|
|
|
In the Name of God بسم الله
Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'united states'.
Found 14 results
-
JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was forced on Wednesday to deny a report his government had approved a shipment of weapons to Palestinian security forces after hard-right ministers in his coalition expressed outrage. Israel's Army Radio reported that the United States had supplied 1,500 assault rifles to Palestinian security services in the occupied West Bank with Israel approving the deal on condition the weapons be used against the militant Hamas and Islamic Jihad groups. Hardline Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, whose party backs policies favouring nationalist settler groups, reacted angrily, demanding that Netanyahu issue a public denial, while his coalition ally, Finance Minister Bezalel Smothrich, was reported by Israeli media to be "seething". this sounds crazy!!!! -
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2019/08/08/us/Iraq-jimmy-aldaoud-deport.amp.html What a system they enforce, what a world they have made. MAGA...
- 4 replies
-
- 4
-
-
-
-
- ice
- United States
- (and 1 more)
-
Read the Reddit comments to understand what the thread was about, since the post has since been deleted. ....................................................................................... I'm so tired of the utterly nonsensical and VERY COMMON Sunni notion of 'I am happy to seek unity with Shias as long as they don't curse/insult/abuse any Sahaba, and especially NOT Aisha, Abu Bakr, Omar, Uthman. Firstly, any Shia claim regarding the sahabi that happens to go against the Sunni narrative is considered insulting. Secondly, and more importantly, is that the same notion is true for Shias... You are insulting the Ahlul Bayt by not accepting them as divinely appointed leaders of Allah, and infallible individuals, and perfect preservers of the religion of Islam, and a high means of seeking closeness to Allah (intercession). Not only are you insulting revered Shia figures by not following them, you are commiting MAJOR shirk by giving a false attribute to Allah, by saying that Allah has not always appointed an infallible leader on this Earth, and that there currently isn't an infallible leader. Furthermore, the real kicker is that plenty of revered Shia figures, such as Abu Talib (رضي الله عنه), are considered kuffar by Sunnis. Is this not insulting? So, how can we Shias unite with Sunnis based on their own fallacious logic? Shias are the minority, and Sunnis are the majority. It makes Sunnis think that they are Orthodox and that they have to unite with Heterodox for political and humanitarian reasons, and that Shias must make [ridiculous] compromises. Shias are far more receptive to the unity message, because we actually understand Sunni Islam, and can see the commonalities. We understand that we can't make Sunnis compromise on their beliefs. Simply by being the minority within Islam, by nature we Shias already understand Sunni beliefs, whereas Sunnis have a basic strawman understanding of Shia beliefs... which is natural, considering that they are the majority. Anyways, the point of my post is the following: Let's compile a list of revered Shia figures that are not given their proper status by Sunnis, according to Shia Islam... with an explanation given. ...This is to show that we Shias and Sunnis can unite, but we cannot unite upon revered figures and imamah. ...This will also serve as a way of showing Sunnis that this argument of theirs makes no sense. Another important question we may ask is "What about commonly revered figures like Imam Ali (عليه السلام) who is given different status in both sects? Can we unite upon Imam Ali (عليه السلام)?" ...a common Sunni criticism of political unity is that "Ali ibn Abi Talib (رضي الله عنه) is given an improper status in Shia religion because they call upon him... tawassul (intercession) of the 'dead' is Shirk! So there is absolutely no room for unity since we can't even agree on the status of the sahabi" [yes, I am aware that the Imams (عليه السلام) are still alive, but Sunnis don't believe this...] I would love to hear your thoughts. Wassalam. JazakAllah Khair. Fi sabilillah. -
Salam to all, So I have been going back and forth with myself for the past few months about whether I should vote or not in the upcoming mid term elections. I am registered to vote as a Democrat but I am not that enthusiastic about the choice of candidates, as usual. None of them support my values, which are based on Islam. I am registered as a Democrat because I tend to believe in more of the party platform, although there are many issues which are 'required' for democrats which I totally disagree with, such as Democrats full throated support for and promotion of 'alternative lifestyles' such as LGBTQ...lets keep adding letters till we get the whole alphabet, and conflating this with Civil Rights issues. Also, the stand of the Democratic Party on abortion, which is against Islam. Both parties are completely in the pocket of the Zionist state as well as the Corporate Kleptocracy. At the same time, Trump has been a complete and utter disaster for the country and I would like to do anything I can to weaken his control over the country. If I do vote, that is the reason why I would, but I don't know if that's a legitimate reason. Any advice from knowledgeable brothers and sisters would be helpful at this point.
- 244 replies
-
- 2
-
-
-
- elections
- united states
- (and 1 more)
-
Hi all, I've started a commentary podcast on a vlog channel I have on YouTube and I'd like to share the link for you all. The first discussion with my friend, a European psychologist, involves the economic underpinnings of the Saudi Women Driving campaign. Feel free to drop me some feedback. YouTube video link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BG54zHlNd3E As congestion and emission concerns in the mobility sector have accelerated policies to reduce car ownership and enhance 'Green' economies of scale in Western Europe and the United States, client export markets in West Asia are increasingly instructed by hegemonies in the core to stimulate higher volume imports of ICE vehicles. Recently in Saudi Arabia, regulatory obstacles stemming from the country's religious class were removed in an effort to enlarge supply and demand mechanisms. The debate about women driving in Saudi Arabia began in the 1980s, and resulted in prohibitions by Ibn Baz and al-Uthaymeen who declared women's driving an opportunity for corruption and an invitation for Muslim women to imitate other impious women. Citing Quranic verses on modesty and the veil, Ibn Baz reached the conclusion that women should not be allowed to travel alone or with a non-mahram driver, and that under no circumstances should be allowed to drive cars (Al-Rasheed, 2013). This obstacle became not only an inconvenience for Saudi women, but also for major US and semi-peripheral Japanese car manufacturers. With the gradual decline of an American empire, the increasing difficulty and failures of imperialist war to break open markets and the forging of trade and physical walls, the Trump administration has reiterated repeatedly that "Saudi Arabia must pay." It must not only pay for patronage, security and the continued American regional presence, but also for trade inefficiencies that have been tolerated and have persisted for decades. This commentary podcast suggests that in concert with the white feminist movement, mainstream political parties and newspapers, neoliberal NGOs, Saudis in exiles and domestic compradors, the American State Department has spearheaded a new mode of policy framing modeled after the Torches of Freedom campaign initiated by Edward Bernays in 1929. In that campaign, Bernays, a public relations mogul, teamed up with American feminist groups and linked the prohibition of women smoking in the United States to their lack of emancipation, paying female actors to smoke in public in an effort to increase the American Tobacco Company's market share. This podcast further suggests that by means of a coordinated public relations campaign, car manufacturers such as Ford and GM are the real 'winners' of #SaudiWomenDriving. Retrospectively, it argues that the people of Saudi Arabia are the unintended victims of surplus extraction by Western capitalists and of consumerism, all whilst being discouraged to consider the domestic means of production in Saudi Arabia's automotive sector.- 5 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- saudi arabia
- saudiwomendriving
- (and 4 more)
-
In light of the 18th school shooting in the United States this year (and it's only mid-February) I've been seeing a lot of posts on Facebook and Twitter about gun violence and gun laws in the United States. Invariably, someone will assert that the government can't regulate firearms - the Second Amendment to the Constitution forbids it. They need to familiarize themselves with the actual text of the Constitution, not the propaganda. Actually, the second amendment specifically spells out gun control. Note the words "well regulated". Amendment II A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. So who is the regulator? Believe it or not, those foresighted men who wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights covered that too. Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. So each state can regulate who can or can not join a militia, or each locality, or if We the People have another idea who should regulate, we can do that too. The point is the militia must be well regulated. The Constitution doesn't spell out anyone's right to protect their home from burglars or to hunt deer or turkeys; to be honest, those probably fall under "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". The Constitution guarantees your right to join a well regulated militia for the purpose of national defense. It does not guarantee the right of each individual to own and use firearms, any more than it guarantees a right to libel or blackmail with the first amendment. https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights-transcript
-
https://ahvalnews.com/sdf/pentagon-allocates-550-million-sdf The Pentagon has announced that it will allocate $550 million of its 2019 budget to the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), a group that Turkey views as linked to a terrorist entity, the Turkish state-rune Anadolu Agency reported on Monday. The budget will include $300 million to train and equip the SDF, and a further $250 million for a contentious “border force” that is being set up to guard the regional borders. The United States sees the SDF as a multi-ethnic force that is an indispensable ally in the coalition against the extremist jihadist Islamic State (ISIS). However, the force is organically linked to the predominantly-Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG), a group seen by Turkey as the Syrian wing of the banned Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK). The Turkish armed forces have been involved in decades of armed conflict with the PKK, which is designated as a terrorist organisation by both Turkey and the United States. Turkey is currently fighting the YPG in the northwest Syrian area of Afrin, in an operation that has sparked high tensions between the country and its NATO ally the United States, after Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan threatened to extend the operation to nearby Manbij, where U.S. troops are stationed. -
This is a long article by the BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-36431160 The thing to remember is that U.S. government disclosures at the time and BBC news were managed with specific policy goals in mind. Today the release of some documents (and very likely not others) is likely to present a partial and policy directed view of history, rather than what appears at first glance as a dispassionate and neutral perspective.
-
(bismillah) (salam) Does anyone know if it is legal for an American citizen to adopt a child from Iran?
-
-
- 3
-
-
- united states
- canada
- (and 2 more)
-
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/mayor-police-pursuing-active-shooter-chattanooga-tenn-32494939
-
Recently in a discussion on these boards an argument was made that how Iran and India are great countries because they don't get dictated to by the foreign powers. It was said to get to the Pakistanis who can't think straight because of their country's history of taking foreign dictation. While there are no two opinions about this in the case of Iran, and whereas Pakistan has often acted like a US client state, one has to question the assumption behind extolling India's position vis-a-vis foreign dictation. The easiest way is to compare Iran's and India's relations with the US for the last couple of decades to see through the argument. The United States had always viewed Indian (and Pakistani) nuclear programs as a threat to the West and its allies. But in early 1990s when India was reeling under IMF loans and US sanctions, the then Indian government entered into back channel talks to convince them that Indian nukes were not a threat to the US or the West and asked for the sanctions to be lifted. Americans bluntly told them to normalise relations with Israel to prove their sincerity. India complied. Magically, literally overnight, Indian nukes stopped being a threat and an era of US-Indian strategic partnership was entered into. This partnership got a fresh boost about which you can read the links below. Pakistan was told to follow Indian example when the US imposed sanctions after nuclear tests in the late 90s but Pakistanis refused. Which was unusual since Pakistan is supposed to be a client state in the Saudi model, doing what the Americans demand, but here the usual Indian and Pakistani roles vis-a-vis foreign dictation were reversed. This also tells us that foreign dictation is not an either/or proposition. Most developing countries are pushed to find a balance to resist dictation of powerful countries while at the same preserve their country's interests. Some countries are more successful in this than the others, depending on their internal politics, size and geostrategic location. Note that India is not a signatory to NPT (Nuclear non-proliferation treaty) whereas Iran is but we still get the following: Why? Because of this: It may be argued that the current Indian foreign policy is in line with its interests, that India doesn't need to keep speaking against injustice to harm its own interests. So its strategic partnership with the US and Israel is understandable. This may so but the pied pipers of Incredible India™ on these boards should be consistent when they criticise those camps that support US hegemony in the region through its Zionist proxy, and those that don't. Or those that exist to take foreign dictation (Saudi et al) and those that don't (Iran, Syria, Russia). There is a reason that, of all the emerging powers in the region (China, Russia, India), it is the latter which is a US strategic partner and not others. A useful summary from wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India%E2%80%93Israel_relations
- 3 replies
-
- 5
-
-
- modi
- united states
- (and 6 more)
-
Yup, exactly proves Islam's point on why gambling is haram. Show this video to any of your family members who play the lottery or gamble. **Warning Profanity, Non-Hijabi's, Music is used ****
-
- 33 replies
-
- 2
-
-
- iran
- united states
- (and 7 more)
-
Recently Browsing 0 members
- No registered users viewing this page.