The problem is the misunderstanding the definition of Muslim. A Muslim is the one who does the deeds instructed by Quran. The Western Medias and the political correctness have divided Muslims into two categories: Radical Muslims and Moderate Muslims, because they are paid by interest groups like Oil and Banks Cartels to do that. However in reality, there is no such group as Moderate Muslims but they are the ones who have followed the path they inherited from their parents. These groups never showed interest to open their Quran to see what is really written in there. Over time the habit of this lack of interest of theirs to open the book has turned into a superstitious fear of doing so. The extent of their knowledge about Quran and Islam has sufficed to what has been transferred to them by the parenthood and what they hear from religious leaders. Their only contact with Quran comes along when they need to pray, in which they hold the closed book with their both washed hands while bowing and kissing the tome, a sign of respect for the book, proceeded by expressing their prayers.
So when we hear about the term “Moderated Muslims”, we have to realize that these passive groups are naive about Islam and have no clue what really Islam is all about, their concepts of Islam do not go beyond the impression “Islam is a religion of peace” their parents have had from Islam. For this reason I don’t call them Muslims at all, they are some group who unknowingly lost in whatever they are blindly pursuing as Islam. They and Their parents never did open the Quran to get its real message!
Therefore, when we talk about Muslims, we actually talk about those who believe in Islam by really making time to read and follow the instructions given in Quran. These groups know that there are 164 Jihad Verses in the Quran, because they have reviewed the Quran. They know that there were 3 stages during the evolution of Islam, stage one in Mecca, in which there was no retaliation, stage two in Medina that were along with defensive fighting, and stage three after conquering Mecca that were associated with the offensive war commanded to kill the pagans and humble, the Christians and Jews. In this last stage of Quran evolution, aggressive Jihad against all unbelievers is commanded and since this is the final teaching of the Quran regarding Jihad, it is what is still in force today. This last stage of developmental process of Islam is exactly the Quran Instruction the Muslims, allegedly radical, are pursuing today as part of their Jihad against infidels. In short there are no Moderate Islam and Radical Islam; there is just one Islam, which is Radical. [DID]
After winning four pivotal presidential primaries on April 26, Hillary Clinton drew a line between “hard working, terror-hating Muslims” and (Muslim) terrorists.
In front of a raucous audience of supporters in Philadelphia, Clinton – the presumptive presidential candidate for the Democratic Party – only made mention of Muslims in relation to terrorism, and reaffirmed the mythic “good versus bad” Muslim paradigm.
Muslim Americans were either “terror-hating” or terrorists, slotted into one of these two caricatured categories with no space in between, or existential affiliation beyond.
Video Clip: UpFront – Muslim Americans and US liberal values
The ‘good Muslim’Within the broader context of counter-radicalization policing, whereby local law enforcement monitor Muslim spaces through electronic surveillance and the seeding of informants, Clinton’s rhetoric presented Muslim Americans with an already familiar, yet never more threatening, ultimatum: choose the moderate brand of “terror-hating” Muslim identity sanctioned by the state, or be branded with the suspicion that invites its scrutiny, surveillance, and civil liberties infractions.
Much ink, many film reels, and an infinite number of news headlines have focused on bad Muslims.
From terrorists to dictators, foreign transgressors to fabricated threats, Muslim identity is marred by almost every imaginable negative stereotype and menacing trope. Representations of good Muslims, in every medium, are few and far between. Read more…
There is no argument about the Obama’s foreign policy that has not been leading anywhere but nowhere. Nonetheless when it comes to Iran, history shows this matter is apart from any presidency decision at a time, rather it is embedded within the long term policy of the U.S. governance system. This is because Iran has always been a critical point of geopolitical interest for the United States.
During the cold war era, as a resolution to stop the expansion of communism in the Middle East, U.S. along with its European allies, in a Conference in France in January 1979, came to conclusion to establish a green belt under the Soviet Union border by promoting and supporting the anti-atheist Islamic theocrats to take over the government in Iran. Since then the Mullahs’ regime has shown its extreme domestic and global atrocities in at least three fronts, act and support of terrorism, meddling in neighboring countries, and grave human rights violation against its own people.
During the past almost four decades, six U.S. presidents have been the bystanders of the regime’s shocking security threats across the region and the globe and yet not a single countermeasure against it has been instituted. Over time it has become more evident that such inaction and indifference of U.S. presidents has nothing to do with any individual U.S. government’s lack of will in responding to these unprecedented threats but has emanated in long term U.S. policies, which sought strategies far into future. These long term policies, per domestic and global necessities, are usually modified or changed over the course of a decade or so and has little to do with a single U.S. government’s dogma at a time.
About four decades of appeasing Iran policy has been carried out by six U.S. presidents. Regardless of the Iranian grassroots discontent, they have made all the supportive efforts they could to keep the mullahs’ regime well and alive. Why?, because firstly, the neocolonialism loves to deal with imbecilic Islamic mullahs whom at the very least, per their Sharia among other things, are against the nationalism, a key-code and an invitation card for an easy foreign aggression. And secondly, the apocalyptic IRI regime can easily be used as a wrecking ball to do the U.S. dirty job of destroying the region. How long this policy will continue? is it going to change at all? if so, when? All the evidence suggests that for no less than another term of the U.S. presidency, regardless of whoever is the next U.S. president, the ongoing chaos in Middle East is not only going to continue but will spread all over the region in general and to Iran in particular. Remember this is part of the long-term U.S. geopolitical strategy in the Middle East, which tends to change the current regional borders once established by the Sykes–Picot agreement, exactly a century ago. [DID]
At least now the betrayal is out in the open.
For years, Syria’s revolutionaries have suspected America’s lack of meaningful support for their uprising against dictator Bashar al-Assad was tied to President Barack Obama’s desire to re-engage with Iran.
Iran is Assad’s primary patron (though Russia, which has been bombing on his behalf since September, is a close second). Iran’s Revolutionary Guards are fighting in Syria, as are soldiers of Iran’s proxy Lebanese militia, Hezbollah, along with Shia irregulars from Afghanistan and Iraq whose passage to Syria Iran facilitates.
Defeat for Assad held the prospect of dramatically weakening Iran’s influence in the Middle East, a primary objective of U.S. foreign policy for decades—until Obama changed it.
In a remarkable New York Times Magazine profile, Ben Rhodes, Obama’s deputy national security advisor for strategic communications, does not explicitly link Obama’s abandonment of Syria with Washington’s outreach to Iran, but he frames the importance Obama placed on rapprochement with Iran in a way that makes it difficult to avoid concluding the two were connected. Read more…
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Vice President, Members of Congress, my fellow Americans — tonight I look around this room and I see two types of people. My friends who want to make America great again, and the rest of you losers who were too stupid to vote for me. I mean, seriously; I won…you didn’t…and that’s why you’re down there in the loser pit because you didn’t have what it takes to be a winner like me.
Now, America is going to win because I won and I will make it happen.
So to all you losers tonight I say this: You’re fired. No, no. Stop laughing. I’m not joking. You’re fired. Go home. Take a vacation to Loser Island. I don’t need you here. America doesn’t need you here. I don’t need you to make America great again. I don’t need a bunch of losers in Congress talking about rules, and procedures, and votes, and filibusters, and closure or cloture or whatever it is you in the Senate use to avoid making decisions. All these things just get in the way. I don’t need them.
So how am I going to make America great again? Easy. I have a plan and the best people. I only hire the best people. I don’t tolerate anything but the best. I fire losers. I will take those plans and make them a reality. We are going to start winning again in so many places. It will be great. And it will be very fast. And the Congress will only get in the way and slow things down. Read more…
The GOP has become a two-headed albino King snake, whose heads sometimes fight with each other try to steal food from one another, one head signifies the GOP nomination and the other one characterizes the GOP establishment. A day after his triumph in Indiana primary presidential election, Trump becomes the presumptive GOP nominee. Since then many high-ranking party officeholders are already running as fast as they can away from Trump. Defiant Trump claims he can win without backing of Republican leaders and says party doesn’t need to show united front.
GOP party leaders in the Senate are telling his colleagues that it’ll be OK for them to run against their own party’s nominee during the general election. They believe that GOP would be better off with 4 years of democratic nominee in the White House rather than having to face the outcome of a disgrace party by the President Trump. The republican establishment doesn’t need to figure out how to fail the general election. Lack of support of two groups of voters for Trump, the Latinos and the women along with the broken and disunited party and also the Democrat’s popularity factor among black voters all guarantee the Democratic nominee to be the next U.S. President.
The Republican Party establishment has begun digging its own grave by actually allowing the party to be stolen away from them. The problem with the GOP party is the fact that it has long been carried on at status quo, holding to their rigid political ideals and old traditional leaders, while ignoring the rapidly changing world. What the Republicans need is to reshape their party structure by introducing trustworthy young and innovative talents who could pump fresh blood in the system and bringing new ideas to the party that can be used to tackle the current challenges of today’s generation. [DID]
It wasn’t precisely an act of moral courage, but House Speaker Paul D. Ryan’s (Wis.) comment that he’s not ready to support presumptive presidential nominee Donald Trump was at least . . . something.
Whether it’s a start or a finish remains to be revealed, but it would seem that we’re witnessing the beginning of the end. To wit: A Republican friend, who has abandoned her behind-the-scenes work of getting conservatives elected, called me recently to express her condolences. “I feel sorry for you,” she said, “because you (given your job) can’t ignore the collapse of Western civilization.”
Now a renegade from the nominating process, she is like so many others disillusioned by the Trump movement who’ve slipped the noose of politics in search of meaning beyond the Beltway. But Trump’s triumph, though most insiders thought it impossible, should have surprised no one. He was inevitable not because he was The One but because he’s a shrewd dealmaker with deep pockets and unencumbered by a moral compass. Both his platform and style were crafted to fit the findings of extensive polling he commissioned before announcing his run. Read more…