srizals@gmail.com
The last 10 nights of Ramadhan are upon us in the lands of the Malay. As alluring and vividly portrayed as the most bountiful moment a Muslim could ever have in his entire life, most would be too tired to strive for it. Only the true hearts have the will to push themselves to the limit in achieving the ultimate reward, a devotion of a thousand months in one elusive night. A very special night only reserved to the ones that are seeking the forgiveness from his Creator with only one thing in his mind, being accepted as a true humble servant of Allah. The love of his Lord.
In a comment I've read at faithfreedom.org, one of them questioned about the purpose of God testing us, the humans, when Allah is already all knowing and knew everything. What's the point then? What he had failed to realise is, it is actually a test of revealing one's true nature to his own self.
A person can't go on bragging and pretending that he is the best among the best when he has not gone through all the ups and downs in this life. How could he have known himself without going through all the hardships, sufferings and the delights of this life? How could he have known about his thoughts and behaviours in dealing with his sadness, confusion, wrath and desire if he had not experienced them in real time?
How could anyone tell the way he would have behaved in dealing with various situations without actually going through them? How a person behave himself in dealing with all the pain and happiness in this life would revealed his true nature to himself and thus he would not have any excuses when he is shown to his place in the hereafter, after all the chance he had been given. For all the time, wealth and knowledge that he had had, he failed miserably in utilising them in the conquest of the ultimate truth, for being so proud and full of himself.
God do not guide the proud. Only the humble could see beyond the vague cloud of deceit. Guidance comes to those who seek it.
Monday, August 30, 2010
Hadiths of The Fly
HADITHS OF THE FLY (BACTERIOPHAGES)
By G.F. Haddad
Only in modern times was it discovered that the common fly carried parasitic pathogens for many diseases including malaria, typhoid fever, cholera, and others. It was also discovered that the fly carried parasitic bacteriophagic fungi capable of fighting the germs of all these diseases.
The Prophet Muhammad MHMD upon him and his House blessings and peace - alluded to both facts 1,400 years ago when he said, as narrated from Abu Hurayra and Abu Sa`id al-Khudri by al-Bukhari and in the Sunan:
If a fly falls into one of your containers [of food or drink], immerse it completely (falyaghmis-hu kullahu) before removing it, for under one of its wings there is venom and under another there is its antidote.
A version from Abu Hurayra in Abu Dawud, Ahmad, and al-Tahawi's Sharh Mushkil al-Âthâr (8:341 #3293) adds:
And it [al-Tahawi: "always"] protects itself (yattaqi) with the wing that carries the poison, so immerse it completely.
Ahmad and al-Tahawi add:Then remove it.
A sound-chained version in Ahmad, al-Tahawi, al-Nasa'i, and Ibn Majah (the latter two mention only the second half) states:
Sa`id ibn Khalid said: I went in to see Abu Salama. He brought us some butter and date pastry. A fly fell into the dish. Abu Salama began to submerge it (yamquluhu) with his finger. I said, "Uncle! What are you doing?"
He said: "Truly, Abu Sa`id al-Khudri told me that the Messenger of Allah said, 'In one of the fly's two wings there is poison and in another, its antidote. If it falls into food, submerge it in it; for it sends the poison first and keeps the cure last.'"
Al-Tahawi in Sharh Mushkil al-Âthâr (8:339 #3289) has,
Uncle! Allah forgive you! What are you doing?
Al-Bazzar in his Musnad and al-Diya' al-Maqdisi in al-Ahadith al-Mukhtara (5:206) narrate from Thumama ibn `Abd Allah ibn Anas through trustworthy narrators according to Ibn Hajar in Fath al-Bari (10:250) and al-Qastallani in Irshad al-Sari (5:304):
Thumama said: We were with Anas and a fly fell into a vessel. Anas motioned with his hand and immersed it (faghamasahu) three times then said: "Bismillah" and he said that truly, thus did the Messenger of Allah order them to do.
Shah Wali Allah al-Dihlawi mentioned in Hujjat Allah al-Baligha that this hadith shows God-given knowledge of the many diseases a fly potentially carries as well as illustrates the Creator's wisdom in giving every venomous species some immunity or antidotal protection to its own poison insuring its survival. Shaykh Muhyi al-Din Ibn `Arabi in one of his Wasaya specified that the fly always keeps its "antidotal wing" off the substance in which it finds itself mired so as to try and use it to fly away. The Ulema said that this behavior is Divinely-inspired instinct similar to that of the bees, the ants, the hoopoe, and the earth in the Qur'an cf. al-Tahawi, Sharh Mushkil (8:343-344) and al-Khattabi, Ma`alim al-Sunan (4:459).
Ibn Hajar wrote in his commentary on this hadith:
"I found nothing among the variants to pinpoint the wing that carries the antidote but one of the Ulema said he observed that the fly protects itself with its left wing so it can be deduced that the right one is the one with the antidote.... Another said that the poison may be that of pride (takabbur) occurring in one's soul causing him to disdain eating that food or avoid and discard it altogether, while the antidote takes place by subduing the soul and forcing it to be humble."
Ibn Hajar also cited al-Jawzi's remark that flies pounded with antimony (stibnite) benefit eyesight but al-`Ayni in `Umdat al-Qari (7:304) cites Ibn al-Baytar al-Maliqi's recipe as flies pounded with egg yolk.
Dr. Ghyath Hasan al-Ahmad in his book al-Tibb al-Nabawi fi Daw' al-`Ilm al-Hadith ("Prophetic Medicine in the light of Modern Science") (1995 2:188-189) mentions that a Dr. Nabîh Dâ`ish ran an experiment at King `Abd al-`Aziz University in Ryadh in which he created ten bacterial cultures from samples of sterilized fluid into which a fly fell without being immersed; ten more bacterial cultures from samples into which a fly fell and was immersed once; ten more from samples into which the fly was immersed twice; and ten more from samples into which the fly was immersed three times. The results showed that bacterial colonies thrived in the first set but were stunted and depleted in the second, more so in the third, and most in the fourth set.
It is established that house flies are carriers of dangerous pathogens of animals and humans. Even the muscaphobic critics of this hadith are forced to admit that no one at the time of the Prophet MHMD knew that flies carry such harmful organisms. Whence the observation that "under one of its wings there is venom"?
Second, from the perspective of logic, if the fly did not carry some sort of protection in the form of an antidote or immunity, it would perish from its own poisonous burden and there would be no fly left in the world.
Further, the transmission of what the fly carries in or on its body is not an automatic fact. For example, the microbe responsible for ulcers and other stomach ailments can live on houseflies, although it remains to be seen whether flies transmit the pathogen. http://www.sciencenews.org/sn_arc97/6_7_97/ref1.htm
There has long been evidence of bacterial pathogen-suppressing micro-organisms living in houseflies. An article in Vol. 43 of the Rockefeller Foundation's Journal of Experimental Medicine (1927) p. 1037 stated:
The flies were given some of the cultured microbes for certain diseases. After some time the germs died and no trace was left of them while a germ-devouring substance formed in the flies - bacteriophages. If a saline solution were to be obtained from these flies it would contain bacteriophages able to suppress four kinds of disease-inducing germs and to benefit immunity against four other kinds.
Cited in `Abd Allah al-Qusami, Mushkilat al-Ahadith al-Nabawiyya wa-Bayanuha (p. 42).
More recently, a Colorado State University website on entomology states, "Gnotobiotic [=germ-free] insects (Greenberg et al, 1970) were used to provide evidence of the bacterial pathogen-suppressing ability of the microbiota of Musca domestica [houseflies] .... most relationships between insects and their microbiota remain undefined. Studies with gnotobiotic locusts suggest that the microbiota confers previously unexpected benefits for the insect host." http://lamar.colostate.edu/~insects/systems/digestion/plenuryrd.html
So then, flies are not only pathogenic carriers but also carry microbiota that can be beneficent. The fly microbiota were described as "longitudinal yeast cells living as parasites inside their bellies. These yeast cells, in order to perpetuate their life cycle, protrude through certain respiratory tubules of the fly. If the fly is dipped in a liquid, the cells burst into the fluid and the content of those cells is an antidote for the pathogens which the fly carries." Cf. Footnote in the Translation of the Meanings of Sahih al-Bukhari by Muhammad Muhsin Khan (7:372, Book 76 Medicine, Chapter 58, Hadith 5782).
These fly microbiota are bacteriophagic or "germ-eating". Bacteriophages are viruses of viruses. They attack viruses and bacteria. They can be selected and bred to kill specific organisms. The viruses infect a bacterium, replicate and fill the bacterial cell with new copies of the virus, and then break through the bacterium's cell wall, causing it to burst. The existence of similar bacteria-killing mechanisms in two bacteriophages suggests that antibiotics for human infections might be designed on the basis of these cell wall-destroying proteins. Science 292 (June 2001) p. 2326-2329.
Bacteriophagic medicine was available in the West before the forties but was discontinued when penicillin and other "miracle antibiotics" came out. Bacteriophages continued to flourish in Eastern Europe as an over-the-counter medicine. The "O1-phage" has been used for diagnosis of all Salmonella types while the prophylaxis of Shigella dysentery was conducted with the help of phages. Annales Immunologiae Hungaricae No. 9 (1966) in German.
"Phage therapy" is now making a comeback in the West:
First named in 1917 by researcher Felix d'Herelle at France's Pasteur Institute, bacteriophages (or just phages for short) are viruses that prey upon bacteria. They have a simple structure - a DNA-filled head attached by a shaft to spidery "legs" that are used to grip onto the surface of a bacterium. Once a phage latches onto a bacterium, it injects its payload of genetic material into the bacterium's innards. The bacterium then begins to rapidly produce "daughter" copies of the phage -- until the bacterium becomes too full and ruptures, sending hundreds of new phage particles into the open world.
Doctors used phages as medical treatment for illnesses ranging from cholera to typhoid fevers. In some cases, a liquid containing the phage was poured into an open wound. In others, they were given orally, via aerosol, or injected. In some cases, the treatments worked well - in others, they did not. When antibiotics came into the mainstream, phage therapy largely faded in the west.
However, researchers in eastern Europe, including the former Soviet Union, continued their studies of the potential healing properties of phages. And now that strains of bacteria resistant to standard antibiotics are on the rise, the idea of phage therapy has been getting more attention in the worldwide medical community. Several biotechnology companies have been formed in the U.S. to develop bacteriophage-based treatments - many of them drawing on the expertise of researchers from eastern Europe."
http://www.sciencefriday.com/pages/2000/Jul/hour1_072100.html
Research on the medical application of bacteriophages is now considered to be in its most promising stage. A University of Pittsburgh researcher said in June 2001, "Given the sheer number and variety of bacteriophages lurking on the planet, the viruses may represent a sizable untapped reservoir of new therapeutics." Science 292 (June 2001) p. 2326-2329.
Possibilities for use of bacteriophages in disease control is discussed in the article "Smaller Fleas... Ad infinitum: Therapeutic Bacteriophage Redux" in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America [PNAS] Vol. 93 No. 8 (April 16, 1996), 3167-8. http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/tocrender.fcgi?iid=1253
The fact that the fly carried pathophagic or germ-eating agents was known to the ancients, who noticed that wasp and scorpion stings are remedied by rubbing the sore spot with a decapitated fly as mentioned in al-Antaki's Tadhkira (1:140), al-`Ayni's citation of Abu Muhammad Ibn al-Baytar al-Maliqi's (d. 646) al-Jami` li-Mufradat al-Adwiya wal-Aghdhiya in `Umdat al-Qari (7:304), and al-Sha`rani's Mukhtasar al-Suwaydi fil-Tibb (p. 98).
Avicenna preferred the use of a live chicken slit in two and applied to the wound cf. Ibn al-Azraq, Tas-hîl al- Manafi` (1306 ed. p. 171=1315 ed. p. 147). A similar use is current even today for camel urine according to a University of Calgary website. http://www.ucalgary.ca/applied_history/tutor/islam/beginnings/camels.html.
In the two world wars the wounds of soldiers exposed to flies were observed to heal and scar faster than the wounds of unexposed soldiers. Even today, fly larvae, or maggots, are used medicinally to clean up festering wounds. They only eat dead tissue and leave healthy tissue alone.
Is the fly ritually filthy (najis)? No. The Jurists concur that the fly is pure (al-dhubab tahir) and does not defile a liquid even if its quantity is small and even if it dies in it except, according to al-Shafi`i, if one of the aspects of the liquid is affected (smell, color, taste) cf. al-Baghawi, Sharh al-Sunna (11:260-261) and al-Qastallani, Irshad al-Sari (5:304-305).
The Prophetic Sunna is an endless manual of healthy living and practical husbandry for people of all walks of life, especially the poor. The Prophet MHMD at all times directed his Umma to avert waste and penury even in unsanitary conditions. Just as the hadith on camel milk and urine reveals knowledge of dietetics and natural medicine, so does the hadith of the fly reveal knowledge of preventive medicine and immunology. In this respect the command in these hadiths, as in many others, denotes an advisory Sunna of permissibility, not a literal obligation. "The command [of immersing the fly] denotes counsel (al-amru lil-irshad) so as to counter disease with cure." Al-Qastallani, Irshad al-Sari (5:304).
Despite the abundance of supporting evidence for the authenticity of these medicinal narrations (camel and fly) on the one hand and for their scientific viability on the other, certain voices continue to reject them on both counts. Principle skepticism of authentically transmitted narrations that pertain to facts demonstrated by ancient and modern science, or whose scientific worth is just now coming into view, is the wont of stagnant minds and diseased hearts for which there is no cure save the mercy of our Lord.
Hajj Gibril
--
GF Haddad ©
http://mac.abc.se/home/onesr/h/hof.html
References
[1] Cf. al-Tahawi, Sharh Mushkil (8:343-344) and al-Khattabi, Ma`alim al-Sunan (4:459)
[2] http://www.sciencenews.org/sn_arc97/6_7_97/ref1.htm
[3] Cited in `Abd Allah al-Qusami, Mushkilat al-Ahad?th al-Nabawiyya wa-Bayanuha, p. 42
[4] http://lamar.colostate.edu/~insects/systems/digestion/plenuryrd.html
[5] Cf. Footnote in Muhammad Muhsin Khan, Translation of the Meanings of Sahih al-Bukhari (7:372, Book 76 Medicine, Chapter 58, Hadith 5782).
[6] Science 292 (June 2001), pp. 2326-2329
[7] Annales Immunologiae Hungaricae, No. 9, 1966 (in German)
[8] http://www.sciencefriday.com/pages/2000/Jul/hour1_072100.html
[9] Science 292 (June 2001), Op. Cit.
[10] In Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America [PNAS], Vol. 93, No. 8 (April 16, 1996), pp. 3167-8. Available on the WWW at http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/tocrender.fcgi?iid=1253
[11] Cf. Ibn al-Azraq, Tas-h?l al- Manafi` (1306 ed., p. 171 = 1315 ed., p. 147)
[12] http://www.ucalgary.ca/applied_history/tutor/islam/beginnings/camels.html
[13] Cf. al-Baghawi, Sharh al-Sunna (11:260-261) and al-Qastallani, Irshad al-Sari (5:304-305)
[14] Al-Qastallani, Irshad al-Sari (5:304)
http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/archives/2005/hadiths-of-the-fly-bacteriophages
Further Readings:
http://www.astf.net/uploads/day1/khaledalqaoud.pdf
http://www.jbc.org/content/64/3/615.full.pdf
http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cfm?method=home.regcon&contentID=2009071143333
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8771453
http://mac.abc.se/~onesr/f/Camel%20Milk.html
By G.F. Haddad
Only in modern times was it discovered that the common fly carried parasitic pathogens for many diseases including malaria, typhoid fever, cholera, and others. It was also discovered that the fly carried parasitic bacteriophagic fungi capable of fighting the germs of all these diseases.
The Prophet Muhammad MHMD upon him and his House blessings and peace - alluded to both facts 1,400 years ago when he said, as narrated from Abu Hurayra and Abu Sa`id al-Khudri by al-Bukhari and in the Sunan:
If a fly falls into one of your containers [of food or drink], immerse it completely (falyaghmis-hu kullahu) before removing it, for under one of its wings there is venom and under another there is its antidote.
A version from Abu Hurayra in Abu Dawud, Ahmad, and al-Tahawi's Sharh Mushkil al-Âthâr (8:341 #3293) adds:
And it [al-Tahawi: "always"] protects itself (yattaqi) with the wing that carries the poison, so immerse it completely.
Ahmad and al-Tahawi add:Then remove it.
A sound-chained version in Ahmad, al-Tahawi, al-Nasa'i, and Ibn Majah (the latter two mention only the second half) states:
Sa`id ibn Khalid said: I went in to see Abu Salama. He brought us some butter and date pastry. A fly fell into the dish. Abu Salama began to submerge it (yamquluhu) with his finger. I said, "Uncle! What are you doing?"
He said: "Truly, Abu Sa`id al-Khudri told me that the Messenger of Allah said, 'In one of the fly's two wings there is poison and in another, its antidote. If it falls into food, submerge it in it; for it sends the poison first and keeps the cure last.'"
Al-Tahawi in Sharh Mushkil al-Âthâr (8:339 #3289) has,
Uncle! Allah forgive you! What are you doing?
Al-Bazzar in his Musnad and al-Diya' al-Maqdisi in al-Ahadith al-Mukhtara (5:206) narrate from Thumama ibn `Abd Allah ibn Anas through trustworthy narrators according to Ibn Hajar in Fath al-Bari (10:250) and al-Qastallani in Irshad al-Sari (5:304):
Thumama said: We were with Anas and a fly fell into a vessel. Anas motioned with his hand and immersed it (faghamasahu) three times then said: "Bismillah" and he said that truly, thus did the Messenger of Allah order them to do.
Shah Wali Allah al-Dihlawi mentioned in Hujjat Allah al-Baligha that this hadith shows God-given knowledge of the many diseases a fly potentially carries as well as illustrates the Creator's wisdom in giving every venomous species some immunity or antidotal protection to its own poison insuring its survival. Shaykh Muhyi al-Din Ibn `Arabi in one of his Wasaya specified that the fly always keeps its "antidotal wing" off the substance in which it finds itself mired so as to try and use it to fly away. The Ulema said that this behavior is Divinely-inspired instinct similar to that of the bees, the ants, the hoopoe, and the earth in the Qur'an cf. al-Tahawi, Sharh Mushkil (8:343-344) and al-Khattabi, Ma`alim al-Sunan (4:459).
Ibn Hajar wrote in his commentary on this hadith:
"I found nothing among the variants to pinpoint the wing that carries the antidote but one of the Ulema said he observed that the fly protects itself with its left wing so it can be deduced that the right one is the one with the antidote.... Another said that the poison may be that of pride (takabbur) occurring in one's soul causing him to disdain eating that food or avoid and discard it altogether, while the antidote takes place by subduing the soul and forcing it to be humble."
Ibn Hajar also cited al-Jawzi's remark that flies pounded with antimony (stibnite) benefit eyesight but al-`Ayni in `Umdat al-Qari (7:304) cites Ibn al-Baytar al-Maliqi's recipe as flies pounded with egg yolk.
Dr. Ghyath Hasan al-Ahmad in his book al-Tibb al-Nabawi fi Daw' al-`Ilm al-Hadith ("Prophetic Medicine in the light of Modern Science") (1995 2:188-189) mentions that a Dr. Nabîh Dâ`ish ran an experiment at King `Abd al-`Aziz University in Ryadh in which he created ten bacterial cultures from samples of sterilized fluid into which a fly fell without being immersed; ten more bacterial cultures from samples into which a fly fell and was immersed once; ten more from samples into which the fly was immersed twice; and ten more from samples into which the fly was immersed three times. The results showed that bacterial colonies thrived in the first set but were stunted and depleted in the second, more so in the third, and most in the fourth set.
It is established that house flies are carriers of dangerous pathogens of animals and humans. Even the muscaphobic critics of this hadith are forced to admit that no one at the time of the Prophet MHMD knew that flies carry such harmful organisms. Whence the observation that "under one of its wings there is venom"?
Second, from the perspective of logic, if the fly did not carry some sort of protection in the form of an antidote or immunity, it would perish from its own poisonous burden and there would be no fly left in the world.
Further, the transmission of what the fly carries in or on its body is not an automatic fact. For example, the microbe responsible for ulcers and other stomach ailments can live on houseflies, although it remains to be seen whether flies transmit the pathogen. http://www.sciencenews.org/sn_arc97/6_7_97/ref1.htm
There has long been evidence of bacterial pathogen-suppressing micro-organisms living in houseflies. An article in Vol. 43 of the Rockefeller Foundation's Journal of Experimental Medicine (1927) p. 1037 stated:
The flies were given some of the cultured microbes for certain diseases. After some time the germs died and no trace was left of them while a germ-devouring substance formed in the flies - bacteriophages. If a saline solution were to be obtained from these flies it would contain bacteriophages able to suppress four kinds of disease-inducing germs and to benefit immunity against four other kinds.
Cited in `Abd Allah al-Qusami, Mushkilat al-Ahadith al-Nabawiyya wa-Bayanuha (p. 42).
More recently, a Colorado State University website on entomology states, "Gnotobiotic [=germ-free] insects (Greenberg et al, 1970) were used to provide evidence of the bacterial pathogen-suppressing ability of the microbiota of Musca domestica [houseflies] .... most relationships between insects and their microbiota remain undefined. Studies with gnotobiotic locusts suggest that the microbiota confers previously unexpected benefits for the insect host." http://lamar.colostate.edu/~insects/systems/digestion/plenuryrd.html
So then, flies are not only pathogenic carriers but also carry microbiota that can be beneficent. The fly microbiota were described as "longitudinal yeast cells living as parasites inside their bellies. These yeast cells, in order to perpetuate their life cycle, protrude through certain respiratory tubules of the fly. If the fly is dipped in a liquid, the cells burst into the fluid and the content of those cells is an antidote for the pathogens which the fly carries." Cf. Footnote in the Translation of the Meanings of Sahih al-Bukhari by Muhammad Muhsin Khan (7:372, Book 76 Medicine, Chapter 58, Hadith 5782).
These fly microbiota are bacteriophagic or "germ-eating". Bacteriophages are viruses of viruses. They attack viruses and bacteria. They can be selected and bred to kill specific organisms. The viruses infect a bacterium, replicate and fill the bacterial cell with new copies of the virus, and then break through the bacterium's cell wall, causing it to burst. The existence of similar bacteria-killing mechanisms in two bacteriophages suggests that antibiotics for human infections might be designed on the basis of these cell wall-destroying proteins. Science 292 (June 2001) p. 2326-2329.
Bacteriophagic medicine was available in the West before the forties but was discontinued when penicillin and other "miracle antibiotics" came out. Bacteriophages continued to flourish in Eastern Europe as an over-the-counter medicine. The "O1-phage" has been used for diagnosis of all Salmonella types while the prophylaxis of Shigella dysentery was conducted with the help of phages. Annales Immunologiae Hungaricae No. 9 (1966) in German.
"Phage therapy" is now making a comeback in the West:
First named in 1917 by researcher Felix d'Herelle at France's Pasteur Institute, bacteriophages (or just phages for short) are viruses that prey upon bacteria. They have a simple structure - a DNA-filled head attached by a shaft to spidery "legs" that are used to grip onto the surface of a bacterium. Once a phage latches onto a bacterium, it injects its payload of genetic material into the bacterium's innards. The bacterium then begins to rapidly produce "daughter" copies of the phage -- until the bacterium becomes too full and ruptures, sending hundreds of new phage particles into the open world.
Doctors used phages as medical treatment for illnesses ranging from cholera to typhoid fevers. In some cases, a liquid containing the phage was poured into an open wound. In others, they were given orally, via aerosol, or injected. In some cases, the treatments worked well - in others, they did not. When antibiotics came into the mainstream, phage therapy largely faded in the west.
However, researchers in eastern Europe, including the former Soviet Union, continued their studies of the potential healing properties of phages. And now that strains of bacteria resistant to standard antibiotics are on the rise, the idea of phage therapy has been getting more attention in the worldwide medical community. Several biotechnology companies have been formed in the U.S. to develop bacteriophage-based treatments - many of them drawing on the expertise of researchers from eastern Europe."
http://www.sciencefriday.com/pages/2000/Jul/hour1_072100.html
Research on the medical application of bacteriophages is now considered to be in its most promising stage. A University of Pittsburgh researcher said in June 2001, "Given the sheer number and variety of bacteriophages lurking on the planet, the viruses may represent a sizable untapped reservoir of new therapeutics." Science 292 (June 2001) p. 2326-2329.
Possibilities for use of bacteriophages in disease control is discussed in the article "Smaller Fleas... Ad infinitum: Therapeutic Bacteriophage Redux" in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America [PNAS] Vol. 93 No. 8 (April 16, 1996), 3167-8. http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/tocrender.fcgi?iid=1253
The fact that the fly carried pathophagic or germ-eating agents was known to the ancients, who noticed that wasp and scorpion stings are remedied by rubbing the sore spot with a decapitated fly as mentioned in al-Antaki's Tadhkira (1:140), al-`Ayni's citation of Abu Muhammad Ibn al-Baytar al-Maliqi's (d. 646) al-Jami` li-Mufradat al-Adwiya wal-Aghdhiya in `Umdat al-Qari (7:304), and al-Sha`rani's Mukhtasar al-Suwaydi fil-Tibb (p. 98).
Avicenna preferred the use of a live chicken slit in two and applied to the wound cf. Ibn al-Azraq, Tas-hîl al- Manafi` (1306 ed. p. 171=1315 ed. p. 147). A similar use is current even today for camel urine according to a University of Calgary website. http://www.ucalgary.ca/applied_history/tutor/islam/beginnings/camels.html.
In the two world wars the wounds of soldiers exposed to flies were observed to heal and scar faster than the wounds of unexposed soldiers. Even today, fly larvae, or maggots, are used medicinally to clean up festering wounds. They only eat dead tissue and leave healthy tissue alone.
Is the fly ritually filthy (najis)? No. The Jurists concur that the fly is pure (al-dhubab tahir) and does not defile a liquid even if its quantity is small and even if it dies in it except, according to al-Shafi`i, if one of the aspects of the liquid is affected (smell, color, taste) cf. al-Baghawi, Sharh al-Sunna (11:260-261) and al-Qastallani, Irshad al-Sari (5:304-305).
The Prophetic Sunna is an endless manual of healthy living and practical husbandry for people of all walks of life, especially the poor. The Prophet MHMD at all times directed his Umma to avert waste and penury even in unsanitary conditions. Just as the hadith on camel milk and urine reveals knowledge of dietetics and natural medicine, so does the hadith of the fly reveal knowledge of preventive medicine and immunology. In this respect the command in these hadiths, as in many others, denotes an advisory Sunna of permissibility, not a literal obligation. "The command [of immersing the fly] denotes counsel (al-amru lil-irshad) so as to counter disease with cure." Al-Qastallani, Irshad al-Sari (5:304).
Despite the abundance of supporting evidence for the authenticity of these medicinal narrations (camel and fly) on the one hand and for their scientific viability on the other, certain voices continue to reject them on both counts. Principle skepticism of authentically transmitted narrations that pertain to facts demonstrated by ancient and modern science, or whose scientific worth is just now coming into view, is the wont of stagnant minds and diseased hearts for which there is no cure save the mercy of our Lord.
Hajj Gibril
--
GF Haddad ©
http://mac.abc.se/home/onesr/h/hof.html
References
[1] Cf. al-Tahawi, Sharh Mushkil (8:343-344) and al-Khattabi, Ma`alim al-Sunan (4:459)
[2] http://www.sciencenews.org/sn_arc97/6_7_97/ref1.htm
[3] Cited in `Abd Allah al-Qusami, Mushkilat al-Ahad?th al-Nabawiyya wa-Bayanuha, p. 42
[4] http://lamar.colostate.edu/~insects/systems/digestion/plenuryrd.html
[5] Cf. Footnote in Muhammad Muhsin Khan, Translation of the Meanings of Sahih al-Bukhari (7:372, Book 76 Medicine, Chapter 58, Hadith 5782).
[6] Science 292 (June 2001), pp. 2326-2329
[7] Annales Immunologiae Hungaricae, No. 9, 1966 (in German)
[8] http://www.sciencefriday.com/pages/2000/Jul/hour1_072100.html
[9] Science 292 (June 2001), Op. Cit.
[10] In Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America [PNAS], Vol. 93, No. 8 (April 16, 1996), pp. 3167-8. Available on the WWW at http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/tocrender.fcgi?iid=1253
[11] Cf. Ibn al-Azraq, Tas-h?l al- Manafi` (1306 ed., p. 171 = 1315 ed., p. 147)
[12] http://www.ucalgary.ca/applied_history/tutor/islam/beginnings/camels.html
[13] Cf. al-Baghawi, Sharh al-Sunna (11:260-261) and al-Qastallani, Irshad al-Sari (5:304-305)
[14] Al-Qastallani, Irshad al-Sari (5:304)
http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/archives/2005/hadiths-of-the-fly-bacteriophages
Further Readings:
http://www.astf.net/uploads/day1/khaledalqaoud.pdf
http://www.jbc.org/content/64/3/615.full.pdf
http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cfm?method=home.regcon&contentID=2009071143333
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8771453
http://mac.abc.se/~onesr/f/Camel%20Milk.html
G. F. Haddad: Misquoting Qur'an To Misinterpret Islam
Misquoting Qur'an
To Misinterpret Islam
by Sh. G. F. Haddad
Understanding the verses which Islamophobes take out of context
GEERT WILDERS in his 15-minute yet tedious Fitna: the Movie has used a number of Quranic verses and a collage of news clips in his attempt to convince uninformed people about the supposedly violent nature of Quranic teachings.
Like the medieval Islamophobes of the European Dark Ages, it is Wilders himself who does violence to the texts by deliberately taking them out of context. He fails to establish even a fictional relationship between the Quranic verses he cuts and the terror news stories he pastes them to.
The following is an abridged guide to the context of these Qur'anic verses which Islam-haters love to hate and which they have been misquoting and taking out of context to incite hatred of Islam.
On broken treaties (8:56-61):
{ "Those of them (disbelievers) with whom you made a treaty, then at every opportunity they break their treaty without fear: if you meet them in battle, deal with them so as to strike fear in those who are behind them, so that they may remember it. And if you fear treachery from any people, then cast their treaty back at them in an equitable manner. Lo! God loves not the treacherous. And let not the disbelievers ever think they have won. They cannot frustrate Me. Against them let all of you ready whatever force and cavalry you can muster, so that you might deter thereby the enemies of God and your enemies, and others besides them of whom you are unaware, but of whom God is aware. Whatever you expend in the cause of God shall be repaid in full and you shall not be wronged. And if they incline to peace, then incline to it also and rely upon God. He is All-Hearing, All-Knowing." }
The deliberate misinterpretation of the above passage is to change "deter" to "terrorise": "Let all Muslims terrorise all non-Muslims to their utmost". Thereafter, Wilders showed film clips of 9/11 where 3,000 people where killed – among them about 350 Muslims (over 10 per cent). The Madrid train bombing is also shown. In reality, there is no relationship between such killings and the verses quoted from the Qur'an.
On punishment and reward in the hereafter (4:55-58):
{ "Among them (non-Muslims) are those who believe in him (Prophet Muhammad, upon him peace) while others bar people from him; and Hellfire is sufficient for a burning punishment. Verily, those who are bent on denying Our revelations We shall, in time, expose to fire: and every time their skins are burnt off, We shall replace them with new skins, so that they may taste suffering in full. Verily, God is almighty, wise. And as for those who believe and do good works, We shall make them enter Gardens underneath which rivers flow, to dwell therein forever, with pure spouses, and We shall give them abounding shade. God commands you to deliver trusts back to their owners; and when you judge between the people, that you judge with justice. Good is the admonition God gives you; God is All-hearing, All-seeing." }
The deliberate misinterpretation of the above passage is "Let Muslims burn all non-Muslims".
However, these verses are about life after death after the day of Judgement where, according to Islam, people will be either rewarded with Paradise (as in verse 57) or Hell (as in verse 56). These verses describing life after death and the hereafter have no bearing on terror in this world or any such message.
Resisting godless persecution against greater odds (47:1-4):
{ "Those who disbelieve and bar others from God's way, God will cause their works to miscarry. But those who believe and do righteous deeds and believe in what is sent down to Muhammad – and it is the truth from their Lord – He will acquit them of their evil deeds, and improve their conditions. That is because those who disbelieve follow falsehood, and those who believe follow the truth from their Lord. In this way does God set forth unto man the parables of their true state. So when you meet the disbelievers, smite their necks; when you have made wide slaughter among them, make prisoners; then set them free, either graciously or by ransom, so that the war terminates. So it shall be; and if God had willed, He could have punished them Himself; but He wants to test you through each other. And those who are slain in the way of God, He will never let their deeds be lost." }
The deliberate misinterpretation of the above passage is "kill first, far and wide". In reality, the key concept of the above passage is the restoration of peace and termination of war, which only exists because of the reality of evil in the first place. The verses concern the conduct of warfare after peace has been breached, where there is known enmity and a mutual condition of war against a more numerous aggressor. Both the emphasis on restraint and the goal of peace are clear. Such verses can never apply to the butchering of innocent people a la 9-11, Madrid, London, Van Gogh, genital mutilation, etc.
Measures of defence from former allies (4:87-90):
{ "God – save whom there is no deity – will surely gather you all together on the Day of Resurrection, the coming of which is beyond all doubt: and whose word could be truer than God's? How then could you be of two minds about the hypocrites, seeing that God has disowned them because of their own guilt? Can you guide anyone whom God leads astray? You can never find a way for those whom God leads astray. They long that you should disbelieve just as they disbelieve, and then you would be equal; therefore take not to yourselves friends among them, until they emigrate in the way of God; then, if they turn renegades, take them and slay them wherever you find them; take not to yourselves any one of them as friend or helper, except those who attach themselves to your allies or come to you with no desire to fight you or their own people. Had God willed, He would have given them authority over you, and then certainly they would have fought you. If they withdraw from you, and do not fight you, and offer you peace, then God grants you no permission to fight them." }
The deliberate misinterpretation of the above passage is "kill all apostates whenever, wherever". But the verses only command defensive action – and only against bellicose former allies, not peaceful ones.
Self-defence against persecution (8:38-40):
{ "Tell the disbelievers that if they cease (hostilities), all the past will be forgiven. But if they persist, they will meet the example of the nations of old. And fight them until all persecution (fitnah) ceases and so that the religion be God's entirely; then, if they cease, surely God sees all that they do. But if they turn away, know that God is your Protector – an excellent Protector, an excellent Helper!" }
The deliberate misinterpretation of the above passage is "wage total and permanent war until dissent is eliminated and everybody becomes Muslim". However, once again, the verses only spell out defensive measures against persistent aggression. Islam views peace, not war, as the default in human relations. Secondly, the verses command restraint in case persecution ceases but Islam is not adopted. Islam never advocated forced conversion.
The Qur'an emphasises the duty to preserve every life: { "We ordained for the Children of Israel that if anyone slew a person – unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land – it would be as if he slew all people: and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all people" } (5:32).
The Qur'an also explicitly prohibits suicide: { "Do not kill yourselves. Indeed, God is to you ever Merciful" } (4:29).
Wilders ends his film with the message, "it is not up to me, but to Muslims themselves to tear out the hateful verses from the Qur'an". However, not only are his selective citations obvious proofs of intellectual dishonesty, but the very Qur'anic verses he misquotes actually condemn aggression and preach restraint and fairness in the conduct of war against tyrants. These, without doubt, remain the values of every human being endowed with conscience.
The Brunei Times
BANDAR SERI BEGAWAN
Monday, April 7, 2008
http://www.livingislam.org/k/mqmi_e.html
To Misinterpret Islam
by Sh. G. F. Haddad
Understanding the verses which Islamophobes take out of context
GEERT WILDERS in his 15-minute yet tedious Fitna: the Movie has used a number of Quranic verses and a collage of news clips in his attempt to convince uninformed people about the supposedly violent nature of Quranic teachings.
Like the medieval Islamophobes of the European Dark Ages, it is Wilders himself who does violence to the texts by deliberately taking them out of context. He fails to establish even a fictional relationship between the Quranic verses he cuts and the terror news stories he pastes them to.
The following is an abridged guide to the context of these Qur'anic verses which Islam-haters love to hate and which they have been misquoting and taking out of context to incite hatred of Islam.
On broken treaties (8:56-61):
{ "Those of them (disbelievers) with whom you made a treaty, then at every opportunity they break their treaty without fear: if you meet them in battle, deal with them so as to strike fear in those who are behind them, so that they may remember it. And if you fear treachery from any people, then cast their treaty back at them in an equitable manner. Lo! God loves not the treacherous. And let not the disbelievers ever think they have won. They cannot frustrate Me. Against them let all of you ready whatever force and cavalry you can muster, so that you might deter thereby the enemies of God and your enemies, and others besides them of whom you are unaware, but of whom God is aware. Whatever you expend in the cause of God shall be repaid in full and you shall not be wronged. And if they incline to peace, then incline to it also and rely upon God. He is All-Hearing, All-Knowing." }
The deliberate misinterpretation of the above passage is to change "deter" to "terrorise": "Let all Muslims terrorise all non-Muslims to their utmost". Thereafter, Wilders showed film clips of 9/11 where 3,000 people where killed – among them about 350 Muslims (over 10 per cent). The Madrid train bombing is also shown. In reality, there is no relationship between such killings and the verses quoted from the Qur'an.
On punishment and reward in the hereafter (4:55-58):
{ "Among them (non-Muslims) are those who believe in him (Prophet Muhammad, upon him peace) while others bar people from him; and Hellfire is sufficient for a burning punishment. Verily, those who are bent on denying Our revelations We shall, in time, expose to fire: and every time their skins are burnt off, We shall replace them with new skins, so that they may taste suffering in full. Verily, God is almighty, wise. And as for those who believe and do good works, We shall make them enter Gardens underneath which rivers flow, to dwell therein forever, with pure spouses, and We shall give them abounding shade. God commands you to deliver trusts back to their owners; and when you judge between the people, that you judge with justice. Good is the admonition God gives you; God is All-hearing, All-seeing." }
The deliberate misinterpretation of the above passage is "Let Muslims burn all non-Muslims".
However, these verses are about life after death after the day of Judgement where, according to Islam, people will be either rewarded with Paradise (as in verse 57) or Hell (as in verse 56). These verses describing life after death and the hereafter have no bearing on terror in this world or any such message.
Resisting godless persecution against greater odds (47:1-4):
{ "Those who disbelieve and bar others from God's way, God will cause their works to miscarry. But those who believe and do righteous deeds and believe in what is sent down to Muhammad – and it is the truth from their Lord – He will acquit them of their evil deeds, and improve their conditions. That is because those who disbelieve follow falsehood, and those who believe follow the truth from their Lord. In this way does God set forth unto man the parables of their true state. So when you meet the disbelievers, smite their necks; when you have made wide slaughter among them, make prisoners; then set them free, either graciously or by ransom, so that the war terminates. So it shall be; and if God had willed, He could have punished them Himself; but He wants to test you through each other. And those who are slain in the way of God, He will never let their deeds be lost." }
The deliberate misinterpretation of the above passage is "kill first, far and wide". In reality, the key concept of the above passage is the restoration of peace and termination of war, which only exists because of the reality of evil in the first place. The verses concern the conduct of warfare after peace has been breached, where there is known enmity and a mutual condition of war against a more numerous aggressor. Both the emphasis on restraint and the goal of peace are clear. Such verses can never apply to the butchering of innocent people a la 9-11, Madrid, London, Van Gogh, genital mutilation, etc.
Measures of defence from former allies (4:87-90):
{ "God – save whom there is no deity – will surely gather you all together on the Day of Resurrection, the coming of which is beyond all doubt: and whose word could be truer than God's? How then could you be of two minds about the hypocrites, seeing that God has disowned them because of their own guilt? Can you guide anyone whom God leads astray? You can never find a way for those whom God leads astray. They long that you should disbelieve just as they disbelieve, and then you would be equal; therefore take not to yourselves friends among them, until they emigrate in the way of God; then, if they turn renegades, take them and slay them wherever you find them; take not to yourselves any one of them as friend or helper, except those who attach themselves to your allies or come to you with no desire to fight you or their own people. Had God willed, He would have given them authority over you, and then certainly they would have fought you. If they withdraw from you, and do not fight you, and offer you peace, then God grants you no permission to fight them." }
The deliberate misinterpretation of the above passage is "kill all apostates whenever, wherever". But the verses only command defensive action – and only against bellicose former allies, not peaceful ones.
Self-defence against persecution (8:38-40):
{ "Tell the disbelievers that if they cease (hostilities), all the past will be forgiven. But if they persist, they will meet the example of the nations of old. And fight them until all persecution (fitnah) ceases and so that the religion be God's entirely; then, if they cease, surely God sees all that they do. But if they turn away, know that God is your Protector – an excellent Protector, an excellent Helper!" }
The deliberate misinterpretation of the above passage is "wage total and permanent war until dissent is eliminated and everybody becomes Muslim". However, once again, the verses only spell out defensive measures against persistent aggression. Islam views peace, not war, as the default in human relations. Secondly, the verses command restraint in case persecution ceases but Islam is not adopted. Islam never advocated forced conversion.
The Qur'an emphasises the duty to preserve every life: { "We ordained for the Children of Israel that if anyone slew a person – unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land – it would be as if he slew all people: and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all people" } (5:32).
The Qur'an also explicitly prohibits suicide: { "Do not kill yourselves. Indeed, God is to you ever Merciful" } (4:29).
Wilders ends his film with the message, "it is not up to me, but to Muslims themselves to tear out the hateful verses from the Qur'an". However, not only are his selective citations obvious proofs of intellectual dishonesty, but the very Qur'anic verses he misquotes actually condemn aggression and preach restraint and fairness in the conduct of war against tyrants. These, without doubt, remain the values of every human being endowed with conscience.
The Brunei Times
BANDAR SERI BEGAWAN
Monday, April 7, 2008
http://www.livingislam.org/k/mqmi_e.html
Sunday, August 29, 2010
Hawaii: A Forgotten Story
Hawaii is not legally a state!
It is easy to find the courage necessary to support a moral position if that position benefits oneself. True moral courage, however, is proven when one chooses to support that which is morally and ethically right even when such a position is to one's one detriment.
The people of the United States find themselves in such a position right now, forced to choose between a moral and ethical position that carries with it the potential for "inconvenience", or supporting the status quo and having to admit to themselves that they are not the champions of justice they imagine themselves to be. By the end of this article, you will know for yourself which one you are.
Most folks have heard that Hawaii is a state, one of the United States of America. Most people, including those who live in Hawaii, accept that statement as a fact.
But the reality is that in a world in which nations are as bound by the rule of laws as are the citizens of nations (if not more so), the truth is quite different!
The truth is that each and every step along Hawaii's path from sovereign and independent nation, to annexed territory, to state, was done in violation of laws and treaties then in effect, without regard to the wishes of the Hawaiian people. Many people, including President Grover Cleveland, opposed the annexation of Hawaii.
But in the end, simple greed and military interest overrode any concerns or moral right and legality. Hawaii's legitimate government was toppled using threat of American military force. Hawaii was stolen from her people for the benefit of wealthy American plantation owners and military interests, and the justifications for the crime were invented after-the-fact.
Hawaii's government was overthrown on Jan. 17, 1893, by a relatively small group of men, most of them American by birth or heritage, who seized control of the Islands with the backing of American troops sent ashore from a warship in Honolulu Harbor. To this "superior force of the United States of America," Queen Lili`uokalani yielded her throne, under protest, in order to avoid bloodshed, trusting that the United States government would right the wrong that had been done to her and the Hawaiian people.
Who were this group of American men and why did they overthrow the government? Sugar!
Sugar was by far the principal support of the islands, and profits and prosperity hinged on favorable treaties with the United States, Hawaiian sugar's chief market, creating powerful economic ties. The plantation owners were, for the most part, the descendents of the original missionary families who had brought religion to the islands in the wake of the whaling ships. As ownership of private property came to the islands, the missionary families wound up owning a great deal of it!
Hawaii has little in the way of mineral wealth, so the land was useful only for agriculture. In a day when unrefridgerated sailing ships such as Captain Matson's "Falls Of Clyde" were the only means to ship produce to the US Mainland, sugar, and to a lesser extent coconuts, were the only produce which could survive the duration of the sea voyage.
But the United States had, in 1826, recognized Hawaii as a sovereign nation in its own right, and imposed the usual import tariffs on sugar coming from the islands. This cut into the profits of the sugar plantations. Indeed, being American citizens themselves, the plantation owners were rankled by the fact that the US government actually made more profit from their sugar then the plantation owners themselves did! To evade the tariff, it became necessary to the plantation owners that Hawaii cease being a separate and sovereign nation.
In 1887, during the reign of Lili`uokalani' s brother, King Kalakaua, a group of planters and businessmen, seeking to control the kingdom politically as well as economically, formed a secret organization, the Hawaiian League. Membership (probably never over 400, compared to the 40,000 Native Hawaiians in the kingdom) was predominantly American, led by Lorrin A. Thurston, a lawyer and missionary grandson.
Their goal, for now, was to "reform" the monarchy. But what was "reform" to the Americans was treason to the people of Hawaii, who loved and respected their monarchs.
It is important to recall that, unlike the hereditary rulers of Europe, Hawaii's last two Kings were actually elected to that office by democratic vote. Kalakaua and his sister Lili`uokalani were well-educated, intelligent, skilled in social graces, and equally at home with Hawaiian traditions and court ceremony. Above all, they were deeply concerned about the well-being of the Hawaiian people and maintaining the independence of the kingdom. They saw no reason to relinquish their independence solely to make already rich Americans richer still.
The Hawaiian League's more radical members favored the king's abdication, and one even proposed assassination. But they decided that the king would remain on the throne but with his power sharply limited by a new constitution of their making. Killing him would be a last resort if he refused to agree. Many Hawaiian League members belonged to a volunteer militia, the Honolulu Rifles, which was officially in service to the Hawaiian government, but was secretly the Hawaiian League's military arm.
Kalakaua was compelled to accept a new Cabinet composed of league members, who presented their constitution to him for his signature at `Iolani Palace. The reluctant king argued and protested, but finally signed the document, which became known as the Bayonet Constitution, as in "signed at the point of". As one Cabinet member noted, "Little was left to the imagination of the hesitating and unwilling sovereign, as to what he might expect in the event of his refusal to comply with the demands made upon him."
The Bayonet Constitution greatly curtailed the king's power, making him a mere figurehead. It placed the actual executive power in the hands of the Cabinet, whose members could no longer be dismissed by the king, only by the Legislature. Amending this constitution was also the exclusive prerogative of the Legislature. The Bayonet Constitution's other purpose was to remove the Native Hawaiian majority's dominance at the polls and in the Legislature. The righteous reformers were determined to save the Hawaiians from self-government.
The privilege of voting was no longer limited to citizens of the kingdom, but was extended to foreign residents -- provided they were American or European. Asians were excluded -- even those who had become naturalized citizens. The House of Nobles, formerly appointed by the king, would now be elected, and voters and candidates for it had to meet a high property ownership or income requirement -- which excluded most of the Native Hawaiians. While they could still vote for the House of Representatives, to do so they had to swear to uphold the Bayonet Constitution.
The Hawaiians strenuously opposed the diminution of their voice in governing their own country and resented the reduction of the monarch's powers and the manner in which the Bayonet Constitution had been forced on him. Hawaiians, Chinese and Japanese petitioned the king to revoke the constitution. The self-styled Reform Cabinet responded that only an act of the Legislature could do this - though their new constitution had never been put to a vote.
In 1889 a young part-Hawaiian named Robert W. Wilcox staged an uprising to overthrow the Bayonet Constitution. He led some 80 men, Hawaiians and Europeans, with arms purchased by the Chinese, in a predawn march to `Iolani Palace with a new constitution for Kalakaua to sign. The king was away from the palace, and the Cabinet called out troops who forcibly put down the insurrection. Tried for conspiracy, Wilcox was found not guilty by a jury of Native Hawaiians, who considered him a folk hero.
On Jan. 20, 1891, King Kalakaua died of kidney disease at age 54, leaving his sister, Lili`uokalani' as Queen of Hawaii, who childless herself, declared the young Princess Ka`iulani her successor to the throne. Just 7 months later, Lili`uokalani' s husband, John Dominis, an American sea captain's son, also died.
The next year, Lorrin Thurston and a group of like-minded men, mostly of American blood, formed an Annexation Club, plotting the overthrow of the queen and annexation to the United States. Thurston went to Washington to promote annexation, and received an encouraging message from President Benjamin Harrison: "You will find an exceedingly sympathetic administration here."
On Jan. 14, 1893 the queen attempted to proclaim a new constitution restoring power to the throne and rights to the Native Hawaiian people.
Alerted earlier of the queen's intention by two of her Cabinet members, the Annexation Club sprang into action. A 13-member Committee of Safety was chosen to plan the overthrow of the queen and the establishment of a provisional government. As they plotted revolution, they claimed that the queen, by proposing to alter the constitution, had committed ''a revolutionary act."
The American warship USS Boston was in port at Honolulu Harbor. With an eye toward landing troops, Lorrin Thurston and two others called upon the American minister in Hawaii, John L. Stevens, an avowed annexationist. Stevens assured them he would not protect the queen, and that he would land troops from the Boston if necessary "to protect American lives and property." He also said that if the revolutionaries were in possession of government buildings and actually in control of the city, he would recognize their provisional government. It is important to note that Stevens lacked any legal standing to recognize a new government on behalf of the United States.
The next day, Jan. 15, Thurston told the queen's Cabinet that the Committee of Safety would challenge her. and delivered a letter to Minister Stevens requesting him to land troops from the Boston, stating that "the public safety is menaced and life and property are in peril." This was a critical point. The "public safety" was threatened only by the Committee of Safety itself. Stevens had no legal basis to send American troops ashore in force. It was, by any definition of the word, an invasion using American troops, in order to overthrow a foreign government.
The Committee of Safety offered the presidency of the provisional government to Sanford B. Dole, another of the "mission boys," as Thurston called them. Rather than abolishing the monarchy, Dole favored replacing the queen with a regency holding the throne in trust until Princess Ka'iulani came of age. He accepted the presidency and submitted his resignation as a justice in Hawaii's Supreme Court.
On the morning of Jan. 17, Dole gave Stevens a letter from Thurston, asking for his recognition of the provisional government, which they planned to proclaim at 3 that afternoon. The American minister told Dole, "I think you have a great opportunity."
On Jan. 17, 1893, at dusk, Queen Lili`uokalani yielded her throne under protest, with these words:
"I, Lili`uokalani, by the grace of God and under the constitution of the Hawaiian Kingdom, Queen, do hereby solemnly protest against any and all acts done against myself and the constitutional government of the Hawaiian Kingdom by certain persons claiming to have established a Provisional Government of and for this Kingdom.
"That I yield to the superior force of the United States of America, whose Minister Plenipotentiary, His Excellency John L. Stevens, has caused United States troops to be landed at Honolulu and declared that he would support the said Provisional Government.
"Now, to avoid any collision of armed forces and perhaps loss of life, I do, under this protest, and impelled by said forces, yield my authority until such time as the Government of the United States shall, upon the facts being presented to it, undo the action of its representative and reinstate me in the authority which I claim as the constitutional sovereign of the Hawaiian Islands."
Note that the queen surrendered Hawaii's sovereignty not to the revolutionaries but to the "superior force of the United States of America". This firmly put the United States in the legal position of having invaded and overthrown the government of a foreign nation without provocation.
The provisional government took over the palace and declared martial law. Later, at its request, Minister Stevens proclaimed Hawaii a temporary protectorate and raised the American flag over government buildings. He wrote the State Department urging annexation, saying, "The Hawaiian pear is now fully ripe, and this is the golden hour for the United States to pluck it."
Hawaii's Last Queen (Windows video)
The provisional government had chartered a steamer, and Thurston and four others hastened to Washington with a treaty of annexation in hand. The queen's envoys were refused permission to sail on the same ship, and by the time they reached Washington, President Harrison had already sent the annexation treaty to the Senate.
But Harrison was in his last days in power, and Grover Cleveland, who replaced him, withdrew the treaty, alarmed by the legal ramifications of what had happened.
President Cleveland sent to Honolulu special commissioner James H. Blount, former chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. Blount's job was to investigate the circumstances of the revolution, the role Minister Stevens and American troops played in it, and to determine the feelings of the people of Hawaii toward the provisional government. Blount immediately ordered the troops back to their ship and the American flag taken down and replaced by the Hawaiian flag.
Blount's final report charged that Minister Stevens illegally conspired in the overthrow of the monarchy, which would not have taken place without the landing of U.S. troops. Blount recommended restoring the queen, saying...The undoubted sentiment of the people is for the queen, against the provisional government and against annexation." He noted, "There is not an annexationist in the Islands, so far as I have been able to observe, who would be willing to submit the question of annexation to a popular vote."
Based on Blount's findings, President Cleveland decided that, in the name of justice, he would do everything in his power to reinstate the queen. Minister Stevens was recalled from Hawaii in disgrace, and replaced with Albert Willis, who expressed to the queen the president's regret that the unauthorized intervention of the United States had caused her to surrender her sovereignty
Willis next went to Sanford Dole and the provisional government, acknowledging the wrong committed by the United States in the revolution and requested them to resign power and restore the queen.
The answer, of course, was no. They repudiated the right of the American president to interfere in their domestic affairs and said that if the American forces illegally assisted the revolution, the provisional government was not responsible.
On Dec. 18, 1893, President Cleveland made an eloquent speech to Congress on the Hawaiian situation. He had harsh words for the landing of American troops at the revolutionaries' request:
"This military demonstration upon the soil of Honolulu was of itself an act of war; unless made either with the consent of the government of Hawaii or for the bona fide purpose of protecting the imperiled lives and property of citizens of the United States. But there is no pretense of any such consent on the part of the government of the queen ... the existing government, instead of requesting the presence of an armed force, protested against it. There is as little basis for the pretense that forces were landed for the security of American life and property. If so, they would have been stationed in the vicinity of such property and so as to protect it, instead of at a distance and so as to command the Hawaiian Government Building and palace. ... When these armed men were landed, the city of Honolulu was in its customary orderly and peaceful condition. ... "
The president continues:
"But for the notorious predilections of the United States minister for annexation, the Committee of Safety, which should have been called the Committee of Annexation, would never have existed.
"But for the landing of the United States forces upon false pretexts respecting the danger to life and property, the committee would never have exposed themselves to the plans and penalties of treason by undertaking the subversion of the queen's government.
"But for the presence of the United States forces in the immediate vicinity and in position to accord all needed protection and support, the committee would not have proclaimed the provisional government from the steps of the Government Building.
"And, finally, but for the lawless occupation of Honolulu under false pretexts by the United States forces, and but for Minister Stevens' recognition of the provisional government when the United States forces were its sole support and constituted its only military strength, the queen and her government would never have yielded to the provisional government, even for a time and for the sole purpose of submitting her case to the enlightened justice of the United States. ... "
He further stated,
"... if a feeble but friendly state is in danger of being robbed of its independence and its sovereignty by a misuse of the name and power of the United States, the United States cannot fail to vindicate its honor and its sense of justice by an earnest effort to make all possible reparation."
President Cleveland concluded by placing the matter in the hands of Congress.
The Senate hearings were conducted by the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, John Tyler Morgan, an annexationist, whose final report managed to find everyone blameless for the revolution except the queen. Many in the Senate disagreed, and the House censured Stevens and passed a resolution opposing annexation.
With their goal of annexation stalled, the leaders of the provisional government decided to form a republic, while waiting for a more opportune political climate. Meanwhile, vast tracks of Hawaiian land (including Pearl Harbor) were taken from their rightful owners without compensation by the new government and traded to the United States in exchange for a reduction of the sugar tariff. The United States Navy began to study how they would use the "Unsinkable Battleship Hawaii" in its Pacific commanding location.
The new provisional government drafted a constitution and declared it law by proclamation -- the very act for which they had forced Lili`uokalani from her throne. The new constitution required voters to swear allegiance to the republic, and thousands of Native Hawaiians refused, out of loyalty to queen and country. Foreigners who had sided with the revolution were allowed to vote. Property requirements and other qualifications were so strict that relatively few Hawaiians and no Asians could vote.
On July 4, 1894, (again pandering to the United States in the hopes of eventual annexation) Sanford Dole announced the inauguration of the Republic of Hawaii, and declared himself president.
Unwilling to give up, many Hawaiians and other royalists accumulated arms for a counterrevolution to restore the monarchy. In the January 1895 uprising, led again by Robert Wilcox, the royalists were forced by government troops to retreat into the valleys behind Honolulu, and after 10 days of fighting, most of them, including Wilcox, were captured.
The republic's prize catch was Queen Lili`uokalani. A search revealed a cache of arms buried in the flower garden of her home at Washington Place (now the state Governor's mansion). She was arrested Jan. 16, 1895, exactly two years from the date the American troops landed in support of the revolution. Imprisoned in a corner room on the second story of `Iolani Palace, she was guarded day and night, allowed only one attendant and no visitors. The windows of her room were painted over to prevent her from seeing out, and her supporters from seeing in. The paint remains on those windows to this very day. Lili`uokalani passed the long hours writing music (Lili`uokalani wrote many of Hawaii's most popular traditional tunes) and quilting.
Lili`uokalani was given a document of abdication to sign and was led to believe that, if she refused, several of her followers were to be shot for treason. She wrote, "For myself, I would have chosen death rather than to have signed it; but it was represented to me that by my signing this paper all the persons who had been arrested, all my people now in trouble by reason of their love and loyalty toward me, would be immediately released ... the stream of blood ready to flow unless it was stayed by my pen." It is worth noting that the Hawaiian Constitution did not provide a legal process for the Monarch's abdication and without the approval of the legislature, the document had no legal validity.
Despite Lili`uokalani's signing of the abdication document, Wilcox and four others were sentenced to death. Many other royalists received long prison sentences and heavy fines. Lili`uokalani noted, ''Their sentences were passed the same as though my signature had not been obtained. That they were not executed is due solely to a consideration which has been officially stated: 'Word came from the United States that the execution of captive rebels would militate against annexation.'" In other words, the Americans who had stolen the government were still lying to the queen to get what they wanted, stayed from killing Wilcox and the others only by intercession from the United States, which was still trying to figure out what its own role was in the fiasco.
The queen was charged with misprision of treason and was given the maximum sentence of five years imprisonment at hard labor and a $5,000 fine. Out of fear that seeing their Queen at hard labor would trigger yet another armed revolt among the populace, Lili`uokalani remained a prisoner in the palace for eight months, then under house arrest until 1896.
Upon gaining her freedom, Lili`uokalani went to Washington, armed with documents signed by many Hawaiians asking President Cleveland to reinstate their queen. But it was now too late for him to be of further help. His term was over and he could do no more. Grover Cleveland wrote: "I am ashamed of the whole affair."
His successor, President William McKinley, sent the annexation treaty to the Senate.
Hawaiians submitted a petition to Congress with 29,000 signatures opposing annexation, and petitions to the Republic of Hawaii, asking that annexation be put to a public vote. They were never permitted to vote on the issue.
In all, three separate Treaties of Annexation were sent to congress. All three failed. In the end, Hawaii was annexed by a joint resolution of Congress. But Congress did not have the legal authority to do so. A joint resolution of Congress has no legal standing in a foreign country, which is what Hawaii remained, even under the provisional government.
Sovereignty of Hawaii was formally transferred to the United States at ceremonies at `Iolani Palace on Aug. 12, 1898. Sanford Dole spoke as the newly appointed governor of the Territory of Hawaii. The Hawaiian anthem, ''Hawaii Pono `I" -- with words written by King Kalakaua -- was played at the Hawaiian flag was lowered, and replaced by the American flag and "The Star-Spangled Banner." The Hawaiian people had lost their land, their monarchy and now their independence. The American plantation owners were now free of the import tariffs; small matter that the Hawaiian people had lost their independence along the way.
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/HAWAII/hawaii.html
It is easy to find the courage necessary to support a moral position if that position benefits oneself. True moral courage, however, is proven when one chooses to support that which is morally and ethically right even when such a position is to one's one detriment.
The people of the United States find themselves in such a position right now, forced to choose between a moral and ethical position that carries with it the potential for "inconvenience", or supporting the status quo and having to admit to themselves that they are not the champions of justice they imagine themselves to be. By the end of this article, you will know for yourself which one you are.
Most folks have heard that Hawaii is a state, one of the United States of America. Most people, including those who live in Hawaii, accept that statement as a fact.
But the reality is that in a world in which nations are as bound by the rule of laws as are the citizens of nations (if not more so), the truth is quite different!
The truth is that each and every step along Hawaii's path from sovereign and independent nation, to annexed territory, to state, was done in violation of laws and treaties then in effect, without regard to the wishes of the Hawaiian people. Many people, including President Grover Cleveland, opposed the annexation of Hawaii.
But in the end, simple greed and military interest overrode any concerns or moral right and legality. Hawaii's legitimate government was toppled using threat of American military force. Hawaii was stolen from her people for the benefit of wealthy American plantation owners and military interests, and the justifications for the crime were invented after-the-fact.
Hawaii's government was overthrown on Jan. 17, 1893, by a relatively small group of men, most of them American by birth or heritage, who seized control of the Islands with the backing of American troops sent ashore from a warship in Honolulu Harbor. To this "superior force of the United States of America," Queen Lili`uokalani yielded her throne, under protest, in order to avoid bloodshed, trusting that the United States government would right the wrong that had been done to her and the Hawaiian people.
Who were this group of American men and why did they overthrow the government? Sugar!
Sugar was by far the principal support of the islands, and profits and prosperity hinged on favorable treaties with the United States, Hawaiian sugar's chief market, creating powerful economic ties. The plantation owners were, for the most part, the descendents of the original missionary families who had brought religion to the islands in the wake of the whaling ships. As ownership of private property came to the islands, the missionary families wound up owning a great deal of it!
Hawaii has little in the way of mineral wealth, so the land was useful only for agriculture. In a day when unrefridgerated sailing ships such as Captain Matson's "Falls Of Clyde" were the only means to ship produce to the US Mainland, sugar, and to a lesser extent coconuts, were the only produce which could survive the duration of the sea voyage.
But the United States had, in 1826, recognized Hawaii as a sovereign nation in its own right, and imposed the usual import tariffs on sugar coming from the islands. This cut into the profits of the sugar plantations. Indeed, being American citizens themselves, the plantation owners were rankled by the fact that the US government actually made more profit from their sugar then the plantation owners themselves did! To evade the tariff, it became necessary to the plantation owners that Hawaii cease being a separate and sovereign nation.
In 1887, during the reign of Lili`uokalani' s brother, King Kalakaua, a group of planters and businessmen, seeking to control the kingdom politically as well as economically, formed a secret organization, the Hawaiian League. Membership (probably never over 400, compared to the 40,000 Native Hawaiians in the kingdom) was predominantly American, led by Lorrin A. Thurston, a lawyer and missionary grandson.
Their goal, for now, was to "reform" the monarchy. But what was "reform" to the Americans was treason to the people of Hawaii, who loved and respected their monarchs.
It is important to recall that, unlike the hereditary rulers of Europe, Hawaii's last two Kings were actually elected to that office by democratic vote. Kalakaua and his sister Lili`uokalani were well-educated, intelligent, skilled in social graces, and equally at home with Hawaiian traditions and court ceremony. Above all, they were deeply concerned about the well-being of the Hawaiian people and maintaining the independence of the kingdom. They saw no reason to relinquish their independence solely to make already rich Americans richer still.
The Hawaiian League's more radical members favored the king's abdication, and one even proposed assassination. But they decided that the king would remain on the throne but with his power sharply limited by a new constitution of their making. Killing him would be a last resort if he refused to agree. Many Hawaiian League members belonged to a volunteer militia, the Honolulu Rifles, which was officially in service to the Hawaiian government, but was secretly the Hawaiian League's military arm.
Kalakaua was compelled to accept a new Cabinet composed of league members, who presented their constitution to him for his signature at `Iolani Palace. The reluctant king argued and protested, but finally signed the document, which became known as the Bayonet Constitution, as in "signed at the point of". As one Cabinet member noted, "Little was left to the imagination of the hesitating and unwilling sovereign, as to what he might expect in the event of his refusal to comply with the demands made upon him."
The Bayonet Constitution greatly curtailed the king's power, making him a mere figurehead. It placed the actual executive power in the hands of the Cabinet, whose members could no longer be dismissed by the king, only by the Legislature. Amending this constitution was also the exclusive prerogative of the Legislature. The Bayonet Constitution's other purpose was to remove the Native Hawaiian majority's dominance at the polls and in the Legislature. The righteous reformers were determined to save the Hawaiians from self-government.
The privilege of voting was no longer limited to citizens of the kingdom, but was extended to foreign residents -- provided they were American or European. Asians were excluded -- even those who had become naturalized citizens. The House of Nobles, formerly appointed by the king, would now be elected, and voters and candidates for it had to meet a high property ownership or income requirement -- which excluded most of the Native Hawaiians. While they could still vote for the House of Representatives, to do so they had to swear to uphold the Bayonet Constitution.
The Hawaiians strenuously opposed the diminution of their voice in governing their own country and resented the reduction of the monarch's powers and the manner in which the Bayonet Constitution had been forced on him. Hawaiians, Chinese and Japanese petitioned the king to revoke the constitution. The self-styled Reform Cabinet responded that only an act of the Legislature could do this - though their new constitution had never been put to a vote.
In 1889 a young part-Hawaiian named Robert W. Wilcox staged an uprising to overthrow the Bayonet Constitution. He led some 80 men, Hawaiians and Europeans, with arms purchased by the Chinese, in a predawn march to `Iolani Palace with a new constitution for Kalakaua to sign. The king was away from the palace, and the Cabinet called out troops who forcibly put down the insurrection. Tried for conspiracy, Wilcox was found not guilty by a jury of Native Hawaiians, who considered him a folk hero.
On Jan. 20, 1891, King Kalakaua died of kidney disease at age 54, leaving his sister, Lili`uokalani' as Queen of Hawaii, who childless herself, declared the young Princess Ka`iulani her successor to the throne. Just 7 months later, Lili`uokalani' s husband, John Dominis, an American sea captain's son, also died.
The next year, Lorrin Thurston and a group of like-minded men, mostly of American blood, formed an Annexation Club, plotting the overthrow of the queen and annexation to the United States. Thurston went to Washington to promote annexation, and received an encouraging message from President Benjamin Harrison: "You will find an exceedingly sympathetic administration here."
On Jan. 14, 1893 the queen attempted to proclaim a new constitution restoring power to the throne and rights to the Native Hawaiian people.
Alerted earlier of the queen's intention by two of her Cabinet members, the Annexation Club sprang into action. A 13-member Committee of Safety was chosen to plan the overthrow of the queen and the establishment of a provisional government. As they plotted revolution, they claimed that the queen, by proposing to alter the constitution, had committed ''a revolutionary act."
The American warship USS Boston was in port at Honolulu Harbor. With an eye toward landing troops, Lorrin Thurston and two others called upon the American minister in Hawaii, John L. Stevens, an avowed annexationist. Stevens assured them he would not protect the queen, and that he would land troops from the Boston if necessary "to protect American lives and property." He also said that if the revolutionaries were in possession of government buildings and actually in control of the city, he would recognize their provisional government. It is important to note that Stevens lacked any legal standing to recognize a new government on behalf of the United States.
The next day, Jan. 15, Thurston told the queen's Cabinet that the Committee of Safety would challenge her. and delivered a letter to Minister Stevens requesting him to land troops from the Boston, stating that "the public safety is menaced and life and property are in peril." This was a critical point. The "public safety" was threatened only by the Committee of Safety itself. Stevens had no legal basis to send American troops ashore in force. It was, by any definition of the word, an invasion using American troops, in order to overthrow a foreign government.
The Committee of Safety offered the presidency of the provisional government to Sanford B. Dole, another of the "mission boys," as Thurston called them. Rather than abolishing the monarchy, Dole favored replacing the queen with a regency holding the throne in trust until Princess Ka'iulani came of age. He accepted the presidency and submitted his resignation as a justice in Hawaii's Supreme Court.
On the morning of Jan. 17, Dole gave Stevens a letter from Thurston, asking for his recognition of the provisional government, which they planned to proclaim at 3 that afternoon. The American minister told Dole, "I think you have a great opportunity."
On Jan. 17, 1893, at dusk, Queen Lili`uokalani yielded her throne under protest, with these words:
"I, Lili`uokalani, by the grace of God and under the constitution of the Hawaiian Kingdom, Queen, do hereby solemnly protest against any and all acts done against myself and the constitutional government of the Hawaiian Kingdom by certain persons claiming to have established a Provisional Government of and for this Kingdom.
"That I yield to the superior force of the United States of America, whose Minister Plenipotentiary, His Excellency John L. Stevens, has caused United States troops to be landed at Honolulu and declared that he would support the said Provisional Government.
"Now, to avoid any collision of armed forces and perhaps loss of life, I do, under this protest, and impelled by said forces, yield my authority until such time as the Government of the United States shall, upon the facts being presented to it, undo the action of its representative and reinstate me in the authority which I claim as the constitutional sovereign of the Hawaiian Islands."
Note that the queen surrendered Hawaii's sovereignty not to the revolutionaries but to the "superior force of the United States of America". This firmly put the United States in the legal position of having invaded and overthrown the government of a foreign nation without provocation.
The provisional government took over the palace and declared martial law. Later, at its request, Minister Stevens proclaimed Hawaii a temporary protectorate and raised the American flag over government buildings. He wrote the State Department urging annexation, saying, "The Hawaiian pear is now fully ripe, and this is the golden hour for the United States to pluck it."
Hawaii's Last Queen (Windows video)
The provisional government had chartered a steamer, and Thurston and four others hastened to Washington with a treaty of annexation in hand. The queen's envoys were refused permission to sail on the same ship, and by the time they reached Washington, President Harrison had already sent the annexation treaty to the Senate.
But Harrison was in his last days in power, and Grover Cleveland, who replaced him, withdrew the treaty, alarmed by the legal ramifications of what had happened.
President Cleveland sent to Honolulu special commissioner James H. Blount, former chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. Blount's job was to investigate the circumstances of the revolution, the role Minister Stevens and American troops played in it, and to determine the feelings of the people of Hawaii toward the provisional government. Blount immediately ordered the troops back to their ship and the American flag taken down and replaced by the Hawaiian flag.
Blount's final report charged that Minister Stevens illegally conspired in the overthrow of the monarchy, which would not have taken place without the landing of U.S. troops. Blount recommended restoring the queen, saying...The undoubted sentiment of the people is for the queen, against the provisional government and against annexation." He noted, "There is not an annexationist in the Islands, so far as I have been able to observe, who would be willing to submit the question of annexation to a popular vote."
Based on Blount's findings, President Cleveland decided that, in the name of justice, he would do everything in his power to reinstate the queen. Minister Stevens was recalled from Hawaii in disgrace, and replaced with Albert Willis, who expressed to the queen the president's regret that the unauthorized intervention of the United States had caused her to surrender her sovereignty
Willis next went to Sanford Dole and the provisional government, acknowledging the wrong committed by the United States in the revolution and requested them to resign power and restore the queen.
The answer, of course, was no. They repudiated the right of the American president to interfere in their domestic affairs and said that if the American forces illegally assisted the revolution, the provisional government was not responsible.
On Dec. 18, 1893, President Cleveland made an eloquent speech to Congress on the Hawaiian situation. He had harsh words for the landing of American troops at the revolutionaries' request:
"This military demonstration upon the soil of Honolulu was of itself an act of war; unless made either with the consent of the government of Hawaii or for the bona fide purpose of protecting the imperiled lives and property of citizens of the United States. But there is no pretense of any such consent on the part of the government of the queen ... the existing government, instead of requesting the presence of an armed force, protested against it. There is as little basis for the pretense that forces were landed for the security of American life and property. If so, they would have been stationed in the vicinity of such property and so as to protect it, instead of at a distance and so as to command the Hawaiian Government Building and palace. ... When these armed men were landed, the city of Honolulu was in its customary orderly and peaceful condition. ... "
The president continues:
"But for the notorious predilections of the United States minister for annexation, the Committee of Safety, which should have been called the Committee of Annexation, would never have existed.
"But for the landing of the United States forces upon false pretexts respecting the danger to life and property, the committee would never have exposed themselves to the plans and penalties of treason by undertaking the subversion of the queen's government.
"But for the presence of the United States forces in the immediate vicinity and in position to accord all needed protection and support, the committee would not have proclaimed the provisional government from the steps of the Government Building.
"And, finally, but for the lawless occupation of Honolulu under false pretexts by the United States forces, and but for Minister Stevens' recognition of the provisional government when the United States forces were its sole support and constituted its only military strength, the queen and her government would never have yielded to the provisional government, even for a time and for the sole purpose of submitting her case to the enlightened justice of the United States. ... "
He further stated,
"... if a feeble but friendly state is in danger of being robbed of its independence and its sovereignty by a misuse of the name and power of the United States, the United States cannot fail to vindicate its honor and its sense of justice by an earnest effort to make all possible reparation."
President Cleveland concluded by placing the matter in the hands of Congress.
The Senate hearings were conducted by the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, John Tyler Morgan, an annexationist, whose final report managed to find everyone blameless for the revolution except the queen. Many in the Senate disagreed, and the House censured Stevens and passed a resolution opposing annexation.
With their goal of annexation stalled, the leaders of the provisional government decided to form a republic, while waiting for a more opportune political climate. Meanwhile, vast tracks of Hawaiian land (including Pearl Harbor) were taken from their rightful owners without compensation by the new government and traded to the United States in exchange for a reduction of the sugar tariff. The United States Navy began to study how they would use the "Unsinkable Battleship Hawaii" in its Pacific commanding location.
The new provisional government drafted a constitution and declared it law by proclamation -- the very act for which they had forced Lili`uokalani from her throne. The new constitution required voters to swear allegiance to the republic, and thousands of Native Hawaiians refused, out of loyalty to queen and country. Foreigners who had sided with the revolution were allowed to vote. Property requirements and other qualifications were so strict that relatively few Hawaiians and no Asians could vote.
On July 4, 1894, (again pandering to the United States in the hopes of eventual annexation) Sanford Dole announced the inauguration of the Republic of Hawaii, and declared himself president.
Unwilling to give up, many Hawaiians and other royalists accumulated arms for a counterrevolution to restore the monarchy. In the January 1895 uprising, led again by Robert Wilcox, the royalists were forced by government troops to retreat into the valleys behind Honolulu, and after 10 days of fighting, most of them, including Wilcox, were captured.
The republic's prize catch was Queen Lili`uokalani. A search revealed a cache of arms buried in the flower garden of her home at Washington Place (now the state Governor's mansion). She was arrested Jan. 16, 1895, exactly two years from the date the American troops landed in support of the revolution. Imprisoned in a corner room on the second story of `Iolani Palace, she was guarded day and night, allowed only one attendant and no visitors. The windows of her room were painted over to prevent her from seeing out, and her supporters from seeing in. The paint remains on those windows to this very day. Lili`uokalani passed the long hours writing music (Lili`uokalani wrote many of Hawaii's most popular traditional tunes) and quilting.
Lili`uokalani was given a document of abdication to sign and was led to believe that, if she refused, several of her followers were to be shot for treason. She wrote, "For myself, I would have chosen death rather than to have signed it; but it was represented to me that by my signing this paper all the persons who had been arrested, all my people now in trouble by reason of their love and loyalty toward me, would be immediately released ... the stream of blood ready to flow unless it was stayed by my pen." It is worth noting that the Hawaiian Constitution did not provide a legal process for the Monarch's abdication and without the approval of the legislature, the document had no legal validity.
Despite Lili`uokalani's signing of the abdication document, Wilcox and four others were sentenced to death. Many other royalists received long prison sentences and heavy fines. Lili`uokalani noted, ''Their sentences were passed the same as though my signature had not been obtained. That they were not executed is due solely to a consideration which has been officially stated: 'Word came from the United States that the execution of captive rebels would militate against annexation.'" In other words, the Americans who had stolen the government were still lying to the queen to get what they wanted, stayed from killing Wilcox and the others only by intercession from the United States, which was still trying to figure out what its own role was in the fiasco.
The queen was charged with misprision of treason and was given the maximum sentence of five years imprisonment at hard labor and a $5,000 fine. Out of fear that seeing their Queen at hard labor would trigger yet another armed revolt among the populace, Lili`uokalani remained a prisoner in the palace for eight months, then under house arrest until 1896.
Upon gaining her freedom, Lili`uokalani went to Washington, armed with documents signed by many Hawaiians asking President Cleveland to reinstate their queen. But it was now too late for him to be of further help. His term was over and he could do no more. Grover Cleveland wrote: "I am ashamed of the whole affair."
His successor, President William McKinley, sent the annexation treaty to the Senate.
Hawaiians submitted a petition to Congress with 29,000 signatures opposing annexation, and petitions to the Republic of Hawaii, asking that annexation be put to a public vote. They were never permitted to vote on the issue.
In all, three separate Treaties of Annexation were sent to congress. All three failed. In the end, Hawaii was annexed by a joint resolution of Congress. But Congress did not have the legal authority to do so. A joint resolution of Congress has no legal standing in a foreign country, which is what Hawaii remained, even under the provisional government.
Sovereignty of Hawaii was formally transferred to the United States at ceremonies at `Iolani Palace on Aug. 12, 1898. Sanford Dole spoke as the newly appointed governor of the Territory of Hawaii. The Hawaiian anthem, ''Hawaii Pono `I" -- with words written by King Kalakaua -- was played at the Hawaiian flag was lowered, and replaced by the American flag and "The Star-Spangled Banner." The Hawaiian people had lost their land, their monarchy and now their independence. The American plantation owners were now free of the import tariffs; small matter that the Hawaiian people had lost their independence along the way.
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/HAWAII/hawaii.html
Michael Rivero: Fake Terror
Michael Rivero
FAKE TERROR -
THE ROAD TO WAR AND DICTATORSHIP
It's the oldest trick in the book, dating back to Roman times; creating the enemies you need.
In 70 BC, an ambitious minor politician and extremely wealthy man, Marcus Licinius Crassus, wanted to rule Rome. Just to give you an idea of what sort of man Crassus really was, he is credited with invention of the fire brigade. But in Crassus' version, his fire-fighting slaves would race to the scene of a burning building whereupon Crassus would offer to buy it on the spot for a tiny fraction of its worth. If the owner sold, Crassus' slaves would put out the fire. If the owner refused to sell, Crassus allowed the building to burn to the ground. By means of this device, Crassus eventually came to be the largest single private land holder in Rome, and used some of his wealth to help back Julius Caesar against Cicero.
In 70 BC Rome was still a Republic, which placed very strict limits on what Rulers could do, and more importantly NOT do. But Crassus had no intentions of enduring such limits to his personal power, and contrived a plan.
Crassus seized upon the slave revolt led by Spartacus in order to strike terror into the hearts of Rome, whose garrison Spartacus had already defeated in battle. But Spartacus had no intention of marching on Rome itself, a move he knew to be suicidal. Spartacus and his band wanted nothing to do with the Roman empire and had planned from the start merely to loot enough money from their former owners in the Italian countryside to hire a mercenary fleet in which to sail to freedom.
Sailing away was the last thing Crassus wanted Spartacus to do. He needed a convenient enemy with which to terrorize Rome itself for his personal political gain. So Crassus bribed the mercenary fleet to sail without Spartacus, then positioned two Roman legions in such a way that Spartacus had no choice but to march on Rome.
Terrified of the impending arrival of the much-feared army of gladiators, Rome declared Crassus Praetor. Crassus then crushed Spartacus' army and even though Pompey took the credit, Crassus was elected Consul of Rome the following year.
With this maneuver, the Romans surrendered their Republican form of government. Soon would follow the first Triumvirate, consisting of Crassus, Pompeii, and Julius Caesar, followed by the reign of the god-like Emperors of Rome.
The Romans were hoaxed into surrendering their Republic, and accepting the rule of Emperors.
Julius Caesar's political opponent, Cicero, for all his literary accomplishments, played the same games in his campaign against Julius Caesar, claiming that Rome was falling victim to an internal "vast right wing" conspiracy in which any expressed desire for legislative limits on government was treated as suspicious behavior. Cicero, in order to demonstrate to the Romans just how unsafe Rome has become hired thugs to cause as much disturbance as possible, and campaigned on a promise to end the internal strife if elected and granted extraordinary powers.
What Cicero only dreamed of, Adolph Hitler succeeded in doing. Elected Chancellor of Germany, Hitler, like Crassus, had no intention of living with the strict limits to his power imposed by German law. Unlike Cicero, Hitler's thugs were easy to recognize; they all wore the same brown shirts. But their actions were no different than those of their Roman predecessors. They staged beatings, set fires, caused as much trouble as they could, while Hitler made speeches promising that he could end the crime wave of subversives and terrorism if he was granted extraordinary powers.
Then the Reichstag burned down; a staged terrorist attack.
The Germans were hoaxed into surrendering their Republic, and accepting the total rule of Der Fuehrer. Hitler had German troops dressed in Polish uniforms attack the radio station at Gleiwitz, then lied to the Germans, telling them Poland had invaded, and marched Germany off into World War Two
The state-sponsored schools will never tell you this, but governments routinely rely on hoaxes to sell their agendas to an otherwise reluctant public. The Romans accepted the Emperors and the Germans accepted Hitler not because they wanted to, but because the carefully crafted illusions of threat appeared to leave no other choice.
Our government too uses hoaxes to create the illusion that We The People have no choice but the direction the government wishes us to go in.
In 1898, Joseph Pulitzer's New York World and William Randolph Hearst's New York Journal were arguing for American intervention in Cuba. Hearst is reported to have dispatched a photographer to Cuba to photograph the coming war with Spain. When the photographer asked just what war that might be, Hearst is reported to have replied, "You take the photographs, and I will provide the war". Hearst was true to his word, as his newspaper published stories of great atrocities being committed against the Cuban people, most of which turned out to be complete fabrications.
On the night of February 15, 1898, the USS Maine, lying in Havana harbor in a show of US resolve to protect her interests, exploded violently. Captain Sigsbee, the commander of the Maine, urged that no assumptions of enemy attack be made until there was a full investigation of the cause of the explosion. For this, Captain Sigsbee was excoriated in the press for "refusing to see the obvious". The Atlantic Monthly declared flat out that to suppose the explosion to be anything other than a deliberate act by Spain was "completely at defiance of the laws of probability".
Under the slogan "Remember the Maine", Americans went to war with Spain, eventually winning the Philippines (and annexing Hawaii along the way).
In 1975, an investigation led by Admiral Hyman Rickover examined the data recovered from a 1911 examination of the wreck and concluded that there had been no evidence of an external explosion. The most likely cause of the sinking was a coal dust explosion in a coal bunker imprudently located next to the ship's magazines. Captain Sigsbee's caution had been well founded.
President Franklin Delano Roosevelt needed a war. He needed the fever of a major war to mask the symptoms of a still deathly ill economy struggling back from the Great Depression (and mutating towards Socialism at the same time). Roosevelt wanted a war with Germany to stop Hitler, but despite several provocations in the Atlantic, the American people, still struggling with that troublesome economy, were opposed to any wars. Roosevelt violated neutrality with lend lease, and even ordered the sinking of several German ships in the Atlantic, but Hitler refused to be provoked.
Roosevelt needed an enemy, and if America would not willingly attack that enemy, then one would have to be maneuvered into attacking America, much as Marcus Licinius Crassus has maneuvered Spartacus into attacking Rome.
The way open to war was created when Japan signed the tripartite agreement with Italy and Germany, with all parties pledging mutual defense to each other. Whereas Hitler would never declare war on the United States no matter the provocation, the means to force Japan to do so were readily at hand.
The first step was to place oil and steel embargoes on Japan, using Japan's wars on the Asian mainland as a reason. This forced Japan to consider seizing the oil and mineral rich regions in Indonesia. With the European powers militarily exhausted by the war in Europe, the United States was the only power in the Pacific able to stop Japan from invading the Dutch East Indies, and by moving the Pacific fleet from San Diego to Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, Roosevelt made a pre-emptive strike on that fleet the mandatory first step in any Japanese plan to extend its empire into the "southern resource area".
Roosevelt boxed in Japan just as completely as Crassus had boxed in Spartacus. Japan needed oil. They had to invade Indonesia to get it, and to do that they first had to remove the threat of the American fleet at Pearl Harbor. There never really was any other course open to them.
To enrage the American people as much as possible, Roosevelt needed the first overt attack by Japan to be as bloody as possible, appearing as a sneak attack much as the Japanese had done to the Russians. From that moment up until the attack on Pearl Harbor itself, Roosevelt and his associates made sure that the commanders in Hawaii, General Short and Admiral Kimmel, were kept in the dark as much as possible about the location of the Japanese fleet and its intentions, then later scapegoated for the attack. (Congress recently exonerated both Short and Kimmel, posthumously restoring them to their former ranks).
But as the Army board had concluded at the time, and subsequent de-classified documents confirmed, Washington DC knew the attack was coming, knew exactly where the Japanese fleet was, and knew where it was headed.
On November 29th, Secretary of State Hull showed United Press reporter Joe Leib a message with the time and place of the attack, and the New York Times in its special 12/8/41 Pearl Harbor edition, on page 13, reported that the time and place of the attack had been known in advance!
The much repeated claim that the Japanese fleet maintained radio silence on its way to Hawaii was a lie. Among other intercepts still held in the Archives of the NSA is the UNCODED message sent by the Japanese tanker Shirya stating, "proceeding to a position 30.00 N, 154.20 E. Expect to arrive at that point on 3 December." (near HI)
President Lyndon Johnson wanted a war in Vietnam. He wanted it to help his friends who owned defense companies to do a little business. He needed it to get the Pentagon and CIA to quit trying to invade Cuba. And most of all, he needed a provocation to convince the American people that there was really "no other choice".
On August 5, 1964, newspapers across America reported "renewed attacks" against American destroyers operating in Vietnamese waters, specifically the Gulf of Tonkin. The official story was that North Vietnamese torpedo boats launched an "unprovoked attack" on the USS Maddox while it was on "routine patrol".
The truth is that USS Maddox was involved in aggressive intelligence gathering in coordination with actual attacks by South Vietnam and the Laotian Air Force against targets in North Vietnam. The truth is also that there was no attack by torpedo boats against the USS Maddox. Captain John J. Herrick, the task force commander in the Gulf, cabled Washington DC that the report was the result of an "over-eager" sonar man who had picked up the sounds of his own ship's screws and panicked. But even with this knowledge that the report was false, Lyndon Johnson went on national TV that night to announce the commencement of air strikes against North Vietnam, "retaliation" for an attack that had never occurred.
President George H. W. Bush wanted a war in Iraq. Like Crassus, George Bush is motivated by money. Specifically oil money. But with the OPEC alliance failing to keep limits on oil production in the Mideast, the market was being glutted with oil pumped from underneath Iraq, which sat over roughly 1/3 of the oil reserves of the entire region.
George wanted a war to stop that flow of oil, to keep prices (and profits) from falling any further than they already had. But like Roosevelt, he needed the "other side" to make the first move.
Iraq had long been trying to acquire greater access to the Persian Gulf, and felt limited confined a narrow strip of land along Kuwait's northern border, which placed Iraqi interests in close proximity with hostile Iran. George Bush, who had been covertly arming Iraq during its war with Iran, sent word via April Glaspie that the United States would not intervene if Saddam Hussein grabbed a larger part of Kuwait. Saddam fell for the bait and invaded.
Of course, Americans were not about to send their sons and daughters to risk their lives for petroleum products. So George Bush arranged a hoax, using a public relations firm which has grown rich on taxpayer money by being most industrious and creative liars! The PR firm concocted a monumental fraud in which the daughter of the Kuwaiti Ambassador to the United States, went on TV pretending to be a nurse, and related a horror story in which Iraqi troops looted the incubators from a Kuwaiti hospital, leaving the premature babies on the cold floor to die. The media, part of the swindle from the start, never bothered asking why the "nurse" didn't just pick the babies up and wrap them in blankets or something.
Enraged by the incubator story, Americans supported operation Desert Storm, which never removed Saddam Hussein from power but which did take Kuwait's oil off of the market for almost 2 years and limited Iraq's oil exports to this very day. That our sons and daughters came home with serious and lingering medical illnesses was apparently not too great a price to pay for increased oil profits.
Following the victory in Iraq, yet another war appeared to be in the offering in the mineral rich regions of Bosnia. Yet again, a hoax was used to create support for military action.
The photo of Fikret Alic staring through a barbed wire fence, was used to "prove" the existence of modern day "Concentration Camps". As the headline of "Belsen 92" indicates, all possible associations with the Nazi horrors were made to sell the necessity of sending yet more American troops into someone else's nation.
But when German Journalists went to Trnopolje, the site of the supposed Concentration Camp. to film a documentary, they discovered that the photo was a fake! The camp at Trnopolje was not a concentration camp but a refugee center. Nor was it surrounded by barbed wire. Careful examination of the original photo revealed that the photographer had shot the photo through a broken section of fence surrounding a tool shed. It was the photographer who was on the inside, shooting out at the refugees.
Once again, Americans had been hoaxed into support of actions they might otherwise not have agreed with.
While several American Presidents have willingly started wars for personal purposes, perhaps no President has ever carried it to the extreme that Bill Clinton has.
Coincident with the expected public statement of Monica Lewinsky following her testimony, Bill Clinton ordered a cruise missile attack on Sudan and Afghanistan, claiming to have had irrefutable proof that bogeyman extraordinaire (and former Afghani ally) Osama Bin Ladin was creating terrorist chemical weapons there.
Examination of the photos of the debris revealed none of the expected structures one would find in a laboratory that handled lethal weapons-grade materials. Assurances from the CIA that they had a positive soil test for biological weapons fell on their face when it was revealed that there had been no open soil anywhere near the pre-bombed facility. Sudan requested that international observers come test the remains of the factory for any signs of the nerve gas Clinton had insisted was there. None was found. The Sudanese plant was a harmless aspirin factory, and the owner has sued for damages.
Later examination of the site hit in Afghanistan revealed it to be a mosque.
Meanwhile, back in Kosovo, stories about genocide and atrocities were flooding the media (in time to distract from the Sudanese embarrassments), just as lurid and sensational and as it turns out often just as fictional as most of William Randolph Hearst's stories of atrocities against the Cubans.
Again, the government and the media were hoaxing Americans. The above photo was shown on all the American networks, claiming to be one of Slobodan Milosovic's Migs, shot down while attacking civilians. Closer examination shows it to be stenciled in English!
Like Germany under Chancellor Hitler, there have been events in our nation which strike fear into the hearts of the citizens, such as the New York World Trade Tower bombing, the OK City Federal Building, and the Olympic Park bomb (nicely timed to divert the media from witnesses to the TWA 800 shoot down). The media has been very quick to blame such events on "radicals", "subversives", "vast right wing conspiracies", and other "enemies in our midst", no different than the lies used by Cicero and Hitler.
But on closer examination, such "domestic terrorist" events do not appear to be what they are made out to be. The FBI had an informant inside the World Trade Tower bombers, Emad Salam, who offered to sabotage the bomb. The FBI told him "no". The so-called "hot bed" of white separatism at Elohim City, occasional home to Tim McVeigh in the weeks prior to the OK City bombing, was founded and run by an FBI informant!
And nobody has ever really explained what this second Ryder truck was doing in a secret camp half way from Elohim City to Oklahoma City two weeks before the bombing.
So, here we are today. Like the Romans of Crassus' and Cicero's time, or the Germans under a newly elected Hitler, we are being warned that a dangerous enemy threatens us, implacable, invisible, omnipresent, and invulnerable as long as our government is hamstrung by that silly old Bill of Rights. Already there have appeared articles debating whether or not "extraordinary measures" (i.e. torture) are not fully justified under certain circumstances such as those we are purported to face.
As was the case in Rome and Germany, the government continues to plead with the public for an expansion of its power and authority, to "deal with the crisis".
However, as Casio watch timers are paraded before the cameras, to the stentorian tones of the talking heads' constant dire warnings, it is legitimate to question just how real the crises is, and how much is the result of political machinations by our own leaders.
Are the terrorists really a threat, or just patsies with fake bombs and Casio watches, paid for by Cicero and given brown shirts to wear by Hitler?
Is terrorism inside the United States really from outside, or is it a stage managed production, designed to cause Americans to believe they have no choice but to surrender the Republic and accept the totalitarian rule of a new emperor, or a new Fuhrer?
Indeed, given that acts of terror undermine the very public support needed by the so-called "terrorists" to bring about change, it may be argued that there are in fact no genuine acts of terror; that they are all manufactured events to be blamed on the groups wishing to challenge the status quo.
Once lost, the Romans never got their Republic back. Once lost, the Germans never got their Republic back. In both cases, the nation had to totally collapse before freedom was restored to the people.
Remember that when Crassus tells you that Spartacus approaches.
Remember that when thugs in the streets act in a manner clearly designed to provoke the public fear.
Remember that when the Reichstag burns down.
Remember that when the President lies to you about weapons of mass destruction.
Taken from:
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/ARTICLE5/index.html
Further Readings:
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/07/16/gordon-duff-time-to-end-the-american-occupation-of-the-middle-east/
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/02/08/gordon-duff-what-if-everything-you-believed-was-a-lie/
http://dissidentvoice.org/2010/05/terrorism-cause-and-effect/
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/02/15/gordon-duff-our-war-on-terrors-empty-net/
http://dissidentvoice.org/2009/12/afghanistan-its-not-a-just-war/
FAKE TERROR -
THE ROAD TO WAR AND DICTATORSHIP
It's the oldest trick in the book, dating back to Roman times; creating the enemies you need.
In 70 BC, an ambitious minor politician and extremely wealthy man, Marcus Licinius Crassus, wanted to rule Rome. Just to give you an idea of what sort of man Crassus really was, he is credited with invention of the fire brigade. But in Crassus' version, his fire-fighting slaves would race to the scene of a burning building whereupon Crassus would offer to buy it on the spot for a tiny fraction of its worth. If the owner sold, Crassus' slaves would put out the fire. If the owner refused to sell, Crassus allowed the building to burn to the ground. By means of this device, Crassus eventually came to be the largest single private land holder in Rome, and used some of his wealth to help back Julius Caesar against Cicero.
In 70 BC Rome was still a Republic, which placed very strict limits on what Rulers could do, and more importantly NOT do. But Crassus had no intentions of enduring such limits to his personal power, and contrived a plan.
Crassus seized upon the slave revolt led by Spartacus in order to strike terror into the hearts of Rome, whose garrison Spartacus had already defeated in battle. But Spartacus had no intention of marching on Rome itself, a move he knew to be suicidal. Spartacus and his band wanted nothing to do with the Roman empire and had planned from the start merely to loot enough money from their former owners in the Italian countryside to hire a mercenary fleet in which to sail to freedom.
Sailing away was the last thing Crassus wanted Spartacus to do. He needed a convenient enemy with which to terrorize Rome itself for his personal political gain. So Crassus bribed the mercenary fleet to sail without Spartacus, then positioned two Roman legions in such a way that Spartacus had no choice but to march on Rome.
Terrified of the impending arrival of the much-feared army of gladiators, Rome declared Crassus Praetor. Crassus then crushed Spartacus' army and even though Pompey took the credit, Crassus was elected Consul of Rome the following year.
With this maneuver, the Romans surrendered their Republican form of government. Soon would follow the first Triumvirate, consisting of Crassus, Pompeii, and Julius Caesar, followed by the reign of the god-like Emperors of Rome.
The Romans were hoaxed into surrendering their Republic, and accepting the rule of Emperors.
Julius Caesar's political opponent, Cicero, for all his literary accomplishments, played the same games in his campaign against Julius Caesar, claiming that Rome was falling victim to an internal "vast right wing" conspiracy in which any expressed desire for legislative limits on government was treated as suspicious behavior. Cicero, in order to demonstrate to the Romans just how unsafe Rome has become hired thugs to cause as much disturbance as possible, and campaigned on a promise to end the internal strife if elected and granted extraordinary powers.
What Cicero only dreamed of, Adolph Hitler succeeded in doing. Elected Chancellor of Germany, Hitler, like Crassus, had no intention of living with the strict limits to his power imposed by German law. Unlike Cicero, Hitler's thugs were easy to recognize; they all wore the same brown shirts. But their actions were no different than those of their Roman predecessors. They staged beatings, set fires, caused as much trouble as they could, while Hitler made speeches promising that he could end the crime wave of subversives and terrorism if he was granted extraordinary powers.
Then the Reichstag burned down; a staged terrorist attack.
The Germans were hoaxed into surrendering their Republic, and accepting the total rule of Der Fuehrer. Hitler had German troops dressed in Polish uniforms attack the radio station at Gleiwitz, then lied to the Germans, telling them Poland had invaded, and marched Germany off into World War Two
The state-sponsored schools will never tell you this, but governments routinely rely on hoaxes to sell their agendas to an otherwise reluctant public. The Romans accepted the Emperors and the Germans accepted Hitler not because they wanted to, but because the carefully crafted illusions of threat appeared to leave no other choice.
Our government too uses hoaxes to create the illusion that We The People have no choice but the direction the government wishes us to go in.
In 1898, Joseph Pulitzer's New York World and William Randolph Hearst's New York Journal were arguing for American intervention in Cuba. Hearst is reported to have dispatched a photographer to Cuba to photograph the coming war with Spain. When the photographer asked just what war that might be, Hearst is reported to have replied, "You take the photographs, and I will provide the war". Hearst was true to his word, as his newspaper published stories of great atrocities being committed against the Cuban people, most of which turned out to be complete fabrications.
On the night of February 15, 1898, the USS Maine, lying in Havana harbor in a show of US resolve to protect her interests, exploded violently. Captain Sigsbee, the commander of the Maine, urged that no assumptions of enemy attack be made until there was a full investigation of the cause of the explosion. For this, Captain Sigsbee was excoriated in the press for "refusing to see the obvious". The Atlantic Monthly declared flat out that to suppose the explosion to be anything other than a deliberate act by Spain was "completely at defiance of the laws of probability".
Under the slogan "Remember the Maine", Americans went to war with Spain, eventually winning the Philippines (and annexing Hawaii along the way).
In 1975, an investigation led by Admiral Hyman Rickover examined the data recovered from a 1911 examination of the wreck and concluded that there had been no evidence of an external explosion. The most likely cause of the sinking was a coal dust explosion in a coal bunker imprudently located next to the ship's magazines. Captain Sigsbee's caution had been well founded.
President Franklin Delano Roosevelt needed a war. He needed the fever of a major war to mask the symptoms of a still deathly ill economy struggling back from the Great Depression (and mutating towards Socialism at the same time). Roosevelt wanted a war with Germany to stop Hitler, but despite several provocations in the Atlantic, the American people, still struggling with that troublesome economy, were opposed to any wars. Roosevelt violated neutrality with lend lease, and even ordered the sinking of several German ships in the Atlantic, but Hitler refused to be provoked.
Roosevelt needed an enemy, and if America would not willingly attack that enemy, then one would have to be maneuvered into attacking America, much as Marcus Licinius Crassus has maneuvered Spartacus into attacking Rome.
The way open to war was created when Japan signed the tripartite agreement with Italy and Germany, with all parties pledging mutual defense to each other. Whereas Hitler would never declare war on the United States no matter the provocation, the means to force Japan to do so were readily at hand.
The first step was to place oil and steel embargoes on Japan, using Japan's wars on the Asian mainland as a reason. This forced Japan to consider seizing the oil and mineral rich regions in Indonesia. With the European powers militarily exhausted by the war in Europe, the United States was the only power in the Pacific able to stop Japan from invading the Dutch East Indies, and by moving the Pacific fleet from San Diego to Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, Roosevelt made a pre-emptive strike on that fleet the mandatory first step in any Japanese plan to extend its empire into the "southern resource area".
Roosevelt boxed in Japan just as completely as Crassus had boxed in Spartacus. Japan needed oil. They had to invade Indonesia to get it, and to do that they first had to remove the threat of the American fleet at Pearl Harbor. There never really was any other course open to them.
To enrage the American people as much as possible, Roosevelt needed the first overt attack by Japan to be as bloody as possible, appearing as a sneak attack much as the Japanese had done to the Russians. From that moment up until the attack on Pearl Harbor itself, Roosevelt and his associates made sure that the commanders in Hawaii, General Short and Admiral Kimmel, were kept in the dark as much as possible about the location of the Japanese fleet and its intentions, then later scapegoated for the attack. (Congress recently exonerated both Short and Kimmel, posthumously restoring them to their former ranks).
But as the Army board had concluded at the time, and subsequent de-classified documents confirmed, Washington DC knew the attack was coming, knew exactly where the Japanese fleet was, and knew where it was headed.
On November 29th, Secretary of State Hull showed United Press reporter Joe Leib a message with the time and place of the attack, and the New York Times in its special 12/8/41 Pearl Harbor edition, on page 13, reported that the time and place of the attack had been known in advance!
The much repeated claim that the Japanese fleet maintained radio silence on its way to Hawaii was a lie. Among other intercepts still held in the Archives of the NSA is the UNCODED message sent by the Japanese tanker Shirya stating, "proceeding to a position 30.00 N, 154.20 E. Expect to arrive at that point on 3 December." (near HI)
President Lyndon Johnson wanted a war in Vietnam. He wanted it to help his friends who owned defense companies to do a little business. He needed it to get the Pentagon and CIA to quit trying to invade Cuba. And most of all, he needed a provocation to convince the American people that there was really "no other choice".
On August 5, 1964, newspapers across America reported "renewed attacks" against American destroyers operating in Vietnamese waters, specifically the Gulf of Tonkin. The official story was that North Vietnamese torpedo boats launched an "unprovoked attack" on the USS Maddox while it was on "routine patrol".
The truth is that USS Maddox was involved in aggressive intelligence gathering in coordination with actual attacks by South Vietnam and the Laotian Air Force against targets in North Vietnam. The truth is also that there was no attack by torpedo boats against the USS Maddox. Captain John J. Herrick, the task force commander in the Gulf, cabled Washington DC that the report was the result of an "over-eager" sonar man who had picked up the sounds of his own ship's screws and panicked. But even with this knowledge that the report was false, Lyndon Johnson went on national TV that night to announce the commencement of air strikes against North Vietnam, "retaliation" for an attack that had never occurred.
President George H. W. Bush wanted a war in Iraq. Like Crassus, George Bush is motivated by money. Specifically oil money. But with the OPEC alliance failing to keep limits on oil production in the Mideast, the market was being glutted with oil pumped from underneath Iraq, which sat over roughly 1/3 of the oil reserves of the entire region.
George wanted a war to stop that flow of oil, to keep prices (and profits) from falling any further than they already had. But like Roosevelt, he needed the "other side" to make the first move.
Iraq had long been trying to acquire greater access to the Persian Gulf, and felt limited confined a narrow strip of land along Kuwait's northern border, which placed Iraqi interests in close proximity with hostile Iran. George Bush, who had been covertly arming Iraq during its war with Iran, sent word via April Glaspie that the United States would not intervene if Saddam Hussein grabbed a larger part of Kuwait. Saddam fell for the bait and invaded.
Of course, Americans were not about to send their sons and daughters to risk their lives for petroleum products. So George Bush arranged a hoax, using a public relations firm which has grown rich on taxpayer money by being most industrious and creative liars! The PR firm concocted a monumental fraud in which the daughter of the Kuwaiti Ambassador to the United States, went on TV pretending to be a nurse, and related a horror story in which Iraqi troops looted the incubators from a Kuwaiti hospital, leaving the premature babies on the cold floor to die. The media, part of the swindle from the start, never bothered asking why the "nurse" didn't just pick the babies up and wrap them in blankets or something.
Enraged by the incubator story, Americans supported operation Desert Storm, which never removed Saddam Hussein from power but which did take Kuwait's oil off of the market for almost 2 years and limited Iraq's oil exports to this very day. That our sons and daughters came home with serious and lingering medical illnesses was apparently not too great a price to pay for increased oil profits.
Following the victory in Iraq, yet another war appeared to be in the offering in the mineral rich regions of Bosnia. Yet again, a hoax was used to create support for military action.
The photo of Fikret Alic staring through a barbed wire fence, was used to "prove" the existence of modern day "Concentration Camps". As the headline of "Belsen 92" indicates, all possible associations with the Nazi horrors were made to sell the necessity of sending yet more American troops into someone else's nation.
But when German Journalists went to Trnopolje, the site of the supposed Concentration Camp. to film a documentary, they discovered that the photo was a fake! The camp at Trnopolje was not a concentration camp but a refugee center. Nor was it surrounded by barbed wire. Careful examination of the original photo revealed that the photographer had shot the photo through a broken section of fence surrounding a tool shed. It was the photographer who was on the inside, shooting out at the refugees.
Once again, Americans had been hoaxed into support of actions they might otherwise not have agreed with.
While several American Presidents have willingly started wars for personal purposes, perhaps no President has ever carried it to the extreme that Bill Clinton has.
Coincident with the expected public statement of Monica Lewinsky following her testimony, Bill Clinton ordered a cruise missile attack on Sudan and Afghanistan, claiming to have had irrefutable proof that bogeyman extraordinaire (and former Afghani ally) Osama Bin Ladin was creating terrorist chemical weapons there.
Examination of the photos of the debris revealed none of the expected structures one would find in a laboratory that handled lethal weapons-grade materials. Assurances from the CIA that they had a positive soil test for biological weapons fell on their face when it was revealed that there had been no open soil anywhere near the pre-bombed facility. Sudan requested that international observers come test the remains of the factory for any signs of the nerve gas Clinton had insisted was there. None was found. The Sudanese plant was a harmless aspirin factory, and the owner has sued for damages.
Later examination of the site hit in Afghanistan revealed it to be a mosque.
Meanwhile, back in Kosovo, stories about genocide and atrocities were flooding the media (in time to distract from the Sudanese embarrassments), just as lurid and sensational and as it turns out often just as fictional as most of William Randolph Hearst's stories of atrocities against the Cubans.
Again, the government and the media were hoaxing Americans. The above photo was shown on all the American networks, claiming to be one of Slobodan Milosovic's Migs, shot down while attacking civilians. Closer examination shows it to be stenciled in English!
Like Germany under Chancellor Hitler, there have been events in our nation which strike fear into the hearts of the citizens, such as the New York World Trade Tower bombing, the OK City Federal Building, and the Olympic Park bomb (nicely timed to divert the media from witnesses to the TWA 800 shoot down). The media has been very quick to blame such events on "radicals", "subversives", "vast right wing conspiracies", and other "enemies in our midst", no different than the lies used by Cicero and Hitler.
But on closer examination, such "domestic terrorist" events do not appear to be what they are made out to be. The FBI had an informant inside the World Trade Tower bombers, Emad Salam, who offered to sabotage the bomb. The FBI told him "no". The so-called "hot bed" of white separatism at Elohim City, occasional home to Tim McVeigh in the weeks prior to the OK City bombing, was founded and run by an FBI informant!
And nobody has ever really explained what this second Ryder truck was doing in a secret camp half way from Elohim City to Oklahoma City two weeks before the bombing.
So, here we are today. Like the Romans of Crassus' and Cicero's time, or the Germans under a newly elected Hitler, we are being warned that a dangerous enemy threatens us, implacable, invisible, omnipresent, and invulnerable as long as our government is hamstrung by that silly old Bill of Rights. Already there have appeared articles debating whether or not "extraordinary measures" (i.e. torture) are not fully justified under certain circumstances such as those we are purported to face.
As was the case in Rome and Germany, the government continues to plead with the public for an expansion of its power and authority, to "deal with the crisis".
However, as Casio watch timers are paraded before the cameras, to the stentorian tones of the talking heads' constant dire warnings, it is legitimate to question just how real the crises is, and how much is the result of political machinations by our own leaders.
Are the terrorists really a threat, or just patsies with fake bombs and Casio watches, paid for by Cicero and given brown shirts to wear by Hitler?
Is terrorism inside the United States really from outside, or is it a stage managed production, designed to cause Americans to believe they have no choice but to surrender the Republic and accept the totalitarian rule of a new emperor, or a new Fuhrer?
Indeed, given that acts of terror undermine the very public support needed by the so-called "terrorists" to bring about change, it may be argued that there are in fact no genuine acts of terror; that they are all manufactured events to be blamed on the groups wishing to challenge the status quo.
Once lost, the Romans never got their Republic back. Once lost, the Germans never got their Republic back. In both cases, the nation had to totally collapse before freedom was restored to the people.
Remember that when Crassus tells you that Spartacus approaches.
Remember that when thugs in the streets act in a manner clearly designed to provoke the public fear.
Remember that when the Reichstag burns down.
Remember that when the President lies to you about weapons of mass destruction.
Taken from:
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/ARTICLE5/index.html
Further Readings:
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/07/16/gordon-duff-time-to-end-the-american-occupation-of-the-middle-east/
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/02/08/gordon-duff-what-if-everything-you-believed-was-a-lie/
http://dissidentvoice.org/2010/05/terrorism-cause-and-effect/
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/02/15/gordon-duff-our-war-on-terrors-empty-net/
http://dissidentvoice.org/2009/12/afghanistan-its-not-a-just-war/
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Abdullah
srizals@gmail.com
Tonight, before starting the tarawih prayer, the Imam made an announcement to the jama'ah and a Chinese in his 39 years of age stood in the eyes of everyone. The Imam asked for the people there to assist him, a recent convert but I didn't catch his name, only a part of his name, Abdullah and his surname, Tan.
A skinny man and quite timid in front of his brothers and sisters. It seemed that he had lost his job as a chef and was on his way to a place to study more about Islam in one of the local traditional religious institution there.
After performing the tarawih prayer, I went to see the man and everyone was embracing him in a brotherly manner. Some were contributing according to their capacity and it was overwhelming. No one knew him since he was not local but the sincerity of brotherhood was in the air.
May Allah guide him and strengthen his heart in facing future challenges that await him. Amin. The way to the truth is not as easy as one imagine. It is full of hardship and antagonising isolation and losses. It is much easier to follow one’s whim. At the expense of our conscience of course. What is a life if you can't live it?
Tonight, before starting the tarawih prayer, the Imam made an announcement to the jama'ah and a Chinese in his 39 years of age stood in the eyes of everyone. The Imam asked for the people there to assist him, a recent convert but I didn't catch his name, only a part of his name, Abdullah and his surname, Tan.
A skinny man and quite timid in front of his brothers and sisters. It seemed that he had lost his job as a chef and was on his way to a place to study more about Islam in one of the local traditional religious institution there.
After performing the tarawih prayer, I went to see the man and everyone was embracing him in a brotherly manner. Some were contributing according to their capacity and it was overwhelming. No one knew him since he was not local but the sincerity of brotherhood was in the air.
May Allah guide him and strengthen his heart in facing future challenges that await him. Amin. The way to the truth is not as easy as one imagine. It is full of hardship and antagonising isolation and losses. It is much easier to follow one’s whim. At the expense of our conscience of course. What is a life if you can't live it?
Friday, August 13, 2010
3rd of Ramadhan
srizals@gmail.com
It's been three days of smoking free zone in the lands of the Malay. Well actually it didn't last that long. Not after Maghrib entered the time zone and all Muslims break their fast and at the same time, breaking their lungs in a very gentle manner, almost unnoticed until it is a little too late. Then COPD would set in or even worse, lung cancer. I remember my visit to my dying distant grandfather. He was not a smoker but his job requires him to interact with heavy smokers and sadly he got what he didn't deserve, a lung cancer. He had to suffer for almost two years before succumbed to his disease. When I visited him, Karpal Singh was in the same room. I remember his smile when he looked at me. He was detained under ISA at that time. As evil as ISA seems to be to some Malaysians, his smile reassured me. It was not that bad. I still have his smile in my head. That sincere smile.
I went to an airport send-off last night. Tuan Guru Haji Abdul Hadi bin Awang was there. Looking at the man, he is more charming than his picture in the media. He prayed for all that were going with him and all prayed along, disregard what political belief one has. Actually I was sending my relatives that were in the same umrah package as he was. And frankly speaking, I truly hope that he would find new inspiration in the holy land and see differently than his current views for the benefits of us all. We don't have to remove an entire leg when only the toe is gangrened. It is better to remove it in a surgical precision cut so that the bad toe can be discarded and the good leg saved.
If we can tolerate and cooperate with those who have different faith and standing than us, why can't we do the same with those who have more similarities with us? Surely we can't expect everyone to change overnight. Al Quran took 23 years to be revealed. Change needs time. Slowly and gradually. No one likes to be pushed around and felt like they are being forced to follow one's interpretation of goodness. You can't rush taufik and hidayah. I don't think it is up to us. We can only try and show a better way. A much better option. Hopefully some would see the choices that he or she had to make. Having said that, there are certain things that are open for debate and different interpretations, some are not. There is always an exception to the rules. It's only natural.
There was a suggestion by a prominent political leader on how to address teenage illegal pregnancy that is growing in numbers in the lands of the Malay. He suggested the establishment of a school dedicated for married teenagers. Some kind of support will be provided for them and their children until they had finished their studies and could fend for themselves. It is his view on how to stop them from having sex, illegally and immorally and encourage sex in a marital legitimacy and form a normal family unit rather than dumping the unwanted babies later on.
Baby hatchling centre was also one of the ways proposed to handle these ignorant menaces. Unwanted babies can be sent here and therefore no one should be tempted to discard their newborns as they please. Since there is no anonymity, I don't think that it would work out since the young parents would be afraid of facing the consequences of their actions.
Personally I think that we need a comprehensive solution. No one should be stopped from fulfilling their biological needs of sex. It is only natural. It is entirely our own fault for not being able to stop the sexual oriented atmosphere around our teenagers and young ones that had made them lost control of themselves. Everything they see and do is sexually oriented. Be it the internet, television shows that showed women in attires similar of those working in the sex industries, girls that are dressed but are actually naked for revealing their beautiful curvaceous bodies as if they do not understand that they are the Achilles’ heel for the supermen. Recently there was a suggestion to censor the internet to avoid easy access to pornographic materials. I wonder what had happened to our silicon valley that was supposed to produce software to tackle these problems and make money at the same time. I guess we are lacking of IT geniuses in our Multimedia Super Corridor. I'm sure any foreign companies can come out with this solution and they are surely going to make money after this.
Boys will be boys. Girls will be girls. It is their nature to be sexually mature and productive before they have the ability to support themselves. With environment so conducive in making them so obsess with sex, we can hardly blame them but ourselves for not creating the right environment of educating self-control and solid religious understanding for tirelessly trying to please mere men, not God.
Why don't we took the blame and try to solve the problems that we have only helped to create unknowingly? It is us that had neglected our children in the first place. We are not bothered to monitor our sons and daughters and be jealous and cautious of their whereabouts and activities. It was us, for being too busy chasing wealth and fame that had made us unaware of our most precious belongings of all, our own children which are the continuity of our genes in this world. We had failed to be the parents, teachers and guardians that we should have been. Shame on us. We have failed to practice the teachings and the guidelines that had saved the Muslims before us. The same teachings and guidelines that had made them invincible to their enemies. Both in the physical and the mental form. We have adopted a foreign way of life. Assimilating foreign dress code and practicing unlimited social interactions have proven to be disastrous for the Malays. If we can stop being a copycat, maybe there is still hope for us.
Last but not least, after all the efforts to reduce and regulate and making it easier to marry and have a life, one must not forget the punishment element if some still refused to adhere to the law. Again, learning and knowing the human behaviours, without punishment as consequence of his bad actions, it would not be a comprehensive solution to a person that prefers to behave like a cockerel. Mating with as many and any hen that he can get his hands on. There must be a price to pay for the defiers of good nature. Look at the Iraqis and Afghanis, all of them have to pay for the crimes they have not committed to the American people. Even the Palestinians are paying for the crimes of someone else. So why shouldn't the culprits that refused to have a decent legal sex? What's actually the problem of having sex in an honourable way?
Used imported garments or bundle clothes are in the abundance here in my hometown. Most are not imported from Muslim's countries so they are rather sexy and revealing. The problem is that they are dead cheap. So the Malays, not having the economic advantages like the non-Malays, would have little options for them to choose from. I don't know whether the Baitumal or the Islamic community have a NGO that specifically provide decent clothing or selling cheap second hand clothing or financial aids for the local desperate average Muslim and Muslimah to buy at least decent and cheap attires but I surely hope one would come out with this idea one day. May be there is already one that I have not heard of.
If the Malays with multiple Sport Utility Vehicles such as Porsche Cayenne, X5 and gigantic houses with huge stockpiles of money to burn care at least to perform their zakat duty and share a little of their wealth with the local community they are in, may be they would be able to play in some part of assisting the good and closing the evil ways. Maybe then their glaring appearances won't be so intimidating to the society they live in.
Some would only be willing to spend some money to feed their neighbours in a ceremony of chanting zikr and offer prayers when some unlucky circumstances happened in their luxurious life. Only when they are touched by evil, a result of their snobbish sons and daughters' actions, some are offering alms to the needy. How I wish that there are more millionaires that would have a foundation of their own just like Al Bukhary Foundation and give back to the society from which they have taken so much.
But men being men, they would always have some new toys, lands and luxuries to buy and to show off in order to put some weight in their character. Wealth is intoxicating if not handled correctly. It helps in insulating ourselves from the ailments of the world. Having too much love for it can be devastating. Sharing is the ultimate reward and happiness for having so much of it. Look at Bill Gates and Warren Buffett. They had a ball by sharing their wealth. Too much love of this life would make us forget our actual roles, responsibilities and happiness. May Allah guide us all to His mercy by being able to overcome our arrogant world views that exist deep in our hearts. Amin.
Ops, updates on Luwak Coffee, there has been a fatwa that it is halal since the coffee beans are not digested and are still in their perfect condition as any coffee beans available. The process involved also ensure its cleanliness, so I'm planning to have one since I have two coffee trees and there are many civet cats roaming freely around my neighbourhood. Hmm. The reason for the coffee trees? Well, the scent of the coffee flowers of course. If you have smelt them you will know what I mean.
For those who still think it’s odd for some Muslims to have to drink camel urine with camel milk to cure their disease and those who drink Luwak Coffee, let me introduce you to a unique toilet found in India and Japan. The pig toilet. If you are still not convinced then maybe you should be reading about the camel and the pig in Wikipedia or any other informative websites and books available. Make the comparison. It's the only way to develop the right understanding. One provides a cure while the other provides certain deadly diseases. The natures of both are in complete contrast. Remember, there is always an exception to the rules. Desperate times and circumstances require desperate measures. It is only natural. In the abundance of the fruits that we are having here now in the lands of the Malay, I can only say I'm glad for being given this opportunity in experiencing Ramadhan. May we find the right path in everything we do. Amin.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GE6M2MWM2k
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pig_toilet
http://news.softpedia.com/news/New-Mysterious-Nerve-Disease-Caused-by-Pigs-83771.shtml
http://www.academicjournals.org/ajar/PDF/pdf%202010/4%20Jun/Al-Abdalall.pdf
http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9600376.0
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8771453
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Can_a_camel%27s_urine_make_you_healthy_and_beautiful
http://www.nt.gov.au/d/Content/File/p/Tech_Bull/TB314.pdf
http://www.chemistry-in-context.com/articles/0006/
It's been three days of smoking free zone in the lands of the Malay. Well actually it didn't last that long. Not after Maghrib entered the time zone and all Muslims break their fast and at the same time, breaking their lungs in a very gentle manner, almost unnoticed until it is a little too late. Then COPD would set in or even worse, lung cancer. I remember my visit to my dying distant grandfather. He was not a smoker but his job requires him to interact with heavy smokers and sadly he got what he didn't deserve, a lung cancer. He had to suffer for almost two years before succumbed to his disease. When I visited him, Karpal Singh was in the same room. I remember his smile when he looked at me. He was detained under ISA at that time. As evil as ISA seems to be to some Malaysians, his smile reassured me. It was not that bad. I still have his smile in my head. That sincere smile.
I went to an airport send-off last night. Tuan Guru Haji Abdul Hadi bin Awang was there. Looking at the man, he is more charming than his picture in the media. He prayed for all that were going with him and all prayed along, disregard what political belief one has. Actually I was sending my relatives that were in the same umrah package as he was. And frankly speaking, I truly hope that he would find new inspiration in the holy land and see differently than his current views for the benefits of us all. We don't have to remove an entire leg when only the toe is gangrened. It is better to remove it in a surgical precision cut so that the bad toe can be discarded and the good leg saved.
If we can tolerate and cooperate with those who have different faith and standing than us, why can't we do the same with those who have more similarities with us? Surely we can't expect everyone to change overnight. Al Quran took 23 years to be revealed. Change needs time. Slowly and gradually. No one likes to be pushed around and felt like they are being forced to follow one's interpretation of goodness. You can't rush taufik and hidayah. I don't think it is up to us. We can only try and show a better way. A much better option. Hopefully some would see the choices that he or she had to make. Having said that, there are certain things that are open for debate and different interpretations, some are not. There is always an exception to the rules. It's only natural.
There was a suggestion by a prominent political leader on how to address teenage illegal pregnancy that is growing in numbers in the lands of the Malay. He suggested the establishment of a school dedicated for married teenagers. Some kind of support will be provided for them and their children until they had finished their studies and could fend for themselves. It is his view on how to stop them from having sex, illegally and immorally and encourage sex in a marital legitimacy and form a normal family unit rather than dumping the unwanted babies later on.
Baby hatchling centre was also one of the ways proposed to handle these ignorant menaces. Unwanted babies can be sent here and therefore no one should be tempted to discard their newborns as they please. Since there is no anonymity, I don't think that it would work out since the young parents would be afraid of facing the consequences of their actions.
Personally I think that we need a comprehensive solution. No one should be stopped from fulfilling their biological needs of sex. It is only natural. It is entirely our own fault for not being able to stop the sexual oriented atmosphere around our teenagers and young ones that had made them lost control of themselves. Everything they see and do is sexually oriented. Be it the internet, television shows that showed women in attires similar of those working in the sex industries, girls that are dressed but are actually naked for revealing their beautiful curvaceous bodies as if they do not understand that they are the Achilles’ heel for the supermen. Recently there was a suggestion to censor the internet to avoid easy access to pornographic materials. I wonder what had happened to our silicon valley that was supposed to produce software to tackle these problems and make money at the same time. I guess we are lacking of IT geniuses in our Multimedia Super Corridor. I'm sure any foreign companies can come out with this solution and they are surely going to make money after this.
Boys will be boys. Girls will be girls. It is their nature to be sexually mature and productive before they have the ability to support themselves. With environment so conducive in making them so obsess with sex, we can hardly blame them but ourselves for not creating the right environment of educating self-control and solid religious understanding for tirelessly trying to please mere men, not God.
Why don't we took the blame and try to solve the problems that we have only helped to create unknowingly? It is us that had neglected our children in the first place. We are not bothered to monitor our sons and daughters and be jealous and cautious of their whereabouts and activities. It was us, for being too busy chasing wealth and fame that had made us unaware of our most precious belongings of all, our own children which are the continuity of our genes in this world. We had failed to be the parents, teachers and guardians that we should have been. Shame on us. We have failed to practice the teachings and the guidelines that had saved the Muslims before us. The same teachings and guidelines that had made them invincible to their enemies. Both in the physical and the mental form. We have adopted a foreign way of life. Assimilating foreign dress code and practicing unlimited social interactions have proven to be disastrous for the Malays. If we can stop being a copycat, maybe there is still hope for us.
Last but not least, after all the efforts to reduce and regulate and making it easier to marry and have a life, one must not forget the punishment element if some still refused to adhere to the law. Again, learning and knowing the human behaviours, without punishment as consequence of his bad actions, it would not be a comprehensive solution to a person that prefers to behave like a cockerel. Mating with as many and any hen that he can get his hands on. There must be a price to pay for the defiers of good nature. Look at the Iraqis and Afghanis, all of them have to pay for the crimes they have not committed to the American people. Even the Palestinians are paying for the crimes of someone else. So why shouldn't the culprits that refused to have a decent legal sex? What's actually the problem of having sex in an honourable way?
Used imported garments or bundle clothes are in the abundance here in my hometown. Most are not imported from Muslim's countries so they are rather sexy and revealing. The problem is that they are dead cheap. So the Malays, not having the economic advantages like the non-Malays, would have little options for them to choose from. I don't know whether the Baitumal or the Islamic community have a NGO that specifically provide decent clothing or selling cheap second hand clothing or financial aids for the local desperate average Muslim and Muslimah to buy at least decent and cheap attires but I surely hope one would come out with this idea one day. May be there is already one that I have not heard of.
If the Malays with multiple Sport Utility Vehicles such as Porsche Cayenne, X5 and gigantic houses with huge stockpiles of money to burn care at least to perform their zakat duty and share a little of their wealth with the local community they are in, may be they would be able to play in some part of assisting the good and closing the evil ways. Maybe then their glaring appearances won't be so intimidating to the society they live in.
Some would only be willing to spend some money to feed their neighbours in a ceremony of chanting zikr and offer prayers when some unlucky circumstances happened in their luxurious life. Only when they are touched by evil, a result of their snobbish sons and daughters' actions, some are offering alms to the needy. How I wish that there are more millionaires that would have a foundation of their own just like Al Bukhary Foundation and give back to the society from which they have taken so much.
But men being men, they would always have some new toys, lands and luxuries to buy and to show off in order to put some weight in their character. Wealth is intoxicating if not handled correctly. It helps in insulating ourselves from the ailments of the world. Having too much love for it can be devastating. Sharing is the ultimate reward and happiness for having so much of it. Look at Bill Gates and Warren Buffett. They had a ball by sharing their wealth. Too much love of this life would make us forget our actual roles, responsibilities and happiness. May Allah guide us all to His mercy by being able to overcome our arrogant world views that exist deep in our hearts. Amin.
Ops, updates on Luwak Coffee, there has been a fatwa that it is halal since the coffee beans are not digested and are still in their perfect condition as any coffee beans available. The process involved also ensure its cleanliness, so I'm planning to have one since I have two coffee trees and there are many civet cats roaming freely around my neighbourhood. Hmm. The reason for the coffee trees? Well, the scent of the coffee flowers of course. If you have smelt them you will know what I mean.
For those who still think it’s odd for some Muslims to have to drink camel urine with camel milk to cure their disease and those who drink Luwak Coffee, let me introduce you to a unique toilet found in India and Japan. The pig toilet. If you are still not convinced then maybe you should be reading about the camel and the pig in Wikipedia or any other informative websites and books available. Make the comparison. It's the only way to develop the right understanding. One provides a cure while the other provides certain deadly diseases. The natures of both are in complete contrast. Remember, there is always an exception to the rules. Desperate times and circumstances require desperate measures. It is only natural. In the abundance of the fruits that we are having here now in the lands of the Malay, I can only say I'm glad for being given this opportunity in experiencing Ramadhan. May we find the right path in everything we do. Amin.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GE6M2MWM2k
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pig_toilet
http://news.softpedia.com/news/New-Mysterious-Nerve-Disease-Caused-by-Pigs-83771.shtml
http://www.academicjournals.org/ajar/PDF/pdf%202010/4%20Jun/Al-Abdalall.pdf
http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9600376.0
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8771453
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Can_a_camel%27s_urine_make_you_healthy_and_beautiful
http://www.nt.gov.au/d/Content/File/p/Tech_Bull/TB314.pdf
http://www.chemistry-in-context.com/articles/0006/
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Don't Mess With The Fly
srizals@gmail.com
How could a man with no scientific background dare to say anything about the fly? Now, a camel piss could have been the right antidote for falling in love with the truth, but a fly?
Most actually acted so pure and holy without even realising they had eaten traces of chicken poop when having an omelette for not washing the eggs properly in the first place. Premarine is just too bizzare for a highly modernized community such as we. We are not that backward.
Now if that makes you want to throw up, wait, a very distinctive coffee that could only be drink by the privileged few were actually civet cat's dung. Well actually they were not digested properly so we cleaned them properly to be served in elite coffee houses not many could have even smell the aroma. I still remembered how it felt of having a family of civet cats living in my ceiling. The smell of their piss. Hmm.
Now this would have made the only actual pure consumers are the vegetarians. But wait, the main ingredients that have made all the plants to flourish and bear fruits and leaves from heavens are none other, processed human and animal waste. Where do you think all that organic fertilizer came from in the first place? I still remember the commotions when a papaya farm was discovered to have used pig poop for their papaya trees. I stopped buying papaya at that time of course and planted my own papaya tree. For fertilizer, I used bat guano and dry aged cow or water buffalo dung that had gone through the harsh weather, derived from my neighbourhood occasionally. Main fertilizer is processed stale white rice, mixed with red palm sugar from nipah palm trees or stale sweetened food and pure soil. For edible leaves plant, specifically no guano source fertilizers. For my fruit trees and banana plants, strictly plant oriented manure when they had reached the right age of bearing fruit. I'm not sure if all the guano trace had completely gone from the plants, since I'm not a rocket scientist, but this is just one of my techniques in having pure fresh fruits fit for me and my family.
I wonder if there were any writings or findings by the ancients about the benefit of dipping a fly in our drinks or food when one accidentally performed a kamikaze manoeuvre into our drinks or food. I'm still looking for them though.
I have discovered an interesting article dealing with an attack on the saying of the Prophet and posted it on a separate posting. As for other onslaught, have patience. The ones that laugh the last, laugh the loudest.
And if you have been peeped by a peeping Tom, being violated of your privacy, being recorded in some private act that would ashamed you if it had been made public, you would have wished that you could poke the evil eye that had peeped you in the first place. Ask any Chinese political figure in the lands of the Malay of how damaging a peeping Tom can be. But I'm still looking for the hadith or any recorded writings about what actually had happened to the peeping Toms.
Further readings:
http://prime.peta.org/2008/11/stop-menopause-symptoms-with-horse-urine
http://www.premarin.org/
http://www.sniksnak.com/premarin.html
http://www.chandlerburr.com/articles/21chanelprint.htm
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-558540/Worlds-expensive-coffee-50-cup-comes-British-stores--cats-droppings.html
http://www.basic-info-4-organic-fertilizers.com/manure.html
How could a man with no scientific background dare to say anything about the fly? Now, a camel piss could have been the right antidote for falling in love with the truth, but a fly?
Most actually acted so pure and holy without even realising they had eaten traces of chicken poop when having an omelette for not washing the eggs properly in the first place. Premarine is just too bizzare for a highly modernized community such as we. We are not that backward.
Now if that makes you want to throw up, wait, a very distinctive coffee that could only be drink by the privileged few were actually civet cat's dung. Well actually they were not digested properly so we cleaned them properly to be served in elite coffee houses not many could have even smell the aroma. I still remembered how it felt of having a family of civet cats living in my ceiling. The smell of their piss. Hmm.
Now this would have made the only actual pure consumers are the vegetarians. But wait, the main ingredients that have made all the plants to flourish and bear fruits and leaves from heavens are none other, processed human and animal waste. Where do you think all that organic fertilizer came from in the first place? I still remember the commotions when a papaya farm was discovered to have used pig poop for their papaya trees. I stopped buying papaya at that time of course and planted my own papaya tree. For fertilizer, I used bat guano and dry aged cow or water buffalo dung that had gone through the harsh weather, derived from my neighbourhood occasionally. Main fertilizer is processed stale white rice, mixed with red palm sugar from nipah palm trees or stale sweetened food and pure soil. For edible leaves plant, specifically no guano source fertilizers. For my fruit trees and banana plants, strictly plant oriented manure when they had reached the right age of bearing fruit. I'm not sure if all the guano trace had completely gone from the plants, since I'm not a rocket scientist, but this is just one of my techniques in having pure fresh fruits fit for me and my family.
I wonder if there were any writings or findings by the ancients about the benefit of dipping a fly in our drinks or food when one accidentally performed a kamikaze manoeuvre into our drinks or food. I'm still looking for them though.
I have discovered an interesting article dealing with an attack on the saying of the Prophet and posted it on a separate posting. As for other onslaught, have patience. The ones that laugh the last, laugh the loudest.
And if you have been peeped by a peeping Tom, being violated of your privacy, being recorded in some private act that would ashamed you if it had been made public, you would have wished that you could poke the evil eye that had peeped you in the first place. Ask any Chinese political figure in the lands of the Malay of how damaging a peeping Tom can be. But I'm still looking for the hadith or any recorded writings about what actually had happened to the peeping Toms.
Further readings:
http://prime.peta.org/2008/11/stop-menopause-symptoms-with-horse-urine
http://www.premarin.org/
http://www.sniksnak.com/premarin.html
http://www.chandlerburr.com/articles/21chanelprint.htm
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-558540/Worlds-expensive-coffee-50-cup-comes-British-stores--cats-droppings.html
http://www.basic-info-4-organic-fertilizers.com/manure.html
The Malay According to Some Christians
http://kcm.co.kr/bethany_eng/p_code3/1892.html
Prayer Profile
The Malay of Malaysia
While the Malay are spread throughout Southeast Asia, the majority live in the nation of Malaysia. They make up about half of the population, sharing the nation with Chinese and Indian minorities. Malay live primarily on the eastern coast of the peninsula of Malaysia and in the Malaysian part of the island of Borneo. They speak a Malayo-Polynesian language they call Bahasa Malaysia.
The Malay have lived in Southeast Asia for thousands of years, but their recorded history begins in the A.D. 1400's when they converted to Islam. They were divided into many small, competing kingdoms called sultanates, until they were united by British influence into one federation in 1909. Malaysia was granted independence by the British, and since the late 1970's, the nation has industrialized rapidly, its economy one of the fastest growing in the world. Nevertheless, most Malay of Malaysia remain poor farmers and fisherman, and the economy is dominated by the Chinese living in the nation.
What are their lives like?
Most Malay living in rural areas grow rice as their main food crop. Rubber is the major cash crop; nearly every farmer is involved to some extent in the rubber industry. Fishing is also an important occupation. In the cities, Malay are becoming involved in factory work and in governmental jobs.
Since much of Malaysia is covered by jungle, the Malay settle along the coast, rivers, and roads. In villages, houses are built on pilings four to eight feet off the ground and have thatched roofs. The more wealthy Malay have houses with tiled roofs and wooden planks for floors. Local trade is conducted in the larger towns which have markets to serve the surrounding region. An increasing number of Malay have settled in major cities.
Most families consist of a husband, a wife, and their children. While Islamic laws permit men to have up to four wives, the majority have only one. With the consent of a male parent or guardian, women are allowed to marry when the couple registers with a local religious leader. When marriages are arranged, the couple is notified and must give consent. Divorce is easy and frequent because a man has the right to end his marriage simply by declaring his intention to do so. Children are highly valued, and adoption of a relative's child by childless couples is common.
For recreation, the Malay enjoy socializing in coffee shops. They also enjoy celebrating religious festivals and engaging in religious discussions. One of their favorite pastimes is playing Sepak Raga, a game similar to volleyball.
What are their beliefs?
Religion is a major source of ethnic identity: the Malaysian constitution states that to be a Malay, one must be Muslim. However, even though the Malay identify strongly with Islam, they continue to practice many aspects of their pre-Islamic religions of Hinduism and Buddhism. For example, they commemorate many important events in life such as birth, marriage, and death with non-Islamic rituals. It is common for Malay who live in rural areas to believe in ghosts, goblins, and spirits; and if medicine is unavailable, a shaman (witch doctor) will often be brought in to treat an illness. For these reasons, other Muslims see the Malay as poor Muslims who have distorted the doctrines of Islam.
What are their needs?
Over 80% of Malay are rural farmers and fisherman who struggle to earn a living. Health care, clean water, electricity, education, transportation, and communication are all inadequate.
Although evangelical tools to reach the Malay are available, only a tiny minority of the people have become Christians. The western region of Malaysia, Peninsular Malaysia, forbids Christian witnessing to Muslims; yet the government continuously tries to convert Christians and other religious minorities to Islam. The government has imposed numerous restrictions on churches. In Eastern Malaysia, there is considerably more religious freedom, but Islam is still favored. Much prayer and added laborers are needed to reach the Malay with the Gospel.
Prayer Points
* Ask the Lord to send Christian laborers into Malaysia who understand the culture and religion.
* Ask the Holy Spirit to grant wisdom and favor to the missions agencies that are presently working with the Malay.
* Pray for effectiveness of the Jesus film among the Malay.
* Pray that God will reveal Himself to the Malay through dreams and visions.
* Pray that the Malaysian government will give the people the freedom to share the Gospel with their countrymen.
* Take authority over the spiritual principalities and powers that are keeping the Malay bound.
* Ask God to raise up prayer teams who will begin breaking up the soil through worship and intercession.
* Pray that strong local churches will be raised up among the Malay by the year 2000.
[MAP]
See also the following Malay Groups:
The Creole Malay of Sri Lanka, and The Diaspora Malay (Cluster Profile).
Statistics
Latest estimates from the World Evangelization Research Center.
THE PEOPLE
* People name: Malay
* Country: Malaysia
* Their language: Malay (Bahasa)
* Population:
(1990) 5,950,500
(1995) 6,698,300
(2000) 7,416,300
* Largest religion:
Muslim (Shafiite) 99.9%
* Christians: <1%
* Church members: 1,340
* Scriptures in their own language: Bible
* Jesus Film in their own language: Available
* Christian broadcasts in their own language: Available
* Mission agencies working among this people: 5
* Persons who have heard the Gospel: 2,747,600 (41%)
Those evangelized by local Christians: 202,300 (3%)
Those evangelized from the outside: 2,545,300 (38%)
* Persons who have never heard the Gospel: 3,950,700 (59%)
THEIR COUNTRY
* Country: Malaysia
* Population:
(1990) 17,891,500
(1995) 20,139,900
(2000) 22,298,700
* Major peoples in size order:
Malay 33.2%
Han Chinese (Hokkien) 8.7%
Tamil 7.2%
Han Chinese (Hakka) 7.1%
* Major religions:
Muslim 50.5%
Chinese folk-religionist 24.3%
Christian 8.9%
* Number of denominations: 41
Prayer Profile
The Malay of Malaysia
While the Malay are spread throughout Southeast Asia, the majority live in the nation of Malaysia. They make up about half of the population, sharing the nation with Chinese and Indian minorities. Malay live primarily on the eastern coast of the peninsula of Malaysia and in the Malaysian part of the island of Borneo. They speak a Malayo-Polynesian language they call Bahasa Malaysia.
The Malay have lived in Southeast Asia for thousands of years, but their recorded history begins in the A.D. 1400's when they converted to Islam. They were divided into many small, competing kingdoms called sultanates, until they were united by British influence into one federation in 1909. Malaysia was granted independence by the British, and since the late 1970's, the nation has industrialized rapidly, its economy one of the fastest growing in the world. Nevertheless, most Malay of Malaysia remain poor farmers and fisherman, and the economy is dominated by the Chinese living in the nation.
What are their lives like?
Most Malay living in rural areas grow rice as their main food crop. Rubber is the major cash crop; nearly every farmer is involved to some extent in the rubber industry. Fishing is also an important occupation. In the cities, Malay are becoming involved in factory work and in governmental jobs.
Since much of Malaysia is covered by jungle, the Malay settle along the coast, rivers, and roads. In villages, houses are built on pilings four to eight feet off the ground and have thatched roofs. The more wealthy Malay have houses with tiled roofs and wooden planks for floors. Local trade is conducted in the larger towns which have markets to serve the surrounding region. An increasing number of Malay have settled in major cities.
Most families consist of a husband, a wife, and their children. While Islamic laws permit men to have up to four wives, the majority have only one. With the consent of a male parent or guardian, women are allowed to marry when the couple registers with a local religious leader. When marriages are arranged, the couple is notified and must give consent. Divorce is easy and frequent because a man has the right to end his marriage simply by declaring his intention to do so. Children are highly valued, and adoption of a relative's child by childless couples is common.
For recreation, the Malay enjoy socializing in coffee shops. They also enjoy celebrating religious festivals and engaging in religious discussions. One of their favorite pastimes is playing Sepak Raga, a game similar to volleyball.
What are their beliefs?
Religion is a major source of ethnic identity: the Malaysian constitution states that to be a Malay, one must be Muslim. However, even though the Malay identify strongly with Islam, they continue to practice many aspects of their pre-Islamic religions of Hinduism and Buddhism. For example, they commemorate many important events in life such as birth, marriage, and death with non-Islamic rituals. It is common for Malay who live in rural areas to believe in ghosts, goblins, and spirits; and if medicine is unavailable, a shaman (witch doctor) will often be brought in to treat an illness. For these reasons, other Muslims see the Malay as poor Muslims who have distorted the doctrines of Islam.
What are their needs?
Over 80% of Malay are rural farmers and fisherman who struggle to earn a living. Health care, clean water, electricity, education, transportation, and communication are all inadequate.
Although evangelical tools to reach the Malay are available, only a tiny minority of the people have become Christians. The western region of Malaysia, Peninsular Malaysia, forbids Christian witnessing to Muslims; yet the government continuously tries to convert Christians and other religious minorities to Islam. The government has imposed numerous restrictions on churches. In Eastern Malaysia, there is considerably more religious freedom, but Islam is still favored. Much prayer and added laborers are needed to reach the Malay with the Gospel.
Prayer Points
* Ask the Lord to send Christian laborers into Malaysia who understand the culture and religion.
* Ask the Holy Spirit to grant wisdom and favor to the missions agencies that are presently working with the Malay.
* Pray for effectiveness of the Jesus film among the Malay.
* Pray that God will reveal Himself to the Malay through dreams and visions.
* Pray that the Malaysian government will give the people the freedom to share the Gospel with their countrymen.
* Take authority over the spiritual principalities and powers that are keeping the Malay bound.
* Ask God to raise up prayer teams who will begin breaking up the soil through worship and intercession.
* Pray that strong local churches will be raised up among the Malay by the year 2000.
[MAP]
See also the following Malay Groups:
The Creole Malay of Sri Lanka, and The Diaspora Malay (Cluster Profile).
Statistics
Latest estimates from the World Evangelization Research Center.
THE PEOPLE
* People name: Malay
* Country: Malaysia
* Their language: Malay (Bahasa)
* Population:
(1990) 5,950,500
(1995) 6,698,300
(2000) 7,416,300
* Largest religion:
Muslim (Shafiite) 99.9%
* Christians: <1%
* Church members: 1,340
* Scriptures in their own language: Bible
* Jesus Film in their own language: Available
* Christian broadcasts in their own language: Available
* Mission agencies working among this people: 5
* Persons who have heard the Gospel: 2,747,600 (41%)
Those evangelized by local Christians: 202,300 (3%)
Those evangelized from the outside: 2,545,300 (38%)
* Persons who have never heard the Gospel: 3,950,700 (59%)
THEIR COUNTRY
* Country: Malaysia
* Population:
(1990) 17,891,500
(1995) 20,139,900
(2000) 22,298,700
* Major peoples in size order:
Malay 33.2%
Han Chinese (Hokkien) 8.7%
Tamil 7.2%
Han Chinese (Hakka) 7.1%
* Major religions:
Muslim 50.5%
Chinese folk-religionist 24.3%
Christian 8.9%
* Number of denominations: 41
Monday, August 2, 2010
Tips for dwindlinginunbelief: How To Create Your Own Holy Book
Understanding the Qur’an’s Literary Challenge: to “Bring Something Like It”
Prepared by the research committee of IslamToday.net
Thu, 01/14/2010
A lot of people misunderstand the Qur’ân’s literary challenge to produce something like it. Many people assume it simply means writing something as “good” as the Qur’ân.
Because of this, many skeptics point out – and rightly so – that literary value judgments are highly subjective. If someone says that he thinks a certain selection of prose or poetry is better than the Qur’ân, who can argue with him? Isn’t it really a matter of personal judgment and taste? Who is to be the arbiter?
The Qur’ân’s challenge, however, is not simply to write something of equal literary merit, but rather to produce something like the Qur’ân.
We can see this in all the verses of challenge:
Allah says: “Say (O Muhammad) if mankind and jinn were to come together to produce something like this Qur’ân, they would not be able to do so, even if they were to help one another.” [Sûrah al-Isrâ’: 88]
Allah says: “Or they say: ‘He has forged it.’ Say: ‘Then bring ten forged chapters like it and If then they do not answer you, know that it is sent down with the Knowledge of Allah, besides Whom there is no other God. Will you then be Muslims?” [Sûrah Hûd: 13]
Allah says: “Or do they say ‘He has forged it.’ Say: ‘Then bring a chapter like it and call and call whoever you can besides Allah if you are truthful’.” [Sûrah Yûnus: 38]
Allah says: “And if you are in doubt concerning that which We have sent down to Our servant, then produce a chapter like it and call your witnesses besides Allah if you be truthful. If you do not do so – and you will never do so – then fear a fire whose fuel is men and stones prepared for the disbelievers.” [Sûrah al-Baqarah: 23-24]
Therefore, it is not simply a matter of quality – it does not even have to be of equal merit! Similarity is all that matters. What is required by the challenge is to achieve at least a comparable degree of the literary beauty, nobility, and sublimity of the Qur’ân while at the same time emulating the Qur’ân’s particular style.
It is possible to superficially mimic the style of the Qur’ân, and many people have been successful in doing so – but all such attempts from the days of Musaylimah to the present have proven to be silly and absurd, and have often invoked laughter and derision. This is the unanimous consensus of everyone who has ever heard or read those attempts.
It is, likewise, possible for a person writing in Arabic to reach a great level of literary excellence and, in the most moving of poetry and prose, convey the noblest thoughts and sentiments – but nobody has ever done so using the Qur’ân’s particular style.
And what an elusive style it has proven to be! The Qur’ân is neither in Arabic prose nor in what is acknowledged as Arabic verse. It is not written in a combination of both prose and poetry, but in neither of those modes. It is unique. At the same time, the Qur’ân is internally consistent in maintaining its unique style.
Only the Qur’ân achieves the highest level of literary excellence – so much so that it brings people to ecstasy and tears – while maintaining this style.
This, then, is the acid test: Write something in the exact same style as the Qur’ân and in doing so produce something of arguably similar quality and sublimity.
Still, one could argue that the evaluation of the results is still grounded in subjective literary tastes. This is agreed. However, the second part of the challenge is to bring witnesses to attest to the quality of that evaluation, not just to stand there and make the claim.
Throughout history, people have attempted to write in the style of the Qur’ân. The results have always been so laughable that no one would venture to say that he believes the effort equals the Qur’ân in literary merit. The reason why no one would dare do so is not the fear of reprisal – as some skeptics have suggested – but rather the fear of looking like a complete idiot.
One early example was:
Al-Fîl
Mal-Fîl
Wa mâ adrâka mal-fîl
Lahu dhanabun radhîl, wa khurtûmun tawîl
which translates as:
The Elephant –
What is the elephant?
And what would have you know what the elephant is?
It has a scraggly tail and a very long trunk.
We can grant that this is a successful attempt at imitating the superficial style of the Qur’ân. It is clearly modeled after the opening verses of Sûrah al-Qâri`ah or Sûrah al-Hâqqah. However, with such fare on offer, it is no surprise that people are unwilling to stake their reputation on attesting to its literary excellence.
We should pause to consider: What other literary style can we think of which has produced an indisputably great work of literaure but is at the same time guaranteed to bring the most wretched failure to anyone else who tries his hand at it?
Generally, it is not a bad idea for a writer to emulate a successful style. However, a challenge to produce a single chapter like the Qur’ân – the shortest chapter being merely three verses of modest length – has proven impossible to meet.
We should remember that not all Arabic speakers are Muslim. Many are Christians and Jews. Some are atheists. They live all over the world. Among all of these non-Muslim Arabs, there are leading poets and prose writers and important literary critics. None of them claim that they or anyone else has produced a literary work that resembles the Qur’ân in both style and quality.
For an Arabic speaker, this is an obvious thing. Any Arab who looks at people’s attempts to write in the Qur’ân’s style usually breaks out in laughter at its awkwardness or banality.
For non-Arabic speakers, though they cannot experience this directly, they can ascertain that no serious literary claim has been made.
Granted, there is subjectivity in any literary evaluation. This would pose a problem in a challenge with a single judge or a panel of judges, or if there is a biased criterion like “only Muslim scholars can be judges”.
However, there is no such restriction in the challenge.
The general consensus of the international Arabic literary community – and the Arab masses – is that nothing exists to meet the challenge. This is an objective yardstick.
And Allah knows best.
http://en.islamtoday.net/artshow-416-3479.htm
Prepared by the research committee of IslamToday.net
Thu, 01/14/2010
A lot of people misunderstand the Qur’ân’s literary challenge to produce something like it. Many people assume it simply means writing something as “good” as the Qur’ân.
Because of this, many skeptics point out – and rightly so – that literary value judgments are highly subjective. If someone says that he thinks a certain selection of prose or poetry is better than the Qur’ân, who can argue with him? Isn’t it really a matter of personal judgment and taste? Who is to be the arbiter?
The Qur’ân’s challenge, however, is not simply to write something of equal literary merit, but rather to produce something like the Qur’ân.
We can see this in all the verses of challenge:
Allah says: “Say (O Muhammad) if mankind and jinn were to come together to produce something like this Qur’ân, they would not be able to do so, even if they were to help one another.” [Sûrah al-Isrâ’: 88]
Allah says: “Or they say: ‘He has forged it.’ Say: ‘Then bring ten forged chapters like it and If then they do not answer you, know that it is sent down with the Knowledge of Allah, besides Whom there is no other God. Will you then be Muslims?” [Sûrah Hûd: 13]
Allah says: “Or do they say ‘He has forged it.’ Say: ‘Then bring a chapter like it and call and call whoever you can besides Allah if you are truthful’.” [Sûrah Yûnus: 38]
Allah says: “And if you are in doubt concerning that which We have sent down to Our servant, then produce a chapter like it and call your witnesses besides Allah if you be truthful. If you do not do so – and you will never do so – then fear a fire whose fuel is men and stones prepared for the disbelievers.” [Sûrah al-Baqarah: 23-24]
Therefore, it is not simply a matter of quality – it does not even have to be of equal merit! Similarity is all that matters. What is required by the challenge is to achieve at least a comparable degree of the literary beauty, nobility, and sublimity of the Qur’ân while at the same time emulating the Qur’ân’s particular style.
It is possible to superficially mimic the style of the Qur’ân, and many people have been successful in doing so – but all such attempts from the days of Musaylimah to the present have proven to be silly and absurd, and have often invoked laughter and derision. This is the unanimous consensus of everyone who has ever heard or read those attempts.
It is, likewise, possible for a person writing in Arabic to reach a great level of literary excellence and, in the most moving of poetry and prose, convey the noblest thoughts and sentiments – but nobody has ever done so using the Qur’ân’s particular style.
And what an elusive style it has proven to be! The Qur’ân is neither in Arabic prose nor in what is acknowledged as Arabic verse. It is not written in a combination of both prose and poetry, but in neither of those modes. It is unique. At the same time, the Qur’ân is internally consistent in maintaining its unique style.
Only the Qur’ân achieves the highest level of literary excellence – so much so that it brings people to ecstasy and tears – while maintaining this style.
This, then, is the acid test: Write something in the exact same style as the Qur’ân and in doing so produce something of arguably similar quality and sublimity.
Still, one could argue that the evaluation of the results is still grounded in subjective literary tastes. This is agreed. However, the second part of the challenge is to bring witnesses to attest to the quality of that evaluation, not just to stand there and make the claim.
Throughout history, people have attempted to write in the style of the Qur’ân. The results have always been so laughable that no one would venture to say that he believes the effort equals the Qur’ân in literary merit. The reason why no one would dare do so is not the fear of reprisal – as some skeptics have suggested – but rather the fear of looking like a complete idiot.
One early example was:
Al-Fîl
Mal-Fîl
Wa mâ adrâka mal-fîl
Lahu dhanabun radhîl, wa khurtûmun tawîl
which translates as:
The Elephant –
What is the elephant?
And what would have you know what the elephant is?
It has a scraggly tail and a very long trunk.
We can grant that this is a successful attempt at imitating the superficial style of the Qur’ân. It is clearly modeled after the opening verses of Sûrah al-Qâri`ah or Sûrah al-Hâqqah. However, with such fare on offer, it is no surprise that people are unwilling to stake their reputation on attesting to its literary excellence.
We should pause to consider: What other literary style can we think of which has produced an indisputably great work of literaure but is at the same time guaranteed to bring the most wretched failure to anyone else who tries his hand at it?
Generally, it is not a bad idea for a writer to emulate a successful style. However, a challenge to produce a single chapter like the Qur’ân – the shortest chapter being merely three verses of modest length – has proven impossible to meet.
We should remember that not all Arabic speakers are Muslim. Many are Christians and Jews. Some are atheists. They live all over the world. Among all of these non-Muslim Arabs, there are leading poets and prose writers and important literary critics. None of them claim that they or anyone else has produced a literary work that resembles the Qur’ân in both style and quality.
For an Arabic speaker, this is an obvious thing. Any Arab who looks at people’s attempts to write in the Qur’ân’s style usually breaks out in laughter at its awkwardness or banality.
For non-Arabic speakers, though they cannot experience this directly, they can ascertain that no serious literary claim has been made.
Granted, there is subjectivity in any literary evaluation. This would pose a problem in a challenge with a single judge or a panel of judges, or if there is a biased criterion like “only Muslim scholars can be judges”.
However, there is no such restriction in the challenge.
The general consensus of the international Arabic literary community – and the Arab masses – is that nothing exists to meet the challenge. This is an objective yardstick.
And Allah knows best.
http://en.islamtoday.net/artshow-416-3479.htm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)