This is my response to Yusuf Patel’s response to my earlier article on voting in the UK. Yusuf Patel is a member of HT. His response is in red and mine is in blue.
---------------------------------------
As the general election approaches in the UK, so does the debate on the issue of voting amongst the Muslim community, which primarily revolves around the question of - is it haram (unlawful under Islamic law) or halal (permitted) to vote? The opinion is largely divided into two opposing camps of, for and against voting. In Islamic law, different opinions (Ikhtilaf) can exist on a particular issue; this is inevitable when the textual evidences are not precise on the matter. Each faction will argue in favour of their adopted opinion as the strongest, and view other opinions as weak, rather than invalid.
Therefore, on this issue voting, do the opposing factions accept there is legitimate difference of opinion? The pro-voting camp in general tends to accept there is a legitimate difference of opinion, whereas the anti-voting factions do not, they consider the prohibition as categorical. Groups like Hizb-ut-Tahrir (HT) are particularly vocal on promoting this viewpoint in the UK and in other Western countries where there is a significant Muslim population.
This seem strange given that HT has already stated their sole objective is to establish the Caliphate in the Muslim world; therefore, it is difficult to see the connection between voting in the UK election, and their sacred ‘method’ of bringing about change in the distant Muslim countries. Why meddle in the internal politics of UK, if the country is outside your radar?
(Yusuf) - This is because the aims of HTB are wider than directly calling for khilafah. The future support for Khilafah is premised on a community that lives by Islam in word and deed and sees her natural affinity to the Islamic ummah and her global struggle. Voting is seen as an impediment both in terms of compliance to the hulm shar’I as well as a means of effectively integrating the Muslim community and cutting her link to the global ummah and her struggle. If this is understood, any doubts about the contradiction between the two should be assuaged.
Let us leave aside the issue of Hukm Shar’I (Islamic Ruling) which is addressed later. You seem to imply that by voting in the UK election, the Muslims will not be able to support the Khilafah (when it comes into existence) – as it will turn them effectively into lesser Muslims (maybe even non-Muslims), as they will integrate (maybe you mean assimilate) and be removed from the rest of the Muslim world in this age of instant information. Do you seriously ‘think’ that? If I recall, similar forecast was made about marching with the non-Muslims against the Iraq war. I did not see the Muslims becoming members of communist/socialist party in droves. Your party members were desperately trying to give credence to their isolationist stance as the rest of the Muslim community held together and marched. So, eventually, all the HT activists also turned up to the march in large numbers, adding to the multi-cultural atmosphere! If I recall, some people thought HTB had organized the march.
Furthermore, you are making assumptions upon assumptions. Will the Khilafah come in our life time? Will the support of the UK Muslims be vital? If so, what can they deliver?
This sort of prediction also shows that you have little regard for the Muslim community; they are not that naive as you think. On the flip side, this reflects your arrogance. Trust me they do know the ‘reality’ as well.
Friday, 23 April 2010
Wednesday, 21 April 2010
UK Election 2010 - To Vote or Not to Vote
As the general election approaches in the UK, so does the debate on the issue of voting amongst the Muslim community, which primarily revolves around the question of - is it haram (unlawful under Islamic law) or halal (permitted) to vote? The opinion is largely divided into two opposing camps of, for and against voting. In Islamic law, different opinions (Ikhtilaf) can exist on a particular issue; this is inevitable when the textual evidences are not precise on the matter. Each faction will argue in favour of their adopted opinion as the strongest, and view other opinions as weak, rather than invalid.
Therefore, on this issue voting, do the opposing factions accept there is legitimate difference of opinion? The pro-voting camp in general tends to accept there is a legitimate difference of opinion, whereas the anti-voting factions do not, they consider the prohibition as categorical. Groups like Hizb-ut-Tahrir (HT) are particularly vocal on promoting this viewpoint in the UK and in other Western countries where there is a significant Muslim population.
Thursday, 15 April 2010
New Book on Suicide Bombings
UK based writer and political commentator Yamin Zakaria has written a new book entitled Suicide Bombings - Jihad or Terrorism?
The book's promotional blurb reads:
"The primary aim of this book is designed to provoke thought on the subject which is obscured by the propaganda of conflict. It is divided into two parts. The first part analyses the various political arguments around the issue of suicide bombings, and examines corollary subject of terrorism and Jihad. In the second part, it examines the Islamic text with a view to establishing the legality of using suicide bombing as a weapon of conflict. It has been written in a manner that is aimed at Muslims and non-Muslims who are unfamiliar with the mechanism of deriving Islamic opinions. This section makes the book unique. Elaboration in this area has been lacking, the existing material is barely inadequate for Muslims let alone non-Muslims."
Tuesday, 23 March 2010
Neo-Conservative ‘Fatwa’ of Tahir-ul-Qadri
Leading Islamophobes and Zionists have naturally welcomed Dr. Qadri’s one-dimensional fatwa, condemning suicide bombing and terrorism. There was hardly any reference to the context; the ongoing Anglo-US-Israeli terrorism over the last three decades that has resulted in occupation, theft of land and natural resources, and numerous massacres of innocent Muslims (Sabra and Shatila, Qana, Jenin, Lebanon, Gaza, Fallujah, Highway of Death going towards Basra, etc). Far from a fatwa, it looks like the typical spin of a nasty neo-conservative.
If the subject of the fatwa is terrorism, then he should at least define this elusive term; according to Dr. Qadri, terrorism is targeting non-combatants, whereas ‘legitimate’ war mean targeting combatants. It is strange for man claiming to have scholarly credential, to come up with such a simplistic view of war and terrorism, which bears no relation to the real world. The methods of warfare have ‘evolved’ from the days of spears and swords, and with the use of explosives over populated cities, substantial ‘collateral’ damage is guaranteed; war means the mass killing of civilians.
Monday, 15 March 2010
Manufacturing ‘Muslim’ Extremists
The Muslim ‘extremists’ are identified by their reaction, to the belligerent actions of the British government towards the Muslim countries. In contrast, the silent majority are labelled as the moderates, as if they represent a single viewpoint on the same issue. So, who really speaks for the moderate Muslims in the UK? Sometime back, it was the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB). However, the MCB is gradually being marginalised and tainted as an extremist voice. One can speculate on the reason as being the failure of the British government to utilise the organisation effectively, in particular the failure to legitimise its foreign policies in the eyes of the Muslims.
Furthermore, the MCB did not compromise on certain basic aspects of Islam. Indeed, it would have been futile for the organisation to deny the obligation to have a Caliphate, the existence of the penal codes, the obligation to observe the Hijab; these are too well narrated in the Islamic textual sources. Similarly, the MCB also stood by the universal principle of the right to resist foreign occupation, which is also an integral part of Islam. They were not willing to issue one-sided condemnation for acts of resistance (or terrorism) from Muslims, whilst remaining silent on the atrocities committed on the people of Palestine and Iraq that predates 9/11 and 7/7!
Thus, the MCB is gradually being replaced by an amalgamation of certain Sufi groups as representative of the silent majority. But, the problem is, many of these Sufi groups tend to be spiritual, lack experience and the resolve to get involved in political affairs. When they do, it usually backfires. For example, recently a one-sided edict issued by Dr. Tahir Al-Qadri condemning all acts of resistance as terrorism, which made no reference to the Muslims facing Anglo-American terrorism on a mass scale, adding to the ongoing ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians by the Israelis. Such erroneous verdicts are not going to have any resonance amongst the Muslim population and it will be discarded.
In addition, the British government is eagerly promoting groups like the Quilliam Foundation on the back of these Sufi groups, as it manufactures a new voice of the moderate Muslims. This organisation comprises of a few individuals who flout their credential of being ex-extremists or ex-Islamists. Allegedly, they saw the light on the road to Damascus, or should I say on the road to Downing Street; it was worthwhile, they have been rewarded with cheque for 1 million pound perhaps that was the source of their vision, and thus they were born-again ex-extremists.
The British government is not on some benevolent mission to promote the opinion that best represents the silent majority of Muslims in the UK. After all, this can be easily established by simply asking them. Their mission is to manufacture an opinion that would suit its agenda, and enforce that on the silent majority, they would be bullied into submission by the propaganda process of the efficient ubiquitous mass media. Perhaps, the moderates would finally concur with Tony Blair, and admit their sins for having a false sense of grievance. Thus, the illegal war, and the killings of the Muslims in numerous places is a mirage, the only thing real is 9/11, 7/7 and of course, Iraq’s WMDs! In this information age, it is difficult to conceal the reality. In any case, historically, the Muslims always had an understanding of the real world. Whether they are radical or moderate, they knew the world was spherical, long before Christendom was struggling with Galileo or Copernicus!
Despite catapulting few individual from the Quilliam gang onto the mainstream media, they have virtually no following amongst the Muslims. More than a year has passed, and just as I predicted, the number of ‘Muslims’ (maybe I should say individuals with Muslim heritage), in their organisation has shrunk, still well below double digits. To inflate their appearance as a representative group they are deploying desperate measures; for example, they would announce their allegiance to any group that issues one-side condemnation of ‘terrorism’ whilst remaining silent on the Anglo-US terrorism in distant lands.
The media often characterises extremist organisations based on their viewpoint and numbers, the Quilliam Foundation certainly qualifies based on their numbers. In terms of their views, it is also an extremist organisation as it is at odds with the views of the vast majority of Muslims in the UK and the established rules found in the clear textual evidences. Such organisations have more in common with American-Israeli neo-conservatism then they have with Muslims.
Accordingly, the Quilliam Foundation support Anglo-US terrorism in distant lands, and modern day oil-piracy. They promote the fundamentalist policy of waging war for democracy and profit; and legitimise violence against the defenceless Muslims in Gaza, Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan. No surprise, that their works are promoted by those who are openly hostile towards Islam and Muslims.
Consider the following point to contrast the position of the real extremist organisations that ally with militant warmongering regimes, with the moderate Muslims comprising of the vocal and silent majority.
• The majority of Muslims want a world that is free from all types of terrorism emanating from individuals, groups and ‘states’, whereas the extremists are only calling for the cessation of the actions of non-state actors, whilst justify state-terrorism carried out through illegal invasion and disproportionate slaughtering of civilians.
• A nuclear free world is favoured by the Muslims, whereas the extremists favour a nuclear free Iran, and only give themselves the right to possess nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. It is fact that chemical weapons were deployed in Fallujah, as a result today we see an alarming rise in the deformities of children.
• Far from being oppressive to women, Sharia Laws provide dignity, stability and honour to women; otherwise, the Muslim women would have made apostasy en masse in the west and in the east. The number of women entering the fold of Islam is larger than men. This is something the deceptive media of the extremists continues to conceal.
• The Muslims are in favour of fair enforcement of UN resolution to all nations chronologically. They are also in favour of the General Assembly to pass and enforce UN resolution, which would be consistent with democracy and fair.
• The moderate Muslims and most non-Muslims are in favour of greater equality of the distribution of wealth, protection for the weaker members of society, whereas the extremist favour raw capitalism, which exploits the weak and the vulnerable in society.
The extremist media has concealed the real extremists. For example, Israel can slaughter the civilian population in Gaza, and yet the children fighting back with rocks and stones are tainted as militants and terrorists. The militant neo-conservatism means, one can explode bombs for democracy but not for Sharia laws. Indeed, we live in a paradoxical world; the illiterate atheists proclaim complex scientific theories as the answer to everything, and concurrently accuse the believers of being blind followers.
Yamin Zakaria (yamin@radicalviews.org)
London, UK
Published on 15/03/2010
www.radicalviews.org
http://yaminzakaria.blogspot.com
Furthermore, the MCB did not compromise on certain basic aspects of Islam. Indeed, it would have been futile for the organisation to deny the obligation to have a Caliphate, the existence of the penal codes, the obligation to observe the Hijab; these are too well narrated in the Islamic textual sources. Similarly, the MCB also stood by the universal principle of the right to resist foreign occupation, which is also an integral part of Islam. They were not willing to issue one-sided condemnation for acts of resistance (or terrorism) from Muslims, whilst remaining silent on the atrocities committed on the people of Palestine and Iraq that predates 9/11 and 7/7!
Thus, the MCB is gradually being replaced by an amalgamation of certain Sufi groups as representative of the silent majority. But, the problem is, many of these Sufi groups tend to be spiritual, lack experience and the resolve to get involved in political affairs. When they do, it usually backfires. For example, recently a one-sided edict issued by Dr. Tahir Al-Qadri condemning all acts of resistance as terrorism, which made no reference to the Muslims facing Anglo-American terrorism on a mass scale, adding to the ongoing ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians by the Israelis. Such erroneous verdicts are not going to have any resonance amongst the Muslim population and it will be discarded.
In addition, the British government is eagerly promoting groups like the Quilliam Foundation on the back of these Sufi groups, as it manufactures a new voice of the moderate Muslims. This organisation comprises of a few individuals who flout their credential of being ex-extremists or ex-Islamists. Allegedly, they saw the light on the road to Damascus, or should I say on the road to Downing Street; it was worthwhile, they have been rewarded with cheque for 1 million pound perhaps that was the source of their vision, and thus they were born-again ex-extremists.
The British government is not on some benevolent mission to promote the opinion that best represents the silent majority of Muslims in the UK. After all, this can be easily established by simply asking them. Their mission is to manufacture an opinion that would suit its agenda, and enforce that on the silent majority, they would be bullied into submission by the propaganda process of the efficient ubiquitous mass media. Perhaps, the moderates would finally concur with Tony Blair, and admit their sins for having a false sense of grievance. Thus, the illegal war, and the killings of the Muslims in numerous places is a mirage, the only thing real is 9/11, 7/7 and of course, Iraq’s WMDs! In this information age, it is difficult to conceal the reality. In any case, historically, the Muslims always had an understanding of the real world. Whether they are radical or moderate, they knew the world was spherical, long before Christendom was struggling with Galileo or Copernicus!
Despite catapulting few individual from the Quilliam gang onto the mainstream media, they have virtually no following amongst the Muslims. More than a year has passed, and just as I predicted, the number of ‘Muslims’ (maybe I should say individuals with Muslim heritage), in their organisation has shrunk, still well below double digits. To inflate their appearance as a representative group they are deploying desperate measures; for example, they would announce their allegiance to any group that issues one-side condemnation of ‘terrorism’ whilst remaining silent on the Anglo-US terrorism in distant lands.
The media often characterises extremist organisations based on their viewpoint and numbers, the Quilliam Foundation certainly qualifies based on their numbers. In terms of their views, it is also an extremist organisation as it is at odds with the views of the vast majority of Muslims in the UK and the established rules found in the clear textual evidences. Such organisations have more in common with American-Israeli neo-conservatism then they have with Muslims.
Accordingly, the Quilliam Foundation support Anglo-US terrorism in distant lands, and modern day oil-piracy. They promote the fundamentalist policy of waging war for democracy and profit; and legitimise violence against the defenceless Muslims in Gaza, Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan. No surprise, that their works are promoted by those who are openly hostile towards Islam and Muslims.
Consider the following point to contrast the position of the real extremist organisations that ally with militant warmongering regimes, with the moderate Muslims comprising of the vocal and silent majority.
• The majority of Muslims want a world that is free from all types of terrorism emanating from individuals, groups and ‘states’, whereas the extremists are only calling for the cessation of the actions of non-state actors, whilst justify state-terrorism carried out through illegal invasion and disproportionate slaughtering of civilians.
• A nuclear free world is favoured by the Muslims, whereas the extremists favour a nuclear free Iran, and only give themselves the right to possess nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. It is fact that chemical weapons were deployed in Fallujah, as a result today we see an alarming rise in the deformities of children.
• Far from being oppressive to women, Sharia Laws provide dignity, stability and honour to women; otherwise, the Muslim women would have made apostasy en masse in the west and in the east. The number of women entering the fold of Islam is larger than men. This is something the deceptive media of the extremists continues to conceal.
• The Muslims are in favour of fair enforcement of UN resolution to all nations chronologically. They are also in favour of the General Assembly to pass and enforce UN resolution, which would be consistent with democracy and fair.
• The moderate Muslims and most non-Muslims are in favour of greater equality of the distribution of wealth, protection for the weaker members of society, whereas the extremist favour raw capitalism, which exploits the weak and the vulnerable in society.
The extremist media has concealed the real extremists. For example, Israel can slaughter the civilian population in Gaza, and yet the children fighting back with rocks and stones are tainted as militants and terrorists. The militant neo-conservatism means, one can explode bombs for democracy but not for Sharia laws. Indeed, we live in a paradoxical world; the illiterate atheists proclaim complex scientific theories as the answer to everything, and concurrently accuse the believers of being blind followers.
Yamin Zakaria (yamin@radicalviews.org)
London, UK
Published on 15/03/2010
www.radicalviews.org
http://yaminzakaria.blogspot.com
Tuesday, 2 March 2010
Extremist Views of the British Media
The recent series of programme televised mainly by the BBC and Channel 4, covering the Muslims in Britain, points to a single agenda of marketing the notion of ‘extremist’ views of some Muslims. What is an extremist view? There is no open discussion on that point; any Muslim is labelled as an extremist for showing sympathy towards the oppressed masses who are fighting for ‘freedom’ in the occupied lands of Palestine, Afghanistan and Iraq.
Such views are not specific to Muslims, many non-Muslims and in particular the leftwing organisations, express similar views and sentiment on Iraq, Palestine and Afghanistan. However, they are never labelled as extremists. It means - if the white face of George Galloway is replaced with an ethnic face, then you have an extremist who has been radicalised! It is funny how George Galloway is never classed as a militant, someone who is radicalised, or an extremist, even though he expresses such opinions so candidly.
To label someone as an extremist for defending their homeland, is no different to labelling Winston Churchill as a militant, and Britain as an extremist nation for reacting against the bombing raids of the expansionist Nazi Germany. Now the situation is reverse. Britain is riding on the expansionist US and Israel. Israel extends its settlements by uprooting the Palestenians; the US extends its military bases around the world to ensure its ‘freedom’ to exploit others is maintained.
The notion of extremist views is further characterised by the media claim that such opinions are held by a minority of Muslims, and stems from extreme interpretation of the religious texts, rather than a response to the events of war, mass killing, occupation and a theft of land and resources.
Consider the typical organisation of Islam4UK with its extremist views. Majority of the Muslims and non-Muslims in this world would concur with the political views of Islam4UK, even if they did not express their allegiance to such an organisation. The proof is simple. Just examine the issue of Palestine, Afghanistan and the fabricated Iraq war; majority of the nations and people of this world consider these wars as heinous crimes committed on innocent people. If the extremist views are meant to be a minority view, then what about minority view over the Iraq war? Even the legal experts endorsing the war inside the British government, was clearly a very small minority view.
According to that criterion of minority, Britain and the US are extremists for going against world opinion by launching a war without UN authorisation. They did not have the testicles to live up to their own ideals of majority rule (democracy), by subjecting their case to the UN General Assembly vote. What about the lone veto constantly used by the US to support Israeli war crimes, a terrorist nation with extremist views that is engaged in ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians. Is that not an extremist action by the US, as it stems from a minority position?
If the extremist views were a consequence of interpretation, then it implies the views have no connection with the war, mass killings, theft of resources, and the occupation of the Muslim countries. That is absurd. How do you explain the non-Muslims who share the same ‘extremist’ views on those issues? Have they been brainwashed by the Muslim extremists?
Then comes the usual repetition of the events of 7/7 and 9/11, as if they were without any cause, marks the beginning of the history of conflict. What does 9/11 have to do with the UK? If the connection is one of, Americans are the English speaking secular and Christian brothers, then that is also applicable to Muslims in the UK who identify with the oppressed Muslims in occupied lands. As for 7/7, this is a minor event compared to the mass casualties inflicted on the innocent people of Iraq and Palestine.
The British media should know that if you throw a brick through someone’s window, retaliation would naturally follow. It may be considered an extreme view, but it is a logical view, rooted in Judeo-Christian tradition, upheld by all nations. One cannot alter this reality, no matter how many spineless moderates are lined up by the media-gun to force a constant apology. No matter how much you howl terrorism, people can see the real mass terrorism inflicted on people who have done no harm to this country. Madrid and 7/7 had a cause; they were a reaction to the direct and indirect atrocities committed by the British and the Spanish government in Iraq. Until those countries decided to join the Zionist-neo-con driven war, the Muslims have been living peacefully in both countries for decades.
Rather, the British media is engaged in the broadcast of extremist views that causes offence to the millions of Muslims and non-Muslims worldwide. Its militant journalists spread lies and hate, constantly incite violence through justifying war and carnage as self-defence; these heartless journalists write with the ink drawn from the blood of the innocent people in Iraq, Palestine and Afghanistan. They justify the fascist outlook of Blair and his ilk, who thinks killing hundreds of thousand of innocent people, is somehow a noble cause for humanity. However, even Nazis like Adolf Hitler had grounds to fight, after the disproportionate suffering inflicted on Germany through the Treaty of Versailles. What is Blair’s excuse? Is it Iraq’s WMD?
Blair and his henchmen are the real extremists, with extremist views that should be sitting with Radovan Karadzic who is a small criminal in comparison, and they should all be answering for their war crimes.
Yamin Zakaria (yamin@radicalviews.org)
London, UK
Published on 02/03/2010
www.radicalvoiews.org
http://yaminzakaria.blogspot.com
Such views are not specific to Muslims, many non-Muslims and in particular the leftwing organisations, express similar views and sentiment on Iraq, Palestine and Afghanistan. However, they are never labelled as extremists. It means - if the white face of George Galloway is replaced with an ethnic face, then you have an extremist who has been radicalised! It is funny how George Galloway is never classed as a militant, someone who is radicalised, or an extremist, even though he expresses such opinions so candidly.
To label someone as an extremist for defending their homeland, is no different to labelling Winston Churchill as a militant, and Britain as an extremist nation for reacting against the bombing raids of the expansionist Nazi Germany. Now the situation is reverse. Britain is riding on the expansionist US and Israel. Israel extends its settlements by uprooting the Palestenians; the US extends its military bases around the world to ensure its ‘freedom’ to exploit others is maintained.
The notion of extremist views is further characterised by the media claim that such opinions are held by a minority of Muslims, and stems from extreme interpretation of the religious texts, rather than a response to the events of war, mass killing, occupation and a theft of land and resources.
Consider the typical organisation of Islam4UK with its extremist views. Majority of the Muslims and non-Muslims in this world would concur with the political views of Islam4UK, even if they did not express their allegiance to such an organisation. The proof is simple. Just examine the issue of Palestine, Afghanistan and the fabricated Iraq war; majority of the nations and people of this world consider these wars as heinous crimes committed on innocent people. If the extremist views are meant to be a minority view, then what about minority view over the Iraq war? Even the legal experts endorsing the war inside the British government, was clearly a very small minority view.
According to that criterion of minority, Britain and the US are extremists for going against world opinion by launching a war without UN authorisation. They did not have the testicles to live up to their own ideals of majority rule (democracy), by subjecting their case to the UN General Assembly vote. What about the lone veto constantly used by the US to support Israeli war crimes, a terrorist nation with extremist views that is engaged in ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians. Is that not an extremist action by the US, as it stems from a minority position?
If the extremist views were a consequence of interpretation, then it implies the views have no connection with the war, mass killings, theft of resources, and the occupation of the Muslim countries. That is absurd. How do you explain the non-Muslims who share the same ‘extremist’ views on those issues? Have they been brainwashed by the Muslim extremists?
Then comes the usual repetition of the events of 7/7 and 9/11, as if they were without any cause, marks the beginning of the history of conflict. What does 9/11 have to do with the UK? If the connection is one of, Americans are the English speaking secular and Christian brothers, then that is also applicable to Muslims in the UK who identify with the oppressed Muslims in occupied lands. As for 7/7, this is a minor event compared to the mass casualties inflicted on the innocent people of Iraq and Palestine.
The British media should know that if you throw a brick through someone’s window, retaliation would naturally follow. It may be considered an extreme view, but it is a logical view, rooted in Judeo-Christian tradition, upheld by all nations. One cannot alter this reality, no matter how many spineless moderates are lined up by the media-gun to force a constant apology. No matter how much you howl terrorism, people can see the real mass terrorism inflicted on people who have done no harm to this country. Madrid and 7/7 had a cause; they were a reaction to the direct and indirect atrocities committed by the British and the Spanish government in Iraq. Until those countries decided to join the Zionist-neo-con driven war, the Muslims have been living peacefully in both countries for decades.
Rather, the British media is engaged in the broadcast of extremist views that causes offence to the millions of Muslims and non-Muslims worldwide. Its militant journalists spread lies and hate, constantly incite violence through justifying war and carnage as self-defence; these heartless journalists write with the ink drawn from the blood of the innocent people in Iraq, Palestine and Afghanistan. They justify the fascist outlook of Blair and his ilk, who thinks killing hundreds of thousand of innocent people, is somehow a noble cause for humanity. However, even Nazis like Adolf Hitler had grounds to fight, after the disproportionate suffering inflicted on Germany through the Treaty of Versailles. What is Blair’s excuse? Is it Iraq’s WMD?
Blair and his henchmen are the real extremists, with extremist views that should be sitting with Radovan Karadzic who is a small criminal in comparison, and they should all be answering for their war crimes.
Yamin Zakaria (yamin@radicalviews.org)
London, UK
Published on 02/03/2010
www.radicalvoiews.org
http://yaminzakaria.blogspot.com
Friday, 19 February 2010
Homosexuality and Zionism
Homosexuality and Zionism
If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their blood guiltiness is upon them.
- The Bible (Leviticus 20:13)
For those who will rant and rave, waving the usual politically correct card of homophobia, to stifle any discussion on this issue, need not bother reading past this sentence. They are part of the neo-liberal cabal, who are not interested in genuine free speech, and gag the opposing view by categorising it as incitement to hate. The tactics employed are identical to the Zionist dominated media that prevents any criticism of Israel, by labelling it as anti-Semitic.
Zionist-Israel is an exception. It is the only ‘democracy’ (for Jews only) in the Middle East, and the only country that has managed to portray itself as a victim of terrorism, after slaughtering 1500 civilians in Gaza in response to a few home made devices landing in their back garden. The only country that does not have to abide by UN resolutions unlike its neighbours, it has nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction, and many other privileges. Like Zionist-Israel, homosexuality is also the exception from the norm! So, are there any other common traits between Zionism and the phenomenon of homosexuality?
Regardless of one’s conviction, nobody can dispute that homosexuality is self-destructive for the human race; it works against the natural process of procreation, because the semen can only function inside the vagina of a woman, and not in the rear end of another man! For sure, no society would survive, if homosexuality or celibacy became the norm. The biggest irony is homosexuals come into existence through heterosexual activity. Therefore, the constant noise about the rights of homosexuals is meaningless, without protecting the rights of heterosexuals, to whom they owe their existence. Ask the most liberal heterosexual, he or she would never want a child that has homosexual traits, as everyone has the yearning to see their grandchildren.
Similarly, Zionism is also destructive for the human race. The fundamental doctrine of Zionism is based on the servitude and if necessary, the annihilation of the non-Jews (Goyem or Gentiles). The ends justify the means, when it comes to ‘saving’ the chosen race of God. Even though Israel with its secular pretence may claim to distance itself from the nasty Talmudic Laws, but their policies at many levels are shaped by the basic Talmudic ethos of ethnic cleansing, and terrorising the non-Jews in the region. Nobody notices the edicts of the fanatical Rabbi calling for the murder of non-Jewish infants.
Let us put the debate of – is homosexuality nature or nurture – aside for the moment. There is a need to protect all minorities; however, there is clear distinction between legal protection, and aggressively encourage something. It is difficult to fathom, why homosexuality is increasingly pushed in our heterosexual faces, to the detriment of the majority and more importantly, the danger it poses to the survival of human race. Similarly, why the constant noise about the suffering of Jews in 1945, as if they have a monopoly over this issue? It was the Japanese, the Germans and the Russians who suffered most during the Second World War. If the Israeli-Zionists were really victims of a holocaust, how can they murder innocent Palestinian civilians en masse? How can victims exhibit such heartless and cruel behaviour towards innocent civilians, who had no connection with Nazi Germany?
Like it or not, the semen belongs inside the woman’s vagina, for that is the reason why the homosexuals exist. The irony is, if they want more homosexuals they need to participate in the process of procreation. Therefore, why should the rest of humanity spend time, effort and money to give them recognition and worse propagate it, when the homosexuals have ‘deliberately’ ceased to contribute in the vital role of ensuring the continuity of the human race? At best, they may claim to have some kind of handicap for which they should be given some aid, and most certainly, they are not on par with the heterosexual community, or have the chutzpah to complain about heterosexuals who are the cause of their existence.
Then they bring forward the claim of the mysterious homosexual gene. How did the liberals with their evolutionist mantra miss this? Surely, homosexuality works against the principle of natural selection as it encourages the termination of human race. If there is such a thing as the homosexual gene, then it is a ‘liability’ for the human species, it should have been eliminated by the process of natural selection long time ago.
Another way to assess any phenomena is to examine the results, so the old Biblical statement reads, “by their fruits ye shall know them”. Can anyone point out a society that has flourished through homosexual activities? Does a homosexual couple provide a stable family unit? How can it? There is no outcome, like children, a real family and a future. In most cases homosexual relationships breaks, as they primarily attach themselves for sexual reasons; there is nothing else to keep them together permanently.
In fear of the label of homophobic, like the fear anti-Semitism, many remain silent, even though they despise the acts, find it repulsive. Let us be candid, for the normal heterosexuals, acts of homosexuality causes disgust; as does the killing of innocent and defenceless people by the descendent of the victims of Holocaust. From Adam to the last Prophet of God, Mohammed (saw), they were all healthy heterosexual men; all the texts of the Abrahamic faiths condemn acts of homosexuality unequivocally, and human reason tells us, homosexuality and Zionism is suicidal for the human race!
Yamin Zakaria (yamin@radicalviews.org)
London, UK
Published in 19th Feb 2010
www.radicalviews.org
http://yaminzakaria.blogspot.com
If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their blood guiltiness is upon them.
- The Bible (Leviticus 20:13)
For those who will rant and rave, waving the usual politically correct card of homophobia, to stifle any discussion on this issue, need not bother reading past this sentence. They are part of the neo-liberal cabal, who are not interested in genuine free speech, and gag the opposing view by categorising it as incitement to hate. The tactics employed are identical to the Zionist dominated media that prevents any criticism of Israel, by labelling it as anti-Semitic.
Zionist-Israel is an exception. It is the only ‘democracy’ (for Jews only) in the Middle East, and the only country that has managed to portray itself as a victim of terrorism, after slaughtering 1500 civilians in Gaza in response to a few home made devices landing in their back garden. The only country that does not have to abide by UN resolutions unlike its neighbours, it has nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction, and many other privileges. Like Zionist-Israel, homosexuality is also the exception from the norm! So, are there any other common traits between Zionism and the phenomenon of homosexuality?
Regardless of one’s conviction, nobody can dispute that homosexuality is self-destructive for the human race; it works against the natural process of procreation, because the semen can only function inside the vagina of a woman, and not in the rear end of another man! For sure, no society would survive, if homosexuality or celibacy became the norm. The biggest irony is homosexuals come into existence through heterosexual activity. Therefore, the constant noise about the rights of homosexuals is meaningless, without protecting the rights of heterosexuals, to whom they owe their existence. Ask the most liberal heterosexual, he or she would never want a child that has homosexual traits, as everyone has the yearning to see their grandchildren.
Similarly, Zionism is also destructive for the human race. The fundamental doctrine of Zionism is based on the servitude and if necessary, the annihilation of the non-Jews (Goyem or Gentiles). The ends justify the means, when it comes to ‘saving’ the chosen race of God. Even though Israel with its secular pretence may claim to distance itself from the nasty Talmudic Laws, but their policies at many levels are shaped by the basic Talmudic ethos of ethnic cleansing, and terrorising the non-Jews in the region. Nobody notices the edicts of the fanatical Rabbi calling for the murder of non-Jewish infants.
Let us put the debate of – is homosexuality nature or nurture – aside for the moment. There is a need to protect all minorities; however, there is clear distinction between legal protection, and aggressively encourage something. It is difficult to fathom, why homosexuality is increasingly pushed in our heterosexual faces, to the detriment of the majority and more importantly, the danger it poses to the survival of human race. Similarly, why the constant noise about the suffering of Jews in 1945, as if they have a monopoly over this issue? It was the Japanese, the Germans and the Russians who suffered most during the Second World War. If the Israeli-Zionists were really victims of a holocaust, how can they murder innocent Palestinian civilians en masse? How can victims exhibit such heartless and cruel behaviour towards innocent civilians, who had no connection with Nazi Germany?
Like it or not, the semen belongs inside the woman’s vagina, for that is the reason why the homosexuals exist. The irony is, if they want more homosexuals they need to participate in the process of procreation. Therefore, why should the rest of humanity spend time, effort and money to give them recognition and worse propagate it, when the homosexuals have ‘deliberately’ ceased to contribute in the vital role of ensuring the continuity of the human race? At best, they may claim to have some kind of handicap for which they should be given some aid, and most certainly, they are not on par with the heterosexual community, or have the chutzpah to complain about heterosexuals who are the cause of their existence.
Then they bring forward the claim of the mysterious homosexual gene. How did the liberals with their evolutionist mantra miss this? Surely, homosexuality works against the principle of natural selection as it encourages the termination of human race. If there is such a thing as the homosexual gene, then it is a ‘liability’ for the human species, it should have been eliminated by the process of natural selection long time ago.
Another way to assess any phenomena is to examine the results, so the old Biblical statement reads, “by their fruits ye shall know them”. Can anyone point out a society that has flourished through homosexual activities? Does a homosexual couple provide a stable family unit? How can it? There is no outcome, like children, a real family and a future. In most cases homosexual relationships breaks, as they primarily attach themselves for sexual reasons; there is nothing else to keep them together permanently.
In fear of the label of homophobic, like the fear anti-Semitism, many remain silent, even though they despise the acts, find it repulsive. Let us be candid, for the normal heterosexuals, acts of homosexuality causes disgust; as does the killing of innocent and defenceless people by the descendent of the victims of Holocaust. From Adam to the last Prophet of God, Mohammed (saw), they were all healthy heterosexual men; all the texts of the Abrahamic faiths condemn acts of homosexuality unequivocally, and human reason tells us, homosexuality and Zionism is suicidal for the human race!
Yamin Zakaria (yamin@radicalviews.org)
London, UK
Published in 19th Feb 2010
www.radicalviews.org
http://yaminzakaria.blogspot.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)