Yâ Hâbib Yâ Sâhib al-Qadam

Current IssuesNovember 2, 2006 11:43 pm



Are we missing something here? The Danish cartoon caricatures of Muhammad, Peace Be Upon Him, were apparently a freedom of expression. The quote by Pope Benedict was a freedom of scholarly opinion, and Jack Straw MP was exercising his freedom to chose whether he wanted to speak with veiled or unveiled women. Only recently, teaching assistant Aishah Azmi was oppressed and intimidating according to many ordinary members of the public who emailed various news websites with their comments. If we’re not mistaken then, the name of the game has been freedom to speak your mind recently has it not?

So where’s the problem with calling women “immodestly dressed” or “uncovered meat” as Taj el Din Hilali recently did? Why does Australian premier John Howard think “what he’s done is so unacceptable” is this not a freedom of expression. If a member of the clergy in the UK were to say the same of Muslim women, would his diocese suspend him in the same way the Sydney Mosque Association has Taj el Din Hilali? Where is the back bone of such Muslims, but more importantly why no media frenzy or social uproar about protecting the right to speak, even ridicule as many commentators have argued in the past. While MPACUK in no way supports the comments of Taj el Din Hilali, it seems as though it is okay to make comment of what ever kind against Islam and Muslims, dress it up in freedom of speech and expression, but not so when the shoe is on the other foot. Amazing!

Australia Muslim cleric suspended

Australia’s top Muslim cleric has been barred from preaching for up to three months, after comparing immodestly dressed women to "uncovered meat".

Sheikh Taj el-Din al-Hilali’s comments, suggesting that women who did not wear a headscarf attracted sexual assault, have caused a storm of protest. Sydney’s mosque association said the suspension would give the cleric time to consider the impact of his words. But Australian Premier John Howard said the action was insufficient. Many people - including some Muslim leaders - have called for the cleric to be dismissed from office. Sheikh Hilali sparked more controversy on Friday when, asked by reporters if he would resign, he responded: "After we clean the world of the White House first." His comments, made outside his mosque in Sydney after Friday prayers, prompted a round of applause from supporters.

Apology

Sheikh Hilali’s comments about women’s dress were delivered in a sermon to some 500 worshippers in Sydney last month, during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan.
But it was not until they were published in The Australian newspaper on Thursday that a wave of anger was unleashed. "If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside… and the cats come and eat it… whose fault is it, the cats’ or the uncovered meat?" Sheikh Hilali is quoted as asking during the sermon. The uncovered meat is the problem, he went on to say.

"If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab [headscarf], no problem would have occurred," he added. Sheikh Hilali has since apologised for his comments, which he said had been misinterpreted and taken out of context. "I unreservedly apologise to any woman who is offended by my comments. I had only intended to protect women’s honour," he said in a statement published in The Australian. "Women in our Australian society have the freedom and the right to dress as they choose," he added. Muslim leaders decided to accept his apology and said that no action would be taken against the cleric. Mosque Association president Tom Zreika said the board was "basically satisfied with the notion that certain statements made by the mufti [were] misrepresented".

"We felt the three months away would give him time to mull over what’s been said," Mr Zreika told reporters. But many other Australians feel more action should be taken against Sheikh Hilali. "I believe that unless this matter is satisfactorily resolved by the Islamic community, there is a real worry that some lasting damage will be done," Prime Minister John Howard told Australian radio. "I think what he’s done is so unacceptable and so out of line with not only mainstream Australian opinion but… mainstream Muslim opinion." "I know how strongly many Islamic community people felt about those comments yesterday, how damaging they saw them in terms of Australian-Islamic relations," added Federal Sex Discrimination Commissioner Pru Goward. "I think the pressure should not be taken off just because he has agreed to be silent for three months."

Sheikh Hilali has courted controversy in the past, claiming in a 2004 sermon that the September 2001 attacks in the US had been "God’s work against oppressors".

Source: BBC

Current Issues 11:13 pm



Starting from the oldest:

1. On October 29, 1948, when Israeli brigades captured the village of Safsaf. The known details of the massacre come to us via several contemporary second-hand Zionist reports and via Arab oral history. Yosef Nachmani, a senior officer in the Haganah (and later the director of the Jewish National Fund in Eastern Galilee), recorded in his diary what he was told by Immanuel Friedman, a representative of the Minority Affairs ministry:

In Safsaf, after … the inhabitants had raised a white flag, the [soldiers] collected and separated the men and women, tied the hands of fifty-sixty fellahin [peasants] and shot and killed them and buried them in a pit. Also, they raped several women… (quoted in Zertal, 2005, p. 171; see also Morris, 2005, p. 500).

Moshe Erem reported on the massacre to a meeting of the Mapam Political Committee but his words were censored from the minutes. According to the notes taken by another person present, Erem spoke of:

Safsaf 52 men tied together with a rope. Pushed down a well and shot. 10 killed. Women pleaded for mercy. 3 cases of rape . . . . A girl of 14 raped. Another four killed (Morris, 2004, p. 500).

These accounts in broad detail are supported by Palestinian witnesses who told their stories to historians.

2. On October 29, 1948 (same day and year of above massacre), the Arab town al-Dawayima was conquered by Israeli terrorist groups known as Irgun and Lehi.


An unnamed Israeli soldier told this version: “The first wave of conquerors killed about 80 to 100 Arabs, women and children. The children they killed by breaking their heads with sticks. There was not a house without dead.”

Meron Benvenisti writes:

Atrocities and acts of brutality characterised this period: summary executions, rape, blowing up houses along with their occupants, looting and plundering, and leaving hundreds of villages to their own devices in the fields, without food or water. The most serious atrocities were committed in the village of Al-Dawayima on the western slopes of the Hebron Highlands. This large village, with a population of some 3,500 was taken on 29 October, 1948. The occupying forces indiscriminately killed between 80 and 100 males villagers, blew up houses together with their occupants, murdered women and children, and committed rape. According to eyewitness testimony, these acts were committed “not in the heat of battle and inflamed passions, but out of a system of expulsion and destruction. The fewer Arabs remained — the better.”

3. On October 29, 1956, during the Suez Crisis, Israeli Border Police started at 4 pm what they called a tour in Kafr Qasim town (also known as Kafr Qassem, Kufur Kassem and Kafar Kassem). They told the Mukhtars (Aldermen) of the town that the curfew from that day onwards was to start from 5 pm until 6 am next morning. They reached Kafr Qasem around 4:45 pm and informed the Mukhtar who protested that there are about 400 villagers working outside the town and there is no enough time to inform them of the curfew timings. An officer assured him that they will be taken care of.

The guards waited at the entrance to the town. 43 Kafr Qasem inhabitants were massacred in cold blood by the army as they returned from work. Their crime was violating a curfew they did not know about. On the northern entrance of the town 3 were killed and 2 were killed inside of the town. Amongst the dead were men, women, and children. Lutanat Danhan was touring the area in his jeep reporting the massacre, on his wireless he said “minus 15 Arabs” after a while his message on the radio to his H.Q. was “it is difficult to count.”

Interestingly enough, on Nov. 11, 1956, Prime Minister Ben Gurion told the cabinet about the Kfar Qasim massacre. He said:

“We have a wonderful army, but it appears that sometimes there are incidents and circumstances that make people lose their minds.”

On March 28, 2001, Ha’aretz published some excerpts from this cabinet meeting.

Ha’aretz March 28, 2001
Excerpts from the State Archives, Jerusalem.

The Kfar Kassem massacre took place on October 29, 1956, but it reverberates through Israeli political culture to this day. The following transcripts, from the state archives, depict David Ben-Gurion’s government as shocked, contrite - and worried about how the news of the event will reflect on Israel overseas. At one point, Ben-Gurion regrets that Israel “gave up the death penalty too soon.” At one point, he indicated that he was inclined to accept the idea of the two sergeants in the case being hanged in the village square of Kfar Kassem.(Please note that the initials G.M. that occasionally appear in this text refer to Guy Ma’ayan, a historian. His review of “Kfar Kassem: Events and Myths,” by Rubik Rosenthal, appears in today’s Hebrew Book Review.)

Protocols of the government session, 7 Heshvan, 5757, (November 11, 1956).

Source: State Archives, Jerusalem.

Participants: Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion (Mapai), Finance Minister Levi Eshkol (Mapai), Foreign Minister Golda Meir (Mapai), Interior Minister Yisrael Bar-Yehuda (Ahdut Avoda), Health Minister Yisrael Barzilai (Mapam), Police Minister Bechor Shalom-Sheetrit (Mapai), Housing Minister Mordechai Bentov (Mapam), Welfare Minister Peretz Naftali (Mapai). Central District IDF Commander Zvi Tzur.

Ben-Gurion: I now must report on a uniquely horrible and regrettable incident, the scandal that took place in three villages in the Triangle: Kfar Kassem, Jeljoulya, and Taibe. On October 29, the central command issued an order to place a curfew on the villages in that area. The order itself was proper. The villagers (who knew of the curfew - G.M.) obeyed the order. There was a curfew from five in the afternoon until six in the morning. But there were villagers who were outside the villages and they returned in the morning, after the curfew went into effect - they were shot and killed. There were children and women. I first heard about this on November 1.

Barzilai: What’s the overall number?

Ben-Gurion: Forty-seven. Seventeen were women and children. I immediately decided to order an inquiry. I immediately asked the Supreme Court President to name a judge. He advised me to take Binyamin Zohar, whom I named as chairman and added attorney Hoter-Yishai and Abba Hushi. I asked them to quickly investigate: a) the circumstances of the events in the villages on October 29; b) the degree of responsibility of the Border Patrolmen, officers, sergeants and troops, and if they should be charged and tried. I received word that everything done was the responsibility of the Border Patrol, but that’s not true, because the Border Patrol at the time was under the command of the army; c) The compensation the government must pay to the families that suffered as a result of the Border Patrolmen’s behavior.

The committee delivered a report. According to the report, Brigade 17 commander (Col. Yashka Shedmi - G.M.) gave the order (to kill the curfew breakers - G.M.). He denies he gave such an order, since the order was given in private to regimental commander 2 (sic) Shmuel Melinki. The order said apply the curfew from five in the evening to six in the morning - and notify everyone in the village. But the bus showed up and it knew nothing about the matter. When the passengers alighted, they were shot and killed. According to the inquiry, one thing remains in doubt. The committee have given the brigade commander the benefit of the doubt, because the brigadier denies he gave such an order to the regiment commander. But they decided the regimental commander is responsible for the order to shoot. They also found that those who followed the orders are responsible for obeying an illegal order. All of them were court martialed. I am sorry there are also Druze among the accused. In my view, they are not guilty. They got an order. It’s impossible to demand of a Druze that he decide if the order is legal or illegal.

Bentov: How many people were put on trial?

Ben-Gurion: The regimental commander, his deputy (Gavriel Dahan - G.M.), sergeants and troops. Those who gave the order and those who obeyed. Since I asked the committee to prepare the report quickly, they did not accomplish one request, concerning who should get compensation. They suggest the immediate appointment of another committee to look into the matter, but that meanwhile a base sum of IL 1,000 be paid to every family that suffered in this matter, and that the IL 1,000 later be discounted from the overall compensation.

I want to commend the police minister, who immediately went to the village and spoke with the village leaders expressing the government’s sorrow, telling them that an inquiry had been appointed, informing them that the people would be tried, and severely punished, and the families would get compensation. Now I suggest the treasury make ready the entire amount. There will certainly be a need of IL 50,000 or IL 60,000, and that every family be paid immediately. It may turn out that the new committee decides on more money. I suggest the justice minister appoint the compensation committee.

Meir: Is the court martial over?

Ben-Gurion: Not yet.

Bentov: Will their be an announcement about this?

Ben-Gurion: We have to take counsel on this. I doubt whether it is possible to hide such an affair, even though it is so shameful. How can people from among us do such a thing? It is horrifying.

Eshkol: What did the regimental commander say?

Ben-Gurion: He said the brigadier gave him an order in the following manner: He asked what to do if the curfew is violated. The brigadier said, I don’t want sentimentalism. The regimental commander wasn’t satisfied. He asked, but what if? The regimental commander says the brigadier brushed him off with the Arabic phrase, may Allah be merciful. The regimental commander understood that to mean to do what he thought necessary. The brigadier denies this. Since there is doubt, the committee decided to accept the brigadier’s version. We have a wonderful army, but apparently there are incidents and circumstances in which people lose their minds. How can an order be given to shoot children.

Enough of this crap… can’t take anymore… read the rest here

“How can an order be given to shoot children?” B-G is wondering! I don’t know if I should laugh or cry here.

The Israeli ELECTED TERRORISTS (for steve eyes) are wondering for ages now, but they are still giving orders to shoot children, women, infants, not even a handicapped didn’t escape their terror massacres. And they still wonder!!

Current Issues 8:42 pm



Muslim Veil as a Symbol of Cultural Identity
Karen Armstrong, The Guardian

LONDON, 28 October 2006 — I spent seven years of my girlhood heavily veiled — not in a Muslim niqab but in a nun’s habit. We wore voluminous black robes, large rosaries and crucifixes, and an elaborate headdress: You could see a small slice of my face from the front, but from the side I was entirely shielded from view. We must have looked very odd indeed, walking dourly through the colorful carnival of London during the swinging 1960s, but nobody ever asked us to exchange our habits for more conventional attire.

When my order was founded in the 1840s, not long after Catholic emancipation, people were so enraged to see nuns brazenly wearing their habits in the streets that they pelted them with rotten fruit and horse dung. Nuns had been banned from Britain since the Reformation; their return seemed to herald the resurgence of barbarism. Two hundred and fifty years after the gunpowder plot which sought to blow up the Westminster Parliament and kill the king, Catholicism was still feared as unassimilable, irredeemably alien to the British ethos, fanatically opposed to democracy and freedom, and a fifth column allied to dangerous enemies abroad.

Today the veiled Muslim woman appears to symbolize the perceived Islamic threat, as nuns once epitomized the evils of popery. She seems a barbaric affront to hard-won values that are essential to our cultural identity: gender equality, freedom, transparency and openness. But in the Muslim world the veil has also acquired a new symbolism. If government ministers really want to debate the issue fruitfully, they must become familiar with the bitterly ironic history of veiling during the last hundred years.

Until the late 19th century, veiling was neither a central nor a universal practice in the Islamic world. The full hijab was traditionally worn only by aristocratic women, as a mark of status. In Egypt, under Muhammad Ali’s leadership (1805-48), the lot of women improved dramatically, and many were abandoning the veil and moving more freely in society.

But after the British occupied Egypt in 1882, the consul general, Lord Cromer, ignored this development. He argued that veiling was the “fatal obstacle” that prevented Egyptians from participating fully in Western civilization. Until it was abolished, Egypt would need the benevolent supervision of the colonialists. But Cromer had cynically exploited feminist ideas to advance the colonial project. Egyptian women lost many of their new educational and professional opportunities under the British, and Cromer was co-founder in London of the Anti-Women’s Suffrage League.

When Egyptian pundits sycophantically supported Cromer, veiling became a hot issue. In 1899 Qassim Amin published Tahrir Al-Mara — The Liberation of Women — which obsequiously praised the nobility of European culture, arguing that the veil symbolized everything that was wrong with Islam and Egypt.

It was no feminist tract: Egyptian women, according to Amin, were dirty, ignorant and hopelessly inadequate parents. The book created a furor, and the ensuing debate made the veil a symbol of resistance to colonialism.

The problem was compounded in other parts of the Muslim world by reformers who wanted their countries to look modern, even though most of the population had no real understanding of secular institutions.

When Ataturk secularized Turkey, men and women were forced into European costumes that felt like fancy dress. In Iran, the shahs’ soldiers used to march through the streets with their bayonets at the ready, tearing off the women’s veils and ripping them to pieces. In 1935, Shah Reza Pahlavi ordered the army to shoot at unarmed demonstrators who were protesting against obligatory Western dress. Hundreds of Iranians died that day.

Many women, whose mothers had happily discarded the veil, adopted the hijab in order to dissociate themselves from aggressively secular regimes. This happened in Egypt under President Anwar Sadat and it continues under Hosni Mubarak. When the shah banned the chador, during the Iranian Revolution, women wore it as a matter of principle — even those who usually wore Western clothes. Today in the US, more and more Muslim women are wearing the hijab to distance themselves from the foreign policy of the Bush administration; something similar may well be happening in Britain.

In the patriarchal society of Victorian Britain, nuns offended by tacitly proclaiming that they had no need of men. I found my habit liberating: for seven years I never had to give a thought to my clothes, makeup and hair — all the rubbish that clutters the minds of the most liberated women. In the same way, Muslim women feel that the veil frees them from the constraints of some uncongenial aspects of Western modernity.

They argue that you do not have to look Western to be modern. The veiled woman defies the sexual mores of the West, with its strange compulsion to “reveal all”. Where Western men and women display their expensive clothes and flaunt their finely honed bodies as a mark of privilege, the uniformity of traditional Muslim dress stresses the egalitarian and communal ethos of Islam.

Muslims feel embattled at present, and at such times the bodies of women often symbolize the beleaguered community. Because of its complex history, Cabinet minister Jack Straw and his supporters must realize that many Muslims now suspect such Western interventions about the veil as having a hidden agenda. Instead of improving relations, they usually make matters worse. Lord Cromer made the originally marginal practice of veiling problematic in the first place. When women are forbidden to wear the veil, they hasten in ever-greater numbers to put it on.

In Victorian Britain, nuns believed that until they could appear in public fully veiled, Catholics would never be accepted in this country. But Britain got over its visceral dread of popery. In the late 1960s, shortly before I left my order, we decided to give up the full habit. This decision expressed, among other things, our new confidence, but had it been forced upon us, our deeply ingrained fears of persecution would have revived.

But Muslims today do not feel similarly empowered. The unfolding tragedy of the Middle East has convinced some that the West is bent on the destruction of Islam. The demand that they abandon the veil will exacerbate these fears, and make some women cling more fiercely to the garment that now symbolizes their resistance to oppression.

Poetry 11:52 am



When rises the Sun of Madina
In my heart,
At once sets
The glory of my intellect’s fort.

My eyes with Madina are awake
My face with Madina is moon-alike

A master I am in the Dotcom arena
A slave I am in the kingdom of Madina.

About me those around are crazy
But about Madina I am crazy!

For all my ills, Madina is the remedy.
Whatever be the challenge,
I am always ready.

Upon me will come no harm
When Madina is firm
In the grip of my arm.

When the loss of a friend
Has made me suffer with pain
Madina is the land
Where I can look for some gain.

About me those around are crazy
But about Madina I am crazy!

O Reader!
The ones with a heart
Need not be taught
The reason why-
From the nightingale
The Rose did part.

For the hearts pricked by the thorn of aversion
Madina is a flower blooming with affection.

All the bottles of fragrance
That I opened in life
Every book that I read
Arranged on my shelf…

About me those around are crazy
But about Madina I am crazy!

Dear One! Your patience I
Wish not to test
‘Coz dear to you is a tale that is brief.

My verdict is this
In the East and West
The influence of Madina is rife.

About me those around are crazy
But about Madina I am crazy!

O Madina! Only my soul
with me is left
That I can grant you
As the most valuable gift!

sallallahu alaihi wa sallam…

Current Issues 1:42 am



A day in Madinah is a blissful escape from everyday life plus the chance of a spiritual battery charge. That is what people feel when they go there, and in Ramadan the feeling intensifies and forges a common bond between all visitors to the city. Of course, however, as is the way in so many areas of our Saudi lives, some people get in the way and, through ignorant and abusive attitudes, deprive others of the total enjoyment of the time spent there.

And as has become common practice in the holy places these days, women get the hardest part of the bargain. First, the areas for women to pray in are totally cordoned off from men’s areas. From the outside and a long way from the entrance, there is a small army of men yelling at other men who stray too near the women’s area. I use the word “yelling” because that is exactly what I mean. I saw a young man who was walking nonchalantly and probably obliviously near the women’s area and, just to make matters worse, he was also using a mobile phone. Very soon, an angry guard jumped in front of him and began to berate him, ending with. “You couldn’t hear me because of that devil you are talking into.” The man of course walked silently and sheepishly away without saying a word.



What I have just described is of course outside the women’s area. Inside it, there are women from all over the world who have come to pray and visit the Prophet SallAllahu alaihi wasallam . The area is guarded by a second rank of guards — women, this time who stand at the entrances to the women’s area. Normally the female guards deal with security and with the large number of visitors, I must say they have a difficult and demanding job. But it is a job meant to protect the people inside and outside the mosque. In many cases the female guards are less polite with the people than they should be; in some cases, they are abusive. At the gate where I waited to be inspected, I saw an old woman who could hardly walk being denied entrance because she had a mobile phone with a camera. I can accept that there are restrictions on the use of mobile phones in any mosque and I totally agree with them — but here in Madinah, the restrictions were selective and — you guessed it — applied only to women. Men of course went into the mosque with their phones and, over the microphones, you could hear the ringtones and SMS alerts along with the prayers. While hearing the imam reciting Qur’an, we can also hear a wide range of interesting and unusual ringtones.

Having been warned earlier not to try to take my phone inside, I had removed it from my bag. Unfortunately, I had forgotten to clear the bag of other offensive items that I had no idea were offensive. The guard was quick to notice a newspaper in my bag and said, “Newspapers are not allowed inside.” To say the least, I was surprised and asked why. She answered very dismissively, “Those are the rules — no newspapers allowed.” I told her the paper was in fact a Saudi one and expressed my opinion that there was no reason for newspapers to be banned in the mosque and even less of one if the paper were hidden inside a bag. She said nothing and simply snatched the paper; at this point, I reacted, took the paper back and walked in, despite her threats to have her supervisor deal with me. I told her to send him in if he wanted to be the only man in a large congregation of women.

Another verbal battle was in progress at the entrance where a woman was carrying an empty bottle she intended to fill with Zamzam water from inside the mosque. For some reason I could not fathom, she was not allowed in though others with full bottles entered freely. Does this make sense? Not to me certainly.

The day ended with another altercation with a man who seemed to work in security. My group was enjoying a stroll around the markets beside the mosque and one woman wanted her picture taken to keep as a souvenir of the visit. As her daughter was lifting the phone to take the picture, an angry man yelled — yes, yelled — at her: “Photos are haram.” He did not stop with words; he waved his hand threateningly at her to make her lower the phone and at this point, my friend who felt the man had overstepped the bounds of good behavior simply told him, “I am going to take a picture if I want to. You have no business talking to my daughter or anyone else so rudely.” Realizing that he might have bitten off more than he could chew, he retreated, leaving all of us feeling that we had been systematically abused and violated throughout the day.

The hostile treatment of visitors — and especially women — was a great disappointment and an equally great frustration. There was no justification for any of it. We went for spiritual refreshment and because of the way we were treated, it was very hard to feel either spiritual or refreshed. Women were treated with hostility; they were isolated and discriminated against. Even inside the mosque, they had to pray behind high wooden partitions. In the past, the wooden partitions were low but apparently, the low ones were felt to be inadequate. New ones have now been put up which prevent women from seeing even the shadow of a man. The partitions are so high they feel suffocating; women cannot even see the windows and all in all, the wood all around makes them feel as if they are in a wooden cage.

Comparing today’s restrictions placed on women in the holy places to those of 30 years ago, one realizes that the present is not always an improvement over the past. Women’s rights to pray in and visit the Prophet’s Mosque are certainly being greatly — and sometimes violently — abused today.


Current Issues 1:29 am



Al-Khalil - As a Palestinian who has been living under the yoke of Israeli military occupation for over 39 years and who lost three innocent uncles to the occupation’s bullets, I should have no problems comparing Israel with Nazi Germany.

It is true that Israel has not introduced gas chambers into Palestinian towns and villages. However, Israel has been killing and tormenting Palestinians nonstop in a variety of ways which, in their brutality and sheer evil, don’t really differ in substance from Nazi behavior.

Moreover, it is paramount to remember that the German holocaust didn’t start with Auschwitz and Bergen Belsen, but rather with an idea, with a book and with a Kristalnacht, the sort of things that are so rampant in Israel’s collective thinking these days as the Israeli Jewish society continues to drift toward religious and jingoistic fascism.

This is not liberal Zionism giving way to religious Zionism as some pro-Israeli apologists would argue. There is no such a thing as liberal Zionism or democratic Zionism. These are contradictions in term.

Zionism, we are told, is about “building a national homeland for the Jews.” However, for millions of its victims, Zionism is about the extirpation, expulsion and dispersion of the bulk of the Palestinian people from their ancestral homeland to the four corners of the world by way of organized terror and violence. This is the ugly side of Zionism that much of the West doesn’t want to see.

Indeed, from the very inception, Zionism viewed Palestine as a land without a people for a people without a land. This arrogant denial of my people’s very existence didn’t originate in ignorance of reality. It was rather an expression of virulent and violent racism, very much like those white European barbarians who exterminated six million native American Indians and called the genocide “Manifest Destiny.”

The Zionists did know that Palestine was populated by hundreds of thousands of Christians and Muslims. In 1898, a Zionist delegation visiting Palestine to assess the feasibility of making it a Jewish state, sent a pithy telegram summing up the situation. “The bride is beautiful but she is married to another man.” Yet, the Zionist movement insisted with unflinching determination on wresting the bride from her lawful husband.

That was a sheer act of rape, it still is an act of rape and will always be an act of rape, no matter how much the mythmakers are celebrated and their myths are glorified.

In fact, despite the passage of fifty years of “Jewish statehood,” Israel’s undeclared but ultimate goal remains the expulsion of most or all of Palestinians from the area extending from the River Jordan to the Mediterranean Sea.

Indeed, any casual observer of the Israeli media these days will be affronted, nearly on a daily basis, by remarks and statements by Israeli officials, including Knesset members and cabinet ministers, calling for “transferring” the Palestinians, not only from the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem, but also from Israel (Palestinian lands occupied in 1948).

“Transfer” is not an innocent term. It is no less than a euphemism for genocide, at least a partial genocide, since it is almost impossible to effect the wholesale removal and ethnic cleansing of millions of people from their motherland without resorting to mass murder and mass terror.

Well, was not this the method used quite liberally by the legions of Zionism to force the bulk of the Palestinian people to flee their hometowns and villages in 1948? Didn’t Menachem Begin, in his book, The Revolt, refer to the Dir Yasin Massacre as a miracle because it made hundreds of thousands of terror-stricken Palestinians to flee in fear?

It is imperative that we call the spade a spade, especially when in the hands of our grave diggers. The Zionists are comparable to Nazis because their actions and behaviors are comparable and similar to Nazi actions and behaviors.

For as the Nazis sought to obliterate Jews as a people, the Zionists have been seeking to obliterate the Palestinians as a people. This is more than Golda Meir saying dismissively “what Palestinians” or some Israeli officials referring to us contemptuously as “Never-landers.” The systematic destruction of some 460 Palestinian towns and villages by Israel (1948-52) was a Nazi act of the highest order. It embodied total disregard and total denial of “the other” on no ground other than that the victims were non-Jewish (The relics of some of these towns can still be seen even today and are meticulously documented in Walid Khalidi’s monumental work All That Remains.).

Unfortunately, this modus operandi of hateful racism and terror remains Israel’s central policy toward the Palestinian people. There is no clearer proof of Israel’s malicious intent than the intensive building of hundreds of Jewish-only settlements on occupied land. Yes, everything here is “Jewish-only.” Jewish-only settlements, Jewish-only roads, Jewish-only pools, even Jewish-only rights, since non-Jews are viewed by a growing segment of Israeli Jews as children of a lesser God or even outright animals.

And now we have this evil gigantic wall whose stated goal is to prevent Palestinian guerillas from infiltrating into Israel whereas its real purpose is to carve and steal as much Palestinian land as possible.

In 2004, the International Court of Justice in The Hague ruled that the Wall was illegal and ought to be dismantled. However, Israel, backed by its guardian-ally, the United States, arrogantly defied the ruling and implicitly accused the court and its judges of anti-Semitism.

In addition to the settlements, inhabited by the most violent and racist-minded Jews anywhere in the world, Israel has always sought to make Palestinian lives so unbearable in order to coerce them to immigrate.

To effect this evil goal, successive Israeli governments (Labor and Likud alike) employed every conceivable legal trick, including the introduction of dual justice systems, a liberal one for Jews and a harsh one for non-Jews.

One expression of this judicial apartheid is the open-ended incarceration of thousands of Palestinian activists, students, professionals and college professors as well as politicians, including lawmakers and cabinet ministers, without charge or trial (since 1967, Israel has arrested over 800,000 Palestinians).

When the notoriously insidious system of institutionalized repression failed to make significant numbers of Palestinians emigrate, Israel resorted to brazen physical harm in the form of terrorizing and killing the Palestinians at the slightest “provocation,” very much like Hitler’s forces did throughout Nazi-occupied Europe more than sixty years ago.

Needless to say, Israeli “pacification” raids and incursions leave many children and women killed, homes destroyed, farms pulverized, furniture vandalized and roads and infrastructure thoroughly bulldozed. In short, everything, every conceivable crime is committed by this Nazi-like entity, all under the rubric of fighting "terror" followed by much of the Western media just parroting the Israeli narrative as if the Israeli army spokesmen were the paragons of veracity and honesty.

In the final analysis, when Jews (or anybody else) behave like Nazis, they should be compared to Nazis. Indeed, a country that sends its F-16 fighter-bombers in the middle of the night to drop one-ton bombs on apartment buildings, where children and women are asleep, is not morally far apart from the Gestapo mentality.

Moreover, an army whose soldiers blithely and gleefully murder children on their way to school and then verify the killing by emptying twenty more bullets into the child’s head, as happened with Iman al Hamas in Rafah nearly three years ago, and then exonerates the soldier and gives him financial compensation, is not really an army of professional soldiers, but an army of thugs, gangsters and common criminals. It is an army that differs very little from the Wehrmacht.

Israel can’t push the Palestinians to the edge of physical extermination and national demise and at the same time shout “Hamas, terror, suicide bombings.”

Israel claims it doesn’t kill Palestinian children and civilians deliberately. This is a cardinal lie. Mistakes happen once, twice, ten times. But when the killing of civilians happens nearly on a daily basis, it means it is policy. In the final analysis, killing knowingly is killing deliberately.

Today, Israel, like the Gestapo did to the inhabitants of the Warsaw Ghetto, is barring millions of Palestinians from accessing food and work. In Gaza, Israel, under the pretext of freeing a captured Israeli soldier, has bombed or destroyed the bulk of civilian infrastructure there, including schools, colleges, streets, bridges, charities as well as thousands of homes. Israel has also destroyed the only power station in Gaza, forcing 1.4 million Gazans to live in total or partial darkness.

This is the same Israel whose army has just destroyed much of Lebanon and dropped 1.5 million cluster bombs throughout southern Lebanon.
Well, 1.5 million bombs can kill at least 1.5 million children.

I know that pro-Israeli apologists, including some who claim to be followers of the lofty leftist traditions of standing up against oppression, are tempted to create a certain moral symmetry between Israel and the Palestinians.

But, in all honesty, one might ask what symmetry is there between the rapist and his victim, between the occupier and the occupied, between the armed fanatical settler and the terrified Palestinian peasant who has to rely on western peace volunteers for protection from settler vandalism and savagery?

Is there hope for a peaceful solution to this enduring bitter conflict? Certainly, there is, and it lies in dismantling Zionism and the creation of a unitary, civic and democratic state in Palestine whereby Jews and Arabs live equally as citizens as many Jews and Arabs are living in Europe today.

I say Zionism ought to be dissolved because the concept of “Jewish state” necessarily implies intrinsic racism against non-Jews. Fortunately, there are Jews of conscience and goodwill who would agree with this solution. These are our natural partners for peace."

Source: Palestinian Pundit

Poetry 1:22 am



Ramadan is over and mosques are empty


Ramadan is over the rosary is immobile

Ramadan is over and Ibadah is scarce

Ramadan is over and Dhikr is forgotten

Ramadan is over and prayer remains folded

Ramadan is over and tongue is let loose

Ramadan is over, stomachs are full

Ramadan is over… my heart is empty!

Is it the P O S T  R A M A D A N  E F F E C T?





Poetry 1:14 am



She served me until this day
Her love the sun, mine a ray

She lost sleep for me to dream
She left food, for me to be fed

Of mind and body she suffered
Her love grew as me she carried

I kicked at her bosom when an infant
Yet she fondled me without being hesitant

She inspired my legs and taught me to walk
All the words I pronounced listening to her talk

‘Hasbi Rabbi’ she sang in my ears, (such that)-
‘Noor Muhammad’ shone all these years
(sallallahu alaihi wa sallam)

All my acts of worship are but under her feet
Not two-But three worlds I need to show her respect

If this son were to enter paradise
The warmth of her feet would be the cause

Her prayers for me are sincere than my own
She bore all the pain to see me so far grown

The pleasure of my Lord
Is in doing to her good

Even as I laid in her womb
Or be buried in the tomb-

She will continue to pour love
And pray for me forever…

If His Mercy is the entrance-
She is the key to my paradise!

Note:

A poem dedicated to my mother (as well as all mothers around the globe).

Through this poem, i reveal the intense love towards my mother. and praise her honestly because of her kindness shown to me until this day. she did everything to bring me up and she suffered much for my well being when i was in her womb. She even gave up food and sleep for me. While an infant, i passionately admit that it is because of the prayer of my mother that i will enter paradise and you all will too so keep your mums happy.

*Hasbi Rabbi : A lullaby common in the traditional Islamic world. (The full text goes as follows: Hasbi Rabbi jalla Allah/ ma fi qalbi ghairullah/ Noor Muhammadu sallallah/ la ilaha illallah)