Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

newmember

Advanced Members
  • Content Count

    10
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. Salam brothers and sisters, I am giving a talk soon in Germany, and I need your help. I am looking for verses from the Quran or ahadeeth that talk about globalisation, internationalisation and openness to trade in Islam. What I found so far are: "ÃØáÈæÇ ÇáÚáã æáæ Ýí ÇáÕí " - “Seek knowledge, in [places as far as] China”. "íÇ ÃíåÇ ÇáäÇÓ ÅäÇ ÎáÞäÇßã ãä ÐßÑ æÃäËì æÌÚáäÇßã ÔÚæÈÇ æÞÈÇÆá áÊÚÇÑÝæ" - "Oh ye people, We have created you male and female, and appointed you nations and tribes to get to know one another". Your help is greatly appreciated as I know people will try and criticise Islam on those points.
  2. Thanks. I live in London - UK. How about the 2 links I posted? I heard they are good. Anyone knows about those organisations?
  3. Salam all, I want to donate money for the Palestinian cause but I'm not sure what organisation to go for? Help would be appreciated. Else, are there different options as to how we can contribute? i.e. donate money, sponsor a child, etc? I heard http://al-awda.org.uk/ and http://www.lifeusa.org/29%20M52087573ab0.html are good. Anyone familiar with them? Jazakum Allah khair.
  4. U.S. military chiefs enraged by cartoon: In a move that is without precedence in recent memory, all six members of the military’s Joint Chiefs of Staff have signed a letter complaining to Washington Post managing editor Phil Bennett about a recent political cartoon. The January 29th cartoon by Tom Toles depicts a wounded soldier, missing his arms and legs and with his head bandaged, in his hospital bed. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is standing next to the bed, saying, “I am listing your condition as battle hardened.” The cartoon is a reference to comments Rumsfeld made last Wednesday, January 25th, in which he blasted critics who said that America’s military was stretched too thin, saying they didn’t understand the state of the “battle-hardened” military. “We believe you and Mr. Toles have done a disservice to your readers and your paper’s reputation by using such a callous depiction of those who have volunteered to defend this nation, and, as a result, have suffered traumatic and life-altering wounds,” the letter says. “Using the likeness of a service member who has lost his arms and legs in war as the central theme of a cartoon is beyond tasteless.” The Joint Chiefs noted that the Post and cartoonists like Toles are “obviously free to address any topic, including the state of readiness of today’s Armed Forces.” Nevertheless, the letter explains: “While you or some of your readers may not agree with the war or its conduct, we believe you owe the men and women and their families who so selflessly serve our country the decency to not make light of their tremendous physical sacrifices....” "....As the Joint Chiefs, it is rare that we all put our hand to one letter, but we cannot let this reprehensible cartoon go unanswered,” the letter concludes. It is signed by Marine Corps General Peter Pace, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, along with Navy Admiral Edmund P. Giambastiani Jr., the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, as well as Commandant of the Marine Corps Michael W. Hagee, Army Chief of Staff Peter J. Schoomaker, Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Michael G. Mullen, and Air Force Chief of Staff General T. Michael Moseley..... http://www.washingtonian.com/inwashington/...006/24star.html The offending cartoon:
  5. I appreciate the concerns that you are raising, however, maybe you are holding an 'anxious' opinion governed in part by the erratic utterances - real and invented - of the current Iranian leadership. You ask: "I mean, why on earth are they enriching uranium for? Nuclear powerplants? Why would they want those with all that oil lying around?" The degree of suspicion in the question is O.K., but your suggestion that Iran is awash with oil is less so. The truth is that oil stocks, in all producing countries, are finite and it makes sense to develop alternative energy sources. http://news.independent.co.uk/business/ana...ticle339347.ece As an alternative to invading and occupying other countries, militarily controlling oil producing regions, installing pliant regimes and fomenting coups in various nations the development of a nuclear energy capacity seems a rather sensible step to take when confronting the realities that gas guzzling cannot go on forever. (The late 'Shah of Persia' opined that oil was too precious to burn): http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1129-32.htm I've seen estimates for the potential life of Iran's oil stocks that suggest depletion in anything between 20 and 90 years. Given the global demand for oil, the suggestion that oil stocks will run out in a mere 10 years should be focussing more than Iranian minds on alternative energy sources: http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/...2005100431.html http://www.theinsider.org/news/article.asp?id=0423 I have no wish to trouble you late in your evening but Michael T. Klare's work 'Resource Wars' paints a fairly grim picture of what we can expect as reckless consumption with no regard for future generations depletes the earth of more resources than just oil. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/080505576...glance&n=283155 Thanks to the ubiquitous Abdul Qadeer Khan we have no real idea of what technological prowess the Iranians have, nor can we know for sure their long term intentions. But that is what the IAEA is for, that is what its controls are for and so far Iran has done nothing illegal under IAEA guidelines. Should Iran be 'allowed' to develop a legal, monitored nuclear energy programme? If not, why not, and if so, isn't everything they have done so far not just a part of that process? It's one thing to focus on the volatility of the Iranian leadership, it's another to allow that to perhaps blur the acknowledgement that the Iranian people have a perfect right to develop energy sources that don't leave them sitting on a hollowed out patch of ground without enough energy to power a light bulb. Suspicion of the current regime's intentions is being fanned by the U.S. and Israel as this helps the issue slot into place with their own energy and security concerns. The future of the Iranian people deserves more consideration than to be governed by a whipped up conflict fuelled by 'if, maybe or perhaps'. Surely the debate should start with Iran's legitimate right to develop alternative energy resources and a just solution found in that regard rather than be diverted into a manufactured crisis that promises only misery? Only last August it was revealed that U.S. intelligence agencies were concluding in private that Iran was 'at least ten years away from a nuclear bomb'. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...0101453_pf.html A few months later and the Iranians are being portrayed as sly and sinister people almost on the brink of nuke production. Why do you think this is? There has to be a balance struck between Iran's legitimate rights and needs and the concerns of others but treating the Iranians as though they should be denied an energy programme that other nations take for granted is no solution at all.
  6. The Pentagon has forbidden U.S. soldiers from buying their own body armor, a type that is superior to that officially issued by the U.S. military. A big Repubican donor owns major stock in the company that holds a sole supplier contract for all body armor sold to the Pentagon. Such a story wouldn't be complete without the usual twist of American hypocrisy - top U.S. military officers are using the superior armor that the rank and file are no longer allowed to purchase. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/1/16/133331/558 Meanwhile, the U.S. troops aren't even getting enough of the 'officially approved' armor http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/con...n-apconnecticut http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20060113/...wN5bnN1YmNhdA-- Why the delay? Why, because someone wants to make more money, that's why. That seems to be more important than dead American soldiers. A recent secret Pentagon study into a sample of U.S. Marine deaths in Iraq revealed that 80% of the dead could have been saved by better body armor: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10789839/ It seems that U.S. military and political figures care as little about their own people as they do about the people of Iraq. Once again, follow the money.
  7. What is is like? Does it attack Islam blatantly? Does it attack Islam at all? I ask because of an article I read a few years ago that I came across again. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2304179.stm Monday, 7 October, 2002 The Reverend Jerry Falwell, a leading member of the Southern Baptist Convention, said in a US television interview that Mohammed was a violent man and a man of war. "This insult to the holy Prophet Mohammed by a Christian priest is part of a propaganda war by the US mass media and the Zionists," Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharazi said. Mr Falwell has also been denounced by Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad and Muslim groups in the US who urged mainstream American leaders not to remain silent. The interview with Mr Falwell was shown on CBS television's "60 Minutes" programme. Inflammatory Jerry Falwell "I think Mohammed was a terrorist. I read enough...by both Muslims and non-Muslims (to decide) he was a violent man, a man of war," Mr Falwell said.
  8. Downing Street has denied for the first time claims US President George Bush had to be talked out of bombing the TV station al-Jazeera by Tony Blair. Tony Blair's official spokesman said a memo about the Bush-Blair conversation does not refer to bombing al-Jazeera. The Daily Mirror reported in November the memo showed Mr Bush had considered taking such action in 2004. The denial came after al-Jazeera applied to see the relevant part of the memo under freedom of information laws. 'Firm denial' At the time of the original story a Downing Street spokesman said: "We have got nothing to say about this story. We don't comment on leaked documents." The White House said at the time the story was "outlandish". On Tuesday, the Downing Street spokesman said: "We are saying this because a specific allegation, despite our firm denial, has been repeated over and over again." Launched in 1996, al-Jazeera is best known outside of the Arab world for carrying exclusive al-Qaeda messages. The station is based in Qatar, a close ally of Washington's and the location of US military headquarters during the Iraq war. http://www.bbc.co.uk
  9. I think its a matter of when rather than if. I also think that it will be faught in the Middle East or stem from the Middle East. What does everyone think?
  10. Official US agency paints dire picture of 'out-of-control' Iraq · Analysis issued by USAid in reconstruction effort · Account belies picture painted by White House An official assessment drawn up by the US foreign aid agency depicts the security situation in Iraq as dire, amounting to a "social breakdown" in which criminals have "almost free rein". The "conflict assessment" is an attachment to an invitation to contractors to bid on a project rehabilitating Iraqi cities published earlier this month by the US Agency for International Development (USAid). The picture it paints is not only darker than the optimistic accounts from the White House and the Pentagon, it also gives a more complex profile of the insurgency than the straightforward "rejectionists, Saddamists and terrorists" described by George Bush.... http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1688730,00.html How difficult it must be for the American people to arrive at any clear understanding of the situation in Iraq when the spin, lies and propaganda being disseminated by their administration, their military, and the clandestine groups funded by the U.S. government being paid millions of dollars to plant false stories in the Iraqi media (to be recycled to the poor, gullible Americans as 'good news') that finds its way into U.S. media is in direct contrast to the dark and negative reports being given to the U.S. administration by its own agencies. The American people are fed the 'official, spun version' by a largely compliant U.S. media (with some honorable exceptions), while the real facts are suppressed, surfacing on occasion in non-U.S. or Arab media long before the facts emerge in the U.S.A. Even the kneee-jerk dismissals of the veracity of Arab media coming from certain Americans are prompted by 'what they are told' for in truth few can read or speak Arabic (or Farsi for that matter), so have no personal ability to assess the accuracy or otherwise of Arabic newspaper, TV, radio or online news reports. This state of affairs - the official lies being used to shape and influence the opinion of an American public ignorant of facts on the ground - has marked the Iraq conflict throughout its existence. It is remarkable how, having seen its administration, intelligence agencies and military caught out in lie after lie, over and over again, any section of U.S. society can continue to place any faith whatsoever in the utterances of White House and Pentagon spokespersons. And yet, bless them, many of them do blindly and uncritically cling to 'the official version', a version that the article cited above, along with a great many others, reveals is not borne out by facts on the ground at all. U.S. propaganda has had scant success in winning Arab 'hearts and minds' but perhaps that is not its primary purpose. It seems clear that the painting of rosy pictures with regard to Iraq is geared more towards trying to convince an uneducated American public to support its illegal, immoral actions in Iraq and elsewhere. How can any U.S. citizen have confidence in an administration that is trying to manipulate his or her opinion while simultaneously in possession of facts that are in stark contrast to the lies and propaganda being fed to the American public?
×
×
  • Create New...