Jewish Supremacy

The west sanctions Russia for invading Ukraine.  

Why are they not imposing sanctions on Israel?

The brutal subjugation of Palestinians, justified by a toxic ideology of Jewish supremacy and racism, will only be halted by the kind of sanctions campaign mounted successfully against the apartheid regime in South Africa. 

Short of that, Israel will be a despotic theocracy.

Zayd, the adopted son of Muhammad

Others lives should not matter to us, let each person live their own. Muhammad marrying his adopted sons ex wife, even if Zayd was 10 years younger, is a bad action by Muhammad.

In those days, they criticized Muhammad for marrying his adopted son.  

Now in 2021, we are still criticizing the prophet.  

I ask you, let us say, you adopted a son, he was 10 years younger than you.  Your adopted son, married, then divorced.  That lady that your adopted son married is now your daughter in law.  

Even after she divorces your adopted son, it is best not to marry her.  Am I I right this far? 

If you say, “look man, if my adopted son is ok, with me marrying his ex wife, I would marry her,” well your morale and mine are different.  

I would not, as my adopted son is still my son. He would be my son. And any ex wife of his, would still be a delicate matter and it would be best to stay away from that ex wife. It would be best to not only Zayd or Muhammad, but just for the entire family.  

This action by Muhammad is not defendable, but many try.   

Bad is bad, then or now.  

Because of this bad action by Muhammad, I’m very upset and sad at him, I lost my love for my religion, he should have known better not to marry his daughter-in-law, but he did not.  

Plus, there is the issue of, how a verse from the Quran miraculously come down to say, it is ok now to marry your adopted son’s ex wife? 

Please do some research.  

Take care, may Allah help you.

Zaynab, the daughter-in-law of Muhammad

Why argue back to me by stating, “if three of them are happy, why are you objecting. “

(Three of them - Zayd, Zaynab, and Muhammad).  

Let us focus on the action of Muhammad.  

Stick to this action only please.  

Don’t argue around by writing, “if certain places did not allow cousins to marry, that place would fizzle away.” No 

Stick to Muhammad marrying his adopted son’s ex wife. 

This is an important matter as it affects me and you, since he is our prophet. A prophet that supposedly knows best.  

I ask you, was Zayd Muhammad’s son in law? Adopted or not. I’ll answer - yes. 

Was Zaynab Muhammad’s daughter-in-law? Yes. 

Did Muhammad marry his daughter-in-law? Yes. 

Is this morally a bad action. Yes. 

Is this ayip, then or now. Yes. 

I donot care that Muhammad and Zaynab were happy or not, as you state that, “if they are happy, why am I criticizing this.” I’m criticizing this as it is a bad action. My prophet should know better not to marry his adopted son’s ex wife. 

Stop defending a bad action.  

Stop trying to justify it.  

This is what you need to do, as I did this. 

Go into a quiet room. Close your eyes. Picture in your mind how our prophet married his adopted son’s ex wife and if your truly honest with yourself, you will cry at how bad this makes my religion look.  

Again, may Allah help all of us, as I feel deceived by Muhammad.  

Go marry someone else, were there not other woman for Muhammad? Yes there were, he had another 8 wives already. Why marry Zaynab? If your going to retort to say, “he married for political reasons,” well bud, I have a ready answer for that too. 

This is the summary, Muhammad should not have married his daughter-in-law.  

Period, thank you. 

Did Muhammad marry his daughter-in-law?

 Case closed 😁😁😁 Not. 

A couple of wrongs.  

I’m not the only one that is criticizing the prophet for marrying his adopted son’s ex wife. The people living in the prophets time, critiqued the prophet very heavily for marrying his adopted son’s ex wife.  Please do more research.  

It was not a common practice to marry ones daughter in law in those times. Actually, no person but the prophet did this, in his time. Don’t argue back to state to me that it was a common practice, it was not. This action had nothing to do with Arabia, Islam, or Cahiliye time.  No other person married his daughter-in-law in those times. 

The prophet got very heavy criticism for marrying his daughter-in-law, therefore what happened? Miraculously, an ayet came down to say, it is ok to marry Zaynab since Zayd was not the biological son, and adopted son, therefore, Zaynab was not the daughter in law.

How convenient.

If you think that the prophet marrying his adopted son’s ex wife, was ok, because, hey, since Zayd was adopted, he can marry Zayd’s ex wife.  Then good on you bud. You choose to not see the wrong in this action, well, not much to say to you.

You don’t see the problem here do you? 

Your argument concludes this, you would not marry your biological sons ex wife, since she is your daughter in law.  I’m hoping you would not. 

But you would marry your adopted son’s ex wife, since the son is adopted, you would.  Do you see the wrong in this? as your answer should be, not to marry your daughter-in-law, adopted or not, don’t marry your daughter-in-law.  

Muhammad should not have either, him marrying his daughter-in-law has no good explanation to humanity, could it be only for his own desire? 

Last comment about Zayd. I’m saddened about Zayd. It was not his choosing to drop his last name of Muhammad - Zayd, the son of Muhammad. He was forced by Muhammad to drop his last name to be known no longer as the son of Muhammad. This is terrible. Look at it from Zayd’s point of view.  

He has to drop his last name, a name he had for over 20 years.

He sees his adopted father marry his ex wife, a wife he had for 2.5 years.  

He grew up in the home of Muhammad and Hatice, to be banished from their home, their will, and the family of Muhammad.   

I ask you why was Muhammad marrying his adopted son’s ex wife have any good to common society, to humanity, to family affairs; absolutely nothing.  

Please, please, please, do research.  

Take care bud, thank tou. 

Blowing Vent with Happy Faced Balloon & a speech by Ahmet Simsirgil abou...

Lucifer and Albert Pike

Lucifer and Albert Pike

The purpose of WWI, WWII and (the eventual) WWIII are beyond anything the history books teach our children.  

     Lucifer 

I believe the past wars, and the coming one, are all about Luciferian control, plus setting up of burdensome bank debts of the general public, which will control the people's finances (even more) by the elite bankers.  

The Jesuits, Freemasons, Council of Foreign Relations and the mysterious Illuminati are working together to achieve the goal of a 'New World Order'. 

In 1871 Albert Pike, the man who is shown to be the forefather of the Freemasons movement envisioned three World Wars to be followed by an unparalleled economic disaster.   

Mr Pike's plans have come to fruition, shockingly 'on target'.

   Albert Pike

Albert Pike's letter to Italian dictator Mazzini, dated August 15, 1871 is written below, make note that this letter is years prior to WWI. 

"The First World War must be brought about in order to permit the Illuminati to overthrow the power of the Czars in Russia and of making that country a fortress of atheistic Communism.  The divergences caused by the "agentur" (agents) of the Illuminati between the British and Germanic Empires will be used to foment this war.  At the end of the war, Communism will be built and used in order to destroy the other governments and in order to weaken the religions."

"The Second World War must be fomented by taking advantage of the differences between the Fascists and the political Zionists.  This war must be brought about so that Nazism is destroyed and that the political Zionism be strong enough to institute a sovereign state of Israel in Palestine.  During the Second World War, International Communism must become strong enough in order to balance Christendom, which would be then restrained and held in check until the time when we would need it for the final social cataclysm."

"The Third World War must be fomented by taking advantage of the differences caused by the "agentur" of the "Illuminati" between the political Zionists and the leaders of Islamic World.  The war must be conducted in such a way that Islam and political Zionism (the State of Israel) mutually destroy each other.  Meanwhile the other nations, once more divided on this issue will be constrained to fight to the point of complete physical, moral, spiritual and economical exhaustion.  We shall unleash the Nihilists and the atheists, and we shall provoke a formidable social cataclysm which in all its horror will show clearly to the nations the effect of absolute atheism, origin of savagery and of the most bloody turmoil.  Then everywhere, the citizens, obliged to defend themselves against the world minority of revolutionaries, will exterminate those destroyers of civilization, and the multitude, disillusioned with Christianity, whose deistic spirits will from that moment be without compass or direction, anxious for an ideal, but without knowing where to render its adoration, will receive the true light through the universal manifestation of the pure doctrine of Lucifer, brought finally out in the public view.  This manifestation will result from the general reactionary movement which will follow the destruction of Christianity and atheism, both conquered and exterminated at the same time."

This letter of Albert Pike is devastatingly accurate thus far.   I am hoping WWIII does not come to fruition, and somewhere somehow our politicians will show restraint of aggressive tactics with one another.  

Sincerely, 

Ben

Adalet Tecelli Etmedi

Adalet Tecelli Etmedi

'Adalet tecelli etmedi' - Atasozu

Bence bu Atasozu cok manali, soyle bir kisa aciklama yapiyim.  

'Hak yerini bulmadi'. 

          Yanginlar alevinden gelen dost

Yani istedigimiz bir sonuc cikmadi, bekledigimiz bir davadan yada herhangi bir interaction yada transaction'dan. 

Bir hatirlatma yapmak istedim, bizim cok guzel eski Atasoz'lerimiz bulunmaktadir.  

Saygilarimla, 

Ben

🤓

Intervention by Turkey

Intervention by Turkey

I have been following the 'guerrilla war' going on in Syria, and I am perplexed at some comments made by westerners from the comfort of their peaceful homes.  

          Tanks sitting on the Turkish side 

Let us briefly look at the issue at hand.  

But first, I will re-write the question, why are some screaming for meddling and interventions by Turkey? 

The answer is that the Turkey does not want to get dragged into an in-ending & un-winnable guerrilla war.  

I invite citizens of the world to read 'Art of War' by Mr Sun Tzu.

If USA politicians actually read the book, they, I mean the politicians would not be constantly getting involved in fiascos all the time, all around the world.  

          Men watching the bombing

If IS (Islamic State) attacks Turkey, then the matter is different, as Turkey is justified to protect its borders and therefore retaliate.  What Turkey is doing is watching how the affair unfolds and using caution.  This 'caution' is something all countries should use, before bombing each other.  

But, let's say something needs to be done right away, as in we need to go into Syria and 'bomb' IS or other parties.  

I for one definitely agree that something should be done to save the people of the town of Kobani. 

However, Turkey should not fight IS on its own.  

What is required is a a 'joint force' of NATO countries going in to solve this dilemma.  

Or how about the 'so called' world powers of USA, UK, Canada and France, putting their nose into this as well and going into Syria and bombing that country like Afghanistan or Irak or Vietnam was 'handled' previously.  

But, let's not be sarcastic here.  

If Turkey were part of a joint force it would make sense to complete a 'peaceful ground operation' but for a single country to invade another is illegal and absolutely foolish. 

I hope our politicians have learned that 'war is not the answer to peace'.  I really hope that...

Sincerely, 

Ben 

Rabbena Atina Min Ledunke

Rabbena Atina Min Ledunke 

I would like to explain what 'Rabbena Atina Min Ledunke' pray means.  First, I will write the Arabic version below, with Latin words. 

(Arapca / Arabic)

'Rabbena atina min ledunke rahmeten ve heyyi lena min emrina raseda rabbis rahli sadri ve yessirli emir'. 

Now, I will translate this Pray to Turkish, and afterwards to English. 

(Bu Dua'nin turkce aciklamasi soyledir)

Ey Rabbimiz! Bize kendi katından bir rahmet ver.  Ve bu isimizde bize dogruluk ver bizim için muvaffakiyet hazırla.  Rabbim gonlumu ac ve isimi kolaylastır. 

(English meaning now)

O God! Give us a favor to your elevated standard.  This favor should be righteous and good for me.  O God, help me open my heart and make my work easy. 

Recite this pray / dua if you are starting a new task.  It will hopefully open your mind/heart to accept this task, and finally will help you to succeed. 

Thank you for reading, 

Ben

Prophet Noah

Prophet Noah

The movie titled 'Noah' starring Russell Crowe as the Prophet, who saves the lives of a pair of all creatures on earth, is almost ready for release in the theatres.  Unfortunately, the following countries of Qatar, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates have already 'banned' the viewing of the movie.  The reason given is that, the director Darren Aronofsky’s movie is banned due to 'Religious Grounds'. 

          Russell Crowe as Prophet Noah

The official news statement from these countries states: ‘The movie contradicts the teachings of Islam'. 

My questions to the 'Leaders' of these countries are very simple, 

'Are your citizens not able to comprehend a movie without the State interfering in their lives and minds?  

Can these citizen be able to freely think on their own? 

Are we as world citizens, not passed the rhetoric used, and be able to form our own opinions?'

Censorship needs to end, sooner then later in these parts of the world.  

Thank you for reading, 

Ben

Being a Muslim in Angola

Being Muslim in Angola

Some of us may have read recently that the country of Angola has outright banned Islam and that it is now illegal to be a Muslim in this Southern African nation.  

This is not true.

The news has been spreading fast, however, we need to not believe everything that is written or stated in the media.  We need to fact-check and confirm a news by means of further investigation.  

The story was printed days ago by a Moroccan newspaper called ‘La Nouvelle Tribune’.  The newspaper stated that the governor of Luanda had spoken against 'radical Muslims' and stated that they are not welcome in Angola.  It then quoted Angolan politician Roza Cruz de Silva, stating that Islam has not yet been approved by the Angolan Ministry of Justice and Human Rights. 

The statement about 'Islam' not being recognized is not something new but has always been the case.  This is an interesting fact that not many will know, but many European countries such as Italy, France and Belgium also do not recognize 'Islam' at an official level.  It does not mean that the religion is illegal or that it is banned.

What happened after the initial story broke out from Morocco, however is where we see the dangers of spreading unverified information.  Many articles in different papers around the world were claiming that Islam had been banned in Angola, and that mosques were ordered to be destroyed, and that being a Muslim was now illegal. 

After doing some checking, it has been made clear that Angolan politician Roza Cruz de Silva was speaking about a few Muslim groups who were on the list of proscribed religious groups that would not be allowed to operate mosques, some of which were built without permits.  The list contains 194 groups from all religions, yet only a few are Muslims.  So it was not true that all mosques would be closed, nor is Islam ‘illegal’ in Angola.

Just wanted to clarify this 'news' to people that want the 'truth'. 

Thank you for visiting, 

Ben here