In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, Most Merciful


CIA Releases Papers That Set Off Scandal


The CIA released hundreds of pages of internal reports Tuesday on assassination plots, secret drug testing and spying on Americans that triggered a scandal in the mid-1970s.


The documents detail assassination plots against foreign leaders like Fidel Castro, the testing of mind- and behavior-altering drugs like LSD on unwitting citizens, wiretapping of U.S. journalists, spying on civil rights and anti-Vietnam war protesters, opening mail between the United States and the Soviet Union and China, break-ins at the homes of ex-CIA employees and others.


The 693 pages, mostly drawn from the memories of active CIA officers in 1973, were turned over at that time to three different investigative panels — President Ford's Rockefeller Commission, the Senate's Church committee and the House's Pike committee.


The panels spent years investigating and amplifying on these documents. And their public reports in the mid-1970s filled tens of thousands of pages. The scandal sullied the reputation of the intelligence community and led to new rules for the CIA, FBI and other spy agencies and new permanent committees in Congress to oversee them.


Among the more famous misdeeds were these:


_Castro plot: In August, 1960, the CIA recruited ex-FBI agent Robert Maheu, who was a top aide to Howard Hughes in Las Vegas, to approach mobster Johnny Roselli and pass himself off as the representative of international corporations who wanted Castro killed. Roselli introduced Maheu to "Sam Gold" and "Joe", who were actually 10-most wanted mobsters Momo Giancana, Al Capone's successor in Chicago, and Santos Trafficant. The CIA gave them six poison pills, and they tried unsuccessfully for several months to have several people put them in the Cuban leader's food. This particular plot was dropped after the failed CIA-sponsored Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba, but other plots continued against Castro. Details of this plot first appeared in Jack Anderson's newspaper column in 1971.


These documents also were one of the products of the Watergate scandal. Then-CIA Director James Schlesinger was angered to read in the newspapers that the CIA had provided support to ex-CIA agents E. Howard Hunt and James McCord, who were convicted in the Watergate break-in. Hunt had worked for a secret "plumbers unit" in Richard Nixon's White House. The unit originally was tasked to investigate and end leaks of classified information but ultimately engaged in a wide range of misconduct.


In May 1973, Schlesinger ordered "all senior operating officials of this agency to report to me immediately on any activities now going on, or that have gone on the past, which might be construed to be outside the legislative charter of this agency." The law establishing the CIA barred it from conducting spying inside the United States.


The result was 693 pages of memos that arrived after Schlesinger had moved to the Pentagon and been replaced as CIA chief by William Colby. Colby ultimately reported the contents to the Justice Department.


"These are the top CIA officers all going into the confessional and saying, `Forgive me father, for I have sinned,' " said Thomas Blanton, director of the private National Security Archive, which had requested release of the documents under the Freedom of Information Act.


Inside the CIA, Colby referred to the documents as the "skeletons." But another name quickly caught on and stuck: "family jewels."


They first spilled into public view on Dec. 22, 1974, with a story by Seymour Hersh in The New York Times on the CIA's spying against antiwar and other dissidents inside this country. The agency assembled files on some 10,000 people.


For the complete CIA documents, go to: http://www.foia.cia.gov

Bismillah: Assalamo Alikum.


I recently discovered a book was written by John Paul II titled "Crossing The Threshold of Hope"


In this book, JPII talks about Islam, Muhammad pbuh and the Qur'an. I am not sure if he was able to read the Qur'an during his lifetime or somebody have told him about Allah's attributes in the Qur'an , but he intentionally or unintentionally said the truth about the most High God, Allah. He said:

Quote:"Some of the most beautiful names in the human language are given to the God of the Koran…,

Quote:but he is ultimately a God outside of the world, a God who is only Majesty, never <b>Emmanuel, God-with-us</b>.

Your life in the present moment is in between the past and the future. So what has preceded can be rectified by tawbah (repentance), nadam (regret) and istighfar (seeking Allah’s forgiveness). And this is something that will neither tire you, nor cause you to toil as you would with strenuous labour. Rather it is an action of the heart. Then as regards the future (then it can be corrected) by withholding yourself from sins. And this abandonment is merely the leaving of something and to be at ease from it. This also is not action of the limbs, which requires you to strive and toil. Rather this is a firm resolve and intention of the heart – which will give rest to your body, heart and thoughts. So as for what has preceded, then you rectify it with repentance. And as for the future – then you rectify it with firm resolve and intention. Neither of these involves any hardship or exertion of the limbs. But then your attention must be directed to your life in the present - the time between two times. If you waste it, then you have wasted the opportunity to be of the fortunate and saved ones. If you look after it, having rectified the two times – what is before and after it, as we have said – then you will be successful and achieve rest, delight and ever-lasting bliss. However, looking after it is harder than that which comes before and after it, since guarding it involves keeping to that which is most befitting and beneficial for your soul, and that which will bring it success and well-being.


Taken from <i>al-Fawaa’id</i> by Ibn Al Qayyim pg -151-152


http://istighfar.wordpress.com/2007/06/24/...ast-the-future/

English Only Vs English Plus


There is an increase of those children in state schools who do not come from English speaking back ground. One in seven children at primary school in England and one in ten at secondary school speak a language other than English at home. A research team from Goldsmiths concludes that using two or more languages deepens an understanding of mathematical concepts and results in a better overall performance in school. Bilingual children are able to access key concepts through both languages, giving them an advantage over monolinguals. Children who speak at least two languages actually strengthen their identities as learners and boost their cognitive development. Researchers say this finding is of particular importance for second and third generation immigrant children. It is important to “embed” mother tongues into daily activities through games, songs and incidental use, such as answering the register and giving praise and simple instructions, familiar stories can be told or acted out in their languages.


In the 60s and 70s, the British education system has destroyed the home languages and the new research proved that the policy was wrong and the British education system is guilty of crime against humanity. It is very important that immigrant parents keep talking to their children in their home tongues as this will give children a valuable tool to access lessons, deepen understanding of key ideas, and enhance overall school performance. Children who led bilingual lives could access their lessons through both languages. The children in the project expressed a strong desire to use their community languages in school. Teachers were able to tap into their pupils’ full range of cultural knowledge.


Children who attended mother tongues classes did better in their National Curriculum tests. Research suggests that bilingual pupils do better than those with just one language. The researcher warns that many second and third generation children are in danger of losing their bilingual skills if they do not have the chance to develop their mother tongue through their school work. Multilingual children may be allowed to use their mother tongue in mainstream classes. Rather than thinking in terms of an “English only” culture we should be promoting “English plus”.


Among all the migrant children, Muslim children suffer more than others. Bilingual Muslim children need state funded Muslim schools with bilingual Muslim teachers as role models. They need to be well versed in Standard English to follow the National Curriculum and go for higher studies and research to serve humanity. They need to be well versed in Arabic, Urdu and other community languages to keep in touch with their cultural roots and enjoy the beauty of their literature and poetry.


Iftikhar Ahmad


www.londonschoolofislamics.org.uk

Assalam u Alaikum


I would like access to the banaat room, please. This is a really good way to unite muslims from around the world. May Allah reward you all for the good work you're doing. . . :thumb:

Bill Clinton treated terrorism as a criminal act. George Bush treats terrorism as the political act of war, sans a nation. Both as Commander-in-Chief have used violence in an attempt to end violence, not unlike all their predecessors. Terrorists view their actions as a religiously justifiable act, within their desire to create or rule a nation. Like the violence between Native American nations and European colonists, the “chief” within societal organizations find themselves tested by their use of, and their opinion of, violence. In fact, all of human history can be best understood by the moral tension that violence presents between leaders, frightened populaces and perceived enemies.


What can we make of these seemingly contradictory interpretations about our “good” violence and their “bad” violence and the differently nuanced responses to threats? The paradigm of violence and the motives behind it are not new or unique, and clearly the issues of violence and power have not been resolved in modern society any better than in ancient societies. The so-called “Enlightenment” was a failure in the attempt to bring a New World Order. Adults continue to indoctrinate their own youth into the need for, and virtue in, war. People believe themselves to be a victim long before they come to find themselves in war, and they see themselves as a victim long after their victory was won.


While conventional war is the collective effort of two societies focused on their mutual annihilation, the roots of terrorism and rebellion begin with individuals. Timothy McVeigh, the Unabomber and Seung-Hui Cho were all loners, but they, too, were similarly possessed of a belief in their own “heroic compassion,” like their more “organized” rebel/terrorist counterparts. Somewhere in the back of their mind is a belief in a New World Order and a historical wrong that must be righted. However, their compassion has strict limits. They define both the innocent victim and the guilty criminal, and harshly judge them accordingly. While loners lack the organized conspiratorial nature of violence that a successful rebel group or an established military possess, their meticulous planning in killing and avenging is similar. Had they been more eloquent and personable, they could have created a following with others who share the same angry view of justice.


Killing people is easy, especially when you are in so much mental anguish that you want to kill yourself, too. The rise of domestic murder-suicides is part of the same human angst that spawns terrorism. While the goal may not be political power, undoubtedly a sense of personal power within the politics of the family is being reflected in these domestic tragedies. Workplace murder-suicides express the same paradigm of power and angst within the politics of work, just as the killings at Columbine and Virginia Tech reflect the political sensibilities of students within the political structure of the educational world. The content of the issues differs slightly, but not the method of violent reasoning. Violence follows the same emotion and logic paradigm from the simple act of a child bullying another child to the complex inter-related technicalities of the modern war-machine. The Crusades led by Popes, terror campaigns between Christians and Protestants, Muslims and Jews, and various ethnicities or economic classes against one another are all the same violence. The excuses change, but not the method of reasoning that leads to bloody conclusions.


The abundance of so much violence in history should give us pause, but it is a characteristic of violence and indoctrination that we become deadened to its horror and of our own participation in its cycle. All violence is justified as a response; the aggressor never sees themselves as the originator. As two sides exchange tit-for-tat it becomes impossible to clarify the history. Both sides have their own version of events, and they grow farther apart as time passes. Not even the victory of one over the other will kill the idea of the opponent’s history. The most ruthless will always be the victor, and that ruthlessness will seem to eventually confirm the loser’s account of history. Thus, a new victim is born with victory, and the slow cycle of revenge begins anew. History, however, has no wings. Ideas are carried from individual to individual across time.


Most violence comes from a sense of self-preservation or from compassion for others. The Iraqi War, for example, has been justified as both “pre-emptive” self-defense and to liberate a population enslaved by a tyrant. Every war, on both sides, usually contains these two justifications for action, even though they are self-contradictory. Preservation of self can never be compassion, since compassion is to put others before oneself. Compassion is to love one’s enemy, not to slay them. In a self-perpetuating vicious cycle, the response to violence uses the same contradictory logic as the reason for violence.


Every brief consensus on violence (war or rebellion) eventually weakens as the personal cost of violence grows. This sometimes takes hundreds of years. Internal political battles are a reflection of these two justifications colliding as the cost of self-preservation seems to become higher than the risk being avoided, and the limits of compassion meet the reality of changing others without changing oneself. Just as Americans question the Iraqi War, terrorist sympathizers come to question the strategy of terrorism, Nazis question Nazism and Communists question communism. While there may be fatigue with war, a particular strategy, or a specific leader, there is no fatigue in the belief in a New World Order. Hope and violence remain as co-equals, and the failure of victory is seen as a failure in execution and not as a failure in strategy. Violence is never repudiated as a self-defeating behavior in history books. Scripture documents repeatedly the consequences of war, yet that does not stop many religious from interpreting these examples as instructions rather than as warnings. Violence remains linked to compassion in the honors, words and codes of every established society on Earth. Naturally, the loner or impressionable youth also come to believe that some good will come out of their violence, too. That is the way they have been taught to understand history.


The crisis of today (however defined) and the need for violence in the face of a threat always has an echo in history. As mentioned previously, every culture has always had the same moral struggles. Every rebel that rises to the rank of General and gives birth to a new nation has his image emblazoned on the new currency. Washington is honored the same as Lenin, or Mao, in their respective countries, and the same as the Kings they overthrew. Regardless of how nations may suspiciously view one another, they are all more alike than different, and therein lies the problem. The splitting of hairs over nonsense has led to the splitting of the atom. With the end of hereditary monarchs, the possibility of peace through marriages has ended. Americans are afraid of a dirty bomb using the technology that they created. Many are trying to foster a confrontation with Iran based on the idea that they should not have the same weapons we do. We want our violence to be uninhibited, and are behaving exactly as the British did in colonial times. We put more effort into disarming others than in understanding why both sides are armed.


Mount Rushmore has its equivalent in the carving of Crazy Horse seventeen miles away, just as Buddhist monks honored themselves in the mountains of Afghanistan centuries ago. Pharaohs built pyramids, Louis built Versailles and Washington built Washington D.C., all with the praise and tender love of their followers. These leaders are remembered as great in victory or defeat using a standard that violence has virtue. Why then should the terrorist or the troubled loner avoid violence? The path to glory and change seems to be through the use of violence. Even Thoreau praised John Brown for his attack at Harper’s Ferry. The best way to get into a parade is to support or engage in violence. People are proud of the clever ruthlessness that brought them victory, and since that is all they have to celebrate, that is what they celebrate. The American Civil War is remembered for the good of ending slavery, and not for the damage it caused or the failure of democracy that it represents.


In killing, the terrorist thinks he is winning and achieving greatness. Rather than seeing his suicide as a personal tragedy, his victims seek revenge, thus taking what is a terrible event and re-invigorating it and affirming that it was a “great” event. Treating terrorism as a crime was silly. Terrorism is a political act, but it is not an act born from deep political thought. It is the result of indoctrination and interpretation of the hypocrisy of power. Politics is a general term referring to any social interaction amongst a group of people. When the weak attack the powerful, the powerful return their wrath ten-fold. The powerful have no self-restraint; that is how they came to acquire their power.


Violence needs to be recognized as a sinful act, not as heroic. The deaths of six million Jews in the Holocaust was only possible because they refused to engage in sinful behaviors. They died with their virtue intact, and left war and greed and power to the ruthless and frightened. Many Native Americans undoubtedly died with their virtue intact. They converted to Christianity on the words of the missionaries, and fell at the hands of the hypocrites that followed behind them. Of those that did not convert, they lived and died by the same sword they picked up, the same as suicide terrorists. The difference between the American genocide and the European genocide is simply the technology and record-keeping involved. We have photography and movies from the 1940’s, rather than stories, but the same tale has been told many times before in many places, only the faces change. Fear and pride is behind every clash in history.


The two most famous victims of violence are Socrates and Jesus Christ. While Socrates is generally remembered for his reason and logic, he would be more properly remembered for his virtue. It was virtue that he was trying to teach, not reason, the same as Jesus Christ. Wealth and political power were not their goal, but the same New World Order of peace and plenty that others seek through violence was their hope, too. Their intellectual significance is that they knew the only possible working strategy for mankind was through virtue. The tangled legalisms of “rules of war,” rights, property, and justice that ambitious hypocrites make in the corridors of power are no equal to the simple wisdom embodied in the concept of mercy. Only someone who is not afraid can be merciful. Without courage and faith one cannot be virtuous. Reason and humanitarianism are based on reciprocity, not virtue.


If we are ruthless, then we will live in a ruthless world. If we are merciful, then we will live in a merciful world. The choice is ours. The terrorists are controlled by their anger and angst and pride. It is a mental health problem that they suffer, but it is not one that is unique to themselves. They are an extreme representation of ourselves. The battle between virtue and violence continues. Ruthlessness has a thousand faces, but it is best known by “business as usual.” The oppressive status quo is authored by those who claim the sword is mightier than the word, or that the ends will justify the means. They will eventually fail. The question is only how long will it take before they will admit their failure to themselves. The mirror is a treacherous place, but when we can see our own faults as clearly as we can see the faults in others, then the mirror is our redemption.


Liberty cannot be found by following in the footsteps of violent men whose images adorn money. It is money itself that man must destroy if he wishes to be free. A Jubilee would heal our wounds, but a New World Order actually requires a new understanding of the role of money. Money is at the source of all our stress, and the indoctrinated habit of thinking money is “real” is a falsity. Money is an abstract idea, and the conversion of goods and labor into currency creates far more problems than it solves. A central bank that coins money, distributes money, and then collects the same back money in taxes, enslaves everyone to an intellectual absurdity. What makes an Empire is not the person who leads it, or how he comes to power, but the organization structure of cooperation that money represents. The US Constitution re-established the same empire that had just been overthrown. With the same mechanics in place, the same results will inevitably follow.


Besides recognizing the paradigm behind violent choices, we should also recognize that terrorism (and war generally) is about Trade. The current political climate is a battle between Red States (food producers,) Blue States (money exchangers,) and Black States (energy producers.) No one seeks to trade evenly; everyone seeks to profit in every exchange. The wisdom of the shrewd, rich, powerful and violent is sought and followed and embodied in law, and the wisdom of the virtuous has long been ignored. Will today be any different?


A terrorist sees in his mirror what he wants to see. What do you see? Long before you were educated you were indoctrinated. If you want to see a New World Order, then you must see the world in a new way, including yourself.

السلام عليكم و رحمة الله


Hey everyone, here are some vids i saw on youtube... thought you'd all like it,,


This one's particularly sad.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJKWYkVdAY8


Here are some cute ones


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wpep_5LIbZ8&NR=1


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYFuDlToOvg

Bismillah: Assalamo Alikum,


<b>HOW THIS COULD BE POSSIBLE?? </b> :conf06: :conf06:


Ann Holmes Redding, <b>an Episcopalian priest who declared her shahadah 15 months ago</b>, says that she is both a Muslim and a Christian. :conf06: :conf06:


<i>By Janet I. Tu</i>


Seattle Times religion reporter

Quote:Shortly after noon on Fridays, the Rev. Ann Holmes Redding ties on a black headscarf, preparing to pray with her Muslim group on First Hill.
On Sunday mornings, Redding puts on the white collar of an Episcopal priest.


She does both, she says, because she's Christian and Muslim.


Redding, who until recently was director of faith formation at St. Mark's Episcopal Cathedral, has been a priest for more than 20 years. Now she's ready to tell people that, for the last 15 months, she's also been a Muslim — drawn to the faith after an introduction to Islamic prayers left her profoundly moved.


Her announcement has provoked surprise and bewilderment in many, raising an obvious question: How can someone be both a Christian and a Muslim?


But it has drawn other reactions too. Friends generally say they support her, while religious scholars are mixed: Some say that, depending on how one interprets the tenets of the two faiths, it is, indeed, possible to be both. Others consider the two faiths mutually exclusive.


"There are tenets of the faiths that are very, very different," said Kurt Fredrickson, director of the doctor of ministry program at Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, Calif. "The most basic would be: What do you do with Jesus?"


Christianity has historically regarded Jesus as the son of God and God incarnate, both fully human and fully divine. Muslims, though they regard Jesus as a great prophet, do not see him as divine and do not consider him the son of God.


"I don't think it's possible" to be both, Fredrickson said, just like "you can't be a Republican and a Democrat."


Redding, who will begin teaching the New Testament as a visiting assistant professor at Seattle University this fall, has a different analogy: "I am both Muslim and Christian, just like I'm both an American of African descent and a woman. I'm 100 percent both."

Words Of Wisdom From Behind Bars - Babar Ahmad


Part 10


29-12-2004


“And Ayub when he called upon his Lord, <i>‘Verily, affliction has touched me and You are the Most Merciful.’”</i> (Quran 21:83)


Out of all the prophets of Allah mentioned in the Quran, there is only one about whom no mention is made about his call, his dawah (propagation) or his followers: that prophet is Ayub (alayhis salam) known in English as ‘Job’. This begs the question: if the purpose of the prophets was to propagate Allah’s Message, what is the point of talking about a prophet without mentioning his dawah? The answer is that everything in the Quran is mentioned for a reason; nothing is redundant. Ayub’s (alayhis salam) story is mentioned because of his sabr (patience and steadfastness) and the lessons that we can derive from it. And what is the story of Prophet Ayub (alayhis salam)?


Allah blessed Ayub (alayhis salam) with health, wealth and children, then He decided to test him by taking it all from away him. His children died, his livestock died, his farmland was destroyed and he was afflicted with all sorts of diseases, including one in which insects would eat from lesions on his skin. As the years passed and he remained in this near-vegetative state, his relatives, friends and people eventually ostracised and abandoned him. They stopped visiting him for fear of catching his disease themselves. Even his wife, who would go out and work to earn a living for herself and her husband, was marginalised by the community who feared that what afflicted her and her husband, might also afflict them. Ayub (alayhis salam) nevertheless remained patient and thankful.


<b>One day, his wife felt unable to take the strain and she cried out to him, <i>“How long is this going to go on for? When is it going to end? Why don’t you ask your Lord to relieve our suffering?…”</i> Upon hearing this, Ayub (alayhis salam) became filled with anger and he asked his wife: “How long did we enjoy Allah’s blessings for before this trial?”</b>


<i></i>


“70 years,” she replied.


<i></i>


“And how long have we been tested by Allah like this?” Ayub asked her.


<i>“Seven years,”</i> she replied (other narrations put the figure at three or eighteen years, but the point is that it was far less than 70 years).


<i>“If we enjoyed Allah’s blessing for 70 years and now He has tested us for only seven years, I am ashamed to go to my Lord and complain to Him. As for you, your iman has suffered so go and repent to Allah,”</i> Ayub (alayhis salam) told her.


Eventually, as the story goes, Ayub (alayhis salam) made his famous supplication (which even then, was polite and indirect) mentioned in the Quran (21:83): <i>“Verily, affliction has touched me and You are the Most Merciful.</i>” Allah responded to his supplication and returned to him his health, wealth and children (by bringing them back to life) and on top of that, Allah blessed him with even more, due to his patience and gratitude.


O prisoner for the Sake of Allah, how long have you been in prison? One year? Five years? Ten years? Twenty years? And how many years did you enjoy Allah’s blessings? How many years were you free to walk the streets? How many years did you enjoy with your family and friends? How many years did you eat the tastiest of foods, drink the best of drinks and wear the finest of clothes? You will find that you enjoyed Allah’s blessings for a time much longer than you have spent in prison. How dare you then moan and complain to others about being in prison for the Sake of your Lord? Are you not ashamed to grumble to people about your situation? Have you already forgotten all those years in which you enjoyed Allah’s blessings? “Indeed man is ever oppressive and ungrateful.” (Quran 14:34).


By the Lord of the Magnificent Throne, even if you were to spend 1000 years in solitary confinement for His Sake, it would not even pay Him back for the blessing of your thumb, which you use to eat, read, write, pick, grab, handle and inspect things everyday. In a narration, did the Prophet (salallahu ‘alayhe wassalam) not say, “If a man was to be dragged upon his face for the Sake of Allah, from the day he was born to the day he died, even then he would regret on the Day of Resurrection that he had not done enough good deeds.”


Be content with Allah’s decree upon you. It is when you consider everyday of your imprisonment as torture and punishment, and not as a blessing and mercy, that you will feel pain every second of it. If Prophet Ayub (alayhis salam) was ashamed even to ask his Lord to end his suffering, what gives you the right to complain to other people about your family and friends? Think of all the delicious foods you ate. Think of all the wonderful places you visited. Be grateful to Allah for those blessings and He will give you more of them: <i>“If you are grateful, then I will surely increase for you (My blessings)…”</i> (Quran 14:7)


If you wanted to make a comparison based on equality, you would at least wait in prison for the time equivalent to what you enjoyed outside prison, before asking Allah to relieve your situation. So, if you spent 30 years outside prison, you would at least want another 30 years IN prison before crying to Allah. But Allah is More Merciful than that. When you feel you cannot take it any more, complain to Him and Him alone, then wait patiently until he answers your supplication. Seek solace with the supplication of Yaqub (alayhis salam) over his son, Yusuf (alayhis salam), <i>“Indeed I complain of my grief and sorrow only to Allah…”</i> (Quran 12:86)


Read through parts 1-14 of words of wisdom from behind bars by Brother barbar here:


From Behind Bars

:assalam:


?كيف حالك اسمى جواد ما اسمك


انا اكون متعلم في لغة العربي


هل هناك أي شخص من تعلمني الكلام بالعربي?