Muslim Next Door NOT Welcomed: CNN Special

CNN Special: “Unwelcome: The Muslim Next Door”

Soledad O’Brien had a very interesting special that aired on Sunday, March 27th dealing with the rise of anti-Muslim bigotry in America, specifically the case of the Murfreesboro Mosque and Community Center.

We have covered this story extensively, Eric Allen Bell a close follower of the issue and of LoonWatch has sent us video and tips regarding what has been going on and the morbid ignorance of the Islamophobes in that area.

Soledad did a decent job and all in all the Islamophobes and Muslim-haters come out looking quite malicious if not profoundly ignorant.

Also read “”US Muslims face discrimination Senate body told





Also Read More >>>>

More <<<<<

Related Links:

Bombing, Invading, and Occupying Muslim Lands

Jeffrey Goldberg, an establishment journalist, has made a career out of shilling for Israel and war-cheerleading against various Muslim countries. Goldberg’s polite, professional, and mainstream expression of Islamophobia is far more pernicious than the rude, amateurish, and fringe Islamophobia of Pamela Geller.


Islamophobia :Idealogical, theological and physical attacks on Islam and Muslims189 videos


This Thanksgiving, Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic and Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs crossed swords over Butterball’s halal turkeys; the animosity between the two has reached the point where Goldberg refers to Geller as his “arch-nemesis” and Geller calls Goldberg a “Jewicidal Jihadi”(whatever in the world that means).

But while Jeffrey Goldberg and Pamela Geller may disagree over such silly matters as “stealth halal” turkeys (which I call the “Lesser Islamophobia”), Goldberg and Geller are guilty of advocating the “Supreme Islamophobic Crime”: bombing, invading, and occupying Muslim lands. With regard to this “Greater Islamophobia”, establishment journalists like Jeffrey Goldberg have a lot more influence than the Pamela Gellers of the world in promoting the war hysteria necessary to sustain the political and popular support for American wars against an increasingly long list of Muslim countries.

The Crusades that ravaged the Muslim world centuries ago were fueled by mindless hatred of the Other, a hatred without which it is unlikely that a whole civilization could have been successfully mobilized against another. Similarly, the United States of America has taken up the sword against the Muslim world, something that simply would not be possible without large segments of the society accepting an anti-Muslim worldview as axiomatic.

Islamophobia is necessary to wage war against the Muslim world but it is also the inevitable result of such wars. There is a need to spread the Supreme Islamophobic Myth that radical Islam is the greatest threat to world peace and must be fought. This need exists (1) in order that nobody, especially the American population itself, realizes that the opposite is true (that it is the United States–not any Muslim country–that is committing the “supreme international crime” of waging aggressive wars in foreign lands), and (2) in order to justify endless war and military occupations.

It is important to understand that one reason Jeffrey Goldberg rejects the Lesser Islamophobia such as Pamela Geller’s silly “stealth halal” turkey nonsense is because, in his own words, “Pamela Geller…gives the fight against Islamist terrorism a bad name.” In other words, the Lesser Islamophobia gives the Greater Islamophobia “a bad name” and might turn people away from bombing, invading, and occupying Muslim lands.

We saw a similar dynamic earlier this year when Harry Reid, Lindsey Graham, and others suggested that formal action be taken against the Quran-burning Florida preacher Terry Jones. Jones was vilified as an Islamophobic bigot (and there is no doubt that he is one), whose (Lesser) Islamophobia was supposedly placing U.S. troops in Afghanistan at risk. Yet, these same individuals are among the greatest defenders of the Greater Islamophobia, which is the real cause behind Muslim anger: the bombing, invading, and occupying of Muslim lands. In fact, their opposition to Pastor Jones was that he was making it more difficult to sustain the military campaign against Muslims. As Salon’s Glenn Greenwald wrote:

[T]here is an extreme irony in Harry Reid and Lindsey Graham, of all people, suddenly worrying about actions that trigger anger and violence in the Muslim world. These two Senators, after all, have supported virtually every one of America’s actions which have triggered vastly more anti-American anger, vengeance and violence in the Muslim world than anything Pastor Jones could dream of spawning — from the attack on Iraq to the decade-long occupation of Afghanistan to blind support for Israel to the ongoing camp at Guantanamo.

Similarly, war-cheerleading journalist Jeffrey Goldberg supports the Supreme Tenet of Islamophobia: seemingly endless war against the Muslim world. Even before the blood of Afghan and Iraqi citizens dried from the American sword, U.S. war rhetoric against two other Muslim countries–Iran and Pakistan–has ratcheted up. Just like in the lead up to the Iraq War, the Jeffrey Goldbergs of the mainstream media have been furiously at work making the case for war.

To understand the war-obsessed brain of Jeffrey Goldberg it would be worthwhile to look back to his 2008 article Re-Thinking Jeffery Goldberg. In it, he reveals the interesting fact that not even Jeffrey Goldberg can keep track of how many Muslim countries Jeffrey Goldberg has called to attack. He writes:

Last year…I called for the immediate invasion of Yemen (or possibly Oman)…

Was it Yemen or Oman? Goldberg can’t remember–surely, we can’t expect him to remember such a long list of countries to invade. The article reveals how flippantly Goldberg discusses such matters; it’s just table talk for him. Bomb Yemen? Oman? Iraq? Iran? They all sound so similar!

It would also be worthwhile to take into account his ideological background: Jeffrey Goldberg, like Pamela Geller, is a militant Zionist extremist. He “moved to Israel while still a college student” where he served “as a military policeman in the Israeli army”, earned the rank of corporal in the Israel Defense Forces, and served as a prison guard in “the Ketziot military prison camp”, the conditions of which Defence for Children International called “truly appalling”; Human Rights Watch declared the Ketziot prison camp a “clear violation of the IV Geneva Convention.”

Glenn Greenwald wrote of Jeffrey Goldberg so:

[Jeffrey] Goldberg[‘s …]devotion to Israel is so extreme that he served in the IDF as a prison guard over Palestinians and was described last year as “Netanyahu’s faithful stenographer” by The New York Times’ Roger Cohen…

The link between Zionism and Islamophobia has been investigated before; the connection between Zionism and warmongering is even clearer. So, it is no surprise that Jeffrey Goldberg is a war-cheerleader. The Institute for Policy Studies calls him “a hawkish ‘pro-Israel’ commentator[]” whose “articles have often seemed to parallel efforts by hawks to push the United States into war.”

His most recent war-cheerleading articles have been against Iran and Pakistan, which is what I will focus on here. Goldberg is not the only journalist beating the drums of war, but he is one highly prominent figure in the establishment media who serves as a quintessential example of the typical hypocrisy, profound double standards, and bloodthirsty warmongering that permeates the national discourse.

America’s Hypocrisy toward Iran

Jeffrey Goldberg urges President Barack Obama to launch “missile strikes” against Iran for its supposed nuclear weapons program:

The International Atomic Energy Agency is set to release a report today offering further proof that the Iranian regime is bent on acquiring nuclear weapons.

No intelligence is entirely dispositive, but the evidence on hand about Iran’s nuclear activities, even before the release of the latest report, is fairly persuasive, and the IAEA isn’t known to be a den of neoconservative war-plotting. It isn’t interested in giving Israel a pretext for a preemptive attack on Iran unless it has to.

The question now is what Israel — or the U.S. — will do about it.

The Israeli case for preemption is compelling, and has been for some time.

Notice that Goldberg doesn’t even care what the IAEA report would say: he wrote this article beforethe report was published. Either way for him, the Iranian regime is producing nuclear weapons and should be attacked.

Goldberg fails to mention what The New Yorker’s Seymour Hersh pointed out in an excellent article explaining why the IAEA’s change in leadership from the respectable Mohammed ElBaradei to Yukiya Amano gives reason to doubt its impartiality: according to leaked cables obtained byWikileaks, the American permanent representative to the IAEA commented that “[Amano] was solidly in the U.S. court in every strategic decision, from high-level personnel appointments to the handling of Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons program.”

Furthermore, despite all the war-cheerleading from America’s propaganda press, “there is nothing [in the report] that indicates that Iran is really building a bomb.”

In any case, Jeffrey Goldberg’s article on Iran in 2011 should evoke in the reader feelings of deja vu: in the run up to the Iraq War, Goldberg published a very similar article against Saddam’s Iraq. Then, Goldberg had written:

“It is our estimate that Iraq will have an atomic bomb in three years,” [a German official] said.

There is some debate among arms-control experts about exactly when Saddam will have nuclear capabilities. But there is no disagreement that Iraq, if unchecked, will have them soon, and a nuclear-armed Iraq would alter forever the balance of power in the Middle East. “The first thing that occurs to any military planner is force protection,” Charles Duelfer told me. “If your assessment of the threat is chemical or biological, you can get individual protective equipment and warning systems. If you think he’s going to use a nuclear weapon, where are you going to concentrate your forces?”

There is little doubt what Saddam might do with an atomic bomb or with his stocks of biological and chemical weapons.

Simply exchange “Iraq” for “Iran” and we now have Goldberg’s 2011 article. Goldberg was one of the key journalists who played a part in pushing the case for war against Iraq, by spreading the lie that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction (on the verge of becoming nuclear) and that he was somehow connected to Al-Qaeda and 9/11. Goldberg even repeats the claim that “Iraq will have an atomic bomb in three years”: he says bombing Iran will have a “reasonable chance of delaying the Iranian nuclear program for at least three to five years.”

Goldberg and his ilk had succeeded in misleading the American public with regard to Iraq, pushing the nation to war and leading to the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent civilians. He served an important role in spreading the government’s propaganda in order to justify the “supreme international crime”: initiating a war of aggression.

And now Goldberg et al. are at it again, this time against Iran. The image at the top of this article really speaks to the “now serving bombing customer #224″ mentality that permeates the American military juggernaut.

In addition to being a hyper-aggressive superpower that bombs countries left and right (which, for Iran, is literally the case: countries neighboring it on both sides have been bombed, invaded, and occupied by America), the U.S. obliviously engages in the most egregious of hypocrisies. It simply does not enter into polite discussion in Western media–but it does in Iran, Pakistan, and the rest of the Muslim world–how hypocritical it is of the United States, the country with the most nuclear weapons in the world, to vilify a country for (allegedly) trying to build a single such bomb. The forbidden question to ask is: what moral right does the United States, the greatest nuclear power in the world, have to stop other countries from pursuing the same course of action?

Other absurdities include the fact that Israel, America’s closest ally, also has a secret (not so secret) nuclear weapons program, possessing “over 400 nuclear and hydrogen weapons.” Why can Israel have so many nuclear weapons, yet Iran cannot have a single one?

Furthermore, in the words of FAIR, “[t]he U.S. is violating the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).” As Jimmy Carter wrote:

While claiming to be protecting the world from proliferation threats in Iraq, Libya, Iran and North Korea, American leaders not only have abandoned existing treaty restraints but also have asserted plans to test and develop new weapons.

Former Defense Secretary Robert McNamara issued an unusually honest assessment, saying:

I would characterize current U.S. nuclear weapons policy as immoral, illegal, militarily unnecessary and dreadfully dangerous.

FAIR notes further:

The NPT’s preamble calls on nuclear weapons states “to facilitate the cessation of the manufacture of nuclear weapons, the liquidation of all their existing stockpiles, and the elimination from national arsenals of nuclear weapons and the means of their delivery.” Article VI of the NPT explicitly obliges signatories “to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.”

Thirty-seven years after agreeing to these conditions, the U.S.—the only nation to have ever used nuclear weapons against human beings—spends $40 billion a year to field, maintain and modernize nuclear forces, including an arsenal of 10,000 warheads, 2,000 of which are on hair-trigger alert.

Meanwhile, Israel refuses to even sign the NPT. Why aren’t the war drums beating against Israel for its reticence in this regard? In fact, “[n]early 200 nations, signatories of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), backed plans” to hold a conference to achieve a nuclear-free Middle East. The only country in the region refusing to hold such talks? Israel.

I’m sure the United States of America condemned Israel for this, and threatened sanctions and war. The President of the United States supported Israel in its decision and claimed that such a conference “singles out Israel.” Well, yes, I guess one might think it “singles out Israel” since Israel is the only country in the region to have nuclear weapons, the irony of which should not be missed considering Israel pushed war on Iraq and is now doing the same with Iran for trying to produce nuclear weapons.

But such ironies do not get discussed in America, only in the rest of the world. In the Muslim world, it is clearly understood that the United States and Israel are not against nuclear weaponry nor do they ever want a nuclear free Middle East–instead, they simply want to hold a nuclear monopoly. We get nukes; you don’t; if you break this “fair” agreement, then we’ll bomb you, on the grounds that you have nukes–we might even nuke you for having nukes, because nukes are bad, except when we have and use them. As George Orwell said: “Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits, but according to who does them.”

Some Israeli apologists have argued that there is no equivalence between Iran and Israel since the former is a signatory of the NPT and the latter is not. This is a purposefully deceitful argument: can anyone imagine the sort of pressure (sanctions, military force, war, and/or occupation) that would await Iran had it refused to sign the NPT or now withdrew from it? (It is legal to withdraw from the treaty after giving three months notice.) If Iran weren’t a signatory of the NPT, we all know that the entire premise of sanctions and military action would be: Iran must sign the NPT! If Iran withdrew from the NPT, the entire premise would be: Iran withdrew from the NPT! Furthermore, proponents of the “Iran signed the NPT, Israel didn’t” defense should be asked: What about the United States, which signed the NPT and is in violation of it? Can Iran legally bomb the U.S. now?

Another counter-argument raised is the claim that the United States and Israel cannot possibly be equated with countries such as Iran. The implication here is that Iran is just so absolutely warlike that it cannot be trusted with nuclear weaponry. Meanwhile, the U.S. and Israel are peace-loving democracies and can be trusted never to use them. Orwell’s quote–and Glenn Greenwald’s recent article on Orwell and Iran–come to mind.

There is the obvious absurdity that the United States is the only country to have used nuclear weapons against human beings (not once, but twice). Not only this, but the U.S. has never apologized for doing so; quite the opposite: Americans have always claimed that incinerating two civilian cities saved millions of lives, a morally repugnant lie that lives on. Only the most brainwashed mind could understand such depraved logic: bombing and killing thousands of people actually saves lives. In the words of George Orwell: war is peace.

Imagine if Nazi Germany had produced the atomic bomb first–and had nuked Great Britain or the United States (not once, but twice). The dastardly act would be remembered by the Western powers as the ultimate act of Nazi depravity; the atomic bomb would be viewed as the most Nazi-like of weapons, one that wantonly and indiscriminately incinerates civilian populations. In such a scenario, Nazi propaganda that such an act was noble because it “saved millions of German lives” would be scoffed at and not taken seriously. Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits, but according to who does them.

If Americans still engage in the morally atrocious act of justifying the mass murder of Japanese civilians from the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (even though Japan had been ready to surrender long before it was nuked), one shouldn’t be surprised that the United States continues to ponder the use of nuclear weapons in the near future. Leaked documents have shown that the U.S. government has

outlined a broad array of contingencies under which the U.S. might use nuclear weapons. Among these contingencies: using nuclear weapons against countries with no nuclear weapons capacity, such as Iran, Iraq and Syria.

Here, we see the profound hypocrisy of the U.S. government on full display: while using the threat of Iranian nuclear attack as a moral pretense to wage war against Iran, the United States itself has long been planning “a broad array of contingencies” under which Iran may be nuked. Is this not a case of mind-boggling projection?

From this, it is clear that the U.S. government does not desire nuclear disarmament, but nuclear monopoly: this unequal balance of nuclear power leaves open the nuclear option against its non-nuclear enemies without fear of nuclear retaliation.

The same is the case with Israel, which has issued contradictory statements about the use of nuclear weapons. Yes, Israel has said “it would not be the first country in the Middle East to formally introduce nuclear weapons into the region”, but what does this vague statement mean? Do Israelis think Iran has now “introduced” nuclear weapons into the region? In fact, Israel “reject[s] no first use because they believe that there may be circumstances in which they would initiate use of nuclear weapons.”

Indeed, Israel endorses the Samson Option, whereby Israel will respond with “massive retaliation” (including the use of nuclear weaponry) if it feels threatened. What policy could be more maniacal than this? Here, we have Israel endorsing a policy of nuclear Armageddon, yet on the other hand we are constantly told that Iran, unlike Israel, might use the bomb–a bomb it doesn’t even have.

Meanwhile, the truth is that the Supreme Leader of Iran has rejected the use of nuclear weaponry because it is “forbidden in Islam”:

Nuclear weapons unholy, Iran says / Islam forbids use, clerics proclaim

In a surprising development, Iran’s hard-line clerical establishment, which had bitterly resisted American pressure to open the country’s nuclear facilities to inspection, is using its religious influence to rally support for an agreement with the West to foreswear the development of nuclear weapons.

Led by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the nation’s “supreme leader,” Iranian clerics have repeatedly declared that Islam forbids the development and use of all weapons of mass destruction.

The Islamic Republic of Iran, based on its fundamental religious and legal beliefs, would never resort to the use of weapons of mass destruction,” Khamenei said recently. “In contrast to the propaganda of our enemies, fundamentally we are against any production of weapons of mass destruction in any form.”

The ironies just keep adding up: the United States–a country that has used nuclear weapons in the past, possesses the most nuclear weapons in the world, and actively makes plans on how to use nuclear weapons against its enemies–is threatening to take action against Iran for its alleged nuclear weapons program–a country that has never used them, does not have them, and has sworn never to never use them (not even in self-defense or retaliation). Only in the U.S. media could such absurdities go largely unchallenged.

If anyone tries to mention that the United States and Israel are far more warlike than Iran, he must be quickly shut up. One recalls the debate Ahmed Rehab had with Bill O’Reilly; asked Rehab: “How many countries has Iran attacked in the past 50 years?” The answer: zero. Meanwhile, the United States and Israel have attacked dozens and dozens of countries (in a future article, I will compile the lengthy list of nations that have been attacked by the U.S. and Israel.)

O’Reilly couldn’t give a straight answer to the question (the answer is zero–Iran has never initiated a war against another country) so he brought up the Iran-Iraq War and the current Iraq War. Yet, the Iran-Iraq War was not initiated by Iran–rather, Iraq attacked Iran. There is no debate about this fact, so either (1) O’Reilly is ignorant of the facts he cites, or (2) he is using a misleading argument, which really speaks volumes about how few countries Iran has ever invaded (zero) that he was forced to make one up. Worse yet, the example O’Reilly cited is an example of Iran being attacked by a country that received the military backing to do so by the United States. In fact, “the CIA authorized, approved and assisted…in the manufacture and sale of cluster bombs and other munitions to Iraq” for use against Iran.

The second example O’Reilly cited was of the current Iraq War. Once again, O’Reilly reverses reality: Iran did not invade Iraq. He must have mistaken the United States for Iran. Both examples O’Reilly used show America’s belligerency, not Iran’s.

The other examples O’Reilly gave, such as Hamas and Hezbollah, also show that he simply cannot answer the question in a straight manner. The reason he can’t do so is because the answer is zero. Neither Hamas or Hezbollah is Iran. At most one could argue that Hezbollah operates as a proxy for Iran. In that case, we should compare the number of countries that the United States has not only attacked but how many the U.S. has done so by proxy. That list would certainly dwarf Iran’s.

The double standard is well-understood by Iranians and Muslims living in other countries: nuclear weapons are OK for America and Israel, but off limits to countries like Iran. Yet, it is exactly such countries that would most need nuclear weapons to act as deterrence against American and Israeli threats of military action, belligerence, and propensity toward aggression.

Part 2 of this article to be published within 24-48 hours.

Danios was the Brass Crescent Award Honorary Mention for Best Writer in 2010 and the Brass Crescent Award Winner for Best Writer in 2011.

Zionist Fundamentalist Christians: Useful tool for Zionist Jews

Christian Zionists believe that in order to fulfill Biblical prophecy, Israel must conquer most of the Middle East. They are a growing force in American politics with ties to many powerful pro-Israel groups in Washington. Once considered a marginal doctrine among evangelicals, the dispensationalist theology of Christian Zionism includes a belief in the rapture, when the faithful are to be lifted up to Heaven while the rest of humanity—including most of the Jews—will perish.

The Zionist Jews consider Zionist Fundamentalist Christians as useful idiots, serving their purpose of colonial Zionist existence in Palestine, while  Zionist Fundamentalist Christians consider Jews nothing more than ‘sacrificial lamb’.

Rejection by Christians:

The Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem (Catholic), the Syrian Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem, the Episcopal Church in Jerusalem and the Middle East and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Jordan and the Holy Land, have recently joined together in order to proclaim and to publish the Jerusalem Declaration on Christian Zionism (August 22, 2006). This Declaration rejects Christian Zionism for substituting a political-military program in place of the teachings of Jesus Christ. The statement is very critical of Christian Zionism because it provides a worldview where the Gospel is identified with the ideology of empire, colonialism and militarism. Palestinian Christian leaders have also been very vocal in supporting the “Kairos Palestine” document calling for a boycott against Israel until it stops its discriminatory policies in the Palestinian territories.

The General Assembly of the National Council of Churches of USA, in November 2007 approved a resolution for further study which stated that the “theological stance of Christian Zionism adversely affects:

  • justice and peace in the Middle East, delaying the day when Israelis and Palestinians can live within secure borders
  • relationships with Middle Eastern Christians {prior reference to the Jerusalem Declaration on Christian Zionism}
  • relationships with Jews, since Jews are seen as mere pawns in an eschatological scheme
  • relationships with Muslims, since it treats the rights of Muslims as subordinate to the rights of Jews
  • interfaith dialogue, since it views the world in starkly dichotomous terms”

The Reformed Church in America at its 2004 General Synod found “the ideology of Christian Zionism and the extreme form of dispensationalism that undergirds it to be a distortion of the biblical message noting the impediment it represents to achieving a just peace in Israel/Palestine.” The Mennonite Church published an article that referenced what is called the ongoing illegal seizure of additional Palestinian lands by Israeli militants, noting that in some churches under the influence of Christian Zionism the “congregations ‘adopt’ illegal Israeli settlements, sending funds to bolster the defense of these armed colonies.”  As of September 2007, churches in the USA that have criticized Christian Zionism include the United Methodist Church, the Presbyterian Church (USA), and the United Church of Christ. [Wikipedia]

More Videos on Zionism:


Reality of God’s Promise of Palestine to Jews in Bible- Analysis

[Excerpts from lecture/ book “Arabs and Israel Conflict or Conciliation” By Ahmed Deedat]

If you ask any Jew in Israel, “Who gave you Palestine?” (They have all programmed themselves with the idea of Genesis 17:8. Without the slightest hesitation every Jew will reply ‘GOD!’ That it was God Almighty who had given Palestine, to the Jews. But over 75% of the Israeli Jews if questioned “Do you believe in God?” They immediately respond with “NO!” Yet these atheist and agnostic Jews falsely use !God’s name for their usurpation of the land of the Palestinians
EXAMINE THEIR FANCIFUL CLAIM!: Memorise the above verse in full – “And I will give unto thee.. ..all the land of Canaan…” Gen.17:8. It will prove invaluable against all Christian and Jewish Zionists. So this is the Jewish “Holy Tide Deed” to see and bring about its fulfilment, the Muslims have done nothing over the past thousand years to remove this misconception! They have to convince the Jews and the Christians to the fact that morally and ethically the Jews have no right to Palestine
TRUE TEST OF PROPHECY: While the other Jews were keenly following the discussion as I told my employer, ‘What you have quoted from your Torah’ (the first 5 Books of the Bible are common to both the Jews and Christians), is a prophecy of what God Almighty had promised to Abraham and his descendants for ever.” He replied, ‘Yes!’ I said, “God gives us in the Torah a test with which we can ascertain whether a prophecy attributed to Him is actually His Word or not. He :says And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the Lord hath not ? spoken When a prophet speaketh in the name of the lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing the Lord hath not spoken, but the Prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him. Holy Bible (Deuteronomy 18:21- 22)
I asked him, “Is this a valid test?” To which he replied, “Yes!” I said, “Then let us apply it to the – prophecy!” The Torah says that on the death of Abraham And his sons Isaac and Ishmael buried him in the cave….The field which Abraham purchased of the sons of Herb: there was Abraham buried, and Sarah his wife. Holy Bible (Genesis 25:9-10)

And further, the Bible testifies about God’s unfulfilled “Promises to the patriarch Abraham and the :elders of Israel in these words These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off.. Holy Bible (Hebrews 11:13) ?And can anything be more explicit than these statements from the Holy Writ And God said unto him (Abraham), Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, .and come into the land which 1 shah show thee Then came he out of the land of the Chaldeans, and dwelt in Haran; and from there, when his father was dead, he removed him into this land (Palestine) in which ye now .dwell And he (God) gave him (Abraham) no inheritance in it, NO, NOT SO MUCH AS TO SET HIS FOOT UPON; yet he promised that he would give it to him for a possession, and to his seed after him….. Holy Bible (Acts 7:3-5)
STILL SOME GOOD JEWS: I asked my Jewish visitors whether these simple facts were “GospelTruth”, and to my amazement my boss as a spokesman the group, answered, “YES!” This – confirmed for me this Qur’anic statement

THAT AMONG THEM (the Jews and the Christians) ARE MU’MINS (Sincere, faithful people) BUT THE MAJORITY OF THEM ARE PERVERTED TRANSGRESSORS. [Holy Qur’an 3:110]

We must find ways and means of communicating with these Mu’mins – sincere, godly people .among the Jews and the Christians When my employer agreed that the facts of unfulfilled promises in the Bible were, according to his knowledge correct, I said. “In that case God Almighty could never have made such promises,God also confirms in the Holy Qur’an that if He makes a promise, His promise MUST ‘come to pass’ in Deuteronomy 18:22


The conclusion was that the Jewish title deed to Palestine based on the prophecy of Genesis 17:8 was invalidated by the test given in the last Will and Testament of Moses – Deuteronomy 18:22. For a reasonable Jew like my employer the discussion was over. But I wanted to pursue the dialogue further, so I said, “I am prepared to concede that God did make such a promise as – “I will give unto thee and to thy seed after thee, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting .)possession.” (As if Palestine was my father’s property ABRAHAM’S SEED: Conceding the point that the prophecy in question was authoritative, I asked, “Who is the seed of Abraham?” Without the slightest hesitation Mr. Beare replied, “We, the Jews!” I said, “No doubt, you are the sons and seed of Abraham, but are you the only seed? No less than in twelve places, in the first Book of the Bible, Ishmael the progenitor of the Arabs is :spoken of as the son and seed of Abraham And Hagar bore Abram (changed to Abraham by God in Genesis 17:5) a son: and :

1 ) Abram caded his SON’S name, whom Hagar bore, Ishmael. Holy Bible (Genesis 16:15) And Abraham took Ishmael, his SON… (Genesis 17:23) .

2) And Ishmael, his SON, was thirteen years old, when he was circumcised in the flesh .

3 ) of his foreskin. Holy Bible (Genesis 17:25) In the very same day was Abraham circumcised, and Ishmael, his SON. (Genesis 17:26)

4) And his SONS Isaac and Ishmael buried him in the cave of Machpelah, in the field of  Ephron…  (Genesis 25:9)

Now these are the generations of Ishmael, Abraham’s SON, whom Hagar the Egyptian…. (Genesis 25:12)

If the Lord God, disdaineth not to recognise Ishmael as the SON and SEED of Abraham in the Torah, who are we to deny him his patrimony. Indeed, God will not allow the rights of the “first-born” to be jeopardised even if the child is the offspring of a hated wife (Deuteronomy 21:16)

Why should not the Children of Ishmael (the Arabs) and the Children of Isaac (the Jews) live in peace and harmony and enjoy the blessings of God together in the land of promise?


Theoretically my employer was prepared to concede the points, but prejudices die hard. He retorted, “Deedat, Palestine belonged to us, we ruled it under David and Solomon!” I said, “Sir, if having ruled a territory once by force of arms, entitles you to repossess it, then we Muslims, if we had the power, would equally be justified to reconquer Spain. We Muslims ruled that country for almost eight hundred years. A longer period of time than the Jews ever ruled parts of Palestine! The only thing really worth seeing in Spain are the magnificent gardens and fountains, and monumental buildings the Muslims left behind. Does that entitle the Muslims to recolonise Spain? And on the same basis, would the Dutch be entitled to invade Indonesia, because their ancestors” ruled it for three centuries? Or, could the Italians lay claim to Britain because the Romans ruled it”?at one stage under Caesar No!” said Mr. Beare, “Those were foreign conquests, but Palestine is our Motherland, we have” “.only taken back what we have been wrongfully dispossessed I beg your pardon,” I said, “there is a grave historical oversight on your part here. The Jews also,” under Joshua, invaded Palestine over three thousand years ago and conquered the inhabitants of the land. It was no virgin territory ready to be bethrothed. You conquered thirty kingdoms in as many days (Joshua 12:24). Twelve united tribes of Israel against each divided village state, with their little village chief whom you called “kings!” So you knocked over the Amorites, the Edomites, the Philistines, the Moabites, the Hittites and other too numerous to mention. You destroyed them utterly and they came back for more. And again you “destroyed them utterly,” and yet they “!were there And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword.(Joshua 6:21)

With all the destruction of past, present and future for Israel there is a perpetual spectre of war. Without friendly co-operation with the Arabs there can be no solution to the Jewish problem in Palestine. Morally and ethically the Jews have no right to Palestine. Rodinson, an elite Jew says – in his book – “Israel and the Arabs:


Must Read: Zionism, Bible & Quran

Zionist Christians: Useful tool for Zionist Jews:

According to Bible, Islamic Halal Food is Kosher for Christians!

A British Christian group argues that the mainstreaming of Halal across the world constitutes part of a global Islamization drive. A Malaysia-based body called the World Halal Forum held a European-focused meeting in London in November, under the theme “Halal Products and Services – Going Mainstream.”

The British Christian group has launched “Operation Nehemiah” , they say it has no objection to Muslims having the freedom to follow their own religious practices and being catered to by the food industry, but it objects to non-Muslims having little or no choice in the matter. Operation Nehemiah describes itself as a project that aims to “rebuild [Britain’s] Christian foundations.” It is part of the Barnabas Fund, an international charity working among Christians living in Islamic societies.

Earlier this year the fried chicken chain KFC launched a trial project in which around 100 branches in Britain were Halal-certified by the country’s Halal Food Authority. Because haram products are not allowed anywhere near Halal food, this meant that customers visiting those stores had no choice but to eat Halal chicken.

“For our chicken to be Halal accredited, a verse is recited from the Qur’an by an appropriate person at the point of slaughter,” KFC U.K. said in a fact sheet at the time. “All non-Halal products will be removed from the relevant restaurants. This includes pork products, bacon will not be served in our Halal trial stores.”

The leading Halal-food certifier in North America, the Chicago-based Islamic Food and Nutrition Council of America, says it certifies more than 23,000 products and ingredients ranging from meat and poultry to pharmaceuticals and cosmetics. The products are labeled with a symbol featuring an “M” and a crescent.

[Source Link:]

Analysis of Food Phobia:

Bible on Food: Originally the Creator granted the use of the vegetable world for food to man (Ge 1:29), with the exception mentioned (Ge 2:17). The use of animal food was probably not unknown to the antediluvians. There is, however, a distinct law on the subject given to Noah after the Deluge (Ge 9:2-5). Various articles of food used in the patriarchal age are mentioned in Ge 18:6-8; 25:34; 27:3-4; 43:11. Regarding the food of the Israelites in Egypt, see Ex 16:3; Nu 11:5. In the wilderness their ordinary food was miraculously supplied in the manna. They had also quails (Ex 16:11-13; Nu 11:31).In the law of Moses there are special regulations as to the animals to be used for food (Le 11:1-47; De 14:3-21). The Jews were also forbidden to use as food anything that had been consecrated to idols (Ex 34:15), or animals that had died of disease or had been torn by wild beasts (Ex 22:31; Le 22:8). (See also for other restrictions Ex 23:19; 29:13-22; Le 3:4-9; 9:18-19; 22:8; De 14:21.) But beyond these restrictions they had a large grant from God (De 14:26; 32:13-14). Food was prepared for use in various ways. The cereals were sometimes eaten without any preparation (Le 23:14; De 23:25; 2Ki 4:42). Vegetables were cooked by boiling (Ge 25:30,34; 2Ki 4:38-39), and thus also other articles of food were prepared for use (Ge 27:4; Pr 23:3; Eze 24:10; Lu 24:42; Joh 21:9). Food was also prepared by roasting (Ex 12:8; Le 2:14). [Easton’s Bible Dictionary]

Acts 15:29 That you abstain from anything offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if you keep yourselves, you shall do well. Farewell.

John Wesley’s Notes on the Bible: In all those Churches which never did acknowledge the bishop of Rome’s authority, it never was allowed to eat blood; nor is it allowed at this day. This is the plain fact; let men reason as plausibly as they please on one side or the other. From which keeping yourselves ye will do well – That is, ye will find a blessing. This gentle manner of concluding was worthy the apostolical wisdom and goodness. But how soon did succeeding councils of inferior authority change it into the style of anathemas! Forms which have proved an occasion of consecrating some of the most devilish passions under the most sacred names; and like some ill-adjusted weapons of war, are most likely to hurt the hand from which they are thrown.

Acts 15:20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from defilements of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood

Deuteronomy 14:21 You shall not eat of anything that dies of itself:

Leviticus 17:14  You shall eat the blood of no kind of flesh: for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof: whosoever eats it shall be cut off.

[because the blood was not gone out of it.(Matthew Poole’s Commentary on the Holy Bible)]

See also (Deuteronomy;14:21),”(Genesis;9:4) Leviticus 17:14-15, Deuteronomy 12:16, 1Samuel 14:33 and also at Revelation 2:14.

Swine is regarded as the most unclean and the most abhorred of all animals (Le 11:7; Isa 65:4; 66:3,17; Lu 15:15-16). A herd of swine were drowned in the Sea of Galilee by Jesus Christ  (Lu 8:32-33). Spoken of figuratively in Mt 7:6 (see Pr 11:22). It is frequently mentioned as a wild animal, and is evidently the wild boar (Arab. khanzir), which is common among the marshes of the Jordan valley (Ps 80:13).

Pork is prohibited in Bible: “And the swine, because it parts the hoof and is cloven-footed but does not chew the cud, is unclean to you. Of their flesh you shall not eat, and their carcasses you shall not touch; they are unclean to you.”(Leviticus;11:7-8) also Deuteronomy 14:8 & Isaiah 65:2-5.

The Jews consume  Kosher food. Kosher foods are those that conform to the regulations of the Jewish Halakhic law framework. These rules form the main aspect of kashrut, Jewish dietary laws. A list of some Kosher foods are found in the book of Leviticus. There are also certain Kosher rules which are found there. Kosher food is found in all the major stores in Europe and USA, the Christians never raised objections.

The Biblical Dietary Law, followed by Jesus Christ dismissed through A Dream of a Hungry Person!

Acts 10:9-15 On the next day, as they went on their journey, and drew near unto the city, Peter went up upon the housetop to pray about the sixth hour: And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance, And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet held at the four corners, and let down to the earth: In which were all manner of four-footed beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat. But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean. And the voice spoke unto him again the second time, What God has cleansed, that call not common.

“Think not that I have come to destroy the Law [of Moses]… :I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil” (Jesus Christ, Matthew 5: 17).

“The disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his lord.” (Matthew;10:24)

Paul was charged in Jerusalem temple for teaching against Law [Act:21:24-25] and to purify himself, declaring “keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication” (Acts:21:25). Paul accepted, so he resorted to purifying rituals (Act:21:26-28). However he was spotted by Jews who had known his wrong doings. But the self proclaimed 13th disciple, who never met Jesus Christ in his life time ultimately cancelled the Law (Romans;7:6, Galatians;2:19). Paul regarded nothing as unclean of itself (Ro 14:14,20; Tit 1:15), yet no man should violate the scruples of his own conscience or that of his brother.

Romans 14:20-21 it is evil for that man who eats with offense. It is good neither to eat meat, nor to drink wine, nor anything by which your brother stumbles, or is offended, or is made weak.

Islamic Halal Food:

This permission to Muslims to partake of the food of the followers of other revealed religions excludes, of course, the forbidden categories of meat enumerated in  Qur’an;5:3 . As a matter of fact, the Law of Moses, too, forbids them explicitly; and there is no statement whatsoever in the Gospels to the effect that these prohibitions were cancelled by Jesus: on the contrary, he is reported to have said: “Think not that I have come to destroy the Law [of Moses]… :I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil” (Matthew 5: 17).

Qur’an Declares:

Qur’an; 5:5: Today, all the good things of life have been made lawful to you. And the food of People of Book  [Jews and Christians] is lawful to you, and your food is lawful to them. And [lawful to you are], in wedlock, women from among those who believe [in this divine writ], and, in wedlock, women from among those who have been vouchsafed revelation before your time – provided that you give them their dowers, taking them in honest wedlock, not in fornication, nor as secret love-companions.

Qur’an; 5:3: FORBIDDEN to you is carrion, and blood, and the flesh of swine, and that over which any name other than God’s has been invoked, and the animal that has been strangled, or beaten to death, or killed by a fall, or gored to death, or savaged by a beast of prey, save that which you [yourselves] may have slaughtered while it was still alive; and [forbidden to you is] all that has been slaughtered on idolatrous altars.

The Islamic method of slaughter of animal drains out all blood form the body as only artery is cut with sharp knife the heart continues to pump out blood. The blood is also harmful medically agreed. In Islam the animal is slaughtered by pronouncing the name of God, the God of Abraham, Jacob, Ishmael, Mosses, Jesus Christ and the universe.


  1. 1. Thus, the latitude enjoyed by post-Pauline followers of Jesus in respect of food does not correspond to what he himself practiced and enjoined.
  2. For Muslims the food of Jews and Christians is permissible to eat if it is in line with the teachings of Old Testament, Gospel of Jesus Christ and Qur’an.
  3. 3. There is nothing wrong for Christians to eat the Halal Islamic food as it is in line with the food eaten by Jesus Christ and dietary laws of Bible.
  4. 4. Even the according to post Jesus teachings of the Church, the Halal Islamic food stands permissible to Christians [Romans 14:20-21, Acts 10:9-15 ]
  5. Kosher food is found in all the major stores in Europe and USA, the Christians never raised objections to this Jewish food, for the people much less in numbers than Muslims living there.
  6. The FOOD PHOBIA is unfounded, to be rejected.

Muslims of France

What challenges have generations of Muslim immigrants in France been facing to retain their cultural identity?
There are an estimated five million Muslims in France today, which is the largest such population in Western Europe.

A century ago, they were called “colonials”; in the 1960s, they were known as “immigrants”; today, they are “citizens”.

With issues of immigration and integration raising the political temperature in Europe, this three-part series looks back at the history of Muslim immigration into France. It is a history that remains alive today, with the ongoing debate over how to reconcile France’s long-standing tradition of secularism with religious diversity.

What challenges have Muslim immigrants in France faced and overcome in order to retain their cultural identity in a foreign country?

In 1904, 5,000 Muslims were working in mainland France on shop floors in Paris, in Marseille soap factories, or in the northern coalfields. They were called “Kabyles” as most of them came from Kabylia in northern Algeria.

“They live like all the French workers. They move to a city, for example Lille in the North of France. The first thing they do, it seems, is abandon their traditional costume, some even wear a beret. They adopt the codes of the workers’ movement,” historian Linda Amiri says.

Back then, no one imagined these workers, brought from North Africa, would stay in France to raise their children and grandchildren.

In the First World War, France recruited massively from the colonies and hundreds of thousands of soldiers from North Africa and Black Africa set sail for the battlefields. The price paid by the Muslim troops from Africa was heavy.

After the war, the colonial soldiers returned home, but France had to be rebuilt. Some North African workers stayed on, going from the arms factories to major public works. Thousands of others joined them. They came mostly from rural Algeria. Soon, the ranks of these Muslim workers increased to 100,000.

“They lived in great poverty, that means that they are people who came to France but didn’t come to stay, who they came, in fact, solely for work. It’s a life of labour and sacrifice: they work all the time, they make money and send everything home,” says sociologist Ahmed Boubeker.

In 1923, the press made the most of a gruesome story. An Algerian murdered a shopkeeper who refused his advances, as well as one of her customers. The newspapers dubbed the crime the Double Murder of the Rue Fondary.

Despite the following monitoring and repression of Muslims in France life went on. Between Muslims and French there were dates, romance, and marriage became more frequent.

During the Second World War, 15,000 Muslims lived in Paris, and like all the French the Muslims were faced with a choice: To resist, to collaborate or to keep a low profile – a personal choice influenced by their pre-war political allegiance.

In late August 1944, Paris was liberated, in part thanks to the sacrifice of 3,000 resistance fighters. How many among them were Muslims? We will never know. They were born as North Africans – and they gave their lives for France. But post-war France was to care little for their sacrifice.


By 1945, Muslim natives had been working in France for 40 years. Most of them had come from Algeria. In the inter-war period, around 100,000 arrived to stay for a few months, or a few years at the most, with the certainty of one day returning home. In the aftermath of the Second World War, all that changed.

“From the 1920s to 1950s, we have 30 years of worker immigration, but not family immigration. The immigrants are alone. This is a central question because men alone have the possibility of returning home. But when you have children, when a family emigrates, there’s no more returning. It’s no longer the same situation. When the children arrive, the wife arrives, they settle in a small apartment, the children go to school, others are born in France, it’s the beginning of another story,” says historian Benjamin Stora.

The vast majority of Muslims living in France were still Algerian nationals. Families were growing and the numbers of children of workers from the Maghreb increased in French schools. There, they discovered a different culture from their parents’ – a culture they often took naturally. And North African parents wondered how to pass on their customs to children growing up in a non-Muslim country.

Growing up in France at that time meant seeing racist crimes on evening news. The most deadly outburst came in 1973 in Marseille. Twelve Arabs were killed in a few days.

A major strike movement began in the SONACOTRA hostels with North Africans and Africans living there making a united stand against poor lodging conditions. Unions and left-wing parties united behind the immigrants’ demands. But in a period of soaring unemployment, the state was tempted quite simply to send all foreigners back home.

In 1977, President Valery Giscard d’Estaing launched an assisted repatriation scheme. Objective: 500,000 departures. The Algerians were the main target. But children who had grown up in France would not be shown the door so easily.

The repatriation scheme only affected a small number of people, though it worried many more. The children of Algerian, Moroccan and Tunisian workers carried on growing up in France.

This generation of Muslims in France were still called immigrants. And yet, unlike their parents who continued to dream of returning to their homeland, they knew their future was in France and just wanted to get on with their lives without being harassed by the police. France did not notice them growing up, but soon it would learn to reckon with them.


In April 2011, France became the first European country to enforce a ban of the face veil in public, which is just one of the many issues that emphasise the schism that remains between the different faces of French societ.
By 1981, Muslims had been working in France for some 75 years. Their children had grown up in the French system at school and with the culture of their motherland at home.

They were entering adulthood at a time when the years of economic crisis had resulted in massive unemployment in the government housing estates, now a crucible of social problems. So much so that a part of the immigrants preferred to leave.

But on July 10, 1981, riots broke out. Called Les Minguettes rodeos, kids raced around the estate in stolen cars which they later set on fire. France suddenly woke up to the malaise of the suburbs.

“The ones who burn cars are the children of immigrant workers. And we realise that these immigrants have had children. Surprising, I know, but we didn’t realise before that this immigration had taken on a family dimension and that there were descendants of immigrants who were, in fact, French. We begin wondering about this generation when the riots begin. The riots are this generation’s birth certificate. They refuse to be treated like their parents’ generation and demand their place in France,” sociologist Ahmed Boubeker says.

While these young Arabs who had grown up in France wanted to share their mixed culture with the rest of the country, their fathers worked in the factory. Mostly they were unskilled workers at the very bottom of the ladder. In spring 1982, a series of strikes hit the Talbot, Citroen and Simca factories in the Paris area. Factories where Arab and Black workers were often in the majority. They called for better work conditions and freedom for unions.

The government saw no way out of this endless social dispute and accused the strikers of being manipulated by Iranian fundamentalists. The accusations were repeated in the media and this view, which painted a picture of a France in danger of Islamisation, would keep resurfacing from here on. But at this time, the danger was to young North Africans racism and violence.

In the nineteen-eighties, integration into French society was still a rocky path for the children of North African immigrants. Throughout France, many young people seemed to be rediscovering their Islamic identity. This religious revival was also beginning to attract a certain number of non-Muslims.

Those who renounced Islam did so quietly. It was those who trumpeted their allegiance to Islam who attracted media attention. When schools restarted in September 1989, three young girls were suspended from their high school in Creil for refusing to take off their headscarfs inside the school building. So began the affair of the veil.

The matter of the veil continues to be contentious until today. In April 2011, France became the first European country to enforce a ban of the face veil in public, just one of the many issues that emphasise the schism that remains between the different faces of French society. The term French Muslims is both paradoxical and simplistic, but one that marks out those heirs to a particular history within the wider history of the French nation, those who came to build and defend France with little recognition. It means together creating a new country where, through confrontation and conjugation, we learn to shake off our hidebound identities.

Muslims of France:

Attacks on Islam – Rebuttal


After 911 it has become trendy to criticise Muslim and Islam for all the wrongs in the world, in fact Communism foe has been replaced by Islam. Though Many misconceptions exist in the West (representing Christianity) about Islam and Muslims, which were deliberately created by their clergy and medieval rulers to disguise the true message of Islam to justify their hostility towards Islam.  W. Montgomery Watt, a Western scholar observed : ‘Among the world’s major religions it is certainly Islam that the West has the most difficulty in approaching objectively. The reason for this are rooted in past history. Because of the crusades in the 12thand 13th centuries many people in the West wanted the religion of Islam to be better known. But the image they portrayed of Islam can quite accurately be qualified as ‘distorted’. Western opinion about Islam and Muslims was based for centuries on the distorted image’, clearly visible in this video:

Effort has been made to identify the major misconceptions [FAQs] created in the minds of people around the world under the influence of hostile propaganda and provide authentic answers with references from Islamic resources. The index is as follows:


The Milieu


Women’s Inferiority:

Dealing Non-Muslims-1

Dealing Non Muslims-2





Click here to Download now as PDF Book


Related Links: