An independent Scotland won’t join an American/RUK coalition to defeat Islamic State, the Scottish First Minister has just said.
Responding to a question from Laurence Lee of Al Jazeera, Mr Salmond said in a press conference today that Scotland would only support military action against Islamic State if it were sanctioned by the United Nations. Presenting this as a ‘lawful’ way of going about things, it rules out action specifically requested by Iraq and puts an impossible obstacle in the way of intervention.
‘We will only participate in military action which has been sanctioned by the United Nations in accordance with international law,’ the First Minister said.
Mr Salmond added: ‘It is a vital matter and one in which we are being successful that we hold our own communities together in a difficult international circumstance’. He went on to say that the Muslim community of Scotland are ‘a vital part of our community and are not in any way responsible for the atrocities of the Islamic State and indeed have roundly condemned such atrocities in forthright terms.’
Community cohesion was an interesting context into which to place his opposition to action against Islamic State.
THE PURPOSE OF THE UNITED NATIONS
Mr Salmond raised the matter of the illegal invasion of Iraq, saying quite rightly that there was no United Nations sanction for it.
The need for a United Nations resolution would be perfectly valid in the context of the invasion of a sovereign state by another sovereign state, as was the case with the US/UK invasion of Iraq. The UN was founded to prevent war in the wake of the destruction of World War II. The UN Charter prohibits member states of the UN attacking other UN member states. That is central to its purpose. The United Nations deals, well or badly according to one’s perspective, with affairs between nations, or criticises or supports the actions of nations.
It can also call for peace between rival factions in a sovereign state or call for stability, as it did in Resolution 2103 over instability in Guinea-Bissau. In Resolution 1701, it called for the withdrawal by Israel from Lebanon. Calls in the Resolution for the cessation of hostilities by Hezbollah against Israel and the territorial integrity of Lebanon were inserted at the request of those country’s allies balanced the resolution.But the rise of Islamic State, a rogue army arising and invading sovereign states, is quite different. There seems to be little precedent for a United Nations resolution for military action against some rag-bag international movement, however powerful or well-funded it is. (Check out this list of recent UN resolutions)
If a sovereign state requests the help of another state in an internal emergency such as the one faced by Iraq, and is not doing anything remotely hostile against its own citizens, that state does not appear, under international law, to require the permission of the United Nations to come to its aid. That is why people who were completely opposed to the invasion of Iraq, such as ourselves, are strongly calling for the UK and the US to help Iraq with military intervention against Islamic State now.
There is a big difference between the two and it is strange that Mr Salmond cannot see that.
SCOTLAND WILL FIDDLE WHILE IRAQ BURNS
Given that Iraq has actually asked the United States and the United Kingdom for military assistance against Islamic State, Mr Salmond is saying that Scotland will not help the Iraqi government to recover land lost to the Christians around Mosul, ancient Nineveh, even though the Iraqi government has requested it. Scotland will insist on a United Nations resolution. Of course Scotland would not immediately be a member of the UN in any case, and would need to apply, as Israel did in 1948, and a resolution on defeating Islamic State in Iraq will not be forthcoming.
So an independent Scotland under Salmond will fiddle while Iraq burns. That is very sad if it is indicative of future foreign policy of an independent Scotland under Mr Alex Salmond.
Find out how to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings (clicking on the link below does not commit you to join)
Please note that persons wishing to comment on this story must enter a valid email address. Comments from persons leaving fictitious email addresses will be trashed.
That says all about Alex Salmond
The position of Mr Salmond is quite correct. ISIS like Al Queda, one of its predecessors, is the creation of the West and its Sunni Wahabi ally Saudi Arabia. Financed by Saudi and trained in Jordan and Turkey by the CIA/ Mossad and their affiliated mercenary companies, ISIS is a geopolitical tool of the West set up to overthrow the regime of Assad. Having failed to achieve its objectives, it moved to Iraq.
Obama and the UK proposed bombings of Iraq will not rescue Christians or even stop ISIS. The proposed bombing of the sovereign state of Syria is illegal. ISIS will be stopped only by cutting off their finance and training.
You are right about bombing in Syria, which is why the UK Government must talk to and work with President Assad.
But we are talking about action in Iraq at their invitation, not in Syria.
So even though all you say about the creation of ISIS may be spot on, Mr Salmond is wrong to demand a UN resolution before lifting a Scottish finger to help the people of Iraq.
Surely he has a point.
Why rush into more foreign military adventures when we know that this tragedy was completely avoidable but for H.M.G role in:
a) Deposing Saddam Hussein (who was a secular bulwark against Sunni Al Qaeda and as a strongman was the only leader capable of preventing the ARTIFICIALLY CONSTRUCTED nation of Iraq from flying apart into ethnic strife).
b) Creating the Sunni army of ISIS (along with USA, Israel, Qatar and Saudi Arabia) with a view to destabilizing the Shiite crescent of Iran-Syria-Hezbollah in a classic Sunni v Shiite divide and conquer strategy. Assad of Syria incidentally was also a secular bulwark against SUNNI Al Qaeda (ISIS predecessor!).
Exactly what business did we have visiting such great evil upon these 2 nations?
And why should more British lives, limbs or taxes be expended on a problem that has been deliberately created by the British government?
More precisely this is exactly what happens when you have a foreign policy that has nothing to do with British national interests and is instead being driven by the A.I.P.A.C.–NEOCON–Israel firsters ethnic matrix that controls the US government.
What needs to be addressed is our foreign policy –it is absolutely insane–and unless addressed urgently will lead us into a WW3 scenario–probably by Christmas!
Scotland is one of the most secular countries in the world. As well as England. Well secular and atheist as long as prosperity is high…wait for the next shake and see how they bow to Lord Christ. It all confirms what Christ said about rich people.
You want to see real Christians? Go to Syria, Egypt or Iraq. Or Russia, Orthodox countries. Or Southern US.
Stephen, Obama has declared that the USA will bomb both Syria and Iraq. However given that the British Government was instrumental in the creation of ISIS and indeed created the collapse of the Iraqi state on the basis of proven deception and lies, further destruction of the country is not the answer. All the British Government needs to do is order their Saudi client to stop financing and weaponising ISIS and in addition stop recruiting for them.
The actions of the British Government are not about saving Christians for whom the atheist House of Commons has no interest. It is a pretext for obtaining control of oil resources and limiting but not destroying ISIS which is effectively a NATO mercenary force.
Here Stephen is the latest from Russia’s foreign minister:
http://rt.com/news/186356-lavrov-syria-bombing-west/
It reads how U.S. air strikes against ISIS in Syria will actually target President Assad military assets so that ISIS can advance!!
Apart from Syria being completely destroyed the Christian community will be massacred!!
“Scotland will fiddle while Iraq burns.” Unfortunately, Iraq was burned down a decade or so ago, by UK and US bombers. Tens of thousands of innocents were murdered by the bombers and the country is still in ruins. ISIS are a bunch of ruthless killers but a great part of the problem lies with the west, particularly the UK and USA who believe that they are the guardians of peace and the dispenser of justice. The above states, and others like them, are hated by the very fanatics they have had a hand in creating. They are part of the problem, not the solution.
As a Scottish Christian I fully support Alex Salmond’s stance on this
I guess not every Christian cares about our persecuted brothers and sisters.
Bombing other countries is not the way to demonstrate care for other Christians.
That’s very true, unless smart bombs are smart enough only to damage the bodies and possessions of people who are actually harming the Christians, and unfortunately they are not.
It is not difficult to take out tanks and artillery which IS have plundered from the Iraqi army. And yes, K Wilson, killing their aggressors is a very good way of showing compassion to our brothers and sisters. You, of course, put in the form of ‘bombing other countries’ as if we are suggesting war against Iraq or Syria. You know full well that is not what is being proposed here. Iraq have asked for military assistance and in the case of Syria, our government will have to work with President Assad.
This is all my eye and behind Betty Martin, because Scotland CAN’T lift a finger to help the people of Iraq militarily. It hasn’t got a finger to lift. Even after they have voted Yes AND eventually the Act of Union has been repealed and other arrangements have been agreed, which is likely to take some two years, they won’t have any more international power in the Middle East than San Marino has.
Speaking in the Commons last Wednesday John Redwood MP advised that ‘.. a great victory must be certain to prevent the re-emergence of a greater evil’. This nation first went to war against Iraq nearly twenty-five years ago and again eleven years ago: we seem to have contributed to unleashing the forces of evil without seeing any stable result in Iraq. Now its Christian minority, whose origins predate Islam and that were tolerated under Saddam’s regime, are being persecuted
This morning I was watching a video of Ted Cruz speaking at a convention about protecting Christians in the Middle East. He related to his audience that support of Christians should be no different than support of Israel and Jews. The audience booed him. He then stated that if these Christians in the audience were so full of hate for Israel and Jews, then he could not support them.
In relation to your comment about Christians in the Middle East you might not truly understand that they are a breed apart from other Christians. Many times I have had trouble with the idealisms of British, European and Scandinavian Christians being so very different from that of American and Canadian Christians. Many Christians in your neck of the woods refuse to support Israel, instead supporting Palestinian Muslims.
Perhaps we should all remember that very few Muslims will condemn ISIS and ISIL. More and more Muslims around the world are supportive of these Islamists. Anyone who believes that Saddam tolerated Christians and Jews certainly were not paying attention, but then most Westerners are oblivious of realities beyond their own countries problems.
Alex Salmond is just another political hack who is looking for supporters and will say anything to gain support. That Salmond’s Muslim comment was absurd and whoever K. Wilson is should get out and see the world before putting the foot in the mouth of such ridiculous rhetoric.
Why should/would anyone support Israel while it steals more and more land under Netanyahu’s fascistic coalition? Also, when Israel ethnically cleansed almost 1 million Palestinian Arabs from their villages and homes they didn’t distinguish between Muslim and Christian…So again why should anyone support a people who ethnically cleansed Christians from their lands?
Do you know the dictionary definition of ‘fascist’, by any chance?
If a fascist state is a one-party state, there can’t be a fascistic coalition. But there was more than one extreme right-wing party in Germany in the 1920s, so Hitler’s NSDAP was in a sense a coalition of them like Likud, and it worked at first with the support of more respectable elements in a sort of coalition against communism.
The Concise Oxford Dictionary has for fascism “an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government”.
Chambers refers to the original Italian fascists, but then has simply “rigid and intolerant enforcement of any doctrine”. Of the Italians, it says “characterised by extreme nationalism, militarism, anti-communism and restrictions on individual freedom”.
It’s all too easy and rather lazy to point a finger and say “fascist”, but I’m not convinced that it doesn’t apply quite well in this case, without even including a tendency to enlarge a state by taking over adjacent areas where people of a different nationality have lived before, sometimes with just a sprinkling of the fascists’ nationality.
Bcak in 2004 – gosh, 10 years ago!! – I was lunching with a prominent US bishop after morning service where he had been the guest preacher. His sermon had contained a very strong ‘Islam’ element….9/11 was very much still on their agenda.
He told me that earlier that year he had managed to get one-on-one interviews with the Pope, the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Patriarch, where the whole Muslim/Islam question was quickly focused.
“Well, what was the mood, Bill?” “In your typical Britsh manner, particularly you Nigel (I had met him before)….very interesting. In our more direct American “Mind-blowing”.
Now you can’t get better Christian intelligence than that….and just look what’s happened since!!!!
No more mumbling & stumbling, dancing around the mulberry bush & maypole, shall we/shan’t we….only very direct and positive action will wipe this curse off the map….and let’s clean up on the home front, starting with our northern towns and cities…..sad/horrid behaviour that has been festuring away for 60 years….shameful! No one is excused, and this includes the vicar!
Are you saying that the then Archbishop of Canterbury and Pope were in favour of wiping the curse of Islam off the map ? What exactly do you propose to do in our northern towns and cities ? You can hardly wipe Bradford off the map.
It may be that you don’t mean anything like that. I find your wording a little cryptic.
I tend to dissagree with the main bulk of opinion expressed regarding this article. Salmond and Scottish independence has left me cool and cynical aboput the whole political process in total. Attitudes stink on both sides of this debate ansd this is one where half truths predominate, along with an abject failure to recognize that we are in a war that could cost us dearly if we do not FIGHT this war.
As with Nazi germany in 1945, therte was only one solution: the military one. We were in that war long before 1939, but it was only then that, somewhat diffidently, we started to take some action, and how pathetic was that in the beginning??! We failed to face up to the Nazi threat. Similarly, we fail to face up to the threat of islamo-fascists in the Muslim world. You cannot negotiate with them. It is shear loonacy to think that we can. Nothing short of all out prolonged war will deal with this, and, yes, more British lives, now for a lot longer than the 2nd world war because we have been cowardly, andlacked any level of moral courage to face up to the reality of islamo-fascism. When will we ever bl—-dy well learn???!
In the 1930s, I don’t think we were in a position to airlift troops to countries like Czechoslovakia to protect them at all effectively. Similarly,although we did support Poland, it could only be with encouragement. How would we have got there to do anything else ? We could only intervene in France because of the geography, and this did little more than prove that we were not yet ready to help very much. America did not turn up in Europe until years later.
Germany was then and is now a state. Indeed a member of the League of Nations. ‘Islamic State’ is not a state (although, pace Philip Hammond, it is Islamic).
That’s true, but I was only purporting to reply to Mike lampard’s complaint that Britain did not intervene against Germany before 1939.
Actually, your argument here makes one stop and wonder about the nature of a battle with Islamic State. Wars with other states are a feature of history, but it’s not usual to go and fight a group of bandits in somebody else’s state. We don’t help defeat the Mafia or the Lords Resistance Army.
The Mafia is a gang, not an armed insurrection. I don’t know whether or not the UK is helping Uganda against LRA.
But I do now Iraq has asked the UK for help to defeat Islamic State.
Do we help in armed insurrections ? We didn’t help the French nobility fight the French Revolutionaries, although France is adjacent, and we’d often been there before. It would have been very much in the interests of the British ruling class at least to intervene, probably as it happens avoiding the long and costly Napoleonic Wars yet to come. There was even the horror of public beheadings, and strikingly different religious views, to spur on adventurous youths who might be led into foreign adventures and glory in opposing the revolutionaries with their quaint ideas.
As it happens, the British sent an expeditionary force across the Channel to fight alongside the Vendeans at the height of the Vendee war. It was kept in port in Guernsey by two weeks of unseasonable East winds. One of those quirks of history.
This article is posted on the website of US ex-presidential candidate Ron Paul
http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2014/september/13/neocons-revive-syria-%E2%80%98regime-change%E2%80%99-plan.aspx
It says that the real goal of the NEOCONS—– who control US foreign policy in the Middle East and who are calling for air strikes inside Syria against ISIS—–is not to destroy ISIS (who they have armed and financed for years) but to depose President Assad.
Just the latest exercise in deceit–all that has changed is the pretext to attack the Syrian regime—-last year it was the chemical weapons lie this year it is ISIS
It will be a bloodbath for the Syrian Christians and the people in general.
Hopefully Britain will finally distance itself from these NEOCONS and mainstream media will start telling the truth and stop media-hyping (fabricated?) incidents with a view to creating a pro-war consensus among the general public.
That is why we are urging the UK Government to swap sides in Syria.
Why should an independent Scotland get involved in the mess created by Washington and Westminster? Also an independent Scotland would no longer be part of the UK so technically Iraq wouldn’t have asked us, Scotland, for help.
More importantly why are ‘Christians’ becoming warmongers calling for military intervention? This form of right wing ‘Christianity’ that has been imported from across the pond is really no ‘Christianity at all. If we cast our minds back we will see that ‘Christian’ Zionism and Zionism in general told us that Saddam was behind 9/11 , was harbouring terrorists and was in possession of wmd’s all of which turned out to be lies and our actions in Iraq have set the middle East on fire and led us to where we are today…Did anyone care about the Christians in Iraq when the “peace loving coalition of the willing” were dropping bombs on them…or do we only get upset when it’s Islamic extremists who are doing the killing? Btw it was us, the UK and US who backed these terrorists with money and weapons in order to overthrow Assad in Syria and we also backed them in Libya.
We know all that. Except Christian Voice opposed the incursions into Iraq and Afghanistan and the destabilising of the Middle East.
Many who opposed those adventures are supporting action to help the Christians drive out IS and regain their lands.
Alex Salmond said that even if Iraq asked for help from Indy-Scotland he wouldn’t give it. That is shameful, in my view.
The bombing campaign proposed by the USA and UK is not about defending Christians. This is simply a pretext for intervention to secure oil resources in Iraq and overthrow the regime of Assad in Syria. The Western backed mercenaries of “Al Qeda”, “Syrian Rebels” failed to achieve their objective, the last false flag chemical weapons failed to trigger intervention and therefore Obama and Cameron hope to achieve the objective by using the defence of Christians and outrage at the staged beheadings to mobilise public opinion towards war.
Alex Salmond is no fool and he is quite aware that the proposed military intervention has nothing to do with saving Christians.
Most of that makes sense, except that the second and last sentences are, with all respect, complete nonsense.
The US already have access to the oil of Iraq. And Syria and their Russian and Chinese allies will not let the US and UK in if there is the slightest hint of them inadvertently bombing President Assad’s assets.
As for the last sentence, that is not at all what Alex Salmond said.
Stephen, that is a very naive view. The Chemical weapons false flag was intended to provoke an invasion of Syria and failed. ISIS currently sells oil to the EU which pays for it in Euros much to the consternation of Washington. Washington does not control all of Iraq’s oil.
Syria is a sovereign nation which did not request the assistance of the UK or USA and hence any bombing attacks on that nation are illegal. The aim of Washington’s bombing Syria is the removal of the Assad regime.
Agreed. We should be asking our MP’s about the EU buying oil from IS. That is a disgrace.
However, according to ForeignPolicy.com, it’s not as easy as that. There are middlemen between IS and the EU. And running infrastructure is costing IS money as well. So our MP’s will be told the EU is not knowingly buying IS oil.
” So our MP’s will be told the EU is not knowingly buying IS oil.”
That’s a joke! They are even paying for it in Euros!! Who do they think they are getting it from?
We really need some hyperlinks, Karen to back up what you are saying.
By ‘Action’ i take it you mean war? Also, do you support the same ‘Action’ for Palestinian Christians to ‘regain their lands’?
My, you are anti-Israel, aren’t you?
Numb 24:1 And when Balaam saw that it pleased the LORD to bless Israel, he went not, as at other times, to seek for enchantments, but he set his face toward the wilderness. 2 And Balaam lifted up his eyes, and he saw Israel abiding in his tents according to their tribes; and the spirit of God came upon him. 3 And he took up his parable, and said, Balaam the son of Beor hath said, and the man whose eyes are open hath said: 4 He hath said, which heard the words of God, which saw the vision of the Almighty, falling into a trance, but having his eyes open: 5 How goodly are thy tents, O Jacob, and thy tabernacles, O Israel! 6 As the valleys are they spread forth, as gardens by the river’s side, as the trees of lign aloes which the LORD hath planted, and as cedar trees beside the waters. 7 He shall pour the water out of his buckets, and his seed shall be in many waters, and his king shall be higher than Agag, and his kingdom shall be exalted. 8 God brought him forth out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn: he shall eat up the nations his enemies, and shall break their bones, and pierce them through with his arrows. 9 He couched, he lay down as a lion, and as a great lion: who shall stir him up? Blessed is he that blesseth thee, and cursed is he that curseth thee.
Zech 2:7 Deliver thyself, O Zion, that dwellest with the daughter of Babylon. 8 For thus saith the LORD of hosts; After the glory hath he sent me unto the nations which spoiled you: for he that toucheth you toucheth the apple of his eye.
Should I take it from your answer that you A) support war and B) you don’t support your Palestinian Christian brothers and sisters?
We support military action against IS. We support Palestinian Christians without being anti-Israel. Try it.
That’s a contradictory stance. A Christian Zionist is an oxymoron.
Genuine support for Palestinian Christians means a halt to Israel’s genocide of Palestinians and a return of Palestinian land to its rightful owners. There is no basis in either Christianity or Judaism to support the atheist Zionist criminal terrorist state of Israel. The latter is not a country but a base for organised crime, most of its GDP being offshore.
Why is it that those who hate Israel seem to lose all ability to express themselves in moderate, sensible terms?
I’m not ‘Anti Israel’. I strongly support Israel’s right to exist within the borders declared in 1948. What i don’t support is ethnic cleansing, brutal occupation and a superiority complex based on ethnicity.
Ok so YOU DO support war and violence but only if the war and violence is against Islamic extremists.
I find it bizarre and un-Christ like that any anyone who claims to be a ‘Christian’ should advocate war and violence. It’s almost as if you’re the ‘Christian’ version of the Taliban.
OK, so you oppose the Hamas policy of ethnically-cleansing the Holy Land of Jews. It’s a start.
So now not only is Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East, ‘fascistic’, but by supporting the right of the Assyrian Christians in Iraq to fight for their lands and their towns I am like the Taliban.
Be careful. You could get known for understatement, and you wouldn’t want that, Trevor, would you?
Un-Christian to advocate war and violence?
Exod 15:3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.
Neh 4:14 And I looked, and rose up, and said unto the nobles, and to the rulers, and to the rest of the people, Be not ye afraid of them: remember the Lord, which is great and terrible, and fight for your brethren, your sons, and your daughters, your wives, and your houses.
Luke 22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
What do you mean by “it’s a start”…a start to what?
“So now not only is Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East, ‘fascistic’,”
Why have you twisted my words? I never said ‘Israel’ was fascistic and you’re wrong about Israel being a democracy, Israel is an ethnocracy.
“…but by supporting the right of the Assyrian Christians in Iraq to fight for their lands and their towns I am like the Taliban”
Indeed. What’s the difference between your version of ‘Christianity’ that calls for the death penalty and that is willing to wage war from that of the Taliban or other Islamic extremist groups?… and why is it you don’t call for the UK to wage war on behalf of Palestinian Christians who have been cleansed from their lands and homes…Hypocrisy? bigotry? what gives that you have this double standard?
Btw for the record. I don’t support violence in any shape or form and i certainly would never entertain the thought of using violence to protect my land or home…but maybe that’s because my home and land is not of this Earth….
Oh, please. Perhaps you ought to tell the Palestinian Christians you seem to be so concerned about that their home and land is not of this earth. See what they say.
Ethnocracy? Tell that to the Israeli citizens who are Arab , both Christian and Muslim. They have a vote and even sit in the Knesset
Again more ignorance about Israel. Non Jews in Israel are second class citizens, regardless of ability to vote. Voting does not change that.
” The Hamas policy of ethnically-cleansing the Holy Land of Jews.”
This comment demonstrates considerable ignorance. Hamas doesn’t have a policy of genocide towards the Jews. Jews and Arabs have lived there for over 2 thousand years in peace and without problems until 1948 when the Zionist state of Israel was founded and the gradual genocide and ethnic cleansing of the Arab population started. Hamas is opposed to Zionism as a political ideology and not opposed to Jews as people. Similarly many Jews are opposed to Zionism.
Israel is not a democracy. It is an oligarchy and militarised ghetto. The USA and England are heading the same way.
From the HAMAS Charter, The Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement, 18 August 1988:
‘The Islamic Resistance Movement is one of the wings of Moslem Brotherhood in Palestine.’ (Article 2)
‘The Islamic Resistance Movement is a distinguished Palestinian movement, whose allegiance is to Allah, and whose way of life is Islam. It strives to raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine, for under the wing of Islam followers of all religions can coexist in security and safety where their lives, possessions and rights are concerned.’ (Article 6)
‘The Day of Judgment will not come about until Moslems fight Jews and kill them. Then, the Jews will hide behind rocks and trees, and the rocks and trees will cry out: ‘O Moslem, there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him.’ (Article 7)
‘Allah is its target, the Prophet is its model, the Koran its constitution: Jihad is its path and death for the sake of Allah is the loftiest of its wishes.’ (Article 8)
‘The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up.’ (Article 11)
‘There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad.’ (Article 13)
‘Palestine is an Islamic land … Since this is the case, Liberation of Palestine is then an individual duty for every Moslem wherever he may be.’ (Article 14)
‘The day the enemies usurp part of Moslem land, Jihad becomes the individual duty of every Moslem. In the face of the Jews’ usurpation, it is compulsory that the banner of Jihad be raised.’ (Article 15)
‘The Moslem woman has a role no less important than that of the moslem man in the battle of liberation. She is the maker of men. Her role in guiding and educating the new generations is great.’ (Article 17)
‘Under the wing of Islam, it is possible for the followers of the three religions – Islam, Christianity and Judaism – to coexist in peace and quiet with each other.’ (article 31) (That’s nice of them, isn’t it?)
‘Zionism scheming has no end, and after Palestine, they will covet expansion from the Nile to the Euphrates River. When they have finished digesting the area on which they have laid their hand, they will look forward to more expansion. Their scheme has been laid out in the ‘Protocols of the Elders of Zion’.’ (Article 32)
The Islamic Resistance Movement adopts Islam as its way of life. Islam is its creed and religion. … The last of our prayers will be praise to Allah, the Master of the Universe. (Article 36)
[…] « Independent Scotland won’t join anti-IS coalition […]
That’s an English translation. Read it in Arabic, the language in which it is written.
I’m afraid most of us are stuck with the English translation. If you think there is something wrong with it, all you can do is produce a better translation .
You can probably try us with Arabic if you want to, though.
المَسْجِد أو الجامع دار عبادة المسلمين، تُقام فيه الصلوات الخمس المفروضة وغيرها، وسمي مسجداً لأنه مكان للسجود لله، ويُطلق على المسجد أيضاً اسم جامع، وخاصةً إذا كان كبيراً. في الغالب يُطلق على اسم «جامع» لمن يجمع الناس لأداء صلاة الجمعة فيه فكل جامع مسجد وليس كل مسجد بجامع، كذلك يطلق اسم مصلى بدل من اسم مسجد عند أداءه لبعض الصلوات الخمس المفروضة ولا يتلزم بجميعها مثل مصليات المدارس والمؤسسات والشركات وطرق السفر وغيرها التي غالباً مايؤدى فيها صلاة محدودة بحسب الفترة الزمنية الحالية. ويدعى للصلاة في المسجد عن طريق الأذان، وذلك خمس مرات في اليوم.
الحرم المكي وفي وسطه الكعبة المشرفة بمكة المكرمة سنة 1880م.
المسجد النبوي بالمدينة المنورة سنة 1905م.
وكان المسجد هو أول مبنى تشهده المدينة المنورة العاصمة الأولى للدولة الإسلامية مباشرة بعد وصول النبي محمد عليه الصلاة والسلام مهاجرا من مكة. شكل هذا المسجد
Yes, so far it seems that you can. That was what the beginning of the Arabic Wikipedia entry for “mosque”, but if K.Wilson finds it at all enlightening, I think he/she is in a tiny minority of people reading it here who can make much of it.
Although the above “Rox” comment does not bear my little picture of rocks, my seal of authenticity, I do not disagree with it .
Under the charter of Hamas there is something that most people might miss. It says “UNDER ISLAM” all faiths will have peace and security. That is so long as Israel is dismantled and under the thumb of the Waqf. That is what Islamists intend to do in the west as well. We can have peace and security only if they decide that we can. In the Middle East that has meant the destruction of Christians and Jews and other faiths. The fact is that our political leaders are not intelligent enough to be able to read comic books, let alone the Hamas charter or that of the Koran. If they were intelligent people they would not allow Islamic immigration to the west. Islam is a dangerous and evil ideology that is less faith based than it is political. Any reading on Muhammad’s life and times can tell you he was a evil as that of Hitler or Stalin in modern times. Virtually everything he did has been set down as precedents. We should stop worrying about how many Muslims are killing Muslims, and worry about how many of us they are planning to kill.
If you look at recent history we have had destruction of our food production, biological warfare against us, and governmnents refuse to point fingers at the people who most likely are responsible for it: Muslims. We have dozens of Islambergs in America where Islamists train for terrorism, but the authorities and their political correctness have yet to find a reason to shut them down. Mosques are notorious for storing weapons and used as fortresses to fight authority. Police are never to enter mosques because of freedom of religion, even when they have proof of criminal and terrorist activity. With Obama in charge things are even worse as Eric Holder has spoken several times about the worst terrorist activity in America: Christian Fundamentalism. Amazing enough Obama calls himself a Christian, but allows Holder to hold this view without any proof whatsoever. What is even more interesting is that Obama believes that Muslims are not personified by acts terrorism against non-Muslims, but Muslims are the greater number of terrorists in the world. According to Anjem Choudary a tenet of Islam is to terrorize their enemies and make them fearful of Islam. He says “Islam is terrorism.” If you can’t believe him you need to listen to the thousands of Muslims on the internet who believe that Islam and Shariah should prevail in the world. Some Congressmen and Senators in the US actually believe there is nothing wrong with Shariah, but not one of them can tell you if these tenets in Islam (Shariah) are compatible with the US Constitution. That any US politician is ignorant of the US constitution is reprehensible and shocking. There shall be no law made that is incompatible with the US constitution. How much simpler does that get? It is thoroughly disgusting to see any politician speak on behalf of Shariah. Such politicians in any western country should be thrown out or forced to resign for beliefs that Shariah would be compatible with western constitutional law.