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.

Conclusion

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 (yamin@radicalviews.org)
London, UK

www.radicalviews.org
http://yaminzakaria.blogspot.com

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 (yamin@radicalviews.org)
London, UK

www.radicalviews.org
http://yaminzakaria.blogspot.com

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 (yamin@radicalviews.org)

London, UK

August 2009-08-19

www.radicalviews.org

http://yaminzakaria.blogspot.com

Two-Faces of Barack Obama

Politicians rarely make unequivocal statements, because it gives them the option to alter their position with the change of circumstances. They find it difficult to express clear statements and make firm commitments. Are politicians two-faced by their very nature or perhaps they are compelled to be two-faced due to the system in place. In a democracy, politicians hunt for votes from various parties, often with conflicting interests. Thus, they need to appease various factions, sounding sweet enough to win the votes.

In the rare occasion when a politician makes an unequivocal statement, at some point it is clarified. Addressing AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) Policy Conference in 2008, Obama as the Presidential candidate made the unequivocal statement with regards to the status of Jerusalem:


"Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel and it must remain undivided"

The clear implication is, Israel will have full sovereignty over the area, and there is no going back to the 1967 borders in line with the various UN resolutions issued. Of course, this is Israel not Iraq! It is the helpless Jews; the perpetual victims of anti-Semitism who are always in need to be defended from the Arab terrorists as recently seen in the carnage of Gaza!

Obama sounded as if he was handing over the keys of Jerusalem to the Rabbis. Such a statement would leave little to offer to the Arabs. Hence, Obama’s campaign adviser subsequently clarified the statement, and stated:

"Jerusalem is a final status issue, which means it has to be negotiated between the two parties"1

How can the capital of a state be subjected to negotiation? If the negotiation is about sovereignty of the Arabs and Jews, then the reference to undivided capital is false. In line with the two-faced nature of a typical politician, at the Cairo speech Obama said Israel has to implement an immediate and comprehensive settlement freeze. How can Jerusalem be the undivided capital of Israel, if the Israeli Jews cannot occupy parts of it? Obama was either lying at the AIPAC conference or at the Cairo conference!

The issue of freezing Israeli settlement in West Bank was already understood to be a unilateral obligation as per the UN resolutions. This was reinforced by the Cairo statement. However, once again, two-faced nature of Barack Obama surfaces, now the Israeli settlement freeze has a price, which is some sort of concession from the Arab countries .

It is odd that the weaker party in this case, the Palestinians have to initiate the move by offering concession. However, I guess generosity is more often seen as an Arab trait, whereas being miserly is seen as a Jewish trait!

The ping-pong game of who should give what as a starting point continues, there is no sign of any just solution. In the mean time, Israel as the stronger party continues to create new realities on the ground that moves the goal post of discussion. The international community are helpless, all they can do is ‘object’ – are they trembling with fears of being accused of anti-Semitism.

The old Native American saying: white man speaks with two tongues, applying that principle just replace the white man for any politician, black or white, Condoleezza Rice or Dick Cheney, George Bush or Barack Obama, makes no difference. Politicians are dirty, they are two-faced, and no peaceful solution based on justice is likely to emanate from them.

For sure, peace cannot exist without justice, the only alternative being the elimination of one of the conflicting parties. Since justice is unlikely then think of annihilation of one of the parties as the only solution for peace, think of the Palestinian Diaspora, the concentration camp of Gaza, the prisons in West Bank, and the slow holocaust that began from 1948 and continues. This explains the undeclared official Israeli policy of targeting Palestinian children and mothers.

Yamin Zakaria (yamin@radicalviews.org)
London, UK

www.radicalviews.org
http://yaminzakaria.blogspot.com
August 2009

An Apology from AL-Qaeda

George Bush apologised for all the abuses, tortures, rapes and murders in Abu-Ghraib and expected the Islamic world to forgive. Imagine if the Al-Qaeda leadership issued an apology for the execution of Paul Johnson and then went on to explain that the perpetrators acted on their own initiatives. They lacked training, and were not aware of the rules of the Geneva Convention. Would the Americans be prepared to accept such an explanation and a similar apology to the one that was issued by George Bush with regards to the heinous crimes committed in Abu-Ghraib?

In describing the execution of Paul Johnson, the media deployed terms like ‘barbaric’, savage’, ‘and evil’ but not a ‘scandal’ like Abu Ghraib. So, why do the murders of prisoners in Abu-Ghraib, Bagram and elsewhere qualify only to be a ‘scandal’? Would it have been accepted as a ‘scandal’ if one of the Al-Qaeda members posed smiling with his thumbs up in front of the dead body and the severed head? Similarly, the world leaders rushed to condemn the execution but such swift words and strong emotions could not be heard for the thousands of civilians including women and children that have perished in Iraq.

In theory, if we genuinely believe that all human lives have the same value then the reaction should be identical to the killing of any innocent person. However, the killing of Paul Johnson and Nick Berg has aroused a lot of anger amongst the Americans whilst the killings of the thousands of innocent Iraqis did not even raise an eyebrow. It seems that the killing of the Iraqis or America’s enemies can always be justified whilst only the killing of Americans constitutes a crime. The justification can range from ‘self-defence’ to gaining personal enjoyment. As an example, CNN televised the entire incident where the US marine bragged about how good it felt and he described it as ‘awesome’ after he murdered a wounded Iraqi who was crying in agony on the floor. One of the US Senators said the boys were letting off some steam in describing the activities in Abu Ghraib.

If Paul Johnson were subjected to similar treatment given by the US soldiers towards the Iraqi prisoners, would that have led the media coverage and the reaction from the Western world to be any different? The answer is unlikely as Paul Johnson like Nick Berg was projected as a human being by the mass media; they had names, faces, families and friends. This is why their killings have evoked so much emotion.

However, the thousands of faceless and nameless Iraqis who have been killed by the US forces have ended up as background statistics, in the books of Colin Powell as collateral damage. The dead bodies, severed limbs and decapitated heads of babies are not aired, so that the Americans can continue to support the sanitised version of the war. Not a single family from the victims of Fallujah, Abu-Ghraib, Najaf and elsewhere was given any kind of coverage by the mass media. No reporters went out to the town to interview their family members and air how they felt about the loss of their loved ones.

What is good and evil, barbaric and civilised, justice and retribution is a matter of perspective. No one can claim that the beheading of a person is any more barbaric than torturing someone to death or incinerating defenceless civilians or bombing women and children at wedding parties. In fact, for many people a quick death is preferable than to be tortured, abused or humiliated in front of their family members. Nick Berg’s father also pointed this very point out after his son was executed.

When the anger has subsided perhaps, the American masses will reflect on the entire episode of Iraq from 1991 onwards and not just from 9/11/2001. This requires acknowledging the sequence of events and certain indisputable facts with regards to the entire conflict. A clear fact is Iraq has never attacked the US in the past nor did it ever have the capability to do so. The Iraqi threat to the US interests was only in terms of the possibility of denying the US companies and consumers the oil at a cheap price.

The justification given to the world by the US regime for the recent war was disarming Saddam of his alleged weapons of mass destruction (WMD) apparently authorised by the UN resolution. This was disputed by other members of the Security Council like Russia and France, as did most of the international legal experts. In any case, with the unfolding of events the facts clearly showed that the pretext of WMD was a total fabrication, which any fair-minded person cannot fail to conclude.

At home, Bush used the pretext of the link between Saddam and 9/11, which has also turned out to be false from their investigations and denials. Then what excuse is there for the war? If none, then surely America has killed thousands of Paul Johnsons, Nick Bergs and committed acts that are far worse. Yet, the US continues to argue that the Iraqis like the Native Americans and Palestinians are terrorists on their own lands! The absurd logic is that any retaliation from the Muslims is ‘terrorism’ but not the terror dispensed from the US war machine is something else!

The issuing of an apology by the US government as suggested by the New York Times would be a good start, followed by assessing war reparations for Iraq and then put the neo-cons on trial before the American masses. As many Americans have begun to understand that, this was a war for Israel and the big businesses.

Unfortunately, many of the Americans view the attack on Iraq as some sort of revenge for 9/11 regardless of the facts. That is the mindset of its soldiers as many openly boasted that they got their revenge in Iraq and the world got a glimpse of that in Abu-Ghraib, Fallujah and Najaf. They cite 9/11 as a first strike on the US. If we go back to the first gulf war in 1991, the attack launched by the US was clearly unprovoked, driven by corporate greed. They used the fig leaf of the UN as cover for their initial aggression against Iraq. It was not the soldiers in blue helmets but in US uniform, that launched the war under the American command. If the UN was a genuine neutral international organisation, why was it not mobilised to address the invasion of the Falkland Islands or Afghanistan prior to the invasion of Kuwait?

The dispute between Kuwait and Iraq was an internal matter for the Arabs, historically Kuwait was always a part of Iraq (Walayah of Basra); moreover none of these borders within the Arab world has real legitimacy, as they were the creation of colonialists (Sykes-Picot). They carved up the land to suit their interests, which have been the real cause of instability and disputes in the region. Unfortunately, many Americans do not even know a page of history pertaining to these regions. The right of Iraq over Kuwait is far greater than the right of the US over the Hispanic territories.

Even if the Kuwaitis asked for the US for help, the US should have declined this on the basis that Kuwait government is an undemocratic illegitimate regime that was never elected by its masses. This should have been expected from a country that promotes itself as the bastion of democracy. Secondly, the conflict was between Iraq and Kuwait. America was not party to the conflict in anyway and she was never attacked by Iraq. Hence, the US allying with the illegitimate Kuwaiti regime to attack Iraq had committed an unprovoked aggression against the Iraqi population with the UN being a rubber stamp.

After the Iraqi forces were expelled from Kuwait in 1991, the American forces went beyond the UN mandate as they slaughtered the retreating Iraqi civilians and armies going towards Basra at the behest of the criminal Kuwaiti regime. This was a real war crime. Those Americans feeling angry today should try and imagine that these thousands of Iraqis including women and children were beheaded like Paul Johnson and even worse.

Then, a decade of sanctions and bombings continued the subjugation. According to UN, figures about a million Iraqi children had perished due to the sanctions. The situation in Palestine continued to deteriorate with the constant killing and uprooting of the Palestinians by the Israelis with full support from the US. So, now perhaps the Americans should understand why people flew those planes into the WTC buildings on 9/11. This is no doubt a direct consequence of the US foreign policy.

Many Americans due to their lack of knowledge and the propaganda that is continuously being fed through the superficial media coverage are under the delusion that Iraq had attacked or was planning to attack the US at some point in the future. Both points are incorrect - a country ravaged by sanctions and war could not even defend itself how can it attack a superpower. Likewise, 9/11 was not a first strike. The killing of Nick Berg, Paul Johnson and the four mercenaries in Fallujah was in response to Abu-Ghraib if you simply examine the sequence of events and the reasons stated by those who carried out the execution. Only the dishonest and the hypocrites examine the events with one eye open.

If the US citizens recognised the causes, and the sequence of events in this conflict that would be the first step towards peace, it would clear the misinformation constantly dispensed by the mass media. There can never be real peace without justice for the victim and America is far from being the innocent victim.

Yamin Zakaria

London, UK

www.radicalviews.org

http://yaminzakaria.blogspot.com

yamin@radicalviews.org

Published in April 2004

Remember the Cairo Speech? Here comes President Obama’s first test

They all stood, and applauded President Obama, after he delivered a historical speech to the Muslim world in Cairo last month. For many, this must have seemed like the US announcing a change of attitude and policy towards the Arab world, after showing decades of hostility. The presence of the first black President with Muslim heritage must have enhanced that feeling of optimism in the Arab world. However, the Arabs also know from experience that one should not judge a book by its ‘colour’!

Prior to the Cairo speech, President Obama gave an open invitation to engage Iran diplomatically, also announced his intention to close the notorious Guantanamo Bay and remove the US troops from Iraq. All these maneuvers will be interpreted as Obama will be pursing a very different route to the previous neo-conservative regime. Whereas the sceptics would argue the US-Israel agenda has remained the same, but only the emphasis or style has altered, relying more on the soft-power rather than hard-power. They would also point out that removing troops from Iraq is a prelude to increasing troops in Afghanistan with the long term objective of planning the break up of Pakistan and removing its nuclear capability.

In the Cairo speech, President Obama outlined his vision for the Middle East peace plan, specifically stating that he expected Israel to lift restrictions on Palestinian movement, and implement an immediate and comprehensive settlement freeze. Many expressed caution because they want to see if Obama can put his words into action. That time has already come with the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, refusing to halt expansion of Jewish settlement in predominantly Arab neighbourhood of East Jerusalem.

This refusal comes on the back of creeping Judaization of Palestine, as the Israeli Transport Minister announced recently that signs on all major roads in Israel, including East Jerusalem and possibly parts of the West Bank would be “standardised”, to Hebrew name.

Will this settlement expansion issue be the first test for Obama’s historic speech delivered at Cairo? If so, what are his options? The ‘polite’ request issued by the State Department to halt the expansion, has been casually ignored by Israel. Apart from diplomatic pressure, the US could threaten to reduce or halt the annual economic and military aid, concurrently increase the aid to the Arab world. If Israel continues to ignore the US demand or shall we say the demand of the ‘international’ community, the US can call for trade sanctions with threats of military actions through the UN - and for once it would not use the UN veto saving Israel.

If Israel persisted to ignore the UN resolutions, the US could do the unthinkable, and threaten Israel with military actions, as it does frequently with the Arab countries. Of course, that would be too much to expect from Obama or any US President as they all rely on the powerful Zionist lobby, and the Christian-Zionists to attain power in the first place.

In terms of lifting restrictions on the Palestinians, the walls and barriers remain in place, with the inhumane siege of Gaza.

Forcing Israel to freeze settlement, lifting the siege and restrictions on the Palestinians will be important tests for President Obama; if he fails, then it is highly unlikely he will be able to proceed to pass the big test of implementing the two-state solution that has gained currency over the years.

It is unlikely that President Obama can break free from the Zionist shackles, and become an honest broker in the Middle East. Israel will continue on its track to remove all traces of the Arab heritage, which includes the destruction of the Al-Aqsa Mosque. Concurrently, Israel will continue to expect further concession from the Palestinians or it will create further barriers and offer to remove them as ‘concessions’. All the indicators suggest that the Cairo speech will prove to be empty rhetoric!

Yamin Zakaria
London, UK

http://yaminzakaria.blogspot.com
yamin@radicalviews.org
Published – 21/07/09

Who Is the Author of Al-Quran? Part 1

In any debate, the challenger demands proof and the one challenged usually responds with evidence. For the debate to conclude there must be agreement on the validity of the evidence provided as proof. Since, the challenger initiates the challenge then he must come forward and state what type of evidence constitutes as adequate proof. Failing that, the challenger has to provide an explanation why the evidence submitted does not constitute adequate proof.

Accordingly, when challengers wish to contest facts accepted by more than a billion people: the divinity of the Quran, they must advise what evidence is accepted by all parties as constituting proof, at the same time making their challenge; a reasonable mind can see the impossible moving target of trying to build proofs which are not accepted by both parties as evidence.

For tangible objects, the process is easy because it can be verified by the human senses, by either repeated observation (Astronomy) or a controlled experiment (Physics, Chemistry etc), and thus independent of any bias. As an example, to prove that a certain object is a motor car, then it is simply a matter of demonstrating - in a process of repeated observations and experimentation - that the essential characteristics of a car, such as engine, wheels, motion etc are present in the object. Take another example, when we see a horse through our senses of sight, we recognise it and accept it at once, because the criteria of what constitutes a horse are already ingrained in our minds, being extracted and abstracted from previous experiences and some conventional linguistic assignments.

However unlike tangible objects: historical events, philosophical questions like the purpose of life, morality, ethics and laws cannot be proven with just sense perception, or with empirical science. You cannot resurrect the battles of Hannibal or Alexander in a laboratory, and none of us witnessed these events. Neither science nor our senses can be used to distinguish between right and wrong. For example, is adultery immoral or is it simply an expression of personal freedom? Is capital punishment or a light prison sentence adequate retribution for murder? Science tells us how reproduction takes place, but cannot tell us the boundaries of with whom you should reproduce.

In the above-mentioned issues, it is a matter of conviction based on the evidences and arguments presented; most human beings are encompassed within a spectrum that goes from blind-faith to absolute conviction.

Often I am asked by arrogant and irrational people who call themselves freethinkers to prove historical events using empirical science. As if every aspect of their lives is governed by empirical science, or they only accept information verified directly by sense perception. Can you resurrect the dead, and ask them to give you a replay of the historical events in a laboratory environment repeatedly? How does a thinking being pose such a question? Perhaps the self-praised label of freethinkers actually reflects their insecurity or inability to think. Hence, they need to tell the world of their ability to think, it is not an irony but an accurate reflection of their mindset.

So people ask: what is the proof that the Quran is divine? Those who ask can be categorised into two camps: genuine-explorers open to debate and the witless-agitators much like pseudo freethinkers, products of personal traumas or scars, who are only interested in all that is negative about the subject.

The former group will usually pose investigative questions; be presented with evidence and debate, and be open to having views or interpretations be adjusted based on the prevailing evidence as true investigators with an open mind. In contrast, the witless-agitators will dismiss any evidence presented. Some of them will try to challenge the evidence, but when they find that the evidence is composed of complete and consistent arguments, then they are forced to run for the hills, either into digression or fall off the edge of an intellectual cliff into absurdity to avoid the uncomfortable truth of a possible adjustment to their prejudices, or losing their opportunities to mock and/or undermine the conviction in Quran being of divine origin.

Therefore, the witless-agitators as cynical challengers should tell us first what would constitute adequate proof to demonstrate that the Quran originates from a divine source. They should elaborate how they came to establish those criteria in the first place, given that many of them do not believe in the divine and none of them has any proven experience of being a Prophet of God. Only then, we can attempt to give them a satisfactory answer, otherwise, no matter what evidence is presented, the witless-agitators have the monopoly position of being simply able to dismiss the evidences without any justification. The witless-agitators can only accept or refuse the evidence we present but they are not in a position to state that we have not provided adequate proof, because nobody has defined what would be adequate proof in the first place.

First step towards answering the question, if the Quran is divine: is to pose the counter question - is the Quran the work of any known human being? Indeed let us ask the very obvious and pertinent question: Who is the author of this Arabic Book that altered the course of history in a manner that is unprecedented in human history? There is no like Arabic book of such impact, prior or after Islam, yet it was brought forward by one simple shepherd and it has now over one billion followers and growing. They are reciting it daily and memorizing it. So let us examine if the Quran was indeed the work of any human being(s).

There is unanimous agreement that this Book (Al-Quran) is not a translation from another scripture written in a foreign language. Furthermore, there is no dispute that it is an Arabic book, and the Quran itself testifies to this point. Anyone disputing this must bring forward the counter evidence; otherwise, it is just a wild speculation on their part. The counter-evidence must present at least the non-Arabic original, or substantial parts there-of, with irrefutable archaeological evidence proving its earlier date!

If the book is an Arabic book, it is rational to exclude non-Arabs or anyone who does not have a good command of the Arabic language. Therefore, non-Arabic speakers are eliminated by reason. Reality shows that nobody can produce even a small formal document or even a letter with punctuation and grammar without any formal education.

So did the Arabs of the time write it? Clearly not, as the contents of the Quran diametrically opposed their way of life, it attacked and threatened their social and economic structure. Naturally, leaders of Arab tribes took steps to curtail the message of the Quran by discrediting it, applying severe pressure on Prophet Muhammad (SAW) and viciously persecuting his followers. Remember that Prophet Muhammad (SAW) and his followers were subject to severe prosecution, torture, sanctions and embargo for the first thirteen years of his mission. Some of his followers were martyred in the process and a hundred, or so, were forced to flee their homeland seeking refuge and protection for the Abyssinian king. Even after their immigration to Medina, the newly founded Islamic State was under steady attack for its first five years. Prophet Muhammad (SAW) and his followers gained the upper hand only in the last five years of his life and mission.

No Arab came forward to claim authorship either, since Arabic literature, eloquence, rhetoric and poetry were at their peak [1], they easily recognised the power of the Quran and anyone claiming to be its author would be recognised and celebrated. Why the real author would conceal his or her identity and not take credit for this shockingly unique work, which was causing havoc in the pagan Arab society culminating into confrontation and war?! Even the most hostile critics of Islam have not advocated this as an argument. Secondly, the Quran actually challenged the Arab nation to produce even one chapter like those of the Quran, what would be the motive for someone doing that while concealing his identity? In fact, this would provide a perfect opportunity to gain fame, money and power.

That leaves only one other remaining sensible possibility: Did Prophet Muhammad (SAW) write the Quran, as many Orientalists over the years have claimed and tried to prove. In fact, during the life of the Prophet (SAW) and after His death, no Arab ever claimed Prophet Muhammad was the author of the Quran. How could he be? How can a publicly recognised illiterate shepherd, who has no history of entering any of the poetry contests regularly held in Arabia [1], suddenly produce a book that is so powerful in terms of its composition, structure, internal musical rhythm and meaning covering such a wide variety of subjects? Later we will examine some of these amazing aspects of the Quran in detail.

As a matter of fact there are a number of mutually corroborating narrations, reporting various independent incidents, as to produce certitude that he, Prophet Muhammad (SAW), did not possess a "musical ear" and that he was incapable of reciting any verse of poetry without breaking its rhythm and/or meter, save for the simplest songs and nursery rhymes.

The only allegation ever recorded, was made by the Pagan Arabs, that the Prophet was uttering the Quran after having been tutored by a man, Christian slave working as blacksmith, called Jabir, or whatever name he had. This is clearly false and irrational based on the following points.

a) The fact that the Pagan Arabs claimed the source of Quran was a third person called Jabir, actually proves my argument that the pagan Arabs themselves concluded definitely Muhammad could not have produced the Quran alone.

b) Some people suggested that the pagan Arabs were actually attributing the words in the Quran to Muhammad (SAW) but not the ideas! In fact, it is almost the opposite. The reason why the Pagan Arabs were amazed is mainly due to the formulation of the words in the Quran and not just their plain meaning. As we know tales of the old Prophets could be conveyed by storytellers, rules can be pronounced by judges and wise men. But it was not this, rather its entire Arabic composition, especially as Muhammad (SAW) was not known to be one of the men of poetry, rhetoric or particular eloquence out of the ordinary. This sudden production of this material shocked the Pagan Arabs. They would secretly approach the houses of some Muslims to listen to the Quran. In one reported occasion two of the pagan leaders bumped into each other and they both said they were mesmerised by some demonic force or witchcraft. They swore to each other never to do it again; such was their rejection of Islam, yet amazement at the Quran.

c) Subsequently, when the Pagan Arabs started to oppose Muhammad (SAW) and launch a vicious campaign against him in Mecca, in which some of his followers were martyred, why did they not simply go after this "Jabir", if he was the source of the Quran? That would have ended Muhammad’s (SAW) mission and solved all their problems? In fact nothing, more was ever heard about this man, who is supposed to have inspired the Quran, if he ever existed. Such allegations are necessarily baseless, absurd and irrational.

d) Also, the Quran answered the allegations; the Pagan Arabs did not challenge this position after the Quran asserted that Jabir, being of non-Arabic origin, did not speak clear Arabic. Hence, he could not have had any influence in producing the Quran.

e) There is a clear distinction between Hadiths (literal words and composition of the Prophet, but the meaning and the ideas have been divinely inspired) and the Quran. The recognition of the distinction from the very beginning, in fact, when one of the Arabs tried to compose a verse like the Quran, he was laughed at by the rest of the Pagan Arabs. There were no reports of the people being awed by the Hadiths but only by the Quran. They were the experts on this field of the language. The decisive text in Arabic clearly shows that the wording, composition and styles of Hadiths and Quran are fundamentally too distinct as to be from the same author.

It would be very easy to bring the war on terror to an end, as it would have been easy for the pagan Arabs to end the influence of Prophet Muhammad (SAW) and His religion of Al-Islam forever by discrediting the authenticity and divine nature of the Quran. Sometime back Newsweek tried to initiate controversy in the authenticity of the Quran as have the Orientalists for centuries by trying to make the case the Prophet Muhammad was the author of the Quran. Clearly they have failed to make any progress in that arena.

The Quran is beyond doubt an original Arabic book; it was neither the work of the Arabs nor the works of Prophet Muhammad (SAW) therefore it is not the work of any known human being. Those who challenge this position must bring forward their evidence not speculation.

Yamin Zakaria

London, UK

http://yaminzakaria.blogspot.com

Published in May 2006

Copyright © 2006 by Yamin Zakaria

[1] The ancient Arabs were known for their eloquence and rhetoric. Their culture was essentially a culture of language, linguistic skills and poetry. Their yearly markets and fairs (like: Mijannah, Zul-Majaaz, Ukaaz … etc) had formal poetic and literary competitions ranked by specialist judges and juries, very much like the Greeks, who had sporting and athletic competitions instead. It was customary for the Arab tribes to send an official delegation to congratulate any other tribe for the emergence of a new poet! These facts are historically well established beyond any possible doubt, as recognized by all the Arab linguists and historians, as well as by the Orientalists.