Just Who Are The Real Terrorists?

Link

Just Who Are The Real Terrorists?

For seven consecutive presidential administrations (since Bush, Sr. invaded Kuwait–2016 will make it 28 years), the American people have been told that they are at war with terrorists. Republican and Democrat administrations and congresses alike have built America’s entire foreign policy around this hypothesis. Trillions of taxpayer dollars have been spent. Thousands of American troops have lost their lives. And tens of thousands have been wounded–many of them seriously. Plus, hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in the Middle East have lost their lives to America’s “war on terror.”

In the name of the “war on terror,” the people of the United States have become the most spied upon and surveilled people in world history. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Department of Justice, and Pentagon have constructed the most elaborate domestic spy machine known to man. We are told that all of this is helping to keep America “safe.” We are told the same thing about our incessant drone attacks, the thousands of sorties conducted by our military aircraft, and our never-ending wars of aggression in the Middle East.

First, we were told the terrorists were Al Qaeda and the Taliban. We invaded two countries to rid the world of these sand people. But after years of war by the most powerful and sophisticated military might in the world (the U.S. military), Al Qaeda and the Taliban are still with us–stronger than ever. Then we were told the terrorists were ISIS. Supposedly, Barack Obama has been at war with these sand people ever since he took office. But all that has happened is ISIS has gotten stronger and stronger. Surely, any rational person should be able to see through this façade.

RELATED STORIES

• Is Chief Justice Roy Moore An American Hero?
• The Courageous Leadership Of Winston Churchill
• Make No Mistake: Every Muslim Will Bow Before Jesus

The truth is the United States is not at war with ISIS; the United States helped to create and continues to fund and support ISIS. America’s so-called war against ISIS is a total farce. The U.S. government in Washington, D.C., has used ISIS to fight a proxy war against Syria on behalf of Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Israel–not to mention the globalist puppetmasters. Outside of the United States, virtually the entire world knows it. But, you see, America has the most sophisticated propaganda machine ever known to man: the national news media.

The entire national press corps in this country (with FOX News at the front of the pack) constantly promotes the drumbeat of war by regurgitating government-sponsored talking points and “intelligence,” never bothering to investigate or question the veracity of the government’s assertions. Joseph Goebbels could only have dreamed of such an efficient propaganda ministry.

Joining the national news media are millions of evangelical Christians such as John Hagee, Pat Robertson, Hal Lindsey, et al., who use the doctrine of Christian Zionism to also pound the drumbeat of war.

See this report:

Christian Zionism: The New Heresy That Undermines Middle East Peace

Yet, by supporting Islamic terror groups such as ISIS, what U.S. foreign policy (with the support of the national news media and Hagee-type evangelicals) is actually doing is assisting the most violent and barbaric stripe of Islam. ISIS is nothing more than the resident terror group of Saudi Arabia’s Sunni Muslim empire. Without any risk of being hyperbolic, Saudi Arabia is one of the most barbarous terror-nations in the entire world. Yet, the U.S. government considers Saudi Arabia to be one of its closest allies. And that’s the problem: it is.

By far, the richest man in the world is Saudi Arabia’s King Salman. To give you an idea of how wealthy this Sunni Muslim is, billionaires such as Bill Gates, Carlos Slim, and Warren Buffet are only 1/20th to 1/50th as rich as he is. And, as you can imagine, Salman is joined at the hip to the most powerful and wealthiest international bankers in the world, such as the Rockefellers and Rothschilds–and giant oil companies such as Chevron and Standard Oil.

TRENDING STORIES

• Exposed: Shocking Truth About Hillary’s Top Aide Huma Abedin That Media Is Hiding
• Watch: Andrea Tantaros Sees ’13 Hours,’ Has 3 Brutal Words For Hillary Supporters
• Bill Clinton’s Health Questioned After He Was Caught Doing THIS At Campaign Rally

And in the Sunni Muslim mind of King Salman, the greatest enemy is Shia Muslims which are predominantly located in countries such as Syria, Iran, and Yemen. It is Saudi Arabia (assisted by its allies in the United States, Turkey, and Israel) that is the chief sponsor of terrorism in the Middle East. This is why the so-called “war on terror” by the United States is such a joke. Ever since the administration of George H.W. Bush, the White House has been in the pocket of petro-dollar billionaires around the world–with the king of Saudi Arabia being the Cock-A-Doodle-Do of them all.

See this report:

The Saudi Dynasty, Key U.S. Ally, Tops The World In Barbarism

I’m sure everyone readily remembers seeing news video of those caravans of Toyota pickup trucks with ISIS flags waving proudly atop them. Well, guess what! Those Toyota pickup trucks were supplied by the United States. Just another reason why the greatest military force in the world was unable to locate and destroy these trucks (and the terrorists riding in them) as they crawled along the Middle Eastern desert. Again, what a crock!

See the report:

The U.S. Government Supplied ISIS’ Iconic Pickup Trucks

No wonder Iraqi Commander Hassan al-Sari said that Vladimir Putin’s Russian coalition “is fighting against the ISIL on behalf of the whole world” while the US had played no role in the recent victories against the terrorists.

Here is the report:

Commander: Russian Coalition ‘Fighting ISIL On Behalf Of The Whole World’

Former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under President Ronald Reagan, Paul Craig Roberts, was more than blunt in his praise of Putin’s genuine war against the Sunni terrorists in Syria, while denouncing in no uncertain terms the phony war on terror in Washington, D.C. He writes, “The distinguished and knowledgeable international commentator William Engdahl, in a superb statement, has expressed the view I gave you that Russian President Vladimir Putin’s speech on September 28 at the 70th anniversary of the United Nations changed the balance of power in the world. Until Putin’s speech the world was intimidated by the Washington Bully. Resistance to Washington brought swift retribution. In the Middle East and Africa it brought economic sanctions and military invasions that destroyed entire countries. In France and other US vassal states it brought multi-billion dollar confiscations of bank net worth as the price of not following Washington’s policies toward other countries.”

Roberts continues: “President Putin of Russia brought all that to end on September 28. He stood up before the world in the presence of the overflowing hubris of the hegemon and belled the cat.

“Putin denounced Washington’s threat to the sovereignty, and thereby the freedom, of peoples and countries. He denounced the heartless criminality of Washington’s destruction of the lives of millions of peoples on the basis of nothing other than Washington’s own arrogance. He denounced the illegality of Washington’s assaults on the sovereignty of other peoples, and declared that Russia can no longer tolerate this state of affairs in the world.

“Two days later he took over the war in Syria and began exterminating the Washington financed and equipped Islamic State. Cruise missiles launched from the Caspian Sea hit ISIL targets with pinpoint accuracy and showed Washington’s EU vassals that Washington’s ABM system could not protect them if Europe permitted Washington to force Europe into conflict with Russia.

“Washington’s response was more lies: ‘the missiles hit Iran,’ said the idiots in Washington. The entire world laughed at the lie. Washington, some said, is whistling past its empire’s own graveyard.”

Roberts goes on: “This is a sea change. It will affect the behavior of every government. Even some of the craven vassals states, whose ‘leaders’ are bought-and-paid-for, will move toward a more independent foreign policy.

“The remaining danger is the crazed American neoconservatives. I know many of them. They are completely insane ideologues. This inhuman filth has controlled the foreign policy of every US government since Clinton’s second term. They are a danger to all life on earth. Look at the destruction they have wreaked in the former Yugoslavia, in Ukraine, in Georgia and South Ossetia, in Africa, in Afghanistan and the Middle East. The American people were too brainwashed by lies and by political impotence to do anything about it, and Washington’s vassals in Europe, UK, Canada, Australia, and Japan had to pretend that this policy of international murder was ‘bringing freedom and democracy.’

“The crazed filth that controls US foreign policy is capable of defending US hegemony with nuclear weapons. The neoconservatives must be removed from power, arrested, and put on international trial for their horrendous war crimes before they defend their hegemony with Armageddon.

“Neoconservatives and their allies in the military/security complex make audacious use of false flag attacks. These evil people are capable of orchestrating a false flag attack that propels the US and Russia to war.”

See Roberts’ column here:

The Fall Of The Unipower

Plus, Christians around the world (especially in the Middle East, Northern Africa, and Eastern Europe) are not hypnotized by Christian Zionists such as John Hagee. Here is a sample of the numerous pieces of communication that I often receive from Christians in these regions:

“I grew up in an Evangelical pastor’s house in Nigeria, reading the fallacies of Mr. Scofield’s ‘Bible’ teaching the false doctrines of dispensations. By the Grace of God I know better now.

“The current State of Israel is a nation based on the accursed Talmudic doctrines of the Pharisees [exactly right].”

This Middle Eastern Christian goes on to say, “Vladimir Putin is a man of God, who knows these people and their hate for our Lord Jesus and for Christians.

“God forbid those Obama-and-Netanyahu-rented bearded barbarians called ‘moderate rebels,’ Al Nustra, Al Qaeda, and ISIS enter the city of Damascus! Our Christian brothers and sisters would all be annihilated, raped, and forcefully converted to Islam, with the support of USA, NATO, and Israel.”

(Name and location withheld by this author)

Go outside the westernized Christian world, and the believers that I have communicated with almost universally echo the Christian man’s sentiments above. Then again, they have not been indoctrinated by the teachings of dispensationalism and Christian Zionism.

Have American Christians not noticed that ISIS doesn’t attack Israel? Gee. I wonder why not. If ISIS is the mortal enemy of Israel, why don’t we hear about these terrorists attacking Israel? In truth, Israel is often a safe haven for ISIS terrorists, providing supplies and medical care for wounded ISIS warriors. Again, the Israeli Mossad, along with America’s CIA, and Saudi Arabia’s special forces helped create–and continue to maintain–ISIS.

The “crazed American neoconservatives” that Paul Craig Roberts refers to would be impotent without the massive support they receive from evangelical Christians throughout the United States. Pray tell, what will these Christians in America say to their brothers and sisters in Christ from Iraq, Syria, Palestine, etc., when they stand side-by-side at the judgment bar of God? It is the massive support for war in the Middle East by evangelical Christians in the United States that is forcing our brothers and sisters in Christ there into exile, causing increased persecution and torture among them, and killing thousands and thousands of them. Not to mention the torture and martyrdom of our Christian friends in the home of America’s great “ally,” Saudi Arabia. That is a future scene I shudder to think about!

There is a war on terror going on alright; but just who are the real terrorists?

P.S. I am pleased to announce that James Jaeger’s brand new film, “Midnight Ride: When Rogue Politicians Call For Martial Law” will be premiered on Friday, November 6, 2015, from 6pm through 11pm Mountain Time. Distinguished luminaries such as Pat Buchanan, Larry Pratt, Ron Paul, G. Edward Griffin, Sheriff Richard Mack, Stewart Rhodes, Edwin Vieira, Jr., and several others are featured in this film. I am honored to also be featured.

I invite readers to go to my website on Friday evening, November 6, and watch the premiere of this outstanding film. And please tell your friends. DVDs of the film will also be available the night of the premiere via my website. Watch the film here:

Midnight Ride: When Rogue Politicians Call For Martial Law

TWELVE RIGHTS OF A MUSLIM WIFE UPON HER HUSBAND

Link

TWELVE RIGHTS OF A MUSLIM WIFE UPON HER HUSBAND

Below are the 12 rights of a muslim wife upon her husband in Islam.

1. To spend upon her, to feed her. Not to be excessive in this and not to be stingy.

2. To be kind to her. The Prophet (sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) said: “The best among you is the one who is the best towards his wife.”

3. Not to harm her.

4. To be loving to her, examples:

- Loving to her with your tongue. Nice words, tell her you love her. Tell her how good she looks.

- If your wife asks you to get her something and you can’t get it , say I’ll get it inshaa’Allaah.

- That the man beautifies himself with that which is reasonable, (not intimating women).

- From being loving to your wife is that you help her with housework. This is from the example of the prophet (sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam)

- That he is to be playful with his wife.

- Sharing food with her.

- To cuddle with her.

- Sleep under the same cover.

- (I) They would bathe together: On the authority of ‘Aa’ishah (radiyallaahu ‘anhu) who said: “I used to bathe with the Prophet from a single container of water which was placed between us such that our hands collided inside it. He used to race me such that I would say: “Leave some for me, leave some for me!’ She added: `We were in a state of Janaabah (i.e. the state of having slept together).’”
[Al-Bukharee and Muslim].

5. That the men must not curse or swear at his wife, or insult her appearance.

6. A man must not boycott her and if he does (for a valid reason) he should do it inside of the home.

7. A man should not expose the secrets of his wife “Verily among the worst people before Allaah on the Day of Judgement is a man who approaches his wife sexually and she responds and then he spreads her secrets.”
[Muslim, Ibn Abee Shaybah, Ahmad and others].

8. A man should not hate his wife. Exalt the good and minimise her shortcomings. A man should not be angry at her faults and should look at her good. To look only good in her.

9. That he should make things easy upon her e.g. The chores and what he requires from her.

10. He should have the best manners with his wife. His wife should see the best of his manners. It is said that some men have the best manners out in the market , but when he goes home he is a ferocious lion! Kind to strange women in the markets but not to his wife in the home. The best of you are the best of you to your wives. There is no good in you if you want to help your friends but not your wife, there is no good in you if you are kind to your friends and not your wife. Combine the two , and that is good.

11. That the husband should be a reason for his wife to be saved from the hellfire. He should teach her and order her to forbid the evil and enjoy the good. Forbidding her from that which will lead to hell fire. O you who have believed, protect yourselves and your families from a fire whose fuel is people and stones, over which are [appointed]angels, harsh and severe; they do not disobey Allaah in what He commands them but do what they are commanded.


12. That the man should have some type of jealousy for his wife. Jealousy of protecting her from evil, not for her to be exposed to strange men , not for her to speak to strange men etc. but not the abusive jealousy…

Of Aisha’s age at marriage

Link

Of Aisha’s age at marriage

IT is said that Hazrat Aisha was six years old when her nikah was performed with Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) in Makkah, and nine years old when she moved in to live with her husband in Madina after Hijra.

This piece of misinformation has led to the wrong view that child marriage has the sanction of Islam. It must be noted that establishing the authenticity of hadiths, the narrators’ circumstances and the conditions at that time have to be correlated with historical facts. There is only one hadith by Hisham which suggests the age of Hazrat Aisha as being nine when she came to live with her husband.

Many authentic hadiths also show that Hisham’s narration is incongruous with several historical facts about the Prophet’s life, on which there is consensus. With reference to scholars such as Umar Ahmed Usmani, Hakim Niaz Ahmed and Habibur Rehman Kandhulvi, I would like to present some arguments in favour of the fact that Hazrat Aisha was at least 18 years old when her nikah was performed and at least 21 when she moved into the Prophet’s house to live with him.

According to Umar Ahmed Usmani, in Surah Al-Nisa, it is said that the guardian of the orphans should keep testing them, until they reach the age of marriage, before returning their property (4:6). From this scholars have concluded that the Quran sets a minimum age of marriage which is at least puberty. Since the approval of the girl has a legal standing, she cannot be a minor.

Hisham bin Urwah is the main narrator of this hadith. His life is divided into two periods: in 131A.H. the Madani period ended, and the Iraqi period started, when Hisham was 71 years old. Hafiz Zehbi has spoken about Hisham’s loss of memory in his later period. His students in Madina, Imam Malik and Imam Abu Hanifah, do not mention this hadith. Imam Malik and the people of Madina criticised him for his Iraqi hadiths.

All the narrators of this hadith are Iraqis who had heard it from Hisham. Allama Kandhulvi says that the words spoken in connection with Hazrat Aisha’s age were tissa ashara, meaning 19, when Hisham only heard (or remembered), tissa, meaning nine. Maulana Usmani thinks this change was purposely and maliciously made later.

Historian Ibn Ishaq in his Sirat Rasul Allah has given a list of the people who accepted Islam in the first year of the proclamation of Islam, in which Hazrat Aisha’s name is mentioned as Abu Bakr’s “little daughter Aisha”. If we accept Hisham’s calculations, she was not even born at that time.

Some time after the death of the Prophet’s first wife, Hazrat Khadija, Khawla suggested to the Prophet that he get married again, to a bikrun, referring to Hazrat Aisha (Musnad Ahmed). In Arabic bikrun is used for an unmarried girl who has crossed the age of puberty and is of marriageable age. The word cannot be used for a six-year-old girl.

Some scholars think that Hazrat Aisha was married off so early because in Arabia girls mature at an early age. But this was not a common custom of the Arabs at that time. According to Allama Kandhulvi, there is no such case on record either before or after Islam. Neither has this ever been promoted as a Sunnah of the Prophet. The Prophet married off his daughters Fatima at 21 and Ruquiyya at 23. Besides, Hazrat Abu Bakr, Aisha’s father, married off his eldest daughter Asma at the age of 26.

Hazrat Aisha narrates that she was present on the battlefield at the Battle of Badar (Muslim). This leads one to conclude that Hazrat Aisha moved into the Prophet’s house in 1 A.H. But a nine-year-old could not have been taken on a rough and risky military mission.

In 2 A.H, the Prophet refused to take boys of less than 15 years of age to the battle of Uhud. Would he have allowed a 10-year-old girl to accompany him? But Anas reported that he saw Aisha and Umme Sulaim carrying goatskins full of water and serving it to the soldiers (Bukhari). Umme Sulaim and Umme Ammara, the other women present at Uhud, were both strong, mature women whose duties were the lifting of the dead and injured, treating their wounds, carrying water in heavy goatskins, supplying ammunition and even taking up the sword.

Hazrat Aisha used the kunniat, the title derived from the name of a child, of Umme Abdullah after her nephew and adopted son. If she was six when her nikah was performed, she would have been only eight years his senior, hardly making him eligible for adoption. Also, a little girl could not have given up on ever having her own child and used an adopted child’s name for her kunniat.

Hazrat Aisha’s nephew Urwah once remarked that he was not surprised about her amazing knowledge of Islamic law, poetry and history because she was the wife of the Prophet and the daughter of Abu Bakr. If she was eight when her father migrated, when did she learn poetry and history from him?


There is consensus that Hazrat Aisha was 10 years younger than her elder sister Asma, whose age at the time of the hijrah, or migration to Madina, was about 28. It can be concluded that Hazrat Aisha was about 18 years old at migration. On her moving to the Prophet’s house, she was a young woman at 21. Hisham is the single narrator of the hadith whose authenticity is challenged, for it does not correlate with the many historical facts of the time.