Join the discussion below, or Read more at Scoop.
#43599 Nov 5, 2013
Later Graham says that “a lot of the Jews are great friends of mine. They swarm around me and are friendly to me. Because they know I am friendly to Israel and so forth. They don’t know how I really feel about what they’re doing to this country.”
After Graham’s departure Nixon says to Haldeman,“You know it was good we got this point about the Jews across.”
“It’s a shocking point,” Haldeman replies.
“Well,” says Nixon,“It’s also, the Jews are irreligious, atheistic, immoral bunch of bastards.”
Within days of these exchanges becoming public the decrepit Graham was hauled from his semi-dotage, and impelled to express public contrition.“Experts” on Graham were duly cited as expressing their “shock” at Graham’s White House table talk.
Why the shock?
Don’t they know that this sort of stuff is consonant with the standard conversational bill of fare at 75 per cent of the country clubs in America, not to mention many a Baptist soiree?
Nixon thought that American Jews were lefty peaceniks who dominated the Democratic Party and were behind the attacks on him.
Graham reckoned it was Hollywood Jews who had sunk the nation in porn.
Haldeman agreed with both of them.
At whatever level of fantasy they were all acknowledging power. But they didn’t say they wanted to kill a million Jews.
That’s what Billy Graham said about the Vietnamese and no one raised a bleat.
This essay is excerpted from End Times: the Death of the Fourth Estate.
Just a Click Away
This morning my inbox contained four different fundraising appeals from some outfit called Nation of Change. They are literally pulverizing their readers with money grubbing emails, leading me to suspect that the only kind of “change” they are after is, well, yours. These appeals for money, accompanied by various bleats of desperation, never seem to end. I don’t know who they are or where they are from. I don’t know how they got my email address or how to get off. I’ve asked them to stop, but they respond by sending them in triplicate. This strikes me as an apt metaphor for the hollow state of liberalism in America.
That’s not the way we operate at CounterPunch. We don’t phish for your email or sell it off when you entrust it to us. We don’t cluster bomb you with money requests. Early on, Alex and I decided that we’d only do one of these humiliating fund drives a year and that when we reached our goal we would stop. Stop with a screeching of tires.(Our model was the old Earth First!, which used to run a “disgusting plea for filthy lucre.”) In the past, this kind of faith in our readers has worked. You’ve responded promptly and generously.
Now we find ourselves in Year Five of Obama Time. Look around: No one has any spare money. Few people have job security. Nobody’s having any fun. And we don’t derive any pleasure from saying, we told you so. But, hell, we TOLD YOU SO. And, guess what, Hillary is waiting in the wings.
So what are we going to do? What we’ve always done. We’re going to bear down, keep churning out some of the best writing on any side of the political spectrum, from journalists, young and old, new and familiar, from around the world. We’re going to get under people’s skin, make them uncomfortable, make them squirm–and occasionally make people laugh at the absurdity of it all.
But we really can’t do this without your financial backing. So if you want to support truly independent journalism, this is your moment. A measure of justice is just a click away, click away, click away …
New Issue of CounterPunch Magazine!
#43600 Nov 5, 2013
The new issue of CounterPunch magazine, with the possible exception of my own desperate stab at a column, is a great read, from beginning to end. Peter Lee’s cover story on the NSA and Its Enablers is ground-breaking and disturbing; the irrepressible (and unrepentant Commie) Andre Vltchek contributes a vivid dispatch from the streets of Cairo; Ron Jacobs, currently holed up in the mtns of Penn., conducts a probing interview with BillAyers;Lee Ballinger compares and contrasts James Brown and Jay Z; the wonderfully astute eye of Kim Nicolini surveys the films of the great director Andrea Arnold; Kristin Kolb continues her meditation on the politics of body parts, this time crossing her c’s, u’s and t’s (see 12th Night), JoAnn Wypijewski (clearly the intellectual in the house) reappraises the Occupy Movement; Mike Whitney charts how the bankers routed the regulators; Chris Floyd takes a heart-breaking trip into the Deep South to lay his mother’s ashes to rest; and yrs truly writes on the plight of hunger strikers in Guantanamo. The new cover of art, by Nick Roney, the Odilon Redon of Humboldt County, may be his most ingenious yet–we call it The Dark Side of the PRISM. Plus, there are some really funny letters to the editor…All this for $35 a year? They say that’s a bargain, the best you ever had…(Cue Pete Townshend power chord.)
Jeffrey St. Clair is the author of Been Brown So Long It Looked Like Green to Me: the Politics of Nature, Grand Theft Pentagon and Born Under a Bad Sky. His latest book is Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion. He can be reached at: [email protected]
Alexander Cockburn’s Guillotined! and A Colossal Wreck are available from CounterPunch.
#43601 Nov 5, 2013
Very good. Muq be ashamed of his idolatry. Muslim worse than indians in stone god worship.
suspecting hubul really what islams pray to.
Do you have photo of red stone idol hubul and how u know buried inside the kaeba ?
#43602 Nov 5, 2013
anyone else notice how quickly muq runs away whenever his admitted worship of hubal gets
#43603 Nov 5, 2013
So says dollar worshipping ding dong chang....go back to your yellow gutters....llol,loll
#43604 Nov 5, 2013
These brave pig muncher pals have graduated from killing children and women to sheep....LLOL,LLOL, ultimate on manhood and bravery.....LLOL,LLOL,LLOL,
choke on this pig munchers......
As part of the campaign of quiet terrorism against Palestinians, IDF soldiers assault sheep with stun grenades.
One day in September, Walid Said Muhammad Id, a resident of Burin – a Palestinian village surrounded by Israeli settlements and outposts – went with his son to herd their flock of sheep. Their pasture is close to one of the nearby Israeli outposts, Har Bracha B.
About an hour after the two Palestinian shepherds reached their pasture, they observed three Israeli soldiers coming down towards them from the outpost.
Yes, the outpost – illegal though it is – is nevertheless protected by the Israeli State. This is just a regular part of life and we ignore it; but it should be mentioned from time to time. Imagine a band of outlaws taking over someone else’s land, and instead of removing the outlaws the authorities hasten to protect them — even though they openly state that the outlaws’ presence there is illegal!
The Israeli soldiers ordered Id to remove his sheep from the pasture. He informed them that he was renting this plot, and that it was located in Area B and not Area C; and so he refused to evacuate. The soldiers repeated their demand and Id repeated his refusal. The soldiers then spoke at length on their cellular phones. Finally, they turned back to the illegal outpost.
When stun grenades are not available, stones are used to wound the sheep — a common weapon deployed against these helpless creatures by Israeli settlers. Click to enlarge
And then another force of Israeli soldiers presently arrived on the scene. The two groups of soldiers passed each other, and the soldiers in the second group, without uttering a word, pulled out stun grenades. These are small explosive devices which create a flash and a loud noise, intended to cause panic and disperse demonstrations. The soldiers threw about ten stun grenades into the flock. The sheep, terrified, dispersed in all directions. Then the soldiers turned on their heels and left.
Id had committed no offense. Had he committed an offense, even the smidgen of an offense, the soldiers would have detained him. These soldiers are not, after all, accountable to anyone.
The soldiers had no argument to field against him. Not even some dubious security excuse. So they went straight to terrorism: they used violence against his flock and dispersed it. Oh, you think you may pasture your sheep here? You have the “chutzpah” to maintain your rights in the face of an armed Jewish male? We’ll show you!
If there is a hell, and in his low moments this writer thinks perhaps there should be, there ought to be a special circle of hell for those who abuse the helpless: for those who abuse a baby, a child, a tied-up human being, or a frightened animal — for those who pick on any creature vulnerable and confused and unable to understand why it is being attacked.
Here is the 2013 model IDF: the strongest army in the Middle East – when it comes to terrorizing sheep, at any rate. What next?
Firing tear gas at cows?
Dispersing goats with the “Skunk,” the IDF’s patented stink-bomb, squirting smelly liquids in all directions?
Shooting rubber bullets at Palestinian shepherd dogs?
A nightly raid on Palestinian chicken coops, stuffed full of terrified flightless birds?
Holding Palestinian pets in administrative detention?
The goal of the soldiers, of course, was to terorrize Id: to enable the quiet terrorism of the settlers, whose point is to filch another acre, steal another goat, by scaring the Palestinians away and driving them to despair.
#43605 Nov 5, 2013
Unlike the scenario to which they had long grown accustomed, the Israeli soldiers were now facing a man who stood up forcibly for his rights. So instead of dealing with him directly, which they didn’t have the guts to do — since he was totally innocent — they resorted to attacking his animals: those equally innocent of any crime, the most helpless of the helpless.
Of course, they could have done a lot more: they could have detained him and assaulted him though he was guiltless, knowing that the chances they would pay any sort of price for their brutal actions are absolutely nil.
I guess they couldn’t muster the courage.
Israeli soldier threatening activist for saying I exist
This isn’t just terrorism, it’s despicable cowardice. The cowardice of sadistic criminals. It’s also very bad soldiering.
An army whose troops get used to dealing with challenges in this way ought not to be surprised when, facing a real enemy, it finds itself marching towards it up one road and fleeing from it down seven others.
Commanders who turn a blind eye to such incidents, and a public which just doesn’t want to know, not only raise a new generation of coarse thugs who will return to civilian life as coarse thugs — they also bring shame on the entire Israeli army and turn it into an object of universal contempt.
Many Israelis pride themselves on not having any moral sense, in recognizing only what is utilitarian —they think morals “are for the weak.”
So this is how they show their “strength” when they are actually weak: they throw hand grenades at sheep and prove their “courage” by wounding and killing animals.
THEY KILL PEOPLE TOO
#43606 Nov 5, 2013
We normally ignore and step around your little piles of frothy vomit...
But you have to laugh at any Muslims claim that Jews mistreat sheep.... Any Muslims don't ?
Firstly islam copies the Jews. Haram - kosher same same, but with the usual Islamic corruption of it. And you do know the house of Saud is of Jewish origin ?
But anyway let's examine how islam treats sheep..
I am sure as a muslim you have been down the marshalling yards as the 'christian sheep' come off the boat..
Your old man (well if he is in fact your father of
your sisters child being you) paying his rupee or rial and dragging the poor hapless sheep down the street as his trophy.
Later in the scrub next to your humpy, the mob gathers as they all line up to kick and beat the
poor bleating tethered sheep, you would no doubt be poking it's eyes with a stick as a brave little muslim.. Then the big moment after the
'Christian sheep' has been tormented, stabbed, it's bones broken, it's face smashed as the mob ululates and shrills - while your dad performs
simulated sex acts, a brave Muslim slashes at the sheep screaming at it "bismillah Allahu Akbar" ie my god is greater than your (Sheep Jesus ?) god - and after much blood and stabbing by the brave little Muslims, the poor old sheep not understanding a single word of
anything finally dies twitching & bled dry.
The family mob are most excited and spread the 'christian blood' of the sheep all over themselves
to show Allah how brave they were in the battle against the powerful Christian sheep.
The father slashes and hacks with his blunt
'sword of allah' and eventually the poor old sheeps head falls off and is proudly passed around and worn on the head in turn by all the
assembled family as they take turns to reenact the murdering.
Allah will be most pleased how they have dispatched the infidel sheep & spilt is blood to
get Allah points.
(personal eyewitness account of exactly how a Muslim family ritually kills a purchased sheep from mali to malaysia as well as downtown Allahabad being home to the most ignorant of all.
Yep - you muslims can really be the experts on the subject of animal welfare...
#43607 Nov 5, 2013
You really are a completely ignorant idiot MUQ.
It's best you continue to live in that sh*t hole that you and your kind built for you.
You could never survive in a Western country, your just too stupid!!
Since: Jun 12
#43608 Nov 5, 2013
Then tell that to the person who wrote the koran dumbo because that's how they wrote it. LMAO
Since: Jun 12
#43609 Nov 5, 2013
HERE'S YOUR FIRST FREE ENGLISH LESSON:
plow also plough (plou)
1. A farm implement consisting of a heavy blade at the end of a beam, usually hitched to a draft team or motor vehicle and used for breaking up soil and cutting furrows in preparation for sowing.
2. An implement of similar function, such as a snowplow.
v. plowed also ploughed, plow·ing also plough·ing, plows also ploughs
a. To break and turn over (earth) with a plow.
b. To form (a furrow, for example) with a plow.
c. To form furrows in with or as if with a plow: plow a field.
2. To make or form with driving force: I plowed my way through the crowd.
3. To cut through (water): plow the high seas.
1. To break and turn up earth with a plow.
2. To admit of plowing: Rocky earth plows poorly.
3. To move or progress with driving force: The attackers formed a wedge and plowed through the enemy line.
4. To proceed laboriously; plod: plowed through the backlog of work.
To reinvest (earnings or profits) in one's business.
plow into Informal
1. To strike with force.
2. To undertake (a task, for example) with eagerness and vigor.
1. To cause to vanish under something piled up.
2. To overwhelm, as with burdens.
BACK TO SCHOOL FOR YOU. LMAO
“Free Speech in a Free World ”
Since: May 10
#43610 Nov 5, 2013
The women have said publicly then that they are not Islamic law.
More so that the laws are that of the individual male judges personal opinion over that of Islamic law in the Quran .
Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
#43611 Nov 5, 2013
No regret” for killing 160 people
No More Truthless Heroes
By Joshua Brollier (Contd.)
Was it to protect us? How informed are we as to who these “Taliban fighters” are, and why do we have the right to take their lives or to occupy their country in the first place? This is especially relevant as the current administration attempts to legally justify its even broader parameters for killing which automatically categorize every male 16 or older as a militant. Other members of the military command structure have been quite willing to extend that logic to "children with potential hostile intent."
So as we consider these issues of legality and US legacy, perhaps we should step back and remember a few big picture facts about Iraq and Afghanistan. The belligerent and misplaced aggression and ensuing chaos after the 2003 Iraq invasion led to hundreds of thousands of casualties (over a million by some calculations) and the largest refugee crisis in the region since the Nakba, with over 4 million Iraqis being displaced from their homes.
In addition to the many thousands of Afghan casualties, more than a decade of crushing warfare and billions of dollars per week being spent on the effort, Afghans have been “perishing under one of the highest infant and maternal mortality rates in the world. At least 36% live below the poverty line and 35% of Afghan men do not have work. The UN calls the acute malnutrition of nearly one million children in the Afghan south ‘shocking’. Almost three quarters of all Afghans do not have access to safe drinking water.”
Given these appalling truths, I am not inclined to write off the immense suffering we have caused around the globe as a necessity or reframe it as victory, nor to join in the popular declarations that Mr. Romesha and Mr. Kyle were heroes. I don’t want to demonize them either. They are part of an imperial system to which many in the US are deeply tied and unquestioningly support with tax dollars. Quite possibly Mr. Kyle was a “family man” to his circle and a loyal friend to his comrades. But can we really honor him as such when he was willing to rob Iraqi families of their fathers and sons?
The New York Times reported that Mr. Kyle saw himself as “protecting American troops” and that his deadly skills were “payback for the 9/11 attacks.” Even as he may have initially been deceived into thinking Sadaam Hussein was responsible for 9/11, how could he extend payback to the entire Iraqi population and return for three additional tours without questioning this logic, which was so full of holes that even the Bush administration gave up on defending it? If you are going to take a life, wouldn’t you want to know with the highest certainty why you were doing so? No, this is not a hero. This is a “yes man” who was so callous to the effects of his violence that he intentionally took a veteran with combat PTSD to a shooting range as a form of therapy.
Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
#43612 Nov 5, 2013
Since God is same for entire earth, His rules and regulations are best for every one, not only Arabs or Asians, but to Europe and America as well..
If "bullet thru the head" is the best solution for me, why you complain about the violence in the world?
How you became the owner of a country which you yourself "invaded" a mere 200 years back and killed most of its original inhabitants?
You should practice first what you preach to other people.
You are sons of convicts and criminals and your post displays your past very clearly!!
Since: Jun 12
#43613 Nov 6, 2013
Question: What's the Difference Between Shia and Sunni Muslims? Information for Non Muslims
Answer: Both Sunni and Shia Muslims share the most fundamental Islamic beliefs and articles of faith. The differences between these two main sub-groups within Islam initially stemmed not from spiritual differences, but political ones. Over the centuries, however, these political differences have spawned a number of varying practices and positions which have come to carry a spiritual significance.
Origins - A Question of Leadership
The division between Shia and Sunni dates back to the death of the Prophet Muhammad, and the question of who was to take over the leadership of the Muslim nation. Sunni Muslims agree with the position taken by many of the Prophet's companions, that the new leader should be elected from among those capable of the job. This is what was done, and the Prophet Muhammad's close friend and advisor, Abu Bakr, became the first Caliph of the Islamic nation. The word "Sunni" in Arabic comes from a word meaning "one who follows the traditions of the Prophet."
On the other hand, some Muslims share the belief that leadership should have stayed within the Prophet's own family, among those specifically appointed by him, or among Imams appointed by God Himself.
The Shia Muslims believe that following the Prophet Muhammad's death, leadership should have passed directly to his cousin/son-in-law, Ali bin Abu Talib. Throughout history, Shia Muslims have not recognized the authority of elected Muslim leaders, choosing instead to follow a line of Imams which they believe have been appointed by the Prophet Muhammad or God Himself. The word "Shia" in Arabic means a group or supportive party of people. The commonly-known term is shortened from the historical "Shia-t-Ali," or "the Party of Ali." They are also known as followers of "Ahl-al-Bayt" or "People of the Household" (of the Prophet).
Sunni Muslims make up the majority (85%) of Muslims all over the world. Significant populations of Shia Muslims can be found in Iran and Iraq, and large minority communities in Yemen, Bahrain, Syria, and Lebanon.
Differences in Religious Practice
From this initial question of political leadership, some aspects of spiritual life have been affected and now differ between the two groups of Muslims.
It is important to remember that despite these differences in opinion and practice, Shia and Sunni Muslims share the main articles of Islamic belief and are considered by most to be brethren in faith. In fact, most Muslims do not distinguish themselves by claiming membership in any particular group, but prefer to call themselves simply, "Muslims."
Shia Muslims believe that the Imam is sinless by nature, and that his authority is infallible as it comes directly from God. Therefore, Shia Muslims often venerate the Imams as saints and perform pilgrimages to their tombs and shrines in the hopes of divine intercession.
Sunni Muslims counter that there is no basis in Islam for a hereditary privileged class of spiritual leaders, and certainly no basis for the veneration or intercession of saints. Sunni Muslims contend that leadership of the community is not a birthright, but a trust that is earned and which may be given or taken away by the people themselves.
To be continued
Since: Jun 12
#43614 Nov 6, 2013
Religious Texts and Practices
Shia Muslims also feel animosity towards some of the companions of the Prophet Muhammad, based on their positions and actions during the early years of discord about leadership in the community. Many of these companions (Abu Bakr, Umar ibn Al Khattab, Aisha, etc.) have narrated traditions about the Prophet's life and spiritual practice. Shia Muslims reject these traditions (hadith) and do not base any of their religious practices on the testimony of these individuals. This naturally gives rise to some differences in religious practice between the two groups. These differences touch all detailed aspects of religious life: prayer, fasting, pilgrimage, etc.
#43615 Nov 6, 2013
And so says an Indian wannabe Wahhabist jizya slave of a pagan Arab moon god.. Allah is not a universal diety and never a god. You insult real gods when you say that & Allah as well. He knows his place Allah / he's a diety invented from others and exclusive to some qureesh clans.
MUQ, btw - there are very few descendants of convicts in australia - maybe a 6,000 thousand
descendants? Most convicts were 'good' convicts ie more victims of being poor and minor or non violent crimes and thus selected to setlle Australia. In fact 95% of Australia's poplulation arrived after 1880 - 100 years after the first fleet.
The aboringines are not one race or tribe but thousands of quite different tribes & clans. They were lucky to have british enlightened colonialism. More settlers were killed by
aboriginals than vice versa and how aborigines were treated in australia settlement was peaceful, enlightened and to their benefit by comparism to any other colonisation of the day.
So back to australian convicts - say 6,000 or so.
That's even less than the 12,360 Palestinian Muslim 'refugees' that have a valid entitlement.
I think you are clutching at straws, and your arguments are increasingly weak.
You clearly are having doubts about remaining
muslim aren't you ?
#43616 Nov 6, 2013
I don't think either the Shia or Sunni have legitimacy. It all comes down to who defined islam - was this Abu Bakr or Muhammad ?
Abu Bakr & Muhammad concocted 'islam'
together - from 605 AD they had plotted a revival of the prior Hamyarite Jewish aligned fanaticism.
When muhammad was outcast as a heretic by
the Jews in 624 AD -it was Abu Bakr that strung
together the synthetic of Hamyrite (prior book of T'ubah) judaism and pagan Allah god worship
into the synthetic of islam.(Gabriel being a metaphor for Abu Bakr - also in cave with him).
The deal was that the Bakri would inherit islam.
Thus the marriage to Aisha - Abu bakr's daughter etc. Aisha failed to provide a heir, was
having sex with others etc and muhammad tried
to adopt a slave son as a heir.. The Bakri objected violently and launched 3 assassination attempts on Muhammad. That's all on record.
Muhammad then selected Ali as his heir (the Bakri or sunni deny Ali is of muhammads bloodline and this has some merit to it) &
muhammad dictated to Ali a reversion back to hamyarite or ishmaelism.
Including that Islam was bogus, and he was no more a messenger than anyone else.
Aisha on the pretext of a reconciliation poisoned Muhammad (ali who had been defending
him was called away) & the entire armed Bakri clan stripped Muhammads house of all the
offending documents and the recession.
This is also all recorded as fact beyond doubt.
So Abu Bakr was always going to replace Muhammad - he was the father of islam, and he
had muhammad murdered to 'secure' his inheritance & to prevent Ali as Muhhamad's
annointed heir from reverting it to
ishmaelism as was Muhammad final wishes &
script dictated to Ali.
Bakr made a mess of it - 3 civil wars & uprisings
because everyone knew what the Bakri preached was fake, and not the final words of muhammad.
Bakr died - and Aisha claimed she was the legitimate heir of islam - as promised when she was married to muhammad at 6 years old & consummated at 9 years old etc.
Ali & Aisha had a camel fight between their rival tribes & Ali won.
So no 'council' or 'consensus' here in succession planning and ideology of bloodline v elected.
It was a camel fight.
Ali became caliphate, started tentative attempts
to shift islam to what Muhammad had told him, and then was murdered by agents sent by Aisha - poison on their swords.
Uthman was then trotted out and that was when he wrote a 'Quran'(18 other versions of script
existed). Muhammad never wrote a Quran.
Uthman demanded of Aisha the final scripts of muhhammad - "eaten by a goat - Allah willed it".
The Bakri did not like Uthman's 'invention' of a quran, too jewish & ishmaelist... they murdered and buried him as a Jew & non believer. Then rewrote the offending parts. This is how
pathetically fake the quran is.
Sunni = Bakr followers of Abu Bakr & Aisha.
Shia = Ali , but accept most of Uthman's Quran.
Neither follow the final words of muhammad which were destroyed by the Bakri when they
#43617 Nov 6, 2013
How can the people replace their spiritual leaders ?
Christian Ministers were once looked upon as sinless until some of their flock got randy with the kiddies .
#43618 Nov 6, 2013
Question: What's the Difference Between Shia and Sunni Muslims?
A Question of Succession etc..
The Shia Muslims believe Ali as bloodline.
Shia and Sunni Muslims share main articles of Islamic belief etc
This corrects the re order of caliphates, but gets to the same conclusion.
->I don't think either the Shia or Sunni have
It all comes down to who defined and owned islam - was this Abu Bakr or Muhammad ?
Abu Bakr & Muhammad concocted 'islam' together - from 605 AD they plotted a revival of the Hamyarite Jewish aligned fanaticism.
Muhammad was then outcast as a heretic by the Jews in 624 AD & it was Abu Bakr who strung
together the Hamyrite (prior book of T'ubah) judaism & pagan Allah god worship into the synthetic of islam.(Gabriel being a metaphor for
Abu Bakr - also in cave with him).
The deal was the Bakri would inherit islam.
Thus the marriage to Aisha - Abu bakr's daughter etc. Aisha failed to provide a heir, was
having sex with others etc and muhammad tried to adopt a slave son as a heir.
The Bakri objected violently & made 3 assassination attempts on Muhammad.
That's all on record.
Muhammad then selected Ali as his heir (the
Bakri or sunni deny Ali is of Muhammad's bloodline, this has some merit to it) & Muhammad dictated to Ali a reversion - back to hamyarite or
Muhammad then said much of Islam was bogus, he was no more a messenger than anyone else, & to beware the Bakri (Sunni) as a false path.
Aisha on pretext of a reconciliation poisoned Muhammad (Ali who was defending him was called away) & the entire armed Bakri clan
stripped Muhammad's house of all these offending documents and the recession.
That is a recorded fact.
So Abu Bakr was always going to replace Muhammad - he was the 'father' of islam, he had muhammad murdered to 'secure' his inheritance
& to prevent Ali as Muhhamad's 'anointed' heir from reverting it to ishmaelism as per Muhammad final wishes & script dictated to Ali.
Bakr made a mess of it -everyone knew what the Bakri preached was fake, & not the final words of muhammad.
Abu Bakr died - Omar took over and was worse. 3 civil wars & 12 years passed, then Uthman was trotted out. This was when Uthman wrote a
'Quran'(18 other versions or fragments script 'on bone or parchment'). Uthman demanded of Aisha the final scripts of Muhammad - she said it was
"eaten by a goat - Allah willed it".
The Bakri did not like Uthman's 'invention' of a
quran, too jewish & ishmaelist... they murdered and buried him as a Jew & non believer.
Then rewrote the offending parts.
That is how unbelievably pathetic & fake the 'Quran' is.
Aisha then claimed she was the legitimate heir of islam - as promised when married to muhammad at 6 years old & consummated at 9 years old etc.
Ali & Aisha had a camel fight between their rival tribes & Ali won.
So no 'council' or 'consensus' here in succession
planning or ideology of bloodline v elected.!!
A camel fight decided things.!!
Ali became caliphate, started tentative attempts to shift islam to what Muhammad had told him, and he was murdered by agents sent by Aisha - poison on their swords.
Sunni = Bakr followers of Abu Bakr & Aisha.
Shia = Ali, but accept Uthman's scrabbled mess of a Quran as Ali never got a chance to change it.. This is the 'tragedy of islam' the Shia talk of.
Neither follow the final words of muhammad,
which were destroyed by the Bakri when they
Add your comments below
|Why the Confederate flag flies in SC||3 min||Kato||2,965|
|Despite Paris, Obama rejects calls for shift in...||Wed||goonsquad||91|
|Capital Journal Daybreak: Skies Darken for Acco...||Wed||Jeff Brightone||1|
|Osama Bin Laden reportedly calls Obama 'powerle... (Sep '09)||Wed||Ritual Habitual||34|
|The Syrian no-fly risk: The 2016 candidates sho...||Tue||Cordwainer Trout||2|
|Gadhafi: U.S. should seek peace with bin Laden (Feb '09)||Nov 23||Westboro Lifetime...||48|
|How to argue about whether we should say a radi...||Nov 23||wximagery||2|
Find what you want!
Search Terrorism Forum Now
Copyright © 2015 Topix LLC