By definition it means – “A government by the people; for the people.”


However, when we have a close look at how it has been practiced among the greatest proponents of this system – within their own borders – we are surprised to find out that it has never been practiced in its “true sense” – since this term was coined over three centuries ago. We come to the conclusion that it was coined by a minority of Western elites to fool a vast majority of people in the Western world in the beginning and now they are trying to sell this “bogey” to the rest of the world.


Here are the FACTS on the gender and ethnic representation among the so-called “democratic countries”:


United States – Women population has stood between 45-51% with the current Black population of 23% , but none of the 43 Presidents of the US came from those two groups. On the other hand, the Jewish population of the US has never surpassed 3%, but it controls 37-40% of the US Congress and Senate, and 63% representation in Bush’s governments – While the Jews control 70% of the country’s wealth.


France – Women population is 48%, and every sixth French citizen is a Muslim – But none of French Presidents came from these group – And worse, no Muslim has ever been elected to its Parliament.


Germany – Women population is 50% (it jumped to 64% after WW II), but none of its Chancellors represented that gender.


Russia – Women population has always been over 40% and the Jewish populstion never exceeded 1% - But after the Jewish sponsored Red Revolution out of 556 important functionaries of the Bolshevik State, there were in 1918-1919, 17 Russians, 2 Ukrainians, 11 Armenians, 35 Letts, 15 Germans, 1 Hungarian, 10 Georgians, 3 Poles, 3 Finns, 1 Karaim, 457 Jews. However, no woman has ever become President or Prime Minister of that country.


India – Women population varies between 43-47%, and the “Shudhars (Low-Cast)” constitute 20% (over 200 million) – but women has less than 10% representation in the Lok Sabah (Parliament), and none of the President or Prime Minister represented the Low-Cast population since country’s independence on August 15, 1947.


Israel – Women population is nearly 40%, while the occupied Native Muslims and Christians make-up 20% of population of the Zionist entity – But since its creation in 1948, only one woman, Golda Mier, became prime minister, but none of the president was a woman. On the other hand, the Natives are not even allowed to vote for Knesset (Parliament).


Any “rational” comment?

hello everyone, i am new


hope to hear from urs

The cult of St. Diana incorporates many myths but none so corrosive as the idea that there is a good Establishment media ("the press") and its wicked alter ego, (the "tabloid press").


But how did the tabloid press come into power? Has it not gained its power and influence through the support of the western masses? Should not the people themselves - now fawning and wailing over their "Madonna Diana" - be under attack as the ghouls ultimately responsible for the death of the princess?


Was it only tabloid photographers and journalists who "hounded" our poor saint? No stringers from CNN in that milling mob? No Reuters? No AP? No ABC?


What a laugh. The supposedly, non-tabloid "mainstream press" hound and hunt innocents every day. But they have the wit to craft their stories under a patina of statesman-like concerns and objectives. The goals of the mainstream press are "serious" and self-controlled; like for example their coverage of the O.J. Simpson murder trial. Very dignified.


The truth is, the Establishment media today is "tabloid" to the core - obsessed with sensational themes of sex and death to the exclusion of sustained inquiry and thoughtful analysis. They have made political speeches into sound bites. They pack and congregate and howl like the wolves they are at every criminal trial (their assault on Unabomber defendant Ted Kaczynski at his arraignment was a disgrace to journalism and the Constitutional presumption of innocence).


And who sponsors Hard Copy and those other early evening tabloid TV news shows? Who reaps fortunes from "Geraldo" and the other despicable tabloid chat programs? The big networks and corporations do - the same ones who are just now crying crocodile tears over Diana.


There is another myth, even more glaring. It is the pretense that Lady Di was fundamentally a shy, discrete woman who, in the course of shuttling between Compline at chapel and evenings at the hearth with her sons, was battered and abused by tabloid reporters and the papparazzi.


Lost in the decidedly feminine hysteria which has drenched this tawdry episode, is the fact that Diana did absolutely everything she could to inflame and attract the press. She eagerly pursued a "romance" with the son of a notorious British-Arab tycoon which she knew would electrify the press. Earlier, she had said she wanted a role as roving ambassador for Britain, traveling to the world's hot spots where she would be ogled and photographed and mobbed all the more.


This was a woman who shunned publicity? Yes, it tormented her even as she craved it. But Lady Di was a creature of publicity, a product of the iconography of the age. She had nothing else but her celebrity. She was nothing other than a celebrity.


Diana was a deeply troubled modern woman, a font of confusion. This is her attraction to several hundred million, equally confused modern women who've been sold a bill of goods called feminism, which was supposed to bring them happiness and fulfillment and instead has sent them deeper into despair.


Lady Di had to leave her children to "find herself." She left them to pursue sordid fornication with an Arab playboy, an equally vacuous soul who had once been allied to Hollywood's supreme schlockmeister, Steven Spielberg.


The less that Diana was, the more fanatical her adulation by a huge throng of equally empty people.


The cult of celebrity is the only level at which the people still have some power; their other rights and avenues of expression are being taken from them. But in their frenzied worship of Lady Di, they have been able to compel Queen Elizabeth II out of her cocoon of hubris. The queen herself was forced to grunt and cavort for a more powerful monarch by far, Queen Mob.


So she too must appear "red-eyed in public" and display the whorish poster soul that the mob equates with compassion.


As Western society becomes ever more brutal, pornographic and desensitized, ever more anti-life and heavily policed, the people - once the repository of a semblance of commonsense and morality - emerge as a force for degraded barbarism.


The cult of Lady Diana, who was obviously mentally ill, will surpass the cults of the other mentally ill celebrity-whores of our time, from Judy Garland to Marilyn Monroe.


One wonders what the faithful mothers, who seldom stray from their children's sides, who nurture the future generation, who've gone a bit broad in the middle and whose faithful husbands bear little resemblance to handsome playboys, think of the Diana thanatology?


Are they as enamored of her as the millions of twenty-something, with their abortions and their handbags crammed with toxic birth control chemicals - much the same "tools of the trade" which Diana must have carried?


The goddess Diana of antiquity was the pagan deity of fertility. But her modern namesake is a symbol of death, of the reversal of fertility, of sex without reproduction.


Lady Di is the incarnate expression of the death wish of the white race, of the inversion of which the prophet Isaiah stated, "Woe unto those who put evil for good and darkness for light."


(By: Dr. Michael A. Hoffman II)

Killing Margaret Hassan as an Example


http://www.uruknet.info/?p=7376&hd=0&size=1&l=x


Killing Margaret Hassan as an Example


Kurt Nimmo


November 18, 2004 - It’s no secret the Bushcons hate NGOs and believe they are casting a negative light on the Strausscon plan for Word War IV. As Naomi Klein writes ( http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0620-06.htm ), the Strausscons are keen “to sweep up those pesky non-governmental organizations that are helping to turn world opinion against U.S. bombs and brands,” for instance CARE, the organization Margaret Hassan worked for.


Klein continues:


The best NGOs are loyal to their causes, not to countries, and they aren’t afraid to blow the whistle on their own governments. Think of Medecins sans frontieres standing up to the White House and the European Union over AIDS drug patents, or Human Rights Watch’s campaign against the death penalty in the United States.


In order to keep NGOs in check—that is to make sure they toe the Strausscon line—the American Enterprise Institute and the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies created NGO Watch ( http://www.ngowatch.org/ ), and organization designed to “bring clarity and accountability to the burgeoning world of NGOs,” in other words make sure they don’t cause trouble for the Strausscons as they go about killing countless people and destroying civilian infrastructure.


The American Enterprise Institute, of course, is where the Strausscon camarilla draws its sustenance. “The American Enterprise Institute is an NGO itself and it is supported by the most powerful corporations on the planet,” Raj Patel, policy analyst at the California-based NGO Food First, told Klein.


“They are accountable only to their board, which includes Motorola, American Express and ExxonMobil.” As for influence, few peddle it quite like the AEI, the looniest ideas of which have a way of becoming Bush administration policy. And no wonder. Richard Perle, member and former chairman of the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board, is an AEI fellow, along with Lynne Cheney, wife of the vice-president; the Bush administration is crowded with former AEI fellows.


“The Bush administration may be willing to go it alone, but what it really wants is legions of self-censoring followers, from foreign governments to national journalists and international NGOs,” Klein explains.


Is it possible the Strausscons wanted CARE out of Iraq? Is it possible the murder of Hassan was a message to other meddlesome NGOs and individuals? Consider the following, posted on the ReliefWeb site ( http://www.reliefweb.int/w/rwb.nsf/0/ebbd6f4432ea8


7aac1256dea0047ef29?OpenDocument ):


CARE Australia has confirmed that CARE’s Office in Baghdad was attacked [in late November, 2003]. Three rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs) were used in the attack with two causing minor damage to the facade of the building and a third hitting a palm tree in the front yard. CARE Australia’s Chief Executive, Robert Glasser has said, “CARE has relocated expatriate staff from Baghdad to Amman, Jordan, while the security situation is reviewed.” ( http://www.reliefweb.int/w/rwb.nsf/0/ebbd6f4432ea8


7aac1256dea0047ef29?OpenDocument


As ABC radio reported, CARE received a threat from a “terror group that called itself the Iraqi Resistance,” as the Sydney Morning Herald described it:


“We are going to kill you and attack your places without any further notice. We are issuing this communique after we attacked the Care office and we are letting you know that the deadline for all such places, hotels, houses, oil companies, will be the third and the last day of Eid (Eid al-Fitr). Otherwise these buildings will be totally destroyed.”


( http://reg.smh.com.au/login.do?status=FAIL&errMsg=


&errCode=10001&server=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.smh.com.au& ... )


By CARE’s own admission, the NGO has “maintained a continuous presence in Iraq since the Gulf War in 1991, throughout the period of sanctions, and during the most recent conflict. CARE has assisted 11.5 million Iraqis since the end of the recent war.”


Such attacks and repeated warnings forced CARE to follow the UN, Red Cross, Caritas, and Oxfam in withdrawing foreign staff from Iraq. Margaret Hassan, however, as an Iraqi citizen, remained behind.


Is it possible the Iraqi resistance would attack and organization dedicated to saving Iraqi lives? Does it makes sense for the resistance to kill CARE workers and attack them “without any further notice,” especially if they are working to save the lives of Iraqi children?


However, the NGO-hating Strausscons in the Pentagon—the same people who bomb hospitals in Fallujah because they want to shroud the number of people killed by the recent U.S. assault—may very well be interested in attacking CARE, especially after the organization writes things such as this:


action in March and April [2003] resulted in an unknown number of civilian deaths and injuries, and huge damage to vital infrastructure, which continues to cause a lack of clean water, electricity and basic health care. CARE remains deeply concerned about the current situation. … As theb> only international non-governmental organization to have worked continuously in central and southern Iraq since 1991, CARE is well positioned to provide a rapid and co-ordinated response to the conflict and to scale up activities to meet needs. Along with other aid agencies, CARE is calling for security issues to be addressed and for restoration of public services, so that civilians can start to rebuild their lives.


Not only has CARE provided humanitarian service, it has also waged a political campaign against the invasion and occupation. Patrick Carey, senior vice president of CARE USA, testified before Congress on July 18, 2003 ( http://www.careinternational.org.uk/news/what_do_c


are_think/iraq/iraq_congressional_testimony.htm ) Carey lectured Congress about the lack of security, the restoration of public services, paying civil service salaries, and preventing the outbreak of disease in Iraq—crucial humanitarian concerns the Strausscon warmongers are not interested in. In fact, the argument can be made that the Strausscons are deliberately pulverizing Iraqi society as part of their overall plan to fracture and weaken the Muslim Middle East—a plan long envisioned by far right-wing fascists in Israel’s Likud and Strausscon criminal organizations such as PNAC, AEI, and JINSA in the United States.


Moreover, in February 2003, “CARE International UK joined the million-strong march in London to raise awareness of the potential humanitarian consequences of war in Iraq. Driven by concern about the health, safety and dignity of the Iraqi people, CARE staff joined over a million others in the biggest protest in UK history,” according to their web site.


In short, CARE posed itself as a political opponent of the Strausscons—and in particular, Margaret Hassan, who remained behind, was likely viewed as an obstruction that had to go. Bush’s Pentagon had more to gain from Hasssan’s abduction and murder than the Iraqi resistance.


Consider the following, as reported by Rory McCarthy of the Guardian


( http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,135369


5,00.html ):


* In previous kidnappings, Iraq’s several insurgent groups have been quick to identify themselves and claim responsibility, using videos to make their demands. From the moment Mrs. Hassan was seized her case was different.


* At one point her kidnappers described themselves as an “armed Islamic group". But unlike previous incidents they gave themselves no specific name and used no banners or flags to identify themselves.


* Again in the final video showing her apparent death, shot in the head by a masked gunman, there was no insignia to identify a particular group.


* Her kidnappers were unmoved [by posters showing Mrs. Hassan holding a sick Iraqi child put up on billboards across Baghdad]. At one point they threatened to hand her over to Tawhid and Jihad, the extreme militant group based in Fallujah that is led by a young Iraqi named Omar Hadid and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the wanted Jordanian militant.


* Her case appears to confirm accounts from figures in the insurgency that the movement is made up of several independent groups with little overall leadership and with frequently different methods and agendas.


Or she was murdered by an “independent group” with no relation to the Iraqi resistance, a possibility the corporate media will of course dismiss as an outrageous conspiracy theory—if they consider it at all—since naturally the resistance, as Bush tells us, is comprised of little more than terrorists, criminals, and Saddam dead-enders. Of course, the above items may also be viewed as a conspiracy theory, although the corporate media likes to call it “informed speculation” on the part of “experts” who claim to know more about the situation in Iraq than tinfoil hatters such as me.


Initially I believed Hassan was kidnapped in a covert operation to discredit the Iraqi resistance. I still believe this theory is at least partially true, but with an additional, possibly more sinister element—Hassan was killed in brutal fashion as a warning to NGOs and humanitarian organizations to stay out of Iraq.


Now that Bush has won his “political capital” and plans to spend it—and he faces little if any substantial or effective opposition—his Strausscons in the Pentagon will move all speed ahead with their plan to crush the resistance, as shamelessly elucidated by the likes of William Kristol and other Strausscon “thinkers” who make the rounds at Fox News, on the pages of the Weekly Standard, and elsewhere across the length of the Bush Ministry of Disinformation, Lies, and Omissions.


As Lewis E. Lehrman and William Kristol ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A467


30-2004May21.html )write in the Washington Post, “any armed insurgency opposed to a peaceful transition in Iraq must be destroyed. Fallujah must be conquered and terrorists denied safe haven in Fallujah and other centers of insurrection,” in short, as last week’s desperate assault on Fallujah demonstrated, a “scorched earth” policy must now be followed, including massive war crimes such as bombing hospitals, executing prisoners, denying food and shelter to civilians, and shooting anything that moves (even family pets).


As Margaret Hassan would be a witness to these war crimes—and stand as one of a few brave and selfless souls remaining in Iraq to help the victims of the murderous Strausscons—she had to go in the most gruesome and unambiguous manner.


I sincerely believe Margaret Hassan was murdered by counterinsurgency forces comprised of American, British, or Israeli operatives—and possibly a combination of all three. As I have stated previously, I cannot provide evidence of this, only a hunch based on a close study of past U.S. covert actions and, as well, the unequivocal fact that the Strausscons have declared war on the people of the Middle East and will do anything—including egregious war crimes and stealing elections—in order to realize their immoral plan.


The address of this page is : www.uruknet.info?p=7376


The original address of this article is :


www.kurtnimmo.com/blog/

IRAQ: As U.S. Forces Raided a Mosque


Dahr Jamail


http://www.ipsnews.net/new_nota.asp?idnews=26351


BAGHDAD, Nov 19 (IPS) - An eyewitness commentary to IPS through a U.S. raid on a Baghdad mosque Friday gives a vivid picture of what a 'successful raid' can be like.


U.S. soldiers raided the Abu Hanifa mosque in Baghdad during Friday prayers, killing at least four and wounding up to 20 worshippers.


At 12:30 pm local time, just after Imam Shaikh Muayid al-Adhami concluded his talk, about 50 U.S. soldiers with 20 Iraqi National Guardsmen (ING) entered the mosque, a witness reported.


”Everyone was there for Friday prayers, when five Humvees and several trucks carrying INGs entered,” Abu Talat told IPS on phone from within the mosque while the raid was in progress. ”Everyone starting yelling 'Allahu Akbar' (God is the greatest) because they were frightened. Then the soldiers started shooting the people praying!”


Talat said he was among a crowd of worshippers being held back at gunpoint by U.S. soldiers. Loud chanting of 'Allahu Akbar' could be heard in the background during his call. Women and children were sobbing, he said.


”They have just shot and killed at least four of the people praying,” he said in a panicked voice. ”At least 10 other people are wounded now. We are on our bellies and in a very bad situation.”


Talat gave his account over short phone calls. He said he was witnessing a horrific scene.


”We were here praying and now there are 50 here with their guns on us,” he said. ”They are holding our heads to the ground, and everyone is in chaos. This is the worst situation possible. They cannot see me talking to you. They are roughing up a blind man now.” He evidently could talk no further then.


The soldiers later released women and children along with men who were related to them. Abu Talat was released because a boy told him to pretend to be his father.


Other witnesses gave similar accounts outside the mosque. ”People were praying and the Americans invaded the mosque,” Abdulla Ra'ad Aziz from the al-Adhamiya district of Baghdad told IPS. He had been released along with his wife and children. ”Why are they killing people for praying?” He said that after the forces entered ”they went to the back doors and we heard so many bullets of the guns -- it was a gun bigger than a Kalashnikov. There were wounded and dead, I saw them myself.”


Some of the people who had been at prayer were ordered by soldiers to carry the dead and wounded out of the mosque, he said.


”One Iraqi National Guardsmen held his gun on people and yelled, 'I will kill you if you don't shut up',” said Rana Aziz, a mother who had been trapped in the mosque.. ”So they made everyone lie down, then people got quiet, and they took the women and children out.”


She said someone asked the soldiers if they would be made hostages. A soldier used foul language and asked everyone to shut up, she said. Suddenly, she laughed amid her tears. ”The Americans have learnt how to say shut up in Arabic, 'Inchev'.”


Soldiers denied Iraqi Red Crescent ambulances and medical teams access to the mosque. As doctors negotiated with U.S. soldiers outside, more gunfire was heard from inside.


About 30 men were led out with hoods over their heads and their hands tied behind them. Soldiers loaded them into a military vehicle and took them away around 3.15 pm.


A doctor with the Iraqi Red Crescent confirmed four dead and nine wounded worshippers. Pieces of brain were splattered on one of the walls inside the mosque while large blood stains covered carpets at several places.


A U.S. military spokesperson in Baghdad did not respond to requests for information on the raid. (END/2004)

1. The creation of a strong and loving family is perhaps the highest goal to which a man can aspire. This is the natural process by which men (and women) grow over a lifetime. This is how we find love and intimacy. It isn't for everyone but it is the path to happiness for most.


2. Stop listening to the media, your peer group or parents. "Trust thy self," - Emerson. What are your instincts telling you? For example, I always knew I wanted to rule my own roost but feminism prohibited this. Obey your instincts.


3. Make your work your passion. Work is the backbone of a man. Men get self-confidence from performing a task well, and receiving reward and recognition. Women will try to come between a man and his work but don't let them. Don't let anyone or anything thwart your genius. Women do not respect men who make them their first priority. Your work will keep you on course and help you avoid temptation.


4. Our society makes sex, love and female beauty into a phony religion in order to distract and manipulate us. Sex and beauty get tedious pretty quickly. The magic ends. Real love develops over a long period of time and is based on trust.


5. Do not put beautiful women on a pedestal. They are flawed like everyone else. They are more trouble because of their sense of entitlement. Do not marry someone based on sexual infatuation. I recount this error in my book "A Long Way to go for a Date."


6. Now that I have emerged from the hormonal haze at age 55, I can see that sex is a fraud and really a minor part of life. Sexual frustration is used to distract us while they establish a police state. People wouldn't be frustrated if they got married at a young age as they did in the 1950's and started families. Women should marry before going to university; men after beginning their careers.


7. Society is addicted to sex. The atmosphere is sexualized. Human relationships have been degraded. The best way to fight sex addiction is to get married. I am now happily married and find outside sexual temptations to be an irritation, like a shrill noise. Call it male menopause: I switch the channel.


8. Do not marry a woman who doesn't make you and her family her first priority. Do you not want to share your wife with her boss? If you have an aim in life, why would you marry someone who doesn't support it? In the marketplace of love, men have all the power. Our fertility lasts three times as long as theirs. We are the buyers. There are plenty of fine women, especially if we look abroad.


9. Real women are self-effacing. They put their husbands and their children before themselves. Avoid women who compete, control, criticize or complain. Avoid women who are overachievers. Don't get hung up on unavailable women. Choose a wife who will make a delightful companion and wonderful mother for your children.


10. Being possessive is natural. A man wants to possess a woman. Women want to be possessed. In the act of love, we say a man "possesses" a woman. Total love equals total possession. This is not the same as domination. It is union based on mutual trust and love.


11. Think of your semen as your unique spirit and essence. Would you entrust it to a vulgar or mediocre woman just because she was attractive? Ideally we would only have sex with a women we would want to mother our children. This is why sex was reserved for marriage.


12. The media is doing a number on us regarding children. How often do we see children portrayed in a positive light? We are rich in proportion to the things we love. The highest love is that of husband and wife, and parents and their children.


13. Don't waste your time "looking for God." We find God by serving Him, obeying Him and sacrificing ourselves. God is your conscience, your sense of right and wrong, and the ideal of absolute truth justice and love. We are not men because we refuse to sacrifice ourselves to God. Truth is liberating even if it is the truth about our present bondage. (By: Dr. Henry Makow, PhD)

Assalamu alaikum all my brothers and sisters,


I just thought I would bring up this topic for everyone to discuss because I think it is interesting. In one of my writing classes I am writing an essay on the topic of gender. When I was first assigned the topic I thought of course! I can write about women in Islam!


But as I began brainstorming ideas, I realized the topic of women in Islam has soooooo been done before and there's not much new that I could say. But the topic of MEN in Islam is barely even heard of! All we hear about muslim men is that they are evil terrorists who beat their wives (astaghfirAllah!)


So I decided I will write my essay about the REAL men in Islam, and how being a "real man" in Islam is SO much different from being a "real man" in America.


In America, a "real man" has a big truck, big muscles, big paycheck, and can have as many women as he wants.


How awful.


In Islam, a "real man" greets his brothers warmly with kisses and hugs, respectfully lowers his gaze around women, remains chaste with his wife, supports his family, and encourages them to be good, pious muslims.


How beautiful!


Anyway, I have so many ideas in my head, but I don't want to just write my essay right now. I am hoping that some of you will have some ideas about the differences you've seen between "real" muslim men and "real" american men.


If nobody minds, I would possibly like to quote some of your responses in my essay, if you don't want me to just let me know. InshaAllah I'll post my essay when I finish it, it's due in 2 weeks.


Anyway I thought this would be an interesting topic! Let me know what you think.


salam alaikum

By Israel Shamir


The great leader of Palestine, Yasser Arafat, is dead. This unique man, whose withered body was interned on the Eve of Eid el Fitr in a coffin with the holy soil of Jerusalem in the midst of his ruined fortress, was a symbol of struggle for Palestinian dignity. He will be forever remembered as a young warrior who broke the teeth of Jewish arrogance in the battle of Karameh, in 1968, when his fedayyin resisted the irresistible force of Israel and caused its first ever defeat. He will be remembered as a friend of Leila Haled, the man with a gun who blew up enemy airplanes and spoke at the UN. He will be listed among other warrior-saints of the century next to Che Guevara and Chapaev. He will be remembered also for his last stand, for the last three dreadful years he had spent in besieged Mukata as Sumud personified, as example of unconditional clinging of a native man to his soil.


He did not ran away when Israel bombed and strafed Mukata, he did not ran away when the Jews discussed daily how should they kill him, he did not ran away during the hard years of Intifada – he stayed with his people to the bitter end. Eventually he was granted glorious martyrdom as one of thousands Palestinians martyred in the bloody war, together with Abdelkader el Husseini, Sheikh Ahmad Yassin and other leaders and warriors.


Even his errors were errors of a good man. He believed that the enemy will abide by an agreement, he believed that the superpower will enforce the treaty they guaranteed, he believed in a possibility of carving out two states in his beloved Palestine. He submitted to endless humiliations, agreed to endless concessions to the insatiable adversary, but he never surrendered the Noble Sanctuary of Haram al Sharif, never gave up the right of return of his people to Jaffa and Haifa.


His death of a martyr is also death of the Two-states-solution, of a Palestinian-state-alongside-Jewish-state mantra. Now we should concentrate our efforts in the only possible direction – creation of one democratic state for all in the whole of the Holy Land from the River to the Sea. We call for immediate release of Marwan Barghouthi from the Israeli captivity, together with thousands other prisoners-of-war. We call for general elections with participation of all inhabitants of historic Palestine, native Palestinians and Ashkenazi, Oriental and Russian immigrants, on basis of full equality. We call to inter the mortal remains of Arafat the Martyr in al Aqsa Mosque, next to Abdelkader al Husseini, as a guardian of the Holy Mountain. We shall redeem you, Arafat!

Charles Darwin, an English Atheist scientist who lived in the 1800's in London,


England created the “Theory of Evolution”. He believed that humans were originally animals; more closer to monkeys and Apes (according to some old scripture, the naughty Jews were turned into these animals by God), then they were developed and became more intelligent and formed the "human" race. He also had other theories that dealt with reproduction and other human-animal related topics.


Most of us have heard about Darwin's theories, which have been rejected by the modern scientific research. Likewise, the theory of Evolution has no support in Islam either.


According to Holy Qur’an - Allah created the first man of Mankind on Earth from scratch (Torah and Bible has the same opinion). He didn't evolve him from any other of His creation: "Behold, thy Lord said to the Angels: 'I will create a vicegerent on earth…..” - (Holy Qur’an, 2:34) .


Allah created humans and animals from dust: "From the (earth) did We create you, and into it shall We return you, And from it shall We bring you out once again.” - (Holy Qur’an, 20:55)".


Now the question arises that if this “Evolution Theory” is valid – Then how come humans didn't develop into something more intelligent and physically different than us today? I know that we are much more technologically advanced and


more knowledgeable than the humans that existed 3,000 years ago for instance. But if we originated from apes and monkeys, then what will be the advanced stage for us? Perhaps being born as a result of ‘same sex marriages’ or by cloning?


This still doesn't prove that humans came from animals or vise versa. We are far more intelligent than animals. We co-existed with animals for thousands ofyears, and they have not changed a bit. In fact, many of them have already been extinct.


Also spiritually, only humans on earth have Allah’s spirit in them. Nowhere in Holy Qur’an do we see Allah giving spirits to animals:


"Behold! thy Lord said to the angels: 'I am about to create man, from sounding clay From mud moulded into shape; 'When I have fashioned him (In due proportion) and breathed Into him of My spirit, fall ye down in obeisance unto him’.” - (Holy Qur’an, 15:28-29)

AssalamuAlaykum/Peace be upon you All -


Reading a book is a personal adventure into an author's dialogues and ideas. Unlike fast media, it gives one time to pause, appreciate, record and consume the message. Muslim scholars have preserved, treasured and conveyed gems of knowledge for as long as one can remember in book form.


If you enjoy reading a good book and learning about Muslims and Islam, this site is for you -


www.MuslimReadingCircle.net


Enjoy/Peace!


BonetBlanc