Wednesday, 11 November 2009

World War I – Beginning of the Oil War

The cessation of hostilities was declared on the 11th hour, the 11th day of the 11th month on the Western Front, between the Allies of World War I (WWI) and Germany. Today, the nation commemorates the 2.5 Million dead with a two-minute silence, a war that took approximately 20 Million lives in total.

Despite the enormous loss, and after almost one hundred years, there is little reflection on the causes of this war, hardly any discussion on this point, and the lessons to be learnt from it. They say historians to date cannot agree on the causes. The history books in schools and colleges point to the assassination of Arch Duke Franz Ferdinand of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire by the Serb nationalists as the trigger for WWI.

Nations did not mobilise their forces and wage costly wars due to the assassination of one man. The war was not one of good versus evil, tyranny versus freedom, but simply a struggle for material resources. It was a war over territory, colony, inflamed by nationalism and historical feuds. The war was simply a global clash of empires.

Once the war was triggered, the central powers (German Empire, Austrian-Hungarian Empire and the Ottoman Empire) on one side faced the Triple Entente (Britain, France and Russia). This conflict was marked by the introduction of air raids and poison gas, a prelude to the birth of state-terrorism. In the early 1920s, the British used chemical weapons on the Kurds in Iraq, under the direction of Winston Churchill long before Saddam Hussein. During the next global war, these methods involving air raids, chemical weapons and explosives were developed and deployed on a larger scale on the civilian population. This is the origin of real terrorism.

The Germans tried to instigate a pan-Indian uprising against the British Raj by conspiring with the Ghadar Party and some Indian nationalists. This plan was thwarted when British intelligence infiltrated the movement. India was the Crown Jewel for the British Empire; it gave her so much wealth and the ability to raise an army. Many Indians did serve in the British forces, in fact a third of the British forces in France were from India.

Fighting also broke out between the British and the German in the various colonies in Africa (Togoland, Cameroon, South West Africa and East Africa).

Just prior to the war, Germany was strengthening political and economic ties with the Ottoman Empire. They advised and supported the building of the Berlin to Baghdad railway, which was planned to link with the Hejaz railway that was being built at the same time. The railway would operate from Istanbul to Damascus, then to Medina and Mecca. Both railways would make most of the provinces easily accessible to the Ottoman Caliphate. Part of the reason why this was constructed was to keep the British forces out of these Arab provinces.

The Hejaz railway links were never completed, the Ottomans joined in the war in 1914, Sultan Mehmed V declared the last Jihad by a Caliph. It had very little impact on the Muslims. The Arabs sided with the British, a major act of treachery against the Caliphate. The Muslims from India continued to serve the British Forces.

In response to the Ottomans declaring war, the first major military act by the British forces was to land troops in Abadan, near the southern tip of Iran. This was to protect the flow of oil to west. Substantial investment into the Iranian oil fields was already made by Britain and France. Two years earlier the British Royal Navy switched from coal to oil, and it was the fuel for its planes and tanks. Naturally, they felt the need to secure Iraq as a way of defending those supplies and the British forces marched along the Tigris and settled in Kut-al-Amra. This marked the beginning of the oil war, from this point on the entire region was subjected to western interventions in the successive years until present day.

Internally the Ottomans faced rebellion in many areas, propelled by Slavic nationalism, the Russians, the Greeks and the Serbs supported the various Orthodox Christian communities within the Ottoman State to rise in revolt. The Ottomans State fragmented by the end of the war, Palestine was acquired by Britain as war booty. So began the sufferings of the Palestinians, as their land was already promised to the Zionist Jews, according to the Belfour Declaration of 1917. Lord Balfour agreed to the Zionist demand as they promised to use their influence into bring the US into war on the side of the Allies. Which proved to be a turning point in the war, and the late entry by the US meant it minimised self-injury, whilst maximised the war booty.

The Arabs betrayed the Ottoman Caliphate and now it was their turn to be betrayed. The British betrayed them first by giving Palestine to the Zionist-Jews, and a secret treaty drawn up with France (Sykes-Picot) to carve up the Middle East amongst themselves, discarding the earlier promises of independence made to the Arabs in return for their support in rising against the Ottomans.

Armistice Day should remind us all of the mess created in the Middle East, all stems from treachery and the greed of Capitalist nations.

Yamin Zakaria (
UK, London

Friday, 30 October 2009

Earthquakes and Tsunamis: Is God a Murderer?

The recent earthquake in Indonesia has evoked memories of the catastrophic Tsunami of 2004 that left hundreds of thousands dead. Natural disasters of cataclysmic proportion always raise the question of how a merciful God can permit indiscriminate carnage and devastation. How can a just God allow such injustices to take place? The secularists, atheists and agnostics use such catastrophic events to reinforce their belief in a Godless universe. They reason, if God does exist He should stand trial for murder and cruelty.

Murder by definition means to take a life unlawfully. But which laws has jurisdiction over God? He is the lawgiver, the creator and the owner of the entire universe and its content; hence it is His prerogative to give and take, life. He is above any law by definition.

Furthermore, God created mankind and placed them on earth with a limited life span as the giver and taker of life. Therefore, according to secular ‘logic’ He has been committing ‘murder’ from the death of the very first man! By the way: what is about the 'mass murder' of cattle, sheep and chicken in the slaughter-houses just to satisfy the nutritional needs of humans: how does this squares with ‘murder’ and 'justice' in the secular minds.

Another point is the ability to resurrect life. The creator has the ability to recreate mankind after they have perished, as recreating is easier than creating from scratch. The divine can easily undo the alleged ‘murder’ of his subjects and He will on the Day of Judgment by resurrecting everyone! This is something a human being could not do to the murdered victims. Thus, the concept of murder can only be applied to those human beings that take another life unlawfully; they are guilty as they did not create the life in the first place, thus have no rights over it. And they are not able to resurrect the victims: the guilt persists forever.

Who knows the fate of those who have perished? Who has this knowledge? To assume that they are worse off is an assumption. The creator may have given them a better life and spared them further sufferings in this world. From the Islamic perspective those who have perished are martyrs, they will be rewarded greatly and the young will enter paradise as they are innocent, they do not need salvation and no one needs to die for their ‘sins’. Therefore, to pass quick judgment upon the divine without the full picture is premature, foolish and in reality impossible.

As for the hardship suffered by those who have survived the recent disaster, it cannot be construed as evil. Many tend to confuse between evil and suffering in general. According to the Islamic text, evil is rebelling against Gods commandments and the consequential suffering inflicted upon the victim. But not all forms of hardship constitutes evil by definition, a serious error often made by many. The creator is entitled to test us from time to time and how quick are we to forget all the bounties that He has given us prior to that.

Adjectives like ‘love’, ‘merciful’ used in describing God Almighty should be understood not in terms of human qualities but as divine attributes. When for example God says He hears everything that does not mean He has big powerful ears but the use of such vocabulary allows the limited human minds to get an infinitely small appreciation of the power of the divine, whilst remembering that HE is nothing like the creation, not part of it and not subjected to the laws of the creation.

There is a clear distinction between the creator and created. This is fundamental point about the notion of God. He created human beings and their mind, given it the ability to compose, analyze and deduce ideas. By rational necessity the finite human mind cannot comprehend the nature of the infinite and eternal God. Furthermore, the reality shows that the human mind being finite struggles to comprehend the creation itself let alone the nature of the creator.

Despite this, the secularists, atheists and agnostics have attempted conceptualize the essence of God using their limited mind, and perhaps the Christian and Pagan traditions have also contributed to this; the end result is God is a more powerful being with super human qualities. Naturally God is now thought of as a being that can be understood in terms of having human qualities and therefore subjected to the same principles that are applied to human beings. And this is where the error begins with charges of murder.

By rational necessity the eternal and uncreated God can never be subjected to the principles that have been derived from the minds of those who HE has created. Similarly, He cannot be subjected to the laws and ethics derived from the human mind as He has created the mind, body and soul. Just as a slave cannot command his master in the same way the eternal sovereign God cannot be commanded or evaluated by His own creation.

These major events like earthquakes and tsunamis are for us to reflect about the meaning of life, the limitations of human beings, these events are proof that the span of life on earth is pre-determined.

Yamin Zakaria (
London, UK

Monday, 26 October 2009

Humiliation of Nick Griffin

Appearance of Nick Griffin, the leader of the far-right British National Party (BNP) on the BBC Program, Question Time1, has caused a furore and raised questions on the limitations of freedom of speech. Should an individual be permitted to express views that cause offence to a certain section of society? Even if the views are technically permitted by law, should the mass media encourage this by giving racist bigots like Nick Griffin a platform on a primetime TV? A more fundamental point in this debate is - should freedom of speech have a limit in the first place.

With the exception of Nick Griffin, there was consensus amongst all the panellists on the limitations of freedom of speech. Those limits specify that it is unacceptable to express views that are deemed racist, homophobic, and anti-Semitic. Most pertinently, you should not deny the holocaust; even to question this sacred subject is taboo. However, you can express anti-Islamic and anti-Muslim views, no matter how much offence it causes; in fact the more the better, because it is often used by sections of western societies as a barometer for freedom of expression. After struggling against the censorship for centuries, suddenly their freedom of expression rests on their ability to insult Islam and Muslims.

The political lightweight Nick Griffin was convincingly knocked out in the first round, and humiliated on all the issues, except when it came to the subject of Islam and Muslims. All the panellists failed to respond to the baseless anti-Islamic rants of Nick Griffin, except the ‘mufti’ ‘Syeda Warsi, whose answer was inadequate and superficial, not really worth dwelling upon.

It is not surprising for Nick Griffin to express anti-Islamic or anti-Muslim views, as a racist bigot naturally dislikes foreign people and their culture. Although, I am sure, many members of his party enjoy the Indian curry or the Turkish/Arabic kebab! I still remember the racists thugs would end up eating curry in the Indian/Pakistani restaurants in the evening, after taunting the Asian kids for smelling of curry during the day. Although these bigots were in the minority, but couple of drops of urine is sufficient to spoil a bowl of milk. The British society has progressed considerably since those times, but not the primitive members of the BNP.

When specifically asked by a member of the audience why Nick Griffin considers Islam a wicked and an evil religion, his response was on two points a) it oppresses women b) allegedly the Quran 'ordains as a religious duty the murder of Jews as well as other non-Muslims'.

Let us examine each of these points.

On the issue of women, it is perplexing as to why Nick Griffin would be concerned for Muslim women. After all, majority of the Muslims in the UK are from Asia and the Middle East, therefore clearly visible to eyes of the British National Party members, unlike the recent East European migrants!

If Islamic Laws were oppressive to women, they would naturally abandon Islamic values and exchange their modest clothing for the mini-skirt and the bikini. Nobody is forcing the Muslim women to remain as practising Muslims in secular West or in secular East. However, according to the mainstream media and major parties in the UK for some strange reasons they like to remain oppressed. What is even more puzzling, majority of the converts to Islam are in fact women, but these small details are always overlooked! How is it that such an evil religion continues to attract these women from all sections of a free society? Why do they choose to oppress themselves by embracing Islam?

The same kind of secular-prophecy was made prior to the invasion of Afghanistan; the Anglo-American forces would liberate the Afghan women from their veil. It failed. Today in certain European countries, the attitude is, if the Muslim women do not want to be liberated from their modest clothing, we will force them to do so! This is a blatant contradiction with the notion of freedom, and reflects the mindset of medieval Europe on the verge of launching a liberal-inquisition.

With regards to the second point of killing Jews and non-Muslims, Nick Griffin did not elaborate with any reference from the Quran, of substantiate it by citing scholarly works and historical examples. There is no verse in the Quran orders the indiscriminate killing of non-Muslims. On the contrary, a section of Islamic law deals with how the non-Muslim population should be protected, hence they are known as the Dhimmis, which means the protected people. It is fact that non-Muslims flourished within the Islamic Societies, Jews and Christians lived peacefully under the Muslim rule in Spain for centuries, as they did in places like India, Syria, Turkey and Palestine. In fact, facing religious persecution in Christian Europe, the Jews sought sanctuary within the Ottoman Empire, and prospered there for centuries.

The rise of BNP (British National Party) can be partially attributed to the demonisation of Muslims and Islam fanned by sections of the mainstream media. The nasty propaganda machine has often reversed the roles of victim and aggressor. The cowboys were always the virtuous people chasing the terrorists of the time, the Native Americans, often depicted as irrational wild savages; of course nothing to do with the new colonisers taking over their lands and resources. Today the impression created in the minds of the masses is that the Muslims are the anti-Semitic, illustrated by reversing the role of victim (Palestinians) and aggressor (Zionist State) in the region.

It is easy to blame others for your problem, this is the politics of the far-right according to the likes of Jack Straw and others, however, the reality is the mainstream media and the major parties have a majority share of this blame game, along with sections of the Muslim community.

Yamin Zakaria (
London, UK



Tuesday, 13 October 2009

Where are the Noble Acts for this Nobel Peace Prize?

"We think that this gives us a sense of momentum when the United States has accolades tossed its way rather than shoes" - U.S. State Department spokesperson, P.J. Crowley

Obama made history as the first black President of USA, and once again, he makes history as the first person awarded the Noble Peace Prize for hopes and promises, rather than actual accomplishments. He is the fourth US President to receive the Nobel Peace Prize, after Theodore Roosevelt (1908), Woodrow Wilson (1919), and Jimmy Carter (2002). Another prominent Noble Peace Prize laureate from the ranks of US leadership was the controversial Henry Kissinger, the former Secretary of State in the Nixon administration, he is considered by many as a war criminal, let alone deserving of such an accolade. But it might explain why Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin were also nominated for this award.

This is paradoxical, so many Noble Peace Prize awarded to the US, a nation that has constantly waged wars from the turn of the century, including the dropping of two Atom bombs on civilian population, and yet a passive nation like China has not been awarded any such prize.

As expected, there is incredulity around the world, which is compounded by the fact that Obama took office just two weeks before the 1 February deadline for nomination, which remains a mystery. Conspiracy theorist would suggest the decision was already made to award him this prize.

There is praise and criticism for the award. The critics argue there has been no delivery on making peace in the Middle East. Israel continues to build more settlement exclusively for Jews, despite Obama’s objection. Furthermore, Obama has ignored the UN Judge Goldstone's report of a damning indictment of Israeli war crimes in Gaza.

The selective targeting of Iran for its pursuit of nuclear technology, whilst ignoring Israel’s nuclear arsenal is the same old hypocrisy, and hardly a good start to rid the world of nuclear weapons. It would have been better to lead by example and get the other nuclear nations to disarm first.

Obama is contemplating sending 40,000 troops in Afghanistan, which is likely to escalate the war, and spill into Pakistan.

Those who view President Obama as a worthy recipient of this prize argue that his efforts focused on strengthening international diplomacy and cooperation, which has replaced military unilateralism of Bush. Nobel committee head Thorbjoern Jagland said: "It was because we would like to support what he is trying to achieve. It is a clear signal that we want to advocate the same as he has done." The Nobel Peace Prize committee stated that the Prize was for “his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples”.

The proponents further argue dealing with Israel and the Middle East with a more balanced foreign policy will take time; he cannot simply turn everything on its head over night. The man has just arrived, let him settle down first and give him support to deal with the Zionist regimes whose tentacles run deep inside the US.

They also applaud his strategy to engage Iran, rather than to confront them on behalf of Israel. Similar tactics are being used to open channel of discussion with the Taliban, hoping that would also isolate the pro Al-Qaeda elements.

Obama does deserve praise at least for the fact that he will be donating the prize money of $1.4 Million USD to charity, I would recommend he gives it to the people of Afghanistan, Palestine and Iraq, the victims of the previous regime, and the constant Zionist aggression.

Whatever your views are about the merit of the peace prize, ultimately he will be judged by results, consider the following points:

• Will Obama break the US free from the Zionist clutches or at least loosen their grip? Will he be able to halt the Zionist expansion into West Bank?

• Will he manage to curb nuclear weapons across the world rather than just keeping his boots on a nuclear free Iran?

• Will he manage to end the conflict in Iran and Afghanistan?

Yamin Zakaria (
London, UK

Thursday, 8 October 2009

Lisbon Treaty Referendum: Is the European Union an example for the Islamic World?

Lisbon Treaty established on 13th of December 2007, is another step towards cementing European unity. Almost all the member states of the European Union have ratified the treaty through the parliamentary process. Ireland is the only country to have done this through a referendum. Once the treaty comes into effect, Europe will have its first President, unfortunately the nasty war criminal, Tony Blair, looks set to occupy that position.

It all started back in 1957 with the treaty of Rome; six European countries formed the EEC (European Economic Unity). The small economic club has now increased to 27 member states, which is increasingly asserting itself beyond an economic entity. It is only a matter of time that we may see a call for the creation of a European army, controlled by the European Parliament, headed by the new President of Europe. To a spectator, it seems they are moving inexorably towards a Federal Europe or some kind of super state. Is the new Roman Empire on the rise again? Many would view this power as a positive force to counterbalance the negative situation of having a lone super power.

Only 70 years ago, Europe was at war, and despite their historical animosity, diversity of language, culture and race, they are gradually moving forward with greater unification. One can argue the formation of European unity has been one of the main factors that have prevented wars breaking out in the continent. This period of stability is slightly tainted by the limited air raids carried out over Serbia by the NATO forces. However, this is seen in the fringes of Europe, and hardly constituted a full-scale war.

Rational justification for unity is self-evident. It gives more strength by pooling the resources of various nations. A unified European economy is one of the largest economies in the world that is competing with the US and the Japanese economy. The Euro looks set to replace the US Dollar as the dominant currency.

The tide of European unity is opposed by those who are concerned about sovereignty of their nation. The counter argument is the old notion of sovereignty of territorial or national integrity is outdated, has to be modified to conform to the globalised world. Increasingly the nation’s ability to determine its own economic or political policy is being limited by the rising tide of globalisation. Sovereignty is redefined as the ability of a nation to determine the welfare of its own citizen.

As an example, the European powers have collectively relinquished some level of political and economical sovereignty for the increasing collective benefit. Hence, if the UK were to pull out from the EU it would be more sovereign to determine its economic and political policies internally, but its influence would be reduced significantly in the international arena. Consequently, this would harm the welfare of its own citizen significantly. If it loses power and influence, in effect it is losing real sovereignty.

Nation states are supposed to be inherently divisive as each nation seeks to promote its interests. Yet, these European states have overcome these barriers and forge unity, propelled largely by the mutual economic benefit, which is reinforced by cultural and political cohesion brought through education, open debates and legislation.

Unity does not mean uniformity in every aspect. Different nations within Europe maintain their cultural identity, language and religion. In this age, mass participation is a feature of most society; this implies unity should come from within through mutual consultation, rather than the imposition of force, like the good old days of Napoleon. European Union reflects that ethos, and it seems to be working well.

Many of the Muslim countries and the respective minorities can learn from European countries like the UK, which has different nations (Scotland, Wales, Irish) flourishing within. The minorities retain their cultural identity, there is no ban imposed on the Celtic or Cornish language or the Scottish Kilt. In fact, the central government encourage all minorities, including the recent migrant populations to express their cultural identity; it adds character to the nation and enriches the culture.

The case for unification of the Islamic world is even greater. Apart from the rational justification of increasing material benefit, there is a religious obligation to be unified under one Caliphate. Our values are identical, from Morocco to Indonesia. The cultural similarities are stronger than our regional differences.

However, the Islamic world is more divided than ever before, and to blame this entirely on the west is simply being in denial of our failure. We were colonised argument has passed its sell by date. Other countries have made considerable progress since independence, whereas the Muslims countries are constantly falling behind.

Take the example of India and Pakistan (and Bangladesh), both countries have gained independence in 1947, yet India has made far more progression, despite having far greater levels of disparity in terms of language, race, religion and culture. To blame the British for the stagnation and corruption that exists within Pakistan and Bangladesh is ludicrous. Whenever, I have travelled through these parts of the world, just the experience with the airport officials seeking bribes tells the story. When you peek under their cover, you see nepotism and bribery is a way of life. There is no evidence to suggest the west is dictating or influencing the Muslim countries to behave in this manner. Why should they?

Those who argue the absence of Caliphate is the reason for our failure are missing the point. The progression does not start with the Caliphate but rather Caliphate would embody the result of our progression, which should begin before that. The existence of the Caliphate should not be a prerequisite to have the basic level of civility and some level of progression even within secular dictatorships or monarchs.

The stable European model and the volatile Islamic world shows, unity in the modern age has to be achieved gradually through mutual consultation, rather than the imposition of force. It has to be cultivated in the minds of people. The various organisations have failed to create any form of unification, even in terms of close cooperation between the various Islamic nations. There is deep-seated racism amongst various racial groups; the Turks see themselves as superior to Arabs, and the Arabs in turn looks towards the Pakistanis with disdain, and so on. The example of Iraq clearly illustrates this fracture, each group based on racial and sectarian motive pursued its interests, and thus the war was lost even before the US invaded Iraq.

Even the smaller experiment of Arab nationalism has failed at every level because the same prejudice is replicated amongst the various Arab states. It is no secret, many of the Arab states are eager to delete the Palestine issue, rather than collectively confront Israel. All they can offer is some token economic aid to the Palestinians after watching the routine Israeli massacres.

The world is moving on, but the Muslims seem to be stuck in the past literally. You see the endless lectures of what the Muslims achieved in the 12th century, failing to see the scientific advances made by the west in the last 500 years have left us behind in another galaxy!

‘Allah will never change the situation of a people unless they change what is within themselves’ (Quran - 13:11)

Yamin Zakaria (
London, UK

Tuesday, 6 October 2009

Hamas Response To Their Election Result of 2006

“The US can't promote democracy but then reject the results of this democracy.” (Amr Moussa, Arab League Secretary General)

Jimmy Carter, the former US president, leading a team of 900 foreign observes said, the elections in the West Bank and Gaza Strip were "completely honest". Definitely honest, compared to the standards set by the US, when George Bush ‘won’ the Florida 2000 election by denying the Afro-Americans and all the other coloured folks a vote, as they were poised to vote for the democrats. It must have brought pleasant memories back of the good old days, when the likes of Bush could literally chain and lynch those black folks; never mind vote, they would be lucky, if they could breath.

The turnout was 78 percent of 1.3 million voters, greater than most of the ‘democracies’ in the West, where the election results are known even before the election. Such ‘elections’ are determined by money, and not the votes: and if this is democracy then we need to redefine what constitutes oligarchy! It was amusing to see the responses of the Western leaders; some of them could be described as idiotic even if I was to be kind! Anyway, I have taken the liberty to respond to those comments on behalf of Hamas. If my answers are at odds with the Party position, I hope they will correct me.

Italy: "It is a very, very, very bad result," (Silvio Berlusconi, the Italian prime minister.)

Hamas: Oh, Why is that? I thought you were in favour of free and fair election, a pillar of democracy we keep hearing. Perhaps you prefer the mafia style oligarchy instead. Or may be you want our leaders to invest in porn and crime syndicates. When you clarify your commitment to democracy, you know the type of democracy, which is not rigged by money and ‘influence’, perhaps then we can understand why you thought the result was a bad one. We did our best to play by the rules of your game but it seems somehow we have misunderstood the rules!

United Kingdom: “But I think it is also important for Hamas to understand that there comes a point, and that point is now following that strong showing, where they have to decide between a path of democracy or a path of violence." (Tony Blair, the British prime minister)

Hamas: Mr Blair, if you oppose violence, what is your army doing in Iraq. Why have you invaded a country, killing between 30,000-100,000 innocent civilians, who have done no harm to your people? Is that not a clear example of unprovoked violence? Yes, a bit like your football hooligans, just ask Nick Griffin, he might give you a guided tour. If violence and democracy are mutually exclusive, then why do you not lead by example; disband your nuclear weapons, stop making huge profit from the sale of arms to dictators around the world. Why do you not call for the total nuclear disarmament and instead of selectively demanding that Iran does not produce nuclear weapons to defend itself from the hungry wolves?

Before you lecture us about violence, at least do the decent thing and get the facts, I know that can sometime hurt your conscience - that is if you have one. Tell us how many Palestinians and Israeli Jews have perished since 1948 or 1924. Who have been the bigger victims numerically? They are not the perpetrators but the real victim of state-terrorism. Did you know that many Jews from your country serve in the Israeli army, helping the ethnic cleansing process that began in 1948? Of course by wearing an Israeli army uniform that makes it civilised, but if the Muslims from Britain help the Palestinians that makes them terrorists. Is it like your UN, a Veto for you but none for us! If you do not believe me about the ethnic-cleansing process, which began in 1948, please look at the map of Palestine from 1946 till today.

USA: "I don't see how you (Hamas) can be a partner in peace if you advocate the destruction of a country (Israel) as part of your platform." (George Bush, the US President.)

Correct Mr Bush, how can you be partner if you are destroying a legitimate country. That is exactly what the Iraqis are asking now. In fact, how can you even talk of peace, as your armed forces have destroyed a country, a country that has never attacked your people? Do you not feel any shame in even uttering words like “peace”? Perhaps you no longer understand what shame is, like many of your soldiers demonstrated in Abu-Ghraib, as many do regularly on Jerry Springer.

We would urge you to look at the facts. Please have a look at the map, it shows clearly who has been diminishing and who has been expanding since 1948. I refer to a map, as you have demonstrated numerous times you have a very poor grasp of history and geography. I know it might shock many of your citizens; some would dismiss the map as propaganda, as many think Palestinians invaded Israel in 1948. How many Palestinians houses destroyed compared to how many Jewish settlement are built everyday. You advocate a law where the Palestinians disposed from their homes in 1948 cannot return but any Jew can come and settle in that land, because the Bible says so. Now we as Muslims must abide by your religious verdict, yet all this time we thought you were against mixing religion and politics.

Hamas is not opposed to the existence of the State of Israel; we have no objection to its existence as long as it is not in Palestine. In fact, if you are so committed to a Jewish state, then why do you not lead by example? Remember deeds speak louder than words. You have a continent to play with. Give them Alaska, or New York. The Islamic world will give you more than 100% cooperation. By the way, while you are at it, please take with you all the other puppets you have imposed on the Islamic world. As for opposing the existence of Israel in Palestine, this is the opinion of the 1.5 billion Muslims and those who want a compromise, only because they are pragmatic not because they believe it to be a just solution.

USA: "You cannot have one foot in politics and another in terror"… that for the US, Hamas was still a terrorist organisation. (Condoleezza Rice, the US Secretary of State).

Hamas: Hamas condemns terrorism, especially the larger state terrorism of the US, UK and Israel. We condemn the terrorism in Iraq, its people terrorised under “shock and awe”, so that it can provide cheap entertainment for your people. Yet, how proud you Americans feel calling others violent, but this is what happens when one becomes immune from shame and arrogance. All we say, we have the right to defend and retaliate. If that means we are terrorists, then let the world know that we are indeed proud terrorists, as Osama Bin Laden said clearly.

I am afraid Hamas could never match the terror of your firepower and your war machine that has consumed 100,000 plus civilians. We favour renouncing violence as the Palestinians are the ones who are terrorised, by the weapons that your government supplies to Israel. So that the ‘chosen’ people of God can have their way at any cost and some would classify that as a Nazi like ideology. Hamas will lay down their weapons when the Israelis lay down their weapons and return our lands and homes. Moreover, Hamas will support the right of the Jews to be compensated for the hundreds of years of persecution faced in Europe.

Final Remark

Why do you not admit that you do not favour genuine democracy but a government that will be subservient to your interests? It would stop all the arguments and debates. Remember when FIS (Islamic Salvation Front) was poised to win a fair election, the Algerian government postponed it. Similarly, the Turkish army constrained the Islamic party led by Necmettin Erbakan, after it won the election. No cry for democracy than, which had to wait until 2003, when the US launched its war on terror (Islam), so building democracy became a good pretext.

This is not the first time the West has been exposed for their arrogance by arrogating themselves to speak for the Muslims, when they do not even represent their own population. Indeed, it was amusing to think how much agony the right-wing commentators must be in, like Jim Carey, in the film “Liar Liar” - they cannot utter “free and fair election” for the next 24 hours. Let us hope, those obnoxious characters disguised as journalists will stop knocking on our doors with slogans of democracy and freedom. May be now they realise that election like technology is only a means to achieve something, no civilisation has a complete monopoly on those things.

The party that has won has given its blood to its people and for the Muslims Ummah (Community). Was it not our children with rocks and stones have been defending Al-Aqsa, while the Muslim armies sit in their barracks and our so-called leaders commit hideous acts of treachery after treachery. By our blood and by our soul we will continue to sacrifice, until the return of Salahuddin Al-Ayubi with his army, and regain our peace and security; the land of olives (Bilad Az-Zaytun) will once again become green from red. We urge the rest of the Muslims Ummah to help us to hasten the return of Salahuddin Al-Ayubi and as a first step replicate our humble example in their respective lands.

Yamin Zakaria (
London, UK

Thursday, 1 October 2009

Iran, Palestine and Israel, What a contrast

We live in a crazy world; war-mongering nations lecturing about peace, nations that have trampled on UN Charter by invading Iraq using fabricated evidences are swearing allegiance to the UN Charter, and the massacre of civilians in Gaza is now certified by the UN as a war crime, but it does not make a blip in the UN Security Council radar. Then we witness nations armed with nuclear weapons making noise about nuclear proliferation, scorning Iran for seeking the same nuclear deterrence, concurrently ignoring the nuclear arsenal of Israel. This sort of blatant hypocrisy pithily describes the history of Middle East, from the betrayal of Sykes-Picot to the recent events, and this is the real source of anger in the streets.

Just compare the response from the western leaders to the publication of the recent UN report produced by Richard Goldstone on the Gaza Conflict, and revelations made by Iran of its nuclear site near the holy city of Qom. The former is a definite murder case testified by the countless victims lying in their pool of blood, whereas the latter is an administrative dispute between nations.

The UN report gives ‘pseudo legitimacy’ to the view that Israel had committed war crimes at the very least in its offensive against the civilians in Gaza. It was largely civilians, as no sane person will equate the lightly armed Hamas with their home made ‘rockets’ (which does not explode) to a conventional armed force. The report merely confirmed the obvious, the world witnessed the carnage and suffering inflicted on the trapped civilians in Gaza by the ‘brave’ Israeli soldiers. Israel has violated international law, and therefore, some kind of action is warranted but nobody dares to raise a finger against the sacred Zionist-Jews.

However, earlier I stated the report gives ‘pseudo legitimacy’, because legitimacy through the UN is dependent on the will of the leading western powers. In short, the UN is only effective when they want it to be. The west barely raised an eyebrow to the UN report, no calls for sanctions, or any form of action. Without any kind of enforcement, the UN report is a thesis of an academic student and it will remain academic, like the numerous UN resolutions issued against Israel.

In contrast, there was an instant, and a coordinated response by the western leaders to Iran announcing of a nuclear facility near the city of Qom, as if only now nuclear proliferation has become a serious problem. The sheer hypocrisy makes you seethe with anger, as one by one, the western leaders followed Obama, and issued warnings to Iran for developing nuclear energy, forgetting the nuclear arsenal in their backyard. It reminded me of a pack of dogs, when one starts to bark the others follow.

Iran is still some distance from acquiring nuclear weapons, and the US already knew about the facility, no surprises there because it can be easily detected by advanced satellite technology. In that case, why did the US and its allies react sharply to Iran’s declaration? The coordinated response makes sense as it is part of a broader US policy to make Iran to conform to its desires, in particular the aspirations of the Zionist state. This partially explains the recent decision to abandon the missile defence plan that had infuriated Russia, clearing the way for closer cooperation on placing sanction on Iran. This was followed by the speech at the United Nations by Obama, appealing to strengthen the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Then Obama met Dimtry Medvedev, and Russia subsequently announced for the first time that it would consider applying sanctions on Iran, obviously reciprocating to the US move to abandon the missile defence plan. That leaves the only other nuclear member of the Security Council, China. Obama no doubt also discussed this issue in the recent meetings with the Chinese President Hu Jintao. Historically, China has always been the last passenger to board the US ship. It seems, Obama has been active in preparing to confront Iran, and the influence of the Israeli lobby embedded inside Obama’s administration is very clear.

Here is the commonsense view of a layperson. Israel is a certified war criminal, a serial killer that is pointing its nukes at its neighbours, in particular Iran; it is constantly ignoring and violating UN resolutions, and casually invades and bombs its neighbours when it wants to ‘feel’ secure. Despite all this, Iran is accused of being the guilty party here, just for acquiring nuclear energy. How can an administrative dispute take precedence over a murder case? From the Iranian perspective, the country is surrounded by US-led military bases, and constant Israeli threat of launching bombing raids; thus, Iran has ample justification to develop nuclear weapons to protect its borders from the unruly Spartans.

Yamin Zakaria (
London, UK

Friday, 25 September 2009

The Need for Nuclear Proliferation

“A world without nuclear weapons would be less stable and more dangerous for all of us.”
- Margaret Thatcher

There can be no peace without justice, and justice demands equality. If all nations are equal, then nuclear deterrence is the right of all or none. Accordingly, preventing nuclear proliferation should be applicable to all nations. If the West is eager to prevent nuclear weapons proliferation, then they should lead by setting an example!

Peace and stability is more likely to prevail, when all the countries are brought to level footing by total disarmament of nuclear weapons: alternatively, all the nations have the right to use nuclear deterrence. Any other position is likely to result in instability and war; nations armed with nuclear weapons and will be seeking to prevent other nations from acquiring such weapons, which is bound to ignite conflict that can escalate into a full-scale war. Accordingly, Iran is once again selectively targeted, even though at this stage it is only developing nuclear energy capabilities and not nuclear weapons. So when the US and its allies say Iran is a threat to international security what they mean is: Iran is a threat to the US-led hegemony in the region, known as building democracy!

Some of the Western hawkish commentators have argued that nuclear weapons are the right of the ‘civilised’ world only. Such nasty and racist views run through the veins of the establishment. However, it is difficult for the governments to express such views openly, so they use their non-affiliated political henchmen to the dirty work. Those political thugs forget – it was the ‘civilised’ world used such weapons against civilians. The same ‘civilised’ world have just murdered 30,000-100,000 Iraqi civilians, in the name of eradicating WMDs; enough blood to paint the entire White House red.

Even before the advent of nuclear weapons, mass murdering was a key feature of US history. Almost every decade the US commits mass murder in some distant land. Like the devils child, the nation’s birth was marked by the systematic elimination of 70 million peaceful Native Americans.

At present, a significant section of the US masses have no reservation for mass murdering civilians, while simultaneously they have the audacity to label others as terrorist, violent, extremists etc. In a recent street survey, some ordinary Americans were asked1 about using nuclear weapons, the vast majority of them had no qualms and very enthusiastic about it. One person said: “We should nuke them to hell like we did the Japanese". One woman said she could not understand what is holding the US back from nuking Baghdad, so imagine what the cowboys are thinking. Astonishingly, another woman said nuclear weapons should be used against Iraq, because: “they did the same thing to us”. Really, so it seems that some Americans do not just believe that Saddam Hussein had WMDs but he actually used them against the US.

When asked2 who the US should invade next, in terms of the war against terror. The answers ranged from Iran, somebody in the Middle East, Cuba, North Korea, France to even their allies like Russia, Canada, Saudi Arabia, Italy, India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka? Yes, even Sri Lanka. I guess someone must have told those folks that Tamil Tigers are Al-Qaeda in disguise! Some could not even locate countries like Iran and North Korea on the world map. But does it matter, since they are going to be blown to pieces with American nukes. The Americans will see the entire operation with running commentary from the FOX-TV crew, and they will never know if it was fact or fiction!

Such level of ignorance and idiocy is very frightening, considering that it is coming from a nation, armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons. Furthermore, its population does not have any conscience in using it against its enemies. As long as their way of life is intact, they have cheap oil, burgers, fries, shakes, porn, baseball, popcorns and plastic surgery, they have no problem, no matter what level of suffering and carnage is inflicted on other nations.

Astonishingly, while these Americans show little reservation in using such destructive weapons, they demonstrate plenty of moral indignation against the tiny bombs of human bombers, who act in retaliation. There is not a single country in the world, where the public would show such lax attitude towards using nuclear weapons. Even in places like Iraq and Palestine, such types of opinions would not be expressed by the public, even though they have plenty of good reasons to do so!

In any case, weapons do not kill, but that the hand that wields it; the hand in turn is controlled by the mind, which makes the decision to kill – the root cause. Therefore, the approach should be largely based on the traditional Keynesian approach of reducing the demand, by eradicating the criminal mindset that is so eager to use such destructive weapons, instead of focusing solely on the supply side of reducing the availability of such weapons.

However, altering this criminal mindset, and to disarm its nuclear capabilities is not possible at this moment. That only leaves, one other alternative for peace and security: that is for everyone to arm themselves with nuclear weapons. Then all you are likely to get is the odd verbal threats as North Korea got, but not disarmed Iraq. Nuclear weapons guarantees peace and security from the marauding Americans, hence the US avoided war with nuclear states like North Korea, Russia and China. This is why “democracies do not fight each other” as many of the pro-war pundits constantly yell, because many of those democracies have nuclear deterrence.

Any nation that unilaterally pursues a policy of non-proliferation of WMDs would result in increasing the relative power of its adversaries, while weakening its own position even further. An axiom of international relationship is: powers of nations are relative. It is not how much firepower you posses in absolute terms but in relation to your adversary. As an example, Britain has more firepower today in comparison to its colonial days, but her position is much weaker today, as her firepower is weaker or on par compared to other nations.

Moreover, unilateral disarmament does not guarantee a more peaceful world, but a world where the weaker nations can be brought to its knees, like slaves to serve the empire.

The West armed with huge stockpile of nuclear weapons claims to be intimidated by Iran’s decision to resume the development of nuclear energy (not nuclear weapons). How strange, is it Iran or Europe or the US that is surrounded with hostile military bases with nuclear capabilities? Why Iran is less trustworthy in this issue of nuclear technology, given that Israel has nuclear weapons and has not signed up to NPT? Even if Iran started to produce nuclear weapons, it would take sometime before it can acquire enough nuclear weapons only to deter aggressors, let alone pose any direct threat to Western countries in distant lands. The future Iranian threat, if it eventually manages to produce nuclear weapons is a possible threat to the Western hegemony in the region, and not to the security of the West.

Germany is now taking a lead in this matter by siding with the US openly, perhaps this is a U-turn in their foreign policy, after realising that they have lost considerable amount of war booty, by not fully cooperating with the US over Iraq. Germany may eventually sign up as a full member to the “war on terror”, which is a veil for allying with the US to share the spoils of war. So, the “old Europe” of Donald Rumsfeld is becoming unreliable for Iran, to use it as a bulwark against American unilateralism.

Facing threats from militant West, the need to acquire nuclear deterrence is essential to maintain sovereignty and security. First step is to withdraw from the NPT (Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty) by citing the local thug, Zionist-Israel, who has not signed up to NPT. A nuclear Iran would bring about stability in the region as it would balance the other regional power (Israel) with nuclear weapons and an expansionist agenda to build Eretz (greater) Israel; also, it would deter the US from further aggression. Iraq and Palestine, clearly illustrates the need for the Islamic world and others, to arm themselves with nuclear weapons, to deter marauding capitalist nations from waging colonial wars on behalf of large corporations.

Yamin Zakaria (
London, UK



Monday, 21 September 2009

Containing the Iranian ‘Threat’

Iran is the sheep surrounded by hungry wolves, including the vulture like Zionist-hyena. A cursory examination of the region shows, the US bases surround Iran from all directions. In addition, Israel armed with nuclear weapons is constantly urging the western powers to launch a pre-emptive strike using the same old pretext of holocaust-weapon; somehow Israel are the victims or potential victims of Iranian aggression. The lying treacherous Zionists always masquerading themselves as victims, but they are the ones kill without remorse and in far greater number, the stench of blood still emanates from the women and children of Gaza testifying to this fact!

The Zionist dominated western media is filled with suggestions that Iran is on the march, it is ready to conquer the Middle East, Europe and the rest of the world. A check on reality shows the US military bases in distant lands is construed as self-defence (not empire building), and Iran protecting its borders and resources is a threat! Iran has always been confined to its borders unlike the US and Israel. The claim about Iranian threat is ominous of a self-fulfilling prophecy; you claim a threat exists, so you agitate the enemy into action by applying sanctions and constantly demonising it.

It is the traits of cowards to pick a fight with weaker nations, and the vultures to feed on the dead corpses. Thus, note the contrast in response with a resolute North Korea armed with Nuclear weapons. This proves that Iran needs to possess nuclear weapons to protect its sovereignty and of course, the lucrative oil from thieves and pirates.

The recent decision by Obama to shelve Bush’s plan to build the Missile Defence System in Eastern Europe to contain the Iranian missile threat has once gain raised this issue of the so-called Iranian threat. This Missile defence System was originally conceived by Ronald Reagan, during the cold war era to confront the Soviet Union. The plan waned as the cold war era ended, but it was subsequently revived by George Bush as a defence against the Iranian missile threat.

Obama says the intelligence reports show that Iran does not really have intercontinental ballistic missiles; even if it did, does it really pose a threat to the mighty US and Europe? Obama’s move may not be as benign as it looks. This move appeased Russia and ultimately, the aim is to get Russia on board to confront Iran, or at the very least persuade Russia not giving weapons or others forms of assistance to Iran. In response to shelving this plan, the US hopes that Russia will reciprocate by halting the planned delivery of sophisticated anti-aircraft systems to Iran that would enable Tehran to shoot down any US or Israeli planes seeking to attack its nuclear facilities.

Sanctions has not worked against Iran, and history shows it is unlikely to work, as every nation is resilient to foreign pressure, especially when that pressure has no justification. The US made it no secret that they had role in agitating the demonstrators to destabilise the country, weaken its resolve. That too has failed. Obama has stated he wishes to engage Iran rather than confront it militarily, which is frustrating the Zionists. This might be one of the reasons behind the recent Israeli decision to build more settlement. The Times reported on a quid pro quo deal where Israel would give concession on its illegal settlements in occupied Palestinian territories in return with a green light from the western powers for an Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. “Israel has chosen to place Iranian threat over its settlements,” a senior EU diplomat told The Times on July 16.

Obama should be truthful with the Islamic world is he really wants to uphold the bold declarations made at the Cairo speech. For example, he stated recently that he wishes with conviction to see a nuclear free world, but it seems that he is only seeking a nuclear free Iran, as he is silent about Israel’s nuclear weapons.

Similarly, Obama stated earlier that the US would extend a hand if Iran would be willing to unclench their fist. The Iranian response is simple, if you are truthful Obama, then you should recognise that it is your fists that extends across the Atlantic Ocean to our borders. If you remove your bases, sanctions, and keep the ugly hyena on your leash, you will find that Iran has the magical carpet rolled out for you to fly into Tehran.

Yamin Zakaria (
London, UK

Friday, 18 September 2009

Jihad versus State Terrorism

One of the defining and a peculiar characteristic of a secular society is the absolute denunciation of any form of relationship between the use of force and religion, no matter how tenuous the link. Yet, organised violence inflicted by secular states, the West in particular is tolerated, justified and often encouraged. A potent example is the needless bombing of the civilian populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with nuclear weapons. General Curtis LeMay, then commander of the US Strategic Air Commander, commented: “If we’d lost the war I would have been indicted for war crimes”.

Two of the largest wars in history, centuries of colonisation, slavery and genocide, the use of the lethal nuclear bombs, not to mention the recent fabricated war on Iraq are all products of secular (Western) nations. Simultaneously, these nations are preaching the immorality of associating religion with the use of force! What is the underlying criterion that makes the distinction between religious and secular states using force as a means to achieve their respective objectives?

The negative attitude towards associating religion with the use of force or violence can be attributed to European history where secularism originated. Religious institutions in the pre-secular era inflicted repression and violence, from the medieval crusades, sectarian wars, and suppression of knowledge, witch burnings to the barbaric inquisitions. This is odd considering that the central message of Christianity is one of ‘love’, as the preachers extol ‘love you enemies’ and ‘turn the other cheek’. The traumatic experience, which Christian Europe has suffered, is reflected in its attitude towards religion in general. Islam has had to bear the full brunt of this reactionary emotional response. In sum, ‘religion’ today is judged according to Europe’s trauma at the hands of Popes and Priests.

Consequently, the West redefined religion (Christianity) as being benign, passive and a matter for the individual to accept or reject. Therefore, the use of state apparatus to enforce religion has been portrayed as a contradiction of ‘religion’ itself. This concept is now being used against the tide of rising of Islam.

As for the secular West remaining indifferent towards the violence inflicted, which increased in quantity and qualitative terms, this can be primarily ascribed to the increase in material prosperity and comfort arising from the colonisation and the pillaging of other distant lands. The scramble for Africa and the genocide inflicted upon Latin America by the conquistadors are the most vivid examples. Furthermore, in the absence of electronic mass media, the news of the violence and suffering inflicted never reached the ordinary masses, touching their conscience.

Whilst pursuing colonisation they found the obstacle of the Islamic state. The colonialist nations (West) embarked upon a programme of propaganda to dismantle the association of military force (Jihad) with religion (Islam). Such propaganda was extended to other areas like polygamy; all constructed based on its own historical experiences, their definitions of ethics and inherent prejudices. This eventually developed into a subject of research and study called ‘orientalism’.

The sole purpose was and is to undermine political Islam and Jihad, thus facilitating the process of imperialism. To aid this objective the British even spawned the heretical sect, known as the Qadianis. Not surprisingly, one of its (Qadianism) main pillars is to abrogate Jihad. All the Islamic conquests under the Prophet Mohammed’s (SAW) personal guidance reinterpreted to purely ‘defensive’ operations.

Even a cursory examination of the expansion of Islam from Prophet Muhammad (SAW) rule in Medina until the first thirty years after his demise, shows the unquestionable expansion of the Islamic state to Morocco, Syria, southern Russia and India. If the expansion is to be explained as the result of a series of ‘defensive’ wars, this is not only the apex of intellectual dishonesty but demonstrates utter stupidity, and lacking in common sense. In any case, the distinction between defensive and offensive can also be vague.

Post 9/11, Jihad has once again come under scrutiny. The term has been historically demonised by the Hollywood film industry, the mass media including the filthy gutter tabloid press. It is usually depicted as ‘wild irrational fanatics’ (Mujahideen) firing their Kalashnikovs, killing anyone considered to be an infidel. Note, the usage of the term ‘Jihad’ and ‘Mujahideen’ had favourable exposure during the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. This is no surprise, since it suited the interests of the West. Thus, the usage of the term is not devoid of ulterior political motives.

Similarly, the Afghans battling against the Taliban were described as Mujahideen. This is absurd, considering that, Jihad by definition means battling against the forces of non-Islam (Kufr) rather than against practicing Muslims. It has to be noted, is the Northern Alliances ‘Mujahideen’ are composed of criminals, rapists, homosexuals, and of course drug dealers - the very antithesis of Mujahideen.

The broadcast of the message of Usamah Bin Laden disappointed many of the anti-Islamic fanatics, in their zeal to project an irrational fanatic waving his Kalashnikov and threatening to kill all in site. Coming back to reality from Hollywood fiction, Usamah neither showed anger, nor made stupid and ignorant (unlike President Bush and his cohorts) statements, but appeared calm, humble and serene. The message was clearly understood by the ordinary masses in the Muslim and non-Muslim countries alike. In particular, those who have been the victim of American aggression and hence in places like Latin America he is popular. This is something that CNN, FOX or the BBC dare not broadcast.

People have conveniently forgotten hypocrites like Bush who talk of fighting for ‘freedom’, avoided all military service during the Vietnam War. Prescott Bush, his grandfather made a good deal of money dealing with the Nazis, when young American and British soldiers were dying in Europe. In contrast, Usamah Bin Laden personally engaged in the battlefield and sacrificed his vast wealth, instead of squandering it by building opulent palaces.

Jihad can be both defensive and offensive, preferably by the Islamic state. At times, the distinction between the two modes of operation is blurred, depending on the political and military situation. At present, it may be academic to discuss offensive Jihad, as the Islamic state does not exist in the world today. In addition, the Muslims are facing an onslaught in their own lands, but it is worth examining it briefly to clarify some of the misconceptions.

Offensive Jihad

The Islamic state reserves the right to use military force against foreign states that engage in persecuting Muslims or, preventing the spread of Islam within their lands. Note, in principle there is no concept of forceful conversion of non-Muslims to Islam. Even today, there are non-Muslims in most of the majority Muslim countries after centuries.

There is an enormous amount of scare mongering in the Western media and from the secular Muslim-intelligentsia depicting Jihad as a means to convert non-Muslims to Islam by force. However, one has to consider the fact that Christian Church was involved in forceful conversion e.g. Spanish Inquisition, and centuries of false propaganda has contributed towards some level of knee jerk reaction from the West. Nevertheless, one cannot deny the fact that the advanced ‘scientific’ West is still medieval in its attitude when it comes to assessing Islam.

There is a very significant and sharp distinction between offensive Jihad and colonialist occupational aggression. The sole purpose of Islamic conquests is to implement Islam, not to engage in empire building where the end justifies the means. The motive is not profit, subjugation or any other form of material benefit. This is why conquered nations often took the flag of Islam and continued with the expansion of the Islamic state e.g. Berbers and Mongols.

The above principles, coupled with other textual evidences, confirm that ‘first strike’ using ANY type of weapon upon civilians or non-combatants is prohibited according to Islamic law. Furthermore, it actually defeats the whole purpose of Jihad. Which is to convey (not to convert by force) Islam to non-Muslims, and annihilating them would defeat that central objective.

In contrast the war waged by the US, Europe and the Zionist entity are primarily against defenceless civilian populations. Palestinians have no state or an army. Economic sanctions and the needless massacre of a retreating army and civilians on the road to Basra, during the first Gulf war are clear war crimes. Hiroshima and Nagasaki qualify as the apex of state terrorism, as is the bombing of Dresden and Tokyo. The populations were burnt alive by incendiary bombs.

Further evidence of the war mongering nature of Capitalist West is the recent announcement by Bush to acquire mini-nukes and deploy ‘tactical’ nuclear weapons. Bear in mind, only when these weapons are in non US/US-sponsored hands, do they become WMD! We find the US proclaiming peace and attempting to disarm other nations selectively. In addition, US bases are dotted all over the globe, which is projected as ‘defensive’ measures. This is clearly indicative of American Terrorism will continue and increase in the future.

Defensive Jihad

As for defensive wars, this is the case in places like Palestine, Afghanistan, Chechnya and Iraq. This is a right recognised universally, as well as in Islamic law. Even under such circumstances, the Muslims are not automatically allowed to retaliate against non-combatants (civilians) except in just retribution. If the US is bombing our cities, than the Islamic state or the Muslims reserve the right to hit US cities in just retaliation. The non-combatants (civilians) within the US must move to halt the crimes of its government. Otherwise, they become complicit by their silence and inaction.

If Iraq, ruled by an unelected dictator could be punished collectively then by greater reasoning, any democratic states can also be punished collectively for the crimes of their government.

The Western intelligentsia must move on from its infantile moaning about 9/11. Its claim of being an innocent victim is far from the truth. The eminent journalist, John Pilger referred to this point the day after 9/11. The casualties are insignificant in comparison to those inflicted upon the Islamic world prior and post 9/11. The inherent racist nature of the West and in particular the US causes them exclusively to focus on white American lives. Therefore, the civilian casualties in both the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are being totally ignored.

9/11 was clearly a retaliatory response to the crimes committed by the US regimes during the last fifty years. Even at individual levels, soldiers are committing all sorts of brutality and oppression. Only recently, a CNN video showed cheering US soldier shooting a wounded Iraqi man. So much for the bravado of the ‘all American hero’, more like obese cowards prefer to shoot and bomb defenceless people from a distance.

An ongoing war would only harm both parties (Islam and the West). The West has the resources and the ability to examine the current conflict objectively but that can only be achieved by removing the wall of prejudice that it has built up over centuries. In addition, all the racist and moneymaking warmongers posing as neo-cons or hawks should be removed.

The West cannot continue to pretend waging defensive wars whilst its military bases are in the Islamic world. If the US truly seeks an understanding with the Islamic world, surely the removal and closure of these bases should be a start. This is not rocket science, as even a schoolchild knows instinctively not to pick a fight with the strongest boy in the class, unless he is compelled to do so for sheer survival.

Common sense dictates you cannot expect adulterers like Clinton and Major to teach others about morality. Nor can you expect chicken hawks like Bush, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz to demonstrate bravery and courage. In the same light peace cannot be expected from mass murderers like Kissinger, Hitler, and Bush. Will Obama bring about a real change?

Yamin Zakaria (
London, UK

Thursday, 10 September 2009

The World According to the Neo-Con Sympathisers

Almost everyday I get email responses to my essays, usually containing lots of two word expletives, e.g. “sand nigger”, “rag head”, “towel head”, “eat shit”, “sheep lover”, “camel lover”; almost all the emails originate from within the US, yes the land of the ‘tolerant’ free speech lovers. Apart from intellectual bankruptcy, the replies also indicate a deep-seated hatred, shaped by a fanatical mindset. Since stereotyping is wrong, I did ask myself the question, are those Americans, exceptional or typical.

Perhaps this is the result of ‘educating’ Americans at one level by people like Thomas Friedman, Charles Krauthammer and Daniel Pipes. At a more basic level, it is the result of getting informed by Hollywood movies, Jerry Springer, Fox TV and the likes. Fox TV is where you get to see analytical ‘debates’ between an extreme neo-con and a moderate neo-con! I came to this conclusion after encountering claims like, Afghans are Arabs, Muslims are a race, Muslims are idol or moon worshippers, and Muslims are engaging in forced conversion in the Darfur region, being all Muslims, maybe they are forcing each other to convert from Islam to Islam! O’Reilly and his ilk will never fail to impress you.

Anyway, I began to think about those two word responses, and thought of the possibility of my being both, wrong and a “sand nigger”. There after, I renounced all my previous writings, written whilst I was clearly misguided and brainwashed by the Arabs and Muslim terrorists. What the neo-cons are saying makes perfect sense, indeed Bush is guided by the Divine. Listed below is my new view of history and the world. Without further ado, let us proceed with the issues, fasten your seat belts, sit tight and I will show you the world according to the neo-cons, Zionists, right-wing Republicans, fundamentalist Christians and the KKK.

Muslims are Violent and Terrorists

Throughout history, the Muslims have been the most violent people in the world. They built cruel empires that committed numerous genocides by virtually annihilating races like the Aztecs, Incas, and the Aboriginal populations. Imams (Muslim preachers) deliberately sent blankets infected with chicken pox, against which the natives had no defence. This was their practice when the missionaries failed to convert them into Islam. The natives were uprooted and placed in concentration camps, herded like animals; millions perished.

In Africa, the Muslim fanatics gave the Quran to the natives while they stole their lands and committed grand theft, by mining and shipping abundant resources like Gold, Titanium and Diamond back to Mecca. The Africans were also forced into slavery, millions transported back to Arabia, some were made to work in the plantations and this is how the Arab-Muslims became wealthy, and not through the rich oil reserves as they claim.

During the medieval period, the Muslim fanatics launched a major crusade to liberate the holy lands in Europe. Salahuddin took 6,000 Christian prisoners at Acre, including men, women and children, they were slaughtered, each one beheaded. The blood ran knee-high in European cities, however, when Richard I conquered some of the territories back, the Muslim prisoners were released unharmed, given a safe passage out and they could not look at Richard, due to the shame that they felt for the difference in conduct. The extremist Muslims also launched the vicious inquisition in Spain, killing millions of Christians and Jews, forcing them to convert or executing them en masse. Eventually many of these Christians and Jews sought refuge in tolerant Europe, running away from the evil Muslim fundamentalists, where they were free to practise their faith and prosper.

In the twentieth century, the war-mongering Muslims caused the largest wars in history that culminated in the nuking of cities like Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and they were on the verge of nuking Korea and China. Of course, they argued such killings saved many lives, especially the Muslim ones! Through these wars, the first time in human history, civilians were deliberately targeted as policy to break the will of their enemies, in air raids using incendiary bombs. Cities like Dresden, Cologne and Tokyo suffered so greatly under Muslim barbarity that the bombings caused human fat to flow knee high in some places, adults and children were boiled alive.

It was that the Muslims invented terrorism en masse; - state terrorism! Chemical weapons another fantastic invention that was used in Vietnam, little girls were burnt alive, and the flesh slowly melted from their delicate bodies and even jumping into the water did not help. Since, the Muslims were scientifically advanced; this culminated in perhaps the sickest of all their inventions, the Neutron Bomb. The Muslims rejoiced at their ingenuity, now they could exterminate all life in cities and preserve that which Muslim Capitalists desired most, the wealth, the buildings, and the real estate. Therefore, when Peace was eventually won by exterminating their enemies into dust, they would be wealthier.

As a result, Islamic history is full of monsters like Adolf Hitler who as an Arab-Muslim from Turkey! Pol Pot a Malay-Muslim, Stalin an Uzbek-Muslim, Mussolini who was of Libyan extraction, Gengiz Khan secretly converted to Islam and then went on to turn rivers red with human blood, as per the ‘instruction’ in the Quran.

Muslims are Anti-Semitic

Muslims annihilated the Jews in history by establishing the inquisition, countless pogroms and retribution for the Jews Killing the prophet Jesus. Many Jews escaped to tolerant Europe fleeing the nasty Ottoman Sultans and the fanatical Khalifs, who used to wear a large turban, peaked with a feather and a ruby (stolen of course).

The Caliphate then attempted to annihilate the Jews; they called it the final solution, so they built gas chambers, killing millions of them. Eventually, the Jews were saved by the tolerant and peaceful European powers; they waged many wars of liberation, sacrificing millions of Christians, for such altruistic reasons.

The Muslims were influenced by the Darwinian theory of evolution, which placed the Arabs at the top, while the white Anglo-Saxons were placed near the bottom, the Jews occupying the lowest position; hence, their life was not worth the same as the Muslims. The theory encouraged Muslims to engage in racial purity, like eugenics, and removing the undesirable elements by force.

Usurping Israel

The Muslims recaptured Israel in 1948 after 2000-year exile and called it Palestine. They argued that they are God’s chosen people as He personally promised the land to them in their holy book. The Jews could not dispute the Arab claim as the Arabs were there 2,000 years ago, even though it was for a very short period with lots of other empires in between. Then, the Arabs accused the Jews of being religious fanatics for referring to their holy book (Old Testament). Many of the Jews were expelled, the UN resolutions were ignored which demanded justice for the Jews, to have their lands back, and this was the example of the Muslim’s injustice and hatred for law, unless it benefited them of course.

Today the Arabs are terrorising the Jews to the point of extinction, as they continue to launch helicopter gunship attacks, shooting schoolchildren in the back whilst old people are bulldozed alive in their houses. Recently a 13 year old girl was executed by a Muslim Soldier who walked up to her limp body and proceeded to empty a whole pistol magazine into her, then changed a fresh magazine and continued firing into the blood thirsty 13 year old school girl. Even an execution of a 13-year-old boy with his father trying to protect him was broadcast live on TV to the world. As usual, the Arabs are very good with their media spin, so they attributed the killing to the Jews and later said, due to a technical fault, they could not see the child and the father.

Belligerent Iraq launches unprovoked aggression against the US

The US was attacked for invading Mexico and ousting the oppressive monarch by the grand alliance of the Muslim armies coming from across the Atlantic Ocean in 1991. Many parts of Mexico coincidentally happened to be rich in oil reserves. Then the defeated US troops & civilians retreated from Mexico inside the US, while they were moving along the Texas Road, they were annihilated by the Allied Muslim Air Force; the Muslim pilots even fought each other to drop bombs and obliterate man and machine, while shouting with joy “Allah Akbar”. There was no mercy and it came to be known as the “highway of death”. Muslim fanatics claimed to have liberated Mexico and then reinstalled the monarch in the name of ‘democracy’.

A real tragedy, the poor innocent Americans never did any harm to the Muslims; America’s dispute with Mexico was an internal matter for them. The Muslims then applied cruel sanctions for a decade causing the deaths of 500,000 American babies, which was “a price worth paying” according to the Arab League spokesperson, Amir Mousa. The Muslims deliberately destroyed the civilian installations to inflict maximum human misery. Then, they poisoned the water system and the lands with depleted Uranium, resulting in a huge increase in the abnormal births. Americans resisted colonisation, so some Muslim-Arabs attacked the US on 9/11 seeking vengeance and compliance to the UN resolutions.

After the sanctions failed to topple the democratically elected regime in the US, the Arabs launched a second war this time with the pretext of disarming the US of its WMD’s. This was done by the Muslims-Arabs using their own WMDs. Just prior to the war, a geological survey showed that the US has the second largest oil reserves in the world. Muslims argued they are not interested in oil, even though they were the world’s largest consumers of the product. The Muslims insisted that they were trying to liberate the Americans, and it was not a war, an altruistic mission. However, after the invasion, oil revenue worth billions of US dollars went ‘missing’; it was blamed on the local American thieves.

It was in response to this belligerent aggression the US launched the recent war against Iraq. The US acted in self-defence and to save the Iraqis from the brutal dictator Saddam Hussein, trained by the Taliban in Afghanistan. The US claimed they had no knowledge of this man. According to Fox News, Saddam Hussein was the father of Osama Bin Laden, also known amongst the Arab tribes as Osama Bin Saddam. He was toppled and captured, the entire incident was celebrated by the US Marines on behalf of the Iraqis, as the Iraqis were not used to leaving their houses.

Despite the liberation of Iraq, the Arab-Muslims are ungrateful, as they continue to attack American targets, so Bush and his allies had to sneak in and out of Iraq like oil-pirates. After the war was launched, the Iraqis caught a virus, which caused them to become very violent, they kidnapped and beheaded people and bombed Mosques, markets and Churches. Some say it was because they were seeking martyrdom and the 72 virgins in paradise, rumour has it many Iraqis resorted to this after being molested by the sexually frustrated US soldiers in Abu-Ghraib, where both men and women participated in strange acts, which the local Iraqis could not reconcile with their culture and values.

To cause maximum offence, the Muslims in some parts of Iraq, which is under their control-desecrated Churches, flushed the Bible down the toilet, and incarcerated American prisoners without due process of law, chained, gagged, and shackled.

The Arabs are now once again trying to justify another war against the US ally, Great Britain. They argued that Britain had no right possess Nuclear weapons, and the potential threat was demonstrated by a power-point presentation at the UN by the Muslim-Arab ambassador, called Colin Powell, whose reputation is now equal in stature to the legendary “cry wolf” boy.

Britain argued that it had no weapons; it was too far for its missiles to reach any Muslim country, but the Muslims argued the principle of pre-emption as a legitimate defensive military option. The theory is to punish a nation for contemplating building weapons, or if the nation is likely to build such weapons in the future, or any evidence to indicate if the leader of a nation is even thinking about it. Hence, it used covert tactic to decimate their population, especially the women, so that there would be less children and thus less terrorists in the future.

‘Saving’ Muslims in Bosnia

The benevolent Americans tried to save the Muslims in Bosnia. First thing was they armed the Serbs heavily with heavy weapons while they put an embargo on arms sales, which meant the Muslims had only light weapons. Eventually, the Serbs surrounded the Muslims, took the UN soldiers hostage, and massacred 8000 Muslims, while the UN was busy trying to figure out their procedures for launching air strikes to protect the Muslims.

For some strange reason the UN could not be mobilised as quickly as it did over Iraq. Never mind, eventually the American forces launched some nominal bombing strikes, and claimed to have saved the remaining Muslims, that is, after 200,000 were slaughtered and an estimated 30,000 women were systematically tortured in Serb rape camps. So a big thank you to the saviours, who fed us to be slaughtered, but would not allow us to defend ourselves.

The Hitler connection

Although Hitler was a Muslim, he kept his identity secret as the head of the German nation. But his affiliation to Islam and Muslims was obvious, as many joined his SS, filled the ranks in his armed forces. It was Islam that inspired Hitler to persecute the unbelieving Jews, Slavs and Gypsies; there are plenty of references to it in his book, Mein Kampf, which many Zionists and Fox News ‘experts’ claims is an exegesis of the Quran. Although many argued that, only some Arabs-Muslims sought help for seeking independence from the colonial rule of Britain and France, who had broken their earlier promise with the Muslims-Arabs in the previous world war, and formed the secret treaty of Sykes-Picot. Muslims have perfected the use of propaganda; they constantly cry “terrorism” when the cities of Bagram, Medina and Lebanon were bombed by the Americans, in retaliation for killing and invading their lands.


This is useful for everyone to get a glimpse of the “other side.” Imagine if you will, the burden of such infamy resting on your sympathisers, is it any wonder that they need to lash out and do what psychologists call “project” their own guilt, inadequacies and horrors on to the Muslim’s?

The media has always played a role in justifying genocide, Hitler’s propaganda film made the case against the Jews, the early American settlers made the case against Native Americans, for the slave trade, and the subsequent massacres, recently they did it for Iraq. The US is now on the move towards engineering another holocaust, justified and supported by those who “project” their own guilt onto others, claiming Muslim’s have blood on their hands, ignoring the fact that they are neck deep in the blood they have shed.

Yamin Zakaria (
London, UK

Sunday, 6 September 2009

Sharia Laws and Democracy

In comparing two systems, two major components need to be assessed. Firstly, the laws, and secondly is the consistent application of the laws upon the subjects.

How does one conclude that a certain law is just? Is there a trade-off between having severe punishments or serious crimes? Is it better to punish a criminal using the principle of ‘an eye for an eye’ or should one ‘turn the other cheek’ and show forgiveness? Is it a choice between applying the harsh penal codes of the Old Testament or the lenient approach taken from the New Testament? The truth lies somewhere in between the two extreme approaches.

Going further back to a more fundamental point, the definition of a crime is largely subjective as it varies between nations. For example, the perverse act of homosexuality is sign of progress in western democracies, whereas it is considered a crime under Sharia laws. Another example is the business of slandering, this is often projected as entertainment and a manifestation of free speech, but under Sharia law, this sort of conduct is regarded as undignified, and clearly forbidden.

Even in areas where there is concurrence, like theft, robbery, murder, rape etc the same question arises, what is the correct level of punishment that fits the crime? There is no scientific answer for this. It is ultimately dependent on ones underlying beliefs. For example, some would argue that a thief should be whipped in public, and some would say he should be forgiven and others would say he should be imprisoned. Therefore, to scream Sharia laws are barbaric as the media often does is irrational, superstitious and fanatical like the medieval mindset that once flourished in Europe.

A legal system does not become outdated with the passage of time as laws govern human nature, which does not alter. Sharia Laws are after often ridiculed as medieval, but democracy is ancient! Indeed, bulk of the criticism of Sharia laws is based on the ‘twin-towers’ of ignorance and medieval prejudice, as the following two examples will illustrate.

• One of the issues often raised is the myth that Sharia laws oppress the non-Muslim minorities. The rights of non-Muslim minorities are fixed and permanent. The majority Muslims could not alter these rights without contradicting Islamic law. Rather, the rights of minorities are insecure and subjected to be altered anytime in any system where man is the legislator. This is what has surfaced post 9/11, and the various pieces of information continue to unfold regarding the liberal-fascists that arbitrarily imprison people, and subject them to inhumane torture.

• Democracy is projected as the rule of the masses but in reality, the masses are rather subjected to rule of the powerful elites. In theory, anyone can stand for power but in reality, only those with financial backing can qualify to compete. Power in democracy is heavily skewed, which is really represented through democracy. Under Sharia laws, the masses are far better represented and heard, where the power is more distributed evenly. The ruling elites are not the product of large businesses or some aristocratic class. It is Sharia laws that can really represent the interests of the masses that the people are always demanding in a capitalist-democracy.

As for the consistent application of the laws, abuse or misapplication can take place in any system. However, in a divine system, that scope is severely limited as the major principles and laws have already been legislated and cannot be altered. Whereas contradicting basic principles of democracy is often visible, and increasingly seen through the conduct of the US and other Western powers post 9/11.

At times, the contradiction is at a fundamental level. Israel is projected as the only democracy in the Middle East, yet it endorses a religious identity that contradicts the secular notion of democracy, which treats all the citizens as equals regardless of their religious identity. Arabs, be they Muslim, Christian, Agnostics, Atheists are expelled daily, whereas any Jew from any part of the world has the key to the houses of disposed people, is this still a democracy?

In a democracy, your rights can be given and taken away instantly. An innocent citizen can be incarcerated for years, and subjected to torture. Under Sharia laws, Muslims and non-Muslims alike can argue for their rights under the divine laws, which cannot be modified or abolished.

Yamin Zakaria (
London, UK

Wednesday, 19 August 2009

What about American Terrorism?

"Either way, my personal feeling is 85% that he is an innocent man - of this crime anyway - having sat through the whole of the trial in Holland."

- Reverend John Mosey, father of one of the victims.

The events leading to the imminent release of the Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi has made headlines, and jogged memories of the awful event of December 1988. His release is being considered on compassionate grounds as he is terminally ill, and this has raised passionate debate on the issue, primarily on two points; firstly, if he should be made to serve his full sentence and secondly, if the man was guilty in the first place.

For many, there is serious doubt over the conviction of this man, but what is not in doubt is the earlier act of terrorism committed by the US forces in the Persian Gulf in July 1988. The US Navy shot down an Iranian Passenger Plane (Airbus A300) ‘believing’ it to be a F14 Tomcat Fighter; the discrepancy between the two planes in terms of size and speed is obvious to any lay person, and yet, the US forces failed to make this basic distinction possessing the most advanced technology, is hard to believe. Applying commonsense, why would the Iranians risk attacking the mighty US forces, and least of all with a single plane? Are the cowboys that trigger-happy?

The US simply ignored the event under the pretext that it was an accident. At the very least, it was manslaughter if not mass murder. Nobody remembers or mourns these victims. Allegedly, they received some meagre compensation compared to the victims of Lockerbie, but why? I thought all human lives have the same value in our civilised world.

Naturally, many have speculated for years that the Lockerbie bombing was an act of retaliation by the Iranians, for the US action in the Persian Gulf, placing more doubt on the guilt of the Libyans. Therefore, the victims of Lockerbie may well have been alive if the US did not commit the act of terrorism in the Persian Gulf.

The imminent release of the Lockerbie bomber is part of the process of normalisation of relationship with Libya that has been put into motion for sometime. Libya is a sparsely populated country with huge oil reserves, makes it very tempting to remove the regime from the terrorist list.

Historically, Libya was always portrayed as a terrorist nation for giving support to the various Arab resistance groups. From their perspective, Libya was giving aid to these resistance movements, whilst the US has been funding Israeli terrorism and theft of Arab lands. Far from being a terrorist nation, Libya has been the victim of American Terrorism.

In 1985, the US bombed Libya in response to the bombing of the West Berlin disco, La Belle, which killed two American servicemen. The American response led to at least 40 people being killed including the 15-month daughter of the Libyan leader Muammar Gadaffi. The United States claimed to have ‘evidence’ based on some cable transcripts from Libyan agents in East Germany, but such ‘evidences’ were never presented to anyone. The US behaved as a judge, jury and an executioner, walked over the UN like if it is a doormat for the Americans!

The more sober European allies refused to support the cowboy action to the extent that the US was denied flying permission over France, Italy, and Spain, as well as the use of European continental bases. As usual, the exception was the subservient British government, and the subsequent history is proving that they relish playing the role of butler to the American government. No surprise that in many popular Hollywood movies the butler is often the man that speaks with a clear British accent. Even today, British soldiers are dying in Afghanistan and nobody really knows why. At least there were some lucrative oil contracts in Iraq but there is nothing in Afghanistan. However, the subservient butler must do his duty and serve his master well.

American terrorism has a long history that goes back to its origin, when the Europeans began to occupy America. For decades, Hollywood has constructed the good Cowboys with the regular diet of “The Little House on the Prairie”, “The Waltons” and “Bonanza”, versus the violent Native Americans; the terrorist of that time, who are always launching ferocious attacks on horseback waving an axe, at every opportunity, without provocation: killing, raping and plundering. Then it was turn of the African slaves, they were brutally exploited and in later years lynched as public entertainment. Indeed, the Wild West was partly built on terrorism, as the innocent civilians in Vietnam, Hiroshima and Nagasaki discovered years later.

The international victims of America say to the terrorist cowboy regime, do not lecture the world about terrorism just look at the terrorism in your mirror first!

Yamin Zakaria (

London, UK

August 2009-08-19