Shaykh Riyad Nadwi - Islam in a Post 9/11 World: Muslim Minorities and the Way Forward
Source: Oxford Cross-Cultural Research Institute (OCCRi).
A lecture on the plots of those who wish to dismantle Islam in the name of reformation and on the excuse of 9/11. The lecture was deliver in 2004 and is even more important for Muslims living as a minority in 2010 than it was when it was first delivered.
Shaykh (Dr.) M. Riyad H. Nadwi is a graduate of Dar al-Uloom, Nadwatul 'Ulama in Lucknow, India, where he studied the traditional Islamic sciences for a period of twelve years. He has been living in Oxford for the last 18 years where he has served in several academic positions. Shaikh Nadwi also has a PhD from the University of Portsmouth in Cognitive Science. The Shaikh has published works on a variety of subjects ranging from Islamic theology, philosophy, to science, psychology and politics and is considered as one of the most erudite scholars alive today
(Part 1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oec2Adey0w8&feature=related
Transcript of Part 1:
The question is, whose purpose has 9/11 served? As Muslims, I think we need to have a serious soul-searching, an intelligent debate on the reasoning behind acts of violence, acts of senseless violence being perpetrated around the world in the name of Islam and in the service of Muslims. And of course the most recent being the tragedy of Beslan. I say this while recognizing that yes, thousands of Muslims, in fact, 100,000 Muslims were massacred in Chechnya, of which around 40,000 were children.
I use the word senseless on two counts -- first, the overwhelming fiqh arguments against such actions. But apart from that, if one looks from a purely tactical perspective, we can find that it is persistently counterproductive. In fact, this course of action is precisely what Benjamin Netanyahu and other Israelis are delighted to hear about. On the 12th of September 2001, when Netanyahu was asked about what he thought about the 9/11 attacks, he responded, and I quote, "It's very good." Yes, this is what he said; he said that it was very good. Now, obviously, he didn't stop there, he said, "oh, well, it's not very good, but it will generate immediate sympathy" (for Israel). The reporter understood what he was saying. He read his emotion, and reported it exactly as he had said it, and it was published in the New York Times.
We also know of the confirmed stories of the Israelis in New York who were arrested for dancing and celebrating on the rooftops when the planes hit the building. They celebrated because they knew how much this would serve the cause of Israel.
This kind of strategic thinking is not new. In fact, right-wing military generals in the United States Army are historically infamous for seeking this kind of action. These actions are known as pretext operations. We need to read the history of these people, to learn about the depravity of their thinking, before allowing ourselves to be used, indirectly or directly, within or for their grand and vicious plans.
There is authenticated documented evidence confirming that the US military High Command had not only recognized the benefit of this kind of attack on America decades ago, but at one point they drew up detailed plans to conduct terrorist campaigns on American citizens in order to justify the invasion of another country. Now before people put their "conspiracy theory" earplugs and blindfolds on, please allow me to point out that what I'm saying and what I'm about to say here is not based on ignorant paranoia, hearsay and unproven conspiracy; rather it is based on published declassified and authenticated documents; documents that confirmed that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the United States Army, General Lemnitzer, approved a plan code-named Operation Northwoods; during the stand-off with Cuba Operation Northwoods was conceived.
The plan was approved by every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. It called for innocent people to be shot on American streets, of boats carrying refugees fleeing Cuba to be sunk on the high seas, and for a wave of violent terrorism to be launched in Washington, D.C., Miami, and elsewhere. It called for the framing of people for bombings they did not commit, and for planes to be "hijacked" using phony evidence to blame Fidel Castro, in order to give General Lemnitzer and his colleagues the excuse as well as the public and international backing they needed to launch their war against Cuba.
One idea seriously considered involved the launch of John Glenn, the first American to orbit the earth. He was going up in a rocket. And their proposal was that the rocket should explode and kill John Glenn. And I quote here: "The objective is to provide irrevocable proof that the fault lies with the Communists in Cuba." And Lemnitzer explained that this would be accomplished by manufacturing various pieces of evidence which would prove electronic interference on the part of the Cubans.
They proposed that, and I quote again, "We could blow up a US ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba." And they also explained that the casualty lists in US newspapers would cause "a useful wave of national indignation." "We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities, and even in Washington," they wrote. "The terror campaign could be pointed at Cuban refugees seeking haven in the United States, exploding a few plastic explosive bombs at carefully chosen spots. The arrest of Cuban agents and the release of carefully-prepared documents substantiating Cuban involvement also would be helpful in projecting the idea of an irresponsible government. Hijacking attempts against civil air and surface craft could appear to continue as harassing measures condoned by the government of Cuba." (End of transcript of Part 1)
Shaykh Riyad Nadwi - Islam in a Post 9/11 World: Muslim Minorities and the Way Forward (Part 2)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfNN3IR77NE
Shaykh Riyad Nadwi - Islam in a Post 9/11 World: Muslim Minorities and the Way Forward (Part 3)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AeG1tU3M8HI
Shaykh Riyad Nadwi - Islam in a Post 9/11 World: Muslim Minorities and the Way Forward (Part 4)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSRx8cdglbg
Shaykh Riyad Nadwi - Islam in a Post 9/11 World: Muslim Minorities and the Way Forward (Part 5)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aL_v-HhD9aY
Shaykh Riyad Nadwi - Islam in a Post 9/11 World: Muslim Minorities and the Way Forward (Part 6)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LmCrozZhvw&feature=related
Shaykh Riyad Nadwi - Islam in a Post 9/11 World: Muslim Minorities and the Way Forward (Part 7)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhjdPN4LvJA
Shaykh Riyad Nadwi - Islam in a Post 9/11 World: Muslim Minorities and the Way Forward (Part 8)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FC5rOtAEFI
Shaykh Riyad Nadwi - Islam in a Post 9/11 World: Muslim Minorities and the Way Forward (Part 9)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1ks22H20PI&feature=related
Sunday, July 25, 2010
Saturday, July 17, 2010
Muslim Weekly Slanders 7/7 Patsies
http://www.themuslimweekly.com/DetailView.aspx?NEWSID=TW00015005
"When Mohammed Sidique Khan, Shehzad Tanweer, Hasib Hussain and Germaine Lindsay carried out the terrorist attack, they succeeded in bringing the pure name of Islam into disrepute and instantly dissolved the efforts of a Muslim community that had worked tirelessly to show that Islam and terrorism/ extremism were mutually exclusive terms."
- The Muslim Weekly, "Five Years On: 7/7 Remembered"
“Ye who are conscious of God – If a fasiq [untrustworthy violent person] comes to you with alarming news, make sure you verify their word, lest you afflict people out of your ignorance, and regret your actions” – Holy Qu’ran, 49:6
Why would The Muslim Weekly slander four young men who have for all intents and purposes been proven innocent by the research of Nick Kollerstrom (Terror on the Tube: Beyond the Veil of 7/7) and Muad'dib (7/7 Ripple Effect)? Why would the Weekly's editors take the word of a fasiq - the criminals who have murdered millions of Muslims in wars of aggression using false-flag ops like 9/11 as a pretext - without verifying the matter?
John Leonard, editor of Progressive Press, called our attention to this problem.
Kevin Barrett (editor, Muslims for 9/11 Truth website) responds:
Someone should tell them that Islam means submission to God, not submission to the lies of shayateen (satans).
David Livingstone (of Surrendering Islam) adds:
The problem is love of Dunia (material world). We naively assume that most Muslims here in the West are devoted to Islam. They are to an extent, but mostly they are here for the material benefits, and have constructed an edifice of excuses to claim otherwise. And that is the problem, and that is why they don't see the contradiction (or hypocrisy?) of their actions.
For example, many years back, I challenged a Muslim who was a good acquaintance of myself and a number of other converts. This was a very active brother in the community, very knowledgeable, and always at the mosque. I asked him why he came to Canada, and he said, "for Dawah". I laughed. I said, "come on?!". My convert friends were shocked that I would challenge him this way. He said, "no, really". I said it again, "come on?!" It really seemed absurd that he would think I would fall for that.
Then he finally conceded. "Yes, brother, you are right, I came here for Dunia." He's just one example, but how many others are like him?
They actually all naively thought they would come here and everything would be peachy, and as a bonus, they would attract Westerners to Islam. This is a result of their excuses. Dawah doesn't work like this. It doesn't happen with millions of self-appointed Muslim missionaries flocking here to do the work.
They are not here to spread Islam. Or, they are only willing to spread the kind of Islam that will not place in jeopardy their ability to participate materially in this society.
So in whichever way they are challenged to apologize for Islam, they'll do it. They don't want to see the bigger picture. They can't even imagine it. Muslims tend to be proud. They assumed they would impress. So this oppression all comes as a great shock.
They don't remember the verse in the Qur'an which warns them, "... And they will never cease fighting you until they turn you back from your religion if they can."
They don't want to challenge this society, they want to be a part of it.
They should be working to reform this society, but how can they when they have lost touch with the meaning of Islam in the first place? How is wearing hijab and growing a beard, and eating and drinking with their right hand going to solve the endemic problems of the West? They should be highlighting how Islam has the answer for many of the injustices that plague the modern world, beginning with the impoverishment of the Third World by the World Bank.
But they don't even realize that social justice issues are the very basis of Islam. They've completely lost tough with that. So in preaching their deviated version of Islam here in the West, they are doing more harm than good.
"When Mohammed Sidique Khan, Shehzad Tanweer, Hasib Hussain and Germaine Lindsay carried out the terrorist attack, they succeeded in bringing the pure name of Islam into disrepute and instantly dissolved the efforts of a Muslim community that had worked tirelessly to show that Islam and terrorism/ extremism were mutually exclusive terms."
- The Muslim Weekly, "Five Years On: 7/7 Remembered"
“Ye who are conscious of God – If a fasiq [untrustworthy violent person] comes to you with alarming news, make sure you verify their word, lest you afflict people out of your ignorance, and regret your actions” – Holy Qu’ran, 49:6
Why would The Muslim Weekly slander four young men who have for all intents and purposes been proven innocent by the research of Nick Kollerstrom (Terror on the Tube: Beyond the Veil of 7/7) and Muad'dib (7/7 Ripple Effect)? Why would the Weekly's editors take the word of a fasiq - the criminals who have murdered millions of Muslims in wars of aggression using false-flag ops like 9/11 as a pretext - without verifying the matter?
John Leonard, editor of Progressive Press, called our attention to this problem.
Kevin Barrett (editor, Muslims for 9/11 Truth website) responds:
Someone should tell them that Islam means submission to God, not submission to the lies of shayateen (satans).
David Livingstone (of Surrendering Islam) adds:
The problem is love of Dunia (material world). We naively assume that most Muslims here in the West are devoted to Islam. They are to an extent, but mostly they are here for the material benefits, and have constructed an edifice of excuses to claim otherwise. And that is the problem, and that is why they don't see the contradiction (or hypocrisy?) of their actions.
For example, many years back, I challenged a Muslim who was a good acquaintance of myself and a number of other converts. This was a very active brother in the community, very knowledgeable, and always at the mosque. I asked him why he came to Canada, and he said, "for Dawah". I laughed. I said, "come on?!". My convert friends were shocked that I would challenge him this way. He said, "no, really". I said it again, "come on?!" It really seemed absurd that he would think I would fall for that.
Then he finally conceded. "Yes, brother, you are right, I came here for Dunia." He's just one example, but how many others are like him?
They actually all naively thought they would come here and everything would be peachy, and as a bonus, they would attract Westerners to Islam. This is a result of their excuses. Dawah doesn't work like this. It doesn't happen with millions of self-appointed Muslim missionaries flocking here to do the work.
They are not here to spread Islam. Or, they are only willing to spread the kind of Islam that will not place in jeopardy their ability to participate materially in this society.
So in whichever way they are challenged to apologize for Islam, they'll do it. They don't want to see the bigger picture. They can't even imagine it. Muslims tend to be proud. They assumed they would impress. So this oppression all comes as a great shock.
They don't remember the verse in the Qur'an which warns them, "... And they will never cease fighting you until they turn you back from your religion if they can."
They don't want to challenge this society, they want to be a part of it.
They should be working to reform this society, but how can they when they have lost touch with the meaning of Islam in the first place? How is wearing hijab and growing a beard, and eating and drinking with their right hand going to solve the endemic problems of the West? They should be highlighting how Islam has the answer for many of the injustices that plague the modern world, beginning with the impoverishment of the Third World by the World Bank.
But they don't even realize that social justice issues are the very basis of Islam. They've completely lost tough with that. So in preaching their deviated version of Islam here in the West, they are doing more harm than good.
Monday, July 12, 2010
Osama Bin Laden Cleared of Terrorism by Classified CIA Documents?
Sunday, July 11, 2010
American intelligence agencies confirm international terrorism linked to Israeli government
CLASSIFIED CIA TRANSCRIPT COUNTERS BIN LADEN TERROR ROLE, DOUBT THROWN ON PROOF BIN LADEN A TERRORIST LEADER
By Gordon Duff STAFF WRITER/Senior Editor, Veterans Today
Two weeks ago, CIA Director Leon Panetta told the press the CIA had not been able to positively confirm any specific information on Osama bin Laden since “late 2000.” Interviews with high ranking military and intelligence officials, some at the highest levels, have confirmed that all evidence lends toward Osama bin Laden’s death in December 2001. Yet transcripts of translated audio and video tapes, albeit widely disputed, are continually released by a news agency tied to Israeli intelligence services... (full article reprinted at Islamic-Intelligence blog)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)