This is amazing, but it is in Indonesian (?). What is written is authentic or not? However, as a root, word, derivative, ayah resource, it may be good.
You click on any word in the text of the verse, and it gives you the root of the word and displays Ayahs containing its derivatives in the Quran. Other info in Indonesian is not decipherable by me.
http://quran.bblm.go.id/
but what is the source of their translation?
Unfortunately there has been a flood of websites, mostly from rejectors of Hadith. This may be a better one, but needs checking
Roots, words, Ayahs, all click-able and search-able.
http://www.openislam.org/
iQuran
A site for roots and words in the Quran, but use caution, for the owner of the site looks like being under the influence of submitters/ rejectors of Hadith.
http://www.openburhan.com/
Inna lillahe wa inna ilehi rajeoon
152 on board. Plane reported leaving Karachi at 7:30 or 7:50
one hour and fifty minutes later, just short of the airport, it has come down.
The cable is off. I can only get the news over the net.
I often travel by this airline, but the reason of the crash is not the airline, it is bad weather. The Monsoons are here. It has been raining hard and the hills are not visible, although the pilot of course shouldn't have to rely on physically being able to see.
Ever wondered about the phenomenon of incorruptibles - the bodies that do not decompose over time, without any embalming or preservation techniques?
These are touted as proof of Catholicism's trueness, or of Sufism in Islam.
Nothing of the kind. Read on ...
AdipocereOneRiotYahooAmazonTwitterdel.icio.us
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Adipocere (also known as corpse, grave or mortuary wax) is a wax-like organic substance formed by the anaerobic bacterial hydrolysis of fat in tissue, such as body fat in corpses. In its formation, putrefaction is replaced by a permanent firm cast of fatty tissues, internal organs and the face.
Contents
[hide]
* 1 History
* 2 Appearance
* 3 Formation
* 4 Footnotes
[edit] History
Adipocere was first described by Sir Thomas Browne in his discourse Hydriotaphia, Urn Burial (1658):[1]
In a Hydropicall body ten years buried in a Church-yard, we met with a fat concretion, where the nitre of the Earth, and the salt and lixivious liquor of the body, had coagulated large lumps of fat, into the consistence of the hardest castle-soap: wherof part remaineth with us.
The chemical process of adipocere formation, saponification, came to be understood in the 17th century when microscopes became widely available.[1]
Augustus Granville is believed to have somewhat unwittingly made candles from the adipocere of a mummy and used them to light the public lecture he gave to report on the mummy's dissection.[2]
[edit] Appearance
Adipocere is a crumbly, waxy, water-insoluble material consisting mostly of saturated fatty acids. Depending on whether it was formed from white or brown body fat, adipocere is grayish white or tan in color.[1]
In corpses, the firm cast of adipocere allows some estimation of body shape and facial features, and injuries are often well-preserved.[1] An example of such a corpse is available at the Mütter Museum in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
[edit] Formation
The transformation of fats into adipocere occurs best in the absence of oxygen in a cold and humid environment, such as in wet ground or mud at the bottom of a lake or a sealed casket, and it can occur with both embalmed and untreated bodies. Adipocere formation begins within a month of death, and in the absence of air it can persist for centuries.[3] An exposed, infested body or a body in a warm environment is unlikely to form deposits of adipocere.
Corpses of women, infants and overweight persons are particularly prone to adipocere transformation because they contain more body fat.[1] In forensic science, the utility of adipocere formation to estimate the postmortem interval is limited because the speed of the process is temperature-dependent. It is speeded up by warmth, but temperature extremes impede it.[1]
[edit] Footnotes
1. ^ a b c d e f Murad, Turhon A. (2008). "Adipocere". in Ayn Embar-seddon, Allan D. Pass (eds.). Forensic Science. Salem Press. pp. 11. ISBN 978-1587654237.
2. ^ Pain, Stephanie (01 January 2009). "What killed Dr Granville's mummy?". New Scientist (2687). http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026877.000-what-killed-dr-granvilles-mummy.html.
3. ^ "Decomposition: What is grave wax?". http://www.deathonline.net/decomposition/body_changes/grave_wax.htm. Retrieved 2009-08-18.
The latest is in Kyrgyzstan
Those worshipping the false god of ethnicity have unleashed a reign of terror which has left more than thousand dead, by eyewitness accounts. More than a 100,000 have taken refuge in neighboring Uzbekistan.
That is not the only place where false gods are being worshipped. The US worships the false god of "our way of life", and thinks that entitles it to wage wars against hapless civilians worldwide.
The Israelis worship the false god who they say gave them the land now called Palestine, and think this gives them the right to blockade , starve and even directly murder those not serving their god. Their god is not YHW, but Israel, or Zionism.
Many Indians (Hindus, Jains, Buddhists and Sikhs) worship a variety of false gods, almost everything under the sun, and most of their own making. Chief among these is being "Bharat Mata", which allows them to call the Muslim state of Kashmir as "an atote ang (unbreakable part) of Bharat Mata". This, of course in their opinion, gives them the right to rule Kashmir militarily.
"My country, my nation, my tribe, my sect, right or wrong", declare the modern-day worshipper of false gods.
Look at the Christians - most of them worship a Prophet of God as God Himself, declaring him as God's son, separate yet part of Him. In addition they have the holy ghost, a partner in the Trinity. Why three gods, why not five?
And this is where the Shia step in. Many of them worship five gods - panjtane paak. The Ismailis have a living god - the Agha Khan.
The Catholics have a multitude of saints to worship). Are Muslims behind? You find shrines to "holy" men and women, where all acts that can be described as acts of worship take place. Where the injunctions of God and His last Prophet (saw) are openly defied.
Then there are gods of secularism - nationalism, ethnicity, class, way of life, money, pursuit of happiness, carnal pursuits, enjoyment - in fact the worship of one's desires, are all false gods.
Giving in to one's desires is one thing, not repenting, making it a way of life, finding excuses, or denying there will ever be a reckoning, is another.
May we all repent and come to the One and Only God.
Questions I have thought about a lot, but am still unable to find enough material to enlighten myself.
In early Islamic practice, exploitation of man by man was removed. All were equal in Islam - the ruler as well as the subject. There was no priesthood. Islam did not abolish employer and employee relationships, but it ordained a fair treatment.
Yet, down the line:
kalamullah.com/ is yet another wonderful and authentic site for downloading material (including learning-arabic) or learning the deen.
The relevant page for learning Arabic is http://www.kalamullah.com/learning-arabic.html
Here you will find many delightful downloads.
Yet another good and free site for Quranic Arabic. Online, and Files are also downloadable.
There are some quirks, though. Surah Falaq is spelt Falak here, the shadda is spelt sadda, Jajakallahu is spelt Zajakallahu, and the zeir (kasra) is spelt (jeir).
I suspect the website belongs to a Bengali. Some dialects of Bengali have this inversion of the pronunciation.
searchtruth.com is a wonderful authentic site. It has many features:
like English/Arabic/English dictionary etc.,
a list of alphabetically arranged Quran words,
when a word is selected, a display of Ayahs appears where that word occurs.
One thing I would like is a comprehensive search-able database of roots linked to words in the Quran.
Asim Iqbal is a wonderful person who has taken the trouble to gather free downloads from many sources, and provide these under his sites:
http://asimiqbal2nd.downloads.googlepages.com/
http://asimiqbal2nd.wordpress.com/
May Allah (Subhanahu wa Ta`ala) give him plenty jazae kheir for this effort.
When learning Arabic, verbs are considered the most difficult. There are two sites that allow one to create conjugation of Arabic verbs from the root letters:
The first site is: http://qutrub.arabeyes.org/index#options The free downloadable qutrub software is beta version. I have found some verbs that are in the Quran and textbooks of classical Arabic, but qutrub sometimes gives the message:
If anyone ever thought the US system of justice delivers justice, this case should open his/ her eyes.
http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=223448
| The truth about US justice |
 |
|
|
| Wednesday, February 10, 2010 By Yvonne Ridley Many of us are still in a state of shock over the guilty verdict returned on Dr Aafia Siddiqui. The response from the people of Pakistan was predictable and overwhelming and I salute their spontaneous actions. The truth about US justice From Peshawar to Islamabad, Karachi, Lahore and beyond they marched in their thousands demanding the return of Aafia. Even some of the US media expressed discomfort over the verdict returned by the jurors there was a general feeling that something was not right. Everyone had something to say, everyone that is except the usually verbose US Ambassador Anne Patterson who has spent the last two years briefing against Dr Aafia and her supporters. This is the same woman who claimed I was a fantasist when I gave a press conference with Tehrik-e-Insaf leader Imran Khan back in July 2008 revealing the plight of a female prisoner in Bagram called the Grey Lady. She said I was talking nonsense and stated categorically that the prisoner I referred to as “650” did not exist. By the end of the month she changed her story and said there had been a female prisoner but that she was most definitely not Dr Aafia Siddiqui. By that time Aafia had been gunned down at virtually point blank range in an Afghan prison cell jammed full of more than a dozen US soldiers, FBI agents and Afghan police. In a letter dripping in untruths on August 16, 2008, she decried the “erroneous and irresponsible media reports regarding the arrest of Aafia Siddiqui”. She went on to say: “Unfortunately, there are some who have an interest in simply distorting the facts in an effort to manipulate and inflame public opinion. The truth is never served by sensationalism.” When Jamaat Islami invited me on a national tour of Pakistan to address people about the continued abuse of Dr Aafia and the truth about her incarceration in Bagram, the US ambassador continued to issue rebuttals. She assured us all that Dr Aafia was being treated humanely had been given consular access as set out in international law ... hmm. Well I have a challenge for Ms Patterson today. I challenge her to repeat every single word she said back then and swear it is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. As Dr Aafia Siddiqui’s trial got underway, the US ambassador and some of her stooges from the intelligence world laid on a lavish party at the US Embassy in Islamabad for some hand-picked journalists where I’ve no doubt in between the dancing, drinks and music they were carefully briefed about the so-called facts of the case. Interesting that some of the potentially incriminating pictures taken at the private party managed to find the ambassador was probably hoping to minimize the impact the trial would have on the streets of Pakistan proving that, for the years she has been holed up and barricaded behind concrete bunkers and barbed wire, she has learned nothing about this great country of Pakistan or its people. One astute Pakistani columnist wrote about her: “The respected lady seems to have forgotten the words of her own country’s 16th president Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865): “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.” When injustice is the law it is the duty of everyone to rise up and challenge that injustice in any way possible. The response -- so far -- has been restrained and measured but it is just the start. A sentence has yet to be delivered by Judge Richard Berman in May. Observers asked how the jury could ignore the science and the irrefutable facts ... there was absolutely no evidence linking Dr Aafia to the gun, no bullets, no residue from firing it. But I really don’t think we can blame the jurors for the verdict -- you see the jury simply could not handle the truth. Had they taken the logical route and gone for the science and the hard, cold, clinical facts it would have meant two things. It would have meant around eight US soldiers took the oath and lied in court to save their own skins and careers or it would have meant that Dr Aafia Siddiqui was telling the truth. And, as I said before, the jury couldn’t handle the truth. Because that would have meant that the defendant really had been kidnapped, abused, tortured and held in dark, secret prisons by the US before being shot and put on a rendition flight to New York. It would have meant that her three children -- two of them US citizens -- would also have been kidnapped, abused and tortured by the US. They say ignorance is bliss and this jury so desperately wanted not to believe that the US could have had a hand in the kidnapping of a five-month -old baby boy, a five-year-old girl and her seven-year-old brother. They couldn’t handle the truth ... it is as simple as that. Well I, and many others across the world like me, can’t handle any more lies. America’s reputation is lying in the lowest gutters in Pakistan at the moment and it can’t sink any lower. The trust has gone, there is only a burning hatred and resentment towards a superpower which sends unmanned drones into villages to slaughter innocents. It is fair to say that America’s goodwill and credibility is all but washed up with most honest, decent citizens of Pakistan. And I think even Her Excellency Anne Patterson recognizes that fact which is why she is now keeping her mouth shut. If she has any integrity and any self-respect left she should stand before the Pakistan people and ask for their forgiveness for the drone murders, the extra-judicial killings, the black operations, the kidnapping, torture and rendition of its citizens, the water-boarding, the bribery, the corruption and, not least of all, the injustice handed out to Dr Aafia Siddiqui and her family. She should then pick up the phone to the US president and tell him to release Aafia and return Pakistan’s most loved, respected and famous daughter and reunite her with the two children who are still missing. Then she should re-read her letter of August 16, 2008 and write another ... one of resignation. |
THE POWERFUL TESTIMONY OF Dr. Aafia Siddiqui
As captured by El-Hajj Mauri’ Saalakhan
Aafia Siddiqui – a daughter, a sister, a mother of three, committed Muslim, social scientist, hafiz of Qur’an – needed to be heard. For years she had suffered in virtual silence…aching to be heard, to be understood, to have certain malicious untruths corrected and exposed for the lies they were.
That day finally came on Thursday, January 28, 2010!
The high drama of that day’s proceedings revolved around the question of whether or not U.S. District Judge Richard Berman would grant Aafia’s repeated demand to take the stand in her own defense.
Aafia’s lawyers appeared to be animate in their opposition to her taking the stand, while the prosecution appeared (on the surface) to be in favor of Aafia being entitled to her Fifth Amendment right. Her brother (Muhammad) was apprehensive about her taking the stand, leaning more in favor of her following the advice of her lawyers. Even Pakistani Ambassador Hussain Haqqani became involved. During a short visit he was allowed with the defendant, he reportedly advised Aafia to follow the advice of her lawyers.
Aafia’s response to this collective concern was that she would make istiqhara (a supplication to ALLAH Almighty for guidance on the matter); and in the end Aafia Siddiqui would be heard.
While I understood the reservations of those who were concerned about Aafia taking the stand (given all that she had already been through), I fully supported our sister’s right to be heard, and was guardedly optimistic about the potential outcome. More than anything, however, I knew that Aafia – like two young Muslim men in an Atlanta courtroom, and several young Muslim men in a New Jersey courtroom (who were eager, but manipulated into not taking the stand in their own defense not long ago) – needed to be heard! Aafia needed to have her day in court!
The process began with a preliminary (test) examination, with Aafia taking the witness stand in the absence of the jury – a kind of hearing within a hearing – to see how she would respond to that type of intensive and focused examination. After the judge determined that she was capable enough to enjoy her constitutional “right” to take the stand in her own defense, the jury was brought back into the courtroom, and it was on. (And what truly spectacular courtroom drama it turned out to be!)
The following summary is based on my notes from January 28th
Open court proceedings began late in the morning, due to a number of procedural issues that needed to be addressed behind closed doors. Once proceedings began, it did so with the judge explaining Aafia’s right, and the possible risks, of her taking the stand. There was extensive discussion about the course and extent of cross examination should Aafia decide to testify.
The government’s support of Aafia taking the stand was full of irony, given the fact that the government had repeatedly argued (during pre-trial and trial proceedings) that Aafia should not even be allowed to remain in the courtroom, because of her periodic outbursts and “uncontrollable” nature (in their view).
The First Witness
It was noted by the government that over a 12 day period, while Aafia was at the Craig Field Hospital at Bagram for critical care medical treatment, following her near fatal re-arrest in July 2008, two FBI agents had continuous access to the injured prisoner (a male and female who did not identify themselves to Aafia as FBI personnel).
FBI Special Agent Angela Sercer was the first to testify. She spoke about how she interrogated Aafia on a daily basis for the purpose of gathering “intelligence.” She described how she sat with Aafia for an average of eight hours each day, and of how they discussed the shooting incident and other related matters (discussions she said Aafia would always initiate). Agent Sercer prepared written reports, and disclosed during testimony that Aafia was never Mirandized (i.e. informed of her rights to remain silent and consult with an attorney before questioning), nor did she have access to a Pakistani consular official.
According to Sercer, Aafia mostly enjoyed her discussions with this special agent. Sercer maintained that she treated Aafia with respect and did her best to respond to Aafia’s needs – i.e. when she requested food, water, bathroom access, or when she requested a Qur’an and a scarf, or when she would complain that the “soft restraints” were too tight and needed to be loosened, etc.
Between 7/19/-8/4/08, FBI agents were posted inside and outside Aafia’s room 24 hours a day, ostensibly to insure that Aafia could not escape and to provide security for hospital personnel – despite the “soft restraints” which secured her hands and legs to the bed (in what Aafia later described as very uncomfortable positions) during her stay at this field hospital in Bagram.
The second witness
The second agent to testify was FBI Special Agent Bruce Kamerman, who had reportedly been assigned on 7/21/08. He claimed that Aafia made numerous statements, that she seemed lucid and to not be in much pain. He also insisted that there was never any coercion. He testified that Aafia had no visitors, and that no Afghan staff attended to her. He also claimed that there were occasions when Aafia would declare that her children were dead, and other times when she stated they might be living with her sister.
Following the testimony of the second agent, a hearing within the trial was held so that Aafia could give testimony (in the absence of the jury).
Aafia testified that when she first realized she was in a hospital she had tubes everywhere. She was in a narcotic state resulting from the administration of powerful drugs (one or two she could remember by name, others she couldn’t). She recalled how her hands and feet were secured uncomfortably apart. She said the agents never identified themselves as FBI, except for “Mr. Hurley.”
Aafia accused Agent Bruce Kamerman of subjecting her to “psychological torture.” She accused him of being immodest whenever he was present and medical personnel needed to examine her, and complained of how he would stand right outside the bathroom door whenever she needed to use it. She testified that Kamerman would sometimes come in the middle of the night (when he wasn’t supposed to be there), and encourage the person assigned to take a break. Aafia said she remained in a sleep deprived state as a result of his frequent presence.
During this period she never had any contact with family, nor with any Pakistani authorities. She thought that [FBI Agent] “Angela was just a nice person.”
During the cross examination Aafia spoke about being “tortured in the secret prison,” and of how she kept asking about her children. She insisted that she never opined that they might be with her sister.
(I should note here that Aafia’s testimony was consistent with information contained on an audio CD that we’ve produced on the case. On the CD, former Bagram and Guantanamo prisoner Moazam Beg recounts how the un-identified female prisoner at Bagram, known only as Prisoner 650, was identified as a Pakistani national who appeared to be in her 30s, and as someone who had been torn away from her children and who didn’t know where they were.)
Aafia also testified that she had multiple gunshot wounds; and that in addition to the gunshot wounds she had a debilitating back condition (resulting from being thrown on the floor after she was shot), persistent headaches, and an intubation tube. She also emphasized that she was in and out of consciousness; and, at times, mentally incoherent.
The video testimony of an Afghan security chief (by the name of Qadeer) was received by the court. While I had to briefly leave the court, and missed this testimony, it is my understanding that what Qadeer had to say about events at the Afghan National Police station in Ghazni – leading up to the shooting of Aafia – contradicted the testimony of a number of the government’s main witnesses.
Later in the afternoon, when Aafia testified in front of the jury, the overflow courtroom (where I was seated) was full of observers. The majority appeared to be non-Muslims in professional attire – a probable mix of court and Justice Department personnel (including interns), law students, and a few journalists. I would estimate that roughly a quarter of the observers in this overflow courtroom were made up of solid Aafia supporters – and yet the reaction to the testimony at times was both interesting and edifying.
When I returned to the courtroom (about 10 minutes into Aafia’s testimony), she was describing her academic work leading up to the achievement of her PhD at Brandeis University. She testified that after completing her doctorate studies she taught in a school, and that her interest was in cultivating the capabilities of dyslexic and other special needs children.
During this line of questioning, the monstrous image that the government had carefully crafted (with considerable support from mainstream media) of this petite young woman, had begun to be deconstructed. The real Dr. Aafia Siddiqui – the committed muslimah, the humanity-loving nurturer and educator, the gentle yet resolute mujahid for truth and justice – began to emerge with full force.
Testimony then proceeded to the events of July 17-18, 2008. Aafia testified that she remembered being concerned about the whereabouts of her missing children. She also remembered a press conference in an Afghan compound.
She testified about being tied down to a bed until she vigorously protested, and was later untied and left behind a curtain. She later heard American and Afghan voices on the other side of the curtain, and concluded that they [Americans] wanted to return her to a “secret prison” again. She testified about how she had pleaded with the Afghans not to let the Americans take her away.
She testified about peaking through the curtain into the part of the room where Afghans and Americans were talking, and how when a startled American soldier noticed her, he jumped up and yelled that the prisoner had gotten loose, and shot her in the stomach. She described how she was also shot in the side by a second person. She also described how after falling back onto the bed in the room, she was violently thrown to the floor and lost consciousness.
She testified that she was in and out of consciousness, and vaguely recalled being placed on a stretcher, a helicopter, and receiving a blood transfusion – which she protested, drawing laughter in the courtroom when she recounted how she had “threatened to sue” her medical attendants if they gave her a blood transfusion. During this testimony, Aafia animatedly rejected the allegation that she picked up a [M-4] rifle and fired it (or that she even attempted to do so).
The Cross Examination
This is the time when every eye and every ear was riveted on the proceedings. It was the moment that Aafia’s defense attorneys, her brother, and a host of Muslim and non-Muslim supporters (seated within both courtrooms) dreaded. It was also the point in the proceedings that had the prosecution salivating for what opportunities would come there way – or so they thought!
Cross examination began with Aafia revisiting the degrees that she received at MIT and Brandeis universities. She acknowledged that she took a required course in molecular biology; but emphasized that her work was in cognitive neuroscience. When questioned on whether she had ever done any work with chemicals, her response was, “only when required.”
(This opening line of questioning was significant for its prejudice producing potential in the minds of jurors. While Aafia is not being charged with any terrorism conspiracy counts, the threat of terrorism has been the pink elephant in the room throughout this troubling case!)
The prosecutor attempted to draw a sinister correlation between Aafia and her [then] husband being questioned by the FBI in 2002, and leaving the U.S. a week later. Aafia noted that there wasn’t anything sinister about the timing; they had already planned to make that trip home before the FBI visit. To underscore this point, she noted how she later returned to the U.S. to attempt to find work in her field.
One of the most heart-wrenching moments in the cross-examination was when Aafia described how she was briefly re-united with a young boy in Ghazni (July 2008) who could have been her oldest son. She spoke of how she was mentally in a daze at that time, and had not seen any of her children in five years. As a result she could not definitively (than or now) determine if that was indeed her son, Ahmed.
When asked whether she had incriminating documents in her possession on the day she was arrested, Aafia testified that the bag in her possession on the day that she was re-detained was given to her. She didn’t know what was in the bag, nor could she definitively determine if the handwriting on some of the documents was hers or not. She also mentioned on a number of occasions (to the chagrin of the prosecutor) how she was repeatedly tortured by her captors at Bagram.
She was also questioned on whether she had taken a pistol course at a firing range while a student in Boston. Her initial reaction was that she did not have any recollection of taking such a course, and when pressed further, answered “No.” When the prosecutor continued to press the issue (infusing sinister motivations in the process), Aafia admonished the prosecutor in the strong, clear voice that was heard throughout her testimony: “You can’t build a case on hate; you should build it on fact!”
Aafia testified that all she was thinking about at the time of her re-arrest in Ghazni, was “getting out of that room and not being sent back to the secret prison.” While discussions were going on between the Afghans and Americans, Aafia was searching for a way out. She repeated her assertion that she startled one of the soldiers who hollered, “She’s free! – before shooting her.
Aafia also elicited an approving reaction in the courtroom when she opined, in reaction to the government’s narration of events, she could not believe a soldier would be so irresponsible as to leave his M4 rifle on the floor unsecured.
In response to government questioning she again took the opportunity to strongly rebuke Agent Kamerman, while rejecting most of his testimony revisited by the prosecutor.
Aafia spoke highly of a number of nurses (and a doctor) who took care of her at Bagram. There was one nurse in particular that Aafia promised to mention favorably if she ever wrote a book. She then produced laughter in the courtroom again when she stated, “Since I don’t think I’m going to write a book, I’m mentioning her now.”
One of the most powerful and revealing moments in the testimony was when she spoke about the people who systematically abused her in the “secret prison” – denouncing them as “fake Americans, not real Americans.” (Because of the way their actions both violated and damaged America’s image!)
She spoke again, under cross examination, about the strong pain medication she was on, and some of the effects this medication had on her.
Aafia also mentioned how she was instructed to translate and copy something from a book while she was secretly imprisoned. During the course of this testimony which repeatedly drew the ire of an increasingly frustrated prosecutor, Aafia noted how she can now understand how people can be framed (for crimes they are not guilty of).
At this point in the proceedings, the judge ordered a brief recess. Clearly the government had thought that they would be able to control and manipulate Aafia in manner that would work in their favor; this ended up being a MAJOR MISCALCULATION. The purpose of this break in the proceedings, in my humble opinion, was to allow the prosecutor to regain her composure, and consult with fellow prosecutors for a more effective line of attack.
When testimony resumed, Aafia spoke of how she was often forced-fed information from one group of persons at the secret prison, and then made to regurgitate the same information before a different group of inquisitors. While it was presented to her as a type of “game,” she spoke of how she would be “punished” if she got something wrong.
On defense cross, Aafia was shown pictures and asked to identify herself in them. She reluctantly did so, but with a little levity, citing how unattractive and immodest the photos were.
I could not see the photos from the overflow courtroom where I was sitting, but I assume that these were the photos of an un-covered, emaciated and emotionally disfigured Aafia Siddiqui – after her horrific ordeal at the hands of American terrorists.
A final note: I sincerely believe that Aafia Siddiqui’s time spent on the witness stand on January 28th was a cathartic experience for her – but one that the prosecution, in retrospect, now deeply regrets. For any truly objective and fair-minded person who witnessed that day’s proceedings, the U.S Government’s case against Aafia Siddiqui was exposed for what it always was…a horrific and profoundly tragic miscarriage of justice!
The struggle continues…
El-Hajj Mauri’ Saalakhan
The organisation baitul Quran has more publications than the ones shown on its website: bait-ul-quran.org
These are for understanding the Quran without using terminology of Arabic Grammar. The language of teaching is Urdu. There are two main publications:
1. meftahul Quran, which describes the function of various indicators (alamaat) in a word, and how each indicator is used in the Quranic Arabic. The indicator (alamat) is shown in red.
Allah's Quran and tanzil.info are two sites that provide the Quran is various Arabic scripts/fonts, translations of the meanings, recitations, searches, etc. Admittedly these are also provided by many other sites, some with a greater variety than in these two sites. However, an attractive feature of these two is search by roots.
There is a database of roots on both these sites. By selecting a root and hitting the search button, one gets the ayahs containing words derived from these roots. These words are displayed in red. The tanzil.info site also has other refined search capabilities.
The Quran Corpus is an annotated linguistic resource which shows the Arabic grammar, syntax and morphology for each word in the Holy Quran. Clicking on an Arabic word shows details of the word's grammar, or a correction may be suggested. One of the features is the Quranic Syntactic Treebank. An example is given below:
understandquran.com claims to teach most of the Arabic of the Quran (more than 70% words) without using too much grammatical terms, in 52 lessons. Two supporting sites provide practice of the 80% words and are:
East,
Were Afghan Children Executed By US-led Forces?Why Aren't The Media Interested?
By Media Lens
January 16, 2010 "Media Lens" -- Ignoring or downplaying Western crimes is a standard feature of the corporate Western media. On rare occasions when a broadcaster or newspaper breaks ranks and reports 'our' crimes honestly, it is instructive to observe the response from the rest of the media. Do they follow suit, perhaps digging deeper for details, devoting space to profiles of the victims and interviews with grieving relatives, humanising all concerned? Do they put the crimes in perspective as the inevitable consequence of rapacious Western power? Or do they look away?
One such case is a report that American-led troops dragged Afghan children from their beds and shot them during a night raid on December 27 last year,
leaving ten people dead. Afghan government investigators said that eight of the dead were schoolchildren, and that some of them had been handcuffed before being killed. Kabul-based Times correspondent Jerome Starkey reported the shocking accusations about the joint US-Afghan operation. But the rest of the UK news media have buried the report.
After details of the massacre first emerged, Afghan President Karzai sent a team of investigators to the alleged scene of the atrocity in the village of Ghazi Kang in eastern Kunar province. Assadullah Wafa, a former governor of Helmand province, led the investigation. He told The Times that US soldiers flew to Kunar from Kabul, implying that they were part of a special forces unit:
"At around 1 am, three nights ago, some American troops with helicopters left Kabul and landed around 2km away from the village. The troops walked from the helicopters to the houses and, according to my investigation, they gathered all the students from two rooms, into one room, and opened fire." (Jerome Starkey, 'Western troops accused of executing 10 Afghan civilians, including children', The Times, December 31, 2009; http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/Afghanistan/article6971638.ece)
Wafa continued:
"I spoke to the local headmaster. It's impossible they were al-Qaeda. They were children, they were civilians, they were innocent. I condemn this attack."
The Times reporter interviewed the headmaster who told him that the victims were asleep in three rooms when the troops arrived:
"Seven students were in one room. A student and one guest were in another room, a guest room, and a farmer was asleep with his wife in a third building.
"First the foreign troops entered the guest room and shot two of them. Then they entered another room and handcuffed the seven students. Then they killed them. Abdul Khaliq [the farmer] heard shooting and came outside. When they saw him they shot him as well. He was outside. That's why his wife wasn't killed."
A local elder told the Times reporter: "I saw their school books covered in blood."
The dead children were aged from 11 to 17.
In Kabul, the massacre sparked demonstrations with protesters holding up banners showing photographs of dead children alongside placards demanding "Foreign troops leave Afghanistan" and "Stop killing us".
Nato's International Security Assistance Force told The Times that there was "no direct evidence to substantiate" Wafa's claims that unarmed civilians were harmed in what it described as a "joint coalition and Afghan security force" operation. The spokesperson claimed:
"As the joint assault force entered the village they came under fire from several buildings and in returning fire killed nine individuals."
The slippery military response did not even get the number of victims right: it was ten, not nine.
Jerome Starkey published a follow-up report, recounting President Karzai's vain plea for the gunmen to face justice. ('Karzai demands that US hands over raiders accused of village atrocity', The Times, January 1, 2010).
But the rest of the British media appear to have shown virtually zero interest in either refuting or confirming the report of schoolchildren being executed. As far as our media searches can determine, there were only three press reports in major UK newspapers that mentioned it; and even then, only in passing.
In a brief weekly news digest, the Sunday Telegraph devoted 45 words to accusations of the atrocity, repeating the propaganda version of it as "a raid in which US forces shot dead 10 people at a suspected bomb factory." (Walter Hemmens and Alex Singleton, 'The Week; that was', Sunday Telegraph, January 3, 2010).
A 136-word item in the Mirror led, not with accusations of the execution of schoolchildren, but with the deaths of American civilians killed elsewhere in a suicide attack at a military base in Afghanistan (Stephen White, 'Base blast kills Eight US civilians', The Mirror, January 2, 2010).
The Guardian spared 28 words at the end of a report on the death of a British bomb disposal expert to note that: "The Afghan government says that 10 people were killed, including eight schoolchildren, in a village in eastern Kunar province in a night raid by international forces last weekend." (Adam Gabbatt, 'British bomb disposal expert dies after Afghan blast: "His sacrifice and courage will not be forgotten": Death brings the total toll to 245 since war began' Guardian, January 2, 2009). As ever, the headline summed up the priorities precisely: British lives count; Afghan lives are of lesser importance.
To the corporate media's shame, it was left to the US-based journalist Amy Goodman to interview Times correspondent Jerome Starkey on her excellent independent news programme, Democracy Now! The programme reported that a preliminary investigation by the United Nations reinforced Afghan claims that most of the dead were schoolboys. (Jerome Starkey interviewed by Amy Goodman, 'US-Led Forces Accused of Executing Schoolchildren in Afghanistan', Democracy Now!, January 6, 2010; http://www.democracynow.org/2010/1/6/us_led_forces_accused_of_executing)
Goodman asked Starkey what had been the response of NATO forces to the allegations. He said
"Well, initially, US and NATO forces here were very slow to say anything at all, and that possibly reflects the most secret nature of this raid. The fact that, according to Afghan investigators, these troops appear to have flown to the scene from Kabul appears to confirm speculation that this was an operation carried out by some sort of Special Forces unit, possibly even by some sort of paramilitary unit attached to one of the intelligence agencies, the foreign intelligence agencies, which operate occasionally out of the capital."
Starkey emphasised again that he had spoken to the headmaster who had given him the names and school registration numbers of all of the dead pupils. An additional tragic detail was that the headmaster was an uncle of the eight children.
The Times correspondent was candid that it had not proven possible to verify all of the details of the reported massacre:
"Given the nature of the environment, we haven't been able to travel there ourselves, and we've been relying on telephone interviews with people who are there and people who've visited the scene."
But he also made it clear that the US-led occupation authorities were giving out very little information, and had refused Afghan requests to provide details of the gunmen or to hand the men over.
The reported events are sickening. But we have been unable to find a single mention of the alleged atrocity on the BBC website. We emailed news editors at the BBC, ITN and Channel 4 News, asking why they had not reported these serious allegations of schoolchildren being executed in a US-led operation. None of them have replied. The lack of interest shown by the British news media in pursuing this story is damning indeed.
The famous maxim of the three wise monkeys who 'See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil' is an apt description of the corporate media's response to evidence for Western atrocities.
SUGGESTED ACTION
The goal of Media Lens is to promote rationality, compassion and respect for others. If you do write to journalists, we strongly urge you to maintain a polite, non-aggressive and non-abusive tone.
Mark Thompson, BBC director general
Email: mark.thompson@bbc.co.uk
Helen Boaden, BBC news director
Email: helenboaden.complaints@bbc.co.uk
Please send a copy to the Chair of the BBC Trust which is responsible for ensuring that the BBC upholds its obligations to the public:
Michael Lyons
Email: michael.lyons@bbc.co.uk
David Mannion, editor-in-chief, ITV News
Email: david.mannion@itn.co.uk
Jim Gray, editor, Channel 4 News
Email: jim.gray@itn.co.uk
A fuller list of media contacts can be found at:
http://www.medialens.org/contacts/
Please copy your emails to us
Email: editor@medialens.org
WILL THE REAL CIA PLEASE STAND UP?
By Gordon Duff STAFF WRITER/Senior Editor
Were the seven CIA employees killed in the recent terror attack at Camp Chapman in Afghanistan really CIA? Sources now tell us that some were Blackwater operatives, not CIA at all.
Is the CIA and Blackwater one in the same? Are either one or both working for the United States or has the disease of privatization created a culture of greed and incompetence that has left the United States vulnerable and defenseless? Are we simply "out of our depth" in Afghanistan?
WHO IS PULLING THE STRINGS?
Blackwater/Xe is a multinational corporation with endless divisions who, not only work for the CIA but governments and intelligence agencies around the world. No one has ever successfully penetrated their cover organizations to find who they really are or who they really represent. The Blackwater operations run from Camp Chapman could have been for anyone, Iran, Israel, India or one of their dozens of clients.
We don't know, the CIA certainly doesn't know, nobody knows. Was the attack that killed Americans an attack on the CIA, an attack on Blackwater or a carryover from a local drug war? All we do know is that everything we have been told is subterfuge and not necessarily meant to serve the intelligence and security interests of the United States of America.
The secret base in eastern Khost province in Afghanistan is in an area convenient to move personnel and "other things" in and out of Pakistan. The base itself is supposed to be designated for the use of USAID, a division of the State Department meant to aid foreign governments but which has been a front for covert operations for decades, one of the worst kept secrets in the world.
The camp itself is guarded by Afghani tribesmen, not US personnel. No information about their ethnic affiliations, training or qualifications is available. However, the idea of a highly secure CIA compound being guarded under such circumstances is an absurdity beyond human comprehension.
American military and civilian operations inside Afghanistan have proven to be utterly incapable of finding any group within Afghanistan to work with that is free of penetration by Taliban elements. Many lives have been lost already from numerous incidents of Afghani military, police and security personnel turning on American allies.
THE REAL FACE OF TERRORISM
The region of Camp Chapman is a staging area for terrorist operations, not only against Americans in Afghanistan but against Pakistan as well. Some of the terrorist groups are working for India and Israel, some for the Taliban and, frankly, most are working for both.
America and the CIA are totally out of their depth, ill informed, uninformed and being played, not only by our supposed Kabul allies, but by India, Israel and our private contractors who are playing both sides against the middle.
BLACKWATER AND PAKISTAN
Camp Chapman, now identified as a Blackwater command post near the Pakistan border has an unclear mission. Continual reports coming out of Pakistan indicate that Blackwater and/or other US contracting firms have become involved in criminal activities and terrorism.
Top Pakistani military analyst, Brigadier General Asif Haroon Raja has tied Blackwater and other US contractors to the assassination of Pakistani army officers, attacks on government installations and ties to terrorist groups who have killed hundreds of civilians.
Raja has indicated that, rather than being employed as CIA contractors in search of high profile terrorists, these contractors are working with, among others Israel and India coordinating terrorist operations meant to destabilize the government of Pakistan, America's only military ally in the region.
If US contractors are working inside Pakistan, under cover of the CIA but actually serving the intelligence services of India or Israel, primary enemies of Pakistan, but also countries who are doing nothing to aid the US in Afghanistan, this would represent a serious threat to US security.
It has been reported that US personnel have been arrested carrying explosives and weapons near Pakistani nuclear facilities. Are they working for Israel or are they working for Iran? How would we know?
WHAT DRUGS?
Is there a danger in having unsupervised privateer mercenary operators working in the midst of the world's largest narcotics production area? What if such a company also owned private airlines that can fly from country to country without any supervision by customs or drug enforcement organizations?
With the press filled with reports of organized crime activities tied to mercenary contractors working for the US in Iraq and Afghanistan, reports of murder, drug running, money laundering and arms smuggling, is there some possibility that tying groups involved in these acts to CIA intelligence gathering capabilities a poor strategy for success?
Why are the papers filled with accusations of every imaginable crime from mowing down civilians with automatic weapons to blowing up mosques and yet no mention of the remote possibility of participation in the regions $50 billion plus per year drug industry?
In fact, is participation in drug production, smuggling and related money laundering the only real secret we seem to be keeping?
THE BUSINESS OF FAILURE
America mourns 7 dead citizens, victims of an attack, maybe terrorism, maybe "business," now uncertain as to who were loyal Americans and who were private contractors working for the highest bidder. CIA secrecy keeps us from knowing our heroic dead. Criminal absurdity keeps us from knowing the truth.
Decades ago, the CIA got involved with the Mafia in an attempt to assassinate Fidel Castro, someone who has outlived everyone sent to kill him.
We are told that we never hear of the successes, only the failures. However, the failures are of such a devastating and catastrophic nature, the communist takeover of Cuba, the fall of Iran and the Iran/Contra scandal, the Chile coup, bungled buddies: Noriega and bin Laden, the Russian coup against Gorbachev, Vietnam, 9/11, the Ames spy case, the Iraq War, Afghanistan and so many others, that the "secret successes" are unlikely to measure up.
What could possibly be done to take a failed organization and make it worse? We only need to sit and watch, you can be assured that everything possible, humanly and otherwise, will be done as it always has.
Is it possible that decades of claimed incompetence and bungling is simply a cover for serving masters other than the United States of America? Can 70 years of consorting with dictators, swindlers, gangsters, war criminals, drug lords and politicians have blurred the CIA's vision?
WIll the real CIA please stand up
CIA Killings Spell Defeat In Afghanistan
By Douglas Valentine
January 08, 2010 "Information Clearing House" -- Why?
“Why?” The grieving family members ask. “Why did the terrorists kill our loved ones?”
The hardnosed colleagues of the four fallen CIA officers comfort the wives and children (and one husband). They shake off their sorrow, huddle together by the graves, and vow vengeance. They bathe themselves in their seething anger like it was the blood of the lamb.
Why? The American public and its officials ask. Why? The media repeats, adding in shock and awe, “Don’t the terrorists know that you can’t kill CIA officers?”
Why, everyone wonders, did a Jordanian suicide bomber target the CIA, knowing that the wrath of the biggest, baddest, bloodthirstiest Gang on Planet Earth is going to start dropping bombs and slitting throats until its lust for death and suffering is satisfied?
Over the course of its sixty year reign of terror, in which it has overthrown countless governments, started countless wars costing countless lives, and otherwise subverted and sabotaged friends and foes alike, the CIA has lost less than 100 officers.
On a good day, one CIA drone, and one CIA hit team, kills 100 innocent women and children, and nobody bats an eye.
...
Don't they know you can't kill CIA officers?
by Ghali Hassan
30 June, 2009
Countercurrents.org
“The sooner the extremists are isolated and unwelcome in Muslim communities, the sooner we will all be safer”.
U.S. President Barack Obama, Cairo, June 04, 2009.
According to U.S. leaders and their Zionist handlers, the term “extremist” is any nation or movement resisting U.S.-Israel domination and murderous ideology is defamed and deemed extremist. Whether in Afghanistan, in Iraq or in Pakistan, the extremists are part of the U.S. strategy to justify wars of aggression.
The Muslim world is not, repeat not, at war with the West. It is the West that is at war with Muslim nations. Neither Afghanistan nor Iraq attacked the U.S. and its allies.
In 2001, Afghanistan was invaded and occupied because the U.S. accused the former Afghani government (known in the West as the “Taliban”) of harbouring “al-Qaeda” extremists even when al-Qaeda never took responsibility for the 9/11 attack on the U.S. When the Afghani government offered to apprehend those extremists on behalf of the U.S. if the Bush regime provided the evidence against them, the U.S. refused the offer and embarked on a murderous and illegal war of aggression.
Today, al-Qaeda is a card played when it serves Western imperialist interests.
The real reason for the invasion was the Taliban turning down the California based United Oil of Californis (Unocal) pipeline project from Tajekistan to Pakistan in favor of a South American one.
...
Ghali Hassan is an independent writer living in Australia.
America's War With Muslim Nations
I have just been banned from jannah.org forum
Of late the sweet young lady running that forum has been turning into an apologist for US special status claims.
Well, she is welcome to this freedom. However, such freedom is not available to dissenters on her forum, not any more.
I don't grudge her this banning. Life in non-Muslim countries is harsh for Muslims, with the media and society and agencies all ballistic about the Islamic threat (!). Muslims engaged in Dawah work cannot tolerate the view that non-Muslim militaries and intelligence agencies are fair targets. It makes them susceptible to charges of unpatriotic and subversive attitudes.
Good luck to jannah and her efforts to survive in the jungle that is the United States of America.
Now about the confused part:
This is not about ABCD or BBCD - American Born or British Born Confused Desis. Those are outdated terms.
This is about those Muslims who confuse Jihad with Terrorism.
There have been many Muslims who were so incensed with the non-Muslim invasions, occupations and overall treatment of Muslims that they resorted to or sided with terrorist techniques - bombings of places of worship, killings of non-combatant civilians etc. They forgot the injunctions against taking innocent lives.
In time they graduated to killing of fellow Muslims. This has resulted in a violence within Muslim societies for which at present there seems no end in sight.
Apologists will claim that this is the doing of non-Muslim agent provocateurs. In some cases this is true, but in many cases it is not. Even where it is true, they have found among Muslims people who have been willing to resort to these techniques.
This has been a grave mistake among many Muslims who see freedom from occupying non-Muslim powers as justifying any means. Some have a hatred of non-Muslim powers due to a colonial past, and this hatred makes them unable to see the true path.
Then there is the opposite end of the spectrum. Many Muslims living in the West have been subjected to such discrimination and insecurity that they have had to adopt the non-Muslim establishment view of Jihad as terrorism.
Attacking the military, intelligence or mercenaries of an occupying power is a valid form of resistance. And why should this resistance be restricted to the territory under occupation? Why should an occupying power have the freedom to hunt its opponents everywhere in the world, but those under occupation be limited to their own territory?
Answers please.
