Sarkozy Says Full-Body Islamic Gowns Are ‘Not Welcome’ in France

PARIS (AP) -- President Nicolas Sarkozy declared Monday that the Islamic burqa is not welcome in France, branding the face-covering, body-length gown as a symbol of subservience that suppresses women's identities and turns them into ''prisoners behind a screen.''

But there was a mixed message in the tough words: an admission that the country's long-held principle of ethnic assimilation -- which insists that newcomers shed their traditions and adapt to French culture -- is failing because it doesn't give immigrants and their French-born children a fair chance.

In a high-profile speech to lawmakers in the historic chateau at Versailles, Sarkozy said the head-to-toe Muslim body coverings were in disaccord with French values -- some of the strongest language against burqas from a European leader at a time when some Western officials have been seeking to ease tensions with the Muslim world.

''In our country, we cannot accept that women be prisoners behind a screen, cut off from all social life, deprived of all identity,'' Sarkozy said to extended applause of the lawmakers gathered where French kings once held court.

''The burqa is not a religious sign, it's a sign of subservience, a sign of debasement -- I want to say it solemnly,'' he said. ''It will not be welcome on the territory of the French Republic.''

Some Muslim leaders interpret the Quran to require that women wear a headscarf, niqab or burqa in the presence of a man who is not their husband or close relative.

France is home to Western Europe's largest population of Muslims, estimated at about 5 million. A small but growing group of French women wear burqas and niqabs, which either cloak the entire body or cover everything but the eyes.

Critics fear the issue of full-body coverings, which only involves a tiny minority of French Muslims, could increase discrimination against all Muslims who display their faith in any way.

Dalil Boubakeur, director of the largest Paris mosque, said Sarkozy's push to keep out the burqa is typical of French culture, but worried that he might inflame tensions with Muslims.

The president wanted to show that ''the rules of life in France -- and that you can just bring in unjustified traditions,'' Boubakeur said.

''But you have to hope -- inshallah (God willing) -- that there won't be any ill-feeling, controversies or incidents in this confrontation between an Eastern idea and Western life,'' Boubakeur told the AP in a telephone interview. ''Or then eastern Muslims will have to return to the Orient ... completely unable to assimilate and uncomfortable in a Western system.''

But Sarkozy also said immigrants face economic challenges in France, and the government needs to do more to help them.

''Who doesn't see that our integration model isn't working any more?'' Sarkozy said. ''Instead of producing equality, it produces inequality. Instead of producing cohesion, it creates resentment.''

The unemployment rate for immigrants and their French-born children is higher than the national average. Many children of immigrants complain of discrimination, saying they get passed over for jobs because they have ''foreign-sounding'' names. Frustration of many children of north African and black immigrants boiled over in France's three-week wave of riots in 2005.

The burqa comments made up only a few lines of Sarkozy's speech, which focused on the global economic crisis and a Cabinet shake-up expected to be announced Wednesday. The address was the first by a French president to parliament in 136 years; the last was in 1873 -- before lawmakers banned the practice to protect the separation of powers and keep the president in check. That ban was scrapped last year.

In France, the terms ''burqa'' and ''niqab'' often are used interchangeably. A burqa is a full-body covering worn largely in Afghanistan -- with only a mesh screen over the eyes. A niqab is a full-body veil, often black, with slits for the eyes.

Muslim groups and government officials say it's hard to know how many women wear burqas and niqabs in France -- though estimated to be at least in the hundreds. They are far less prevalent than simpler Muslim head scarves.

A 2004 law banned wearing the Muslim head scarf at public schools, along with Jewish skullcaps and large Christian crosses. That law sparked fierce debate both at home and abroad.

In a visit to Normandy earlier this month, President Barack Obama addressed France's headscarf ban, saying countries handle such issues with their national sensitivities and histories in mind, before adding: ''I will tell you that in the United States our basic attitude is, is that we're not going to tell people what to wear.''

The French government has been divided on a burqa ban. Immigration Minister Eric Besson said a ban would only ''create tensions,'' while junior minister for human rights Rama Yade said she was open to a ban if it was aimed at protecting women forced to wear the burqa.

The burqa has come under criticism in some parts of Europe. In 2003, Sweden's National Agency for Education gave schools the right to ban pupils from wearing burqas if it interferes with the teaching or safety regulations.

The Dutch government last year described the burqa and other clothing that covers the face, as ''undesirable,'' but the ruling coalition stopped short of attempting a ban amid concerns of possible religious discrimination. But the government did say it would work toward banning burqas in schools and among public servants, saying that they stand in the way of good communication.

Later Monday, Sarkozy hosted a state dinner with Sheik Hamad Bin Jassem Al Thani of Qatar -- a Persian Gulf state where women often wear niqabs. The emir was joined by one of his wives, Sheika Mozah, whose head was covered in an elegant turban.

Review

Hak asasi, hak kemanusiaan dan hak wanita. Semuanya menceritakan tentang hak atas 1 alasan serupa, ingin melenyapkan apa jua yang boleh dikaitkan dengan Islam.

As-Shaff ayat 8 : Mereka ingin memadamkan cahaya Allah dengan mulut(tipudaya) mereka,tetapi Allah tetap menyempurnakan cahayaNya, walaupun orang-orang kafir membencinya.


Beralasan bahawa budaya tidak dapat diasimilasikan, hak wanita muslim diabaikan dan bermacam-macam alasan yang tidak masuk akal. Jelas bahawa perlakuan Sarkozy laknatullah ini yang sebenarnya menggugat hak muslimah di Perancis! Muslimah tidak pernah terasa tergugat dan terkongkong dengan pemakaian niqab dan jilbab, malahan dengan redha hati menurut perintah Allah tanpa kompromi. Saya yakin,mereka yang berpakaian mengikut syariat adalah mereka yang 100% percaya akan ayat Allah :

Al-Ahzab ayat 59 : Hai Nabi, katakanlah kepada isteri-isterimu, anak-anak perempuanmu dan isteri-isteri orang mukmin: "Hendaklah mereka mengulurkan jilbabnya ke seluruh tubuh mereka." Yang demikian itu supaya mereka lebih mudah untuk dikenal, karena itu mereka tidak di ganggu. Dan Allah adalah Maha Pengampun lagi Maha Penyayang.

An-Nuur ayat 31 : Dan hendaklah mereka menutupkan kain kudung kedadanya,dan janganlah menampakkan perhiasannya kecuali kepada suami mereka, atau ayah mereka, atau ayah suami mereka, atau putera-putera mereka, atau putera-putera suami mereka, atau saudara-saudara laki-laki mereka, atau putera-putera saudara lelaki mereka, atau putera-putera saudara perempuan mereka, atau wanita-wanita islam, atau budak-budak yang mereka miliki, atau pelayan-pelayan laki-laki yang tidak mempunyai keinginan (terhadap wanita) atau anak-anak yang belum mengerti tentang aurat wanita.

Jelas, ini adalah perintah! Bukannya soal hak,kebebasan ataupun maruah, sepertimana yang difikirkan oleh akal cetek dan dungu si sarkozy laknatullah. Si kafir laknatullah bercakap tentang memberikan HAK dan menjaga maruah kepada umat Islam?? Alangkah kejinya!

Mungkin pula selepas ini akan berduyun-duyun pemerintah negara kaum muslimin yang akan mengikuti jejak langkah mereka? Tunggu dan lihat. Ini adalah antara sensitiviti umat Islam. Sesiapapun akan berasa marah dan menjulang api kebenciannya kepada kaum kafir yang biadab seperti sarkozy. Namun, ini adalah antara insiden yang perlu kita perhatikan sebagai signal dan berfikir lebih jauh dari apa yang diberitakan.

Pengharaman burqa memang akan berlaku, apabila mereka telah berjaya melakukan kejahatan lebih utama iaitu dengan MENGHARAMKAN sistem pemerintahan Islam dan pelaksanaan seluruh isi kandungan Al-Quran pada setiap penjuru bumi. Mengertilah bahawa dengan mengharamkan tertegaknya hukum Allah, maka mereka mampu untuk secara perlahan mengharamkan perkara-perkara yang lain yang menjadi lambang syariat Islam.

* Apakah mustafa kamal laknatullah akan berani untuk mengubah sistem Khilafah kepada republik kafir sekiranya Khilafah dan perlaksanaan hukum masih kuat?

*Apakah karikatur hina nabi, filem fitna dan sebagainya, akan wujud sekiranya hukum Allah diterapkan, Khilafah itu berdiri dan jihad akbar dilancarkan kepada mereka yang biadab terhadap islam?

*Apakah kerajaan sekular turki dan sarkozy berani bertindak biadab pada pemakai burqa sekiranya ada pemerintahan Islam yang menjaga maruah muslimah yang begitu suci dan tinggi martabatnya?

Kita marah kepada sarkozy. Namun perhatikan sekeliling kita. Adakah sistem yang mengatur hidup kita hari ini dan hidup kaum muslimin seluruhnya, adalah sistem yang menjaga akidah, darah,nyawa,harta dan maruah kaum muslimin? Suatu ketika, aurat seorang muslimah tersingkap dek kerja biadab seorang yahudi, lantas Rasulullah bertindak memerangi kaum yahidu tersebut. Suatu ketika aurat seorng muslimah tersingkap semasa zaman pra khalifah, dan dihantar bala tentera untuk menghancurkan kebiadaban pelakunya, kerana seorang muslimah.Kini, seorang presiden perancis sarkozy menyatakan "jika pakai burqa,anda tidak diterima di negara ini". Mari kita perhatikan, pemimpin kaum muslimin yang mana yang akan bangkit dan memberi amaran lantas menghantar tenteranya utuk menghapuskan sarkozy yang biadab itu. Saya pasti anda semua tahu jawapannya.

Namun, apa yang pasti, zaman yang tidak henti-henti menindas dan menghina umat Islam akan berakhir tidak lama lagi. Bangkitnya khilafah minhaj nabi ini akan menyaksikan pemerintahan laksana Rasulullah dan para sahabat bersama kita. Islam dijaga dan martabat umat diangkat setinggi2nya dengan terterapnya hukum Allah secara kaffah. Bersama menjadi antara tangan-tangan yang membantu agamaNya. ALLAHUAKBAR!

HR Ahmad & Baihaqi : Selanjutnya akan berdiri kembali Khilafah atas minhaj kenabian....

Ladies & Gentleman, This Is DEMOCRACY

As for today, surfing through the net, the world struck with 'joy' of bloodshed, accusations, foolish political tactics and greed, in the name of Democracy : and idea brought by the West, lived for, fight for and die for by the people of the world.

We've seen so many examples day by day without rest the impact of democracy.

In the name of democracy, they're using election. So called power of the people. In the name of democracy x-MB Perak was brought down by the judiciary and the power of the executives. In the name of democracy the opposition stood still, as an oath with the stand of "Democracy Tree", to clear the 'filth' out of the 'democracy' itself, which they've forgotten that democracy itself is blasphemous, deviant and heretic.And, in the name of democracy, the x-MB is digging his way towards political suicide by appealing to the courts of (in)justice.

In the name of democracy, DSAI and his secular democratic alliances is trying to push the government to give the permission to Chin Peng, to step his feet back in the (not so)democratic soil of Malaysia. Thus dragging all the legless armies to show how brutal chin Peng to them and trying to gain sympathy from the public which now the public are divided into two - opposing the return of Chin Peg, and supporters of democracy which allows the return of the communist.In the name of democracy, DSAI might use human rights to push the government to allow CP's return. And if he did, in the name of democracy, US will pursue Malaysia with her political agenda, like what she did with the world previously. In the name of not to disturb peace and democracy within the country, the government might oppose the idea of letting the crippled communist to make his return, and the story goes.....

In the name of democracy, there's been a fight in an Islamic political party established long time ago. Democracy enabled them to go against each other fighting for 'either to support unity government or not' .The failure of settling disputes regarding go or no go for the unity government in the previous muktamar, left the members and the leaders in a big question mark, which also leads to contradicting ideas and endless issue within the party, either supporting this ulama' or that ulama'.

In the name of democracy we've been served by the media of what's happening in Iran. Millions of people marching the streets to support Ahmadinejad and Moussavi. To such extend Moussavi accused Ahmadinejad of not being democratic, engineering fraudulent election, supported by Khamenei and on the other hand, Moussavi being too democratic, trying to bring liberal and more democratic ideas into Iran which a number of Iranians did not agree with. Quoting what's said by Khamenei -“Flexing muscles on the streets after the election is not right,” he said, before tens of thousands of angry supporters at Tehran University. “It means challenging the elections and democracy. If they don’t stop, the consequences of the chaos would be their responsibility.” As for this, if we view it as the world view, we can see Muslims fighting each other in the name of democracy.

In the name of democracy, we've been served the news on the attacked of SWAT, Pakistan. Killing innocent people, women and children. With 1 vision, to eradicate Islam!

In the name of democracy, brothers and sisters, we've seen that citizens of the world and Muslims are fighting each other for what they think is right, which is not. I say this for only 1 reason and the only reason, we're standing and fighting on the wrong field. The system that we dwell in, living, fighting and dying for is not a worthy system. Simple analogy : would a new 5 series BMW be at its fullest potential if we service and track all its errors and malfunctioning using a proton saga manual? Might be. But for a short time. Thats for sure! A saga car can only use saga manual. Same goes for BMW. Mankind and the world, has only 1 manual that is the Quran and Sunnah. And without we noticing it, we're trying to undo all the conflicts & tragedies for centuries using the wrong manual! So we need no further explanation on why this and that, is happening, years after the fall of the Caliphate.

We are stunned and confused of why cant we gain political success, why cant we gain peace though thousands of meetings and forums held, why wars and collateral damages are inevitable, why statistics of killings, murders and social illness at its peak day by day increasing its numbers without mercy, why judiciary is always been on the side of the ruling, why revolution after revolution, corruptions and engineered elections still essential in the ruler's game. Why all of these decade nonsenses still run without any individuals, organization, parties, leaders and states are able to undo the root cause and consequences?

Back to square one, its all about the system. What system are we using? Divine or man-mande?
Isn't it time to ask ourselves, what can we do to undo this? Or just sit back and 'to hell with the world'? I leave that for you to decide.....

HR Ahmad & Baihaqi : Selanjutnya akan beridir kembali Khilafah atas Minhaj Kenabian......

Obama Calls for Alliances With Muslims

CAIRO — President Obama pledged on Thursday to “seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world,” imploring America and the Islamic world to drop their suspicions of one another and forge new alliances to confront violent extremism and heal religious divides.

“We have a responsibility to join together on behalf of the world we seek,” he said. “A world where extremists no longer threaten our people, and American troops have come home; a world where Israelis and Palestinians are each secure in a state of their own, and nuclear energy is used for peaceful purposes; a world where governments serve their citizens, and the rights of all God’s children are respected.”

He dwelled on Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan but reserved some of his sharpest words for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He offered no major initiatives on the Middle East peace process although he put Israelis and Palestinians on notice that he intends to deal directly with what he sees as intransigence on key issues, evoking the concerns of both parties but asking both to shift ground significantly.

The speech in Cairo, which he called a “timeless city,” redeemed a promise he made nearly two years ago while running for president. It was, perhaps, the riskiest speech of his young presidency, and Mr. Obama readily conceded that not every goal would be easily or quickly achieved.

“I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition,” he said. “Instead, they overlap, and share common principles — principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.”

His message was sweeping and forceful — at times scolding and combative — promoting democracy in Egypt, warning Israelis against building new settlements, and acknowledging that the United States had fallen short of its ideals, particularly in the Iraq war. It also evoked a new and nuanced tone, and some of Mr. Obama’s language drew appreciative applause from his audience of 3,000 invited guests in the Major Reception Hall at Cairo University.

Several times, for instance, he spoke of “Palestine,” rather than the more ambiguous term often used by American leaders, “future Palestinian state.” And, in reference to the Palestinians, he pointedly mentioned “the daily humiliations — large and small — that come with occupation.”

He described the bond between the United States and Israel as “unbreakable,” and urged Hamas, the Islamic militant group in control of the Gaza Strip, to stop violence. But in his next breath, Mr. Obama said Israel must curtail its expansion of West bank settlements and recognize Palestinian aspirations for statehood. He also acknowledged that Hamas, which the United States labels a terrorist organization, “does have some support among some Palestinians.”

“But they also have responsibilities,” Mr. Obama said, listing them as “to end violence, recognize past agreements, recognize Israel’s right to exist.”

“Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel’s right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine’s,” Mr. Obama said. “The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop.”

And, while Israel’s hawkish government has not accepted a so-called two-state solution, Mr. Obama said: “The only resolution is for the aspirations of both sides to be met through two states, where Israelis and Palestinians each live in peace and security.”

“This is in Israel’s interest, Palestine’s interest, America’s interest and the world’s interest,” he said. In the Middle East, “too many tears have been shed; too much blood has been shed.”

The address drew initial support from Palestinians. Nabil Abu Rudeineh, a spokesman for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, called it “a good start and an important step towards a new American policy.”

“It was honest, is the first word that comes to mind,” said Hossam Bahgat, executive director of the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights, an independent human rights organization.

Mr. Bahgat, who attended the speech at Cairo University, said that one of the most important elements of the speech was what was left out. “I think it was remarkable the speech left out the term terrorism completely,” he said. “It may have been a paradigm shift for the United States, away from using this politically charged word.”

Review

Since the beginning the world knows it. And until now, the world still knows who they are and what U.S means. Whoever the president is, either black, white, pink or fluorescent, their foreign policies will never change, PAX AMERICANA!

It's time to gain back trust from muslims as they know, Muslims and its countries are holding the world resources, the main source of life for the west.

People know that U.S is trying the other way around of conquering people nowadays. Bush's era and way of doing things were now over. So it's the new guy and he's with his own style. Sweet talking!

I'm not reviewing much. Those who understand history, and political strategies of the west will know that this is just another lame strategy to win back the trust of the Muslims, which sums up from thousands and millions of bloodied war and deaths of children, women and civilians. Indirectly forcing the Muslim World to implement democracy. Owh come on! Is there any other way that you could think to 'stupified' the Muslims? We had enough of your games Mr President!

He'll beg you with his 'presidential' words. We can do him a favor for sure. Give him the unity of the Muslim World under 1 leadership of the Khalifah! ALLAHUAKBAR!!

Sebuah Pengakuan

Saya ingin mengakhiri dengan suatu cerita. Dulu pernah ada sebuah peradaban yang paling besar di dunia. Peradaban itu mampu menghasilkan sebuah negara super yang membentang dari samudera ke samudera, dari daerah sub-tropik hingga ke daerah tropik dan gurun. Dalam wilayah kekuasaannya, yang terdiri dari berbagai kepercayaan dan bangsa. Salah satu dari sekian banyak bahasanya menjadi bahasa universal dan menjadi jambatan penghubung antara warganya yang tinggal di berbagai negeri. Tenteranya tersusun dari orang-orang yang berlainan bangsanya. Kekuatan ketententeraannya mampu memberikan kedamaian dan kesejahteraan yang belum pernah ada sebelumnya. Jangkauan armada perdagangannya membentang dari Amerika Latin sampai ke China, serta daerah-daerah yang berada di antara keduanya.

Kemajuan peradaban ini sangat ditentukan oleh berbagai penemuan yang diraih oleh pakarnya. Para arkitek yang mampu mereka bangunan yang melawan hukum graviti. Para pakar matematiknya mencipta al-jabar, juga algoritma yang menjadi landasan pengembangan teknologi komputer dan penyusunan bahasa komputer. Para doktornya mempelajari tubuh manusia hingga mampu menemukan pelbagai ubat untuk menyembuhkan beraneka ragam penyakit. Para pakar astronominya mengamati langit, memberikan nama untuk bintang-bintang, serta merintis teori seputar perjalanan dan penelitian ruang angkasa.

Para penulisnya menghasilkan ribuan kisah. Di antaranya kisah-kisah tentang keberanian, cinta, kasih dan ilmu sihir. Para penyairnya menulis berbagai karya sastera bertemakan cinta, sementara penyair-penyair sebelum mereka terlalu takut untuk memikirkan hal-hal seperti itu.

Ketika bangsa-bangsa lain khuwatir terhadap munculnya pelbagai pemikiran, peradaban ini justru memacu kemunculan beraneka ragam idea dan gagasan. Ketika kejumudan seringkali mengancam keberadaan ilmu pengetahuan, peradaban ini justru melindungi, mempertahankan serta menyampaikannya kepada umat-umat lain.

Peradaban Barat modern mendapatkan banyak manfaat dari kemajuan ini. Peradaban yang saya maksudkan adalah dunia Islam dari tahun 800M hingga 1600M termasuk dalam wilayah Negara Khilafah Uthmaniyah, Baghdad, Damascus dan Kairo, demikian pula masa-masa pemimpin cemerlang seperti Khalifah Sulaiman yang perkasa.

Meskipun kita sering tidak menyedari hutang budi kita kepada peradaban lain, namun tidak boleh disangkal bahawa karya-karya besar peradaban Islam merupakan bahagian penting dari warisan kita.Teknologi industri tidak akan wujud tanpa sumbangan pakar-pakar matematika Arab(baca:Islam). Demikian pula penyair sekaligus filosof Jalaluddin Rumi, memperkenalkan kepada kita konsep diri dan kebenaran. Sementara ada pemimpin seperti Khalifah Sulaiman mengajarkan kepada kita toleransi dan kempimpinan publik. Mungkin pula kita dapat mengambil pengajaran dari beliau tentang kepimpinan yang berlandaskan meritokrasi dan bukan pewarisan. Yakni kepimpinan yang memanfaatkan segala kemampuan rakyat - baik Kristian, Islam mahupun Yahudi.

Model kepimpinan yang cemerlang inilah - iaitu kepimpinan yang memelihara, memayungi, penuh keragaman dan penuh keberanian - yang mampu menghasilkan berbagai penemuan dan menciptakan kesejahteraan selama 800tahun.

Carly Fiorina
CEO Hewlett Packard
26 September 2001

p/s : Mereka mengagumi kegemilangan yang telah kita kecapi. Kenapa tidak kita? Kenapa pula tidak ingin berusaha untuk mengulangi kegemilangan itu?

Masanya pasti akan datang... "akan kembali khilafah atas minhaj kenabian" HR Ahmad & Baihaqi

Things That Can Kill You

#1 Thing that can kill you: Arsenic

As revealed in a recent story on NaturalNews (http://www.naturalnews.com/026307.html), drinking well water contaminated with arsenic greatly increases susceptibility to H1N1 influenza infections. Arsenic is present in the water supply of tens of millions of people across the United States right now (now to mention the citizens of Canada, the UK, Australia and other countries). Low levels of arsenic are even "approved" by the EPA!


#2 Thing that can kill you: Antibiotics
Taking antibiotics before a swine flu infection greatly increases your risk of being killed by swine flu. How do we know that? Because antibiotics wipe out the friendly flora that have been scientifically proven to boost the body's defenses against influenza (http://www.naturalnews.com/026265.html).

This is why, during any pandemic, doctors must exercise extreme caution when handing out antibiotics. While antibiotics can be extremely helpful during the pneumonia phase of a viral infection (when bacteria invade the lungs), they can be deadly if given to patients too soon (during the pre-pneumonia phase).

In addition, there's the whole concern over antibiotics abuse creating yet more dangerous superbugs in hospitals. Imagine the combination assault of a deadly new strain of the H1N1 influenza virus plus an antibiotic-resistant superbug sweeping through the hospitals of the world...

That's a very dangerous combination indeed!


#3 Thing that can kill you: Lack of sleep
Getting fewer than six hours of sleep each night increases your risk of contracting colds (such as influenza) by a whopping 300 percent! Read more in this NaturalNews article: http://www.naturalnews.com/News_000...

Eight hours of sleep each night will substantially boost your immune function, giving you the metabolic tools you need to fight off potentially deadly influenza infections.

#4 Thing that can kill you: Lack of vitamin D

Virtually everyone living in the U.S., Canada and the U.K. is chronically deficient in Vitamin D. Those living in Australia are usually better off, as there's more of a sunshine culture there, but even Aussies can find themselves vitamin D deficient if they live their lives indoors and don't venture into the real world to catch some healthy rays.

Vitamin D deficiency is, without question, one of the primary causes of influenza susceptibility (http://www.naturalnews.com/021229.html). Having sufficient vitamin D circulating in your blood is one of the best defenses against infection (http://www.naturalnews.com/024982.html).

Health authorities in the U.S. and other western nations are currently engaged in a campaign to keep the population vitamin D deficient. This is achieved by brainwashing people into thinking sunlight alone causes skin cancer. That's a big medical lie, of course. Even the Journal of the National Cancer Institute has published scientific research showing that sunlight exposure reduces the risk of skin cancer (http://www.naturalnews.com/007632.html).

The American Cancer Society, of course, spreads extremely dangerous disinformation about sunlight exposure, seeking to make sure that no ray of sun ever touches the skin of any person. This "darkness" campaign will soon be exposed as a death sentence for the People as the next pandemic takes the lives of those stupid enough to believe that moderate sunlight exposure is bad for their health.

In the next great pandemic, when the hospital beds are overflowing with the dead, and school gymnasiums are taken over as holding cells for the constant stream of incoming body bags, the dead will consist almost entirely of those who believed the lies of the American Cancer Society and the disinformation of the FDA and Big Pharma. This is one case in which misplaced faith in a corporate-controlled medical monstrosity can literally cost you your life.

Click the link below for a picture from the 1918 Spanish Flu that may give you some idea of what to expect during the next great pandemic: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images...

(What's missing from this photo, of course, are the armed military personnel, toting automatic rifles, who will shoot any infected person who attempts to escape the facility.)


#5: Thing that can kill you: Antacid drugs like Prilosec, Nexium and Prevacid

In a pandemic, use of these popular antacid drugs can actually lead to your death. How? A study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) concludes that these PPI drugs significantly increase the risk of deadly pneumonia.

Read the full story here: http://www.naturalnews.com/026361_d...

These acid-suppressing medications, it turns out, are linked to a 30 percent increase in the risk of acquired pneumonia. And if you're suffering from something like the swine flu, pneumonia is the most common cause of death. It's the secondary bacterial infections, after all, that killed most people in 1918, and that's what's likely to cause the greatest number of fatalities in the next great pandemic as well.

If you want to protect yourself from influenza, avoid taking antacid drugs (including over-the-counter antacids).

Masa Depan Malaysia Bersama China

Oleh NAJIB TUN RAZAK

tiga puluh lima tahun lalu, arwah bapa saya, Tun Abdul Razak yang ketika itu Perdana Menteri Malaysia, menjejakkan kaki di China. Ia menandakan bermulanya era baru dalam hubungan dua hala yang membuka lembaran bersejarah dalam perhubungan China dan Malaysia.

Keputusan berani dan bersejarah itu mendorong negara-negara lain di Asia Tenggara untuk mengikut jejak Malaysia dalam mengadakan hubungan diplomatik dengan China.

Diwujudkan secara rasmi dengan pemeteraian Kenyataan Bersama pada 31 Mei 1974, hubungan dua hala yang berasaskan sikap saling menghormati telah terjalin. Ia kemudiannya menjadi semakin erat dan mencapai kemajuan yang sangat pesat.

Mereka yang bertanggungjawab mengadakan hubungan itu telah berpandangan jauh ke depan dan barangkali tidak membayangkan perhubungan itu akan berkembang maju seperti yang disaksikan selama ini.

Saya menaruh keyakinan tinggi terhadap nilai dan kepentingan hubungan dua hala antara negara kita ini. Dan saya pernah melakukan beberapa lawatan ke negara ini dalam kedudukan berlainan. Sebagai Timbalan Perdana Menteri, Menteri Pertahanan dan Menteri Pendidikan.

Sejak menyandang jawatan Perdana Menteri pada April lalu, inilah lawatan rasmi pertama saya ke sebuah negara di luar ASEAN.

Saya akan terus mencari jalan untuk mengukuh dan mengeratkan lagi hubungan antara kita (China dan Malaysia).

China hari ini tentunya jauh berbeza daripada China yang dilihat oleh bapa saya pada 1974. Jutaan basikal dan pakaian ala Mao kini digantikan dengan kereta yang bergerak laju di lebuh-lebuh raya.

Negara maju di Barat semakin tertarik untuk mendekati China dan China tidak lagi disisihkan seperti dahulu. Hari ini China merupakan ekonomi kedua terbesar di dunia daripada segi pariti kuasa membeli (PPP). Dan China menjadi yang ketiga terbesar selepas Amerika Syarikat (AS) dan Jepun daripada segi Keluaran Dalam Negara Kasar (KDNK) nominal.

China kini memiliki rizab asing terbesar di dunia dan memainkan peranan semakin penting dan berpengaruh di pentas antarabangsa.

China dan Malaysia mempunyai banyak persamaan. Kedua-dua negara berkongsi aspirasi dan objektif yang sama untuk memastikan keamanan dan kestabilan berkekalan di rantau ini. China telah membuktikan statusnya sebagai sebuah kuasa ekonomi yang bertanggungjawab.

Ia mendapat penghargaan dan kepercayaan negara-negara Asia semasa krisis kewangan pada 1997-1998 kerana tidak menurunkan nilai mata wangnya. Seandainya China berbuat demikian, situasi sudah tentulah bertambah sukar bagi negara-negara yang dilanda krisis itu, termasuk Malaysia sendiri.

Hari ini kedua-dua negara boleh bekerjasama untuk menangani kemelesetan ekonomi dunia. Kerjasama ini boleh dilakukan dengan beberapa cara.

Antaranya ialah memastikan permintaan domestik di kedua-dua negara kita terus berada pada paras yang tinggi. Peningkatan permintaan domestik di China akan membantu sektor eksport negara-negara di rantau ini dan membantu proses pemulihan mereka.

Nilai perdagangan dua hala antara Malaysia dengan China mencapai AS$39.06 bilion (RM140.6 bilion) pada 2008, kenaikan 10.3 peratus berbanding 2007.......selebihnya di www.utusan.com.my

________________________________________________________________

Review

Hairan bin ajaib. Kebelakangan ini rakyat diseru bersungguh-sungguh untuk menghentikan komunisma, membenci komunisma dan diminta pendapat umum tentang komunisma, lantas pelbagai tokoh dan entah sapa-sapa yang datang dari mana-mana, memberikan pendapat dan sejarah peribadi tentang 'jahat'nya komunis dan ideologinya.

Namun, dalam masa yang sama, mereka yang menyeru supaya dibenci dan dihalang komunis tua supaya masuk ke dalam negara ini, menjejakkan kaki ke negara komunis! Menjejakkan kaki ke negara didikan para komunis. Lantas mengadakan hubungan dua hala bersama negara anti-agama ini.

Nah! Inilah yang dinamakan demokrasi terpimpin. Kita membenci sebenarnya bukan atas dasar berapa ramai rakyat kita yang dibunuh, bukan atas bencinya kita kepada ideologinya, tetapi kerana adakah ianya dapat memberikan manfaat ataupun tidak? Ya kan? Masakan boleh pulak diadakan hubungan berhala-hala dengan negara komunis sekaligus menjadi antara pelopor hubungan negara demokratik dan negara komunis. Sungguh betentangan sekali ideologi dan fahamannya. Demokrasi sememangnya musuh komunisma. Kapitalis sememangnya musuh komunisma. Malah kebangkitan kapitalisma penyebab runtuhnya ideologi sosialisma/komunisma.

Namun hari ini kita menyaksikan ideologi-ideologi diketepikan atas dasar manfaat. Bagaimana pula dengan Chin Peng? Semestinya Big Boss Chin Peng adalah China. Jika komunisma berjaya diterapkan di tanah melayu, maka kita akan menyaksikan hari ini, sekolah, sarana dan segalanya pasti akan beracuankan negara China.Namun ianya tidak berlaku, dan Chin Peng adalah diantara 'ikan bilis' yang gagal menerapkan komunisma di tanah melayu. Lantas apa? Semestinya ikan bilis komunis ini akan ditentang habis-habisan oleh ikan jerung dan bilis kapitalisma. Malah, kononnya membenci komunisma tetapi atas dasar manfaat, kebencian ideologi diketepikan.Si jerung kapitalis membuat pakatan perdagangan dengan jerung komunisma.

Jadi, dimana penegasan anti-komunisnya? Dimana kebencian terhadap komunisnya? Atau bencinya hilang apabila dikelabui keuntungan? Seolah-olah pasti, selalunya begitu. Ludah ke langit, kena muka sendiri, atau ludah, dan jilat balik ludah sendiri. "Itu, ini tak boleh, tapi kami boleh!"

Bagaimana kelirunya sistem buatan manusia ini berdiri. Selalunya atas dasar "engkau tak boleh, aku boleh". Tengok sekeliling kita. Tengok bapa pelopor idea "engkau tak boleh aku boleh" U.S. Tengok pula anak-anaknya negara2 yang pernah dijajah. Saling tak tumpah perangai ayahnya.

Sampai bila 'engkau boleh aku tak boleh"? Atau sudah sampai masanya digantikan dengan "Semuanya boleh, asalkan bertepatan dengan syariah.Kalau haram, tak bolehla."?

Jika Chin Peng masuk menaburkan berjuta2 dan berbillion2 dollar kepada jerung kapitalis, agak2nya Chin Peng dibenarkan atau dilarang masuk ke negara ini?

Apa pula beza antara pembangkang yang mendesak atasan supaya menerima Chin Peng, dengan pemerintah yang membuat urusan dagang dengan antara 5 Negara Komunis dunia - China?

If you're looking for the guilty, you only have to look into a mirror - V for Vendetta

U.S. Report Finds Airstrike Errors in Afghan Deaths

Review

The U.S has made it as a habbit that in whatever policies or strategies that they're doing, they somehow like to include 'errors' in their implementations.

We can still remember that there are errors in reports accusing Saddam to have kept WMD in Iraq, all the officials seems to singing the same word that they should attack iraq for the sake of the world and to destroy iraq's so called WMD. And after the attack, its proven that they've done a mistake. No WMD at ALL!

What about 9/11? The attack that struck the world and the main reason that War On Terror begins. The world starting to support the campaigns bluntly without any effort of investigating the truth behind 9/11. Even the muslim leaders from all over the countries pathetically give their pledge to Bush in waging war against terrorism. Then, years after the silence, after iraq's have been demolished and torn apart, came evidences one by one that the 9/11 was made up by the U.S themselves.

Latest, the attacks of afghan was accidentally striked to citizens and civillians.They would never stop to abolish the lights of Allah, though they wouldn't know that it is easy for Allah to put all their evil effort back to them.

Whoever the president is, either the name is clearly a jews, a christian or muslim, if the policies and the system implemented still not from Allah, then it is wrong for us to put high hopes on them. It is totally wrong for Muslim to put hopes on them who have slaughtered other muslims around the world through history, again and again.

Aren't these evidences brought by their own medias and confessions in daylight, supposed to be the motivating factors for us to unite and implement syariah, upholding dakwah and jihad to fight against them who're against us?

________________________________________________________________

WASHINGTON — A military investigation has concluded that American personnel made significant errors in carrying out some of the airstrikes in western Afghanistan on May 4 that killed dozens of Afghan civilians, according to a senior American military official.

Manuel Balce Ceneta/Associated Press

Lt. Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, President Obama's nominee to be commander of American forces in Afghanistan, testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee during a confirmation hearing on Tuesday.

The senior official said the civilian death toll would probably have been reduced if American air crews and forces on the ground had followed strict rules devised to prevent civilian casualties. Had the rules been followed, at least some of the strikes by American warplanes against half a dozen targets over a seven-hour period would have been aborted.

The report represents the clearest American acknowledgment of fault in connection with the attacks. It will give new ammunition to critics, including many Afghans, who complain that American forces too often act indiscriminately in calling in airstrikes, jeopardizing the United States mission by turning the civilian population against American forces and their ally, the Afghan government.

Since the raid, American military commanders have promised to address the problem. On Tuesday, Lt. Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, nominated to be the American commander in Afghanistan, vowed that reducing civilian casualties would be “essential to our credibility.”

Any American victory would be “hollow and unsustainable” if it led to popular resentment among Afghanistan’s citizens, General McChrystal told the Senate Armed Services Committee during a confirmation hearing.

According to the senior military official, the report on the May 4 raids found that one plane was cleared to attack Taliban fighters, but then had to circle back and did not reconfirm the target before dropping bombs, leaving open the possibility that the militants might have fled the site or that civilians might have entered the target area in the intervening few minutes.

In another case, a compound of buildings where militants were massing for a possible counterattack against American and Afghan troops was struck in violation of rules that required a more imminent threat to justify putting high-density village dwellings at risk, the official said.

“In several instances where there was a legitimate threat, the choice of how to deal with that threat did not comply with the standing rules of engagement,” said the military official, who provided a broad summary of the report’s initial findings on the condition of anonymity because the inquiry was not yet complete.

Before being chosen as the new commander in Afghanistan, General McChrystal spent five years as commander of the Joint Special Operations Command, overseeing commandos in Iraq and Afghanistan. Special Operations forces have been sharply criticized by Afghans for aggressive tactics that have contributed to civilian casualties.

During his testimony, General McChrystal said that strikes by warplanes and Special Operations ground units would remain an essential part of combat in Afghanistan. But he promised to make sure that these attacks were based on solid intelligence and that they would be as precise as possible. American success in Afghanistan should be measured by “the number of Afghans shielded from violence,” not the number of enemies killed, he said.

The inquiry into the May 4 strikes in the western province of Farah illustrated the difficult, split-second decisions facing young officers in the heat of combat as they balance using lethal force to protect their troops under fire with detailed rules restricting the use of firepower to prevent civilian deaths.

In the report, the investigating officer, Brig. Gen. Raymond A. Thomas III, analyzed each of the airstrikes carried out by three aircraft-carrier-based Navy F/A-18 strike aircraft and an Air Force B-1 bomber against targets in the village of Granai, in a battle that lasted more than seven hours.

In each case, the senior military official said, General Thomas determined that the targets that had been struck posed legitimate threats to Afghan or American forces, which included one group of Marines assigned to train the Afghans and another assigned to a Special Operations task force.

But in “several cases,” the official said, General Thomas determined either that the airstrikes had not been the appropriate response to the threat because of the potential risk to civilians, or that American forces had failed to follow their own tactical rules in conducting the bombing runs.

The Afghan government concluded that about 140 civilians had been killed in the attacks. An earlier American military inquiry said last month that 20 to 30 civilians had been killed. That inquiry also concluded that 60 to 65 Taliban militants had been killed in the fight. American military officials say their two investigations show that Taliban fighters had deliberately fired on American forces and aircraft from compounds and other places where they knew Afghan civilians had sought shelter, in order to draw an American response that would kill civilians, including women and children.

The firefight began, the military said, when Afghan soldiers and police officers went to several villages in response to reports that three Afghan government officials had been killed by the Taliban. The police were quickly overwhelmed and asked for backup from American forces.

American officials have said that a review of videos from aircraft weapon sights and exchanges between air crew members and a ground commander established that Taliban fighters had taken refuge in “buildings which were then targeted in the final strikes of the fight,” which went well into the night.

American troop levels in Afghanistan are expected to double, to about 68,000, under President Obama’s new Afghan strategy.

In his previous job as commander of the Joint Special Operations Command, General McChrystal oversaw units assigned to capture or kill senior militants. In his appearance before Congress on Tuesday, he was questioned on reports of abuses of detainees held by his commandos.

Under questioning by Senator Carl Levin, the Michigan Democrat who is the committee chairman, General McChrystal said he was uncomfortable with some of the harsh techniques that were officially approved for interrogation. At the time, such approved techniques included stress positions, sleep depravation and the use of attack dogs for intimidation.

He said that all reports of abuse during his command were investigated, and that all substantiated cases of abuse resulted in disciplinary action. And he pledged to “strictly enforce” American and international standards for the treatment of battlefield detainees if confirmed to the post in Afghanistan.

Under questioning, General McChrystal also acknowledged that the Army had “failed the family” in its mishandling of the friendly-fire death of Cpl. Pat Tillman, the professional football star who enlisted in the Army after the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.

A final review by a four-star Army general cleared General McChrystal of any wrongdoing, but punished a number of senior officers who were responsible for administrative mistakes in the days after Corporal Tillman’s death. Initially, Army officials said the corporal had been killed by an insurgent ambush, when in fact he had been shot by members of his own Ranger team.

Apa beza nasionalisma dan komunisma?

TIDAK WAJAR MENYAMAKAN NASIONALISMA DAN KOMUNISMA

Oleh Zainuddin Mahmud

KUALA LUMPUR, Jun 2 – Baru-baru ini Mursyidul Am PAS, Datuk Nik Abdul Nik Aziz Nik Mat dalam kenyataannya berhubung isu kepulangan China Peng ke Malaysia menyelar Umno dengan menyifatkan nasionalisme sama komunisme. Kenyataan ini tidak wajar tetapi tidak mengejutkan bagi para pemerhati politik tanah air.

Tidak wajar kerana hakikatnya nasionalisme tidak sama dengan komunisme. Ditambah pula ada bayangan daripada kenyataan itu bahawa Umno adalah serupa dengan Parti Komunis Malaya (PKM). Tentu tidak munasabah. Hujah bahawa kedua-dua nasionalisme dan komunisme itu adalah sekular, maka yang sama adalah juga tidak dapat diterima.

Mungkin komunisme itu sekluar kerana ia memisahkan agama daripada politik, tetapi dalam banyak aliran nasionalisme, ada yang tidak bersifat sekular. Contoh jelas ialah Umno sendiri. Ia merupakan parti yang berasaskan nasionalsime tetapi tidak sekular. Ini kerana ia tidak memisahkan agama daripada politik.

Namun begitu, kenyataan Menteri Besar Kelantan itu tidak memeranjatkan kerana banyak kata-katanya sejak beliau berkecimpung dalam politik, lebih-lebih lagi ketika menyandang jawatan ketua kerajaan negeri banyak yang mengandungi kontroversi serta tidak dapat diterima, hatta di kalangan penyokong PAS sendiri.

Namun begitu, sudah tentu, kalangan PAS dan sekutunya dalam Pakatan Rakyat akan membisu dan menyanggah kata-kata Tuan Guru itu. Ini kerana kedudukan beliau amat tinggi dalam gerakan pembangkang di negara ini hingga membolehkan apa saja yang diperkatakan dianggap sebagai suatu amanat yang tidak wajar dipertikaikan.

Terdapat tiga kedudukan di mana beliau berada di tempat yang disegani hingga kata-katanya, walaupun tidak wajar tetapi didiamkan saja. Kedudukan itu berlaku kerana beliau merupakan pemimpin paling tinggi dalam PAS mengatasi presidennya sendiri iaitu, Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang.

Tetapi lebih penting lagi ialah Nik Abdul Aziz pula dipandang seorang tokoh yang terbukti berjaya dalam politiik. Kemampuannya memperthankan kedudukan kerajaan negeri di Kelantan sejak tahun 1990 menjadikan beliau disegani hingga mendorong kepada pihak dalam partinya sentiasa akur dengan pandangan beliau.

Faktor ketiga pula ialah beliau sebagai ulama yang semakin lanjut usia di mana rekod kepimpinannya bertambah diungguli menyebabkan banyak pihak terutama dalam parti percaya bahawa seolah-olah beliau mempunyai kebijaksanaan istimewa hinggakan sukar untuk sesiapa berani mengkritik beliau, hatta di kalangan musuh politiknya di luar PAS.

Sedangkan hakikatnya ialah, dan semua orang faham bahawa beliau tidak maksum. Dalam ajaran Sunnah wal Jamaah, hanya para nabi dan Rasul yang maksum. Tentu para ulama walaupun hebat setinggi mana, tidak akan mencapai kedudukan maksum. Justeru pandangan mereka boleh dikritik.

Tetapi dalam tradisi Islam, termasuk PAS sendiri akan ada unsur hormat keterlaluan hingga sesuatu pandangan itu tidak diukur daripada apa yang dihujahkan, tetapi siapa yang mengutarakannya.

Maka pandangan mereka yang bukan ulama tidak begitu diambil kira walaupun sesuatu hujah itu berasas. Sebaliknya seseorang ulama, walaupun hujahnya tidak berasas tetapi lebih diambil kira.

Maka begitu jugalah apa yang berlaku terhadap pandangan Nik Abdul Aziz. Sepanjang menjadi ahli politik, beliau banyak juga mengeluarkan kenyataan yang tidak munasabah tetapi oleh kerana kedudukannya, banyak pihak berusaha untuk menjustifikasikan sebagai cara membela pendiriannya. Sedangkan kalau hujahnya tidak betul, maka itulah yang patut disuarakan.

Justeru begitu juga dengan hujah bahawa nasionalisme dan komunisme itu sama. Mungkin ada pihak di kalangan penyokong PAS cuba menjustifikasi Tok Guru bahawa sememangnya nasionalisme dan komunisme itu sama kerana kedua-duanya sekular. Mereka mungkin berusaha untuk menyatakan bahawa PAS menolak sekularisme, maka anggapannya ialah nasionalisme dan komunisme itu adalah serupa dan patut sama-sama ditentang.

Sememangnya terdapat banyak takrif mengenai nasionalisme, komunisme dan sekularisme. Tetapi takrifan yang banyak ini bukanlah sesuatu yang menghairankan. Apa saja yang berada dalam minda manusia boleh ditafsir dengan cara pelbagai. Agama seperti itu juga. Malah Islam juga ditafsirkan dengan pelbagai cara.

Tetapi untuk memudakan perbincangan, nasionalisme adalah fahaman bahawa sekumpulan manusia bersepakat melihat dirinya sebagai satu bangsa yang mempunyai hak dalam suatu kawasan geografi. Maka dengan kesedaran itu, semangat kebangsaan ini berjuang memperoleh haknya daripada dijajah atau ditakluk oleh bangsa lain.

Tidakkah itu fahaman semua parti politik di negara ini termasuk PAS? Semua parti politik di negara ini menganggap diri mereka sebagai suatu bangsa yang mempuynyai hak ke atas negara bernama Malaysia. Bangsa ini walaupun dilihat terdiri daripada banyak suku kaum tetapi hakikatnya sudah menjadi satu bangsa Malaysia.

Maka baik Barisan Nasional, mahupun parti-parti dalam Pakatan Rakyat menerima bahawa mereka adalah sebahagian daripada bangsa Malaysia yang berjuang untuk hak berswama. Semua parti politik menolak penjajahan. Inilah dia nasionalisme. Jika mana-mana parti di negara ini yang menolak fahaman kebangsaan ini, pasti perlembagaan mereka tidak terlepas daripada saringan pendaftar pertubuhan.

Maka tidaklah boleh disamakan nasionalisme dengan komunisme. Tidaklah wajar isu mengenai sama ada Chin Peng wajar diizinkan pulang atau tidak dikaitkan dengan hujah bahawa nasipnalisme dengan komunisme. Seolah-olah hendak dinyatakan bahawa oleh kerana nasionalisme dan komunisme itu serupa, maka Umno sebagai parti nasionalis patut menyokong kembalinya ketua PKM itu ke Malaysia.

Sedangkan apa yang patut Mursyidul Am PAS itu kata ialah pendiriannya sama ada Chin peng wajar diizinkan kembali, dan apakah pendirian PAS tentang isu ini. Lebih tepat ialah PAS sebagai parti yang anti komunis boleh pula bersama dengan DAP dan Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) menyokong usaha supaya Chin Peng dibenarkan kembali.

Apa yang hendak diketahui oleh rakyat ialah apakah pendirian PAS, dengan hujah-hujahnya kewajaran Chin Peng diizinkan kembali ke tanah air. Mursyidul Am PAS sebagai penunjuk arah parti wajar mempunyai kenyataan yang menarik dan dapat difahami oleh rakyat tentang mengapa mereka berpenirian demikian.

sumber www.themalaysianinsider.com

Review

Pernyataan Tuan Guru itu ada benarnya. Sebagai barisan ulama' tersohor, semestinya beliau mengetahui akan kebobrokan ideologi buatan manusia yang tidak mampu menyelesaikan masalah, bahkan hanya membawa masalah kepada 'penganutnya'.

Namun, seharusnya kita mengkaji dengan lebih mendasar tentang idea nasionalisma, yang pada Tuan Guru, sama nilainya dengan komunisma. Nasionalisma bukan sekadar terletak pada parti yang hanya secara terang-terangan memperjuangkan asabiyah sesuatu bangsa, namun terjadi juga pada gerakan Islam yang perjuangan Islamnya terbatas pada sesebuah negara.

Nasionalisma bukan sekadar terbatas kepada perjuangan bangsanya sahaja tanpa mempedulikan agama, namun terjadi juga pada gerakan Islam yang cintanya tidak berbelah bahagi pada tanah airnya yang melekat kuat dengan penjajahan sekularisma

Nasionalisma bukan sahaja soal memperjuangkan bangsa tanpa henti, namun berkait pula dengan mengIslamkan tanah airnya sahaja, tanpa mempedulikan nasib kaum muslimin seluruh dunia.

Jadi, bukan suatu perkara yang mustahil, ada juga gerakan Islam yang masih kuat semangat nasionalisnya, wathaniyahnya, asabiyyahnya, tanpa sedar, walaupun emosinya kuat memperjuangkan Islam.

Dan tidak pernah wujud nasionalis sekular dan nasionalis Islam. Mereka yang memperjuangkan Islam, sebagai cara hidup, tidak pernah memperjuangkan nasional dan nasionalisma, melainkan apa yang diperjuangkannya adalah Islam dan Islam semata2. Jika ada ulama'2 terdahulu yang dikatakan memperjuangkan nasionalisma disamping Islam, maka itu sebenarnya adalah suatu pembohongan yang terang dan nyata.Melainkan ulama yang tidak paham bahawa nasionalisma bukan dari Islam dan selamanya tidak akan diterima, kerana dasar perjuangan bagi seorang Muslim, adalah Islam. Negara dipertahankan atas dasar ingin menyelamatkan syariat dan melaksanakan perintah Allah dalam mempertahankan diri dan bukannya atas dasar cintanya pada tanah yang didudukinya.Sayangnya Muslim pada suatu tanah, adalah kerana ingin menerapkan Islam secara kaffah, dan bukannya sayangnya mereka pada tanah itu sebagai "tanah tumpah darah mereka"

Seluruh muka bumi ini adalah milik Allah, selayaknya kita berusaha keras untuk memastikan ianya tidak dijajah oleh mana2 ideologi pun, baik secara fizik atau secara ideanya. Selayaknya pada muka bumi Allah ini, hanya Islam sebagai ideologi yang haq untuk diterap, diperkembang dan dipertahankan selagi hayat di kandung badan.

Bukankah bersengketa diatas ideologi buatan manusia itu merupakan suatu tindakan yang jauh sekali nilai intelektualnya?

Masih lagi sibuk dengan perdebatan nasionalisma, komunisma. Bagaimana pula dengan ideologi Sekularisma? Bukankah idea ini mencengkam erat kaum muslimin, yang sampai ada yang sanggup menggadaikan prinsip atas dasar demokrasi yakni buah sekularisma itu sendiri?

Sekularisma membuahkan demokrasi kerana agama perlu dipecahkan dari negara. Bagaimana ianya dipecahkan? Ianya dipecahkan melalui hak2 asasi dan hak2 peribadi manusia serta suara ramai dalam menentukan hukum, agar hukum Allah itu tidak mampu terlaksana dek ketidak mahuan manusia dalam menerapkan hukum Allah.Dek kerana suara ramainya.

Maka dari kiri ataupun kanan, sedarlah bahawa tercetusnya permasalahan manusia termanifestasi dari kewujudan ideologi ciptaan manusia. Bukankah masanya kalian berdiri dan berjuang atas ideologi dari langit yakni Islam?

Apa yang tidak wajar sebenar-benarnya adalah menerapkan sebarang ideologi ciptaan manusia keatas manusia.

Peragut dipenjara 30 bulan??

Mungkin masih ramai lagi yang obses dan optimis tentang hebatnya akal manusia dalam menggubal hukum bagi mencari solusi bagi permasalahan kehidupan. Nah! Ini adalah salah satu bukti betapa 'geniusnya' manusia yang barangkali dirasakan lebih hebatnya dia dari Sang Pencipta.

Perhatikan sekelilingmu kawan, apakah sistem yang mengatur hidup kalian adalah yang terbaik yang dapat menyelesaikan masalah?

Bukakan hatimu kawan. Bukankah pada saat ini, hidup yang semakin sempit dengan pelbagai permasalahan meruntun diri kalian melihat kepada 1 solusi yang tunas?

Guballah sebanyak mana undang2, protokol, etiquette, adat dan sebagainya mengikut akal2 kalian. Segenius mana pun kalian, apakah kalian mampu mengatasi kehebatan aturan/hukum Sang Pencipta?

Fikirkan.......

SHAH ALAM 2 Jun - Disebabkan meragut seorang wanita yang secara kebetulan jiran sekampung, seorang pekerja pencuci kereta hari ini dihukum penjara 30 bulan oleh Mahkamah Majistret di sini.

Mohamad Zeren Hamjah, 27, dari Batu 7 Jalan Kebun di sini, mengambil kesempatan meragut seorang suri rumah Nor Wahi Dah Ismail ketika mangsa berdiri di tepi jalan untuk menelefon suami kerana keretanya mengalami kerosakan enjin.

Tertuduh mengaku telah melarikan sebuah telefon bimbit, beg duit mengandungi kad pengenalan, lesen memandu dan wang tunai RM1,500 milik mangsa ketika meragutnya pada pukul 12.55 tengah hari, 23 Mac lalu di jalan kampung, Jalan Kebun di Seksyen 36 di sini.

Mohamad Zeren didakwa mengikut Seksyen 379 Kanun Keseksaan yang memperuntukkan hukuman penjara tujuh tahun atau denda atau kedua-duanya sekali jika sabit kesalahan.

Lelaki itu sebelum ini pernah dipenjarakan sebanyak tiga kali kerana kesalahan mencuri kenderaan, menagih dadah dan memasukkan dadah ke dalam badan. - Utusan