The need to overcome Islamophobia | GulfNews.com

“Islam and the West…No Clash of Civilisations” by demanding that “Muslim scholars, governments, academics… should lead the discussion on not falling into the trap of the clash of civilisations that groups such as Daesh (the self-proclaimed Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant) and bigoted western officials and potential presidential candidates are trying to sow.
By Abdullah Al Shayji | Special to Gulf News
“The unholy coalition between Daesh and the likes of Donald Trump, Ben Carson and Marco Rubio has to be broken, because Daesh does not represent Islam and the mainstream Muslims, as much as those Republican presidential candidates and the others, who subscribe to their eschewed thinking, do not have exclusive hold on or represent western civilisation.” 》》》》 http://m.gulfnews.com/opinion/thinkers/the-need-to-overcome-islamophobia-1.1647736

Advertisements

Who Commits Terrorism? | Consortiumnews

Nordic/Christian terrorist Anders Behring Breivik admitted killing 77 people last summer but claimed “self-defense,” protecting Christian culture from Muslims and “multiculturalists.” His writings show he was inspired by anti-Muslim bigotry spread by U.S. “experts,” Robert Parry explained in 2011. By Robert Parry (Originally published on July 27, 2011) If the Fox News promoters of racial profiling had been in charge of investigating the terror attacks in Norway on July 22, 2011, they might well have encountered blond, blue-eyed Anders Behring Breivik and his two smoking-hot guns only long enough to ask if he’d seen any suspicious-looking Muslims around. After all, it has been a touchstone of the American Right, as well as right-wing Israelis, that Muslims are the source of virtually all terrorism and thus it makes little sense to focus attention on non-Muslims. A clean-cut Nordic sort like Breivik, who fancies himself part of a modern-day Knights Templar, is someone who would get a pass. Passport photo of Anders Behring Breivik, the admitted killer of 77 people in Norway, including young people at a summer camp affiliated with a liberal political party. Or, as Israel’s UN Ambassador Dan Gillerman told a conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in 2006, “While it may be true – and probably is – that not all Muslims are terrorists, it also happens to be true that nearly all terrorists are Muslim.” [Washington Post, March 7, 2006] So, if you were tuned in to Fox News after the Norway attack, you would have seen smug-looking Fox talking heads recounting how this attack was surely an act of Islamic terrorism and even one exchange about the value of racial profiling to avoid wasting time on non-Muslims. Yet, while the biases of Gillerman and Fox News represent a large chunk of the conventional wisdom, the reality is that terrorism is far from some special plague associated with Muslims. In fact, terrorism, including state terrorism, has been practiced far more extensively by non-Muslims and especially by Christian-dominated nations, both historically and in more modern times. Terror tactics have long been in the tool kit of predominantly Christian armies and paramilitaries, including Breivik’s beloved Crusaders who slaughtered Muslims and Jews alike when Jerusalem was conquered in 1099. Terror, such as torture and burning “heretics” alive, was a big part of the Roman Catholic Inquisition and the intra-Christian bloodletting in Europe in the middle of the last millennium. Terror played a big role, too, in genocides committed by Christian explorers against the indigenous peoples of the Western Hemisphere and other unfortunate targets of colonialism. More Crusading ‘Knights’ During the Jim Crow era in the American South, white Christians organized Ku Klux Klan chapters, which, like Breivik’s Templars, considered themselves Christian “knights” harkening back to the Crusades. The KKK inflicted terror on blacks, including lynching and bombings, to defend white supremacy. In the 20th Century, there were countless examples of “red” and “white” terror, as Communists challenged the Capitalist power structure in Russia and other countries. Those violent clashes led to the rise of German Nazism which empowered “Aryans” to inflict terrifying slaughters to “defend” their racial purity from Jews, Gypsies, Slavs and other “inferior” races. To prevail in World War II, the Allies resorted to their own terror tactics, destroying entire cities from the air, such as Dresden in Germany and Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan. After World War II, the United States created the CIA to conduct what amounted to a war of terror and counter-terror against revolutionary movements around the world. This “low-intensity conflict” sometimes spilled into massive slaughters, such as U.S. terror bombings that killed estimated millions across Vietnam and Southeast Asia. The CIA also recruited, deployed and supported proxy terrorists throughout Latin America. A generation of South and Central American military officers was schooled in how to intimidate and repress political movements seeking social change. A fierce slaughter occurred in Guatemala after the CIA ousted an elected government in 1954 through the use of violent propaganda that terrified the nation. The CIA’s coup was followed by military dictatorships that used state terror as a routine means of controlling the impoverished population. The consequences of the U.S. strategy were described in a March 29, 1968, report written by the U.S. embassy’s deputy chief of mission, Viron Vaky.

Keep reading >>>> Source: Who Commits Terrorism? | Consortiumnews

Onward-Marching Christian Soldiers | Consortiumnews

Rick Santorum declared, “Satan has his sights on the United States of America.” Though sounding odd to many, Santorum’s Satan talk is common among right-wing Christians who have intervened in U.S. politics before, like President Clinton’s impeachment, as Frederick Clarkson noted in this 1998 article. By Frederick Clarkson (Originally published in 1998) Most attorneys who ascend into the rarefied atmosphere of media celebrity-hood are either dashing courtroom warriors, like O.J. Simpson’s Johnnie Cochran, or inside-the-Beltway power types, like Bill Clinton’s Robert Bennett.  The Monica Lewinsky case broke that mold with the unlikely emergence of the family’s Los Angeles-based lawyer, the garrulous William Ginsburg, as a five-talk-shows-per-Sunday phenomenon. But perhaps even more unusual — and less examined — is the entrance of Paula Jones’s lawyer, John Whitehead, into the exclusive “Burden of Proof” club of TV-courtroom stardom. As the Paula Jones case merged with the Monica Lewinsky case in 1998, the rumpled Whitehead became a fixture as a talking head on Nightline, CNN and other network news shows. Two priests during the Inquisition use torture to get a “heretic” to repent. Yet, there has been only superficial attention to who Whitehead is and what he stands for — despite a lengthy public record of controversial remarks. During his legal-religious career, for instance, Whitehead has asserted that democracy is “heresy”; that the defining aspect of history is the “race war” between Christians and non-Christians; and that the harsh Calvinism of the “Puritan Fathers” is the standard to which temporal law should strive. But, even as the TV networks ran up millions of dollars in expenses covering Monica and Paula, there was next to no attention to Whitehead’s religious-political goals. Those motives might normally have been expected to draw some interest, especially as the possibility grew that the Jones-Lewinsky controversy could lead to some form of impeachment proceedings against President Clinton (which it did later in 1998). Still, more often than not, the Washington news media served only as a conveyor belt for P.R. boiler-plate. In a typical description, The New York Times called Whitehead’s Rutherford Institute “a kind of evangelical Christian civil liberties union” — which is how Rutherford describes itself in its publicity material. The P.R. handouts just leave out “kind of.” Are Whitehead’s beliefs too white-hot to handle? Or are reporters of a kinder and gentler generation merely being considerate of people whose religious beliefs are deeply held? Or is that sensitivity a cover for reporters and editors too timid to investigate and fully report potentially controversial beliefs for fear of being labeled religious bigots?

>>>> Read full story @Source: Onward-Marching Christian Soldiers | Consortiumnews

INDEX

Islamphobia.wordpress.com

Islamophobia is  the prejudice against, hatred or fear of Islam or Muslims. The term seems to date back to the late 1980s, but came into common usage after the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States to refer to types of political dialogue that appeared prejudicially resistant to pro-Islamic argument. In 1997, the British Runnymede Trust defined Islamophobia as the “dread or hatred of Islam and therefore, to the fear and dislike of all Muslims,” stating that it also refers to the practice of discriminating against Muslims by excluding them from the economic, social, and public life of the nation. It includes the perception that Islam has no values in common with other cultures, is inferior to the West and is a violent political ideology rather than a religion. Professor Anne Sophie Roald writes that steps were taken toward official acceptance of the term in January 2001 at the “Stockholm International Forum on Combating Intolerance”, where Islamophobia was recognized as a form of intolerance alongside Xenophobia and Antisemitism.

Effort has been made in this project of “Peace Forum Network” to answer the major questions/challenges against Islam, an antidote to Islamophobes.

PAGE-INDEX

A Project of “Peace Forum Network”

Cultural Imperialism and Perception Management: How Hollywood Hides US War Crimes | Global Research – Centre for Research on Globalization

There is an unspoken, yet very clear, bond between Hollywood and the US government that overtly supports US foreign policy. The movie industry in Hollywood has been active in hiding US war crimes and sanitizing the US military campaigns in NATO-garrisoned Afghanistan, Anglo-American occupied Iraq, and elsewhere in the world. Moreover, the dominance of Hollywood as a tool of cultural imperialism in Europe and the rest of the world make Hollywood films an excellent tool for getting Washington’s ideas out internationally and sedating global audiences with misleading narratives.

Hollywood as a Tool of Cultural Imperialism and Perception Management

Aside from news media outlets, it should come as no surprise that most the ideas and notions that the general public in the US and elsewhere have about wars come from movies, television sets, radio programs, video games, and the entertainment industry. Movies and the entertainment industry are ideal for identifying roles for audiences. In many instances movies and the entertainment industry surpass media outlets in shaping the perceptions of audiences about wars and conflicts.

Movies are used to identify which individuals, groups, peoples, and nations are heroes, victims, aggressors, and villains. In this regard Hollywood vilifies countries like Iran, China, Russia, Cuba, and North Korea while it lionizes the United States. Hollywood also warps historical narratives and reifies revisionist narratives of history. In a far stretch from the historical facts and reality, this is why most US citizens and many Western Europeans believe that the outcome of the Second World War in Europe was decided in the Atlantic by the US and not in Eastern Europe and Central Asia by the Soviet Union.

The perceptions of most people in the US and Western Europe are influenced by Hollywood and the entertainment industry and not history textbooks or scholarly works. Polls taken in France by the French Institute of Public Opinion about the Second World War demonstrate how US cultural imperialism by means of Hollywood’s influence has played out.  57 % of the French citizens polled in 1945 believed that Germany was defeated in the Second World War because of the Soviet Union whereas 20% believed it was due to the US and 12% thought it was because of the British. These views become distorted by 1994 when 25% of the French citizens polled believed that it was because of the Soviets that Hitler was defeated whereas 49% believed it was because of the US and 16% believed it was because of Britain. By 2004 only 20% of the French citizens surveyed recognized the Soviet Union as the main force for ending the Second World War in Europe whereas 58% believed it was the US and 16% thought it was Britain.

We can infer that the younger generations or birth cohorts that did not experience the Second World War are having their perceptions shaped by modern mass media, specifically movies and the entertainment industry. This is why CNN’s Christiane Amanpour was able to boldly declared on June 6, 2014 at the Seventieth Anniversary of D-Day from the Chateau de Benouville in France that «the American effort — the supremely heroic effort of the United States — under General Eisenhower and President Roosevelt during World War II has been one that the whole continent [meaning, Europe] has thanked America for the last seventy years». While taking a swipe at Russia and undermining its role in the Second World War, CNN’s Amanpour also said that the French government has emphasized «that this is a day to thank the United States» and thank the US «most particularly for turning around the course of history».

The Vertical Integration of Hollywood with the Military-Industrial Complex

The recognized establishment of ties between Hollywood and the US government began with the production of the silent war movie Wings in 1927. The silent movie was about the First World War and relied heavily on the United States Army Air Corps, which is the aerial wing of the US Army. Ever since the making of Wings in 1927 there has been a close partnership between the Pentagon and Hollywood that has expanded and blossomed to include other government bodies and agencies, including members of the sixteen-member US intelligence community, such as the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). This has led to the vertical integration of Hollywood and the entertainment industry into the military-industrial complex, which has in essence reduced Hollywood movies to tools of cultural imperialism and camouflaged US propaganda.

The US government began to increasingly manipulate the contents of Hollywood movie script and to glamorize and lionize the US military and its campaigns. The Pentagon and US government will not assist movie or television productions that reveal the true malevolent role of US wars. Financial and material assistance is only given to productions that make wars and US foreign policy look like a heroic and noble solution. The author of the book Operation Hollywood, Dave Robb, does an excellent job of documenting this. For example, the Pentagon had the entire plot and script changed in the 1961 episode of Lassienamed «Timmy and the Martians». The episode was originally supposed to be about the protagonist dog Lassie howling to alert Timmy of a plane crash. The producers originally wanted to do a show where a US airplane crashed because it had a design fault that Lassie could sense due to a high pitch noise and thus identify. The US military, however, would not accept any script that would even remotely suggest that US military hardware could have a design fault. This was because the US government and Pentagon did not want children to think that US military equipment could be faulty, because it would hurt future recruitment for the US military. So the circumstances of the airplane’s crash had to be rewritten for the show to get Pentagon support.

This relationship has in effect sanitized US wars and invasions while it has justified Washington’s foreign policy. It has led to the production of historically twisted movies. At one end of the spectrum in Hollywood this has led to Hollywood self-censorship whereas at the other end of the spectrum it has led to government subsidized propaganda. Hollywood script writers draft movie scripts that are self-censored because they know that they will be asking for assistance from the Pentagon and US government which can significant reduce a Hollywood production’s budget and save its producers a lot of money. Hollywood scripts are constantly modified in this regard and the Pentagon even has an entity in Los Angeles that deals with Hollywood directors and producers called the Film Liaison Unit.

Hollywood’s Role in Hiding US War Crimes

While the US uses films like Top Gun as promotional and recruitment material it used movies like theGreen Berets to distort the role of US in wars and movies like Argo, which the CIA is reported to have fact checked, to distort the perception of history. Hollywood movies like Iron Man and Lone Survivor never explain the circumstances behind the US military presence in Afghanistan and Central Asia. They merely present the US presence there as an invited one and even the US contingents there as simply peacekeepers. Movies like Transformers, G.I. Joe, and Fantastic 4: Rise of the Silver Surfer portray the US as having a mandate to act with impunity anywhere in the world, including Russia and China, by disregarding the sovereignty of other nations and even placing US military bases on their soil.

The US military has no jurisdiction on Chinese soil nor does the Pentagon have a base in Russia’s territory. These Hollywood movies naturalize US interference in other countries and create the false impression that the US military has a right to do whatever it wants.

Aside from not addressing the darker side of US foreign policy, Hollywood movies like Forrest Gumpcarry subliminal messages. In the words of the US culture and entertainment magazine Rolling Stone: «The message of Forrest Gump was that if you think about the hard stuff too much, you’ll either get AIDS or lose your legs. Meanwhile, the hero is the idiot who just shrugs and says ‘Whatever!’ whenever his country asks him to do something crazy». What Rolling Stone is saying that listen to what you are commanded to do.

Then there are movies like American Sniper that collapse US foreign policy into the simplistic notion of individual characters. What this does is collapse the event and the soldiers into one, which means that if ones criticize a US war that you are attacking the soldiers and their convictions. This is hiding behind the soldiers and detracting from the real issue of an illegal invasion and occupation. Nor is there any mention of Abu Ghraib or the false weapons of mass destruction lies. Rolling Stone had this to say about American Sniper: «Sniper is a movie whose politics are so ludicrous and idiotic that under normal circumstances it would be beneath criticism. The only thing that forces us to take it seriously is the extraordinary fact that an almost exactly similar worldview consumed the walnut-sized mind of the president who got us into the war in question». «It’s the fact that the movie is popular, and actually makes sense to so many people, that’s the problem,» it also adds. In fact, as a result of the movie there was an increase in hate crimes in the US and negative feelings towards Arabs and Muslims.

Nor was Chris Kyle in real life a hero protecting the US way of life as the Hollywood movie depicts him; he was part of an occupational force that should never have been in Iraq and he was fighting what he called an «insurgency» that emerged to resist the occupation of Iraq. Kyle also claimed that he was ordered to kill thirty fellow Americans in New Orleans because they were looting. He was also a known liar who also admitted that he loved killing Iraqis in his book.

Keep reading full at – Source: Cultural Imperialism and Perception Management: How Hollywood Hides US War Crimes | Global Research – Centre for Research on Globalization

Sexual Intercourse in the state of Menstruation

In the state of menstruation, it is permissible for the husband and wife to lay together, kissing and caressing is also allowed. However, to fulfil ones desires to the extent of having intercourse is strictly prohibited. It is also mentioned in the Holy Qur’an:

“O Muhammed, they ask you concerning menstruation. Say: it is an impurity, so keep away from women in their menstruation and do not approach them till they are purified.” (Surah Baqarah)

In a Hadith, the Prophet (pbuh) has mentioned:

“That person who has intercourse with his wife whilst she is menstruating or that person who has intercourse in the unnatural place (anus) or that person who goes to a fortune teller, he has refuted that religion which has been revealed to me.” (Tirmizhi)

Therefore in light of the Qur’an and Hadith, to have intercourse during menstruation in not only strictly prohibited, but a major sin. It has been mentioned in another Hadith:

“That person who has intercourse with his wife whilst she is menstruating should give half a dinar in charity.” (Tirmizhi)

In our terms fifty pence or something to its value.

Furthermore, intercourse during menstruation for both man and woman results in many severe illnesses. This fact has been acknowledged by doctors past and present.

If the Husband in an uncontrollable desire forces his wife to have intercourse even though she is menstruating, it is obligatory for her to refuse. If she does not do so, she will also be sinful. If the woman refuses despite the insistence of her husband, she will not be sinful, rather she will be rewarded for abstaining from sin and causing her husband to do so too. From those sins which Islam has classified as ‘major’, one of them is having sexual relations in the state of menstruation. If the husband due to his overriding passions finds it difficult to control himself then during the days of menstruation, separate sleeping arrangements should be made. Furthermore, both parties should continue to repent for this sin thus far.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sahih Bukhari Volume 001, Book 006, Hadith Number 299.
Sahih Bukhari Book 06. Menstrual Periods

Narated By ‘Abdur-Rahman bin Al-Aswad : (On the authority of his father) ‘Aisha said: “Whenever Allah’s Apostle wanted to fondle anyone of us during her periods (menses), he used to order her to put on an Izar and start fondling her.” ‘Aisha added, “None of you could control his sexual desires as the Prophet could.”

[Fondle:To touch in order to express love or affection. v.caress, cuddle, fondle, pet, stroke, hold close, embrace, hug, pat]

The Muslims have complete scholarly consensus (ijma`) that it is unlawful to have intercourse during menstruation, because of the Quranic verse [ They question you concerning menstruation. Say: It is harmful, so let women alone at such times and go not in unto them till they are cleansed. (Quran, 2.222)] and the Prophetic hadiths. [ al-Majmu`]

The hadiths about this include what Anas (Allah be pleased with him) related from the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace) that he said, Do anything, except intercourse. [Muslim]

And Aisha (Allah be pleased with her) said, The Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace) used to order me to wear an izar [f: covering between navel and knee], and would approach me while I was menstruating. [Bukhari and Muslim]

Ibn Abbas said that a man who has intercourse with his wife when she is menstruating should give a little in charity.

This is why the fuqaha have explained that:

1. It is permitted for both the husband and wife to derive sexual pleasure from each other during menstruation.

2. Intercourse is impermissible.

3. Direct contact between the woman’s navel and knees is impermissible.

4. Indirect contact, such as stimulation through a barrier (such as clothing) is permissible.

5. Direct contact above the navel and below the knees is permissible.

6. It is permitted for the wife to masturbate the husband, as well.

It is stated in the Fatawa al-Hindiyya:

It is permitted to kiss ones menstruating wife, to sleep with her, and to enjoy her entire body, except for that which is between navel and knee according to Abu Hanifa and Abu Yusuf, as mentioned in al-Siraj al-Wahhaj.[al-Fatawa al-Hindiyya, 1.39, Bulaq ed.]

Imam Tumurtashi said in his Tanwir al-Absar,

And [menstruation makes it NOT permissible to] approach that which is under the lower garment.

Imam Haskafi explain this in his commentary, Durr al-Mukhtar,

That is, between navel and knee, even without desire. Everything else is permitted.

Imam Ibn Abidin said in his supercommentary, Radd al-Muhtar (Hashiyat Ibn Abidin),

Therefore, it is permitted to enjoy the navel and everything above it, and the knees and everything under it, even without a barrier. It is also permitted to enjoy that which is between the navel and knees with a barrier [f: such as clothing], without actual intercourse, even if blood spreads all over. [Ibn Abidin on Haskafi on Tumurtashi, Radd al-Muthar `ala al-Durr al-Muhtar Sharh Tanwir al-Absar, 1.194, Bulaq e

http://www.inter-islam.org/Prohibitions/mensesinter.html

http://www.hadithcollection.com/sahihbukhari/39-sahih-bukhari-book-06-menstrual-periods/885-sahih-bukhari-volume-001-book-006-hadith-number-299.html

Sexual Intercourse in the state of Menstruation: http://wp.me/p1dL2Q-nL