Red Terror – Genocide in Russia

Red Terror – Genocide in Russia

In the Sunday Telegraph (London, England: Nov. 18, 1990) the question is asked:

When we look at these gruesome personalities, who are only the tip of the Jewish iceberg that was Soviet Communism and who were responsible for the deaths of upwards of thirty million people; when we realize how little is written or filmed about their crimes, we begin to realize that the exclusive focus on the crimes of the Germans, real and imagined, is a function of propaganda.

If the facts about the Jewish Communist holocaust against the peasants and Christians of Russia and Eastern Europe were given massive publicity, the supposed “special evil” of the Germans would stand exposed as a racist fraud. German actions during World War Two must be viewed in a vacuum in order for the New World Order to advance its covert objective of Jewish supremacy.

When Nazi actions are placed within the context of Jewish Communism’s abominable crimes against the Christian people of Russia and Eastern Europe, the public will begin to understand that Hitler and the Nazis were a reaction, however unbalanced and excessive, to the Jewish Communist genocide against millions of Christians and peasants in the East.

This is why the crucial facts about Jewish Communism must never be documented in Hollywood films, discussed in university courses or pictured in contemporary news magazines. This is why Malcolm Muggeridge’s book, an eyewitness account of the Jewish Communist holocaust against Christians, Winter in Moscow, has been tightly suppressed.

“The Red Terror became so wide-spread that it is impossible to give here all the details of the principal means employed by the [Jewish] Cheka(s) to master resistance; one of the most important is that of hostages, taken among all social classes. These are held responsible for any anti-Bolshevist movements (revolts, the White Army, strikes, refusal of a village to give its harvest etc.) and are immediately executed.

“Thus, for the assassination of the Jew Ouritzky, member of the Extraordinary Commission of Petrograd, several thousands of them were put to death, and many of these unfortunate men and women suffered before death various tortures inflicted by cold-blooded cruelty in the prisons of the Cheka.

“I have in front of me photographs taken at Kharkoff, in the presence of the Allied Missions, immediately after the Reds had abandoned the town; they consist of a series of ghastly reproductions such as:

“Bodies of three workmen taken as hostages from a factory which went on strike. One had his eyes burnt, his lips and nose cut off; the other two had their hands cut off.

“The bodies of hostages, S. Afaniasouk and P. Prokpovitch, small landed proprietors, who were scalped by their executioners; S. Afaniasouk shows numerous burns caused by a white hot sword blade. The body of M. Bobroff, a former officer, who had his tongue and one hand cut off and the skin torn off from his left leg.

“Human skin torn from the hands of several victims by means of a metallic comb. This sinister find was the result of a careful inspection of the cellar of the Extraordinary Commission of Kharkoff. The retired general Pontiafa, a hostage who had the skin of his right hand torn off and the genital parts mutilated.

“Mutilated bodies of women hostages: S. Ivanovna, owner of a drapery business, Mme. A.L. Carolshaja, wife of a colonel, Mmo. Khlopova, a property owner. They had their breasts slit and emptied and the genital parts burnt and having trace of coal.

“Bodies of four peasant hostages, Bondarenko, Pookhikle, Sevenetry, and Sidorfehouk, with atrociously mutilated faces, the genital parts having been operated upon by Chinese torturers in a manner unknown to European doctors in whose opinion the agony caused to the victims must have been dreadful.

“It is impossible to enumerate all the forms of savagery which the Red Terror took. A volume would not contain them. The Cheka of Kharkoff, for example, in which Saenko operated, had the specialty of scalping victims and taking off the skin of their hands as one takes off a glove… At Voronege the victims were shut up naked in a barrel studded with nails which was then rolled about. Their foreheads were branded with a red hot iron FIVE POINTED STAR. At Tsaritsin and at Kamishin their bones were sawed…

At Keif the victim was shut up in a chest containing decomposing corpses; after firing shots above his head his torturers told him that he would be buried alive. The chest was buried and opened again half an hour later when the interrogation of the victim was proceeded with. The scene was repeated several times over. It is not surprising that many victims went mad.”
(S.P. Melgounov, p. 164-166; The Secret Powers Behind Revolution, by Vicomte Leon De Poncins, p. 151-153).

The following is a list of some top Jewish Communist murderers, commissars, spies, assassins and propagandists (aliases are listed in parentheses). This list is by no means comprehensive. To catalog all of the Jewish communists involved in crimes would require hundreds of pages.

V.I. Lenin,                                                                                                         Supreme dictator, the godfather of “Russian” revolution.

“Lenin, or Oulianov by adoption, originally Zederbaum, a Kalmuck Jew, married a Jewess, and whose children speak Yiddish.”
(Major-General, Count Cherep-Spiridovich, The Secret World Government, p. 36)

“Lenin, as a child, was left behind, there, by a company of prisoners passing through, and later his Jewish convict father, Ilko Sroul Goldman, wrote inquiring his whereabouts.Lenin had already been picked up and adopted by Oulianoff.”
(D. Petrovsky, Russia under the Jews, p. 86)

“Lenin was born on April 10, 1870 in the vicinity of Odessa, South of Russia, as a son of Ilko Sroul Goldmann, a German Jew, and Sofie Goldmann, a German Jewess. Lenin was circumcised as Hiam Goldmann.”
(Common Sense, April 1, 1963)

Leon Bronstein (Trotsky):                                                                         Supreme commander of the Soviet Red Army.                                           See: Leon_Trotsky

He was one of the primary ideologists in the whole revolutionary movement and his views on terrorism, murder and assassinations are simply mind boggling. There are books of evidence, written by some of the most authoritive investigators and researchers, such as Eduard Hodos, Gregory Kilmov and plenty of others.

Listen to the sermons of the Jewish communist leader, Leia Davidovich Trotsky (Bronstein) during the revolution:

“We have to transform Russia into a desert populated with white niggers, to whom we shall give such a tyranny, that even the worst despots of the East have never even dreamed of …

“This tyranny will not be from the right, but from the left, not white, but red.

“In the literal sense of the word red, as we shall shed such rivers of blood, before which shall shudder and pale all the human losses of the capitalist wars …

“By means of terror and blood baths, we will bring the Russian intelligentsia to complete stupor, to idiocy, until the animalistic condition …

“our boys in leather jackets … know how to hate everything Russian!
“What a great pleasure for them to physically destroy the Russian intelligentsia – military officers, academics, writers”

Compare the words of Trotsky’s bloody texts with those of the Torah. You will see that the revolutionary Trotsky was a worthy disciple of Moses, David and the Jewish God, the Devil – Yahweh. Let the leading psychiatrists read the Old Testament and the various statements of Trotsky’s, and the diagnosis will be the same – sick psychopaths and sadists.

Jacob Sverdlov:
First president of the Soviet Union.

Sverdlov ordered the massacre of the Czar’s family; women and children, in the town named after Catherine the Great, Yekaterinburg, (renamed Sverdlovsk in 1924 in honor of the murderer).

Jacob Yurovsky:
Commander, Soviet Secret Police.

Yurovsky led the death squad which carried out Sverdlov’s order for the murder of the Czar’s family, including the bayoneting to death of the Czar’s daughters. The Ipatyev house, where, in the basement, the massacre had occurred, stood intact until 1977, when the local Communist party boss at that time, Boris Yeltsin, ordered it demolished, lest it become a shrine to anti-Jewish sentiment.

Lazar Moiseyevich Kaganovich:
Chief mass murderer for Stalin.

Ordered the deaths of millions and the wholesale destruction of Christian monuments and churches, including the great Cathedral of Christ the Savior. Standing amid the rubble of the cathedral, Kaganovich proclaimed:

“Mother Russia is cast down. We have ripped away her skirts.” (N.Y. Times, Sept. 26, 1995).

Genrikh Yagoda:
Chief of Soviet Secret Police,

Mass murderer extra ordinaire. (Jewish poet Romain Rolland, winner of the Nobel Prize, wrote a hymn of praise to Yagoda).

Matvei Berman and Naftaly Frenkel:
Founders, the Gulag death camp system.

Lev Inzhir,
Commissar for Soviet death camp transit and administration.

Rappoport, Kogan, Zhuk:
Commissars of death camps and slave labor,

Supervised the mass deaths of laborers during the construction of the White Sea; Baltic Canal.

Leiba Lazarevich Feldbin (Alexander Orlov):
Commander, Soviet Red Army; officer, Soviet Secret Police.

Feldbin was chief of Soviet Security in the Spanish Civil War. He supervised the massacre of Catholic priests and peasants in Spain.

This Jewish wife “insurance policy” extended to Politburo members such as Andrei Andreyev and Leonoid Brezhnev. Sergei Eisenstein: director of communist propaganda films which depicted Christian peasants (kulaks) as hideous, money-grabbing parasites. The kulaks were subsequently massacred. (Cf. for example Eisenstein’s Bezhin Meadow).

[In order to control the world’s most prominent members of government, military or any other people of influence, ZioNazis utilize a strategy of making sure they can marry a Jewish wife, through which they can be controlled. A majority of world’s “elite” throughout times since Torah and Talmud is married to Jewish women.]

Komzet: commission for the settlement of Jewish Communists on land seized from murdered Christians in Ukraine; funded by Jewish-American financier Julius Rosenwald.

Ilya Ehrenburg,
Minister of Soviet Propaganda and disseminator of anti-German hate material dating from the 1930s.

Ehrenburg instigated the Soviet Red Army rape and murder of German civilians. Referring to German women, Ehrenburg gloated to the advancing Red Army troops, “that blonde hag is in for a bad time.”

In a leaflet addressed to Soviet troops, Ehrenburg wrote:
“…the Germans are not human beings… nothing gives us so much joy as German corpses.” (Anatol Goldberg, Ilya Ehrenburg, p. 197).
Goldberg concedes that Ehrenburg, “…had always disliked the Germans. ..now that there was a war on he turned his old prejudice into an asset.” (Ibid., p. 193).

Another publication distributed to the Red Army, this time as the soldiers approached Danzig, was described by a historian:

“Millions of leaflets were air-dropped on the troops with a message composed by the propagandist Ilya Ehrenburg and signed by Stalin:

‘Soldiers of the Red Army! Kill the Germans! Kill all Germans! Kill! Kill! Kill!” (Christopher Duffy, Red Storm on the Reich).

The Soviet leadership acknowledged that Ehrenburg sought the extermination of the entire German people (cf. Pravda, April 14, 1945. [Pravda was also published in a Yiddish edition, Einikeyt).

Ehrenburg won the Order of Lenin and the Stalin Prize. He willed his papers to the Israeli Yad Vashem ‘Holocaust’ Museum.
[..]

Bela Kun (Kohen):
Supreme dictator of Hungary in 1919. Kun was later Stalin’s chief terrorist in the Crimea. Kun’s eventual successor was Matyas Rakosi,

Jewish Communist mass murderer of Christians in Hungary. According to the Jewish Telegraph Agency of May 14, 1997, Jews “…played key roles in ushering Communist rule into Hungary. In fact, during the brutal oppression of the early 1950s, the regime’s top five leaders were Jews.”

Zakharovich Mekhlis:
Top executioner for Stalin.

Henrykas Zimanas:
Leader of Lithuanian communist terrorists, butcher of Christians.

Moshe Pijade (sometimes spelled Piade):
Commander, Yugoslav Communist People’s Army. Tito’s top butcher of hundreds of thousands of Croatian Christians. Pijade later served as president of the Yugoslav Communist Parliament. At least eighteen generals in the Yugoslav Communist People’s Army were Jewish.

The Yugoslavian communist party sent massive arms shipments to Jewish fighters in Palestine in the 1940s.

In post-war Poland that nation was completely dominated by Jewish communists: the torturer Jacek Rozanski, head of the Secret Police; the Politburo commander Jacob Berman and commissars Mine, Specht (Olszewski) and Spychalski.

These men murdered or deported to Kolyma and the other Arctic death camps, tens of thousands of Catholic Poles.

According to Jewish researcher John Sack,”In 1945 many Poles felt (and not without reason) that Jews ran the Office of State Security… the chief of the Office was Jacob Berman, a Jew, and all or almost all the department heads were Jews.”

Sack reports that 75% of the officers of the Communist Secret Police in Silesia were Jews. He noted that many Jews in the Communist terror apparatus in Poland changed their names to Polish ones like General Romkowski, Colonel Rozanski, Capt. Studencki and Lt. Jurkowski. (cf. John Sack, The New Republic, Feb. 14, 1994, p. 6).

Sack in this article also refutes some shoddy research performed by Daniel Jonah Goldhagen, author of Hitler’s Willing Executioners, who, in the double standard typical of the Jewish mentality, refuses to accept the proven fact that Jews ran the Polish Communist secret police even as Goldhagen asserts the racist myth that the entire German nation was guilty of genocide.

Sack does a good job of proving Goldhagen wrong about Poland). In Poland, “…a disproportionate number of Communists were Jews. In 1930, at its peak, 35% of the members of the party were Jewish.
In Communist youth organizations, Jewish membership was even higher, while Communists of Jewish origin occupied most of the seats on the central committee. Communism appealed to some Jews because it opposed anti-Semitism more vigorously than any other Polish party…

Jewish Communists reached their apogee in the years immediately after World War Two, when the party leadership was totally in the hands of the prewar Communist leadership that abhorred anti-Semitism.” (Sheldon Kirshner, The Canadian Jewish News, Nov. 5, 1992, p. 16).

Of course when one encounters the issue of Jews, Communists and Catholics in Poland in the Establishment media or universities today, the mass murder of the Polish Catholics at the hands of the Jewish Communists, is never raised. Instead, a minor attack on Jews by Polish peasants enraged at the role of Jews in Communist terror, which occurred in July, 1946 at Kielce and which has come to be called the “Kielce pogrom” will be the centerpiece of the “discussion.”

The motivation for the attack is not usually mentioned. Rather, the Catholic peasantry are painted in terms of “fiendish bigots” whose “blind, irrational hate” for the “poor, persecuted Jews” resulted in “yet another martyrdom of God’s Chosen.”

But the Catholic Primate of Poland at the time, Cardinal Hlond, a brave prelate in a stalwart tradition of Christian resistance to Jewish tyranny in Poland, so different from the traitorous philo- Judaism of the current Pontiff, stated that the attack in Kielce occurred because of resentment ‘due to the Jews who today occupy leading positions in Poland’s (Communist) government and endeavor to introduce a governmental structure that the majority of Poles do not wish to have.” (Ibid., Kirshner).

As Piotr S. Wandycz of Yale University observes, “The average Pole could not but notice in the Stalinist era that the two most powerful men in the country; Berman and Mine, were both Jewish as was the dreaded security official Rozanski.” (N.Y. Review of Books, Aug. 18, 1983, p. 51).

With this record it is interesting to note that the Polish occupant of the papacy, John Paul II, consistently lent his prestige and his presence to canonizations and commemorations of politically correct victims of the Nazis.

Nowhere did this Pope breath a word about the openly Jewish, Communist massacres of Polish Catholics, Spanish Catholics, Croatian Catholics, Lithuanian Catholics-he was too busy, intoning the Shoah, referring to the heirs of the Pharisees as “our Elder Brothers in the Faith” giving official recognition to an Israeli state which even many orthodox, Haredi rabbis regard as a blasphemous and abominable entity, and attacking the German people as “the image of the beast.”

Solomon Morel:
Commandant of a post-war Communist concentration camp for Germans in Poland. Stalin deliberately put Jews in charge of such camps.

Morel tortured and murdered thousands of Germans, sometimes with his bare hands (cf. “The Wrath of Solomon,” Village Voice, March 30, 1993 and John Sack, An Eye for an Eye).

Morel is comfortably ensconced in Tel Aviv.

German survivors of Morel’s camp have demanded he be tried as a war criminal, but for the Establishment media and the phony, partisan, “human rights” groups, bringing Morel to justice is simply a non-issue. After all, he murdered helpless Germans, so what’s the problem?

Mark Zborowski:
“…considered by historians of Soviet terror operations to have been the most fearsome. ..(Soviet) spy of all time” (Stephen Schwartz, Forward, Jan. 26, 1996).

Zborowski, a medical researcher, murdered a dissident with a poisoned orange at the Soviet-run hospital in Paris. Zborowski was implicated in several other assassinations in 1936 and 1937. In the 1940s worked for both the American Jewish Committee and the KGB. In the 1960s Zborowski worked as a medical researcher at Mount Zion Hospital in San Francisco. He trained numerous psychiatrists and medical specialists in the Bay Area. He died in 1990 (cf. “The Strange Case of Doctor Zborowski and Monsieur Etienne” by Philippe Videlier, in Le Monde Diplomatique, Dec. 1992). 993).

From 1936-1939, when Stalin’s “International Brigade” forces were dispatched to Spain to fight the Catholics, Jewish Communists comprised the largest faction of his troops, “More than 40,000 volunteers fought in the International Brigade… A huge number of the volunteers were Jews: between 7,000 and 10,000 of the internationals as a whole, more than one-third of the Americans.”

Jewish Communist Milton Wolff was the last commander of the American contingent. Rabbi Hyman Katz joined in order to fight Spanish Christians, (cf. Jeffrey Sharlet, “Troublemakers,” Pakn Treger, Fall, 1997, pp. 16, 18 and 24).

The Communists slaughtered 6,549 Spanish priests, 283 helpless nuns and 13 bishops.

“In Ciudad Real in the center of Spain, the bishop and every single priest of the diocese were murdered; not one escaped.”

Dr. Warren H. Carroll, 70 Years of the Communist Revolution, pp. 184-185, 188-189. (Also cf. Justo Perez de Urbel, Catholic Martyrs of the Spanish Civil War [Kansas City, Missouri: The Angelus Press, 1993).

Stalin’s propaganda agent in Spain was New Yorker Leon Rosenthal. On Oct. 16, 1948, 50,000 Jewish communists turned out in Moscow’s Red Square to welcome the first Israeli delegation to Moscow.

Stalin supported Zionism’s 1947 Palestine partition plan, gave crucial recognition to the newly-created state of Israel and voted for Israel’s admission to the United Nations.

In 1951 communist and Marxist parties had twenty-three seats in the Israeli Knesset.

The kibbutz system was the most powerful movement in the country and the most powerful kibbutz leaders were nearly all Marxists.
The biggest Israeli holiday was May Day, celebrated with rallies, marches, red banners and red songs.

As recently as 1987 the Israelis were providing the KGB with American intelligence secrets (cf. UPI dispatch by Richard Sale, Dec. 13, 1987 and The City Paper [Washington, DC], Jan. 15, 1988).

Jonathan Jay Pollard was part of one such spy ring. British traitor and Communist spy Kim Philby was assisted in obtaining safe haven in the Soviet Union by the Israeli Mossad (cf. Sunday Telegraph [England], April 16, 1989).

This was most appropriate since Philby’s KGB handler in Moscow was also Jewish. Romania’s communist regime received favorable trade deals from the U.S. for years due to Israeli pressure on Congress in its behalf (N.Y. Times, Jan. 18, 1992, p. 23).

The notion that the Zionist Jewish movement was anti-communist is a fallacy. The truth is more complex. There was a left wing and a right wing within Zionism. The rightists, like the terrorists Jabotinsky and Stern, took a fascist approach.

Leftist Zionists like David “I am a Bolshevik” Ben-Gurion admired the Soviet model of Jewish power and sought to incorporate it as the political economy of the Israeli state.

“National and racial chauvinism is a vestige of the misanthropic customs characteristic of the period of cannibalism. Anti-Semitism, as an extreme form of racial chauvinism, is the most dangerous vestige of cannibalism… under USSR law active anti-Semites are liable to the death penalty.” (Stalin, Collected Works, vol. 13, p. 30). 

The African National Congress (ANC) in South Africa was guided by two Communist Jews, Albie Sachs, “one of its foremost intellectuals” (London Sunday Times, Aug. 29, 1993)

And Yossel Mashel Slovo (Joe Slovo). Slovo was born in a shtetl in Lithuania and grew up speaking Yiddish and studying the Talmud. He joined the ANC’s terrorist wing, the Umkhonto we Sizwe, in 1961 and eventually became its commander.

He was named Secretary General of the South African Communist Party in 1986. (“Joe Slovo,” Jewish Chronicle, Jan. 13, 1995). Slovo had been the “planner of many of the ANC terrorist attacks, including the 1983 car bomb that killed 19 people and injured many others…

“Slovo, who had traveled to the Soviet Union many times, was awarded a Soviet medal on his 60th birthday. ..Slovo is a dedicated Communist, a Marxist Leninist without morality of any kind, for whom only victory counts, whatever the human cost, whatever the bloodshed…

“Slovo disputes little of his image as ‘the Communist mastermind’ behind the ANC’s armed struggle. For him the fears of South Africa’s whites are both a measure of the ANC’s growing strength and a crucial factor in hastening what he believes will be its ultimate victory.

‘Revolutionary violence has created the inspirational impact that we had intended, and it has won for the ANC its leading position,’ Slovo said.” (“Rebel Strategist Seeks to End Apartheid,” L.A. Times, Aug. 16, 1987, p. 14).

When Nelson Mandela’s ANC took over South Africa, Slovo was named Minister of Housing.

Slovo, a Yiddish-speaking Lithuanian Jew, was Secretary General of the South African Communist Party and director of the military wing of the ANC, which perpetrated numerous terror bombings against white civilians.

When we look at these gruesome personalities, who are only the tip of the Jewish iceberg that was Soviet Communism and who were responsible for the deaths of upwards of thirty million people; when we realize how little is written or filmed about their crimes, we begin to realize that the exclusive focus on the crimes of the Germans, real and imagined, is a function of propaganda.

If the facts about the Jewish Communist holocaust against the peasants and Christians of Russia and Eastern Europe were given massive publicity, the supposed “special evil” of the Germans would stand exposed as a racist fraud. German actions during World War Two must be viewed in a vacuum in order for the New World Order to advance its covert objective of Jewish supremacy.

When Nazi actions are placed within the context of Jewish Communism’s abominable crimes against the Christian people of Russia and Eastern Europe, the public will begin to understand that Hitler and the Nazis were a reaction, however unbalanced and excessive, to the Jewish Communist genocide against millions of Christians and peasants in the East.

This is why the crucial facts about Jewish Communism must never be documented in Hollywood films, discussed in university courses or pictured in contemporary news magazines. This is why Malcolm Muggeridge’s book, an eyewitness account of the Jewish Communist holocaust against Christians, Winter in Moscow, has been tightly suppressed.

In the Sunday Telegraph (London, England: Nov. 18, 1990) the question is asked:

“Why then has it (Winter in Moscow) never been republished? The answer may lie in Muggeridge’s handling of what was then called the ‘Jewish question.’…Winter in Moscow is acutely concerned with Jews. …It was of course the case that a very disproportionate number of the early Bolsheviks were Jews and thus of commissars and apparatchiki…”

The Campaign for Radical Truth in History’s documentation of these forbidden facts constitutes the chief motivation for the suppression attempts of such Stalinist censorship groups as the A.D.L. and Simon Wiesenthal Center. Both of these organizations would, if they could, have this writer jailed for publishing the documentation herein in Germany, France, or Austria.

They regularly supply “intelligence files” to those governments on pro-Christian and pro-German writers.

In 1995 the ADL sought to assist the prosecution of 69 year old American writer Hans Schmidt who was imprisoned in Germany for publishing a newsletter in Florida.

These Jewish censors would like to have similar laws passed worldwide, resulting in the jailing of more writers and researchers who will not toe the party line or worship the Golden Calf.

To give the other side of history, the revisionist side; to give voice to the voiceless millions of dead victims of Jewish Communism, is regarded as “hateful” by the vain Zionists who demand for themselves the right to vomit forth a daily barrage of sewage upon the sacred memory of our grandparents and ancestors.

To defend against the dishonoring of our heritage and our ancestors, is surely not hate; it is the right of self-defense against psychological warfare.

Mass Murder 010

“WASHINGTON, Nov 12th, 2010 — (Southern Express)
The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum has today officially announced plans for a new Permanent Exhibition. The existing exhibition is to be dismantled, packed onto trucks and deposited at the local Washington land fill.

It has been agreed by the Museum Board that the exhibition as it stood, pales into insignificance when compared to the holocaust currently being undertaken against Palestinian civilians by Jewish occupational forces.

The Lidice exhibit, in which a Czechoslovakian town was destroyed and its citizens butchered in reprisal for the assassination of Reinhard Heydrich, chief of the Security Police and deputy chief of the Gestapo has also been moved out to allow for the grisly inclusion of a new exhibit to be called “Ground Zero at Jenin” which was ruthlessly destroyed in similar fashion.

A display of German war criminal Adolf Eichmann is to be replaced by one of Ariel Sharon detailing his atrocities, not only in Palestinian territories, but also in the refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila in Lebanon.
<end news update>

Mass Murder 011

“Remember when the Jews levelled Jenin (Palestine’s Lidiche) and refused to let the UN investigate until they got rid of the evidence?
Remember Rachel Corrie? Killed by Israelis when she tried to stop them from an act of ethnic cleansing when they were destroying Palestinian homes?

Remember the graphic footage of that Palestinian man trying to protect his son while the Israeli’s used them as target practice. An image ever bit as damning as that young female napalm victim in Vietnam?

Remember the wanton attack and murder of unarmed civilians on ships in international waters?

And of course there was their 2008 killing spree in Gaza.
They arrest people without charge, they continue to steal Palestinian land, they destroy the homes of the parents of suicide bombers, they target people for what they euphemistically call “terrorist assassinations”, et al, ad nauseum.

In short everything the SS did against the Jews, the Israelis are now doing against the Palestinians.

Perhaps we should leave the last word on the subject to a Jew… Sir Gerald Kaufman who compared the actions of Israeli troops in Gaza to the Nazis who forced his family to flee Poland.

Kaufman, a member of the Jewish Labour movement, also called for an arms embargo against Israel.

Sir Gerald, who was brought up as an orthodox Jew and Zionist, said: “My grandmother was ill in bed when the Nazis came to her home town a German soldier shot her dead in her bed. “My grandmother did not die to provide cover for Israeli soldiers murdering Palestinian grandmothers in Gaza.

The present Israeli government ruthlessly and cynically exploits the continuing guilt from gentiles over the slaughter of Jews in the Holocaust as justification for their murder of Palestinians.”

He said the claim that many of the Palestinian victims were militants “was the reply of the Nazi” and added: “I suppose the Jews fighting for their lives in the Warsaw ghetto could have been dismissed as militants.”

He accused the Israeli government of seeking “conquest” and added: “They are not simply war criminals, they are fools.””

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Zionism And ISIS

Zionism And ISIS: Opposing Forces Or Two Sides Of The Same Coin?

MintPress explores the striking parallels between groups like ISIS and Zionists in their quest to secure politico-religious control in the Middle East, expand their territory and implement exclusionary policies.

By Catherine Shakdam | December 2, 2014

Over the past decade, the Middle East — the cradle of civilization and the birthplace of the three major monotheistic religions — has become a flashpoint for religious extremism and fascism. The general public has grown used to associating radicalism with Islam, even to such an extent that the general notion is that the Islamic faith is the expression of religious extremism par excellence.

Yet such assessments have generally failed to take into account an equally dangerous radical trend that has been unfolding in the region for decades — Zionism.

“Although unpopular and deeply politically incorrect the notion might be, Zionism remains nevertheless a reality which the international community cannot afford to turn a blind eye on, especially since its ideology entails and affirms itself on the annihilation of an entire people — the Muslim people,” Rabbi Meir Hirsh, a member of the Neturei Karta, told MintPress News of the effort of Jews to regain and retain their biblical homeland — the historic ob “Land of Israel.”

Noting that the rise of Zionism is not just a Palestinian issue, Rabbi Hirsh warned that the Zionist absorption of Palestine is “the first step toward the rise of Greater Israel.”

“Criticism toward Israel has become such a social and political taboo that the public has been blinded to the truth. People can no longer see, let alone fathom, that Israel has become just as radical, intolerant and extreme in its views as Islamists have proven to be. I would actually argue that ISIS [Islamic State of Iraq and Syria] carries disturbing Zionist characteristics, not only in its ideology but its policies, even though it claims to seek to destroy Israel.”

#JSIL
In late September, “#JSIL” became a social media sensation. The play on words comparing the notion of a Jewish State of Israel and the Levant (JSIL) to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL, or ISIS) was tweeted about 5,200 times at its peak. The hashtag sought to point out that the radical Islamic group that adheres to Takfirism and Zionists share similar characteristics, and in many ways, both ideologies stem from religious exclusivism.

Takfirism is a centuries-old ideology marked by the practice of using a harsh dogmatic lens to judge someone else to be a non-believer. It is defined by the belief that Muslims are required to cleanse their faith to be once more worthy of the pure Islam, as prescribed and practiced during the first caliphate in the 7th century. It calls upon its adherents to settle together in isolated communities and fight against infidels.

The movement experienced a revival in 1967, when Cairo was suddenly confronted by the Israeli military’s might and superiority and the country’s Arabs and Muslims were forced to grapple with the possibility of their world falling to another religious denomination — Judaism. Thus, in reaction to an attack they perceived as spiritual, groups of Muslims began their journey toward Takfirism and radicalization. Today, radical groups like al-Qaida and ISIS count themselves as adherents to the ideology.

As far as radicalism goes, investigative journalist Max Blumenthal is among the many who have pointed to the striking similarities between ISIS and Zionists, not only in the formulation and expression of their radical views but also in the deep-seated belief that the assertion of their ideology entails the destruction and negation of all others. Moreover, both groups operate on the same political plane and both advocate territorial expansion and political absorption.

Speaking of the commonalities existing in between Takfirism and Zionism, Rabbi Hirsh emphasized that the two movements are even identical in their blood patterns.

“If ISIS has proven sickening in its killing of innocent civilians and its taste for gruesome public executions, the same can be said of Israel. Was it not Ariel Sharon, Israel’s then-Defense Minister, who ordered the massacres of Sabra and Shatila, where thousands of Palestinian civilians were slaughtered? Was it not again Israel who targeted unarmed children on a Gaza beach this summer? Or was it not Israel who rationalized the killing of women and children in the name of its survival?”

While many may find the parallels uncomfortable to confront, the notion that ISIS and Zionists share not only common values, but identical ideological claims has been a recurring theme of late. United in their religious intolerance and exclusionism, experts — including Israel Shahak and Michel Chossudovsky of the Center for Research on Globalization — have argued that the ideologies have more in common than the world might care to acknowledge.

Yet some have pushed the envelope even further, positing that ISIS is no more than a Zionist creation engineered to serve Zionists’ hegemonic agenda in the Levant to see manifest on the ground a new political and institutional reality in the form of Greater Israel.

ISIS is an “operation by the West to create the greater Israel,” American author James Henry Fetzer told Tehran-based PressTV in an interview in August.

Such views were echoed by international security scholar and investigative journalist Nafeez Ahmed in a report republished by MintPress in September. In “How The West Created ISIS,” Ahmed wrote:

“Since 2003, Anglo-American power has secretly and openly coordinated direct and indirect support for Islamist terrorist groups linked to al-Qaeda across the Middle East and North Africa. This ill-conceived patchwork geostrategy is a legacy of the persistent influence of neoconservative ideology, motivated by longstanding but often contradictory ambitions to dominate regional oil resources, defend an expansionist Israel, and in pursuit of these, re-draw the map of the Middle East.”

In regards to Israel’s motives in the region, Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, a sociologist who specializes in the Middle East and Central Asia and the author of “The Globalization of NATO,” told MintPress, “What Israel is seeking is Israeli dominance, and this is very different from seeking religious supremacy in the region of the Levant.”

“Aside from token lip-service, Israel is not seeking the supremacy of Judaism at all. In fact, Tel Aviv has undermined the Jewish faith. The roots of the mainstream Zionism that Theodor Herzl subscribed to are based on the separation of the Jewish people from the Jewish faith (in other words, turning Jews into an ethnic category outside of faith and believing in Elohim or God and the Torah),” he explained.

Greater Israel: A Zionist dream

According to Theodor Herzl, the founding father of Zionism as a politico-religious movement in the late 19th century, “The area of the Jewish State stretches: From the Brook of Egypt to the Euphrates.”

Another fervent Zionist and leading official, Rabbi Fischmann, a member of the Jewish Agency for Palestine, made a similar declaration in his testimony to the U.N. Special Committee of Enquiry on July 9, 1947: “The Promised Land extends from the River of Egypt up to the Euphrates; it includes parts of Syria and Lebanon.”

Ever since political Zionism emerged in Europe in the 19th century, supporters of the movement have lobbied for and strived to to re-create what they perceive as their political and religious heritage and their birth right: the re-establishment of a Jewish state, exclusive to the Jewish people, within the territory defined by the Jewish Scriptures as the Promised Land of Israel.

The appropriation — or, as some argue, the misappropriation — of Palestine by Israel was never the end game for Zionists, but the cornerstone of a Jewish empire.

In an introduction to “‘Greater Israel’: The Zionist Plan for the Middle East,” a report written by Israel Shahak for the Center for Research on Globalization, Global Research Editor Michel Chossudovsky emphasized, “The Zionist project supports the Jewish settlement movement. More broadly it involves a policy of excluding Palestinians from Palestine leading to the eventual annexation of both the West Bank and Gaza to the State of Israel.

“Greater Israel would create a number of proxy States. It would include parts of Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, the Sinai, as well as parts of Iraq and Saudi Arabia,” Chossudovsky continued.

Looking at Zionism and how it has manifested through Israel’s policies, Shahak argues that Israel has actively worked toward the balkanization of the Middle East in view of asserting its own political supremacy.

The idea that “Greater Israel” can only be built atop the ruins of the Arab-Islamic world was documented in 1980 by Livia Rokach in her essay, “Israel’s Sacred Terrorism,” in which she details at length how Zionists in the mid-1950s planned to use Lebanon as ground zero for their divide-and-conquer modus operandi. Rather than the irrational work of a conspiracy theorist, Rokach based her argument on the memoirs of former Israeli Prime Minister Moshe Sharett, putting forward not her personal beliefs but rather the political manifesto of one of Israel’s founding fathers.

Within this narrative, Israel’s invasions of Lebanon in 1978 and 1982 can be understood as the implementation of Israel’s Yinon Plan — a strategy to fragment and weaken neighboring states to ensure Israel’s regional superiority.

Javad Arab Shirazi, an Iranian political analyst, believes that Israel’s attempt in 1982 to fragment not only Lebanon, but also Syria and Jordan, served as a springboard for Zionists’ divisionist policy in the Middle East. “Israel’s claims that it wants to see rise strong independent Arab states at its borders [Lebanon, Syria and Jordan] is laughable. What Israel wants are governments which will sanction its expansionist policy.”

“What Zionists want and what they are planning for is not an Arab world, but a world of Arab fragments that is ready to succumb to Israeli hegemony. Israel wants for the region to bow to its political will; its aims are certainly not democratic,” Shirazi continued, “Everything about Israel is actually the antonym of democracy.”

Likewise, Nazemroaya, the sociologist, noted:

“Zionism as an ideology is not intended on the institutionalization of sectarianism necessarily, but in practice it does do that, particularly in the case of Israel, too. The goals of Israeli officials are to entrench the sectarianism that already exists in their ethnocracy by supporting it in the neighboring states. This is why the Israelis want to see Lebanon, Syria and Iraq divided into political entities for Arabs and Kurds, at the ethnic level, and for Christians, Druze, Twelver Shia Muslims, Alawis, and Sunni Muslims, at the level of faiths.”

Two faces of a single coin?

If one can reconcile with the idea that Israel intends to claim territorial legitimacy over more than just Palestine in order to recapture the glory of biblical times, where would Takfirism — the messianic ideology expressed by ISIS — ever fit?

Have ISIS militants not vowed that they will not rest until Israel is defeated and Palestine’s sovereign rights are restored, thus positioning themselves as Israel’s arch-enemies?

Franklin Lamb, a former assistant counsel of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee and professor of International Law at Northwestern College of Law in Oregon, wrote in a report for Media with Conscience that, as of the summer of 2013, ISIS had created a special unit dedicated to the annihilation of Israel and the re-conquest of Palestine.

“ISIS’ ‘Al Quds Unit’ (AQU) is currently working to broaden its influence in more than 60 Palestinian camps and gatherings from Gaza, across Occupied Palestine, to Jordan, and Lebanon up to the north of Syria seeking to enlist support as it prepares to liberate Palestine,” Lamb wrote.

Considering ISIS’ infamous leader Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi has made several grandiloquent anti-Semitic declarations stating his hatred and resentment of Israel, some may think any comparison between Zionism to Takfirism would be far-fetched — especially since the two movements appear to be inherently and fundamentally opposed. Further, as the media has drummed on, Islamic radicalism is best understood in its antipathy and opposition toward Israel.

Yet many experts, analysts and scholars have asserted that Takfirism remains but the expression of Zionist will — a tool in Israel’s hands to destroy the socio-religious fabric of the Middle East.

In October, Iran’s defense minister directly accused Israel of plotting against the Arab people by enabling terror. As the Jerusalem Post reported, “Brig.-Gen. Hossein Dehqan said ISIS and Israel are two sides of the same coin, seeking to weaken the anti-Zionism resistance movements in Palestine, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq.”

Dr. Kevin Barrett, a Ph.D. Arabist-Islamologist, told MintPress that he has “no doubt Israel has plotted and conspired against Arab states in the region, playing sectarian and tribal tensions to generate instability” to better further its hegemonic agenda.

“The fact that ISIS has not moved against Israel and instead focused on killing Muslims actually says a lot about this organization’s real mission,” Barrett stressed.

The new Middle East

Yuram Abdullah Weiler, a political analyst and columnist for Tehran Times with a keen interest in radical movements, argues that the manner in which ISIS has expanded its territories is suspicious.

“Looking at a map of the Middle East, it is obvious that ISIS militants sit exactly where Zionists imagine Greater Israel should be. Are we to believe that ISIS’ campaigns in Iraq and Syria and its push toward Egypt and Jordan are but a coincidence?” he told MintPress.

In his report, “How The West Created ISIS,” Nafeez Ahmed argues that ISIS’ actions not only align with Israel’s interests but actually serve the Israeli agenda by balkanizing the greater Levant region. He wrote, “The Third Iraq War has begun. With it, longstanding neocon dreams to partition Iraq into three along ethnic and religious lines have been resurrected.”

He went on, referring to Brian Whitaker, the former Guardian Middle East editor, who noticed parallels between Washington’s Perle-RAND strategy and a 1996 paper published by the Israeli Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies — a paper co-authored by former Pentagon official Richard Perle and other neocons who held top positions in the post-9/11 Bush administration.

Ahmed noted:

“The policy paper advocated a strategy that bears startling resemblance to the chaos unfolding in the wake of the expansion of the ‘Islamic State’ – Israel would ‘shape its strategic environment’ by first securing the removal of Saddam Hussein. ‘Jordan and Turkey would form an axis along with Israel to weaken and “roll back” Syria.’ This axis would attempt to weaken the influence of Lebanon, Syria and Iran by ‘weaning’ off their Shi’ite populations.”

To succeed, Ahmed continued, Israel would need to gain U.S. support, “which would be obtained by Benjamin Netanyahu formulating the strategy ‘in language familiar to the Americans by tapping into themes of American administrations during the cold war.’”

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Arab Spring

All of a sudden, out of nowhere, we have all these staged revolutions and “opposition movements” all over the world. First it was Egypt, then Syria and now Lebanon.

All at the same time more or less. Now… How is this possible? If there is some “revolution” in some country then what does it have to do with other countries? Why did it all happen at once? Is there a SINGLE example of such a thing in the entire history of mankind? Or is there something so special nowadays that the laws of gravitation do not apply any longer?

What is interesting about it is that people who are in constant contact with their relatives in Syria say that the Syrian intelligence have analyzed the videos of those “opposition” demonstrators and what they have found is that the same exact people that were present in Egypt during that staged revolution were also present in Syria during those “opposition movement demonstrations”.

And what is even more interesting is they were carrying the same exact slogans as they did in Egypt. And, to top it off, they were Egyptian citizens with US Passports. Makes sense?

While revolts in Tunisia and Egypt caught the US by surprise there is speculation that they are behind revolts in Libya and Syria. Russia and China are also see observing these developments.

Press TV talks with Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, former assistant secretary to US Treasury in Panama City who concisely provides insight as to the larger scope of American hegemonic strategy that seriously risks Russian and Chinese interests.

Press TV:
There is talk about Washington being advised to arm the revolutionaries in Libya. Do you think this is a good idea?

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts:
They are already arming them. That is what’s unique about the Libyan revolt. It’s not a peaceful revolt; it’s not taking place in the capital; it’s an armed revolt from the eastern part of the country. And we know that the CIA is involved on the ground and so they are already armed.

Press TV:
How do you compare this military intervention to the one in Bahrain?

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts:
We don’t want to overthrow the government in Bahrain or in Saudi Arabia where both governments are using violence against protesters because they’re our puppets and we have a large naval base in Bahrain.
We want to overthrow Gaddafi and Assad in Syria because we want to clear China and Russia out of the Mediterranean.

China has massive energy investments in eastern Libya and is relying on Libya along with Angola and Nigeria for energy needs. This is an American effort to deny resources to China just as Washington and London denied resources to the Japanese in the 1930s.

The interest in the Syria protests, which Wikileaks shows the Americans are behind — we are interested in that because the Russians have a large naval base in Syria and it gives them a presence in the Mediterranean. So you see that Washington is all for invading against Libya and is putting more and more pressure to intervene in Syria because we want to get rid of the Russians and the Chinese.
We don’t have anything to say about the Saudis — how they treat protesters or anything to say about the violence used against protesters in Bahrain.

Press TV:
Are you saying the ultimate goal in attacking Libya is because of the oil factor?

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts:
It’s not just the oil, it’s the fact of China’s penetration of Africa and China lining up oil supplies for its energy needs. You may be aware that the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has released a report that says that the ‘Age of America’ is over and that the American economy will be bypassed by China in five years and then the US will become the second largest economy rather than first.

So one of the things Washington is trying to do is to block; to use its superior military and strategic capabilities at this time to block China’s acquisition of resources in order to make the development of the Chinese economy slow down.

This is a major reason why the CIA has been active in eastern Libya and it’s the reason protests broke out in the east not in the capital like in the other Arab countries and it’s the reasons it’s armed.

Press TV:
Do you think Libya’s diplomatic isolation was the main reason for this military intervention?

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts:
I don’t think it was the main reason. The main reason I think was to evict China from Libya, which is what is happening. The Chinese had 30,000 people there and they’ve had to evacuate 29,000 of them.
It’s also payback to Gaddafi for refusing to join the US Africa Command (AfriComm). It became operative in 2008 and was the American response to China’s penetration of Africa; we created a military response to that and Gaddafi refused to participate — he said it was an act of imperialism trying to purchase an entire continent.
And I think the third reason is that Gaddafi in Libya controls an important part of the Mediterranean coast; as does Syria.
So I think those two countries are just in the way of American hegemony in the Mediterranean and certainly the Americans don’t want a powerful Russian fleet stationed there and they certainly don’t want China drawing energy resources.

Washington was caught off guard by the outbreaks of protests in Tunisia and Egypt, but quickly learned that they could use and hide behind Arab protests to evict Russia and China without a direct confrontation, they wouldn’t want that, so they’ve engineered these protests.

We know for a fact that the CIA has been stirring discord in eastern Libya for some time, this is a known fact. And the release of Wikileaks cables show that the Americans are involved in stirring up unrest in Syria.

We didn’t stir up unrest in Egypt or Bahrain or Tunisia or Saudi Arabia. We probably are responsible for the unrest in Yemen because we were using drones and strikes against various tribal elements.
So, that is the big difference that the Syrian and Libya affairs have American hands in them, organizing the demonstrations, providing money and so forth. There are always discontented people that can be bought and promises given.

Press TV:
Drones are now being used in Libya. From where do these drones operate? Technically they cannot fly from Italy because of a shortage of fuel so where do they operate from?

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts:
I don’t know — could be from American naval vessels. I believe the last report about the drones did come from a Navy officer.
I’d like to add something to this conversation. Probably the biggest risk and the one that’s being ignored is China’s attitude. The Chinese companies are losing hundreds of millions (dollars) from this intervention. They have 50 massive investments there all going down the drain and this is clearly perceived by China as an act against them. They don’t have any illusions; they don’t read the New York Times or Washington Post and believe all of that crap. So what they see is a move of the Americans against China.

Press TV:
Are you suggesting that the Americans want to take out China and replace these investments with American companies?

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts:
Or anybody, that’s right. And I think the Russians are beginning to perceive that the whole Syrian thing is a move against them and their base there.

So what we’re really doing is antagonizing two large countries: China, which has an economy that is probably better than the US because their people have jobs; and the Russians have unlimited nuclear arsenal — and so we’re starting to press very strong countries in a very reckless way. We’re behaving in a very reckless and dangerous way.
Once you start this and Russian and China come to the conclusion that the Americans simply cannot be dealt with in any rational way and are determined to somehow subdue them and do them damage, all kinds of escalations can result. This is the real danger and we’re risking a major war.

Press TV:
(Italy is heavily reliant on Libyan oil) What about the role of Italy (as part of NATO) in Libya?

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts:
This is another unique thing with this Libyan intervention. What is NATO doing fighting a war in Africa? NATO was formed to guard against the potential of a soviet invasion of Western Europe. The Soviet Union has been gone for twenty years. Steered by the US and the Pentagon it has been turned into an auxiliary force and we now have NATO involved in an aggressive war in Africa. This is a war of aggression, a war of attack.

So this is an extraordinary development. Why is this happening? We didn’t use NATO in Egypt, Tunisia and will certainly not use it in Saudi Arabia or Bahrain so we see something highly unusual — NATO at war in Africa. This needs an explanation.

(Interview by Press TV with Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, former assistant secretary to US Treasury (in Reagan administration), Panama City.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Missing Link in the JFK Assassination Conspiracy

 Chapter 10″FINAL JUDGMENT”

(By Michael Collins Piper. Pub. 1995 by The Wolfe Press, Washington, DC. Tel. 1-800-522-6292.)

Piper has subtitled his book The Missing Link in the JFK Assassination Conspiracy. We take up this book not simply to lay out the evidence which many investigators have accumulated concerning the Kennedy assassination conspiracy, but also to further pursue our reason for reviewing McCoy’s book, The Politics of Heroin. Where McCoy introduces us to the illegal strong-arm activities of our own CIA, acting in concert with organized crime in its world-wide drug trafficking, Piper, in investigating the Kennedy assassination, draws a picture of cooperative illegal activities in a number of additional arenas by the secret intelligence agencies of the United States, France, and Israel, i.e., the CIA, the SDECE, and the Mossad, all of which have histories of utilizing the services of organized crime elements in pursuing their various goals. Our approach will be to review the ties Piper has unearthed among the three intelligence agencies, and then the ties existing between each one of them and organized crime. The picture which emerges is one of vast criminal power available to those secretly manipulating the affairs of the world, in addition to the monetary, social, and political power we have discussed in our earlier chapters.

McCoy discusses perhaps the first cooperative venture involving the CIA and the SDECE: the securing of Marseille for the use of Corsican gangsters for heroin manufacture and drug transit. During these same years, the late 40’s and early 50’s, the CIA was helping establish the KMT “army” in Burma, financed by opium the CIA helped the KMT to transport out of Burma and through Thailand. At the same time, the U.S. was funding the French in their war against the North Vietnamese, which also utilized the services of Hmong hill tribes in raising opium to help finance the war. The SDECE and the French military ran that show, which was eventually lost at Dien Bien Phu in 1954. The CIA won the right to continue the Vietnamese War, and mounted a major effort in Laos from 1960 to 1974, copying the strategy of the French military and the SDECE of financing the war by the cultivation and sale of drugs, selling even to American military personnel who were fighting that hated “anti-Communist” war in Southeast Asia.

Piper discusses another CIA-SDECE tie, connected with General Charles DeGaulle’s fight with the French Secret Army Organization (OAS) over granting independence to Algeria. (DeGaulle became French President in 1958. Algeria attained independence in 1962.) Piper indicates that the OAS, like the CIA, was highly compartmented, with projects kept secret from all except those who were directly involved and had a “need to know.” The Algerian question had created a split within the body politic of the French nation, and most particularly among French politicians and bureaucrats, specifically including the French secret service, the SDECE. Piper references sources which indicate the heavy involvement of SDECE officers in support of the OAS and its goals, goals which included multiple attempts on DeGaulle’s life.

Likewise, in the United States the CIA was similarly compartmented. Piper’s narrative repeatedly involves James J. Angleton, the CIA’s Chief of Counterintelligence under Allen Dulles and then Richard Helms. Angleton, says Piper, served as American intelligence liaison with the SDECE after World War 2 and “maintained close friendships with a number of French intelligence officials throughout his career.” During this period of DeGaulle’s struggles with the OAS, the CIA “was actively engaged in an effort to topple … DeGaulle, lending aid and support to the French Secret Army Organization that was fighting DeGaulle’s decision to grant independence to Algeria.” John F. Kennedy was supporting DeGaulle and his Algerian position at this very same time, indicating the degree of autonomy which the CIA was secretly enjoying.

Another connection involved a Frenchman named Jean Souetre, an OAS mercenary who had approached the CIA a few months before the JFK assassination allegedly with information concerning Communists in the SDECE. A CIA document dated about four months after the assassination was uncovered in 1977, which reported that the SDECE wanted help in locating Souetre, and asking why American authorities had expelled him from the U.S. immediately after he had been picked up in Dallas “within 48 hours after Kennedy’s death.” Souetre, the document said, sometimes went under the name Michel Mertz. Mertz was in turn identified, says Piper, by former CIA insider Robert Morrow, as a member of one of the assassination teams that killed Kennedy. Further, says Morrow, “Mertz was on the Angleton-supervised CIA ZR/Rifle Team of foreign mercenaries where he was known by his code name, QJ/WIN.” If you are left wondering about these specific matters, so are we, and so is Piper.

The final tie to be noted involves the CIA’s James Angleton and the then deputy chief of the SDECE, Col. Georges deLannurien. Piper says (p. 241): “In a private communication to this author after he read the first draft of Final Judgment, a former high-ranking retired French diplomat and intelligence officer stated (based on his own inside knowledge) that a French team – professional assassins – were the actual shooters in Dealey Plaza….” [More about this in a moment.] The unidentified diplomat wrote to Piper indicating that the assassination team had been hired “through the good offices of … Col. Georges deLannurien. ‘It was no coincidence,’ he wrote, ‘that on the very day of the execution of the President by the French team that [deLannunen] was in Langley meeting with James Jesus Angleton….’

“According to the diplomat, ‘There are no coincidences in the suspicion business – just cover-ups. The case of Communist infiltration of the French secret service was an appropriate cover-up to justify the presence of the French deLannurien at Langley, Virginia.’

“Obviously, Angleton and deLannurien were together for a very specific purpose: damage control – making sure that the assassination cover-up fell into place after the crime itself had been committed.

“Angleton himself told the House Assassination Committee that deLannurien had come to his office for just that purpose: seeking assistance in routing out Communist moles in the SDECE.”

We go next to the ties which Piper discusses between the SDECE/OAS and the Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency. The prime issue here revolves around the antipathy felt by the Israelis toward General DeGaulle for granting independence to Algeria. Algeria was a predominantly Muslim state, though it contained a substantial Jewish minority. Piper quotes the Washington Post of March 20, 1982: “Diplomatically, France, shorn of Algeria, returned under President Charles DeGaulle to its traditional policy of friendship with the Arabs – much to the chagrin of Israel and the 200,000 Algerian Jews who had lived peacefully alongside their Arab neighbors until emigrating to France.” Piper points out elsewhere (p. 3 1): “Israel, of course, saw the emergence of another independent Arab republic as a threat to its security, and anyone favoring Algerian independence [e.g., Charles DeGaulle, or John Kennedy] was, thus, advocating a policy deemed threatening to Israel’s survival. ”

The OAS, including its supportive elements within the SDECE, were therefore found to be enjoying covert financial and other support from the Israeli Mossad and other entities supportive of Israel. Piper quotes Israeli historian Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi: “During 1961 and 1962, there were numerous reports of Israeli support for the French OAS movement in Algeria.” Historian Stewart Steven is also quoted: “When in 1961 the OAS was created, it was a natural development that Israel, as keen on [French retention of Algeria as a colony] as the OAS themselves, should lock themselves into the [OAS].” An SDECE report supportive of DeGaulle charged that funds from the Israeli Bank Hapoalim were routed to the OAS in Paris via Guy Banister in New Orleans, about whom more will be said shortly.

We now go back to the retired French diplomat and intelligence agent who corresponded with Piper. He told Piper that it was at the behest of the Israeli Mossad that Col. Georges deLannunen arranged for the physical execution of John Kennedy. Specifically, Piper writes: “According to the French intelligence officer, then-Mossad assassination chief Yitzhak Shamir (later Israeli prime minister) arranged the hiring of the assassination team through the good offices of the deputy chief of the SDECE, Col. Georges deLannurien.”

We’ll get to Piper’s discussion of the Israeli motivation for the crime in a few minutes, but in explanation of the Mossad’s contracting of the physical assassination with the SDECE, Piper quotes the French officer: “Never the Prime Minister of Israel would have involved Mossad people, American Jews, or CIA personnel in the execution part of the conspiracy. Even the CIA contracts the services of other members of the intelligence community (they like the French style) to wash dirty linens. The right hand does not know what the left did. The cover-up team doesn’t know who executes. And the executioners are not interested in the aftermath of their mission. They don’t care less.”

DeGaulle continued to have trouble with the Mossad after JFK was killed, though he managed to survive assassination efforts directed at himself.  After an incident in 1965 involving the Mossad and various elements in his own SDECE, he furiously set about to clean house within the SDECE, and simultaneously expelled the Mossad from France and ordered the termination of all intelligence cooperation between France and Israel. Historian Stewart Steven described the expulsion as “a severe blow, perhaps the most severe the Israeli secret service has ever suffered…. DeGaulle was never to forgive Israel.”

We go next to the ties between the Mossad and the CIA. We’ll discuss here just three of the many ties which Piper discusses. They are embodied in the names Angleton, Shaw, and Rafizadeh.

Piper devotes a whole chapter to discussing the relationship of the CIA’s James Angleton with the Mossad and other of Israel’s support entities in the United States and elsewhere. He was recruited into the OSS directly out of Yale University, entered the CIA after it was formed in 1947 following the abolition of the OSS, and by 1954 assumed the position of chief of CIA counterintelligence, under the patronage of Richard Helms, who became CIA director under Lyndon Johnson. Angleton was given his own secret slush fund to operate with essentially as he wished. According to one researcher quoted by Piper, Angleton was the “official CIA liaison for all Allied foreign intelligence agencies” – most particularly including the Mossad. A friend is further quoted: “That’s the job that was so sensitive and that’s the one that you don’t read about. While he was liaising with everyone, he was getting them to do favors for either the CIA … or for his own agenda…. He could use his contacts with Israeli intelligence, which he kept to himself, as authority for whatever line he was trying to push at the CIA…. No one was going to contradict him, since no one else was allowed to talk to Israeli intelligence.”

Piper then quotes Angleton’s biographer, Tom Mangold: “I would like to place on the record, however, that Angleton’s closest professional friends overseas … came from the Mossad, and that he was held in immense esteem by his Israeli colleagues and by the state of Israel, which was to award him profound honors after his death.” In fact, says Piper, “Following his death in 1987, a monument was unveiled in Israel by its government in his honor.”

Piper goes into detail about a number of the joint ventures undertaken by Angleton and the Mossad. These included a plot to kill the Egyptian President Nasser, a similar plot against Israel’s enemies in Syria, and, very importantly, an effort to assist Israel in their development of nuclear weapons and to cover up that secret development. This latter effort went to the heart of the disagreement between John Kennedy and the Israeli prime minister David Ben-Gurion, and also between JFK and the CIA.

There is much more, but let us hurry on to Clay Shaw. Shaw’s name came to the attention of the public when he was tried in New Orleans by District Attorney Jim Garrison as being a conspirator in the JFK assassination. Though Garrison could not himself prove it, Piper indicates that assassination researchers are substantially unanimous concerning Shaw’s CIA affiliation. Garrison suspected it because of the ties which he found between Shaw and Guy Banister and David Ferrie, both having histories of CIA involvements and both tied to pre-assassination contacts with Lee Harvey Oswald, presumably as his CIA “handlers.” Piper repeats the claim of one researcher that Shaw was, in fact, “Banister’s immediate superior in coordinating CIA operations out of New Orleans.”

Further, Shaw had been assigned to the OSS while a young army officer in Britain during World War 2, and had at that time become a good friend of Winston Churchill. This was the same entree into the intelligence world that we noted above for James Angleton, and yet also for a third gentleman of great interest, Louis M. Bloomfield. Bloomfield was later hired by J. Edgar Hoover, says Piper, “to serve as a recruiting agent for the FBI’s counterespionage division, Division Five. Through this position, Bloomfield became a working partner of Division Five chief William Sullivan, a close friend of James J. Angleton, the Mossad’s CIA ally. Sullivan was Angleton’s ‘man inside’ the FBI.”

Both Shaw and Bloomfield were directors of a company called Permindex, which was in turn a subsidiary of an organization based in Rome called Centro Mondiale Commerciale (CMC), which translates to World Trade Center. “Permindex” is an acronym for PERmanent INDustrial EXpositions, in accordance with the stated function of CMC which was to establish a worldwide network of trade expositions. Piper lists a few of the other board members, remarkably including a couple with significant ties to Meyer Lansky’s organized crime network. The CMC founder, he says, was one Georges Mandel, an Eastern European Jew who Italianized his name to Giorgio Mantello. One of the chief shareholders of CMC, says Piper, “was the Banque De Credit International of Geneva (BCI), established by Tibor Rosenbaum, the longtime Director for Finance and Supply of Israel’s Mossad…. BCI also served as a depository for the Permindex account.” Piper identifies several of the BCI directors, including “Ernest Israel Japhet, also chairman and president of the Bank Leumi, the largest bank in Israel,” plus two men, Ed Levinson and John Pullman, connected with Meyer Lansky’s crime network.

Piper quotes author Paris Flammonde: “Actually it was soon to become evident that the seemingly vast, mighty structure [the CMC] was not a rock of solidarity, but a shell of superficiality; not constructed with mass, supporting promise, but composed of channels through which money flowed back and forth, with no one knowing the source or the destination of these liquid assets.” In short, says Piper, it was a money laundry, a joint venture between the CIA and the Mossad, with ties to organized crime, which we will discuss presently.

Public controversy arose in Europe in 1962 over Permindex involvement with assassination plots against President DeGaulle, involving funds from the Israeli Bank Hapoalim routed to the OAS via Guy Banister in New Orleans. Permindex was thereupon expelled from Switzerland and Italy, and was subsequently relocated in Johannesburg, South Africa, the move being managed by Dr. David Biegun, the national secretary of a New York organization called the National Committee for Labor Israel, Inc., whose parent organization in Israel controlled the Israeli Bank Hapoalim, referred to above.

As with the case of Angleton, there’s much more detail about Shaw that Piper goes into, but you really must get the book yourself. Let’s go on to our last name suggestive of CIA/Mossad ties – Mansur Rafizadeh.

Rafizadeh was the former chief of the SAVAK, which was the secret police of the Shah of Iran, with whom Rafizadeh later broke. The SAVAK was created in 1957, said Rafizadeh in his memoirs, at the joint urging of Israel, the United States, and Britain. Only 4 years earlier, CIA director Allen Dulles and his deputy director Richard Helms had organized a coup in Iran, ousting the elected Prime Minister Mossadegh and installing the Shah, as we outlined in our Chapter 1. Helms and the Shah, says Piper, had been schoolmates as children in Switzerland, a relationship that was capped by Helms finally becoming U.S. Ambassador to Iran.

The CIA and the Mossad cooperated in training SAVAK recruits. To this end the CIA maintained an operation called the International Police Academy in Washington, which trained recruits for both the SAVAK and the Mossad. It was run by one Joseph Shimon, friend of Chicago Mafia boss Sam Giancana among others of questionable character. Shimon once testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee concerning his participation with Giancana and CIA operatives in Miami in assassination plots against Fidel Castro.

Piper’s proximate reason for bringing up the SAVAK has to do with the assassination of JFK’s brother, Robert F. Kennedy. He describes the thesis put forward by former CIA contract agent Robert Morrow. In Piper’s words: “Simply put, Morrow’s thesis is this: that the murder of Robert F. Kennedy was a CIA contract hit, carried out through the CIA’s long-standing ally in international intrigue, the SAVAK, the secret police of the Shah of Iran – an intelligence agency created in part by Israel’s Mossad itself, and tied closely to the Mossad.” Piper outlines the available evidence in support of this thesis.

Before going into the ties of the CIA, the SDECE, and the Mossad to organized crime, let’s spend a few moments examining the common origins of these agencies. We noted in Chapter 1 that Engdahl noted in his A Century of War that the CIA got its start as the OSS, which was created as an adjunct to and in the London offices of the British intelligence agency which Engdahl calls the Special Operations Executive (SOE). Piper adds a few more specifics. Louis Bloomfield, who, with Clay Shaw and James Angleton, had joined the OSS during the war, had in 1938 been recruited into Britain’s counterintelligence agency, the same SOE, reporting to another Canadian, Sir William Stephenson. British intelligence, in the person of Sir William Stephenson, appears to be the common key we are seeking.

Stephenson’s job in 1938 was to set up British intelligence activities in the United States. Stephenson, the reputed role model for the fictional James Bond, with Louis Bloomfield as his top aide, worked in Operation Underworld, the anti-Nazi activities undertaken during World War 2 by the FBI and the Office of Naval Intelligence utilizing the services of Lucky Luciano and Meyer Lansky. After the war, Stephenson and Bloomfield, says Piper, “were integral to gun-running operations on behalf of the Jewish terrorist underground that later emerged as the government of the new Jewish State in 1948.” (Recall that Engdahl had noted that the British purpose for establishing Israel – a small country dependent on Britain and surrounded by squabbling Arabs – was to project British control into the oil-laden Middle-East.) Stephenson in addition worked after the war with a U.S. army counterintelligence officer named General Julius Klein on the task of setting up the Mossad, the secret service of the new Jewish State, and training its officers. Stephenson, said Piper, “became a critical player in the establishment of Israel’s Mossad.” The British were even involved in the creation of the Iranian SAVAK, according to Mr. Rafizadeh. This omnipresence of British Intelligence is strongly suggestive of control by British political elites, and therefore also by the dynastic banking families listed by Carroll Quigley to whom those politicians are subservient.

We go now to the organized crime ties. The SDECE’s cooperative arrangement with the Corsican Mafia in Marseille, in which the SDECE protected the Marseille labs that were producing heroin for American consumption, was discussed at some length in our Chapter 9. Also discussed was the secret SDECE Operation X, involving the French collection of Hmong opium and its delivery to Saigon’s controlling criminal gang (the Binh Xuyen) for sale in Saigon’s opium dens, utilized as a means of financing the French Indochinese War against the Communist Pathet Lao.

The CIA ties are much more extensive, and seem invariably to involve “The Chairman of the Board” of American organized crime, Meyer Lansky, or one of his subordinates. It was Lansky with whom the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI) directly dealt in Operation Underworld, described briefly by Piper and much more extensively by McCoy.

But to understand Lansky, a couple of preliminaries are mandatory. First, there was for many years not one, but two branches of “organized crime”: the “Sicilian Mafia” and the “Jewish Mafia.” The former contained mostly Italian names, such as Lucky Luciano, Frank Costello, Joe Adonis, and Sam Giancana; the latter contained Jewish names, including Meyer Lansky, Micky Cohen, and Bugsy Siegel. The two organizations were for many years in a state of “cooperative competition” which was finally resolved in favor of Lansky upon the retirement, death, or deportation of all those capable of leadership challenges from among the Sicilians. Lansky was not at all bashful about helping along such retirements, deaths, and/or deportations, as Luciano ruefully came to realize.

Second, Lansky for years remained immune from federal prosecution, the only top crime figure (except for his heir Santo Trafficante) to remain untouched. The Justice Department twice refused IRS requests to prosecute him. How come? It went beyond just the “help” that Lansky gave the ONI during the war against the Nazis. Piper tops off his list of evidences on the matter by identifying the carrot and the stick Lansky used against FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover. Piper relates from the biography of the Chicago Mafia chieftain Sam Giancana: “The Giancanas say that Hoover had worked out a deal with Lansky’s boyhood friend and criminal associate Frank Costello. The New York mobster would pass horse race betting tips to columnist Walter Winchell, a Hoover intimate. Winchell, in turn, would pass the information on fixed races to Hoover. Hoover would arrange his real bets through his associates, while making minimal bets on his own ticket at the horse races. According to the Giancanas, ‘Hoover won every time.”‘

The stick, as reported by 1993 author Anthony Summers in his Hoover biography Official and Confidential, was that Lansky was blackmailing Hoover with pictures of Hoover engaged in homosexual activity. Summers reports that the pictures were also held by James J. Angleton and his former OSS chief William Donovan. This, of course, would explain Hoover’s hands-off policy toward Lansky, and would also explain FBI reticence concerning any investigation of various CIA peccadilloes, up to and including the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

Third and last, in Piper’s words: “It was the Meyer Lansky Organized Crime Syndicate that played a pivotal role in the establishment of Israel. Lansky, you see, was Israel’s modern-day ‘Godfather.’ Lansky was with Israel from the beginning.” To be more specific, the intellectual outlooks of Lansky and the Mossad with respect to the fortunes of the new Israeli state were identical.

CIA (and OSS) ties to the Corsican Mafia in Marseille, to Lansky in Operation Underworld, and to various parties dealing with opium cultivation and transport in Indochina and Afghanistan (including Meyer Lansky and Santo Trafficante) have been thoroughly covered in our review of Alfred McCoy’s book in Chapter 9. Piper notes that Angleton, working for the OSS in Britain and Italy during the war, had contact with the Lansky-linked Operation Underworld. By 1951, Angleton was stationed in Rome doing OSS counterintelligence work, where he was supporting “the underground Jewish network that ran down from Eastern Europe through Italy to the ports where shiploads of immigrants were loaded for Palestine.” One of his contacts was Teddy Kollek, who was later to be the mayor of Jerusalem. Kollek, says Piper, was engaged in arms smuggling to Palestine in conjunction with Meyer Lansky and Major Louis M. Bloomfield, the aforementioned deputy to Sir William Stephenson. Angleton was obviously aware, even as he worked for the American OSS, of the illegal activities of Meyer Lansky in acquiring and smuggling arms into Palestine.

The Giancana biography referred to above also claimed that Mafia figure Carlos Marcello, the New Orleans “boss” (at the sufferance of Meyer Lansky, the real boss), “was a co-conspirator with the CIA in gunrunning operations and a fervent supporter of the anti-Castro exiles. It was an arrangement … aimed at returning Cuba to its pre-Castro glory – meaning its lucrative casinos and vice rackets [which Lansky had previously run].” The biography elsewhere had Sam Giancana showing his brother an ancient Roman coin and declaring: “Look, this is one of the Roman gods. This one has two faces … two sides. That’s what we are, the Outfit and the CIA … two sides of the same coin.” Piper quotes a great deal of additional detail concerning the personnel and activities of the joint CIA / Organized Crime activities to assassinate Fidel Castro, which the CIA labeled Operation Mongoose. Included were General Edward Lansdale directing the operation, assisted by Ted Shackley and Thomas Clines, all also much involved in the CIA war and drug operation in Indochina. Included also was CIA operative E. Howard Hunt, who was later personally implicated in the JFK assassination conspiracy. Piper concludes, “So it was that the CIA and Organized Crime entered into a complex – and controversial – liaison for a mutual aim: the elimination of Cuban dictator Fidel Castro. There is no question that Trafficante, [Johnny] Rosselli and Giancana did indeed help coordinate assassination plots against Castro with representatives of the CIA…. However, as one author succinctly put it: ‘Lansky was the top man in the CIA-Mafia plot against Castro.’ All of [his subordinates’] operations in league with the CIA were being conducted with Lansky’s approval and under Lansky’s watchful eye.”

Rosselli and Giancana were later murdered, effectively shutting them up, but the 1992 Giancana biography alleged that “The Outfit” and the CIA were also jointly planning JFK’s assassination, though Piper suggests that that operation was probably only one of several “false flags” set up by whoever the master assassination planners were to direct suspicion away from the true culprits. Nevertheless, the Giancana biography had Sam explaining: “The politicians and the CIA made it real simple. We’d each provide men for the hit. I’d oversee the Outfit side of things and throw in Jack Ruby and some extra backup, and the CIA would put their own guys on to take care of the rest.” Piper notes that Santo Trafficante, being Meyer Lansky’s chosen heir, remained untouched, dying of kidney failure in 1987. Anything that Trafficante contributed to the Kennedy assassination, however, Meyer Lansky surely knew about and approved.

The Giancana biography also detailed the cut that Sam Giancana said the CIA was getting from the drug traffic being managed by Santo Trafficante: “The CIA looked the other way – allowing over $100 million a year in illicit drugs to flow through Havana into the United States. It was an arrangement similar to all the rest they’d made, he said. The CIA received 10 percent of the take on the sale of narcotics, which they utilized ‘for their undercover slush fund.’ Such illegally earned moneys were stashed away by the CIA in Swiss, Italian, Bahamian, and Panamanian accounts.”

One last tie which Piper outlines between the CIA and Organized Crime involves Jack Ruby. Piper quotes sources detailing Ruby’s gunrunning activities under the guidance of the CIA both to Castro before his takeover of Cuba and to Castro’s opponents afterwards. Ruby was clearly well-known to both the CIA and the FBI before the JFK assassination. Piper relates: “[Reporter John] Henshaw also wrote that Texas Attorney General Waggoner Carr was being kept under surveillance by the FBI because he had undisclosed evidence: ‘The evidence includes a copy of the missing film taken moments before Jack Ruby shot and killed Lee Harvey Oswald. The film covers Ruby’s progress through the FBI and police screens guarding the entrance of the Dallas Police headquarters. Two cameramen had been assigned by a Dallas TV station to cover the entrance, but were ordered by federal agents to knock off film footage which showed a high official of the Justice Department escorting [Ruby] through the two security screens.”‘ A suspicious person might smell the hands of CIA and/or FBI persons here as well, acting in concert with The Outfit.

We finally get to ties between the Mossad (plus its organizational appurtenances) and Meyer Lansky’s organized crime apparatus. We’ll start with the primary tie and flesh it out a little from there. That primary tie is in the person of Rabbi Tibor Rosenbaum. As we mentioned above in our discussion of Clay Shaw, Rosenbaum was the long-time Director for Finance and Supply of Israel’s Mossad. To serve Israel’s purposes, Rosenbaum created the Banque de Credit International in Geneva, Switzerland. Rosenbaum, having earlier served as international vice president of the World Jewish Congress, and as a cofounder of the World Zionist Congress, and as a director of the Jewish Agency in Geneva, attracted deposits from such agencies into his BCI. The bank, says Piper, “was very much an Israeli government Mossad operation, critical to the survival of the Jewish State.”

But the tie to Organized Crime? Piper continues: “BCI was to become Meyer Lansky’s primary overseas money laundering bank – sharing those money laundering services that the bank provided to Israel’s Mossad. In fact, during its heyday, BCI included among its board of directors two longtime Lansky associates, Edward Levinson and John Pullman…. Levinson was one of the operators of the Fremont Casino in Las Vegas, a front man for Lansky’s close friend, Joseph ‘Doe’ Stacher, and a frequent business partner of Bobby Baker, reputed ‘bagman’ for Lyndon Johnson. John Pullman … was Lansky’s key international money handler.” Recall that we encountered Pullman in our previous chapter, who was then traveling to Hong Kong for Lansky to cement deals with the Hong Kong heroin merchants.

One of the real keys to the Lansky / Israeli tie, says Piper, was money. Lansky needed a network to launder his criminal proceeds. Israel needed money to survive. It was a natural marriage of interests. The importance to Israel of those early money-raising efforts is described by reporter Jim Hougan: “During the Second World War [Rosenbaum had become] a hero of the resistance through his underground activities on behalf of the Jews. After the War he became a delegate to the World Zionist Congress in Basel, where plans were made for the creation of Israel…. This was at the height of Zionist terrorist attacks in Palestine. A superb clandestine operator, Rosenbaum is said to have been instrumental in providing weapons to the Haganah and Stern Gang. That would tend to explain why the [BCI], ‘Rosenbaum’s Baby,’ became gambling czar Meyer Lansky’s Number One conduit abroad.

“Rosenbaum was more than a friend to the Jews, however…. The newspaper Ha’aretz solemnly declared, ‘Tibor Rosenbaum is Israel.’ And the paper wasn’t far from wrong…. Rosenbaum’s bank … served as a source of secret funds for the Mossad, Israel’s intelligence service, and as one of the country’s primary weapons brokers. At one point ‘as much as ninety percent of the Israeli Defense Ministry’s external budget flowed through [the BCI].’

“In economic matters he was equally important, founding the Israel Corporation with the help of Baron Edmond de Rothschild, a French aristocrat committed to the Zionist cause. The raison d’etre of the Israel Corporation was to raise money among the world’s Jews, money to be invested in a variety of public and semi-public Israeli enterprises. By finding money abroad to fund development projects in ‘the homeland,’ Rosenbaum and Rothschild freed Israeli tax moneys to be spent on the country’s critical military needs….

“The mix of Mob, Mossad, … and Rothschild moneys was an intoxicating one in which the common denominator appears to have been a love of Israel. Certainly Rosenbaum … shared that affection with Lansky and the French baron.”

Let’s flesh out the structure a little more. Says Piper: “It was in 1947 that Rudolph Sonneborn (husband of New York publisher Dorothy Schiff) set up an entity known as the Sonneborn Institute. It was this institute that provided the Jewish Haganah, and later the Irgun, in Palestine with arms and money. The Institute’s coordinator for arms smuggling to the Jewish underground was Louis Bloomfield. Working with Bloomfield were liquor baron Samuel Bronfman … and Lansky himself.” Bloomfield, you will recall, was aide to Sir William Stephenson in Operation Under-world during World War 2, was later a director and board chairman of Permindex, and was also the attorney and front man for the Bronfman bootlegging family of Canada, which built its fortune working with the Lansky Organized Crime Syndicate in the illegal liquor trade, and which now owns a controlling interest in Time Warner, the giant American media conglomerate. Sam Bronfman’s family and members of Meyer Lansky’s “Jewish Mafia” provide major financial support to the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith (ADL), whose origins go back to 1913, when it was incorporated by one Sigmund Livingston as a public relations entity whose prime purpose was to defend Jewish mobsters in New York City. It was thereafter used for that purpose by Arnold Rothstein in the 20’s and by Meyer Lansky up through the 60’s. J. Edgar Hoover, who protected Lansky from prosecution, had a foundation named in his honor which was established by the ADL. The first president of the foundation was Rabbi Paul Richman, the Washington director of the ADL.

The difference between Piper’s book and the many other books that have been written about the JFK assassination is that Piper decided to follow the leads that were associated with motivation as opposed to the mechanics of the deed, such as how many shots were fired, from where, and how they might have bounced around, etc. He asked instead such questions as Who gained by JFK’s death? and Who was capable of mounting such a masterfully orchestrated cover-up? This led him to examine the motivations of the major covert action agencies which we have discussed above. So let’s turn finally to the relationships which Piper has uncovered between John Kennedy and each of the SDECE, the CIA, the Mossad, and Organized Crime.

Taking the SDECE first, John Kennedy had announced his support for DeGaulle’s policy of granting independence to Algeria. In so doing he earned the enmity of the French Secret Army Organization (OAS), and also those elements within the SDECE supportive of the OAS. As Piper describes it, “The debate over Algerian independence had sparked a major crisis within France, and the French OAS, which fought Algerian freedom, considered John F. Kennedy an enemy second only to Charles DeGaulle.” These facts make it understandable how a “French” team might plausibly have been recruited to perform the JFK assassination, as Piper says was reported to him by a French ex-diplomat and intelligence officer.

JFK and the CIA parted company on at least three major policy issues: Algeria, the Bay of Pigs, and Vietnam. Over Algeria, we noted near the beginning of this chapter that the CIA was secretly engaged in supporting the effort by the OAS to overthrow French President Charles DeGaulle. Piper does not say whether or not Kennedy was aware of such CIA help. The CIA, however, was fully aware of Kennedy’s support of DeGaulle, producing what amounted to at least a one-sided disagreement, if not a direct confrontation.

The second issue was the Bay of Pigs. Kennedy and the CIA each blamed the other for the operation’s failure. Piper quotes from Mark Lane’s Plausible Denial: “John F. Kennedy made it clear that he planned to destroy the CIA. The New York Times reported on April 25, 1966 … that as the enormity of the Bay of Pigs disaster came home to him, [Kennedy] said to one of the highest officials of his Administration that he wanted ‘to splinter the CIA in a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds.’ He clearly was not suggesting a modest legislative proposal or executive order to modify or reform the organization. The total destruction of the Agency was his apparent objective.” Piper further quotes from Plausible Denial describing the preliminary steps Kennedy actually took in trying to bring the Agency to heel.

The third issue was Vietnam. Piper again quotes Mark Lane: “[In October 1963, New York Times columnist Arthur Krock pointed out that John F. Kennedy had gone to war against the CIA…. The columnist stated that President Kennedy sent Henry Cabot Lodge, his Ambassador to Vietnam, with orders to the CIA on two separate occasions, and in both release of Lane’s written account of the trial, saying: “Mr. Lane was asking us [the jury] to do something very difficult. He was asking us to believe John Kennedy had been killed by our own government. Yet when we examined the evidence closely, we were compelled to conclude that the CIA had indeed killed President Kennedy.” Piper, of course, only holds in his book that the CIA was a major conspirator, but did not necessarily employ the man who held the gun that shot the bullet that killed the President. The trial outcome suffered a mysterious media blackout, explaining why you probably never heard about it.

Next we look at John Kennedy’s policy differences with Israel and its Mossad. There were perhaps three significant issues: Algeria, nuclear weapon development, and Palestinian resettlement. We discussed earlier how Israeli leaders felt that a new Arab state of Algeria would represent an added threat to the security of Israel, and since both Kennedy and France’s DeGaulle were supportive of Algerian independence, those two men were to be regarded as enemies of the Israeli state. The feeling toward Kennedy, however, went much deeper. The Israelis felt that Kennedy had betrayed them. JFK’s father, Joseph P. Kennedy, Sr., as Ambassador to Great Britain in the late 30’s, had been supportive of Neville Chamberlain and of his policy of appeasing Hitler. Later in his life, he renounced his former views and pledged his support for the Jewish community. That community remained suspicious of him, however, and was even more so following John Kennedy’s Senate speech proclaiming his support for an independent Algeria.

Kennedy, however, recognizing in 1960 that he needed both money and votes from the Jewish community, made moves to appease the pro-Israel lobby, very successfully, it turned out. His contact with the lobby was Abraham Feinberg, president of the Israel Bond Organization, who later acknowledged, “My path to power was cooperation in terms of what they needed – campaign money.” Kennedy met with Feinberg “and a host of other wealthy Jewish Americans” in Feinberg’s New York apartment. The group agreed to support Kennedy to the tune of $500,000. Kennedy, said Feinberg, “got emotional” with gratitude. To his own intimates, however, Kennedy was outraged. He said that he was told, “We’re willing to pay your bills if you’ll let us have control of your Middle East policy,” and he vowed that if he did get to be President, he was going to do something about eliminating the influence of special interest lobbies – especially foreign pressure groups – in American election campaigns. After his election, he did introduce such campaign reform legislation, and he did proclaim an even-handed Middle Eastern policy – that the United States “will act promptly and decisively against any nation in the Middle East which attacks its neighbor,” a policy clearly directed at both the Israelis and the Arabs. Israel, says Piper, “was not happy.”

Of much greater import, however, was Kennedy’s stance on nuclear weaponry. Upon becoming President, he was informed by the Eisenhower administration that Israel was secretly developing nuclear weapons at a desert site known as Dimona. Kennedy was determined to support a non-proliferation policy, however, and set about, as one of his primary concerns, to derail the Dimona development. Therefore, says Piper, “from the very beginning of his presidency, John F. Kennedy found himself at severe odds with the government of Israel.”

Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion publicly announced that the Dimona project was for the purpose of studying “desert flora and fauna.” Charles DeGaulle, who had helped Israel design the Dimona nuclear reactor as a power plant, was not amused. Nor was John Kennedy. According to Israeli historians Raviv and Melman, writing in 1990, Kennedy met with Ben-Gurion, stated his position, and demanded periodic international inspection of the site. Ben-Gurion resisted, and there thus began what amounted to a “secret war” between Kennedy and Israel, which was not resolved until Kennedy was killed and replaced by Lyndon Johnson. Author Seymour Hersh, writing in 1991, said: “Israel’s bomb, and what to do about it, became a White House fixation, part of the secret presidential agenda that would remain hidden for the next thirty years.” Hersh, further noting that this secret war had never been noted by any of Kennedy’s biographers, evoked the following comment from Piper: “If indeed it had been, … the mystery behind the JFK assassination might have been unraveled long, long ago.”

For here, found in 1990, was the missing motivation. The relations between Ben-Gurion and Kennedy deteriorated down to the level of personal hatred. Ben-Gurion, who, according to Abraham Feinberg, hated old Joe Kennedy as an “anti-Semite,” harbored a contempt for the younger Kennedy, says Piper, that “was growing by leaps and bounds – almost pathologically.” Hersh writes that on Kennedy’s part, he was getting fed up with the fact that the Israeli “sons of bitches lie to me constantly about their nuclear capability.” Hersh then wrote, “Kennedy’s relationship with Ben-Gurion remained at an impasse over Dimona, and the correspondence between the two became increasingly sour. None of those letters has been made public.” Given the fact of Piper’s present book, those letters today would be of very great interest.

Kennedy further proposed, said Piper, that Palestinian refugees “either be permitted to return to their homes in Israel or be compensated by Israel and resettled in the Arab countries or elsewhere. Former Undersecretary of State George Ball, writing in 1992, quoted as follows from a Ben-Gurion letter commenting on the Kennedy proposal, sent to the Israeli Ambassador in Washington for him to convey to Jewish leaders in America: “Israel will regard this plan as a more serious danger to her existence than all the threats of the Arab dictators and kings, than all the Arab armies, than all of Nasser’s missiles and his Soviet MIGs…. Israel will fight against this implementation down to the last man.”

Author Seymour Hersh reported that in one of Ben-Gurion’s last communications with Kennedy he wrote: “Mr. President, my people have a right to exist … and this existence is in danger.” He then demanded that Kennedy sign a security treaty with Israel. Kennedy refused, whereupon David Ben-Gurion, on June 16, 1963, resigned from office. Piper suggests that it was at this time, just before his resignation, that Ben-Gurion gave the order to the Mossad’s assassinations chief, Yitzhak Shamir, to proceed with plans for Kennedy’s assassination.

In summary, JFK would not countenance a nuclear Israel, and Israel perceived Kennedy’s Palestinian resolution and nuclear non-proliferation policies as threats to Israel’s very existence. From Piper’s perspective, with this strong motivational information newly in hand, the rest of the known elements of the assassination conspiracy fell easily into place, with only a few final pieces of the puzzle to be inserted in the future. Let’s put several of these last pieces in right now by examining the relationship between John Kennedy and the Organized Crime empire of Meyer Lansky.

The story is simple in its outline. Back in 1927, Joe Kennedy Sr. had a shipment of his bootleg whiskey from Ireland hijacked by a Luciano-Lansky mob in southern New England, with considerable loss of life, and significant financial loss to Kennedy. Things were smoothed over, but Lansky biographers said that Kennedy held a grudge against Lansky from that time on, and, in fact, “passed the hostility on to his sons.”

When Lansky later found out that Kennedy was sympathetic to the Nazi movement, Lansky was furious, and “swore a blood revenge on the whole [Kennedy] family. ”

Papa Joe Kennedy also transgressed the territory of the “Jewish Mafia” in Detroit during Prohibition days, and a Detroit contract was taken out on him. He went to the Chicago Mafia boss Sam Giancana to beg for his life, and Sam intervened on his behalf, putting Kennedy ever after in Chicago’s debt. Years later, Joe Kennedy again went to Sam Giancana, this time to ask for his help in getting his son John elected President. Giancana, said his biographers, asked what the quid pro quo would be, and Kennedy responded, “You help me now, Sam, and I’ll see to it that Chicago – that you – can sit in the goddamned Oval Office if you want…. He’ll be your man. I swear to that. My son – the President of the United States – will owe you his father’s life. He won’t refuse you, ever. You have my word. ”

Mafia money thereafter poured into JFK’s campaign, and following some questionable vote-counting in Illinois, he was elected. The aftermath, however, was not what Giancana and his boss Lansky expected. Says Piper, “Soon after JFK assumed the presidency, an unexpected war on organized crime began, Robert Kennedy, who had cut his teeth prosecuting mobsters as a counsel for the Senate’s ‘racket’s committee’ was named attorney general, and it was apparent that he was taking his new job seriously.” Sam Giancana, says his biographers, responded: “It’s a brilliant move on Joe [Kennedy]’s part. He’ll have Bobby wipe us out to cover their own dirty tracks, and it’ll all be done in the name of the Kennedy ‘war on organized crime.’ Brilliant. Just fuckin’ brilliant.”

Seth Kantor, Jack Ruby’s biographer, summarized the fallout of the double-cross: “As Attorney General, [Robert F. Kennedy] got more indictments on members of America’s criminal industry than had any previous prosecutor, pursuing them relentlessly. Meyer Lansky, for instance, no longer was safe behind the bolted doors of that industry’s executive suite.” Bobby Kennedy had bypassed Hoover’s FBI and put together a Justice Department group called the Organized Crime Division, and “was stalking Lansky’s secret operations in the Bahamas and Las Vegas.”

If you were running Organized Crime, wouldn’t you feel a little peeved at the Kennedy family?

We can’t resist at least touching on one additional “detail” that Piper covers involving The Mob. That has to do with the death of Marilyn Monroe. The Mob, in the person of Micky Cohen, Lansky’s man in Los Angeles, arranged for Marilyn, “America’s sweetheart,” to meet President Kennedy at a Hollywood party. Kennedy, as was his wont, took the bait, and a continuing affair commenced. This “arranged liaison” had a serious ulterior purpose, however, which was for Marilyn to find out what Kennedy planned for U.S. policy toward Israel. Marilyn resisted these demands, insisting that she had neither any knowledge of or interest in politics, but pressure on her to find out nevertheless continued. She was found dead on August 5, 1962. Piper relates a great deal more about the circumstances, and suggests that, in the light of all the other matters he has discovered and integrated with respect to the JFK assassination, it seems highly plausible that Marilyn was killed because Israel / Lansky / Cohen could not risk having Marilyn ever talk about what had been demanded of her. You will find Piper’s account of these matters highly interesting.

Following JFK’s death, what happened with respect to all the issues that JFK’s enemies were concerned about?

1. The Dimona nuclear reactor went critical in early 1964. That event elicited no reaction from President Johnson, who raised no objection to Israel’s continuing nuclear weapons development.

2. Major military aid to Israel was started in LBJ’s fiscal 1965, and turned into a flood in fiscal 1966. Writing in 1984, author Stephen Green said: “America has given Israel over $17 billion in military aid since 1946, virtually all of which – over 99 percent – has been provided since 1965.”

3. Kennedy’s plan to withdraw from Vietnam was reversed by Johnson just a few days after the assassination. In the following months the American commitment was increased “from under 20,000 troops to approximately a quarter of a million.”

4. The autonomy of the CIA, including its covert action branch, was preserved.

5. The Kennedy war against Organized Crime came to an immediate and sudden halt, protecting, among others, J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI empire. The Golden Triangle heroin development continued, and drug smuggling, money laundering, and the addiction of American youth continued apace.

In short, the international intelligence agencies, acting in concert with the international organized crime rings, displayed in the JFK assassination affair their immense capabilities for controlling the course of history. The cover-up, of course, required the services of additional agencies in the service of our elites, particularly the mass media, as Piper discusses at some length.

But we take particular interest in the revelations concerning the British antecedents of Permindex, the CIA, the Mossad, and Israel itself, since they suggest even higher-level ties back to the banking families identified by Carroll Quigley and others whose books we have reviewed in our previous chapters. In our next chapter we will undertake to trace the circle of influence back to that starting point.

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Mossad And The JFK Assassination

Mossad And The JFK Assassination

 

“Israel need not apologize for the assassination

or destruction of those who seek to destroy it.

The first order of business for any country

is the protection of its people.”

Washington Jewish Week, October 9, 1997

In March, 1992, Illinois Representative Paul Findley said in The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, “It is interesting – but not surprising – to note that in all the words written and uttered about the Kennedy assassination, Israel’s intelligence agency, the Mossad, has never been mentioned.”

Considering that the Mossad is quite possibly the most ruthless and efficient intelligence agency in the world, it is peculiar that they have never been scrutinized in relation to the Kennedy assassination, especially when practically every other entity in the world (short of Elvis impersonators) has been implicated. But that all changed in January, 1994 with the release of Michael Collins Piper’s Final Judgment. In this book, Piper says, “Israel’s Mossad was a primary (and critical) behind the scenes player in the conspiracy that ended the life of JFK. Through its own vast resources and through its international contacts in the intelligence community and in organized crime, Israel had the means, it had the opportunity, and it had the motive to play a major frontline role in the crime of the century – and it did.”

Their motive? Israel’s much touted Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion, who ruled that country from its inception in 1948 until he resigned on June 16, 1963, was so enraged at John F. Kennedy for not allowing Israel to become a nuclear power that, Collins asserts, in his final days in office he commanded the Mossad to become involved in a plot to kill America’s president.

Ben-Gurion was so convinced that Israel’s very survival was in dire jeopardy that in one of his final letters to JFK he said, “Mr. President, my people have the right to exist, and this existence is in danger.”

In the days leading up to Ben-Gurion’s resignation from office, he and JFK had been involved in an unpublicized, contentious debate over the possibility of Israel getting nuclear capabilities. Their disagreement eventually escalated into a full-fledged war of words that was virtually ignored in the press. Ethan Bronner wrote about this secret battle between JFK and Ben-Gurion years later in a New York Times article on October 31, 1998, calling it a “fiercely hidden subject.” In fact, the Kennedy/Ben-Gurion conversations are still classified by the United States Government. Maybe this is the case because Ben-Gurion’s rage and frustration became so intense – and his power so great within Israel – that Piper contends it was at the center of the conspiracy to kill John Kennedy. This stance is supported by New York banker Abe Feinberg, who describes the situation as such: “Ben-Gurion could be vicious, and he had such a hatred of the old man [Joe Kennedy, Sr., JFK’s father].” Ben-Gurion despised Joe Kennedy because he felt that not only was he an anti-Semite, but that he had also sided with Hitler during the 1930’s and 40’s. [We will touch upon this aspect of the story in an upcoming article entitled The CIA and Organized Crime: Two Sides of the Same Coin].

Anyway, Ben-Gurion was convinced that Israel needed nuclear weapons to insure its survival, while Kennedy was dead-set against it. This inability to reach an agreement caused obvious problems. One of them revolved around Kennedy’s decision that he would make America his top priority in regard to foreign policy, and not Israel! Kennedy planned to honor the 1950 Tripartite Declaration which said that the United States would retaliate against any nation in the Middle East that attacked any other country. Ben-Gurion, on the other hand, wanted the Kennedy Administration to sell them offensive weapons, particularly Hawk missiles.

The two leaders thus engaged in a brutal letter exchange, but Kennedy wouldn’t budge. Ben-Gurion, obsessed by this issue, slipped into total paranoia, feeling that Kennedy’s obstinance was a blatant threat to the very existence of Israel as a nation. Piper writes, “Ben-Gurion had devoted a lifetime creating a Jewish State and guiding it into the world arena. And, in Ben-Gurion’s eyes, John F. Kennedy was an enemy of the Jewish people and his beloved state of Israel.” He continues, “The ‘nuclear option’ was not only at the very core of Ben-Gurion’s personal world view, but the very foundation of Israel’s national security policy.”

Ben-Gurion was so preoccupied with obtaining nuclear weapons that on June 27, 1963, eleven days after resigning from office, he announced, “I do not know of any other nation whose neighbors declare that they wish to terminate it, and not only declare, but prepare for it by all means available to them. We must have no illusions that what is declared every day in Cairo, Damascus, and Iraq are just words. This is the thought that guides the Arab leaders … I am confident … that science is able to provide us with the weapons that will serve the peace and deter our enemies.”

Avner Cohen, in Israel and the Bomb, published by Columbia University Press, reinforces this sense of urgency by writing, “Imbued with lessons of the Holocaust, Ben-Gurion was consumed by fears of security … Anxiety about the Holocaust reached beyond Ben-Gurion to infuse Israel’s military thinking.” He further adds fuel to this point by pointing out, “Ben-Gurion had no qualms about Israel’s need for weapons of mass destruction,” and “Ben-Gurion’s world view and his decisive governing style shaped his critical role in instigating Israel’s nuclear progress.”

Kennedy, on the other hand, was adamant in his refusal to promote Israel’s ascension to the nuclear stage. Avener Cohen, in Israel and the Bomb, stresses, “No American president was more concerned with the danger of nuclear proliferation than John Fitzgerald Kennedy. He was convinced that the spread of nuclear weapons would make the world more dangerous and undermine U.S. interests.” Cohen continues at the end of this passage, “The only example Kennedy used to make this point was Israel.”

Realizing that Kennedy would not change his mind, Ben-Gurion decided to join forces with Communist China. Both countries were greatly interested in creating nuclear programs, and so began their secret joint dealings. Working in unison through intermediary Shaul Eisenberg, who was a partner of Mossad gun-runner and accountant Tibor Rosenbaum, Israel and China proceeded to develop their own nuclear capabilities without the knowledge of the United States.

If you find this scenario improbable, I strongly urge you to read Gordon Thomas’ excellent book, Seeds of Fire, where he exposes how the Mossad and CSIS (Chinese secret service) have conspired on many occasions to not only steal American military secrets, but to also doctor U.S. intelligence programs such as the Justice Department’s PROMISE software. This instance, I am afraid to say, is but the first where echoes of the JFK assassination can still be felt today reverberating through our post 9-11 world. The danger of Israel developing the Bomb in unison with China became a highly volatile situation, and was closely monitored by the CIA.

Intent on pursuing this path, the Israeli’s constructed a nuclear facility at Dimona. When Kennedy demanded that the U.S. inspect this plant, Ben-Gurion was so incensed that he erected another PHONY facility that held no evidence of nuclear research and development. (Does this scenario sound eerily familiar to the game we’re playing with Saddam Hussein in Iraq right now?) Fully aware of their shenanigans, though, JFK told Charles Bartlett, “The sons of bitches lie to me constantly about their nuclear capability.”

Avner Cohen, in Israel and the Bomb, reiterates this claim by saying that Ben-Gurion had taken the nuclear issue so closely to heart that he, “concluded that he could not tell the truth about Dimona to American leaders, not even in private.”

Dr. Gerald M. Steinberg, political science professor at Bar-Ilan University’s BESA Center for Strategic Studies in Tel Aviv, weighs in by saying, “Between 1961 and 1963, the Kennedy administration placed a great deal of pressure on Ben-Gurion in the effort to pressure for acceptance of international inspection of Dimona and Israeli abdication of their nuclear weapons. This pressure apparently did not alter Israeli policy, but it was a contributing factor to Ben-Gurion’s resignation in 1963.”

To convey how serious this situation had become in modern terms, look at what is happening in Iraq with United Nations security teams inspecting the royal palaces and bunkers for nuclear weapons and materials. This matter is so urgent that our nation is on the verge of war. Forty years earlier, the heat that JFK was placing on Ben-Gurion was equally as strong as what George Bush is laying on Saddam Hussein today.

In Israel and the Bomb, Avner Cohen reinforces this point. “To force Ben-Gurion to accept the conditions, Kennedy exerted the most useful leverage available to an American president in dealing with Israel: a threat that an unsatisfactory solution would jeopardize the U.S. government’s commitment to, and support of, Israel.”

The pressure on Ben-Gurion was so immense that he ended up leaving office. But Kennedy, in true pit-bull style, didn’t let up on Ben-Gurion’s successor, Levi Eshkol, as Avner Cohen reports. “Kennedy told Eshkol that the U.S. commitment and support of Israel ‘could be seriously jeopardized’ if Israel did not let the U.S. obtain ‘reliable information’ about its efforts in the nuclear field. Kennedy’s demands were unprecedented. They amounted, in effect, to an ultimatum.” Cohen concludes this thought by asserting, “Kennedy’s letter precipitated a near-crisis situation in Eshkol’s office.”

In the end, as we’re all aware, Kennedy was assassinated in November 1963; but less known is that China conducted its first nuclear test in October, 1964. What makes this event more profound is Piper’s claim that even though Israel said its first nuclear tests took place in 1979, they actually occurred in October, 1964 along with the Chinese! If this is true, other than August, 1945 when the United States dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, October 1964 may possibly be the most dangerous month in 20th century history.

Let’s return, though, to JFK’s assassination and the direct results of it in regard to the Jewish lobby, American foreign policy, and the militarization of Israel. To understand how powerful the Israeli lobby is in this country, venerable Senator J. William Fulbright told CBS Face the Nation on April 15, 1973, “Israel controls the U.S. Senate. The Senate is subservient, much too much; we should be more concerned about U.S. interests rather than doing the bidding of Israel. The great majority of the Senate of the U.S. – somewhere around 80% – is completely in support of Israel; anything Israel wants; Israel gets. This has been demonstrated time and again, and this has made [foreign policy] difficult for our government.”

Do you hear what Senator Fulbright said? This isn’t a crazy conspiracy theorist or a KKK anti-Semite. It’s a much-respected U.S. Senator saying that about 80% of the Senate is in Israel’s hip pocket. Adding clout to this argument is Rep. Paul Findley, who was quoted in The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs in March, 1992, “During John Kennedy’s campaign for the presidency, a group of New York Jews had privately offered to meet his campaign expenses if he would let them set his Middle East policy. He did not agree … As the president, he provided only limited support of Israel.”

To understand how important Kennedy’s decisions were during his short-lived presidency, we need to look at the issue of campaign finance. Considering how influential the Israeli lobby is in the U.S. Senate (hearkening back to the words of Senator Fulbright), they had to have been enraged when President Kennedy genuinely wanted to cut the knees out from under the current campaign finance methods because it made politicians so reliant upon the huge cash inlays of special-interest groups. Regrettably, Kennedy did not have the time to implement this program, and to this day our political system is still monopolized by lobbyists from the very same special-interest groups. One can only imagine what changes would have occurred in regard to our foreign policy had Kennedy eradicated these vipers and blood-suckers from the halls of Congress.

Tragically, Kennedy’s ideas never came to fruition, and his heated battle with Prime Minister Ben-Gurion over whether Israel should be allowed to develop a nuclear program was ultimately lost. The reason why is that Lyndon Baines Johnson, who Kennedy intended to drop from his ticket in 1964 due to his extreme dislike for, had a complete reversal in foreign policy. As you will see, not only did Israel’s nuclear program move ahead unchecked; they also became the primary beneficiary of our foreign aid.

But this absolute turnaround would not have occurred if Kennedy would not have been assassinated. Up until LBJ became president, Kennedy dealt with the Middle East in a way that most benefited the U.S. His primary goal – and one which would most keep the peace – was a balance of power in the Middle East so that each and every nation would be secure. This decision adhered to the Tripartite Declaration which the U.S. signed in 1950. But under the Johnson administration, this fragile balance was overturned, and by 1967 – only four years after Kennedy’s assassination – the U.S. was Israel’s main weapons supplier, and OUR best interests were put well behind those of Israel!

As Michael Collins Piper writes: “The bottom line is this: JFK was adamantly determined to stop Israel from building the nuclear bomb. LBJ simply looked the other way. JFK’s death did indeed prove beneficial to Israel’s nuclear ambitions and the evidence proves it.”

Reuven Pedatzer, in a review of Avner Cohen’s Israel and the Bomb, in the Israeli Newspaper Ha’aretz on February 5, 1999 wrote, “The murder of American president John F. Kennedy brought to an abrupt end the massive pressure being applied by the U.S. administration on the government of Israel to discontinue their nuclear program.” He continues, “Kennedy made it quite clear to the Israeli Prime Minister that he would not under any circumstances agree to Israel becoming a nuclear state.” Pedatzer concludes, “Had Kennedy remained alive, it is doubtful whether Israel would today have a nuclear option,” and that, “Ben-Gurion’s decision to resign in 1963 was taken to a large extent against the background of the tremendous pressure that Kennedy was applying on him concerning the nuclear issue.”

If you’re still not convinced; how about some numbers? In Kennedy’s last fiscal budget year of 1964, Israeli aid was $40 million. In LBJ’s first budget of 1965, it soared to $71 million, and in 1966 more than tripled from two years earlier to $130 million! Plus, during Kennedy’s administration, almost none of our aid to Israel was military in nature. Instead, it was split equally between development loans and food assistance under the PL480 Program. Yet in 1965 under the Johnson administration, 20% of our aid to Israel was for the military, while in 1966, 71% was used for war-related materials.

Continuing in this same vein, in 1963 the Kennedy administration sold 5 Hawk missiles to Israel as part of an air-defense system. In 1965-66, though, LBJ laid 250 tanks on Israel, 48 Skyhawk attack aircrafts, plus guns and artillery which were all offensive in nature. If you ever wondered when the Israeli War Machine was created, this is it! LBJ was its father.

According to Stephen Green in Taking Sides: America’s Secret Relations with a Militant Israel, “The $92 million in military assistance provided in fiscal year 1966 was greater than the total of all official military aid provided to Israel cumulatively in all the years going back to the foundation of that nation in 1948.”

Green continues, “70% of all U.S. official assistance to Israel has been military. America has given Israel over $17 billion in military aid since 1946, virtually all of which – over 99% – has been provided since 1965.”

Can you see what’s happening here? Within two years of JFK’s assassination, Israel went from being a weak, outmatched member of the volatile Middle Eastern community that was not allowed to develop nuclear weapons to one that was well on its way to becoming a undeniable military force on the world stage. John Kennedy adamantly put his foot down and refused to allow Israel to develop a nuclear program, while LBJ bent over backward to facilitate and bolster them. Or, as Seymour Hersh wrote in The Samson Option, “By 1968, the president had no intention of doing anything to stop the Israeli bomb.”

The result of this shift in focus from the Kennedy to Johnson administration is, in my opinion, the PRIMARY reason behind our current troubles in the Middle East which culminated in the 9-11 attacks and our upcoming war with Iraq (and beyond). I have a great deal of confidence in this statement, for as Michael Collins Piper points out, here are the results of John F. Kennedy’s assassination:

1) Our foreign and military aid to Israel increased dramatically once LBJ became president.

2) Rather than trying to maintain a BALANCE in the Middle East, Israel suddenly emerged as the dominant force.

3) Since the LBJ administration, Israel has always had weaponry that was superior to any of its direct neighbors.

4) Due to this undeniable and obvious increase in Israel’s War Machine, a constant struggle has been perpetuated in the Middle East.

5) LBJ also allowed Israel to proceed with its nuclear development, resulting in them becoming the 6th largest nuclear force in the world.

6) Finally, our huge outlays of foreign aid to Israel (approximately $10 billion/year when all is said and done) has created a situation of never-ending attacks and retaliation in the Middle East, plus outright scorn and enmity against the U.S. for playing the role of Israel’s military enabler.

In Israel’s, and especially David Ben-Gurion’s eyes then, what were their alternatives – to remain weakened (or at least balanced) in relation to their neighbors and handcuffed by JFK’s refusal to bow to their will, or KILL the one man standing in their way to becoming dominant in the Middle East, the recipient of huge amounts of military aid, and one of the premier nuclear forces in the world? It’s something to think about. Also, while these thoughts are running through your head, ask yourself this question. If Kennedy, LBJ, and all subsequent administrations would have adhered to the 1950 Tripartite Declaration and did everything in their power to maintain balance in the Middle East instead of pushing Israel to the forefront, would our Towers have been attacked on 9-11, 2001, and would we be on the verge of a possibly catastrophic war today? It’s certainly something to ponder.

John F. Kennedy Administration: Letter to Israeli PM Ben-Gurion Regarding Visit to Dimona

This is a telegram from the Department of State to the Embassy in Israel transmitting the text of a letter from President Kennedy to Israeli Prime Minister Ben Gurion on arrangements to visit Dimona.

——————————————————————————–

Verbatim text. You should deliver following letter from President to Prime Minister Ben-Gurion:

“Dear Mr. Prime Minister:

“I welcome your letter of May 12 and am giving it careful study.

“Meanwhile, I have received from Ambassador Barbour a report of his conversation with you on May 14 regarding the arrangements for visiting the Dimona reactor. I should like to add some personal comments on that subject.

“I am sure you will agree that there is no more urgent business for the whole world than the control of nuclear weapons. We both recognized this when we talked together two years ago, and I emphasized it again when I met with Mrs. Meir just after Christmas. The dangers in the proliferation of national nuclear weapons systems are so obvious that I am sure I need not repeat them here.

“It is because of our preoccupation with this problem that my Government has sought to arrange with you for periodic visits to Dimona. When we spoke together in May 1961 you said that we might make whatever use we wished of the information resulting from the first visit of American scientists to Dimona and that you would agree to further visits by neutrals as well. I had assumed from Mrs. Meir’s comment that there would be no problem between us on this.

“We are concerned with the disturbing effects on world stability which would accompany the development of a nuclear weapons capability by Israel. I cannot imagine that the Arabs would refrain from turning to the Soviet Union for assistance if Israel were to develop a nuclear weapons capability–with all the consequences this would hold. But the problem is much larger than its impact on the Middle East. Development of a nuclear weapons capability by Israel would almost certainly lead other larger countries, that have so far refrained from such development, to feel that they must follow suit.

“As I made clear in my press conference of May 8, we have a deep commitment to the security of Israel. In addition this country supports Israel in a wide variety of other ways which are well known to both of us. [4-1/2 lines of source text not declassified]

“I can well appreciate your concern for developments in the UAR. But I see no present or imminent nuclear threat to Israel from there. I am assured that our intelligence on this question is good and that the Egyptians do not presently have any installation comparable to Dimona, nor any facilities potentially capable of nuclear weapons production. But, of course, if you have information that would support a contrary conclusion, I should like to receive it from you through Ambassador Barbour. We have the capacity to check it.

“I trust this message will convey the sense of urgency and the perspective in which I view your Government’s early assent to the proposal first put to you by Ambassador Barbour on April 2.

“Sincerely,

“John F. Kennedy”

Rusk

Jekyll Island, The JFK Assassination And 911. Three American Coups

Posted on November 21, 2013 by horse237

The United States has had three coups if you count the first one as being Jekyll Island in November of 1910. The coup plotters met at Jekyll Island and secretly wrote the law that became the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. All of the bankers who met in secret were Rothschild agents. This included Paul Warburg of the Rothschild dominated Kuhn Loeb bank. Nelson Aldrich was a Senator who married into the Rockefeller family. The Rockefellers were created by the Rothschilds as were J P Morgan, the Harrimans and the Bush family. Senator Aldrich was head of the National Monetary Commission created by President Theodore Roosevelt. Roosevelt had become President after the Jews had successfully assassinated President McKinley. They previously had assassinated President Lincoln. John Wilkes Booth was Jewish. But I prefer not want to count these earlier assassinations as coups. The remaining members of the Jekyll Island Six were Treasury Department employees who did what they were told to do by the Jews.

The first day of those meetings actually occurred in a private railway car on the evening of November 22, 1910. When the Jews took over America’s banking and monetary system in 1913, they took over the country. Not all coups involve tanks in the streets. It was no coincidence that President Kennedy was assassinated on November 22, 1963 which was the 53rd anniversary of Israel’s earlier coup. President Kennedy had dared to attempt to take America back from the Jews.

All three of America’s coups involved Israel. I have defined an Israeli as anyone of Jewish descent who has any loyalty at all to Israel. There was no state of Israel in 1910 but there was an ongoing criminal enterprise which could be called Judaism Incorporated. Any educated person whose thoughts have not been contaminated by the Jews should view Israel as the enemy of all mankind.

Michael Collins Piper wrote Final Judgement. It is about the Kennedy assassination. He examined all the conflicting theories about the killing of President Kennedy and traced each one of them back to Israel. The primary motive for the assassination was Kennedy’s opposition to Israel’s nuclear weapons program. Mordechai Vanunu, the Israeli whistleblower who spent 18 years in jail, said David Ben Gurion ordered the assassination.

Piper said some trace the plot back to the Mafia but neglect to mention Meyer Lansky who was the senior partner to the Italians named as conspirators. Others write about Clay Shaw. He was a CIA asset. He sat on the board of Permindex, the Swiss based assassination bureau. What they neglect to mention is that the Stern family was a major shareholder in Permindex. They owned WDSU radio and TV stations in New Orleans. They ran many stories on Lee Harvey Oswald as a pro-Castro fanatic.

Oswald at the time was working at the Riley Coffee Company as a liaison to Judyth Vary Baker who used him to secretly take cancer cells to Dr Mary Sherman. The first polio vaccine was full of monkey and mice viruses thanks to the Riley Coffee Company which was run by an ex-FBI agent. The Stern family also owned shares in NUMEC corporation which was the company that illegally sent nuclear materials to Israel for their first atomic bomb.

A Few More Mossad Connections

A primary shareholder in Permindex was the Banque De Credit International of Geneva, founded by Tibor Rosenbaum, an arms procurer and financier for the Mossad. The chairman of Permindex was Louis M. Bloomfield of Montreal, an operative of the Bronfman family of Canada.

Oliver Stone in his movie “JFK” did not mention any of this because his chief financial backer was Arnon Milchan, Israel’s biggest arms dealer.

Ed Asner played Guy Bannister in Stone’s “JFK.”  He was in anti-Castro operations with Shaw and Frank Sturgis. Bannister was a private eye in New Orleans. He used Oswald to find pro-Castro Americans. Bannister was a close associate of A L Botnick who headed the New Orleans ADL. Botnick was a Communist hunter and kept files on American Leftists. The ADL used private detectives to gather some of that information.

Frank Sturgis had worked for the Mossad as a mercenary in Palestine in the 1940s. The Cuban intelligence service said Sturgis was in charge of communications for the JFK hit team that day in Dallas. Sturgis said James Jesus Angleton was in charge of the JFK hit squad. He was the Mossad’s man in the CIA.

It is purely speculation on my part but I believe another motive for the assassination of President Kennedy was the desire to go into the Vietnam war and to lose it. Everyone knew that Communism was Jewish. The Jews had killed 60 million Gentiles in Russia after they took over. To their way of thinking anyone who was an anti-Communist was guilty of anti-Semitism and therefore deserved to die. Today the banks launder a trillion dollars a year in illegal drugs and weapons money. This has made the Jews wealthier than the African slave trade ever did. They owe that wealth to the Vietnam war, the assassination of President Kennedy and the modern drug trade.

There is a video in the first article in the notes below in which Michael Collins Piper ties all of these characters and plots back to the Mossad. He said recently in an interview with John Robert Friend that both 911 and the JFK assassination were Outside Jobs done by Israel.

Robert Grodin is the man who released the Zapruder film to the public. He interviewed 20 doctors and 60 other witnesses who said the bullet wounds came from the front and not the rear as the Warren Commission claimed. Life magazine and Dan Rather had access to the Zapruder film in November of 1963. Life magazine ran a cover with photos taken from the Zapruder film in the order  1 – 2 – 3 but placed them in the order 3-2-1 to deceive the American public. Dan Rather on November 25th went on air and told the nation that the Zapruder film showed the President being shot from the front. That was a lie and he knew he was lying.

Only the Jews have sufficient power to tell that many lies for fifty years and get away with it. No other conspiracy theory makes sense. I might point out that Lyndon Johnson only achieved power after the assassination and he was dead soon after leaving office. Johnson was partially of Jewish descent. He was so pro-Israeli that he said that he wanted the USS Liberty at the bottom of the Mediterranean. The Israelis killed 34 American sailors on that day in June of 1967 in an attempt to get America into their war against Egypt.

911 was obviously not done by 19 Arabs. All of the key players can be traced back to Israel. The Project for a New American Century began in Israel as a position paper for Benyamin Netanyahu. The leaseholders of the WTC were both Jewish and knew top level Israeli politicians. The Port Authority was run by Jews. The judges in the courts running interference against 911 Truthers were Jews. The media is run by Jews. The Comptroller of the Pentagon was rabbi Dov Zakheim. He was supposed to find 2.3 trillion dollars in DOD spending that could not be traced. The most recent estimate is that the total amount of money that went walk about at the Pentagon was 8.5 trillion dollars.

Zakheim had been President of SPC International in the 1990s which made the Command Transmitter System. This allowed the Israelis to electronically hijack 4 passenger jets on 911. The FBI never had any evidence linking Osama bin Laden to 911. How was Osama bin Laden  supposed to allow the 4 hijacked planes permission to fly over 8 US air bases? How did the Arab hijackers board Flight 77 at Dulles without tickets, boarding passes and being recorded by any of the 300 video cameras at Dulles?

America is an occupied nation with no control over its political processes.

Notes:

Video: Israel Killed President John Fitzgerald Kennedy (This article has the Piper video talking about his book Final Judgement.)

https://vidrebel.wordpress.com/2012/03/25/video-israel-killed-president-john-fitzgerald-kennedy/

Resurrecting Israel Did 911. All the Proof In The World

https://vidrebel.wordpress.com/2013/09/16/resurrecting-israel-did-911-all-the-proof-in-the-world/

How And Why An American Military Coup Could Save The World

https://vidrebel.wordpress.com/2013/04/25/how-and-why-an-american-military-coup-could-save-the-world/

911: Short And Powerful Questions

https://vidrebel.wordpress.com/2011/08/04/911-short-and-powerful-questions/

7-7-2005 Looking Back At The London Subway Bombing 7 Years Later

https://vidrebel.wordpress.com/2012/07/06/7-7-2005-looking-back-at-the-london-subway-bombing-7-years-later/

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Rajm

Opposition to Rajm (Stoning to death): Analysis & Refutation

نشرت بواسطة: Waqar Akbar Cheema 11:42 AM في Answering Liberals and the Secular , ghamidi , punishment , rajm , refutation , stoning 5 تعليقات
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم الحمد لله وحده و الصلاة و السلام على من لا نبي بعده و على آله و أصحابه أجمعين

by Gabriel Keresztes and Waqar Akbar

in-sha’Allah the most concise and comprehensive analysis and refutation of those who deny the established punishment of rajm (stoning to death) prescribed for adulterers in the House of Islam.

Contents

1. Introduction. 

2. Denying Rajm and Arguments Against it. 

  2.1 Rajm cannot be Found in the Quran?. 

  2.2. The punishment for illicit relations given in Surah al-Nur is general?. 

  2.3 The punishment of adultery is rajm how can it be halved for slaves according to Qur’an 4:25

  2.4 Mutawatir is not a proof for Rajm?. 

  2.5 Rajm abrogated by hundred lashes punishment?. 

  2.6 Stoning to death was only a ta’zir not a hadd?. 

    2.6.1 Evidence that rajm is hadd (prescribed punishment) and not ta’zir (discretionary punishment) 

2.7 Was rajm only for professional and group immoral activity amounting to fasad fil ard?. (Refutation of Ghamidi’s view)

3. Summary and Conclusion.

1. Introduction

One of the most interesting phenomena that the Muslim nation is faced with today is that of external pressure to change. Scholars and intellectuals are faced with community issues that threaten the identity of their children, the integrity of their families and most important, the Muslim faith that they hold so dearly to and claim it as the ultimate truth.  Since the dislocation of the Muslim empire, the partitioning of Muslim lands under the rule of non Muslims, and the mass emigration by Muslims to non Muslim lands, the Ummah has been questioned and intellectually attacked with regards to the Quran and even more with regards to the Sunnah and Hadith.  New groups and so called intellectuals rose and began denying certain aspects of our faith due to: external pressure by non Muslim masses and a dire need to fit in societies that have values very different from those of Muslims.  Muslims were faced with the option of enduring accusations of barbarism, inhumane behavior and non tolerance or changing certain articles of their faith that would apparently appease and gain acceptance of non Muslims. One of such examples is the issue of Rajm or stoning to death as a punishment for adultery.  In this article we will discuss the implication of denying this hadd, refutation of various arguments against it and last but not least the growing phenomena of Muslims changing aspects of their faith in the face of external pressure.

2. Denying Rajm and Arguments Against it

The Islamic Research Foundation International, INC. and other foundations that encourage critical thinking, opposing points of view and ijtihad, have been propagating articles under scholars and intellectuals that challenge and deny certain aspects of the Islamic principles laid more than 1400 years ago.  Under the guise of critical thinking and logic such people believe that they can put forth a rational argument against Rajm.  We want to emphasize the word rational as it will be very important in our article in the light of the presented proofs and arguments

2.1 Rajm Cannot be Found in the Quran?

Rajm not being in the Quran is one of the most illogical and unreasonable argument that such people can put forth.  They say that Rajm is not found in the Quran while the punishment of one hundred lashes is found in the Quran.  They also use the following logical (read illogical) statement:

“Once again, it is the Qur’an that provides an outline of the Islamic Law. Other sources of Islam must be examined within the Quranic parameters”

Firstly, it is not really true that Qur’an has nothing about stoning though it is true that Qur’an does not explicitly mention it. A reference to Rajm is however found in Surah al-Ma’idah, verse 43 wherein Allah says;

وَكَيْفَ يُحَكِّمُونَكَ وَعِنْدَهُمُ التَّوْرَاةُ فِيهَا حُكْمُ اللَّهِ ثُمَّ يَتَوَلَّوْنَ مِنْ بَعْدِ ذَلِكَ وَمَا أُولَئِكَ بِالْمُؤْمِنِينَ

“How do they ask you to judge while the Torah is with them, having the ruling of Allah? Still, they turn away, after all that. They are no believers.” (Qur’an 5:43)

The verse was revealed when a couple from amongst the Jews committed adultery. They came to the Holy Prophet –peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- asking him to judge on the matter. Actually their holy book, Torah, asked for stoning of such offenders, they came to the Blessed Prophet hoping that he would give a lesser punishment.

Consider the following narration:

Abu Hurairah said: A man and a woman of the Jews committed fornication. Some of them said to the others: Let us go to this Prophet, for he has been sent with an easy law. If he gives a judgment lighter than stoning, we shall accept it, and argue about it with Allah, saying: It is a judgment of one of your prophets. So they came to the Prophet (may peace be upon him) who was sitting in the mosque among his companions. They said: Abul Qasim, what do you think about a man and a woman who committed fornication? He did not speak to them a word till he went to their school. He stood at the gate and said: I adjure you by Allah Who revealed the Torah to Moses, what (punishment) do you find in the Torah for a person who commits fornication, if he is married? They said: He shall be blackened with charcoal, taken round a donkey among the people, and flogged. A young man among them kept silent. When the Prophet (may peace be upon him) emphatically adjured him, he said: By Allah, since you have adjured us (we inform you that) we find stoning in the Torah (as the punishment for fornication). The Prophet (may peace be upon him) said: So when did you lessen the severity of Allah’s command? He said: A relative of one of our kings had committed fornication, but his stoning was suspended. Then a man of a family of common people committed fornication. He was to have been stoned, but his people intervened and said: Our man shall not be stoned until you bring your man and stone him. So they made a compromise on this punishment between them. The Prophet (may peace be upon him) said: So I decide in accordance with what the Torah says. He then commanded regarding them and they were stoned to death.[1]

Another narration tells us that at the end of the whole episode with the Jews the Messenger of Allah said:

“The Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) then said: O Allah, I am the first to give life to Thy command which they have killed.”And the narration says on the eve verses 41 to 47 of Surah al-Ma’ida were revealed.[2]

It is thus clear that “ruling of Allah” (hukm-ullah) in Surah Al-Ma’idah ayah 43 refers to rajm. For the said reasoning, the well known Tafsir al-Jalalayn, co-authored by Al-Mahalli and Al-Suyuti, puts it as;

“But how is it that they make you their judge when they have the Torah, wherein is God’s judgment”, of stoning: the interrogative here is for [provoking] amazement, in other words, they were not seeking thereby [by making you their judge] to discover the truth but a lighter punishment for them; “and then they turn away,” [and then] they reject your ruling of stoning, which accords with what is in their Scripture, “after that”, request [to you] for arbitration? “Such are not believers.”[3]

It is for this reason that Ibn Abbas- may Allah be pleased with him- said: “He who disbelieves in stoning (the adulterer to death) will have inadvertently disbelieved in the Qur’an, for Allah said, ‘O People of the Scripture! Now has come to you Our Messenger explaining to you much of that which you used to hide from the Scripture’ (Qur’an 5:15), and stoning was among the things that they used to hide.”[4]

Therefore it is clear that according to the blessed companions institution of stoning was proven from Qur’an itself. However they did seem to have known that it is not explicit and some people not having proper understanding may actually end up questioning it for this reason.

As to alleged verse of stoning and its abrogation, please see THIS. 

2.2. The punishment for illicit relations given in Surah al-Nur is general?

Another argument is about the general import of the hundred lashes punishment given in surah al-Nur verse 2. They say rajm is, therefore, a contradiction to the Qur’anic instruction.

This argument is flawed for a number of reasons;

i) The verse with hundred lashes punishment cannot be general and Qur’an itself testifies to it. In Qur’an 4:25 the punishment of female adulterer is specified to be half of free female fornicator. With this fact known the idea of the totally generic implication of surah al-Nur ayah 2 is laid to proven wrong. Strictly considering the word “zani” used in Surah al-Nur verse 2, it does not differentiate between a slave and a free like it does not distinguish between a married one and otherwise. So to say that it is absolutely universal in application contradicts Qur’an itself.

ii) The context of the hundred lashes verse itself proves it is for fornicators (un-married people) and not adulterers (married people). While the opponents of Rajm are convinced that this verse proves their stance in the light of logic and reason they fail to look at verse number three.  How could it be that if the people refereed to in this verse included both married and unmarried the following verse said that the fornicator male does not marry except a fornicator woman or polytheist and that none marries the fornicator woman except a fornicator or a polytheist?  In the case of a man one could say that he can marry more than once, but in the case of the woman it does not make sense, as she can only marry one husband which shows that verse number two talks about unmarried people.   

2.3 The punishment of adultery is rajm how can it be halved for slaves according to Qur’an 4:25

The next ‘logical’ argument that the opponents of Rajm put forth is the verse of the Quran that states the punishment of a slave being half of that of a free person, and that a slave could not logically be stoned half to death. Again it’s very interesting that reason is claimed but not exercised by such people. Any sensible person who can read and put his whims and desires on hold for a minute while applying principles of understanding and knowledge will realize the answer to this argument. Let us look at the technical details of the verse in question and show once again the lack of knowledge and understanding.

The verse reads;

وَمَن لَّمْ يَسْتَطِعْ مِنكُمْ طَوْلاً أَن يَنكِحَ الْمُحْصَنَاتِ الْمُؤْمِنَاتِ فَمِن مِّا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُكُم مِّن فَتَيَاتِكُمُ الْمُؤْمِنَاتِ وَاللّهُ أَعْلَمُ بِإِيمَانِكُمْ بَعْضُكُم مِّن بَعْضٍ فَانكِحُوهُنَّ بِإِذْنِ أَهْلِهِنَّ وَآتُوهُنَّ أُجُورَهُنَّ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ مُحْصَنَاتٍ غَيْرَ مُسَافِحَاتٍ وَلاَ مُتَّخِذَاتِ أَخْدَانٍ فَإِذَا أُحْصِنَّ فَإِنْ أَتَيْنَ بِفَاحِشَةٍ فَعَلَيْهِنَّ نِصْفُ مَا عَلَى الْمُحْصَنَاتِ مِنَ الْعَذَابِ ذَلِكَ لِمَنْ خَشِيَ الْعَنَتَ مِنْكُمْ وَأَن تَصْبِرُواْ خَيْرٌ لَّكُمْ وَاللّهُ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ

“If one cannot afford to marry the believing free women (muhsanat) [a] , then (he may marry) the one you people own (i.e. slave-women) of your Muslim girls. Allah knows best about your faith. You are similar to each other. So, marry them with the permission of their masters, and give them their dues, as recognized, they being bound in marriage (muhsanat)

[b], not going for lust, nor having paramours. So, once they have been bound in marriage (uhsinna)

[c], then, if they commit a shameful act, they shall be liable to half of the punishment prescribed for the free women (muhsanat)

[d]. That is for those of you who apprehend to indulge in sin. But that you be patient is better for you. Allah is Most-Forgiving, Very-Merciful.”

The issue is about the meaning of “muhsanat” half of whose punishment is prescribed for slave-women committing adultery after they were bond in marriage.

a) Meaning of muhsanat: The word actually meaning “one who is fortified or under protection” or inaccessible. For women it can be used in three senses

1) For the one who is married i.e. under the protection of her husband.

2) For the one who is free and under the protection of her family.

3) For the one who has protected her honor and is neither married nor a slave.

See Al-Mufradat fi Gharib al-Qur’an of Raghib Asfahani’s (d.502 A.H.), root Haa-Saad-Noon (H-S-N)

It will be the context or independently known information that will decide what is meant at a particular instance.

Now for Qur’an 4:25, mark the following

There are four instances where “muhsanat” are referred to.

In the usage [b] and [c] it certainly means “married women” as it refers slave-women who have been married.

The usage [d] where the case of slave-women is shown to be opposite of the “muhsanat” it has the same meaning as in the first usage [a].

In the usage [a] “muhsanat” does not mean married women, it means free-women in the protection of their families as given in the translation above.

Explaining this Imam al-Razi (d. 606 A.H.)writes;

“Al-musanat” they are the free women and the proof for this is in the fact that in case of inability to marry the “muhsanat”, Allah allowed marrying the slave-women. Therefore it is a must that “muhsanat” is opposite of “al-ima'” i.e. slave-women.”[5]
Means “muhsanat” in usage [a] in the verse refers to free women.
No reasonable person can ask, “Why can the free-women not be the married ones?”, because Allah will never ask people to marry women who are already married to someone. They are called “muhsanat” because they are free and under the protection and fortification (hisan) of their families.

Also see the Tafasir of Al-Tabari, AL-Jassas, Ibn Al-Arabi, Al-Qurtubi, Al-Nasafi, Al-Shaukani etc.

Simply put the “muhsanat” half of whose punishment is for the adulterer slave-women are free unmarried women. And their punishment, if it comes to it, is 100 lashes not stoning. And punishment of hundred lashes can easily be halved. Simple common sense issue! 

2.4 Mutawatir is not a proof for rajm?

Let us turn our attention now to the issue of mutawatir and how the opponents of rajm deal with it. Mutawatir, from a technical point of view is something being narrated by so many people through so many chains of narrations that it is impossible, or at least above reasonable doubt, for what ever is narrated not to be a fact

The opponents of rajm state that the proponents of rajm hide behind this word:

“The traditionalists like to hide behind the word “Mutawatir” a lot, instead of paying attention to other people’s arguments and then present their case in a logical, rational manner”.[6]

The issue in question is that so many people through so many different parallel chains narrated that prophet Muhammad –peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- applied rajm and so did the followers after that it is impossible to say that such an issue is made up or false.

At least fifty-two companions of the Holy Prophet –peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- have reported the narrations of rajm. They include Abu Bakr, Umar, Usman, Ali, Aisha, Abdullah bin Mas’ud, Abu Hurayra etc. may Allah be pleased with them all. For the complete list of names and references for their reports, see Shaykh Taqi Usmani’s Takmilah Fath al-Mulhim vol.2 pp. 362-372

The same mutawatir chains that report rajm have reported the Qur’an. The Quran has reached us through the same companions that have reported stoning. The opponents say that the Qur’an is guarded by Allah and there is no such guarantee for anything else, but we would like to point out a contradiction in their methodology. Their stance is actually not a logical and historical one; rather it is based on faith (to which any non Muslim intellectual would object). Logic and reason is not restricted to Muslims so their argument to present their case in a logical, rational manner falls down as a fly. 

2.5 Rajm abrogated by hundred lashes punishment?

There are some from amongst the opponents of rajm who argue that it was abrogated by punishment of hundred lashes mentioned in Surah al-Nur. In other words they try to convey that rajm was an earlier practice of the Blessed Prophet –peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- and Surah al-Nur was revealed after that, therefore owing to its general import it abrogated rajm.

Although they claim the above but they have absolutely no evidence for it. At the most they can refer to the following hadith narration;

Narrated Ash-Shaibani: I asked ‘Abdullah bin Abi ‘Aufa about the Rajam (stoning somebody to death for committing illegal sexual intercourse). He replied, “The Prophet carried out the penalty of Rajam,” I asked, “Was that before or after the revelation of Surat-an-Nur?” He replied, “I do not know.”[7]

But as one can see there is no evidence that Messenger of Allah carried out rajm before Surah al-Nur was revealed. It only shows Abdullah bin Abi Aufa –may Allah be pleased with him- did not know about it.

The fact however remains that most if not all of the incidents of rajm practiced by the Prophet –peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- took place after the revelation of surah al-Nur. Consider the following points;

1- Surah al-Nur was revealed after a false charge was made against Mother of the Believers, Sayyidah Aisha, which happened immediately after Battle (ghazwah) of Bani Mastaliq. [8]

2-Historians differ as to the date of this Battle. According to Ibn Ishaq it was in the year 6 A.H.[9] According to al-Waqidi[10] and Ibn Sa’d[11] it took place in the year 5 A.H. According to one report attributed to Musa bin ‘Uqbah it happened in the year 4 A.H.[12], however, more authentic reports from him also put it in the year 5 A.H.[13] Hafiz Ibn Hajr considering various narrations and facts has said that most preferable opinion is that of 5 A.H.

Therefore we can say, the latest battle took place in the year 6 A.H. though according to the most authentic view it took place in the year 5 A.H. and immediately after it the Surah al-Nur was revealed. Most accounts say it was the month of Sha’ban.

3- There is evidence of rajm carried out by the Holy Prophet –peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- after year 6 A.H.

The incident of stoning to death of the Jewish adulterers is reported by the blessed companion Abdullah bin al-Harith, and he said, “I was among those who stoned the two.”[14]

And Abdullah bin al-Harith along with his father came to the Holy Prophet after the conquest of Makkah.[15] So his presence at the event means it happened in or after 8 A.H. i.e. long after the revelation of Surah al-Nur.

Regarding the same incident in a narration recorded by Al-Tabari, another companion Abu Hurayrah said, “I was sitting with the Messenger of Allah …”[16]

And it is well known fact that Abu Hurayrah accepted Islam in the year 7 A.H[17]. i.e. at least a couple of years after the revelation of Surah al-Nur.

Some people have objected to this saying how could the Jewish adulterers be punished after the conquest of Makkah while their tribes were routed from Madina well before. However this is not really a valid objection because even after the main Jewish tribes were expelled from Madina there remained many Jews in the city.

As recorded in Sahih Bukhari, Abu Hurayrah who- as stated above- embraced Islam in the year 7 A.H. said:

“While we were in the Mosque, the Prophet came out and said, “Let us go to the Jews” We went out till we reached Bait-ul-Midras He said to them, “If you embrace Islam, you will be safe. You should know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle, and I want to expel you from this land. So, if anyone amongst you owns some property, he is permitted to sell it, and otherwise you should know that the Earth belongs to Allah and His Messenger.”[18]

This proves even after 7 A.H. there were some Jews in Madina. In fact we know there was a Jew in Madina even at the time of the death of the Messenger of Allah- peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- (i.e. 11 A.H.) to whom his armor was mortgaged.[19]

4- Other incidents of rajm date later than the episode of the stoning of the Jews as we find Abu Hurayrah saying that first ones to be stoned to death by the Messenger of Allah were a couple from amongst the Jews.[20]

Narrations about rajm of Ghamdia (woman from the tribe of Ghamid) tell us that Khalid bin Walid threw stones at her.[21] And Khalid bin Walid- may Allah be pleased with him- himself said: “We reached the Messenger of Allah at Madina on the first day of Safar in the eighth year [after Hijrah].”[22]

All these days make it absolutely clear that the Noble Prophet –peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- carried out stoning (rajm) after the revelation of surah al-Nur and there is no question of rajm being abrogated. 

2.6 Stoning to death was only a ta’zir not a hadd?

Some people try to catch at yet another straw and say that rajm was practiced only as ta’zir (discretionary punishment) and not as hadd (prescribed punishment).

They do not have any real evidence except that they use the following narration;

Qatada reported from Habib bin Saalim (who) said that a man was brought to Nu’man ibn Bashir for having committed adultery with his wife’s female slave. He said, “I will judge this case with the judgment of Allah’s Messenger. If she (his wife) had made her lawful for him then I will award him a hundred stripes, and if she had not then I will sentence him to be stoned to death.”[23]

They say as the punishment of stoning was dropped it shows it is not a prescribed punishment (hadd) but rather only a discretionary punishment (ta’zir).

Firstly the narration is dubious. Imam al-Tirmidhi after quoting this hadith writes;

“There is confusion in the hadith of Nu’man. Bukhari said that Qatadah and Bishr both had not heard this hadith from Habib ibn Saalim but from Khalid ibn Urfutah.”

Albani, Shu’aib Arnaut and many others have classified it as da’if (weak).

Even if accepted as authentic, it does not support the assertion of opponents of rajm, because hadd requires total and ultimate evidence and absence of any kind of genuine misconception on the part of the culprit.

In such a case when a man had sex with the slave-girl of his wife, there is doubt that he might consider it lawful for him as she belongs to his wife. The principle is to avoid imposing hadd punishment even if there is a slight doubt. That is why Imam al-Tirmidhi mentions the opinion of Ibn Mas’ud –may Allah be pleased with him- under this hadith that he “held that such a person is not subject to hadd, but to ta’zir.”

A narration about Ali –may Allah be pleased with him- helps us understand this better.

Harqus narrated: A woman came to Ali –may Allah be pleased with him- and said, ‘My husband has done adultery with my slave-girl.’ Her husband said: ‘She says the truth, what is hers is lawful for me.’ Ali said: ‘Go and do not repeat,’ as if he exempted him due to his ignorance.”[24]

The doubt on the part of the man who commits adultery with wife’s slave-girl, something very much expected in that newly Islamized society, saved such people from hadd. Hundred lashes mentioned in the report of al-Tarimidhi were only by the way of ta’zir.[25]

2.6.1 Evidence that rajm is hadd (prescribed punishment) and not ta’zir (discretionary punishment)

Contrary to the claim of opponents of rajm we have ample evidence that rajm is indeed a hadd- punishment prescribed by the Almighty Allah. The Holy Prophet –peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- practiced it in the capacity of the Lawgiver and not just the ruler. Consider the following points;

1- In the verse 43 of surah al-Ma’idah rajm (stoning to death) is referred to “command of Allah” which shows it is a hadd prescribed by Allah.

2- According to the narration of Al-Bara’ bin ‘Azib-may Allah be pleased with him- after the stoning of the Jewish couple the Messenger of Allah –peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- said: “O Allah!, I am the first of those who revive Your command, which they had killed off.”[26]

It is clearly a command of Allah.

3- In the report from ‘Ubadah bin Samit- may Allah be pleased with him- the Messenger of Allah –peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- mentioned stoning of the adulterers saying, “Allah has ordained a way for them.”[27]

Again the commandment for the punishment was attributed to Allah- simple straight forward evidence that it is indeed a prescribed punishment (haddI).

4- According to the narration of Khalid al-Juhani- may Allah be pleased with him- when a case of unmarried boy cohabiting with the a married woman was brought to the Messenger of Allah- may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- he said, “By Him in Whose Hand is my life. I will decide between you according to the Book of Allah,” and ruled that the woman- if she confesses- must be stoned to death.[28]

Here again the Holy Prophet- peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- attributed the command to the Book of Allah.

5- After mentioning the incident of the stoning of the Jewish adulterers, Ibn Abbas –may Allah be pleased with him- said: “That was the punishment ordained for them by Allah because the Prophet had known their adultery.”[29]

6- Narrated ‘Abdullah: Allah’s Messenger- peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- said, “The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Messenger, cannot be shed except in three cases: In retaliation for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims.”[30]

This narration clearly mentions hudud i.e. prescribed punishments only and not ta’zirat i.e. discretionary punishments.

Answer to another antagonist view discussed as a separate issue below also serves as evidence for rajm being a prescribed punishment and not a discretionary one. 

2.7 Was rajm only for professional and group immoral activity amounting to fasad fil ard?

Lately, another antagonist view is being propagated by the likes of Mr. Javed Ahmed Ghamidi. He asserts that rajm is not for every adulterer rather it is for those who make it a profession i.e. do it by the way of prostitution or as a group as such.

A member of his Al-Mawrid Institute explaining and defending his opinion writes;

Mr Ghamidi’s holds that it was an application of the Qur’ānic directive regarding the crime of muḥārabah. The Holy Qur’ān could not have been abrogated by the Prophet (sws). He stoned those people to death who had committed the crime not on any circumstantial provocation rather they were spreading open lewdness in the society or had put the honor of every citizens in danger.[31]

He actually links the whole issue of adultery punishable by rajm to Qur’an 5:33 as clear from his own writings[32]. The verse reads;

“The punishment of those who wage war (yuharibun) against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main (yus’aun) for mischief through the land is: execution (yuqattalu), or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter.” (Qur’an 5:33)

But this is absolutely baseless and we have clear examples in which some adulterers that committed the crime in individual capacity and under ‘circumstantial provocation’ were stoned without their being a threat to the collective social order in the sense Mr. Ghamidi takes it.

Following examples will help us see the flimsiness of the idea that is Mr. Ghamidi’s brainchild;

In one narration of Buraida- may Allah be pleased with him- two cases of adulterers who were then stoned to death are mentioned. We put the two separately highlighting the important points.

Ma’iz b. Malik al-Aslami came to Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) and said: Allah’s Messenger, I have wronged myself; I have committed adultery and I earnestly desire that you should purify me. He turned him away. On the following day, he (Ma’iz) again came to him and said: Allah’s Messenger, I have committed adultery. Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) turned him away for the second time, and sent him to his people saying: Do you know if there is anything wrong with his mind. They denied of any such thing in him and said: We do not know him but as a wise good man among us, so far as we can judge. He (Ma’iz) came for the third time, and he (the Holy Prophet) sent him as he had done before. He asked about him and they informed him that there was nothing wrong with him or with his mind. When it was the fourth time, a ditch was dug for him and he (the Holy Prophet) pronounced judgment about him and he was stoned.[33]

Ma’iz was not a part of any gang violating the honor of the women that the Prophet –peace be upon him- had to take any punitive measures. In fact the Prophet –peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- even wanted to have clarity about his mental status when he confessed. Yet on his repeated confession he was stoned to death. Is there any hint to what Mr. Ghamidi points? Do you find any notion of ‘open lewdness’ or ‘endangering the honor of every citizen’?

Likewise another incident given in the same report goes as;

There came to him (the Holy Prophet) a woman from Ghamid and said: Allah’s Messenger, I have committed adultery, so purify me. He (the Holy Prophet) turned her away. On the following day she said: Allah’s Messenger, Why do you turn me away? Perhaps, you turn me away as you turned away Ma’iz. By Allah, I have become pregnant. He said: Well, if you insist upon it, then go away until you give birth to (the child). When she was delivered she came with the child (wrapped) in a rag and said: Here is the child whom I have given birth to. He said: Go away and suckle him until you wean him. When she had weaned him, she came to him (the Holy Prophet) with the child who was holding a piece of bread in his hand. She said: Allah’s Apostle, here is he as I have weaned him and he eats food. He (the Holy Prophet) entrusted the child to one of the Muslims and then pronounced punishment. And she was put in a ditch up to her chest and he commanded people and they stoned her. Khalid b Walid came forward with a stone which he flung at her head and there spurted blood on the face of Khalid and so he abused her. Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) heard his (Khalid’s) curse that he had huried upon her. Thereupon he (the Holy Prophet) said: Khalid, be gentle. By Him in Whose Hand is my life, she has made such a repentance that even if a wrongful tax-collector were to repent, he would have been forgiven. Then giving command regarding her, he prayed over her and she was buried.”

According to the narration of Al-Baihaqi, the Prophet –peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- said: “She repented in a way that if her repentance were to be distributed to all the people of Madinah it would suffice them.”[34]

In another narration we find that when someone said some strong words about her the Holy Prophet –peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- said: “Have you seen better than the one who sacrificed herself for the sake of Allah, the Mighty and Sublime?”[35]

Again the lady came as a repentant, and was actually stoned some three years after she committed adultery. And she repented sincerely as clear from the words of Blessed Prophet –peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- after her death.

Further these cases also show why it is not right to link the issue of stoning to Qur’an 5:33. To understand this we must read the verse along with the following verse i.e. no. 34.

The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;

Except for those who repent before they fall into your power: in that case, know that Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. (Qur’an 5:33-34)

Here I want readers to carefully consider verse 34. It evidently means in case one involved in the crimes mentioned in the previous verse repents before being overpowered then his/her repentance will be accepted and he will not be executed as stated.

However in the two cases we considered above i.e. of Ma’iz and Ghamidia, we see the both repented before being overpowered, themselves confessed before the Prophet –may Allah be pleased with him- but still they were both stoned to death.

So either the verse does not relate to stoning thing or the Prophet –may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- made a mistake?! May Allah forgive us for this assumption even!

If there was any possibility of according leniency and forgiveness, these two would have been spared. But this is something not possible in case of the prescribed punishments (hudud).

3. Summary and Conclusion

It is without a doubt that those who deny rajm have no reasonable, logical or rational explanation or for doing so.  Their logical arguments of the verse not being in the Quran leaves them with the embarrassment of having to deny many of the other injunctions that were revealed as part of non-Quranic revelations. In fact we have seen that stoning is rather proved from Qur’an itself though not in explicit wording. Their ‘logical’ argument that stoning cannot be halved for slaves falls in the light of the context and meaning of the words in the Quran.  The denial of mutawatir ahadith leads them to the denial of path that has brought us the Quran, and last but not least their double standards are exposed in relation to approaching the issue form an academic and logical angle. Such people who deny the rajm do so only as an attempt to be accepted by those around them who hold rajm as a barbaric practice and who will never cease to hold any aspect of Islam as less than such.  Such people will only be pleased with the Muslims when they deny every single aspect of their faith and not sooner.  

And Indeed Allah knows the best!

[1] Sunan Abu Dawud, Hadith 4435. Translated by Ahmad Hasan Dani.

[2] Ibid. Hadith 4433

[3] Tafsir al-Jalalayn, Tans. Feras Hamza ONLINE SOURCE

[4] Mustadrak al-Hakim, Dar al-Kotob al-Ilmiya, Beirut 1990 vol.4 p.400 Hadith 8069. Classified as Sahih by al-Hakim. Al-Dhahabi agreed with him

[5] Mafatih al-Ghayb, Dar al-Ehia al-Tourath al-Arabi, Beirut 1420 vol.10 pp.46-47

[6] Ibrahim B. Syed, “Opposing Rajm (Stoning to Death)” Source URL: http://www.irfi.org/articles/articles_151_200/opposing_rajm.htm Last Accessed on July 1, 2012 6:25 am GMT

[7] Sahih Bukhari, Book 82, Hadith 824

[8] Sahih Bukhari, Book 93, Hadith 635

[9]Ibn Hisham, Al-Sirah al-Nabawiyyah, Mustafa al-Babi, Egypt, 1955 vol.2 p.289

[10] Al-Maghazi, Dar al-A’lami, Beirut, 1989 vol.1 p.404

[11] Tabaqat al-Kubra, Dar al-Kotob al-Ilmiyya, Beirut, 1990 vol.2 p.48

[12] Ibn Sayyid al-Nas, ‘Uyun al-Athar, Dar al-Qalam, Beirut 1993 vol.2 p.128

[13] Al-Baihaqi, Dala’il al-Nubuwwah, Dar al-Kotob al-Ilmiyya, 1405 A.H. vol.4 p.45

[14] Al-Tabarani, Mu’jam al-Awst, Dar al-Haramain, Cairo, n.d. vol.1 p.49 Hadith 137, Also see, Majma’ Al-Zawaid, Maktaba Al-Qudsi, Cairo, 1994 vol.6 p.271 Hadith 10632

[15] Fath al-Bari, Dar al-Ma’rifah, Beirut, 1379 A.H. vol.12 p.171

[16] Jami’ al-Bayan fi Tawil al-Qur’an, Mo’assas al-Resalah, Beirut 2000, vol.10 pp.305-306 Narration 11923-24

[17] Tabaqat al-Kubra vol.4 p.244

[18] Sahih Bukhari, Book 53, Hadith 392

[19] Sahih Bukhari, Book 59, Hadith 743

[20] Musannaf Abdul Razzaq, Al-Maktab al-Islami, Berut, 1403 A.H. vol.7 p.315 Hadith 13330

[21] Sahih Muslim, Book 17, Hadith 4206

[22] Tabaqat al-Kubra, vol.4 p.190

[23] Jami’ al-Tirmidhi, Hadith 1456,

[24] Musannaf Abdul Razzaq, vol.7 p.405 Hadith 13648

[25] Abu Ja’far al-Tahawi, Sharah Ma’ni al-Athar, Egypt, 1994 vol.3 p.145

[26] Sunan Ibn Majah, Translated by Nasiruddin al-Khattab, Darussalam publishers, 2007 vol.3 p.467 Hadith 2558. Classified as Sahih by Albani

[27] Sahih Muslim, Book 17, Hadith 4191

[28] Sahih Muslim, Book 17, Hadith 4209

[29] Musnad Ahmad, al-Resalah ed. Hadith 2368. Classified as Hasan by Shu’aib Arna’ut.

[30] Sahih Bukhari, Book 83, Hadith 17

[31] Tariq Mahmood Hashmi, Punishment of Rajam and the Qur’an. Source URL: http://www.al-mawrid.org/pages/questions_english_detail.php?qid=55&cid=42 Last accessed on June 30, 2012 9:50 am GMT

[32] Meezan, Al-Mawrid, Lahore, 2009 pp.610- 614

[33] Sahih Muslim, Book 17, Hadith 4206

[34] Sunan al-Kubra, Dar al-Kotob al-Ilmiya, Beirut 2003 vol.4 p.28 Hadith 6829

[35] Sunan al-Nasai, Translated by Nasiruddin al-Khattab, Darussalam publishers, 2007 vol.3 p.87 Hadith 1959

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

 At the End of Time is Mentioned. 

A war between Jews and Muslims at the end of time is mentioned. Will you give information about the talking of the tree or stone behind which a Jew hides?
Sat, 23/01/2010 – 16:20 |    Hussein
A Brief Description of the Question: 
A war between Jews and Muslims at the end of time is mentioned. Will you give information about the talking of the tree or stone behind which a Jew hides?
The Answer: 

There are hadiths that mean: “Judgment Day will come only when the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them, until the Jew hides behind the tree and the stone, and the tree and the stone say: ‘Oh Muslim, Oh servant of Allah , there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him’
Just as there are mutashabih (having more than one meaning) verses, so too are there mutashabih hadiths. That is, some deep truths are expressed through similes and metaphors. One of the mutashabih hadiths is the one mentioned above. Allah knows best but one of the interpretations of the hadith may be as follows. At the end of time, the mischief and destruction of Jews will increase so much and their impertinence and rebellion will rise so much that Muslims and Christians will unite and act together against them. After coming together, they will form one power against Jews and will destroy them.  
There will be serious antipathy against Jews all over the world so people will inform about Jews through all kinds of communication media, and will try to eliminate them. The Prophet (pbuh) said even the stones and trees would inform about them to express the extremeness of the situation.
The Truthful Informant (the Prophet) informed us about it. It will take place sooner or later. Nowadays, they are continuing to gather in their promised land, where they will face their ultimate end; they are continuing their oppression that will cause the general conscience of humanity to decide about ultimate impact they will receive. Until the decision process of the general conscience of humanity against them, which is likened to the talking of the stones and trees, is completed, the curse of the oppressed will reach its target and the material supplies necessary for the execution of the decision given by the oppressed consciences will be obtained.  
Hazrat Jabir (may Allah be pleased with him) narrates: “The Messenger of Allah said:
“A section of my people will not cease fighting for the Truth and will prevail till the Day of Resurrection. He said: Jesus, son of Mary, would then descend and their (Muslims’) commander would invite him to come and lead them in prayer, but he would say: No, some amongst you are commanders over some (amongst you). “(Muslim, Eeman 247.)
The hadith expresses that Islam will prevail in the world until the Day of Judgment and that it will exist having a power to fight openly. That expression means the powers against Islam will exist, too. However, it informs us that Islam will not exist in the form of a defeated religion, having been intimidated, hidden, and ineffective, and among limited number of people but struggling victoriously, openly and gloriously. That prophetic information is a glad tiding that is enough to make Muslims get rid of hopelessness about future.  Throughout history, Muslims have been exposed to torture, insult, migration and defeat but they have never been destroyed by a decisive beating. The Prophet informs us that the situation will go on until the Day of Judgment and that Muslims may be intimidated in some parts of the world but the flag of oneness will wave in others.
Our Prophet (pbuh) definitely saw, with the permission of Allah, all of the days to come until the Day of Judgment and informed us about them. The news that he gave us about the future occurred like the morning sun and will continue to occur. However, he had to give the news in a covered style so as not to harm the mystery of testing. He gave the news in a covered way. The news about the Day of Judgment is covered like that.
Now, let us have a look at some of the news the Prophet (pbuh) gave about the future:
Hazrat Huzayfa (may Allah be pleased with him) narrates: “The Messenger of Allah said: ‘I swear by Allah, in whose hand is my soul, that Doomsday will not strike unless you kill your belief, swing your swords against your Muslim brothers and the evil ones inherit your world.’”1
Hazrat Abu Hurayra (may Allah be pleased with him) and Hazrat Anas (may Allah be pleased with him) narrate: “The Messenger of Allah said: ‘There will be disorders as dark as the night before Doomsday strikes. At that time, a person gets up as a believer and becomes an unbeliever in the evening. He is an unbeliever in the evening but gets up as an unbeliever in the morning. Many people sell their religion in return for very small amounts.’”2
Abu Musa (may Allah be pleased with him) narrates: “The Messenger of Allah said: ‘After you, some days will come when knowledge and science will be removed and harj will increase!’
“The Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) asked:
‘O Messenger of Allah! What is harj?’
“The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) said:
‘It is killing. It is killing. It is killing.’”3
Umar ibn Hamza (may Allah be pleased with him) narrates: “The Messenger of Allah said: ‘You will definitely fight Jews! The battle will be so intense that the stone will say:  ‘Oh Muslim, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him!.”4
Abdullah bin Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) narrates: “The Messenger of Allah said: ‘Jews will fight you! However, in the end, you will defeat them. Killing will be so intense that the stone will say:  ‘Oh Muslim, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him!’”5
Abu Hurayra (may Allah be pleased with him) narrates: “The Messenger of Allah said: ‘Judgment Day will not come unless Muslims fight the Jews. Muslims will defeat and kill Jews. The Jew will hide behind the stone and the tree, and the stone or tree will say: ‘Oh Muslim, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him! Only the Gharqad tree will not say because it is the tree of Jews.”6
Abu Hurayra (may Allah be pleased with him) narrates: The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) said: “Doomsday will not strike unless the religious knowledge is taken away, earthquakes increase in number, time approaches and day and night become united, afflictions appear, killing increases, wealth becomes abundant like flood flows, people compete with one another in constructing high buildings. Doomsday will strike so suddenly that a man will have milked his she-camel and will have taken away the milk but he will not be able to drink it. A person will have raised a morsel (of food) to his mouth but Doomsday will strike so suddenly that he will not be able to eat it..”7
Hazrat Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) narrates: The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) said: “Some of my people will alight on low-lying ground, which they will call al-Basrah, beside a river called the Tigris over which there is a bridge. Its people will be numerous and it will be one of the capital cities of Muslims. At the end of time, the descendants of Qantura’ will come with broad faces and small eyes and alight on the bank of the river. The town’s inhabitants will then separate into three sections:
“- one section will follow cattle and (live in) the desert and perish.
“- another section will seek security for themselves (and make peace with the descendants of Qantura’); thus, they become unbelievers.
“- and a third section will put their children behind their backs and fight the invaders, and they will be the martyrs.”8
The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) informed us in that hadith that  when the end of time approached Muslims would  
1- fall into weakness of belief,
2- neglect the duty of commanding what is right and forbidding what is evil,
3- be drifted into civil disorders and wars due to weakness of belief,
and
4- the evil and oppressing people would dominate over innocent people,
5- the evil people would cause intense disturbance in the world.
It is stated explicitly in hadtihs that Muslims and Jews will fight. It is possible to understand from the text of the hadiths that Muslims will not be the attacking party. Muslims will be right in their cause. Therefore, the public opinion of the world whether they are Muslim or non-Muslim will support Muslims. The talking of the stone and tree in the hadith is a metaphor for the common conscience, that is, the common voice of the people of the world.
Thus, the public opinion of the world  will not approve of Jews. However, there will be a nation that will approve the aggression of Jews, that will support and protect them and that will fight for them. That nation was described as “gharqad tree” by our Prophet (pbuh), who sees the future clearly.  
The Messenger of Allah informed miraculously that the cities of Basra and Baghdad, which had not been established at that time, would be established and that Muslim people would live there. As a matter of fact, Badiuzzaman also mentioned that hadith.9
As it is known, Baghdad was burnt and destroyed by Hulaghu in 656 H.  Thus, the interpretation of the descendants of Qantura’ turned out to be true. However, the fact that the USA and the UK, who are close friends with Jews, burnt and destroyed Baghdad again put the oppression of the descendants of Qantura’ together with the metaphor of the Gharqad tree that supported Jews into agenda once again.
It is known very well how the mischief of Jews has turned the Middle East to hellfire today it is understood from hadiths that that war will continues a misfortune of the end of time until Jews are defeated. May Allah turn it to a good thing.
Footnotes:
1- Tirmidhi, Fitan 9, (2171).

2- Tirmidhi, Fitan 27, 30, (2196);

3- See: Muslim, Fitan 18, (157); Tirmidhi, Fitan, 28

4- Muslim, Fitan, 80

5- Muslim, Fitan, 81

6- Muslim, Fitan, 82

7- Bukhari, 12/2123

8- Abu Dawud, Mahalim 10, 4306

9- Maktubat, p. 112
© 2003 – 2016 | Broadcast Policy | Copyrights | Communication

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment