundation, and the foundation’s logo was also prominently featured behind Ateeq during his talk. The King Khaled Charitable Foundation did not respond to requests for comment on its involvement with Ateeq.
It is perhaps an irony of the Arabic language that Ateeq’s last name translates to “archaic” or “antiquated,” since he embodies the Gulf’s most backward impulses. But the Saudi preacher’s obvious incitement is far from an isolated case: The kingdom systematically indoctrinates its youth with hateful views in official, government-published schooltextbooks. Recent government-published textbooks state that those who renounce Islam to convert to another religion should be killed and that the most important debate about homosexuality is how gay people should be murdered. That is unlikely to change anytime soon so long as religious hard-liners such as Ateeq are granted influence over the Saudi education system.
As the region’s superpower patron, it is up to Washington to voice its displeasure about the continued flow of state privileges to preachers of hate. Such incitement undoubtedly poses a long-term threat to the fight against terrorism and to U.S. national security.
U.S. President Barack Obama should say as much when he sits down with GCC leaders at Camp David later this month. The president himself warned recently that the Gulf states face an internal threat from a “destructive and nihilistic” ideology; when he meets with the Gulf leaders, he can argue that tackling this sort of religious incitement is in these regimes’ best interest. By providing an official platform to hate preachers such as Ateeq, Gulf rulers are feeding an ideological chimera that threatens their ultimate survival.
Several countries have formed an alliance to attack fanatic groups in Syria and Iraq, for the purpose of eradicating the rising terrorism in the two countries after they have executed American and British citizens, regardless of the huge death toll and blood on these groups’ hands after executing and mass murdering thousands of civilians of different ethnicities and beliefs.
One would think that this is the normal conspiracy theory, yet there are certain facts that no one can deny their existence. Such facts in the global political system, especially the Western one, have created “Islamophobia” due to the double standards when dealing with extremism, fanaticism, and terrorism.
Global political systems rely on certain standards when dealing internal and foreign affairs, but with progression, global communities have witnessed their regimes using double standards with several matters. The subject here is the dealing of Western communities with fanatic groups, with the examples of ISIS (so-called Islamic State of Iraq and Sham) and KKK (Klu Klux Klan).
KKK is an extremist right-wing group that was formed in 1866 in the USA, it extended to most of the southern states in 1870 to form a white resistance against the existence of other races and ethnicities in America; they used the term “purification of America”. They made use of Christianity to spread their hatred towards “the other”, and their extremism led to the death and execution of several innocent citizens. Nevertheless, most Christian churches denounced their acts, yet they are still an active member of the American community with full rights, because they are “free to express their beliefs and opinions”.
ISIS is extremist armed group that’s linked to terrorist group “al Qaeda” before becoming independent in 2013 during its invasion of Eastern Syria and Western Iraq. It’s led by Abu-Bakr al Baghdadi, whom some reports, some from Whistleblower Edward Snowden, have shown his links to israeli Mossad organisation (Same issue discovered on al Qaeda’s former leader Osama Bin Laden when linked to American CIA). The group has shown it’s ruthlessness and the human ability to be heartless and inhumane when ISIS executed and decapitated thousands of innocent civilians in Syria and Iraq; the reason: disagreeing with them (regardless of beliefs, political views, ethnicity, or race). Most Islamic scholars, sheikhs, and clerics have denounced ISIS’ actions and said that the group is not even close to Islamism.
KKK and ISIS are of the same mentality
Yet, in global standards, ISIS is an “Islamic group and linked to the faith” unlike KKK. The reason, in my view, behind this global campaign against ISIS NOW is to create an excuse so that global powers could enter the world’s richest oil and gas fields, as well as the most strategic areas in the world: The Middle East, the gate between East and West. The same issue that happened in Afghanistan and Pakistan and Iraq before, which is the False Flag operation that led to Western intervention in the three countries with the excuse of fighting terrorism. The result was more terrorism and religious fanaticism in the area that’s controlled by turmoil and turbulence.
There are three reasons for the existence of ISIS and such groups in the Middle East:
The first one is mentioned indirectly in the previous paragraph, where ISIS is “an excuse” for Western powers to enter oil and gas fields in the Middle East and place control like they’ve done before in several countries.
The existence of ISIS is separating the area slowly into fanatic sectarian cantones, thus this grants indirect acknowledgement in the existence of the major terrorist entity: israel
Islam is a super power that Arabs’ especially have not been aware of recently. It is the only religion on Earth that could unite millions in one place and under one belief and for one leader. Even Nazi leader Adolf Hitler admired the power of Islam and has compared the unity of his army to fight for greater Germania as the fight of Muslims to their religion and their dedication to that, when he said that “Muslims are closer to us than, for example, France”. Thus the existence of ISIS is to de-power this area and create several smaller powers driven by sectarian hatred and political divisions, thus making it easier to control by the other major powers.
This isn’t anything familiar of what I usually post, whether political or media-related issues, not even human rights nor global movements such as Occupy or Anonymous… But I do believe that if you want to change the world around you, change yourself and let your positive energy affect your surroundings.
This is a very inspirational story about the strength of good spirit and love; hope you have a nice 2014 🙂
A Hindu saint, who was visiting river Ganges to take bath, found a group of family members on the banks, shouting in anger at each other. He turned to his disciples smiled and asked. “Why do people shout in anger shout at each other?” Disciples thought for a while, one of them said, “Because we lose our calm, we shout.” “But, why should you shout when the other person is just next to you? You can as well tell him what you have to say in a soft manner,” asked the saint.
Disciples gave some other answers but none satisfied the other disciples.
Finally the saint explained… “When two people are angry at each other, their hearts distance a lot. To cover that distance they must shout to be able to hear each other. The angrier they are, the stronger they will have to shout to hear each other to cover that great distance. What happens when two people fall in love? They don’t shout at each other but talk softly, Because their hearts are very close. The distance between them is either nonexistent or very small…”
The saint continued, “When they love each other even more, what happens? They do not speak, only whisper and they get even closer to each other in their love. Finally they even need not whisper, they only look at each other and that’s all. That is how close two people are when they love each other.” He looked at his disciples and said. “So when you argue do not let your hearts get distant, Do not say words that distance each other more, Or else there will come a day when the distance is so great that you will not find the path to return.”
This young Egyptian lad has summarized the current situation at the Northern African country in an amazing way, where he talks about the power or abusing religion in politics and how the Muslim Brotherhood are hanging own to what is not constitutional.
This is one of the few songs that actually carries meaning. It does not talk about love, hate, happy life of consumerism, and it certainly does not describe how “fine” the girl is and how good life is being rich and famous.
“The Static Age” is a song by the Punk-Rock band, Green Day, that simply talks about the era we’re living in, a consumerist age where everything we see on TV or hear on the radio is true, billboards are our source of information on “true” needs, religion is only exposed as a bad state of hallucination, and global useless brands will save you from the “misery of life” and teaches you to be happy…
Consume and obey to be fly and high; buy and spend to be happy and glad; machines occupy our happiness, until we have become their machines.
“Can you hear the sound of the static noise Blasting out in stereo? Cater to the class and the paranoid Music to my nervous system
Advertising love and religion Murder on the airwaves Slogans on the brink of corruption Visions of blasphemy, war and peace Screaming at you
I can’t see a thing in the video I can’t hear a sound on the radio In stereo in the static age
Billboard on the rise in the dawn’s landscape Working your insanity Tragic a’la madness and concrete Coca Cola execution
Conscience on a cross and Your heart’s in a vice Squeezing out your state of mind Are what you own that you cannot buy? What a fucking tragedy, strategy Screaming at you
I can’t see a thing in the video I can’t hear a sound on the radio In stereo in the static age
I can’t see a thing in the video I can’t hear a sound on the radio In stereo in the static age
Hey hey it’s the static age Well this is how the west was won Hey hey it’s the static age millennium
All I want to know Is a God-damned thing Not what’s in the medicine All I want to do is I want to breathe Batteries are not included
What’s the latest way that a man can die Screaming hallelujah? Singing out “The dawn’s early light” The silence of the rotten, forgotten Screaming at you
I can’t see a thing in the video I can’t hear a sound on the radio In stereo in the static age
I can’t see a thing in the video I can’t hear a sound on the radio In stereo in the static age
I can’t see a thing in the video I can’t hear a sound on the radio In stereo in the static age The static age”
للتذكير نحو وعي وطني ..: مجلة كيفونيم وثيقة صهيونية نشرتها عام 1982 تفتيت سورية وخلق وطن بديل بالاردن وتمزيق الدول العربية إلى دويلات وكيانات صغيرة على أسس عرقية ودينية هدف أولي لإسرائيل.. الشاهد السياسي ..: في إطار سعي موقع البعث ميديا لكشف مزيد من الحقائق التي تظهر تورط الكيان الصهيوني بالأحداث الأخيرة في الوطن العربي ولاسيما فيما يتعلق بسورية تمت العودة لوثيقة صهيونية نشرتها مجلة “كيفونيم” عام 1982 تؤكد أن الكيان الصهيوني يعمل منذ فترة طويلة على تمزيق الدول العربية إلى دويلات وكيانات صغيرة على أسس عرقية ودينية وهو لا يتوانى عن استخدام جميع الأساليب القذرة لتحقيق ذلك.
ففي مقال ـ تحت عنوان / إسرائيل الكبرى / ـ نشرته مجلة “كيفونيم” Kivonim النشرة التي تصدرها المنظمة الصهيونية العالمية في العدد 14 شباط 1982 – وهي النشرة الرسمية الناطقة باسم هذه المنظمة ـ تستعرض المنظمة الصهيونية العالمية بعضا من استراتيجية اسرائيل. وهدا النص يعري نوايا وخطط ومؤامرات الدولة اليهودية لتفتيت وتمزيق كل الدول العربية والاسلامية.
إلا أن مؤامرات كبرى على هذا النطاق الواسع لا تشكل مجرد عنترية صهيونية، بل تشكل خطرا حقيقيا لنشوب حرب عالمية ثالثة قد يستتبعه التورط في حرب نووية تؤدي الى انتحار كوكبنا الارضي. وهذه الخطط اليهودية الشيطانية لا يقتصر خطرها على جزء محدود من العالم، بل يهدد جميع الشعوب، تهديدا فعليا، نظراً لأن الدويلة اليهودية قد حققت فعلا ـ حتى الان ـ كل ما خططت له.
ونورد فيما يلي الفقرات الاكثر دلالة في المقال والذي يكشف عن أبعاد أحلام اليهود ومن يتطلعون الى “إسرائيل الكبرى”. ننشره حرفيا كما نشر في مجلة “كيفونيم” التي تصدرها “المنظمة الصهيونية العالمية” في القدس ( العدد 14 فبراير، شباط 1982 ).
“..ان استرداد سيناء، بمواردها الحالية هو هدفنا الأولي. وعلينا ان نعمل على استعادتها. ان وضع مصر الاقتصادي، وطبيعة نظامها، وسياستها العربية هي قنوات تصب في نقطة واحدة تستدعي من اسرائيل مواجهتها. ومصر وبحكم ازماتها الداخلية، لم تعد تمثل بالنسبة لنا مشكلة استراتيجية، وسيكون بالامكان، خلال 24 ساعة فقط، اعادتها الى ما كانت عليه قبل حرب يونيو (حزيران) 1967، فقد تلاشى تماماً وهمها بزعامة مصر للعالم العربي. وقد خسرت – في مواجهة اسرائيل خمسين بالمائة من قوتها. واذا هي استطاعت الافادة – في المستقبل المنظور – من استعادتها لسيناء، فان ذلك لن يغير في ميزان القوى شيئا. كذلك فقد فقدت تماسكها ومركزيتها، وخاصة بعد تفاقم حدة الاحتكاك بين مسلميها ومسيحييها، لذا ينبغي علينا كهدف سياسي اساسي بعد التسعينات على الجبهة الغربية، أن نعمل على تقسيم مصر وتفتيتها الى اقاليم جغرافية متفرقة.
وعندما تصبح مصر هكذا مجزأة، وبدون سلطة مركزية سنعمل على تفكيك كيانات ودول اسلامية اخرى كليبيا والسودان وغيرهما، ونعمل على تشكيل دولة قبطية في أعالي مصر، واقامة كيانات اقليمية انفصالية ضعيفة أخرى في كل البلدان الاسلامية، مما سيبدأ به تطور تاريخي حتمي على المدى الطويل. والمشاكل القائمة في الجبهة الغربية حاليا، تقل كثيراً عن مثيلاتها في الجبهة الشرقية.
ان تقسيم لبنان الى خمسة اقاليم، سيكون مقدمة لما سيحدث في مختلف ارجاء العالم العربي. وتفتيت سورية والعراق الى مناطق محددة على اسس المعايير العرقية او الدينية، يجب ان يكون – على المدى البعيد – هدفاً اولوياً لاسرائيل، علماً بان المرحلة الاولى منه تتمثل في تحطيم القوة العسكرية لدى هاتين ا الدولتين.
ان البنية الطائفية لسورية ستساعدنا على تفكيكها الى دولة شيعية على طول الساحل الغربي، ودولة سنية في منطقة حلب، واخرى في دمشق، وكيان درزي سيقاتل بدعمنا لتشكيل دولة انفصالية في الجولان ـ من حوران وشمالي المملكة الاردنية. ودولة كهذه من شأنها ان تكون ـ على المدى البعيد ـ قوة لنا. وتحقيق هذا الهدف هو في متناول ايدينا.
والعراق – الغني بنفطه، والفريسة للصراعات الداخلية، هو في مرمى التسديد الاسرائيلي. وانهياره سيكون ـ بالنسبة الينا ـ اهم من انهيار سورية، لان العراق يمثل اقوى تهديد لاسرائيل، في المدى المنظور. واندلاع حرب بينه وبين سورية سيسهل انهياره الداخلي، قبل ان يتمكن من توجيه حملة واسعة النطاق ضدنا علماً بان كل مواجهة بين عرب وعرب، ستكون مفيدة جدا لنا، لأنها ستقرب ساعة الانفجار المرتقب. ومن الممكن ان تعجل الحرب الحالية مع ايران.
ثم ان شبه جزيرة العرب مهيأة لتفكك وانهيار من هذا القبيل، تحت ضغوط داخلية. كما هو الحال في المملكة العربية السعودية بالذات حيث يتمشى اشتداد الازمات الداخلية وسقوط النظام الملكي، مع منطق بنيتها السياسية الراهنة.
وتعتبر المملكة الاردنية هدفاً استراتيجياً لنا في الوقت الحاضر.
وهي لن تشكل – في المدى البعيد – تهديداً لنا، بعد تفككها ونهاية حكم الحسين، وانتقال السلطة الى يد الاكثرية الفلسطينية. وهو ما ينبغي على السياسة الاسرائيلية ان تتطلع اليه وتعمل من أجله. ان هذا التغيير سيعني حل مشكلة الضفة الغربية، ذات الكثافة الشديدة من السكان العرب. اذ ان هجرة هؤلاء العرب الى الشرق نحو الأردن ـ سلماً او حرباً ـ وتجميد وتوقيف نمومهم الاقتصادي والديموغرافي، هما ضمانة للتحولات القادمة التي سنفرضها، وعلينا بذل كل الجهود من اجل الاسراع بهذا المسار. ويجب استبعاد ورفض خطة الحكم الذاتي، أو أي خطة أخرى تهدف الى تسوية او الى مشاركة أو تعايش.
على العرب الاسرائيليين ـ وضمناً كل الفلسطينيين، ان نجعلهم بالقوة يقتنعون انهم لن يستطيعوا اقامة وطن ودولة الا في المملكة الاردنية، ولن يعرفوا الأمان إلاّ باعترافهم بالسيادة اليهودية فيما بين البحر المتوسط ونهر الاردن.
وفي عصر الذرة هذا، لم يعد ممكناً قبول تزاحم ارباع السكان اليهود داخل منطقة ساحلية مكتظة ومعرضة لتقلبات الطبيعة. لذا، فان تشتيت وابعاد العرب هو من اولى واجبات سياستنا الداخلية. ف”يهودا والسامرة والجليل” ـ الضفة الغربية ـ هي الضمانات الوحيدة لبقائنا الوطني، واذا لم نصبح الاكثرية في المناطق الجبلية، فيخشى ان نواجه مصير الصليبيين، الذين فقدوا هذه البلاد. كما ان اعادة التوازن على الصعيد الديموغرافي والاستراتيجي والاقتصادي، يجب ان يكون مطمحاً رئيسياً لنا. وهذا ينطوي على ضرورة السيطرة على الموارد المائية في المنطقة كلها الواقعة بين بئر السبع والجليل الاعلى، والخالية من اليهود حالياً”.
امّا مبادئ المخطط الصهيوني اليهودي فهي:
1 ـ محاربة الدين وإسقاط أنظمة الحكم غير الموالية لليهود، من خلال تمويل الحركات الهدامة والانفصالية ذات الأفكار التحررية واليسارية وتمويل المنتصر منها بالقروض.
2 ـ ضرورة المحافظة على السرية. يجب أن تبقى سلطتنا الناجمة عن سيطرتنا على المال مخفيّة عن أعين الجميع ، لغاية الوصول إلى درجة من القوة لا تستطيع أي قوة منعنا من التقدم.
3 ـ إفساد الأجيال الناشئة لدى الأمم المختلفة. من خلال ترويج ونشر جميع أشكال الانحلال الأخلاقي لإفساد الشبيبة، وتسخير النساء للعمل في دور الدعارة، وبالتالي تنتشر الرذيلة حتى بين سيدات المجتمع الراقي إقتداءً بفتيات الهوى وتقليدا لهن.
4 ـ الغزو السلمي التسللي هو الطريق الأسلم، لكسب المعارك مع الأمم الأخرى. الغزو الاقتصادي لاغتصاب ممتلكات وأموال الآخرين، لتجنب وقوع الخسائر البشرية في الحروب العسكرية المكشوفة.
5 ـ إطلاق شعارات ـ يقصد بها العكس ـ الديموقراطية والحرية والمساواة والإخاء، بغية تحطيم النظم غير الموالية لليهود ليلقى لصوص هذه المؤامرة بعدها شيئا من التقدير والاحترام.
6 ـ إثارة الحروب وخلق الثغرات في كل معاهدات السلام التي تعقد بعدها لجعلها مدخلا لإشعال حروب جديدة. وذلك لحاجة المتحاربين إلى القروض، وحاجة كل من المنتصر والمغلوب لها بعد الحرب لإعادة الإعمار والبناء، وبالتالي وقوعهم تحت وطأة الديون اليهودية ومسك الحكومات الوطنية من خنّاقها، وتسيير أمورها حسب ما يقتضيه المخطط من سياسات يهودية هدامة.
7 ـ خلق قادة للشعوب من ضعاف الشخصية الذين يتميزون بالخضوع والخنوع. وذلك بإبرازهم وتلميع صورهم من خلال الترويج الإعلامي لهم، لترشيحهم للمناصب العامة في الحكومات الوطنية، ومن ثم التلاعب بهم من وراء الستار بواسطة عملاء متخصّصين لتنفيذ سياساتنا )
8 ـ امتلاك وسائل الإعلام والسيطرة عليها لترويج الأكاذيب والإشاعات والفضائح الملفّقة التي تخدم المؤامرة اليهودية.
9 ـ قلب أنظمة الحكم الوطنية المستقلة بقراراتها ، والتي تعمل من أجل شعوبها ولا تستجيب للمتطلبات اليهودية. وذلك بإثارة الفتن وخلق فتن داخلية فيها لتؤدي إلى حالة من الفوضى ، وبالتالي سقوط هذه الأنظمة الحاكمة وإلقاء اللوم عليها ، وتنصيب عملاء اليهود قادة في نهاية كل ثورة وإعدام من يُلصق بهم تهمة الخيانة من النظام المعادي لليهود.
10 ـ نشر العقائد الإلحادية المادية العلمانية.من خلال تنظيم الجمعيات و الاحزاب، تحت ستار التعددية، والتي تحارب كل ما تمثله الأديان السماوية، وتساهم أيضا في تحقيق أهداف المخططات الأخرى داخل البلدان التي تتواجد فيها.
11 ـ استعمال الدبلوماسية السريّة من خلال العملاء. للتدخل في أي اتفاقات أو مفاوضات، وخاصة بعد الحروب لتحوير بنودها بما يتفق مع المخططات اليهودية.
I placed this second video so that I wouldn’t be plagiarizing George Carlin’s thoughts.
George argues that Rights are not “God-given”, they’re privileges since your government can still take it away whenever possible, directly and indirectly.
and keep in mind, that the first video didn’t show Human Rights violations in Palestine via israeli soldiers.
In the streets of Beirut, one notices a preponderance of Lebanese flags—hanging out of windows, on cars, in doorways, on buildings. A nationalist gesture, it paradoxically signifies the opposite. Both the “opposition” and government supporters are equally zealous flag wavers. Meant to signify the universal of nationalism, the flag in fact symbolizes fragmentation and impermeable particularity. In this sense, the flag truly represents Lebanon.
It is difficult to imagine what a “united” Lebanon would be. There is a deep and chronic lack of acknowledgement of genuine otherness. In order to unite, there first has to be acknowledgement and tolerance of genuine difference. Lack of respect for boundaries seems to be a nationwide difficulty, seen at both the individual and collective levels. One is indeed tempted to demand a theory—psychoanalytic, speculative, or otherwise—of social boundary malformation. From traffic patterns, to interpersonal relations, to sectarian violence, Lebanon is beset with problems that appear diagnosable in such terms.
The Lebanese Flag Done by Activists
At the individual level, it does not seem to be particularly inspired by belligerence that people do not recognize lines in banks and airports, or do not honor norms of basic courtesy such as reflexively yielding partial passage on sidewalks and in doorways. These seem rather to be microsocial, sensuous indications of broader social attitudes that fail to recognize the genuine existence and autonomy of others. I believe that, at the highest cultural level—politics—these attitudes achieve their full expression and significance in and as sectarianism.
Freud tells us that it is the artifact of narcissism, of infantile entitlement, to act as though one’s boundaries extend indefinitely outward into a thinned out world. This idea suggests the evil twin of a benign, ideal multiculturalism; the ideal pictures many different kinds of people from many different backgrounds gathered and living peaceably together. But this picture presupposes real acknowledgement of the other.
The Lebanese live among each other, but notwith each other. Individuals in Lebanon belong to and are defined by sects, and each sect is its own normative bubble, each with its own particular internal logic that is unconsciously believed to have universal normative significance. This appears related to a strong sense of sectarian superiority and entitlement, each with an absolute sense of the validity of its own normative identity.
Clearly, at the political level, Lebanon is not the scene of a serene “identity within difference”. However, it is not the presence of mere difference among such sects that creates the catastrophic potential of a slide into full-blown civil war, nor is it an a priori belligerence or inclination to violence. Under less strife-ridden conditions than those that exist presently, Lebanese of different sects form lasting friendships, have productive business associations, and otherwise appear to get along. Then what is the psychology of difference that pertains here?
For there to be a real potential of “identity within difference”, there first has to be substantive acknowledgement that difference exists. One would think that, given the history of political chaos and violence here, along with the simple sensory fact of sectarian differences (just walk around the university), such acknowledgement would be a given. But I am beginning to infer that it is not only not given, it is absent. What is this psychology of difference? It is a psychology that maybe imagines that such difference exists, but somehow paradoxically doesn’t really believe it.
Lebanese activists wearing a V for Vendetta mask during a No War protest in Martyr square, one holds the sign of “War again? seriously?”
The level of normative self-absorption within each sect creates an expansion and envelopment of the public sphere, so that while lip service may be paid to difference, no one actually cognizes or experiences it. Genuine otherness is regarded as totally insubstantial, even if present, something like the ambient humming noise in a computer room. So when the other suddenly emerges as something more than something unobtrusively liminal, dwelling at the edges of consciousness, the potential for conflict is immediately realized. That is arguably why opposition and conflict always comes “without warning”; it “erupts” (to use some of the favored media descriptions).
It would be deeply counterintuitive to suggest that the Lebanese do not recognize the real divisions that exist within their society. I am not suggesting that they do not, but rather that when they do, it is too late. The veneer of social normalcy (a phenomenon in Lebanon that deserves a book-length treatment) is a veneer that plasters over these real, divisive differences, and interprets them in inappropriately benign ways. When there is not open conflict, it is as if the nation exists in a wholesale state of denial, flattering itself on its cosmopolitanism and multiculturalism.
Real dialogue geared towards mutual understanding must begin with substantive acknowledgement of genuine difference, and it is perhaps only such substantive acknowledgement that can forestall violent conflict. Indeed, at the legal-political level of “power-sharing” there does seem to be this sort of substantive acknowledgement. However, an uneasy détente institutionalized in legal-political structures between intractable enemies, each with an absolute sense of normative entitlement, ought not to be conflated with the unity of purpose, sensibility, and vision that is the hallmark of successful democracies. Perhaps Lebanon is the living argument for the thesis that religion ought, at all costs, be separate from politics.
Some of the Lebanese parties’ hand signals, colors are not relevant to any specific political party
A victorious army? There were cartridge cases all over the ancient stone laneways, pocked windows, and bullet holes up the side of the Sharaf mosque, where a gunman had been firing from the minaret. A sniper still fired just 150 yards away – all that was left of more than a hundred rebels who had almost, but not quite, encircled the 4,000-year-old citadel of Aleppo.
“You won’t believe this,” Major Somar cried in excitement. “One of our prisoners told me: ‘I didn’t realise Palestine was as beautiful as this.’ He thought he was in Palestine to fight the Israelis!”
Do I believe this? Certainly, the fighters who bashed their way into the lovely old streets west of the great citadel were, from all accounts, a ragtag bunch. Their graffiti – “We are the Brigades of 1980”, the year when the first Muslim Brotherhood rising threatened the empire of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s father, Hafez – was still on the walls of the Syrian-Armenian hotels and silver shops. A 51-year-old general handed me one of the home-made grenades that littered the floor of the Sharaf mosque; a fluffy fuse poking from the top of a lump of shrapnel, coated in white plastic and covered in black adhesive tape.
Inside the mosque were bullets, empty tins of cheese, cigarette butts and piles of mosque carpets, which the rebels had used as bedding. The battle had so far lasted 24 hours. A live round had cut into the Bosnian-style tombstone of a Muslim imam’s grave, with a delicate stone turban carved on its top. The mosque’s records – lists of worshippers’ complaints, Korans and financial documents – were lying across one room in what had evidently marked the last stand of several men. There was little blood. Between 10 and 15 of the defenders – all Syrians – surrendered after being offered mercy if they laid down their arms. The quality of this mercy was not, of course, disclosed to us.
The Syrian soldiers were elated, but admitted that they shared immense sadness for the history of a city whose very fabric was being torn apart, a world heritage site being smashed by rockets and high-velocity rounds. The officers shook their heads when they led us into the ramparts of the immense citadel. “The terrorists tried to capture it 20 days ago from our soldiers who were defending it,” Major Somar said. “They filled gas cylinders full of explosives – 300 kilos of it – and set them off by the first entrance above the moat.”
Alas, they did. The huge medieval iron and wooden gate, its ornamented hinges and supports – a defence-work that had stood for 700 years – has been literally torn apart. I clambered over carbonized wood and hunks of stone bearing delicate Koranic inscriptions. Hundreds of bullet holes have pitted the stonework of the inner gate. Below, I found a T-72 tank whose barrel had been grazed by a sniper’s bullet which was still lodged in the sheath, its armour broken by a grenade. “I was inside at the time,” its driver said. “Bang! – but my tank still worked!”
So here is the official scorecard of the battle for the eastern side of the old city of Aleppo, the conflict amid narrow streets and pale, bleached stone walls that was still being fought out yesterday afternoon, the crack of every rebel bullet receiving a long burst of machine-gun fire from Major Somar’s soldiers. As the army closed in on the gunmen from two sides, 30 rebels – or “Free Syrian Army” or “foreign fighters” – were killed and an undisclosed number wounded. According to Major Somar’s general, an officer called Saber, Syrian government forces suffered only eight wounded. I came across three of them, one a 51-year-old officer who refused to be sent to hospital.
Many of the rebels’ weapons had been taken from the scene by the military “mukhbarat” intelligence men before we arrived: they were said to include three Nato-standard sniper rifles, one mortar, eight Austrian machine-pistols and a host of Kalashnikovs, which may well have been stolen by Syrian deserters. But it is the shock of finding these pitched battles amid this world heritage site which is more terrible than the armaments of each side. To crunch over broken stone and glass with Syrian troops for mile after mile around the old city, a place of museums and Mosques – the magnificently minareted Gemaya Omayyad stands beside yesterday’s battleground – is a matter of infinite sorrow.
Many of the soldiers, who were encouraged to speak to me even as they knelt at the ends of narrow streets with bullets spattering off the walls, spoke of their amazement that so many “foreign fighters” should have been in Aleppo. “Aleppo has five million people,” one said to me. “If the enemy are so sure that they are going to win the battle, then surely there’s no need to bring these foreigners to participate; they will lose.”
Major Somar, who spoke excellent English, understood the political dimension all too well. “Our borders with Turkey are a big problem,” he admitted. “The border needs to be closed. The closure of the frontier must be coordinated by the two governments. But the Turkish government is on the enemy side. Erdogan is against Syria.” Of course, I asked him his religion, a question that is all innocence and all poison in Syria these days. Somar, whose father was a general, his mother a teacher, and who practices his English with Dan Brown novels, was as quick as a cat. “It’s not where you are born or what is your religion,” he said. “It’s what’s in your mind. Islam comes from this land, Christians come from this land, Jews come from this land. That is why it is our duty to protect this land.”
Several soldiers believed the rebels were trying to convert the Christians of Aleppo – “a peaceful people”, they kept calling them – and there was a popular story doing the rounds yesterday of a Christian storekeeper who was forced to wear Muslim clothing and announce his own conversion in front of a video camera. But in wartime cities, you find talkative soldiers. One of the men who recaptured the entrance to the citadel was Abul Fidar, famous for walking between Aleppo, Palmyra and Damascus over 10 days at the start of the current conflict last year to publicise the need for peace. The president, needless to say, greeted him warmly at his final destination.
And then there was Sergeant Mahmoud Dawoud from Hama, who had been fighting in Hama itself, Homs, Jebel Zawi and Idlib. “I want to be interviewed by a reporter,” he announced, and of course, he got his way. “We are sad for the civilians of this land,” he said. “They were in peace before. We promise as soldiers that we will make sure a good life returns for them, even if we lose our lives.” He does not mention all those civilians killed by army shellfire or by the “shabiha”, or those thousands who have suffered torture in this land. Dawoud has a fiancée called Hannan who is studying French in Latakia, his father is a teacher; he says he wants “to serve his homeland”.
But the thought cannot escape us that the prime purpose of men like Sergeant Dawoud – and all his fellow soldiers here – was not, surely, to liberate Aleppo but to liberate the occupied Golan Heights, right next to the land which the “jihadis” apparently thought they were “liberating” yesterday – until they discovered that Aleppo was not Jerusalem.
Kleiteria 
