Daftar Isi Nusantara Angkasa News Global

Advertising

Lyngsat Network Intelsat Asia Sat Satbeams

Meluruskan Doa Berbuka Puasa ‘Paling Sahih’

Doa buka puasa apa yang biasanya Anda baca? Jika jawabannya Allâhumma laka shumtu, maka itu sama seperti yang kebanyakan masyarakat baca...

Pesan Rahbar

Showing posts with label Syiah. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Syiah. Show all posts

Ali un-Wali Allah; in Adhan

Once we have established the legitimacy of saying Aliyun Waliyullah as part of our Kalima then it is natural that no objection should be said if do likewise in Adhan. Unfortunately, since Nasibi find hearing the name of Ali (as) unpalatable, hearing this blessed name on speakers brings them into fit of anger! That is why in Pakistan they have constantly pushed for the banning of the Shi’a adhan, since they have made additions that contravene the Shari’ah. Whilst the arguments in regards to Kalima are indeed applicable here, we shall dedicate this chapter to placing the Sunni Adhan under the microscope and will then leave it to our readers to decide whether Mu’awiya’s children have any right to raise objection against us.

The Sunni Adhan

The Adhan of the Ahl’ul Sunnah comprises of fifteen words and clauses in all. The Adhan is as follows:
  • ALLAHO AKBAR (4 times)
    God is Great
  • ASH-HADO AL-LAA ILAAHA-ILLALLAAH (2 times)
    I bear witness that there is no God but Allah
  • ASH-HADO ANNA MUHAMMADAR-RASOO-LULLAAH (2 times)
    I bear witness that Muhammad (S.W.) is the Messenger of Allah
  • HAYYA A’LASSALAAH (2 times)
    Hasten towards prayer
  • HAYYA A’LALFALAAH (2 times)
    Hasten towards prosperity
  • ALLAHO AKBAR (2 times)
    Allah is Great
  • LAA ILAAHA IL-LALLAAH
Total – 14


Mishkat Al-Masabih, Vol. 1 Page 140, By Mohammad bin Abdullah
This is the Adhan which that the Ahl’ul Sunnah believe was initiated by the Holy Prophet (s). Of interest is the Adhan that Holy Prophet (s) taught to his companion Abu Mahdhura according to Mishkat al Masabeeh, Chapter of Adhan comprises of nineteen clauses and statements, not fourteen:
It is narrated by Abu Mahdhoorat that Holy Prophet (s) taught him an Adhan which consisted of nineteen words/clauses and Iqamat consisted of seventeen words/clauses. This tradition has been narrated by Imam Ahmed bin Hanbal, Imam Tirmidhi, Imam Abu Daud, Imam Nisai, Darmi and Ibn e Majah.

Mishkat al Masabeeh, chapter of Adhan, Published in Delhi, Page 140
Can the Ahl’ul Sunnah bring their Adhan in line with the Adhan of nineteen clauses as described by the tradition? These Nasibi accuse the Shi’a of changing the Adhan, could they kindly respond to this Hadeeth, on that proves that they have removed six clauses from the Adhan. Although it is not incumbent on us to accept this Hadeeth, (since it is a non Shi’a source) the Shi’a Adhan is closer to this Hadeeth as it contains twenty clauses.

Shi’a Adhan

  • ALLAHO AKBAR (4 times)
    God is Great
  • ASH-HADO AL-LAA ILAAHA-ILLALLAAH (2 times)
    I bear witness that there is no God but Allah
  • ASH-HADO ANNA MUHAMMADAR-RASOO-LULLAAH (2 times)
    I bear witness that Muhammad (S.W.) is the Messenger of Allah
  • ASH-HADO ANNA ALIYAN WALI-YULLAH (2 times)
    I bear witness that Ali is the representative of Allah
  • HAYYA A’LASSALAAH (2 times)
    Hasten towards prayer
  • HAYYA A’LALFALAAH (2 times)
    Hasten towards prosperity
  • HAYYA A’LA KHAYRIL AMAL (2 times)
    Hasten towards the best of action
  • ALLAHO AKBAR (2 times)
    Allah is Great
  • LAA ILAAHA IL-LALLAAH (2 times)
    There is no God except Allah
Total – 20
One point to be noted is that we have mentioned “La illaha ilallah” only once due to “Al-hujatu lilhadham min muslimat” otherwise it is recited twice in the Shi’a Adhan being desirable like the other clauses.

If the Sunnis were to add “As-salatu khair al-min an-Naum” i.e. ‘Prayer is better than sleep’ to the Adhan it would increase the number of statements to seventeen but that this creates another headache since this was never taught or practiced by Holy Prophet (s) rather it an innovation of Umar bin Khattab during his reign who added it to the morning prayers.

Inclusion of the statement ‘prayer is better than sleep’ was an innovation of Umar bin Khattab


  1. Mishkat Al-Masabih, Vol. 1 Page 142, By Mohammad bin Abdullah
    Muwatta of Malik, Book 3, Hadeeth Number 3.1.8
  2. Al-Farooq by Allama Shibli No’mani, page 295, published in Karachi.
  3. Muwatta Imam Malik, Dhikr e Adhan.
  4. Izalatul Khifa, volume 3, page 328, Sunan e Adhan.
  5. Kanz al Ummal volume 4, page 270, Dhikr e Adhan.
  6. Seerat AL Halbiya, volume 2, page 303, Dhikr e Adhan.
  7. Naill al-AWtar, volume 2, page 43.
  8. Sunan al-Kubra, page 425, by al-Beyhaqqi.
  9. Tareekh Baghdad, volume 9, page 409.
  10. Mishkat al Masabeeh, Volume 1 page 142
Muwatta:
Yahya related to me from Malik that he had heard that the muadhdhin came to Umar ibn al-Khattab to call him to the subh prayer and found him sleeping, so he said, “Prayer is better than sleep,” and Umar ordered him to put that in the adhan for subh.

Umar’s confession that “As-salatu khair al-min an-Naum” is an innovation

We read in Musnaf Abdulrazaq:

عبد الرزاق عن ابن جريج قال : أخبرني عمر بن حفص أن سعدا أول من قال : الصلاة خير من النوم في خلافة عمر… فقال : بدعة ثم تركه ، وإن بلالا لم يؤذن لعمر.

Umar bin Hafs said: ‘Saad was the first one who said ‘Prayer is better than sleep’ during the reign of Umar… he (Umar) said: ‘It is an innovation (bidda)’ and then he abandoned it and Bilal never performed Adhan for Umar’.
Musanaf Abdulrazaq, Volume 1 page 474 Tradition 1829

Note: In Saheeh Muslim the Adhan that is quoted on the basis of Umar’s narration does not include the words “As-salatu khair al-min an-Naum”, the same is the case with another Adhan narration in Saheeh Muslim as narrated by Abi Mahzoora.
One point to keep in mind is that the Ahl e Sunnah scholars refer to the term “As-salatu khair al-min an-Naum” as Tasweeb.
In this connection we read in Hidaya e Awaleen, page 84, on border 14:
“A real example of Tasweeb was the term “Prayer is better than sleep” and even that was restricted to the morning prayers.

Ibn Umar deemed tathweeb an innovation

Let us read the testimony of non other than the son of Umar regarding Tathweeb:

عبد الرزاق عن ابن عيينة عن ليث عن مجاهد قال : كنت مع ابن عمر فسمع رجلا يثوب في المسجد فقال : اخرج بنا من [ عند ] هذا المبتدع.

Mujahid said: ‘I was with Ibn Umar and then he heard a man reciting Tathweeb in the mosque, thus he (Ibn Umar) said: ‘Let us go away from this innovator (mubtadie)’
Musanaf Abdulrazaq, Volume 1 page 475 Tradition 1832

Mujahid bin Jabir: Ibn Hajar said: ‘Thiqah’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v2 p159). Laith bin Abi Salim: Ibn Hajar said: ‘Seduq’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v2 p48). Sufyan bin Auyyana: Ibn Hajar said: ‘Thiqah’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v2 p611). Abdulrazaq bin Humam: Ibn Hajar said: ‘Thiqah’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v1 p599).

These Nawasib keep on demanding that the Shi’a refrain from reciting ‘Ali un-Wali Allah perhaps they could direct us to the Quranic verse or authentic Hadeeth that has given them the green light to recite ‘Prayer is better than sleep’ in the Call for prayers. If the Adhan does not become void with the inclusion of ‘Prayer is better than sleep’ then the same is the case with the recitation of ‘Ali un-Wali Allah‘. If the Ahl’ul Sunnah say that ‘Prayer is better than sleep’ is recited in order to wake the people from sleep, then we will respond by stating that we recite ‘Ali un-Wali Allah to wake the ignorant masses from their unconscious state, one wherein they have no knowledge of Wilayah of Ali bin Abi Talib (as).

When the cunning Nawasib realized that the above cited testimony of Ibn Umar will unveil the Bidah of Tathweeb introduced by their hero, they had no other choice than to fabricate another tradition in order to cover up the statement of Ibn Umar which we read in Sunan Abo Dawood:
Muhammad bin Kathir narrated from Sufiyan from Abu Yahyah al-Qatat from Mujahid: ‘The statement ‘prayer is better then sleep’ was said during Dhuhr and Asr, that is why Ibn Umar said it was Bidah.’
The weakness in this fabrication comes from the narrator Abu Yahyah al-Qatat about whom Imam Ibn Hajar said: ‘Unreliable’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v2 p490), Imam Yahya bin Moin said: ‘Weak’ (Tahdib al-Kamal, v34 p402), Imam Nisai said: ‘Not strong’ (Tahdib al-Kamal, v34 p402).

Tawoos’s testimony that Tathweeb didnt exist during the time of Prophet [s]

We read the following testimony of one of the famed Tabayee namely Tawoos:
Hassan bin Muslim said: ‘Someone questioned Tawoos: ‘When was ‘Prayer is better than sleep’ was said?’ He replied: ‘This recitation did not exist in Adhan during the days of the Holy Prophet (s). During the reign of Abu Bakr, Bilal had heard a caller (Moazzin) recite this phrase, therefore he too included it in the Adhan. After the death of Abu Bakr, Umar had said that they should stop Bilal from practicing that innovation but later on Umar forgot it, hence it is still practiced”.
Kanz ul Ummal, Volume 8 page 367 Tradition 23251

Imam Shafiyee did not believe Tathweeb to be the part of Sunnah

Unlike to general Sunni perception about Tathweeb being something prescribed by Prophet [s], one of the four Imams of Sunni school namely Imam Idrees Shafiyee did not believed Tathweeb to have its root in Islam, as he stated in his authority book al-Umm, page 104:

ولا أحب التثويب في الصبح ولا غيرها لان أبا محذورة لم يحك عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم أنه امر بالتثويب فأكره الزيادة في الاذان وأكره التثويب بعده

“I dislike Tathweeb in morning (Adhan) and so the other (Adhan) because Aba Mahdhura didn’t narrate from the prophet (s) that He (s) ordered to recite Tathweeb, thus I dislike adding it to Adhan and dislike Tathweeb after it”.

Traditions falsely attributed to the Prophet (s)

In order to absolve Sahaba from the sin of introducing Bidah of Tathweeb, the staunch followers of Sahaba fabricated some reports and attributed to Holy Prophet [s]. Let us have a look at some of those reports alongwith an analysis of their authenticity:

Tradition One to Three

We read in Sunan Abi Dawood, Volume 1 page 189:
Abdulmalik bin Abi Mahdhura narrated from his father from his grandfather [i.e. Abu Mahdhura] that he said “O! Allah’s Apostle, bless me with the knowledge of Azan (call for prayer)” He perambulated his hand over my forehead and said:
you shall loudly say Allah is Great (4 times)
I do bear witness that there is no god except Allah (twice)
I do bear witness that Muhammad is the apostle of Allah (twice)
Come to prayer (twice)
Come to success (twice)
And if it is call for the morning prayers, then “Prayer is better then sleep” shall be said, twice. Then Allah is Great (twice), no god except Allah (twice)

Al-Bayhaqi in his Sunan, Volume 1 page 394 recorded this tradition with the following chain:
‘Abu Ali al-Rudbari narrated from Abu Bakr bin Dasa from Abu Dawood from Musadad from al-Harith bin Ubaid from Muhammad bin Abdulmalik bin Abi Mahdhura from his father from his grand father’
In Sahih Ibn Habban, Volume 4 page 578 we read a similar tradition having the following chain of narration:
‘al-Fadhel bin al-Habab al-Jumahi narrated from Musadad bin Masarhad from al-Harith bin Ubaid from Muhammad bin Abdulmalik bin Abi Mahdhura from his father from his grand father’

Reply

All these chains of narrations contain al-Harith bin Ubaid al-Eyadi about whom Imam Dahabi said: ‘Not strong’ (Al-Kashif, v1 p303), Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal said: ‘His narration is not reliable’ (Tahdib al-Kamal, v5 p259), Imam Yahya bin Moin said: ‘Weak’ (Tahdib al-Kamal, v5 p260), Imam Abu Hatim said: ‘Not strong’ (Tahdib al-kamal, v5 p260), Imam Nisai said: ‘Not strong’ (Tahdib al-Kamal, v5 p260).
Moreover, the chains also include Muhammad bin Abdulmalik who has been declared unknown by ibn al-Qatan (Tahdib al-Tahdib, v9 p317), Mardini (Al-Jawhar al-Naqi, v1 p392), Shawkani (Nail al-Awtar, v2 p17) and Zailaei (Nasb al-Raya by Zailaei, v1 p363).
Lastly, the chain contains Abu Mahdhura and as we already have cited the statement of Imam Shaifyee that the narrations which attribute the recitation of Tathweeb in Adhan to Prophet [s] narrated by Abu Mahdhura are rejected.

Tradition Four

We read in Sunan Abi Dawood, Volume 1 page 193:
al-Nufaili narrated from Ibrahim bin Ismail bin Abdulmalik bin Abi Mahdhura from Abdulmalik bin Abi Mahdhura from Abu Mahdhura who said: ‘Allah’s Apostle taught me Adhan word by word:
Allah is Great (4 times)
I do bear witness that there is no god except Allah (twice)
I do bear witness that Muhammad is the apostle of Allah (twice)
Come to prayer (twice)
Come to success (twice)
And he used to call for the morning prayers, ‘Prayer is better then sleep”

Reply

The chain contains Ibrahim bin Ismail bin Abdulmalik who is unknown as declared by Imam Ibn Hajar Asqalani in Taqrib al-Tahdib, Volume 1 page 52. Moreover, the chain contains Abu Mahdhura and as we already have cited the statement of Imam Shaifyee that the narrations which attribute the recitation of Tathweeb in Adhan to Prophet [s] narrated by Abu Mahdhura are rejected.

Tradition Three & Four

We read in Sunan Abi Dawood, Volume 1 page 191:
Hasan bin Ali narrated from Abu Athim and Abdulrazaq from Ibn Juraij from Uthman bin Saeb from his father and Um Abdulmalik bin Abi Mahdhura from Abu Mahdhura who narrated from the prophet the same tradition and included call for the morning prayers, then “Prayer is better then sleep”
Similary we have a tradition in Sunan Darqatni, Volume 1 page 234 with the following chain:
‘Abu Bakr al-Nisaboori narrated from Abu Hamid al-Musisi from Hajaj from Ibn Juraij from Uthman bin al-Saeb from his father and Um Abdulmalik bin Abi Mahdhura from Abu Mahdhura’
We also have one narration in Sahih Ibn Khuzaima, Volume 1 page 200 which the following chain:
Abu Tahir narrated from Abu Bakr Yaqub bin Ibrahim al-Duqi from Raouh from Ibn Juraij from Uthman bin al-Saeb from Um Abdulmalik bin Abi Mahdhura from Abu Mahdhura’

Reply

The chains contain Uthman bin al-Saeb who has not been mentioned by any scholar except by Ibn Habban and Ibn al-Qatan, and in this situation, those with the knowledge of science of Hadith would know that the opinion of Ibn al-Qatan would be accepted while rejecting that of Ibn Habbans’s and according to Ibn al-Qatan, Uthman bin Saeb is unknown (Tahdib al-Tahdib, v7 p117) and he has similarly been declared unknown by Zailaei (Nasb al-Raya, v1 p363) and Mardini (Al-Jawhar al-Naqi, v1 p392).
Also these chains contain Abu Mahdhura and as we already have cited the statement of Imam Shaifyee that the narrations which attribute the recitation of Tathweeb in Adhan to Prophet [s] narrated by Abu Mahdhura are rejected.

Tradition Five & Six

We read in Sunan Ibn Majah, Volume 1 page 237:
Abu Bakar bin Abi Shaybah narrated from Muhammad bin Abdullah al-Asadi from Abi Israil from Hakam from Abdulrehman bin Ubai Laila from Bilal who said: ‘Allah’s messenger ordered me to recite tathweeb in morning prayer and he forbid me to recite it in Isha prayer’

Jamia Trimdhi, Vol. 1 Page 153-154, By Mohammad bin Isa Trimdhi
We read in Tirmidhi:
“Abdurehman bin Abi Laila narrated from Bilal [ra] that Holy Prophet [s] said: ‘Do not recite Tathweeb except in Fajar’
Jami Al-Tirmidhi, Volume 1, Page 153 & 154

Reply

Both the verions of episode contain a narrator namely Abu Israil. The version of Ibn Majah has been declared weak by Albani in Erwa al-Ghalil, Volume 1 page 253 while the version of Tirmidhi’s episode is also not authentic for the following reasons written right after the tradition:
In this chapter it has also been narrated from Abu Mahdhura [ra]. Abu Isa stated: ‘We do not know this Hadith from Bilal except from him narrating from Abu Israil al-Malai and Abu Israil al-Malai did not hear this Hadith from Hakam bin Utibah. Imam Tirmidhi stated that he narrated it from Hassan bin Ammarah who narrated from Hakam bin Utibah and Abu Israil’s name is Ismaeel bin Abu Ishaq and he is not strong in the eyes of Muhaditheen.
Jami Al-Tirmidhi, Volume 1, Page 153 & 154
Besides the comments of Imam Tirmidhi, we should also point out that Abu Israil he has been declared ‘weak’ by Imam Dahabi (Al-Kashif, v1 p245), Imam Yahya bin Moin (Tahdib al-Kamal, v3 p79), Imam Nisai (Tahdib al-Kamal, v3 p80) while Jawzajani said: ‘Fabricator’ (Tahdib al-Kamal, v3 p80).

Tradition Seven, Eight & Nine

Imam Al-Bayhaqi records in Al-Sunnan al-Kubra, Volume 1 page 422:
Zuhri narrated from Hafs bin Umar bin Saad who said: ‘My relatives told me that Bilal went to Allah’s messenger (S) to recite Adhan for morning prayer, hence they said to him: ‘He (prophet) is sleeping’. Therefore Bilal raised his voice and said: ‘Prayer is better than sleep’ hence it was added to morning prayer’
Al-Sunnan al-Kubra, Volume 1 page 422 Tradition 1833

Imam Tabarani records in Al-Mujam al-Kabir, Volume 1 page 466 Tradition 1072:
Muhammad bin Ali narrated from Yaqub bin Hameed from Abdullah bin Wahb from Yuns bin Yazeed from Zuhri from Hafs bin Umar who said: ‘Bilal went to the prophet (S) to recite adhan for morning prayer, but he found him sleeping, therefore he said: ‘Prayer is better than sleep’ twice, then the prophet (S) said: ‘O Bilal, how nice was that, add it to your adhan”.
Al-Mujam al-Kabir, Volume 1 page 466 Tradition 1072

Similarly we read in Sunan Darimi, Volume 1 page 289:
“Uthman bin Umar bin Fares narrated from Yunus from al-Zuhri from Hafs bin Umar bin Saad…”

Reply

All these similar chains contain a common narrator namely Hafs bin Umar bin Saad. In first episode, he claimed that some of this relatives told him the story while he did not mention the names of those relatives. On the contrary, in the second episode he claimed that he heard it directly from Bilal while those familair with the science of Hadith knows that he never met Bilal being from two different Tabaqat. Thus, both the episodes are Mursal! That is why wee see that in the version we referred to above from Sunan Darimi, the margin writer of the book namely Hussain Salim Asad stated:
إسناده ضعيف فيه جهالة
‘The chain is weak, there is unknown (narrator) in it.’

Tradition Ten and Eleven

Imam Tabarani records:
Sahl bin Maaz bin Anas narrated from his father that Allah’s messenger said: ‘Failure and unhappiness is sufficient for the believer if he heard the caller reciting tathweeb and he doesnt answer.
al-Mujam al-Kabir, Volume 15 page 111 Tradition 16805

We read in Musnad Ahmed:
Sahl bin Maaz narrated from his father that Allah’s messenger said: ‘If you heard the caller recite tathweeb, then recite as he recites’.
Musnad Ahmad, Volume 3 page 438 Tradition 15658

Reply

The Tabarani version of episode has been declared weak by Albani in Daeef al-Targhib wa al-Tarhib, Volume 1 page 60 while the margin writer of Musnad Ahmed namely Shaykh Shu’aib al-Arnaout stated the following about latter version:
‘The chain is weak’

Tradition Twelve and Thirteen

We read in Musnad Ahmed:
“Abdullah narrated from Abdulrahman from Sufyan from Abu Jaffar from Abdulrahman from Abu Sulayman from Abu Mahdhura who said: ‘I used to recite adhan during the prophet (s)’s reign for morning prayer and when I used to say “Hay ala al-Falah” I would say after it “al-salat khayr men al-naum” in the first adhan”.
Musnad Ahmed bin Habnbal, Volume 3 page 408 Tradition 15415

Imam Nasai records in Sunan al-Kubra, Volume 1 page 503:
Suwaid bin Nasr narated from Abdullah from Sufyan from Abu Jaffar from Abu Salman from Abu Mahdhoura who said: ‘I used to recite adhan during the prophet (s)’s reign, I used to recite in the morning adhan “Hay ala al-salat, hay ala al-Falah, al-salat khayr men al-naum, Allah Akbar, Allah Akbar, la ilah ila Allah”.

Reply

The first tradition has been declared weak by the margin writer of Musnad Ahmed namely Shaykh Shoib al-Arnaut. The narration of Nasai is also weak because its chain contains Abu Salman al-Moazen whose status is unknown. al-Ghytabi al-Hanafi said about him in Maghani al-Athar, Volume 5 page 336:
“No criticism or praise is mentioned about him”.

Moreover, the chain contains Abu Mahdhura and as we already have cited the statement of Imam Shaifyee that the narrations which attribute the recitation of Tathweeb in Adhan to Prophet [s] narrated by Abu Mahdhura are rejected.

Tradition Fourteen and Fifteen

Imam Tabarani records in Al-Mujam al-Kabir, Volume 1 page 354:
Ishaq bin Ibrahim al-Dabri narrated from Abdulrazaq from Mu’amar from al-Zuhari from Saeed bin al-Musayab who stated that Bilal went to the prophet (s) to recite adhan for him, hence it was said to him: ‘He is sleeping’. Thus he called “al-Salat khayr men al-Naum”. Therefore it was added to the morning prayer.

We read in Sunnan ibn Majah, Volume 1 page 237:
Umar bin Rafee narrated from Abdullah bin al-Mubarak from Mu’amar from al-Zuhari from Saeed bin al-Musayab who stated that Bilal went to the prophet (s) to recite adhan for him, hence it was said to him: ‘He is sleeping’. Thus he called “al-Salat khayr men al-Naum”. Therefore it was added to morning prayer.

Reply

The Nawasib belonging to Ummawi fabricated all these traditions in order to provide (false) approval of Prophet [s] to the Bidah of Tathweeb but in this effort they have made to stupid mistakes that can easily be caught. For example, in the above two cited traditions, they tried to show that Saeed bin al-Musayab narrated the episode from Bilal while the reality is that Saeed bin al-Musayab never met Bilal. Imam Ibn Hajar Asqalani records in Tahdeeb al-Tahdeeb, Volume 4 page 87:

و أما حديثه عن بلال و عتاب بن أسيد فظاهر الانقطاع بالنسبة إلى وفاتيهما و مولده

“His narration from Bilal and Utab bin Usaid is clearly disconnected due to their death (year) and his birth (year)”

Tradition Sixteen

Imam Tabarani records in Al-Mujam al-Awsat, Volume 7 page 175:
Muhammad bin Ibrahim narrated from Amer from his father from his grand father from Amro bin Saleh al-Thaqafi from Saleh bin Abi al-Akhdar from al-Zuhari from Urwa from Ayesha who said: ‘Bilal went to the prophet (s) to recite adhan for him, but he found him sleeping. Thus he called “al-Salat khayr men al-Naum”, therefore it was added to the morning adhan’.

Reply

The chain is weak because it contains Saleh bin Abi al-Akhdar in its chain who has been declared ‘weak’ by Ibn Hajar (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v1 p426), Imam Yahya bin Moin (Tahdib al-Kamal, v13 p13), Abu Zara (Tahdib al-Kamal, v13 p14), Imam Bukhari (Tahdib al-Kamal, v13 p14) and Imam Nisai (Tahdib al-Kamal, v13 p15) while Darqutni said: ‘Not reliable’ (Tahdib al-Tahdib, v4 p381).

Tradition Seventeen

We read in Nasb al-Raya by Zailai, Volume 1 page 221:
Abu al-Sheikh ibn Hayan recorded in his book al-Adhan from Abdan who narrated from Muhammad bin Musa al-Harshi from Khalaf al-Hazan from Ibn Umar who said: ‘Bilal went to the prophet (s) to recite adhan for him but he found Him (s) sleeping. Thus he called “al-Salat khayr men al-Naum”, then he (prophet) said: ‘Add it to the adhan when you recite adhan for morning prayer’. Therefore Bilal used to recite it whenever he recited adhan for morning prayer’.

Reply

The chain is weak because it contains Muhammad bin Musa al-Harashi in its chain who has been declared unreliable by Ibn Hajar Asqalani in Taqrib al-Tahdib, Volume 2 page 138.

No clue of Tathweeb in Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim

It should also be noted that there is no clue of Tathweeb in Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, the two most authentic books after Quran according to Salafies! In fact, the traditions we have in Sahih Muslim narrated on the authority of Umar and Abu Mahdhura attributed to Holy Prophet [s], do not mention Tathweeb at any point. We read in Sahih Muslim, Book 004, Number 0740:
Abu Mahdhura said that the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) taught him Adhan like this: Allah is the Greatest, Allah is the Greatest; I testify that there is no god but Allah, I testify that there is no god but Allah; I testify that Muhammad Is the Messenger of Allah, I testify that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and it should be again repeated: I testify that there is no god but Allah, I testify that there is no god but Allah; I testify that Muhammad Is the Messenger of Allah, I testify that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah. Come to the prayer (twice). Come to the prayer (twice). Ishaq added: Allah is the Greatest, Allah is the Greatest; there Is no god but Allah.

We read in Book 004, Number 0748:
‘Umar b. al-Khattab reported: The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: When the Mu’adhdhin says: Allah is the Greatest, Allah is the Greatest, and one of you should make this response: Allah is the Greatest, Allah is the Greatest; (and when the Mu’adhdhin) says: I testify that there is no god but Allah, one should respond: I testify that there is no god but Allah, and when he says: I testify that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, one should make a response: I testify that Muhammad is Allah’s Messenger. When he (the Mu’adhdhin) says: Come to prayer, one should make a response: There is no might and no power except with Allah. When he (the Mu’adhdhin) says: Come to salvation, one should respond: There is no might and no power except with Allah, and when he (the Mu’adhdhin) says: Allah is the Greatest, Allah is the Greatest, then make a response: Allah is the Greatest, Allah is the Greatest. When he (the Mu’adhdhin) says: There is no god but Allah, and he who makes a re- sponse from the heart: There is no god but Allah, he will enter Paradise.

Shias are not the only one to reject these fabrications

We should make it clear that some Nawasib may try to teach their adherents that Shias reject the above cited fabrications merely on account of being from opponent sect but the truth is that the rejection of Tathweeb as a part of Adhan is not exclusive to the Shias rather group of Sunni scholars too shared the same view and we have already cited the opinion of Imam Shafiyee in this regard bet let us here cite the words recorded by Ibn Rushd in Bidayat al-Mujtahid, page 89 who mention the views of the very group of Sunnies:

واختلفوا في قول المؤذن في صلاة الصبح: الصلاة خير من النوم هل يقال فيها أم لا؟ فذهب الجمهور إلى أنه يقال ذلك فيها وقال آخرون: إنه لا يقال لانه ليس من الاذان المسنون، وبه قال الشافعي.
وسبب اختلافهم: اختلافهم هل قيل ذلك في زمان النبي (ص)؟ أو إنما قيل في زمان عمر؟

They disagreed that whther the caller (moazen) in morning prayer should say “al-Salat khayr men al-naum” or not? The majority believe that is should be said while others believe that it should not be said because it is not part of Adhan and that what Shafiyee believed.
The reason for the disagreement is that whether it was said during prophet’s reign? Or was said during Umar’s reign?


Thus, it is not only the Shia who hold the view that Tathweeb was introduced in Umar’s reign and not in Prophet’s time rather a group of Sunnies too hold the same view!

Misuse of Shia traditions about Tathweeb by Nawasib

The Nawasib oeften jump for joy when they identify Shia Hadeeth that would suggest that our Imam (peace be upon them) practised the Bidah introduced by Umar in the morning prayers called Tathweeb. Let us read and analyze all such Shia traditions:

F‏irst Tradition

The leader of a Nasibi organization namely Sipah Sahaba (kr-hcy.com) in his book Khutbaat-e-Jail, page 307 satated:
Azam Tariq states:
Imam Zayn al Abdeen while praying in his house used to say ‘Prayer is better than sleep’. Moreover in this very book (Al-Istibsar) under the discussion of Adhan: ‘Hussain bin Saeed narrated from Fadhala who narrated from Ala who narrated from Imam Baqir [as] that he used to say: ‘My father Imam Zayn al Abdeen in his house during the Adhan of morning used to say ‘Prayer is better than sleep’ and if I do not say this even then there is no harm. All traditions of this kind in which the saying of ‘Prayer is better than sleep’ is mentioned are understood in respect of Taqqiyah.

Reply

We should first of all point out that Shaykh Tusi did not cite the complete chains of narrations in Al-Istibsar and rather he quoted the remaining part of the chains in another book. Allow us to present the Arabic words of the tradition along with with the complete chain and correct English translation:

عن أبي جعفر عليه السلام قال : كان أبي ينادي في بيته بالصلاة خير من النوم ولو رددت ذلك لم يكن به بأس

Hussain bin Ubaidullah from Ahmad bin Muhammad bin Yahya al-Attar from his father from Muhammad bin Ali bin Mahbub from Ahmad bin Hassan from Hussain bin Saeed from Fudhalah from al-Alaa from Muhammad bin Muslim from Abi Jaffar [as] who said: ‘My father used to call in his house: ‘Prayer is better than sleep’. If you repeat that, there will be no problem’.

Al-Istibsar, Volume 1 page 308
Also in Al-Tahdeeb, Volume 2 page 63 Hadeeth Number 15

The word ‘Adhan’ does not appear in Arabic words of the tradition, therefore those Nawasib who make use of this tradition to prove that Imams of Ahlulbayt [as] believed in the recitation of Tathweeb i.e. the sentence ‘Prayer is better than sleep’ as the part of the Adhan, can not achieve their objective with this tradition. Unlike the Bidah introduced by the Salaf of Nawasib, according to the Shia view Tathweeb is not a part of the Adhan but there is no harm if someone says it away from the Adhan.

It should be known that Imam Zayn al Abdeen [as] led his life amongst the tyrants of Bani Ummayah who were staunch adherents of the Sunnah of the first three caliphs, and they bore a grudge against Ali bin Abi Talib [as]. They utilized spies to ascertain whether the Imams of Ahlulbayt [as] were ‘dissenting’ from State-propagated religion. They would have increased their propaganda against the Imam [as] had they came to know of their deviation from the State-sponsored religion. Therefore, even if Imam Zayn al Abdeen [as] recited Tathweeb and that too, not as the part of Adhan, it should not be a problem.
If we combine the above two paragraphs, then the following words of Muhammad al-Hasoon written in the margin of al-Bahai al-Amili’s book Al-Athna Ashria, page 52 are of relevance:

وبعض الأصحاب لم يحملها على التقية بل على قول ذلك في غير الآذان كقصد التنبيه

“Some of our companions didn’t consider it as Taqiyyah, but they deemed it an announcement other than in the Adhan”.

Moreover, we should also mention that some of the Shi’a scholars have not authenticated one of the narrators in the chain namely Ahmad bin Muhammad bin Yahya al-Attar as Sayyed Khoei declared him Majhul (Mu’ajam al-Rijal, v3 p123), Ibn Dawood said: ‘Muhmal’ (Rijal ibn Dawood, p45), Jawahari said: ‘His authentication is not proven therefore he is Majhul’ (al-Mufid, p46) and Sheikh Fayadh said: ‘He is not authenticated’ (al-Aradi, p295).

Second Tradition

Muhammad ibn Ali ibn Mahbub from Ahmad ibn Al-Hassan from Al-Hussayn from Hammad ibn Isa from Shu’ayb ibn Ya’qub from Abu Basir: “Imam Jafar said: … Al-Tathweeb (i.e. the statement of ‘Al-Salat Khayron Min Al-Nawm’) in Iqama is part of the Sunnat.
Al-Tahdeeb, Volume 2 page 62 Hadeeth Number 14

Reply

We should point out that Allamah Mirza Qumi declared this tradition weak in Minhaj al-Ahkam, page 179.

Third Tradition

Another tradition often used by Nawasib is from Wasa’el Al-Shia, Volume 5 page 427 Hadeeth number 6998:
“Imam Jafar (as) said: When you are in morning prayer say ‘Al-Salat Khayron Min Al-Nawm’ after ‘Hayye Ala Khayr Al-Amal’ in Adhan but don’t say it in Iqama.”

Reply

This tradition is taken from the book of ibn abi Nasr al-Bezanti who wrote his book when he was an adherent Waqifi Sect, therefore, any narrations recorded by him during that period are of no value and are accordingly rejected by the Shias. Sayyed Khoei said in Mujam al-Rijal, Volume 3 page 18:
“He was Waqifi and then he returned.”

The actual belief of Imams [as] about reciting Tathweeb

It would not be incorrect to reach such a conclusion about the tradition cited by the Nawasib when we have clear tradition from the Imams of Ahlulbayt [as] about Tathweeb, for example we read in Bihar al-Anwar, Volume 81 page 173:

الصلاة خير من النوم بدعة بني أمية وليس ذلك من أصل الأذان ، ولا بأس إذا أراد الرجل أن ينبه الناس للصلاة أن ينادي بذلك ، ولا يجعله من أصل الأذان

Imam Kazim [as] said: ‘Prayer is better than sleep’ is an innovation by the Bani Umaya, it is not a part of Adhan but there is no harm if a man wants to wake up the people by saying it, but without including it to the Adhan.

Moreover, we have the following authentic tradition in all four important canonical Shia works that suffice to to refute any attempt to prove that Imams of the Ahlulbayt [as] believed in the Bidah of Nasibi Salaf:
Mu’awiyah ibn Wahab asked Imam as-Sadiq about the Tathweeb [saying ‘Prayer is better than sleep’ between the Adhan and the Iqamah. He said: “It is unknown to us.”

1. Al-Kafi, Volume 3 page 303
2. Al-Faqih, Volume 2 page 63
3. Tahdeeb, Volume 2 page 63
4. Istibsar, Volume 1 page 308
5. Wasa’il, Volume 5 page 426
6. Shaykh Baqar Majlesi in Mirat al-Uqool, Volume 15 page 83 and Sayyed Rohani in Fiqh al-Sadiq, Volume 4 page 329 have declared it Sahih.


Hence we read the following words of Shaykh Tusi in al-Nihayah, page 67:

ولا يجوز التثويب في الأذان. فإن أراد المؤذن إشعار قوم بالأذان، جاز له تكرار الشهادتين دفعتين. ولا يجوز قول ” الصلاة خير من النوم ” في الأذان. فمن فعل ذلك، كان مبتدعا

“Tathweeb is not permissible in Adhan, if the caller (moazen) wanted to notify the people by the adhan, it is permissible for him to repeat the Shahadtayn twice, it is not permissible to say “al-salat khayr men al-naum” in the adhan, whoever does this, he is an innovator (mubtade)”.

Thus, it has been proven that according to the authentic traditions, Imams of Ahlulbayt [as] raised objections at recitation of Tathweeb in Adhan but no harm to recite it generally not as a part of Adhan. Even a tradition showing contrary teaching of Imams [as] was authentic, it would have been understood on the lines of Taqiyah as we have the following tradition from Imam [as]:
“If one is certain that we only proclaim that truth,than that person should be satisified with our teaching. If he hears us say something contradictory to what he heard earlier, he should know that we are acting only in his best interest.”
Al Kafi, Volume 1 page 85 Hadeeth number 6

Invitation to Nawasib to adopt the right path

By considering the right of justice and truth the so-called scholars of Deoband should answer us about this true Islam that they consider to be their inherited property. Why is your version of Islam a collection of contradicting traditions?
The Shi’a justification (for contradictions) can be easily explained since our Imams were persecuted and they spent most of their lives imprisoned, they couldn’t get a proper chance to preach the truth and propagate the truth of the Shi’a Madhab. But your case is different, what did your Abu Bakr, Umar and Othman actually do? Although they were the rulers they were incapable of protecting an Adhan recited five times a day, acknowledged by your scholars in their books.
About the phrases in your Adhan, there is a serious contradiction in your traditions; about “As-salat khair al-Min an-Naum” a variety of traditions can be found in your books. The religion you are following is not the one revealed on Prophet Muhammad (s); it is the Fiqh of Umar that you have stuck to. The level of your knowledge can be easily known by the fact in the light of your own books you cannot even confirm the correct recital of the Adhan. The way Umar introduced the phrase “As-salat khair al-Min an-Naum” in Adhan and then himself termed it as an innovation haunts the Nawasib, and they themselves are confused by the variety of disgusting traditions.

“Haya Ala Khair al-Amal” in Adhan

These words have not been added by us, in fact they were recited by Rasulullah (s) and the true inheritors of his knowledge the Imams from Ahl’ul bayt (as). Its validity can be established from Sunni sources.

Umar opposed the Islamic teachings by removing “Haya Ala Khair al-Amal” from the Adhan

We shall cite the following esteemed Sunni works to corroborate our claim:
  1. Sharh Maqasid, volume 3, page 294
  2. Qaushijee Sharh Tajreed, page 408, .
  3. Abkaar Al Afkaar Manqool Az Tashayed Al-Matahin, volume 1, page 1884.
  4. Tasheed Al Sawa’id Manqool Az Tashayed Al-Matahin, volume 1, page 1884.
Qaushijee states:
(Umar said): ‘O people, three things were there during the reign of Allah’s messenger and I forbid them and will punish for practising them and they are the Mut’ah of women, the Mut’ah of hajj and Haya alaa khayri al-amal’

Imam Sa’aduddin Taftazani stated in Sharah Maqasid:
It has been narrated that he said: ‘Three things were there during the reign of the prophet and I forbid them and they are the two Mut’ah and Haya alaa khayri al-amal’
Note: The Imam of Ahle Sunnah, Abul Hasan Aamidi in Abkaar ul-Afkaar and Imam of Ahle Sunnah Shams-ud-din Mehmood bin Abdul-Rehman bin Ahmed al-Isfahani in Tashayed al-Qawaid have both admitted that the recitation of “Haya Ala Khair al-Amal” in Adhan was stopped by Umar. We want to make it clear to the Nawasib that all four of their Imams have accepted Umar banned the recitation of the concerned phrase in Adhan The author of Tauhfa Ithna Ashari al Muhaddith Shah Abdul Aziz Dehlavi has admitted in the fourth chapter of his Touhfa that if someone quotes a tradition from the opposition and then does not term it as weak then the authenticity of the tradition is proven. Based on this principle, all four Sunni Imams have quoted this tradition verifying to it being authentic, rather than deem this weak they have offered justifications and explanations. The Nawasib blame us for holding a belief that our Imams have the authority to change and abrogate Islamic edicts, a fact that is against the Shi’a madhab. We ask the Nasibis ‘Who gave Umar the authority to ban acts that permitted by Allah and his Holy Prophet (s)?’

Abdullah Ibn Umar, Bilal and Imam Zayn ul Abideen used to recite “Haya Ala Khair al-Amal” in Adhan


  1. Sunan Al-Kubra, Vol. 1 Page 424-425, By Abi Bakr Ahmad Al-Behaqi
    Seerat al Halabiyah, volume 2, page 205, Dhikr e Adhan.
  2. Neel al-Awtar, volume 2 page 41
  3. Sunan al-Kubra, volume 1 pages 424-425
  4. Kanz al-Ummal volume 8 page 342
  5. Tehqeeq Ajeeb fil-Tasweeb, page 5, compiled by Abdul-Hai.
  6. Musanaf Ibn abi Shaybah, Volume 1 page 195
  7. Musanaf Abdulrazaq, Volume 1 page 464
  8. Muwatta Imam Malik, Volume 1 page 162
  9. Kibriyat al-Ahmer, Volume 1 page 43
Behaqqi records:

(وأخبرنا) محمد بن عبد الله الحافظ انا أبو بكر بن اسحاق ثنا بشر بن موسى ثنا موسى بن داود ثنا حاتم بن اسمعيل عن جعفر بن محمد عن أبيه ان علي بن الحسين كان يقول في اذانه إذا قال حي على الفلاح قال حي على خير العمل ويقول هو الاذان الاول

Jaffar bin Muhammad narrated from his father that Ali bin al-Hussain used to say ‘Haya alaa Khayri al amal’ after ‘Haya alaa alfalah’ and he said that this is the first adhan.

Imam Ibn Abi Shaybah records:

حدثنا أبو بكر قال نا حاتم بن إسماعيل عن جعفر عن أبيه ومسلم بن أبي مريم أن علي بن حسين كان يؤذن فإذا بلغ حي على الفلاح قال حي على خير العمل ويقول هو الأذان الأول

Jaffar bin Muhammad narrated from his father that Ali bin al-Hussain used to say ‘Haya alaa Khayri al amal’ after ‘Haya alaa alfalah’ and he said that this is the first adhan.
We also read:

حدثنا أبو أسامة قال نا عبيد الله عن نافع قال كان بن عمر زاد في أذانه حي على خير العمل

Nafee said: Ibn Umar added ‘Haya alaa khayri alamal’ to his adhan

Imam Abdulrazaq al-Sanani records:

عبد الرزاق عن بن جريج عن نافع عن بن عمر أنه كان يقيم الصلاة في السفر يقولها مرتين أو ثلاثا يقول حي على الصلاة حي على الصلاة حي على خير العمل

Nafee said: ‘When Ibn Umar performed prayer while he was traveling, he used to say ‘Haya alaa alsalat hat alaa khayri alamal’ twice or thrice’

We read in Kanz al-Umal, Volume 8 page 342 Tradition 23174:

عن بلال كان بلال يؤذن بالصبح فيقول : حي على خير العمل

Bilal used to recite adhan for morning prayer and say: ‘Haya alaa khayri alamal’
One of the beloved scholars of Salafies namely Showkani stated in his book Nail al Awtar:

أخرج البيهقي في سننه الكبرى بإسناد صحيح عن عبد الله بن عمر أنه كان يؤذن بحي على خير العمل أحيانا وروي فيها عن علي بن الحسين أنه قال : هو الأذان الأول

Beyhaqqi has reported in his book Sunan al-Kubra through Sahih chain that Abdullah Ibn Umar would sometimes recite “Haya Ala Khair al-Amal” in his Adhan and the same book also reports that Ali bin al-Hussain to have said this is the initial Adhan.

The Nawasib should also look at the comments of the obedient student of your Imam e Azam, Imam Muhammad in his book Muwatta e Imam Muhammad which states that:
“Abdullah ibn e Umar used to recite “Haya Ala Khair al-Amal” after “Haya ala al-Falah” in his Adhan. The commentator of the Hadeeth while commenting on this says: “It is Abdullah ibn e Umar’s act which was probably the Sunnah of the Holy Prophet (s) there is nothing wrong if someone practices it.”

Abdullah ibn e Umar is graded by the Ahl’ul Sunnah as a Sahabi son of a Sahabi and second Khaleefa. He was never stopped by anyone from reciting “Haya Ala Khair al-Amal” neither was called an innovator.
Abdulwahab Sherani stated in Kibriyat al-Ahmer, Volume 1 page 43:
“Shaykh Akbar Muhiuddin Ibn Arabi has stated that those who object at the recitation of ‘Haya Ala Khair al-Amal’ during Adhan, I never come across any proof of their objection because on the day of digging the trench, the Holy Prophet [s] himself instructed to recite this sentence in Adhan”

An appeal to the truth

We have proven that the recitation of “Haya Ala Khair al-Amal” in Adhan was prohibited by Umar bin Khattab, the Shi’a do not have a high regard for him because he introduced new practices and changed the Shariah which is a major sin. Umar while prohibiting the recitation of the concerned phrase in Adhan had threatened that he would punish anyone who would oppose him. As Umar is no longer in our midst nor are his threats and fear still casting a shadow over the Ummah, we ask our critics for Allah’s sake turn to the right path, because you are answerable to Allah for your deeds, not to Umar.

A Wahaby scholar’s acceptance of the Shi’a Adhan

Famous Ahl-e-Hadeeth Scholar Maulana Waheed uz-Zaman Hyderabadi in his book Anwaar ul-Lughat, part (Para) 18, page 5-6, published by Hashmat ul-Islam press, Bangalore, India, under the caption of “An-nazr ala wajh Ali ibadah” writes:
A Shi’a Muezzin used to recite “Ashadu ana Ali un-Wali Allah” in Adhan, this bothered and infuriated the Sunnis, they came to me and complained, in reply to them I said: “That Muezzin just says -Ashadu ana Ali un-Wali Allah- whereas I say much more than this as -Ashadu ana Ali an-Imam al-Awliya wa Sayyid al-Wasiya wa Khair al-Khalaiq ba’d al-Ambiya-”
Note: Maulana Waheed uz-Zaman’s book Anwaar ul-Lughat has been re-published in Pakistan by the name of Lughaat ul-Hadeeth.

The Deobandi Adhan was formulated by the dreams of newly converted Muslims and not in accordance with divine revelations

  1. Sunan Abu-Daud, Chapter of Adhan Book 2, Number 0498:
  2. Saheeh Tirmidhi, Chapter of Adhan.
  3. Sunan Ibn e Majah, Chapter of Adhan.
Sunan Abu Daud:
AbuUmayr reported on the authority of his uncle who was from the Ansar (the helpers of the Prophet): The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) was anxious as to how to gather the people for prayer. The people told him: Hoist a flag at the time of prayer; when they see it, they will inform one another. But he (the Prophet) did not like it. Then someone mentioned to him the horn.
Ziyad said: A horn of the Jews. He (the Prophet) did not like it. He said: This is the matter of the Jews. Then they mentioned to him the bell of the Christians. He said: This is the matter of the Christians. Abdullah ibn Zayd returned anxiously from there because of the anxiety of the Apostle (peace_be_upon_him). He was then taught the call to prayer in his dream. Next day he came to the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) and informed him about it.
He said: Apostle of Allah, I was between sleep and wakefulness; all of a sudden a newcomer came (to me) and taught me the call to prayer. Umar ibn al-Khattab had also seen it in his dream before, but he kept it hidden for twenty days.
Note: Qur’an says that the Holy Prophet (s) said: “speaks nothing but revelation.”
And three of the “Saheeh” books of Sunnis say that Holy Prophet (s) followed the dreams of the companions rather than divine revelations.

An appeal to logic

The tradition about Adhan being imposed after the dreams of the companions is a lie and absolute trash, and that is why Imam Bukharee has Imam Muslim have diluted this tradition like Umar’s wine.
Those barking Mullahs who blame the Shi’a for additions in the Adhan should first sweep their own doors wherein they shall see that their entire Adhan is void as it was due to the dreams of companions and not divine revelation. Why could the companions shape the Shariah of Allah Almighty. The humiliation for the Nasibis is compounded by the fact that their dreamt Adhan did not hold the phrase of “As-salat khair al-Min an-Naum”. The Qur’an says that the Prophet (s) takes the Shariah from the commandments of Allah, whereas the so-called correct books of Sunnis state that he made the Shariah by following the dreams of the companions. Such a belief contradicts the Holy Qur’an and is outside Islam. Shi’a belief is clear, that the Adhan was via divine revelation as affirmed in their texts.

Hanafi Fiqh permits citing the names of Khaleefa’s while reciting Adhan

As proof we advance the following esteemed Sunni works:
  1. Fatah al-Qadeer Sharh Hidayah, page 215, Dhikr of Adhan.
  2. Al-Kifaya Sharh Hidayah, page 215 by Jalal-ud-din Khuwarzmi.
  3. Sharh Hidayah, page 215
  4. Al-Badaya wal-Nihayah, Volume 9 page 267
  5. Aojaz al-Masalik Sharh Muwatta e Imam Malik, volume 2, page 27.
Al-Kifaya:
“An innovation started by Imam of Ahl’ul Sunnah Abu Yusaf was that the Caller of Prayer (Moazzin) should take the names of Khaleefa’s and the Ameer and pay regards and blessings to him and after that he should say “Haya ala As-Salat” and this innovation was introduced as it was for the Caliphs of the Holy Prophet (s).”

Ibn Katheer while praising Umar Ibn Abdul Aziz writes in his esteemed work Al Bidaya wa al Nihaya:
“Umar ibn e Abdul-Aziz’s caliphate was the revival of Khilafat-e-Rasihida and the era of second life of the Islamic civilization and culture, Quranic orders, Prophetic Sunnah and the Islamic teachings.”


Al-Badayah wa Al-Nahayah, Vol 6, Page 267, By Ibn Katheer
On the very next page we read:
“Uthman al-Rahi al-Hamsi narrates that he had heard the Moazzin of Umar ibn e Abdul Aziz convey Salaams to him in between Adhan by saying Asalam-o-Alaikum ya Ameer-al-Mo’mineen wa rehmatullah-e-wa-barakatuhu, Hai-e-alas-salat, hai-e-alal-falah, as-salat qad-qarbat, i-e “O! Leader of the believers, Allah’s blessings be on you, Hasten towards prayer, Hasten towards Prosperity, the time for prayer has approached.”
Al Bidaya wal Nihaya, Volume 9, Page 267, published by Nafees Academy Karachi

Note: If sending blessings on Umar Ibn Abdul Aziz in Azan makes his era the era of Quranic injunctions and Sunnah then how can the recitation of “Ali yun Waliyullah” which is the Sunnah of Prophets and Sahaba constitute a prohibited act?

The founder of the innovation of taking the names of caliphs in Adhan was Mu’awiyah, the Imam of Nasibis

We read in Aujaz al-Masalik Sharh Muwatta Imam Malik, volume 2, page 27:
“Ibn Abi Zaib says that he had asked Zuhri who introduced the practice of conveying Salaams in Adhan he had replied that it was started by Mu’awiyah.”
Note: The seed of Banu Zarqa happily accept, hearing the names of these Khaleefa’s in Adhan, those who spent their days persecuting the masses and spent their nights drinking and indulging in vulgar acts. Curiously when it comes to reciting the name of righteous Khaleefa and Leader of Believers, Ali (as) in Adhan they deem this abhorrent and unacceptable. This hatred is a trait of the illegal offspring of Banu Umayyah.

Umar bin Khattab added words in the Salah

Saheeh Muslim, Book 004, Number 0788:
‘Abda reported: ‘Umar b. al-Khattab used to recite loudly these words: Subhanak Allahumma wa bi hamdika wa tabarakasmuka wa ta’ala jadduka wa la ilaha ghairuka [Glory to Thee,0 Allah, and Thine is the Praise, and Blessed is Thy Name. and Exalted is Thy Majesty. and there is no other object of worship beside Thee]. Qatada informed in writing that Anas b. Malik had narrated to him: I observed prayer behind the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) and Abu Bakr and Umar and ‘Uthman. They started (loud recitation) with: AI-hamdu lillahi Rabb al-’Alamin [All Praise is due to Allah, the Lord of the worlds] and did not recite Bismillah ir- Rahman-ir-Rahim (loudly) at the beginning of the recitation or at the end of it.
Could the Ahl’ul Sunnah kindly produce a list of those Ulema that issued Fatwas of Bidah against Umar for ADDING words to the Salat of Rasulullah (s)? As Nasibi constantly point out any addition to the Deen (no matter how pious it may seem) is a Bidah, and all Bidah’s will be rejected. This being the case what about this Bidah? If the heart of these Nasibis is content with such a Bidah, why the objection if the Shi’a recite Aliyun Waliyullah as part of the call to prayer?


TABLIG AKBAR PENYEBARAN KEBENCIAN MAZHAB DIBATALKAN APARAT

Alhamdulillah acara “Tabligh Akbar “Memperkokoh Akidah Aswaja, Menjaga NKRI dari Bahaya Syiah” yang akan berlangsung hari ini Ahad 22 Maret 2015 sejak kemarin telah dibatalkan Aparat keamanan karena berpotensi menimbulkan gesekan dan konflik horisontal. 

Aparat menilai bahwa acara ini hanyalah kedok saja membawa nama NKRI tetapi sejatinya adalah penyebaran kebencian sektarian dari kelompok-kelompok ekstrem dan Intoleran. Beberapa nama yang disinyalir dan didapatkan bukti di lapangan adalah tokoh-tokoh pemecah-belah umat yang seharusnya jangan dibiarkan leluasa untuk naik panggung.

Pembatalan ini resmi atas koordinasi dan perintah Danramil dan Kapolda, panitia telah dipanggil dan dimintai keterangannya perihal acara yang akan diselenggarakan.Kepala Intel Polisi pun sudah memberitahukan sejak hari Sabtu kemarin spanduk-spanduk provokatif penyelenggaraan Tablig Akbar sudah di copot semua.

Kesigapan dan perhatian para Aparat patut kita apresiasi dan acungi jempol karena api konflik sektarian yang terjadi di Timur-Tengah akan di bawa dengan simbol-simbol agama dan mazhab oleh kelompok-kelompok radikal dan intoleran (Takfiri) telah diantisipasi secara cepat dengan membatalkan TABLIG AKBAR PENYEBARAN KEBENCIAN.
 
Kedepannya kita harapkan kerjasama yang pro aktif antara masyarakat dan aparat penegak hukum lebih memberikan perhatian kepada program cuci otak massal oleh kelompok-kelompok ekstrem ini.
HADIRILAH Tabligh Akbar “Memperkokoh Akidah Aswaja, Menjaga NKRI dari Bahaya Syiah”

Hari/Tanggal : Ahad, 22 Maret 2015
Waktu : 08.00 WIB (pagi)-Selesai
Tempat : Masjid Fatahillah, Komplek KPAD Bulak Rantai Kramat Jati, Jakarta Timur
Pembicara: Habib Achmad Zein Alkaff (Wakil Suriyah PWNU Jawa Timur), Ustadz dr. Haidar Bawazir (Pakar Syiah), DR Abdul Chair Ramadhan, SH, MH, MM (Anggota MUI Bidang Hukum dan Perundang-undangan), Munarman, SH (Pengacara)
Panitia: Lembaga Dakwah Kemuliaan Islam (LDKI)

Media Partner:
Media-media pro radikalisme dan intoleransi
1. VOA-Islam.com
2. Salam-Online
3. Nahimunkar.com
4. Kiblat
5. Bumisyam.com
6. eramuslim.com
7. arrahmah.com
8. panjimas.com
9. Dakta FM
10.syiah-organizer.com

Dan berpegang teguhlah kamu sekelian kepada tali Allah (agama Islam), dan janganlah kamu bercerai-berai, dan kenanglah nikmat Allah kepada kamu ketika kamu bermusuh-musuhan (semasa jahiliah dahulu), lalu Allah menyatukan di antara hati kamu (sehingga kamu bersatu-padu dengan nikmat Islam), maka menjadilah kamu dengan nikmat Allah itu orang-orang Islam yang bersaudara.

Jadi ayat ini menjelaskan bahwa PERSATUAN adalah NIKMAT dan PERMUSUHAN adalah BALA’ dan KEHANCURAN.

 

Syiah Dibelakang Pemblokiran Situs Islam? Indonesia sudah darurat Wahabi, bukan darurat Syi’ah


Pertemuan media Islam dengan BNPT.

berikut dialog Al Irsyad dengan wakil BNPT:

Al irsyad : Jangan2 ini pesanan syiah…karena situs2 yang bapak blokir itu…semua menentang syiah…jangan2 itu alasannya…iya pak???

BNPT : Kami belum bisa menjawab…


Ketua Aliansi Nasional Anti Syiah (ANNAS) Pusat Ustadz Athian Ali M. Da’i, MA menyayangkan sikap BNPT menutup sejumlah situs media Islam yang dituduh sebagai situs radikal. Akan tetapi, BNPT melupakan Syiah. Sebuah kelompok dinilai Ustadz Athian berpotensi menggulingkan pemerintah.

“Kita menganggap kelompok Syiah ini adalah kelompok radikal yang berpotensi untuk melakukan revolusi, karena tidak ada Syiah tanpa revolusi,” tegasnya saat kepada Jurniscom, rabu (1/4/2015.
Alasannya, menurut Ustadz Athian, salah satu rukun iman Syiah adalah Imamah dan salah satu rukun Islam adalah wilayah. “Dan (revolusi-red) itu sudah mereka lakukan di Irak, di Libanon, di Suriah, yang terahir di Yaman,” katanya sembari menambahkan hal tersebut sangat mungkin terjadi di Indonesia.

“Jadi, mestinya kelompok ini yang seharusnya diawasi. Kelompok ini berpotensi melakukan revolusi, bukan terorisme lagi,” ungkapnya.


 Makin masifnya gerakan anti-Syiah di Indonesia menciptakan kekhawatiran tersendiri bagi peneliti terorisme di Asia Tenggara, Sidney Jones. Penasihat senior International Crisis Group (ICG) di Indonesia ini mengungkapkan bahwa jika hal ini terus dibiarkan, Muslim Syiah Indonesia bukan tak mungkin akan menjadi target baru terorisme.

Dalam wawancara dengan wartawan Media ABI, Sidney Jones menengarai konflik Suriah yang dipersepsi oleh kelompok teroris sebagai konflik Sunni-Syiah –meski sudah jelas Basshar sendiri bukan Syiah– bisa mengubah peta terorisme di Indonesia. “Saya khawatir konflik Suriah yang ditafsirkan di sini sebagai konflik Sunni-Syiah (oleh kelompok radikal). Bisa saja terjadi target Syiah akan naik dalam kalkulasi para teroris di Indonesia,” terang dia.

Hal lain yang juga dikhawatirkannya adalah upaya kelompok radikal mengirimkan warga Indonesia ke Suriah untuk membantu pemberontak di negara itu. “Ini artinya, akan ada generasi teroris yang akan kembali ke Indonesia. Mungkin seperti alumni Afghanistan dulu yang ternyata bisa mengubah pola terorisme di Indonesia.”.

Lebih lanjut dia menambahkan, “Mereka akan bisa melakukan aksi yang jauh lebih dahsyat terhadap kelompok-kelompok ini (Syiah).”.

“Pernah ada satu perencanaan aksi terorisme terhadap Syiah di Indonesia yang dipimpin oleh Abu Umar. Saat mereka ditangkap, mereka sudah membuat survei beberapa lembaga Syiah di Jakarta. Sejak saat itu muncul daftar 77 lembaga Syiah yang kemudian tersebar melalui facebook dan baru-baru ini dimuat di situs voaislam.com. Ini bisa mendorong kelompok-kelompok jihadi untuk menyerang Syiah,” tambahnya.

Saat ditanya mengapa tiba-tiba saja muncul fenomena propaganda masif kebencian terhadap Syiah ini, Sidney sendiri merasa heran. Ia mengaku sebelumnya tak pernah memikirkan bahwa Syiah akan menjadi target terorisme di Indonesia. “Saya tidak tahu. Tetapi saya kira tidak dari rasa kebencian masyarakat Indonesia sendiri. Karena masyarakat Indonesia adalah orang-orang yang sudah berabad-abad hidup rukun dan bertoleransi terhadap Syiah.”.

Jika bukan asli dari masyarakat Indonesia yang memang selama berabad-abad tercatat hidup damai bersama Syiah, lalu dari manakah propaganda masif yang tiba-tiba saja muncul mengobarkan kebencian sektarian terhadap Syiah ini?


Belakang ini opini-opini yang dihembuskan Wahabi seolah-olah Indonesia darurat Syi’ah, padahal Indonesia sudah darurat Wahabi. Wahabi membuat Indonesia seolah-olah dipenuhi Syi’ah, sebab Wahhabi lah yang paling getol gembar-gembor menyatakan Syi’ah kafir. Mereka juga pasang spanduk dimana-mana.

Syi’ah juga seolah-seolah jumlahnya banyak karena Aswaja / Ahlussunnah wal Jama’ah sebagai umat Islam terbesar di Indonesia dituduh Syi’ah. Bila penganut Aswaja yang dituduh Syi’ah maka tentu saja terlihat banyak.

Wahabi secara mutlak mengkafirkan Syi’ah. Berbeda dengan Aswaja yang masih mengklasifikasi kelompok Syi’ah. Konsekuensi dari mengkafirkan yang mereka lakukan itu berarti Halal darahnya atau boleh dibunuh. Dalam hal ini, Wahabi sedang mencari legitimasi untuk melakukan pembunuhan terhadap Syi’ah.

Siapa yang akan jadi korban?. Korban utama dan terbanyak adalah Ahlussunnah wal Jama’ah (Aswaja), sebab Aswaja sebagai kelompok umat Islam terbesar pun dituduh Syi’ah dan pembela Syi’ah oleh Wahabi, akhirnya darahnya dihalalkan pula oleh Wahabi.

Bila sudah dihalalkan maka akan ada aksi bunuh-membunuh. Akhirnya Indonesia kacau, terjadilah konflik sektrarian seperti di Libya, Suriah dan lain-lain yang tak ada ujung berakhirnya. Semoga Allah melindungi negeri kita dari orang-orang jahat.

Kita umat Islam saat ini sudah aman, shalat aman tidak diganggu, tidak ada bom meledak tiap hari, tidak ada bangunan hancur karena bom tiap hari, kita aman pergi ke pasar tanpa takut tembakan, kita aman bersekolah, kita aman mengaji, kita aman bertani, kita aman berdagang, kita aman naik kendaraan, tidak ada bom mobil, kita aman bekerja di kantor, kita tidak mengungsi akibat perang yang tidak berkesudahan.

Maka waspadailah pihak-pihak yang berusaha meng-import konflik sektarian Timur Tengah ke negeri Indonesia yang aman ini. Mengapa konflik sektarian di munculkan? Siapa yang memiliki kepentingan ?

Dr. Michael Brant, salah seorang mantan tangan kanan direktur CIA, Bob Woodwards yang mengawali adanya kepentingan Transnasional dalam menciptakan konflik Sunni-Syiah. Dalam sebuah buku berjudul “A Plan to Devide and Destroy the Theology”, Michael mengungkapkan bahwa CIA telah mengalokasikan dana sebesar 900 juta USD untuk melancarkan berbagai aktivitas anti-Syiah.

Hal ini kemudian diperkuat oleh publikasi laporan RAND Corporation di tahun 2004, dengan judul “US Strategy in The Muslim World After 9/11“. Laporan ini dengan jelas dan eksplisit menganjurkan untuk terus mengekploitasi perbedaan antara Ahlu Sunnah dan Syiah demi kepentingan AS di Timur Tengah. [[1]http://nu.or.id/a,public-m,dinamic-s,detail-ids,4-id,47029-lang,id-c,kolom-t,Di+Balik+Merebaknya+Konflik+Sunni+Syiah+di+Jawa+Timur-.phpx]
___________________
FAISOL RAMDHONI*
Di Balik Merebaknya Konflik Sunni-Syiah di Jawa Timur

Sabtu, 14/09/2013 09:41

Saat ini publik Jawa Timur (Jatim) kembali dicengangkan oleh sebuah peristiswa kekerasan yang berbalut agama. Peristiswa berdarah yang terjadi di Puger ini sungguh sangat mengejutkan, memprihatinkan sekaligus mengkhawatirkan banyak pihak.

Belum lama dari meletusnya peristiwa puger ini, masih segar dalam ingatan publik akan kasus konflik dan isu serupa yang terjadi di desa Karanggayam dan desa Bluuran kabupaten Sampang. Konflik yang berujung pada aksi kekerasan massa ini telah menyebabkan diungsikannya ratusan warga yang diduga pengikut aliran syiah ke Sidoarjo dengan alasan untuk menjaga stabilitas dan kondusifitas masyarakat.

Keterkejutan dan kekhwatiran publik ini sangatlah beralasan, peristiwa Puger ini meledak di saat proses rekonsiliasi konflik Sampang masih dalam tahap pematangan. Walaupun sebenarnya penyelesaian konflik di Puger sudah dilakukan di awal tahun 2012 dengan ditandatanagninya perundingan damai antar kedua belah pihak. Namun nyatanya diluar dugaan semua pihak, eskalasi konflik yang melibatkan kelomok sunni dan kelompok syiah ini meninggi dan terjadilah peristiwa karnaval berdarah.

Di Jawa Timur, peristiwa konflik bertema sunni-syiah baik yang terjadi di Jember maupun Sampang ini sepertinya sebuah kelanjutan mata rantai dari peristiwa serupa yang terjadi di berbagai daerah di tahun-tahun sebelumnya. Sebut saja, mulai dari penyerangan sekelompok massa terhadap para pengikut IJABI yang terjadi di Desa Jambesari Kecamatan Jambesari Darussolah Kabupaten Bondowoso, pada tanggal 23 Desember2006, insiden penyerangan pesantren YAPI yang berpaham syiah oleh sekelompok orang yang mengatasnamakan laskar Aswaja ada tahun 2010-211 di Bangil Pasuruan dan ketegangan-ketengan berskala kecil yang terjadi Malang.

Fenomena ini sungguh sangat menarik, dalam artian meskipun ajaran Syiah ini banyak tersebar di Indonesia dan juga pernah mengalam resistensi di daerah lain seperti di Pandeglang Provinsi Jawa Barat (6/2/2011) dan Temanggung Provinsi Jawa Tengah (8/2/2011) namun tidak separah dan sebesar di Jawa Timur. Di Provinsi ini, eskalasi konflik dengan isu Sunni-Syiah semakin tahun mengalami peningkatan dan resistensi tehadap ajaran syiah semakin menguat dan meluas di tengah masyarakat.

Dengan demikian, maka sangatlah wajar bila kemudian muncul asumsi-asumsi konspiratif yang mengitari rentetan letusan konflik bertema Sunni-Syiah di Jawa Timur. Bahwa ada unsur kesengejaan untuk menciptakan dan memelihara konflik Sunni-Syiah yang melibatkan kekuatan transnasional. Pertanyaannya kemudian “ Benarkah ada keterlibatan kekuatan transnasional di balik konflik bertema Sunni-Syiah ini serta Mengapa percepatan dan penguatan konflik berada di Jawa Timur?”

Adalah Dr. Michael Brant, salah seorang mantan tangan kanan direktur CIA, Bob Woodwards yang mengawali adanya kepentingan Transnasional dalam menciptakan konflik Sunni-Syiah. Dalam sebuah buku berjudul “A Plan to Devide and Destroy the Theology”, Michael mengungkapkan bahwa CIA telah mengalokasikan dana sebesar 900 juta USD untuk melancarkan berbagai aktivitas anti-Syiah. Hal ini kemudian diperkuat oleh publikasi laporan RAND Corporation di tahun 2004, dengan judul “US Strategy in The Muslim World After 9/11". Laporan ini dengan jelas dan eksplisit menganjurkan untuk terus mengekploitasi perbedaan antara Ahlu Sunnah dan Syiah demi kepentingan AS di Timur Tengah.

Kemenangan Revolusi Iran tahun 1979 telah menggagalkan politik-politik Barat yang sebelumnya menguasai kawasan negara Islam. Iran yang sebelumnya tunduk dan patuh terhadap AS, pasca revolusi, justru lebih banyak menampilkan sikap yang berseberangan dengan negeri “Paman Sam” itu. Karenanya, AS merasa berkepentingan untuk menjaga agar konflik Sunni-Syiah itu tetap ada di wilayah Timteng demi melanjutkan hegemoninya di kawasan tersebut.

Fakta di lapangan menunjukkan bahwa apa yang dinyatakan oleh Michael Brant bukanlah sebagai sebuah halusinasi. Jauh sebelum revolusi Iran tahun 1979, sangat jarang ditemukan konflik terbuka antara Syiah dan Ahlus Sunnah, kecuali konflik yang bersifat sporadis di antara kelompok-kelompok kecil dari kedua kalangan di Irak, Libanon dan Suriah.

Sementara itu, khusus di Indonesia, keberadaan kaum Syiah bukan barang baru. Syiah telah ada sejak dahulu kala. Namun, seperti layaknya secara umum, di Indonesia hampir tak pernah ditemui konflik sektarian yang melibatkan antara Sunni-Syiah. Karenanya bagi sebagian pengamat, sangatlah mengherankan jika tiba-tiba Sunni-Syiah turut mewarnai konflik bernuansa SARA di Indonesia. Bila kita tarik apa yang dinyatakan oleh Michael Brant tersebut ke ranah domestik, maka jelas ada kepentingan di luar SARA yang turut berperan -bahkan mengambil porsi lebih besar- dalam konflik Sunni-Syiah di Indonesia.

Selanjutnya, di Indonesia kepentingan tranasional Barat ini bersimbiosis dengan kekuatan kelompok Islam transnasional yang kemudian banyak diidentikan dengan gerakan Wahabisasi Global. Tujuan utama kelompok ini adalah dengan membuat dan medukung kelompok-kelompok lokal untuk membuat wajah Islam lebih keras dan radikal serta berusaha memusnahkan pengamalan-pengamalan Islam yang lebih toleran yang lebih lama ada dan dominan di Indonesia. Kelompok ini berusaha keras untuk menginfiltrasi berbagai sendi kehidupan umat Islam Indonesia dalam beragam cara baik secara halus mapun kasar.

Hal ini sebagaimana diungkapkan oleh K.H. Abdurrahman Wahid dalam pengantar buku Ilusi Negara Islam bahwa Gerakan asing Wahabi/Ikhwanul Muslimin dan kaki tangannya di Indonesia menggunakan petrodollar dalam jumlah yang fantastis untuk melakukan Wahabisasi, merusak Islam Indonesia yang spiritual, toleran, dan santun, dan mengubah Indonesia sesuai dengan ilusi mereka tentang negara Islam yang di Timur Tengah pun tidak ada. Mereka akan mudah menuduh kelompok Islam lain yang tidak sepaham dengan ajaran wahabi sebagai kafir, sesat dan murtad.

Analisis ini juga dikuatkan oleh sebuah realitas pergerakan politik di Timur Tengah, dikonflik Internasional kita lihat perang Saudara di Irak, Suriah, Pakistan dan Afgahnaistan semuanya ditarik pada perang antara Sunni dan Syiah, belum lagi ancaman serangan ke Iran yg notebene adalah pusat Syiah. Arab Saudi sebagai Poros Wahabi dunia ini sangat ingin punya pengaruh d Timur Tengah, namun kalah pamor dengan Iran yang lebih mempunyai Sumber Daya Alam maupun sumber daya manusia yang pintar-pintar, sejak jaman persia dahulu kala. Sedangkan di Indonesia sendiri, konflik Sunni-Syiah tidak mempunyai akar sejarah politik.

Rupanya kelompok Wahabisasi global ini pun memahami bahwa NU merupakan penghalang utama pencapaian target idiologis dan politik mereka. Sebagai organisasi Sunni terbesar di Indonesia selama ini NU begitu gencar dalam memperjuangkan nilai-nilai Islam yang moderat, humanis dan toleran. Bahkan dalam pergaulan internasional di bidang keagamaan pemikiran-pemikiran NU berikut tokoh-tokohnya menjadi refrensi umat Islam dunia. Citra sebagai gerakan Islam moderat, diakui atau tidak, adalah milik NU. Praksis, upaya-upaya untuk mendiskreditkan, merusak citra NU sebagai organisasi kaum sunni dengan ajaran Islam yang lembut dan toleran kerap dilakukan salah satunya dengan membenturkan kaum Nahdliyin dengan kaum syii di Indonesia.

Untuk melakukannya lalu dipilihlah Jawa Timur sebagai lokasi pabrik yang memproduksi konflik-konflik bertema Sunni-Syiah. Pilihan ini sangatlah strategis, publik tahu bahwa Jawa Timur merupakan basis utama para penganut paham ajaran Islam Ahlussunnah Wal Jama’ah . Di Jawa Timur lah, NU sebagai organisasi masyarakat terbesar di Indonesia yang berpahamkan Islam Ahlussunnah Wal Jama’ah dideklarasikan dan didirikan yang kemudian berkembang pesat dan cepat ke seluruh penjuru nusantara. Di Jawa Timur pulalah, dinamika pergerakan NU menjadi barometer politik nasional.

Di samping itu, pilihan lokasi konflik seperti Jember, Pasuruan, Malang dan Sampang juga bukan tanpa kalkulasi yang strategis. Publik pun tahu, bahwa di daerah-daerah tersebut karakter masyarakatnya sangat lekat dengan kultur Madura. Selain dikenal sebagai pengikut NU yang fanatik, masyarakat dengan kultur madura ini telah menjadikan Islam sebagai salah satu unsur penanda identitas etnik Madura. Sebagai unsur identitas etnik, agama merupakan bagian integral dari harga diri orang Madura.

Oleh karena itu, pelecehan terhadap ajaran agama atau perilaku yang tidak sesuai dengan agama, mengkritik kiai serta mengkritik perilaku keagamaan orang Madura, merupakan pelecehan terhadap harga diri orang Madura. Maka janganlah heran jika, warga Nahdliyin Madura dimanfaatkan dan mudah disulut sebagai pengobar api kerusuhan dengan isu sentimen beda aliran agama. Walhasil, eskalasi percepatan isu dan penguatan konflik terbesar berada di wilayah Madura dan Tapal Kuda dan jarang sekali berada di zona lainnya seperti pantura maupun zona matraman. Wallahu alam bis showab

* Penulis adalah Ketua Lakpesdam NU Sampang
__________________________

Perlu diketahui, bahwa keberadaan kaum Syiah bukan barang baru di Indonesia. Namun, seperti layaknya secara umum, di Indonesia hampir tak pernah ditemui konflik sektarian yang melibatkan antara Sunni-Syiah.

Tetapi belakangan ini, mulai muncul konflik sektarian Sunni-Syiah di Indonesia. Bila kita tarik apa yang dinyatakan oleh Michael Brant tersebut ke ranah domestik, maka jelas ada kepentingan di luar SARA yang turut berperan -bahkan mengambil porsi lebih besar- dalam konflik Sunni-Syiah di Indonesia.

Jadi sebenarnya ada kepentingan transnasional Barat dibalik konflik sektarian. Kepentingan tranasional Barat ini bersimbiosis dengan kekuatan kelompok Islam transnasional yang kemudian banyak diidentikkan dengan gerakan Wahabisasi Global.

Jika bukan asli dari masyarakat Indonesia yang memang selama berabad-abad tercatat hidup damai bersama Syiah, lalu dari manakah propaganda masif yang tiba-tiba saja muncul mengobarkan kebencian sektarian terhadap Syiah ini?

Kesimpulan :
Yang sebenar sebenarnya adalah : “Radikalis wahabi melakukan gerakan anti syi’ah dengan mengatas namakan AHLUSUNNAH WAL JAMA’AH  demi merebut kantong kantong Nahdlatul Ulama (NU)”

HASIL BUKTI SUNNI DAN SYIAH DI ADU SALAFI WAHABI DAN ZIONIS ISRAEL, PENTINGNYA DETEKSI DINI ANCAMAN BRUTALITAS DARI WAHABI EKSTRIM

APAKAH INDONESIA MAU MENGALAMI NASIB SEPERTI DI LIBYA DAN SURIAH ?
BELAJAR DARI REALITAS YANG DAPAT DIKETAHUI DARI KEHANCURAN BERBAGAI PENINGGALAN SEJARAH SITUS-SITUS ISLAM DAN BUDAYA NASIONAL DI BEBERAPA NEGARA ISLAM DI IRAK, LIBYA, MESIR, SURIA DLL.
DAPAT DIKETAHUI BAHWA UMUMNYA PELAKU PENGHANCURAN DILAKUKAN OLEH KELOMPOK EKSTRIM YANG BERPAHAM SALAFI ALA WAHABI. KELOMPOK INI IDENTIK DENGAN MUDAHNYA MENGANGGAP MUSLIM LAINNYA SEBAGAI PELAKU BID'AH/SYIRIK/ DAN MUDAH MENGKAFIRKAN MUSLIM DILUAR ALIRANNYA.
KEJADIAN DI IRAK,...BAHKAN ENTAH ADA KONSPIRASI DENGAN GERAKAN WAHABI ISIS...DIMANA DENGAN MUDAHNYA KOTA-KOTA DI UTARA IRAK BISA DIREBUT OLEH ISIS BESERTA PROPERTI YANG ADA...BELAKANGAN MILITER MULAI BERUPAYA MEREBUT KEMBALI.
PERISTIWA DI IRAK TADI MENUNJUKKAN KELEMAHAN ANTISIPASI PEMERINTAH DAN KETIDAKMAMPUAN SISTEM PERTAHANAN DINI DARI ANCAMAN TERORIS YANG TERSISTEMATIS.
APAKAH INDONESIA MAU MENGALAMI NASIB SEPERTI DI IRAK, LIBYA DAN IRAQ ?
KASUS LIBYA
Ditumbangkannya Pemimpin Libya 
oleh Konspirasi Global

Muammar Qadafi menjalin Hubungan dengan 
Negara dan Tokoh Anti Kolonialisme
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Muammar Qadafi adalah seorang Muslim
 
 

 
 
 
 (Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi reads during a mass prayer during a celebration to mark the birthday of Prophet Mohammed in Agadez March 30, 2007. REUTERS/Samuel De Jaegere)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Surat kabar Libya Akhbar Libiya (26/2/2010) melansir, beberapa raja-raja dan pemimpin Afrika dari negara Nigeria, Madagaskar, dan Ghana mengucapkan syahadat di hadapan Qadzafi saat dilangsungkannya.
 
Demonstrasi Keislaman ke-V yang rutin digelar tahunan di kota Benghazi, Libya, pada Kamis (25/2) malam.
Sebelum para raja dan pemimpin suku itu mengucapkan dua kalimat syahadat, Qadzafi terlebih dahulu memberikan ceramah dan wejangan keislaman, semisal rukun Iman, Islam, dan ajaran-ajaran Islam mulia lainnya.

Qadzafi juga menyerukan, agar senantiasa menjalankan apa yang telah dititahkan Allah dan menjauhi segala laranganNya, menjalankan ibadah dan amal-amalan shaleh.

Setelah memberikan ceramah dan wejangan, Qadzafi pun menuntun mereka mengucapkan dua kalimat syahadat, dengan bahasa Arab dan Prancis, serta menuntun mereka membaca surat Alfatihah. (ags/al)
http://mhfathurrahim.wordpress.com/2010/02/

 

Libya’s Gaddafi upsets Italy with bid to convert women to Islam

 
(Photo: Italian woman with Koran at Gaddafi meeting, 30 August 2010/Max Rossi)
Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi’s attempt to convert dozens of young women to Islam during a visit to Italy led to an angry reaction from Italian media on Monday. The mercurial Gaddafi invited a large group of young women hired by a hostessing agency to an event at a Libyan cultural centre in Rome on Sunday and tried to convert them to Islam.

“What would happen if a European head of state went to Libya or another Islamic country and invited everyone to convert to Christianity?”asked the daily Il Messagero. “We believe it would provoke very strong reactions across the Islamic world.”

Press reports said three women had converted, but there was no way to verify if that was true. The event, due to be repeated on Monday, followed a similar reception involving some 200 women on a previous visit by Gaddafi to Rome last year.

Italy is now Libya’s biggest trading partner and buys much of its oil and gas from the energy-rich North African state. Libya is also a big investor in the Italian economy. But many commentators were not happy. “The national interest does not justify and certainly does not require anyone to agree to playing host to grotesque acts of clowning,”wrote La Stampa in an editorial.

======================================
 
 
A group of about 200 young women arrives for a meeting with Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi at a Libyan cultural centre in Rome August 30, 2010.
 
Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi gave a lesson on Islam and copies of the Quran to a few hundred young Italian women Sunday as he arrived in Rome
http://noahdavidsimon.blogspot.com/2010_08_01_archive.html
==============================
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
A woman speaks with the media as she arrives with about 200 other young women for a meeting with Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi at a Libyan cultural centre in Rome
===============================================

Gadhafi Upsets Some Italians by Urging Conversion to Islam

Updated Aug. 30, 2010 12:01 a.m. ET
ROME—Libyan leader Col. Moammar Gadhafi, who holds increasing sway in the Italian economy, upset some Italians by urging conversion to Islam during a three-day visit to the predominantly Roman Catholic country.
Col. Gadhafi held a series of private meetings on Sunday and Monday with some 800 Italian women and a small group of young men organized by a hostess agency and paid for by the Libyan government.
 
 
A woman wearing a headscarf leaves a meeting with Libyan leader Col. Moammar Gadhafi in Rome on Monday. Reuters
Some women who took part in a meeting Sunday told reporters the Libyan leader lectured them on Islam, and then presided over a ceremony in which, they said, a handful of women converted to Islam. The attendees, who were paid to attend the meeting, left carrying bound copies of the Quran that they said were gifts from Col. Gadhafi.
The meetings have become a ritual accompanying Col. Gadhafi's frequent visits to Rome since the signing of a "friendship" accord in 2008. Rome then pledged €5 billion ($6.37 billion) to Tripoli as reparations for Italy's decadeslong occupation of Libya that ended in the 1930s.
Under the treaty, Col. Gadhafi agreed to crack down on undocumented immigrants using Libya as a gateway to Italy and the rest of Europe. Since then, oil-rich Libya has become one of Italy's biggest investors, snapping up stakes in Italian companies such as oil giant Eni E +1.10% SpA. Libya is now the single largest shareholder in Italy's biggest bank, UniCredit SpA, after backing a capital increase that helped to shore up the bank's finances.
It is unclear exactly what purpose the meetings with young women serve. The women are recruited by Rome-based casting agency Hostessweb, and are paid for by the Libyan government, said Alessandro Londero, the agency's president. Mr. Londero, who also attended the lectures, said the Libyan leader addressed the women "a bit like a prophet," urging them to convert to Islam.
The Italian public doesn't like the displays. "Gadhafi needs to show respect. Don't come to Italy and tell Italians and Europeans to convert to Islam," Rocco Buttilgione, president of the pro-Vatican party Union of Christian Democrats, said in an interview with leftist daily La Repubblica.
"Every time Ghadafi returns to Rome it's worse than the last time," said Emma Bonino, a senator from a left-wing opposition party.
Several newspapers, including Italy's largest daily, Corriere della Sera, quoted Col. Gadhafi as telling the women "Islam should become the religion of Europe." La Repubblica headlined a front-page editorial Monday, "A Humiliating Circus."
A spokesman for the Libyan Embassy in Rome declined to comment on whether any conversions took place during the meetings. He also declined to provide a copy of Col. Gadhafi's address to the women, saying that the leader's "speech on Islam was very clear and requires no explanation."
Col. Gadhafi arrived in Rome on Sunday with an entourage aboard a flotilla of four jets that carried hundreds of guests and dozens of purebred Berber horses that paraded during an equestrian exercise Monday. Col. Gadhafi disembarked clad in traditional Bedouin robes and flanked by two of his "Amazon women," personal bodyguards clad in military fatigues and berets.
He took an impromptu stroll through the city's piazzas Sunday evening, snapped by paparazzi as he stopped for gelato and cappuccino. On Monday, he toured a photo exhibit with Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, the billionaire media magnate. They were scheduled to dine later with 800 guests.
The Italian women who came to the meetings were recruited over Hostessweb's Internet site and paid between €80 and €150, depending on their proximity to Rome, according to Mr. Londero. Hostessweb then bused the recruits to the Libyan Academy adjacent to the Libyan Embassy. Mr. Londero organized a similar meeting during Col. Gadhafi's last visit, in June 2009, that produced a smaller turnout.
So far, Mr. Berlusconi hasn't made any statements on the meetings. Carlo Giovanardi, an Italian government undersecretary, called Col. Gadhafi's lecture "remarks made during a private meeting."
Col. Gadhafi's financial largesse makes him tough for Mr. Berlusconi's government to criticize, wrote Carmelo Palma, in an editorial published by Fare Futuro, an influential right-wing think tank. "Italy has become Gadhafi's Disneyland," he added.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748704323704575461854257553796

======================================

Was Moammar Gadhafi Killed Because His Plans To Introduce A Gold Dinar Currency Threatened The U.S. Dollar?

http://www.thisis50.com/profiles/blogs/was-muammar-gaddafi-killed-because-his-plans-to-introduce-a-gold?xg_source=activity 

 
Video After The Jump


There's growing speculation that Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi was targeted by NATO because of his plans to introduce a gold dinar – "a single African currency made from gold, a true sharing of the wealth."



Gaddafi had called on African and Muslim nations to join together to create this new currency that would rival the U.S. dollar and euro. The plan was to sell oil and other resources around the world only for gold dinars. A country's wealth would depend on how much gold they have and not how many dollars they trade.



Libya has 144 tons of gold. By comparison the United Kingdom has double that amount but 10 times the population.



Had the plan succeeded it would have shifted the economic balance of the world.



"If Gaddafi had an intent to try to re-price his oil or whatever else the country was selling on the global market and accept something else as a currency or maybe launch a gold dinar currency, any move such as that would certainly not be welcomed by the power elite today, who are responsible for controlling the world's central banks," Anthony Wile, founder and Chief Editor of the Daily Bell told Russia Today in an interview back in May 2011. "So yes, that would certainly be something that would cause his immediate dismissal and the need for other reasons to be brought forward from moving him from power."



Do you believe Gaddafi was targeted because of his plans to introduce this new currency?

===============

Saving the world economy from Gaddafi

Published time: May 05, 2011 02:29
Edited time: May 05, 2011 08:42
 
http://rt.com/news/economy-oil-gold-libya/
Some believe it is about protecting civilians, others say it is about oil, but some are convinced intervention in Libya is all about Gaddafi’s plan to introduce the gold dinar, a single African currency made from gold, a true sharing of the wealth.
­“It’s one of these things that you have to plan almost in secret, because as soon as you say you’re going to change over from the dollar to something else, you’re going to be targeted,” says Ministry of Peace founder Dr James Thring. “There were two conferences on this, in 1986 and 2000, organized by Gaddafi. Everybody was interested, most countries in Africa were keen.”
Gaddafi did not give up. In the months leading up to the military intervention, he called on African and Muslim nations to join together to create this new currency that would rival the dollar and euro. They would sell oil and other resources around the world only for gold dinars.
It is an idea that would shift the economic balance of the world.
A country’s wealth would depend on how much gold it had and not how many dollars it traded. And Libya has 144 tons of gold. The UK, for example, has twice as much, but ten times the population.
“If Gaddafi had an intent to try to re-price his oil or whatever else the country was selling on the global market and accept something else as a currency or maybe launch a gold dinar currency, any move such as that would certainly not be welcomed by the power elite today, who are responsible for controlling the world’s central banks,” says Anthony Wile, founder and chief editor of the Daily Bell.

“So yes, that would certainly be something that would cause his immediate dismissal and the need for other reasons to be brought forward from moving him from power.”
And it has happened before.
In 2000, Saddam Hussein announced Iraqi oil would be traded in euros, not dollars. Some say sanctions and an invasion followed because the Americans were desperate to prevent OPEC from transferring oil trading in all its member countries to the euro.
A gold dinar would have had serious consequences for the world financial system, but may also have empowered the people of Africa, something black activists say the US wants to avoid at all costs.
“The US have denied self-determination to Africans inside the US, so we are not surprised by anything the US would do to hinder the self-determination of Africans on the continent,” says Cynthia Ann McKinney, a former US Congresswoman.
The UK’s gold is kept in a secure vault somewhere in the depths of the Bank of England. As in most developed countries, there is not enough to go around.
But that is not the case in countries like Libya and many of the Gulf States.
A gold dinar would have given oil-rich African and Middle Eastern countries the power to turn around to their energy-hungry customers and say:  “Sorry, the price has gone up, and we want gold.”
Some say the US and its NATO allies literally could not afford to let that happen.
===============================

QADDAFI DALAM PIDATO RESMI PERSERIKATAN BANGSA-BANGSA MEMBONGKAR KEPALSUAN DAN KONSPIRASI 
PERSERIKATAN BANGSA-BANGSA (PBB)

Muammar Gaddafi
Hero of the Islamic World who ripped up the UN Charter 

at the UN platform - 2009

INILAH SALINAN PIDATO YANG MENGGEMPARKAN PBB DAN DUNIA

Complete Transcript
[Historic Speech of Gaddafi to UN General Assembly, 2009]
 Note: United Nations removed the English transcript of his speech from its website and western media removed the transcript from all types of media resources. MetaExistence Organization made an effort to restore the original transcript from his video speech. Gaddafi showed a actual evil face of UN and security council to the world.
Truth always be truth . . . . You never hide it
 Here is complete transcript of what he said:
Distinguished members of the General Assembly of the United Nations, in the name of the African Union, I would like to welcome you. This gathering will be an historic one in the world and the history of the world.
And in the name of the General Assembly that is presided by Libya now, in the name of the African Union, and in the name of 1,000 traditional African kingdoms in your own name, I would like to seize this opportunity to present congratulations to our son, Obama, because this is the first time that he is attending the General Assembly in this capacity as the president of the United States, and we greet him because it is the hosting country of this gathering.
This meeting comes at the corner at the (inaudible) of so many challenges that face us, and that the whole world should come together and unite and should put all efforts together. Serious efforts should be put together by the world so that the world will defeat these challenges which constitute the main common enemy to all of us  challenges of climate, challenges of international crises, or the economic capitalist deterioration, and the food crisis (inaudible).
Perhaps this swine virus may be one of those viruses that was created in the laboratory and it got out of control because it was meant in the beginning to be used as a military weapon, as well as the military, the nuclear proliferations, as well as the hypocrisy, the deteriorations, and the control of (inaudible).
Dear brothers, as you know, the United Nations was established and founded by countries where against the Germans at the time. The United Nations that we have today is different today. But the United Nations it is the countries or the nations that would come together against Germany during the Second World War.
These countries constituted (inaudible) and give members seats its own members. And granted we were not present at the time. And the United Nations was tailored according to these countries and wanted from us to wear the clothes or the suit that was tailored against Germany. That is the real substance and context of the United Nations as it was founded 40 years  or 60 years ago.
This happened during the absence of over 165 countries where the ratio was one of eight. And one was present and eight were absent.
Those  they created or they made the charter, and you know  I have the charter, a copy of it. And one should read the charter of the United Nations. The preamble of the United Nations is different from the provisions and the articles. How this came to existence, those who attended in San Francisco in 1945, they all participated in the preamble, but they left articles and the provisions and the procedures the (inaudible). They left it to the job of the experts and the countries who are interested, which are the countries who created the Security Council, which countries came together united against Germany.
The preamble is very tempting, and no one is objecting to the preamble, but everything that came after that is completely in contradiction with the preamble. This is what we have now this is what we are injecting, and we should never continue.
This came to an end during the Second World War. The preamble says that the nations are equal whether they are small or big.
Are we equal in the permanent seats. No. We are not equals.
And the preamble says that all nations are equal whether they are small nations or whether they are big nations as far as rights.
Do we have rights of a veto. Are we equals. The preamble says that we are equals in our rights whether we are big or small. This is what is stated, and this is what we have agreed in the preamble.
So, the veto is against the charter. The permanent seats are against the charter. We do not accept it and we do not acknowledge it, neither do we recognize it.
(Gaddafi ripped up a UN charter at this point)
The charter states that we in the preamble, I mean that we should not resort to military force unless it is a common interest.
This is the preamble which we were happy and we signed, and we joined the United Nations because we wanted the charter to be like that.
It says that the armed forces only use it when it is a common interest to all nations. But after that, what happened? Sixty five wars broke out after the establishment of the United Nations and after the establishment of the Security Council, and after this establishment. Sixty five, and the victims are millions more than victims of the Second World War.
Are these wars and the aggressions and the force that was used, and the power (ph) in the 65 wars, in the common interest of all of us? No. It was the interest of one country or three countries or four countries or one country. But it was not in the interest of all the nations.
And we shall come and discuss about the wars, whether these wars broke out was in the interest of one country or were in the whole nations. This is in full contradictions and full intervention of the United Nation charters, and we signed that. And unless we do things in the charter of the United Nations, according to which we agreed, otherwise we don't speak diplomatically, we are not afraid. We don't (inaudible), and we were not being nice to anybody.
Now we are talking about the future of (inaudible). There is no hypocrisy, no diplomacy, because it is a decisive and important matter. (inaudible) of understanding and hypocrisy created to 65 wars after the establishment of the United Nations.
The preamble states also that if there is a use of force, then there must be  then it must be the United Nations force, or the United Nations military interventions, according to the joint ventures of the United Nations, not country, or one, two country, or three country, using the force or the military power. The United Nations, all of it, will decide to go to war to maintain peace and world security.
And if there's any aggression by one country against another after the 45 after the establishment of this United Nations, if there is any aggression against any country, the United Nations, all together, should deter and stop this aggression, and should check this aggression. I mean, if a country, any country, Libya, for instance, makes an attack or an aggression against France, then the whole United Nations should check the Libyan aggression against France, because France is a member state, an independent state in the United General Assembly, that is a sovereign country, a member state of the United Nations. And all of us, we have to protect the sovereignty of all nations collectively.
But 65 wars, aggressive wars, took place without any actions from the United Nations to stop and check these wars. And eight fierce, big wars and victims of these wars among 2 (ph) million  made or initiated by the countries who have member states and veto. Those countries who are believed that they would maintain the sovereignty and independence of the people, these countries actually use aggressive force against people.
We wanted to believe that these countries will make peace and security in the world and protect the people. These countries actually resorted to aggressive wars and (inaudible) wars. And as a matter of fact, they enjoyed the veto that was given to them by themselves and enjoyed the member states of the Security Council. But in the meantime, they actually initiated the war which amounted to millions of victims.
So, in this charter, there is nothing that the United Nations will interfere which will be the pure business of the internal affairs I mean, the government. It is the internal affairs of a certain government.
No country has the right to interfere in this affair, the sort of government whether it is a socialist, capitalist system, or whether it is a reactionary progressive. This is the responsibility of the society. It is an internal matter of the people concerned of a certain country.
Rome  one day the senators of Rome they gave him (ph) the amendment (ph) to be a dictator, because at the time it was good for Rome. No one can say to Rome at the time that you give Caesar this veto. The veto is not mentioned in the charter.
(inaudible) we joined the United Nations because we thought we are equals. And then there is one country that can object to all of the decisions that we make, and it has a member seat. And who has given this country this member seat?
These four countries, they have given themselves member states. The only country that we have voted in this General Assembly is China. China, we have voted to give China a member state in the Security Council.
This was done democratically, but the other member seats was not Democratic, was imposed upon us. This should not be accepted by us, and it was a dictatorial procedure that was done against our will.
United (ph) reform is not increasing of the member states. It is just making things worse. I don't know how this will be translated, but if we add more water, it will be more muddy.
This is a typical expression (ph) to add insult to injury. I mean, to make things worse, and to make things even worse by how? Because many big countries will be added further to the former big countries that we already have, and like this it will be (inaudible). So we'll have more superpowers.
Then from here we reject having any more seats done in this way. The solution is not in having more seats. And the most dangerous one, if we have more superpowers already, the superpowers that we already have this will crash down the peoples of all small peoples of third-world countries which now are coming together in what may be called the G100.
There are 100 small countries coming together in a forum that is called a forum of small states. These countries will be crushed by superpowers, because further superpowers, further big countries will be added to already (inaudible). This door should be closed, and we reject that strongly and categorically.
Then you open the door to have more seats in the Security Council. This will add more poverty, more injustice, more tension at the world level, and more competition and the level of the Security Council. And then we shall have there will be high competition between certain countries  between Italy, Germany, Indonesia, India, Pakistan, the Philippines, Japan, Brazil, Nigeria, Argentina, Brazil, Nigeria, Libya, Egypt, Congo, South Africa, Tanzania, Turkey, Iran, Greece, Ukraine (ph).
All of these countries will ask to have a seat at the Security Council. And like this, we shall have a raise (ph) of competitions, then it will be impractical.
So, what is the solution? The solution is that for the solution presided for the General Assembly by (inaudible), which will be a binding resolution taken by the General Assembly, which will not (inaudible) any other quarter.
The solution is that we shall close the admission of the member states and we don't have anymore member states. This is an item that is provided for the General Assembly, presided by Dr. Thratcher (ph) right now.
And in place of that will be the achievement of the democracy based on equality between member states. There should be equality between member states and instrumentation of the powers and demanded of the Security Council, the General Assembly. And the membership will be for the associations, not for countries, because if we open the door for more members and more memberships for the countries because this will give the right to any country to have a member seat in the country. And the preamble allowed that.
No country can say, for instance, you don't have a seat in the Security Council if a seat is given to Germany. Italy will  Germany, maybe for the argument of Italy, will say it was not Germany was an aggressive country, was (inaudible), and was defeated in the Second World War. And if we give India a seat, then Pakistan will say we are a nuclear country and we are at war, and then Pakistan  that would be a danger thing.
If we give it to Japan, then we should give Indonesia, being the biggest Muslim country in the world. And then Turkey or Kenya will have the same rights. What can we say to them? Argentina, Brazil, Libya. Libya, that has discarded the WMD program, because it will deserve a member state because then it then has done service to security by discarded this program. And South Africa will do the same and Tanzania will do the same.
All these countries are important, and (inaudible).
This door should be this is falsehood, and this is a trick, and if we went to reform the United Nations, and then we bring more superpowers, more countries, and then we add more to the already big superpowers which did quite a lot of suffering to us. And then the solution is to achieve democracy at the level of the general congress of the world, which is the General Assembly, which is transformation of the Security Council power to the General Assembly.
And the Security Council will be just an instrument to implement the decisions taken by the General Assembly. It will be the parliament of the world and the legislative assembly of the world, and this is democracy, and the Security Council should be responsible before the General Assembly, and we should not accept it.
These are the legislators which are the members of the General Assembly and the resolution should be binding. It is said that the General Assembly should do this and this at the recommendation of the Security Council. The Security Council should do this and that according to the rules and the orders of the United Nations.
These are the United Nations, are including all the members of the world, not the Security Council, which include only 10 member states. How can we be happy about the world peace and security if the four countries or 10 countries  controlled the whole world?
We are 190 nations and countries, and we are like the (inaudible). I mean, we just speak and nobody is implementing our decisions. We are just like decor.
You are made like decor. You are like a Hyde Park. You were I mean, without any real substance. It's just according to speaker like the speakers of the Hyde Park corner. No more, no less. You just make a speech and then disappear. This is who you are right now.
The Security Council is an executive body for the resolution taken by the General Assembly only. And in this case, there will be no competition for the Security Council member states, because once the Security Council becomes a tool to implement the resolution taken by the General Assembly, there will be no need for any competition.
The Security Council should just be a representative for all nations, but not by a state this is what is submitted now to the General Assembly but a permanent seat for all space, for all union, I mean. Twenty-seven countries for European Union. They should have a permanent seat at the Security Council.
The African Union should have a member seat in the Security Council, 53 countries. And Latin Americans should have a permanent seat and the (inaudible) should have a permanent seat. And the (inaudible), plus two or countries, should have a permanent seat. The Russian federation should have a permanent seat.
The United States of America, which is 50 states, it has already a permanent member seat at the Security Council. (inaudible), once it is established or is about to be established should have a member state. (inaudible) should have a member seat, 22 countries.
The Islamic Conference, 45 countries, should have also a member seat. Then (inaudible) should have a permanent member seat in the Security Council.
Then we have the G 100. Then we think about that perhaps all small countries, the forum (ph) of small countries, perhaps they would have a permanent member seat also. If there are countries outside of the (inaudible) that I mentioned, maybe we can assign a permanent seat will be given to them by rotation every six months. Japan, Australia, may be outside any union, or Australia, or in other countries.
Perhaps they would not join the (inaudible) or the Russian Federation, or not a member in the European Union or the Latin American Union, or in the African Union. Perhaps any country will be given this is the solution, that now this is meant for a vote for the Security Council for the General Assembly to take a vote.
This is a vital, important issue. And I mentioned, the General Assembly is the congress of the world, the parliament of the world, the master of the world, and no one should object. No one should we are the nations. Anyone outside this General Assembly we do not recognize.
(inaudible) and Ban Ki moon, his Excellency, the secretary general of the United Nations, will make the draft, the legal draft, and set up the necessary committees to submit this for voting. The Security Council from now will be made of unions.
This is justice. This is democracy. And then we put an end to the Security Council will be occupied by the countries which one has nuclear weapons, which one has technology.
This is terrorism. We cannot have the Security Council and the countries which have the superpowers. This is terrorism in itself.
If you went a world that lives in peace, united, we should do that. If we want a world, then it's up to you. Then we have conflict, and then we should continue fighting each other, or conflict until doomsday or until the end of the world.
These members which have a veto or they don't have a veto. All the Security Council, they should have the right of the veto. All of these unions belonging to the seats. Or we should cancel the whole veto with the new formation.
This is the real Security Council. And anyhow, the new Security Council that is submitted to the new proposals, submitted to the General Assembly for voting, will be an executive council which will be under the control of the General Assembly. The General Assembly, which will have the real power and the real (inaudible), like all countries will be equal in the Security Council in the same way they are equal in the General Assembly.
We are in the General Assembly. We have equal votes. We should also be equals next door, which is the Security Council.
A country has a veto, a country doesn't have a veto, a country has a member seat, and then a country should not have a member seat, we should not accept it and it should be a mandate (ph) from now. And we should not be subjected to it, and we should not accept any resolution taken by the Security Council according to the composition right now.
We were (inaudible). We are independent. And now we are here to decide the future of the world in a democratic way that will maintain world and peace security. All people, small and big, are equals.
This is terrorism, like the terrorism of the Al Qaida. This is terrorism. Terrorism is not just Al Qaida, but it can be also in other forms.
We should resort to the maturity of the votes of the General Assembly alone, and we should not vote (ph). If the General Assembly takes a vote, then it should be implemented and should be taken, and taken into decision. And it should be enforced.
And no one should say I am above and higher than the General Assembly. Anyone who says that I'm higher than or above the General Assembly should leave the United Nations and be alone.
Democracy is not for the rich or for the for the rich or for the one who terrorizes. So, for the one who is more powerful than us, (inaudible) democracy? No.
The higher (inaudible) should be their own nations at equal footing. Now the Security Council is security feudalism, political feudalism for those who have permanent seats protected by them. And they are used against us.
It should not be called the Security Council. It should be called the " Terror Council. "
You see, my brothers, that in our life, in our political life, that if the Security Council is used against us, then they go to the Security Council, they resort to the Security Council. If they have no need to use it against us, then they ignore the Security Council.
If the charter,  they have interests, an ax to grind to use against us, they respect the charter. They look for the seven chapters of the Security charter (inaudible). But if they want to violate the charter, they would ignore the charter as if it doesn't exist at all.
If the veto on the permanent seat is given to the one who has the power is injustice and terrorism that will not be accepted by us, and we should not live under the shadow of this injustice and this terror. Superpowers have interests, complicating (ph) interests, and they use the interests, they use the (inaudible), they use the power of the United Nations to protect their interests. And these terrorized and intimidated the Third World. The Third World is terrified and being terrorized and living under the fear of terror.
The Security Council ever since it was established in 1949 did not provide us with security, but provided us, on the contrary, terror and sanctions. It is used against us only. For this reason, we are not committed to adhere to the Security Council resolutions after this speech of the fortieth anniversary.
Sixty-four wars took place broke out against the war (ph) against the world, against small (inaudible). That it is fighting between small countries or aggression in wars against by superpowers against countries, big countries against us. And United Nations or the Security Council did not take any actions to stop these wars and aggressions in violation of the charter of the United Nations against small nations and small peoples. And the General Assembly will vote for these historic resolutions.
Either we continue together in one nations or we go into break into two equal nations, have its own general assembly, its own security council belonging to it, where they have equal footing, standing on equal footing or and the big countries who have the permanent seats, who have their rights, will stay in their own councils, whether there are four or three, as they wish (inaudible).
And they should exercise veto against themselves, and this is not of our interest.
And if they want to stay in permanent seats, OK, that's OK, but permanent is a threat for (inaudible) but we shall never stay under the supervision or the control of the veto and the right of veto to given countries. We are not (inaudible) to give we are not fool to give the right of a veto to big powers to use us, and we are treated like second class and like despised nations. We have not decided that these are big nations, (inaudible) nations, respected nations. These are the nations of the world which represent 190 countries.
We know that now ignoring the resolutions of the Security Council is now  though it is injustice, and it is only used against us. It is not used against the big countries who have the permanent seats or those countries who have the right of veto. They never use any resolution against them. In the countries, it is used against us.
So, any resolutions taken against us, it has become a travesty of the United Nations, and it has become wars and violations of independent states authorities (ph) and committing war crimes and genocides. And these are all in violation of the Security Council, even though there is a Security Council, and nobody cares about the Security Council and even though now each now, each country has each (inaudible) community have become security councils, establishing its own security councils and with the security councils in its own formation.
Now it has the Security Council (inaudible) has become isolated. The African Union has already established MASS (ph), which is the peace and security for Africa, and the European Union has already established the security council. The (inaudible) already establishing its own security councils. America will have its own concerns, non-alignment (ph). One hundred twenty countries will have its own peace and security council.
This means that we have already lost the trust in the Security Council, which have not provided us with security. And now that's why we are creating regional peace securities or regional security councils. We are not committed to obey the rules or the resolutions of the security councils in this formation because it is undemocratic, unjust, and no one can force us to be a member of the security councils and to obey or adhere to resolutions or all of this given by Security Council in its composition as it is right now.
Now, brothers, there is no respect to the United Nations. No regard to the General Assembly, which constitutes (ph) actually the real substantive (inaudible), and which  it has no decisions that is abiding. The International Court of Justice, it is a judicial international body, and resolutions only implemented against the small countries, the small nations. And big countries are rejected to be implemented against the big countries. There are resolutions or court orders taken against these big countries, but they have been refused to be implemented against them.
The International the IAEA (ph), an important one in the United Nations, are not big countries are not responsible for it, or are not under control. And we have discovered that this is only used against us. It is a (inaudible) against us. You told us, this is an international one, so if it is an international one, then all the countries of the world should be under jurisdictions of this one.  If it's not international, then we close the door and arrive from this now, from this speech, we shall close the door, and we should not accept it.
And adopt a (inaudible) president of the General Assembly. He will talk to the director of the Baradei (ph) or the (inaudible). They will ask him, do you inspect the nuclear supplies of all? Do you supervise the increase of this nuclear storage? Then if he says, yes, then OK, then we accept that we'll be under control. But if he says that we cannot go to these countries who have the nuclear powers, and I cannot have any jurisdiction, then we should close the door, and we not accept it to be under its control.
For your information, I told Baradei when we had the problem (inaudible) nuclear bomb, and predecessor, I called them and I told them, Mr. Baradei, the agreements to increase to decrease the nuclear supplies between the superpowers, is it under control? Is there any provisions that if it's in a country increased its nuclear heads, are you aware of that? He said to me, no. These big powers I cannot go so close to it. I cannot ask them. I cannot....  so, you are only coming to us???
I said that this is not an international organization. So, it is meant only for us. Security Council  against us. International  IAEA against us. International Court of Justice against us. And they (world powers) are free. This is not justice. This is not United Nations. This is rejected totally.
As regards Africa, Dr. (inaudible), if you want to reform  whether they reform the United Nations or not, and even before you take any historic decisions or vote against Africa, a need is now for now a permanent member seat in the Security Council because this is (inaudible). Even if we are not talking about the United Nations reform, Africa was colonized, was isolated, was persecuted, was usurped (ph), was treated like animals, was treated like slaves, was treated colonies, was colonized, was put under the trusteeship.
These countries, the African Union deserves a permanent seat for the past. It's an outstanding bill to be paid, like (inaudible). And it has nothing to do with the United Nation reforms. This is a priority and high on the agenda for the General Assembly, and no one can say that the African Union does not deserve a permanent seat.
Who has the argument? Anyone can talk to me even right now or argue with me. Any proof that the African Union does not deserve a permanent seat or that the African continent does not deserve a permanent seat. No one can argue, or no one can refute what I am saying.
It is also for voting for the General Assembly for compensation to countries who were colonized. And why? So that no more repetition of colonizations and no more usurpation and stealing of the wealth of the people.
And why the Africans should go to Europe? Why do Africans go to Europe? Why do Asians go to Europe? Why do Latin American people go to Europe? Because Europe was colonized by they took the mines (ph), the wealth, all the resources of Africa, of Asia, of Latin America. And they took all the oil, the fruit, the vegetables and the stock and the people, and they used them.
Now, the new generation, the African generations whether it is Asian, whether it is Latin America or it is in Africa, now they are looking for these ones which have been usurped and stolen. Now, when I stop one African (inaudible) going to Europe (inaudible), I told them where are you going? They told me, I'm going to take my usurped wealth. If you bring my reserved wealth, then I don't go. I stop.
Who can bring back the wealth that was taken to me? Make a decision to bring all these resources and wealth so that no more immigration from the Philippines to Latin America, to Mauritius, to India. Let us have the wealth that was taken from us and looted from us. Africa deserves compensation  trillion $7.7, $7.77 trillion.
That's the compensation Africa deserves from the countries who colonized Africa. Africa will call for that.
And if you don’t give us this amount, 7.77, the Africans will go to where you have taken these trillions. They have the right. They have to follow. Bring the money back. And then they can be (inaudible).
No Libyan immigration to Italy, even though Libya's so (inaudible). Why there is no Libyan immigration to Italy? Because Italy (inaudible) compensation for the Libyan people (inaudible) and accepted the compensations and signed the (inaudible), a treaty, an agreement with the Italian with Libyan, and it was endorsed by the Italian parliament, and accepted that the colonization was wrong, and we should not be repeated again.
And Italy would not accept to be attacked whether by air, sea against the Libyan people and that Libya will compensate for the next 20 years, will pay a quarter of billions and will build hospitals for the Libyans who are lost their members of their hands or their fingers because of the mines during the Second World War when the mines were laid upon the Libyan land.
Italy made apology and was sorry and said that it will never be a country will occupy other country, the territories of other countries. And it was  Italy when it was a kingdom and it was Italy during the fascist regime. And Italy has done a glorified thing and a civilized thing and should be commended during the Berlusconi and even the predecessor to Berlusconi did their own contribution until we achieved this result.
The Third World calls for compensation, why? So that we don't have any more colonizations, so we don't have a repeat of colonizations. And so that no country will be big and will covet (ph) to colonize another country. So that this country will know that there will be compensation, and will not go on (inaudible). Colonization should be eliminated, and countries should pay compensations who have done damage to the peoples during the colonization area, and they should be compensated for the damage and the suffering that they have inflicted during their colonial power.
The other point I would hope that we have to face patiently but before I say this point, it’s is rather sensitive to a certain extent. There are sentences between two brackets I would like to shed some light upon and mention. We as a matter of fact that we Africans are happy, proud, that one son of Africans governs the United States of America, of Africa. This is a historic event. One day that the black doesn't go where the white go and cannot be in a bus where the white is. Now, the American people, the black African Kenyan, young  voted for him and made him a president. This is a great thing, and we are proud of that.
You are the beginning of a change. He did go for a change. But as far as I'm concerned, Obama is a glimpse in the dark for the four years or the next eight years, and I’m afraid that we may go back to square one. How can you guarantee America after Obama? Can you guarantee after Obama how America will be governed?
No one can guarantee America. We are content and happy if Obama can stay forever as the president of the United States of America.
The speech made by Obama just before me, it is completely different when (ph) an American president that we have witnessed or that we have lived with or  the former Americans, they used to say, and I quote, they say, We shall send you the all the weapons. We shall send you the road clusters and the sandstorms and the rolling thunder, and we shall send you the poisonous roses to the Libyan children.
This was the logic. The American presidents used to say to us, they shall terrorize us. We shall send you the like rolling thunder like the one was sent to Vietnam. We shall send you rolling thunder the same way that was sent to Vietnam, and the sandstorm like it was sent to Iraq.
We shall send you the night (ph) as it was sent to Egypt in 1956 even though America was against the night operations. And we shall send you the poisonous rose that Reagan sent to the Libyan children. Can you imagine the president of a permanent country, a big country has a permanent seat at the Security Council, has a right to veto? We thought that America will protect us and send us peace.
What is it? These are lesser-guided bombs sent to us according to the carried on the F-1 airplanes. This was the logic. And we shall lead the world, and we shall punish anyone who anyone whether they like it or not. We shall punish anyone who will be against us. Now, what our son Obama said is completely different today. He's calling for the seriously, for discardment (ph) or the deproliferation (ph) of nuclear weapons, and we should applaud that. America cannot solve the problem alone, and the whole world should come together.
And he said that the position we are at now, we should not continue. Now we are meet (ph) and making a speech it should not be like that. We accept it. We applaud it. And then the United Nations also we come here to United Nations to talk against each other. It's true that we come here, we should have equal footing and equal unions and equal associations, and he says that democracy we should not be imposed from outside.
So, the reason there is the American president who recently says that we should impose democracy against Iraq and against so on, so on, so on. He did say that this is an (inaudible) of everybody. This was lost (ph) words, and what we hear right now is the true sense of the word when he said that democracy cannot be imposed from outside.
So, we have to be cautious, and before I just say my sensitive remark or the whole the whole world has so many problems (ph).
Shh, whole world, shh, listen, listen. World of so many problems (ph). Should be like that, should we have so many problems (ph)? Can't we nations on equal footing? Can't we  let's have an answer.
Anyone have an answer that it is better to have a world of so many polarities? Why can’t we have equal standing? Should we have a patriarch (ph)? Should we have bombs? Should we have guns? Is it and this is why should we have a world of so many polarity?
We reject - we accept - we don't - we do not accept that a world living not equal, big and small. The other point that is sensitive, the quarters of the United Nations. Please, can I have your attention? Please, can I have your attention?
All of you came across the Atlantic, crossing the Atlantic oceans, the Asian continent or the African continent to reach this place. Why? Is this the Jerusalem? Is this the Vatican? Is this Mecca? All of you are tired, having jet lag, suffering from jet lag, tired, had sleepless night, and very tired and physically speaking, you are very low. One just arrived now, flying 20 hours, and then you want him to make a speech and talk about this.
All of you are asleep. All of you are tired. It is clear that all of you are lacking the energy because of having to travel a long journey. Why do that? Your country now, some of our countries are in nighttime, and they are asleep, and now you should be asleep because your biological hour or your biological mind is accustomed to be asleep at this time. I wake up 4:00 at New York time, before dawn, because in Libya it is 11:00 in the morning.
Because when I wake up at 11:00, I am supposed to be daytime. At 4:00 I'm awake. Why do you think? Why do you think, why? Think about it. If this was put in 1945, should we keep it up to now? Why can't we think about a place that is in the comfortable?
The other point, America, the hosting country, that bears the consequences  the expenses and the looking after the headquarters and the looking after the peace and security of heads of state who come here, very strict, and they spend a lot of money and New York and all of America being very tired. I want to relieve America from this hardship. We should thank America, and we say to America, thank you for all the trouble that incurred upon itself. And we say thank you to America. We want to help America. We want to make America secure and New York secure, and we should not have the responsibility of looking after the security.
Perhaps somebody would do  any terrorists will make an explosion or a bomb of an aircraft or a president or an American, and then this place is a target by  targeted by the Al Qaida. This very same place, the same building. And if it was and why? Because on the 11th of September, it did not hit it. That was beyond their power.
And the next target, that would be  and I'm not saying this out of the record that we have tens of members of Al Qaida being detained in the Libyan prisons and (inaudible), very scary. And this makes America lives in under tension, and perhaps you never know what will happen.
Perhaps America will be targeted again by a rocket, or by perhaps tens of heads of state will die.
We want America, to relieve America from this worry, and we shall take the place to a place where it is not targeted. Now, after 50 years, should be taken to another part of the hemisphere. Fifty years in the western hemisphere. Now for the next 50 years should be in the eastern hemisphere or in the middle hemisphere, like this by rotation. Now 64 years now, now we have extra 14 years over the 50 years that the quarters should have been taken from this.
This is not any insult to America. This is a service to America. We should thank America. This was possible in 1945, but we should not accept it now. And, of course, this is also put for vote in the General Assembly. Only in the General Assembly, because Article 23 of the of the agreement 64, it says that  (inaudible).
After the America has the right to make any tight securities because America is targeted by the terrorists and by Al Qaida. America has the right to be to take all the security measures. We are not blaming America for that. But we don't tolerate these measures. We don't have to come to New York. And we don't have to be submitted to all these measures. One president told me that your copilot should not come to America because there is restrictions. He said, how can I come  how can I cross the Atlantic without a copilot? Why, why? He doesn't have to. He doesn't have to come here.
When another president complained that his guard cannot  his honor guard cannot come because there is some misunderstanding in his name and granting him a visa. He came  one other president came and said, my own doctor, he couldn't get a visa, and he could not come to America because he was not granted an entry visa. You see, the security measures very strict.
And, of course, if there is any problem that a country has with America, then they will put restrictions for the movement of the member delegations like in Guantanamo. Is this a member state of the United Nations or he is a prisoner in the Guantanamo camp that he cannot allow free movement?
So, this is what is submitted for voting for the United  for the General Assemblies. The transformation or the moving of the headquarters. If 51 percent say, then we come to the second vote. To the middle of the globe or to the eastern part of the globe. If we say that we have to take the headquarters, then certain the place is (inaudible). Whether the middle  whether the center hemisphere. Why don't we go to (inaudible). If you go to 1,000 (inaudible), and no one can blame you? And no  you can come even without a visa.
Once you come with a president, it's a secure country (ph).
We are not going to restrict you to 100 or 500 meters, and Libya has no hostile actions against anybody. And again, I think we'll be in the same positions. And if the vote, it say that we shall have to take the vote to the eastern part, then it will be Delhi or Beijing in China, the capital of China or the capital city of India.
And this is logic, I believe, my brothers. And I don't think there will be any objection to that. And then you will play  you will say that thank  you will thank me for this proposal for eliminating the suffering and the trouble of flying over 20 hours and 15 hours to come to this place, and no one can blame America, can say that America will reduce its contribution to the United Nations.
No, nobody should have this bad thought.
America, I'm sure, will be committed to its international obligations, and America will not be angry, and America will thank you for alleviating the hardship of America. And America should thank us for taking all the hardship and all the restrictions for the  this, plus  even though this place is targeted by terrorists. Then we come to the  we come to the issues that will be taken by the General Assembly.
Either we have to try ourselves. Either we do the right thing, or whether we have a new meeting. This is not a normal meeting. This is not a normal gathering.
This is  even my son, Obama said that. He said that this is a historical one. This is not a normal gathering. This is not a normal one.
Now, the wars that took place after the establishment of the Second World War, why did it happen? Where was the Security Council? Where was the charter? Where was the United Nations?
There should be investigations, and there should be court orders. And why there was massacres? We start with the Korean War.
This was taken after the establishment of the United Nations.
How a war broke out and millions of people fell victims, and perhaps there was even a nuclear  a nuclear  the world was about  the world was about to witness a nuclear war. And those who are responsible, and those who caused the war should be tried and should pay the consequence.
Then we come to the Suez Canal war in 1956. The file should be opened. Why three countries who have permanent seats in the Security Councils enjoyed the right, the veto of the Security Council's attack, a member state in this General Assembly?
A country that is Egypt in this case, that was a sovereign state, was attacked and the army was destroyed. And thousands of Egyptian people were killed, and towns, villages were destroyed.
How could such a thing happen during the era of the United Nations? And how can we guarantee that such a thing will not be repeated unless we redeem the past?
And this is a very dangerous thing. The Suez Canal war, the Korean War, we should open the files.
And then we come to the Vietnam War. Three million victims of the Vietnam War. During 11 days, bombs were used more than the bombs used during the whole war. And during the Second World War, all the shells and the bombs that were used, or bombed during the four years of the war, the bombs that were used in the 12 days were more than.
This was a fierce war. And this war took place after the establishment of the United Nations. And we decided that there would be no wars.
This is the future of the mankind, and we cannot keep quiet. How can we be how can we be safe? How can we feel accomplished? How can we feel complacent, I mean. This is the future of the world and this is the General Assembly of the world, and we have to make sure that such wars will not be repeated in the future.
Then Panama was attacked, even though it was an independent state, a member state of the General Assembly, of the United Nations. And 4,000 peoples were killed, and the president of this country was taken as a prisoner and was taken put in prison.
And Noriega should be released, and we should open the file. And how we give the right to a country that is a member state of the United Nations to go and wage a war against a country and take the president of such a country and take him as a criminal and put him in prison? Who would accept that?
This may be repeated. And we should not be quiet, and we should make investigations, and we should  each one of us may face the same destiny. Each member state of us may face the same, especially if this aggression is made by a member state that is has a member seat in the Security Council and supposed to look and maintain the world peace security.
Then we have the Grenada war. This country was attacked, was invaded even though it was a member state, by 7,000 - 5,000 warships and using 7,000 troops. It is the smallest country in the world.
And after the establishment of the Security Council, after the establishment of the United Nations, and the (inaudible). And the president of this country, Maurice Bishop, was assassinated. How this can be done with impunity? This is a tragedy.
And then how can we guarantee that the United Nations is good or not, that the Security Council is good enough? Can we be safe and happy about our future or not? Can we trust the Security Council or not? Can we trust the United Nations or not?
Then we have to check and investigate the bombing of Somalia.
Somalia was a member state of the United Nations. It is an independent country. And (inaudible).
Why? Who allowed that? Who gave the green light for such a country to attack  to be attacked?
Then the Yugoslav war. No country that is peaceful country like Yugoslavia, that was built  that was built step by step, piece by piece, after it was destroyed by Hitler. We destroy it as if we are doing the same job like Hitler.
Hitler  after the death of Tito  and he built this country step by step and brick by brick, and then we come and dismember it for imperialist personal interests. How can we be satisfied? How can we be happy? If a peaceful country like Yugoslavia faced this tragedy, the General Assembly should make investigations and the General Assembly should decide who should be tried for the (inaudible).
Then we come to the Iraqi war, the mother of all evils. The United Nations also should investigate.
The General Assembly presided by (inaudible) should be investigated by the General Assembly, the invasion of Iraq itself. This was in violation of the United Nations charter without any justifications made by several countries who have member seats in the Security Council.
Iraq is an independent country, member in this General Assembly. How this country is attacked and how this country  how we have already read in the general  in the  in the charter that the United Nations should have interfered and stopped.
We have come to General Assembly, and we have resorted to the General Assembly. We said that we should go to the General Assembly and use the charter for the checking (ph). We were against this invasion of Kuwait, but Arab countries fought with foreign countries in the name of the General Assembly with foreign countries. In the first place, the U.N. charter was respected. And the second time we wanted to use to it stop the war against Iraq, no one used the U.N. charter. And it was discarded in the dustbin.
Why? General Assembly should investigate. Why? Why there was any reason to invade Iraq? Because it is mysterious, ambiguous, and we may face the same destiny. Why did we invade Iraq?
The invasion in itself is a serious violation of the U.N. charter. I mean, the invasion itself, per se, is wrong. Then the total massacre, or the genocide. More than 1.5 million Iraqi people were killed.
We want the we want to take this file and we want to  those who have committed the general mass murder against the Iraqi people should be tried. Yes.
Make it easy for (inaudible) to go to be tried, or Bashir to be tried. Or it is easy for (inaudible) to be tried, or Noriega to be tried. That is an easy job to be done.
OK. What about those who have committed mass murder against Iraqis? Cannot be tried? Cannot go to the  we should not accept it. Either it is meant for all of us, big or small, or we should not accept it and refuse it.
If anyone who commits a crime and can be tried, we are not animals in the livestock, or in  that we slaughter  we have the right. We are ready to fight. We are ready to defend ourselves. And we have the right to live dignified under the sun, on the Earth, and they have already tested us, and we can put up to test.
The other thing, how come that prisoners of war of Iraq can be sentenced to death? Then when Iraq was invaded and the president of the Iraqi war was caught, it was made as a prisoner of war. He should not be tried. He should not be hanged. And after the end of war, he should be released.
So, we want to know why the prisoner of war have been tried or should have been tried. Who sentenced to death the president of Iraq? Is there an answer to that?
We know who tried  who tried him, the name of the judge, the identity of the judge. Who put on the sacrifice day the rope around the neck and killed  or hanged the president? People we don’t know, they have a mask over their face.
If this is a civilized war, these are prisoners of war under civilized countries, under the international law. How a member of a government and the president of a country should be sentenced to death and hanged, do they have the right? Are they legal people? Are they a member of a judicial system?
Do you know what other people say  or what the people say? People say that the American president and the president  the British president are wearing the masks, and they have already put to death the president of Iraq.
This is  why don't they uncover their face? Why don't we know their ranks? Why don’t we know, is he an officer or a judge, a doctor?
Who is he? How come a president of a country, a member state, is sentenced to death and killed? We don'tknow the identity.
Those countries, the implementation the United Nations has the duty to answer these questions. Who have exercised or implemented the death sentence? Those foreigners, they should have the legal status (ph), and they should have the legal status (ph), and we should know the identity of the presence of the doctor, and all the legal procedures should be, even for a layman, let alone as the president of a country, a member state in the United Nations to be sentenced in such a way and put to death in such a way.
This is the Iraqi war.
Point number three in the Iraqi war is the Abu Ghraib situation, which is a disgrace to mankind. I know America made the investigations for this scandal, or the authorities under the Americans, but the United Nations also should not forget it. The United Nations should the General Assembly of the United Nations should investigate and look into this matter.
The Abu Ghraib decisions, the prisoners of war who were prosecuted there and who were badly treated, and dogs were used on them, and men were made love to. And no one has done this before in previous wars, sodomy, and this is unprecedented. No one  no previous aggressions, or no  or aggressors and prisoners of war, there are  there are soldiers, and they are raped in prisons.
Then by a member state of the Security Council, this Security Council, this is against civilization. And this is a humane kind, and we should not keep quiet. We should know the facts.
And up to now, a quarter of a million prisoners are still  men and women are in Abu Ghraib. They are badly treated and persecuted and raped. We should never forget, and we should open an investigation for that.
Then Afghanistan. Then we have the Afghani war.
There should also be an investigation for the Afghani war. Why are we against Taliban? Why are we against Afghanistan? Who's Taliban?
If Taliban wants to make a religious state, OK, like the Vatican.
Does the Vatican pose any threat to us? No it is a very peaceful, religious state.
If the Afghans want to establish an Islamic emirate let it be like the Vatican. Who said the taleban are the enemy and has to be struck by the armies? Is bin Laden an Afghan. Is he a taleban. Bin Laden is not from the taleban and not from Afghanistan.
The terrorists who struck New York? Are they Afghans? Are they from the taleban? No they are not Afghani and they are not from the taleban. So why were Iraq and Afghanistan targeted?
If I want to deceive my American and English friends I would not tell them this. But I would encourage them and tell them go on, send more troops to Afghanistan and send further troops until they drown in a blood bath because they will achieve no result in Afghanistan or in Iraq.

You have seen what happened in Iraq. That took place even though Iraq is a wide open desert. Then what do you think of Afghanistan with these mighty mountains. No one could defeat it till the hereafter. They are just hitting the rock. They will scratch it but they will not demolish it. Continue the war in Afghanistan in Iraq. But I want to save them. I want to say these hapless nations. America and the other countries that fight in Afghanistan and Iraq. We are saying you have to leave Afghanistan for the Afghanis. You have leave Iraq for the Iraqis. Leave them even if they fight each other. They are free to do so. The civil war took place even in the USA. Nobody interfered. The civil war also took place in Spain and in China and in many parts of the world and nobody interfered. If it is a civil war let it go on. Leave it for the Iraqis and for the Afghans to fight each other, they are free.
Who says that if the taleban rule Afghanistan they will become a threat? Do the taleban have any intercontinental missiles? The airliner that hit New York. Did it come from Afghanistan or Iraq. These airliners took off from Kennedy airport in New York. So why do we go and strike Afghanistan. They are not Afghans, not taleban, nor Iraqis. Why should we keep silent about these things. Those who keep silent regarding what is right is like a silent devil. We won't be silent devils. It is our right because we are keen on world peace. We are keen on the destiny of the world. We do not want to undermine humanity in this manner. Then after that Mr Ali Tereki, the general assembly has to launch investigations of the assassinations. You have to launch an investigation once again on the assassination of Patrice Lumumba. We want this recorded in our African history. How an African leader, an African liberator was assassinated. We want to establish who killed him and to record that for history so that our sons will learn history and they will known why Patrice Lumumba the hero of African-Congolese liberation was killed. Even after 50 years. And that act has to be denounced and those responsible have to be held accountable. This file has to be opened and we have to go back to the old documents.
Then we would like to know who killed the UN Secretary General Hamashold. Who bombed his aircraft in 1961, the same year in which Lumumba was killed. We want to know who bombed the plane of the UN Secretary General. We want to know who bombed it and who had an interest in that. Then we come to Kennedy's assassination in 1963. The UN General Assembly has to open the file of Kennedy's assassination. We want to know why he was killed. He was killed by someone called Lee Harvey and someone called Jack Rubbi killed Lee Harvey, the assasin of Kennedy.
We want to know why this Jack Rubbi, the Israeli, killed the assassin of Kennedy. And Jack Rubbi himself, the killer of Kennedy's killer also died in vague circumstances before his trial. We have to return to these files and we have to know.
What I know and what the world knows and what we studied in history is that Kennedy decided to inspect the Israeli Dimona reactor to see whether it has nuclear bombs. That is the reason he was got rid of. As long as the case in international in this manner and it concerns world peace and weapons of mass destruction we have to open investigations into the reason why Kennedy was killed. You should also open the file of Martin Luther King. This vicar who was a black activist and human rights campaigner and his assassination was a conspiracy. This file has to opened to establish who killed him and prosecute him.
And further more who killed Khalil Al Wazir the Palestinian Abu Jihad. He was attacked in a sovereign country, a member of this assembly. That is Tunisia where he stayed in its captial. But there was an attack by four warships, two submarines and two helicopters. The independence of that state was not respected as is clear from the assassination of Khalil Al Wazir.
How could we keep silent about such matters. If we keep silent there could be submarines coming to our countries and we could see warships coming to our coasts and pick up anyone they like without being held accountable.
Then we have the death of Abu Ayad. He was killed in very ambiguous circumstances. Then we have operations such as Al Fardan Operation and the Youth Spring Operation where Kamal Nasser was killed and where Kamal Udwan and Abu Yousif Al Najar were killed. These three Palestinians were killed in Lebanon which is a sovereign state and member of the UN General Assembly. We have to establish who killed them. We have to prosecute them so that such havoc is not repeated.
You would like to know as well why Maurice Bishop the head of Grenada was killed. We have tackled how Grenada was attacked, with how many war ships and troops. We said they launched an attack on Grenada with 7,000 soldiers, 15 war ships and scores of fighter planes. The president of this member state of the general assembly Maurice Bishop was killed. We can't keep silent about these crimes. Otherwise we will all become victims and sacrifices and every year it would be the turn of someone. We are not animals and we are not sacrifices. We are defending our existence, we are defending ourselves our sons and our grandsons. We are not afraid. We have the right to live. This globe is not only for the super powers. God created it for all of us. We should never live in humiliation.
 Then we have to open investigations into the evil massacres of Sabra and Shhatila which claimed 3,000 human victims. This village was under the protection of the occupying Israeli army. Then a massacre was carried out of Palestinian men, women and children. Most of them were Palestinians. How could we keep silent.
Lebanon is an independent state and a member of this assembly. The area of Sabra and Shatila was occupied and 3,000 were slaughtered. Then there is the massacre of Gaza in 2008. And for your information there were a thousand woman killed an injured. And 2,200 children. It means that there were 3,200 women and children only. Fifty educational centers belonging to the UN were demolished. Thirty non-governmental organizations were demolished including international relief organizations. Sixty clinics were demolished.. Forty doctors and nurses were killed while they were doing their humanitarian work. That was the outcome the Gaza massacre in December 2008.
The culprits are still living. They have to be prosecuted in the international criminal court. But if the International Criminal Court is only targeting the smaller states and Third World countries this is not right. Those culprits have to be tried in the court unless it was not international. Then we would not recognize it. If it is international everybody is subjected to it.
As long as the International Court of Justice is not respected and its rulings not implemented and as long as the International Atomic Energy Agency does not include all countries and the general assembly is doing nothing and the Security Council is monopolized then the United Nations is nothing. There is no United Nations. Then we come to piracy. This phenomenon may spread to all the seas. It could become a threat like terrorism. Let us tackle Somali piracy. I am telling you the Somalis are not pirates. The pirates are ourselves because we exploited all the fishing grounds. We undermined their livelihood. We undermined their economies and their regional waters.
All the ships of the world, whether from Libya, India, Japan or America exploited Somali waters and we are the aggressors. After the Somali state collapsed we came to pick up the remnants. The Somalis had to defend their marine wealth which is their food and the food of their children. Then they transformed themselves into pirates to defend themselves. They are not pirates. They only defend their livelihood. And now you are handling it in the wrong way. You are saying let us send warships to strike the Somalis. No. warships should go to strike the pirates who undermined the Somali wealth and resources. You have to strike the foreign fishing boats.
Anyhow I held a meeting with the pirates. I told them I would make an agreement between them and the world. The world has to respect the Somali economy area up to 200 nautical miles according to the law of the seas. All the marine wealth in that area belongs to the Somalis. The world has to respect this economic area. This is first.
Then second, all the countries should abstain from dumping hazardous waste in the Somali economic area of the Somali coast and in return the Somalis will abstain from attacking ships. We will draft this agreement and we will present it to the UN General Assembly. That is the solution. The solution is not more strikes against the Somalis.
What is worse is that their warships are preventing the Somalis from going into the sea for fishing. This is the wrong handling, this is the wrong approach. Our way of tackling terrorism is wrong.
 Our handling of matters is actually wrong. If the vaccination for swine flu is produced and there could be more flus of God or flus of fish then the factories that belong to the intelligence operate and they sell at a high price. This is trade. They produce a virus and they spread it across the world so that capitalist companies gain money from selling vaccines. This is shameful. The vaccines are not to be sold. Medicines are not to be sold. You have to read the Green Book. It does not allow the selling of medicines. If we say the medicines are free and the vaccines are free and no viruses are spread because it is they who produce these viruses in order to produce vaccines. That is how capitalist companies work. This is the wrong approach. You have to declare that medicines are free and not for sale. Even if the viruses are real we should not sell the vaccines. They have to be offered for free.
All these matters are submitted in files to be discussed by the UN General Assembly. It has nothing to do but this work.
Then we have the Ottowa agreement which bans the production, the shipment or sale of mines etc.
This is wrong. The mines are not offensive weapons. They are defensive. The mines do not move. They do not attack. It remains wherever it is planted. That means you went to it. Why did you go to it? I would like to plant mines on the borders of my country because you are aggressing my country. Let your hand or leg be amputated. I urge you to review this Ottowa agreement. This appeal could be seen in the internet, in the website Al Qadhafi talks. This agreement has to be revoked or amended.
They want to deprive us even from the mines which are anti personnel. If I want to plant a mine in front of my home or farm then this is my way of defense. It is not offensive. You may cancel the atomic weapons the missiles and inter-continental missiles.
As for the Palestinian cause the two-state solution is impossible. I urge you not to speak about it. The only solution is one democratic state for Jews and for Muslims for Palestinians and Christians and all others like Lebanon. The two state-solution is not practical and impossible. There can be no two neighboring states which are to much overlapping. Any division will inevitably fail.
Firstly the two states are not neighbors but are overlapping from all aspects, population, geography and so forth. There are no states. You can’t establish a dividing no man’s land between them because it doesn't exist.
The West Bank has half a million Israeli settlers. The so-called Israel has a million Palestinian settlers. How can we establish two states. The world has to go to impose one democratic state without any religious, nationalist or linguistic bigotry. Bigotry is reactionary and it is time is well over. These are thoughts of the guard. The ideas of the Third World War. The ideas of men like Yasser Arafat and Sharon. All these are over. The new generation wants one democratic state. We have to exert every effort to impose on them one state where all people co-exist.
Look at the Palestinian youth. Look at Israeli youth. They want peace. They want to live in one state. This is the way to end this headache which undermines and poisons the whole world. The White Book has the solution for Israel. You have to consider it, Ali Al Treiki.
(Gaddafi Throw a book to President of UN at this point)
The Arabs have no animosity with the Israelis. They are cousins and they live with them in peace. Arabs have no future. Arabs have no future. The future is Israfil (Angel). I tell you again, our future is Israfil (Angel). The Palestinian refugees must return and they have to live peacefully in one state. It is you who make the holocaust for them. You burned them down in the chambers of gas in Europe. It is you who hate the Jews but we don't.
We have accommodated them, we protected them since Roman days and since they were expelled from Andulsia. We also protected them in the days of Hitler and from the gas chambers of Hitler. It is ourselves who protected them and it is you who expelled them. You expelled them and told them go and fight the Arabs.
Let us expose this reality. We are not enemies of the Jews. They are our cousins. The Jews will need the Arabs one day but the Arabs will not protect them as they did in the past. Let us have a look at what Tito did. What Hadrin did. What Edward 1 did and what Hitler did to the Jews. You hate them and you are anti-Semitic.
As for the issue of Kashmir in short in has no solution unless it becomes one independent state to buffer between India and Pakistan. It will become neither Indian nor Pakistani and the conflict will be over. As for Darfur I hope that the aid you sent to international aid organizations are transferred to other projects, development, industrial and agricultural. Darfur is now living in peace and there is no war. It is you who blew it up soas to interfere and establish a foothold for the sake of oil and you sacrificed the people of Darfur.
Why do I tackle all these issues? It is because we have to investigate these issues. Previously you have submitted the case of Al Hariri, God have mercy on him, to the United Nations. Why did you do so? Is it because you wanted to sacrifice the blood of Al Hariri and you sold the body of Al Hariri in order to settle scores with Syria. If it not so why did Lebanon, which is an independent state with a judiciary laws and police and everything and could determine who the culprits are. But in this matter it is not the culprits who are wanted. What is wanted is the settlement of scores with Syria and sacrificing the issue of Al Hariri and we will get nowhere in the issue of Al Hariri.
Therefore all the cases of Abu, Khalil Al Wazir, Kennedy, Lumumba, Hammershold should be transferred to the United Nations as the others were.At any rate the UN General Assembly is chaired by Libya and this is its right. The work that could be done by Libya is to help the world in moving from one phase to another, from this world which is lost, bitter, shameful, terrorised and threatened to move to a more human world where there is peace and tolerance.
I will follow up this work with the General Assembly and with Ali Al Teriki and with the UN Secretary General because we will not be complacent and we will not be submissive regarding the fate of humanity.

Humanity has to struggle in order to live in peace. The struggle by the Third World and the smaller states, 100 of them in order to live in dignity and in freedom is a continued struggle and it has to continue till the end. Peace and blessings.
=========================

Muammar Gaddafi
Hero of the Islamic World who ripped up the UN Charter at the UN platform - 2009
http://metaexistence.org/gaddafispeech.htm
=========================
==================================================

  KASUS SURIAH

 
 
 

Mendukung Gerakan Perlawanan (Muqawamah) melawan ISRAEL

Pemimpin HAMAS dan Bashar AlAssad

Menjalin Hubungan dengan Pihak yang ANTI NEO KOLONIALISME

 
 
 

Dekat dengan Tokoh Ulama Sunni

 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Mendukung Maulud Nabi sebagai Hari Besar Nasional Suriah

 
 
 

Terkait Berita: