Lol, what will not work?
We should also remember we reap what we sow.
Syria militants exhume grave of Prophet’s companion
-
MunkirNakir
- Posts: 92
- Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2013 10:21 am
Re: Syria militants exhume grave of Prophet’s companion
bro, you always write in fancy English which is interesting but the contain remains ZERO.Grayson wrote:as has been done in certain qabrastans of India and Yemen.
should it matter who the assailants or victims are?
respond through a process of what's just, not barbaric. I also feel it's important to be mindful of the situation around you before getting caught up in a frenzy.
Re: Syria militants exhume grave of Prophet’s companion
If you agree to not understanding it I don't know why you apparently argued for as long as you did. 
Re: Syria militants exhume grave of Prophet’s companion
The Wahabis are behind this and also in destroying the Masoleum of Mowalana Jafar ut Tayyar in Amman Jordan.
The Wahabis are a wide spread disease in Islam.
Anajmi and Muslim First are Wahabis. They don't believe in graves or ziyarat.
They are very happy at the moment.
They will not stop until they have destroyed all the Qabrs of Islam including RASULLULLAHS (Which Ibn Abdul Wahab tried to do).
It's about time you Proggies stood up for what's right.
Don't let your hatred for Syedna blind you from what you supposedly believe.
The Wahabis are a wide spread disease in Islam.
Anajmi and Muslim First are Wahabis. They don't believe in graves or ziyarat.
They are very happy at the moment.
They will not stop until they have destroyed all the Qabrs of Islam including RASULLULLAHS (Which Ibn Abdul Wahab tried to do).
It's about time you Proggies stood up for what's right.
Don't let your hatred for Syedna blind you from what you supposedly believe.
-
MunkirNakir
- Posts: 92
- Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2013 10:21 am
Re: Syria militants exhume grave of Prophet’s companion
I am very much in favor of shia concepts of kabr, but I am Interested to know what would happen if no graves are present any more?
for example if grave of prophet was not present, would it effect in the love of Prophet?
there is no zarih on qabr of fatema(s), does it makes us love them less?
for example if grave of prophet was not present, would it effect in the love of Prophet?
there is no zarih on qabr of fatema(s), does it makes us love them less?
-
MunkirNakir
- Posts: 92
- Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2013 10:21 am
Re: Syria militants exhume grave of Prophet’s companion
unless people want to make it aa business like what kothar does by keeping gallas, I personally dont think kabrs serves any purposes....
yeah but if u are going to kabr for asking different hajaat and to commit shirk, then its a different story...
yeah but if u are going to kabr for asking different hajaat and to commit shirk, then its a different story...
-
ghulam muhammed
- Posts: 11653
- Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2008 5:34 pm
Re: Syria militants exhume grave of Prophet’s companion
@Adam,Adam wrote:P.S - The Bohras weren't involved, just in case you were dying to bring them into this whole scenario.
No person in his right state of mind could ever think of an abde bohra indulging in such acts , WHY ???? Because firstly they are slaves of a tyrant's dynastic rule and they are PROUD of it and to expect such behaviour from slaves who are 24x7 subjugated, humiliated, looted and their constitutional rights trampled upon is something unthinkable of. The abdes are conditioned to be brain dead who have lost the ability to THINK. When they do not have the courage to even fight for their own rights and the monies looted by their rulers, when they have been reduced to retards and cowards then how could anyone expect them to commit such acts in faraway places when in their own bastion they are a mere stupid, meek and cowardly lot !!
Re: Syria militants exhume grave of Prophet’s companion
The whole question is WHY do you need Qabars ........ no why do you NEED Rozas?? Why do you go there, don't you believe once spirit leaves body, what remains is just dust?? what good dust can do?? I am NOT for desecration of graves, these are the places where we bury our loved ones but do we NEED to go there and WORSHIP them. We REMEMBER with fondness the people we love, we FOLLOW the people who inspire us ......... mere giving money to cowards in their names does not serve any purpose ...........
-
ghulam muhammed
- Posts: 11653
- Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2008 5:34 pm
Re: Syria militants exhume grave of Prophet’s companion
UN Says US-Backed Opposition, Not Syrian Regime, Used Poison Gas
In a series of interviews, UN investigator Carla del Ponte said that sarin gas used in Syria was fired by the US-backed opposition, not the regime of President Bashar al-Assad.
Her account explodes the lies on which Washington and its European allies have based their campaign for war with Syria, according to which the US and its allies are preparing to attack Syria to protect its people from Assad’s chemical weapons. In fact, available evidence of sarin use implicates the Islamist-dominated “rebels” who are armed by US-allied Middle Eastern countries, under CIA supervision.
Del Ponte’s statements coincide with the flagrantly illegal Israeli air strikes on Syria, which have been endorsed by President Obama. These acts of war mark a major escalation of the US-instigated and supported sectarian war for regime-change in Syria, itself a preparation for attacks on the Syrian regime’s main ally in the region, Iran.
“This is not surprising, since the opponents [i.e., the anti-Assad opposition] have been infiltrated by foreign fighters.”
“We collected some witness testimony that made it appear that some chemical weapons were used, in particular, nerve gas. What appeared to our investigation was that was used by the opponents, by the rebels. We have no, no indication at all that the government, the authorities of the Syrian government, had used chemical weapons.”
The use of sarin by the US-backed Sunni Islamist opposition, which is tied to Al Qaeda and routinely carries out terror attacks inside Syria, also raises the question of how it obtained the poison gas. The US Council on Foreign Relations describes sarin as “very complex and dangerous to make,” though it can be made “by a trained chemist with publicly available chemicals.”
Whether the Islamists received sarin from their foreign backers, synthesized it themselves possibly under outside supervision, or stole it from Syrian stockpiles, its use makes clear the reckless and criminal character of US backing for the Islamist opposition.
Throughout the Syrian war, the American state and media have operated on the assumption that the public could be manipulated and fed the most outrageous lies. Whether these lies were even vaguely plausible did not matter, because the media could be relied upon to spin them to justify deepening the attack on Syria.
http://www.countercurrents.org/lantier070513.htm
In a series of interviews, UN investigator Carla del Ponte said that sarin gas used in Syria was fired by the US-backed opposition, not the regime of President Bashar al-Assad.
Her account explodes the lies on which Washington and its European allies have based their campaign for war with Syria, according to which the US and its allies are preparing to attack Syria to protect its people from Assad’s chemical weapons. In fact, available evidence of sarin use implicates the Islamist-dominated “rebels” who are armed by US-allied Middle Eastern countries, under CIA supervision.
Del Ponte’s statements coincide with the flagrantly illegal Israeli air strikes on Syria, which have been endorsed by President Obama. These acts of war mark a major escalation of the US-instigated and supported sectarian war for regime-change in Syria, itself a preparation for attacks on the Syrian regime’s main ally in the region, Iran.
“This is not surprising, since the opponents [i.e., the anti-Assad opposition] have been infiltrated by foreign fighters.”
“We collected some witness testimony that made it appear that some chemical weapons were used, in particular, nerve gas. What appeared to our investigation was that was used by the opponents, by the rebels. We have no, no indication at all that the government, the authorities of the Syrian government, had used chemical weapons.”
The use of sarin by the US-backed Sunni Islamist opposition, which is tied to Al Qaeda and routinely carries out terror attacks inside Syria, also raises the question of how it obtained the poison gas. The US Council on Foreign Relations describes sarin as “very complex and dangerous to make,” though it can be made “by a trained chemist with publicly available chemicals.”
Whether the Islamists received sarin from their foreign backers, synthesized it themselves possibly under outside supervision, or stole it from Syrian stockpiles, its use makes clear the reckless and criminal character of US backing for the Islamist opposition.
Throughout the Syrian war, the American state and media have operated on the assumption that the public could be manipulated and fed the most outrageous lies. Whether these lies were even vaguely plausible did not matter, because the media could be relied upon to spin them to justify deepening the attack on Syria.
http://www.countercurrents.org/lantier070513.htm
Re: Syria militants exhume grave of Prophet’s companion
according to islaam 1,24,000 ambiya have came, and how many prophets graves are we aware of?
if graves were so much important near ALLAH SUBHANU, I am sure he would not let any ambiya's kabr getting lost.
if graves were so much important near ALLAH SUBHANU, I am sure he would not let any ambiya's kabr getting lost.
-
ghulam muhammed
- Posts: 11653
- Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2008 5:34 pm
Re: Syria militants exhume grave of Prophet’s companion
Syrian rebel defends eating soldier's heart
A Syrian rebel leader says he ate the heart of a government soldier as revenge for atrocities committed by the government.
Gruesome video footage, which has sparked international condemnation, shows Khalid al-Hamad taking a bite from the heart.
US-based group Human Rights Watch says he then urges his followers to do the same to Alawites - the Muslim sect that Syrian president Bashar al-Assad belongs to.
Time magazine says it has talked by Skype with Hamad.
It says Hamad claimed he was driven to the gruesome acts by footage on the dead soldier's mobile phone, showing him "humiliating" a naked woman and her two daughters.
The US magazine says Hamad described participating in other acts of mutilating regime forces, including militiamen known as shabiha.
"Hopefully we will slaughter all of them," he told the magazine, referring to Alawites.
"They were the ones who killed our children in Baba Amr and raped our women," he said, referring to a neighbourhood of the central city of Homs.
"We didn't start it, they started it.
"Our slogan is an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth."
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-05-15/g ... on/4690154
A Syrian rebel leader says he ate the heart of a government soldier as revenge for atrocities committed by the government.
Gruesome video footage, which has sparked international condemnation, shows Khalid al-Hamad taking a bite from the heart.
US-based group Human Rights Watch says he then urges his followers to do the same to Alawites - the Muslim sect that Syrian president Bashar al-Assad belongs to.
Time magazine says it has talked by Skype with Hamad.
It says Hamad claimed he was driven to the gruesome acts by footage on the dead soldier's mobile phone, showing him "humiliating" a naked woman and her two daughters.
The US magazine says Hamad described participating in other acts of mutilating regime forces, including militiamen known as shabiha.
"Hopefully we will slaughter all of them," he told the magazine, referring to Alawites.
"They were the ones who killed our children in Baba Amr and raped our women," he said, referring to a neighbourhood of the central city of Homs.
"We didn't start it, they started it.
"Our slogan is an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth."
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-05-15/g ... on/4690154
-
Muslim First
- Posts: 6893
- Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2001 4:01 am
Re: Syria militants exhume grave of Prophet’s companion
Graves
From Fiqh-us Sunnah
Aishah reports that the Prophet Sallallahu Alehi Wasallam said: "Allah cursed the Jews and Christians [because] they took the graves of their prophets as mosques." This is related by al-Bukhari, Muslim, Ahmad, and an-Nasa' i .
Ahmad and Muslim record from Abu Marthad al-Ghanawi that the Prophet Sallallahu Alehi Wasallam said: "Do not pray facing a grave and do not sit on one." They also record that Jundub ibn 'Abdullah al-Bajali heard the Prophet say, five days before he died: "The people before you took graves as mosques. I prohibit this to you."
'Aishah reports that Umm Salamah mentioned the churches she saw in Abyssinia and the pictures they contained to the Messenger of Allah. The Prophet said to her: "These are the people who, when a pious servant or pious man among them dies, build a mosque [place of worship] upon their graves and put those pictures in it. They are the worst of the whole creation in the sight of Allah." This is related by al-Bukhari, Muslim, and an-Nasa'i .
The Prophet is also reported to have said: "Allah curses those who visit the graves and take them as mosques and light lamps over them." Many scholars take this prohibition to be one of dislike, regardless of whether the grave is in front of the imam or behind him. According to the Zahiri School, this prohibition is one of complete forbiddance and as such, prayer at a grave site is not valid. According to the Hanbali School, this applies only if there are three graves or more. If there is only one or two graves, then the prayer is valid although disliked if one prays facing a grave, otherwise it is not disliked.
The Sunnah Concerning Graveyards
The Sunnah is to raise the grave at least one hand above the ground so it is known that it is a grave. It is forbidden to raise it more than that. This is based on a narrative reported by Muslim and others from Harun that Thamamah ibn Shufayy told him: "Once we were with Fadalah bin 'Ubayd in the Roman land of Brudis. One of our companions died and upon burying him we were ordered by Fudalah ibn 'Ubayd to level his grave. Then
Fudalah said: 'I heard Allah's Messenger, peace be upon him, ordering people to level the graves of the deceased." It is reported from Abul al-Hayaj al-Asadi who said 'Ali bin Abu Talib told me: "Should I not instruct you to do as the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, instructed me? Do not leave a statue standing without removing it. Do not leave a grave raised without leveling it."
Tirmidhi said: "Some scholars act upon this opinion. They disapprove of raising the grave more than necessary to indicate that it is a grave, and so people will not step or sit on it." Muslim governors used to destroy cemetery structures not permitted by the law, in accordance with the authentic Sunnah. Ash-Shafi'i said: "I prefer that the soil used for a grave be no more than that dug for that grave. I like to see a grave raised above the ground the length of a hand or so. I prefer not to erect a structure over a grave or to whitewash it, for indeed this resembles decoration and vanity, and death is not the time for either of these things. I have never seen the graves of the Muhajirin or Ansar plastered. I have seen the Muslim authorities destroying structures in graveyards, and I have not seen any jurists object to this."
Ash-Shawkani said: "It is apparent that raising graves more than what is legally permitted is forbidden. The followers of Ahmad, a group of the followers of Ash-Shafi'i, and Malik are of this opinion. An opinion that raised graves are not prohibited because this practice occurred during the time of the first and later generations without disapproval, which is the position of Imam Yahya and Mahdi in al-Ghayth, is not correct. This argument is based only on their silence about the practice, and silence is not proof when a matter rests on mere assumption, for prohibition of raising graves is presumptive."
Included in the discussion of raising the grave are dome buildings, shrines built on graves, and erecting mosques around graves. The Prophet, peace be upon him, cursed those who did that. The practice of erecting buildings around graves and beautifying them causes corruption, which Islam seeks to eliminate.
Part of such a corruption is exaggerating the importance of graves, in accordance with the superstitious belief of the ignorant, similar to the belief of non-believers in their idols, that these monuments can bring benefit or prevent harm. Thus they travel to these graves for fulfillment of their needs or achievement of their goals. They ask those in the graves what believers should ask only of their Lord. They ride horses to them, touch them, and seek their aid. In general, they do exactly what the pre-Islamic people used to do with their idols.
Despite this disgraceful, reprehensible evil and hideous disbelief, how many people dare to take a stand for the cause of Allah, or evince any uneasiness for the defense of the true din? Where are the scholars and students, and the rulers, the ministers, and the kings, who are obliged to teach the truth? Various reports reaching us leave little doubt that many of these grave adorers, in fact most of them, when confronted and asked under oath to reject such idolatry would readily take a solemn oath falsely by Allah. But if you then ask them, "(Swear) by your spiritual leader and your saint, so-and-so," they will ponder, apologize, refuse, and confess the truth. This is one of the clearest proofs that their polytheism is indeed worse than that of the Christians and others who say: "Allah, the Exalted, is the second of two or the third of three."
O scholars of Islam! O kings of Islam! What calamity to Islam is worse than disbelief? What tribulation for this religion is worse than worshipping others than Allah? What misfortune for Muslims can equal this misfortune? Is there any more serious abomination than this open polytheism?
You might be heard if you called the living, But there is no life in him whom you call; Had there been a fire in which you blew, there would have been light; but you blew in the sand.
The scholars have issued clear legal verdicts concerning the destruction of mosques and domes built in cemeteries. Ibn Hajar said in his az-Zawajir: (This is a collection of legal verdicts, pubhshed when king Al-Zahir decided to destroy all the buildings in the graveyards. Coeval Islamic scholars collectively supported him saying to do so was incumbent upon the ruler.) "We should not hesitate to destroy mosques and domes built over graves. These are worse than the mosque of adDirar, because these things are erected in disobedience to the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him. The Prophet, peace be upon him, has forbidden this and has ordered the destruction of raised graves. Every lamp or lantern placed over a grave must be removed. It is not correct to stop at a grave or make a vow at it
From Fiqh-us Sunnah
Aishah reports that the Prophet Sallallahu Alehi Wasallam said: "Allah cursed the Jews and Christians [because] they took the graves of their prophets as mosques." This is related by al-Bukhari, Muslim, Ahmad, and an-Nasa' i .
Ahmad and Muslim record from Abu Marthad al-Ghanawi that the Prophet Sallallahu Alehi Wasallam said: "Do not pray facing a grave and do not sit on one." They also record that Jundub ibn 'Abdullah al-Bajali heard the Prophet say, five days before he died: "The people before you took graves as mosques. I prohibit this to you."
'Aishah reports that Umm Salamah mentioned the churches she saw in Abyssinia and the pictures they contained to the Messenger of Allah. The Prophet said to her: "These are the people who, when a pious servant or pious man among them dies, build a mosque [place of worship] upon their graves and put those pictures in it. They are the worst of the whole creation in the sight of Allah." This is related by al-Bukhari, Muslim, and an-Nasa'i .
The Prophet is also reported to have said: "Allah curses those who visit the graves and take them as mosques and light lamps over them." Many scholars take this prohibition to be one of dislike, regardless of whether the grave is in front of the imam or behind him. According to the Zahiri School, this prohibition is one of complete forbiddance and as such, prayer at a grave site is not valid. According to the Hanbali School, this applies only if there are three graves or more. If there is only one or two graves, then the prayer is valid although disliked if one prays facing a grave, otherwise it is not disliked.
The Sunnah Concerning Graveyards
The Sunnah is to raise the grave at least one hand above the ground so it is known that it is a grave. It is forbidden to raise it more than that. This is based on a narrative reported by Muslim and others from Harun that Thamamah ibn Shufayy told him: "Once we were with Fadalah bin 'Ubayd in the Roman land of Brudis. One of our companions died and upon burying him we were ordered by Fudalah ibn 'Ubayd to level his grave. Then
Fudalah said: 'I heard Allah's Messenger, peace be upon him, ordering people to level the graves of the deceased." It is reported from Abul al-Hayaj al-Asadi who said 'Ali bin Abu Talib told me: "Should I not instruct you to do as the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, instructed me? Do not leave a statue standing without removing it. Do not leave a grave raised without leveling it."
Tirmidhi said: "Some scholars act upon this opinion. They disapprove of raising the grave more than necessary to indicate that it is a grave, and so people will not step or sit on it." Muslim governors used to destroy cemetery structures not permitted by the law, in accordance with the authentic Sunnah. Ash-Shafi'i said: "I prefer that the soil used for a grave be no more than that dug for that grave. I like to see a grave raised above the ground the length of a hand or so. I prefer not to erect a structure over a grave or to whitewash it, for indeed this resembles decoration and vanity, and death is not the time for either of these things. I have never seen the graves of the Muhajirin or Ansar plastered. I have seen the Muslim authorities destroying structures in graveyards, and I have not seen any jurists object to this."
Ash-Shawkani said: "It is apparent that raising graves more than what is legally permitted is forbidden. The followers of Ahmad, a group of the followers of Ash-Shafi'i, and Malik are of this opinion. An opinion that raised graves are not prohibited because this practice occurred during the time of the first and later generations without disapproval, which is the position of Imam Yahya and Mahdi in al-Ghayth, is not correct. This argument is based only on their silence about the practice, and silence is not proof when a matter rests on mere assumption, for prohibition of raising graves is presumptive."
Included in the discussion of raising the grave are dome buildings, shrines built on graves, and erecting mosques around graves. The Prophet, peace be upon him, cursed those who did that. The practice of erecting buildings around graves and beautifying them causes corruption, which Islam seeks to eliminate.
Part of such a corruption is exaggerating the importance of graves, in accordance with the superstitious belief of the ignorant, similar to the belief of non-believers in their idols, that these monuments can bring benefit or prevent harm. Thus they travel to these graves for fulfillment of their needs or achievement of their goals. They ask those in the graves what believers should ask only of their Lord. They ride horses to them, touch them, and seek their aid. In general, they do exactly what the pre-Islamic people used to do with their idols.
Despite this disgraceful, reprehensible evil and hideous disbelief, how many people dare to take a stand for the cause of Allah, or evince any uneasiness for the defense of the true din? Where are the scholars and students, and the rulers, the ministers, and the kings, who are obliged to teach the truth? Various reports reaching us leave little doubt that many of these grave adorers, in fact most of them, when confronted and asked under oath to reject such idolatry would readily take a solemn oath falsely by Allah. But if you then ask them, "(Swear) by your spiritual leader and your saint, so-and-so," they will ponder, apologize, refuse, and confess the truth. This is one of the clearest proofs that their polytheism is indeed worse than that of the Christians and others who say: "Allah, the Exalted, is the second of two or the third of three."
O scholars of Islam! O kings of Islam! What calamity to Islam is worse than disbelief? What tribulation for this religion is worse than worshipping others than Allah? What misfortune for Muslims can equal this misfortune? Is there any more serious abomination than this open polytheism?
You might be heard if you called the living, But there is no life in him whom you call; Had there been a fire in which you blew, there would have been light; but you blew in the sand.
The scholars have issued clear legal verdicts concerning the destruction of mosques and domes built in cemeteries. Ibn Hajar said in his az-Zawajir: (This is a collection of legal verdicts, pubhshed when king Al-Zahir decided to destroy all the buildings in the graveyards. Coeval Islamic scholars collectively supported him saying to do so was incumbent upon the ruler.) "We should not hesitate to destroy mosques and domes built over graves. These are worse than the mosque of adDirar, because these things are erected in disobedience to the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him. The Prophet, peace be upon him, has forbidden this and has ordered the destruction of raised graves. Every lamp or lantern placed over a grave must be removed. It is not correct to stop at a grave or make a vow at it
-
Bohra spring
- Posts: 1377
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 8:37 am
Re: Syria militants exhume grave of Prophet’s companion
What has become of so called Muslims...eating hearts and desecrating 1400 year old graves...
Whatever guidance as MF presents ...but going around and actually destroying and acting with cruelty portrays a very strange and barbaric inherent culture and instincts. I hope our literature and preachers are not meant to the cause of being the motivator. This is not isolated but this Wahhabi sect has other example in recent past...the destruction of Buddhist statues in Afgahnistan , destruction of shrines in Mali, not to mention the destruction of monuments in Saudi Arabia in the disguise of "protecting from shirk". Common guys Islam has bigger and harder issues that need attention than going after physical symbols .
Keeping aside Islamic commentary...what do these 2 violent acts mean and what purpose do they serve...is it hate, revenge , disrespect...I cannot understand what is the rationale behind this very violent actions. I know Shia Sunni have issues but taking it so far and broad is going to create permanent scars .
Whatever guidance as MF presents ...but going around and actually destroying and acting with cruelty portrays a very strange and barbaric inherent culture and instincts. I hope our literature and preachers are not meant to the cause of being the motivator. This is not isolated but this Wahhabi sect has other example in recent past...the destruction of Buddhist statues in Afgahnistan , destruction of shrines in Mali, not to mention the destruction of monuments in Saudi Arabia in the disguise of "protecting from shirk". Common guys Islam has bigger and harder issues that need attention than going after physical symbols .
Keeping aside Islamic commentary...what do these 2 violent acts mean and what purpose do they serve...is it hate, revenge , disrespect...I cannot understand what is the rationale behind this very violent actions. I know Shia Sunni have issues but taking it so far and broad is going to create permanent scars .
Re: Syria militants exhume grave of Prophet’s companion
I agree with Bohra Spring. Just because some people choose to worship graves, doesn't give the right to others to destroy those graves. Those who are choosing to destroy these graves aren't the guardians of Islam. Far from it. These morons are actually causing more damage than those who worship those graves!!
-
ghulam muhammed
- Posts: 11653
- Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2008 5:34 pm
Re: Syria militants exhume grave of Prophet’s companion
In Syria, America Loses if Either Side Wins
At this point, a prolonged stalemate is the only outcome that would not be damaging to American interests.
Indeed, it would be disastrous if President Bashar al-Assad’s regime were to emerge victorious after fully suppressing the rebellion and restoring its control over the entire country. Iranian money, weapons and operatives and Hezbollah troops have become key factors in the fighting, and Mr. Assad’s triumph would dramatically affirm the power and prestige of Shiite Iran and Hezbollah, its Lebanon-based proxy — posing a direct threat both to the Sunni Arab states and to Israel.
But a rebel victory would also be extremely dangerous for the United States and for many of its allies in Europe and the Middle East. That’s because extremist groups, some identified with Al Qaeda, have become the most effective fighting force in Syria. If those rebel groups manage to win, they would almost certainly try to form a government hostile to the United States. Moreover, Israel could not expect tranquillity on its northern border if the jihadis were to triumph in Syria.
The war is now being waged by petty warlords and dangerous extremists of every sort: Taliban-style Salafist fanatics who beat and kill even devout Sunnis because they fail to ape their alien ways; Sunni extremists who have been murdering innocent Alawites and Christians merely because of their religion; and jihadis from Iraq and all over the world who have advertised their intention to turn Syria into a base for global jihad aimed at Europe and the United States.
Given this depressing state of affairs, a decisive outcome for either side would be unacceptable for the United States. An Iranian-backed restoration of the Assad regime would increase Iran’s power and status across the entire Middle East, while a victory by the extremist-dominated rebels would inaugurate another wave of Al Qaeda terrorism.
There is only one outcome that the United States can possibly favor: an indefinite draw.
By tying down Mr. Assad’s army and its Iranian and Hezbollah allies in a war against Al Qaeda-aligned extremist fighters, four of Washington’s enemies will be engaged in war among themselves and prevented from attacking Americans or America’s allies.
That this is now the best option is unfortunate, indeed tragic, but favoring it is not a cruel imposition on the people of Syria, because a great majority of them are facing exactly the same predicament.
Maintaining a stalemate should be America’s objective. And the only possible method for achieving this is to arm the rebels when it seems that Mr. Assad’s forces are ascendant and to stop supplying the rebels if they actually seem to be winning.
This strategy actually approximates the Obama administration’s policy so far. Those who condemn the president’s prudent restraint as cynical passivity must come clean with the only possible alternative: a full-scale American invasion to defeat both Mr. Assad and the extremists fighting against his regime.
That could lead to a Syria under American occupation. And very few Americans today are likely to support another costly military adventure in the Middle East.
A decisive move in any direction would endanger America; at this stage, stalemate is the only viable policy option left.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/25/opini ... ef=opinion
At this point, a prolonged stalemate is the only outcome that would not be damaging to American interests.
Indeed, it would be disastrous if President Bashar al-Assad’s regime were to emerge victorious after fully suppressing the rebellion and restoring its control over the entire country. Iranian money, weapons and operatives and Hezbollah troops have become key factors in the fighting, and Mr. Assad’s triumph would dramatically affirm the power and prestige of Shiite Iran and Hezbollah, its Lebanon-based proxy — posing a direct threat both to the Sunni Arab states and to Israel.
But a rebel victory would also be extremely dangerous for the United States and for many of its allies in Europe and the Middle East. That’s because extremist groups, some identified with Al Qaeda, have become the most effective fighting force in Syria. If those rebel groups manage to win, they would almost certainly try to form a government hostile to the United States. Moreover, Israel could not expect tranquillity on its northern border if the jihadis were to triumph in Syria.
The war is now being waged by petty warlords and dangerous extremists of every sort: Taliban-style Salafist fanatics who beat and kill even devout Sunnis because they fail to ape their alien ways; Sunni extremists who have been murdering innocent Alawites and Christians merely because of their religion; and jihadis from Iraq and all over the world who have advertised their intention to turn Syria into a base for global jihad aimed at Europe and the United States.
Given this depressing state of affairs, a decisive outcome for either side would be unacceptable for the United States. An Iranian-backed restoration of the Assad regime would increase Iran’s power and status across the entire Middle East, while a victory by the extremist-dominated rebels would inaugurate another wave of Al Qaeda terrorism.
There is only one outcome that the United States can possibly favor: an indefinite draw.
By tying down Mr. Assad’s army and its Iranian and Hezbollah allies in a war against Al Qaeda-aligned extremist fighters, four of Washington’s enemies will be engaged in war among themselves and prevented from attacking Americans or America’s allies.
That this is now the best option is unfortunate, indeed tragic, but favoring it is not a cruel imposition on the people of Syria, because a great majority of them are facing exactly the same predicament.
Maintaining a stalemate should be America’s objective. And the only possible method for achieving this is to arm the rebels when it seems that Mr. Assad’s forces are ascendant and to stop supplying the rebels if they actually seem to be winning.
This strategy actually approximates the Obama administration’s policy so far. Those who condemn the president’s prudent restraint as cynical passivity must come clean with the only possible alternative: a full-scale American invasion to defeat both Mr. Assad and the extremists fighting against his regime.
That could lead to a Syria under American occupation. And very few Americans today are likely to support another costly military adventure in the Middle East.
A decisive move in any direction would endanger America; at this stage, stalemate is the only viable policy option left.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/25/opini ... ef=opinion
-
ghulam muhammed
- Posts: 11653
- Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2008 5:34 pm
Re: Syria militants exhume grave of Prophet’s companion
President Barrack Obama: Declare the Shrines of Sayeda Zainab(A.S) and Bibi Sakina(A.S) as "No-War" Zones
Make Bibi Zainab(A.S) and Bibi Sakina(A.S) shrines as NO-WAR ZONE to preserve the shrines. These shrines are very important to the history of Islam and are considered holy sites of the world. Sayeda Zainab's Shrine is vital example that women do not belong to weaker section in Islam, Muslim women can stand up to injustice and torture. Sayedda Zainab’s knowledge, oratorical skills, sermons & public role has always been a source of inspiration for Muslim women from 2nd to 21st century. Radical extremists like Wahhabis & terrorists oppress women to the point that even their voices are considered ‘awrah i.e. their voice should not be publicly heard. On contrary after battle of Karbala Sayedda Zainab and other women from Prophet Mohammed’s family were the main public speakers & through revolutionary sermons uprooted evil by exposing the tyrant.
Commonwealth War Graves Commission protects graves of world war hero’s & civilians. We demand President Obama & United Nations to protect the graves & Shrines of hero’s of Islam by declaring the area around their shrines as NO WAR ZONES so truth can forever prevail & radical believes like extremists/Terrorist’s can forever be exposed, unveiled & uprooted from the roots of Islam.
Sign this petition
http://www.change.org/petitions/preside ... e_petition
Make Bibi Zainab(A.S) and Bibi Sakina(A.S) shrines as NO-WAR ZONE to preserve the shrines. These shrines are very important to the history of Islam and are considered holy sites of the world. Sayeda Zainab's Shrine is vital example that women do not belong to weaker section in Islam, Muslim women can stand up to injustice and torture. Sayedda Zainab’s knowledge, oratorical skills, sermons & public role has always been a source of inspiration for Muslim women from 2nd to 21st century. Radical extremists like Wahhabis & terrorists oppress women to the point that even their voices are considered ‘awrah i.e. their voice should not be publicly heard. On contrary after battle of Karbala Sayedda Zainab and other women from Prophet Mohammed’s family were the main public speakers & through revolutionary sermons uprooted evil by exposing the tyrant.
Commonwealth War Graves Commission protects graves of world war hero’s & civilians. We demand President Obama & United Nations to protect the graves & Shrines of hero’s of Islam by declaring the area around their shrines as NO WAR ZONES so truth can forever prevail & radical believes like extremists/Terrorist’s can forever be exposed, unveiled & uprooted from the roots of Islam.
Sign this petition
http://www.change.org/petitions/preside ... e_petition