Search Result in All

Description:

Our condolences to the believers all across the world upon these days of Muharram and the commemoration of the mission and martyrdom of the Master of Martyrs, Imam Husayn (A). Why did Imam Husayn (A) rise up? And what would the state of Islam be, had he not risen? Additionally, would it have been possible to lead an Islamic life in that condition of Islam? Furthermore, how did Imam Husayn (A) stop this decline? And finally, what did the holy Prophet of Islam (S) say about Imam Husayn (A)? Imam Sayyid Ali Khamenei talks about the great sacrifice of Imam Husayn (A) and its result. We Are The Nation of Martyrdom. We Are The Nation of Imam Husayn.

Description:

A new report says al-Qaeda did not carry out last year\\\'s attack on the US consulate in the Libyan city of Benghazi that killed the US ambassador. A bomb blast targeting the mission on September 11 left four Americans including US envoy Chris Stevens dead. The US later blamed al-Qaeda-linked groups for the explosion. The report by New York Times, however, says there\\\'s been no evidence of the involvement of any international group in the attack. The investigation added that local citizens might have been behind the bombing. It added that an anti-Muslim video and rumors that guards inside the American compound had shot Libyan protesters, could have been the trigger.

Description:

What does the Father of the Islamic Revolution -Imam Khomeini (R) - say to the governments of the region? And what – according to Imam Khomeini (R) – will be the result of the governments putting forth the hand of brotherhood to the Islamic Republic of Iran? Furthermore, what did the Islamic Iranian nation do by overcoming their fear? And what did the Islamic Republic of Iran do, that others are afraid to do? Finally, can America – the Great Satan – do about it? The magnanimous Imam Khomeini addresses the governments of the region and states how becoming acquainted with Islam and extending the hand of brotherhood towards the Islamic Republic of Iran will be to their own benefit.

Description:

DID OBAMA LIE ????? September 30, 2013 – At his press briefing last Friday, Barack Obama practically ran to the podium to announce his “historic” phone call to Iran and to proclaim that the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei had issued a “fatwa” against nuclear arms. The media salivated at the courageous, bold initiative by the president to negotiate with Iran and to obtain such a stunning diplomatic commitment. It sounded like the foreign policy coup of the century. And to think, all it took was a phone call. Not only that, it happened just days before Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was scheduled to meet with Obama about the situation in Iran September 30, 2013 – At his press briefing last Friday, Barack Obama practically ran to the podium to announce his “historic” phone call to Iran and to proclaim that the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei had issued a “fatwa” against nuclear arms. The media salivated at the courageous, bold initiative by the president to negotiate with Iran and to obtain such a stunning diplomatic commitment. It sounded like the foreign policy coup of the century. And to think, all it took was a phone call. Not only that, it happened just days before Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was scheduled to meet with Obama about the situation in Iran Reading Obama’s Iran speech President Barack Obama addresses the 68th session of the United Nations General Assembly, Tuesday, September 24, 2013 President Barack Obama addresses the 68th session of the United Nations General Assembly, Tuesday, September 24, 2013 Thu Sep 26, 2013 7:10PM GMT 2 Phyllis Bennis, The Nation Related Interviews: ‘Rouhani’s remarks in US, conciliatory’ \\\\\\\'Rouhani speech, perfectly appropriate\\\\\\\' Related Viewpoints: Ziocons fume over Rouhani UN speech All of a sudden we’re talking to Iran. Now, granted, that shouldn’t be such an astonishing bombshell. But given the reality of the last several decades, it pretty much is. And that’s all good. It’s been too long coming, it’s still too hesitant, there’s still too much hinting about military force behind it… but we’re talking. Foreign minister to foreign minister, Kerry to Zarif, it’s all a good sign. There were lots of problem areas in the speech-President Obama was right when he said that US policy in the Middle East would lead to charges of “hypocrisy and inconsistency.” US policy-its protection of Israeli violations of international law, its privileging of petro-monarchies over human rights, its coddling of military dictators-remains rank with hypocrisy and inconsistency. And Obama’s speech reflected much of it. But President Obama’s speech at the United Nations General Assembly reflected some of the extraordinary shifts in global-especially Middle East and most especially Syria-related-politics that have taken shape in the last six or eight weeks. And on Iran, that was good news. Yes the president trotted out his familiar litany that “we are determined to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.” But this time, there was no “all options on the table” threat. He added explicitly that “we are not seeking regime change and we respect the right of the Iranian people to access peaceful nuclear energy.” The reference to Iran’s right to nuclear energy represented a major shift away from the longstanding claim among many US hawks and the Israeli government that Iran must give up all nuclear enrichment. Respecting Iran’s right to “access” nuclear energy is still a bit of a dodge, of course-Article IV of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) recognizes not just access but “the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination.” Iran is a longstanding signatory to the NPT, and is entitled to all those rights. Obama referred only that “we insist that the Iranian government meet its responsibilities” under the NPT, while saying nothing about Iran’s rights under the treaty. But the high visibility US recognition of any Iranian right to nuclear power-in the context of a new willingness to open talks-is still enormously important. It was also important that President Obama spoke of Iran with respect, acknowledging Iranian interests and opinions as legitimate and parallel to Washington’s. He recognized that Iranian mistrust of the United States has “deep roots,” referencing (however carefully) the “history of US interference in their affairs and of America’s role in overthrowing an Iranian government during the Cold War.” In fact, his identification of the 1953 US-backed coup that overthrew Iran’s democratically elected Prime Minister Mohamed Mossadegh as a product of the Cold War may have been part of an effort to distance himself and his administration from those actions. (It’s a bit disingenuous, of course. The primary rationale for the coup was far more a response to Mossadegh’s nationalization of Iran’s oil than to his ties to the Soviet Union.) Obama also paid new attention to longstanding Iranian positions. He noted that “the Supreme Leader has issued a fatwa against the development of nuclear weapons, and President Rouhani has just recently reiterated that the Islamic Republic will never develop a nuclear weapon.” Now anyone following the Iran nuclear issue knows that the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, stated at least as far back as 2003 that nuclear weapons are a violation of Islamic law and Iran would never build or use one, and the fatwa, or legal opinion, was issued at least as far back as 2005. This isn’t new. But for President Obama to mention those judgments in the context of “the basis for a meaningful agreement” is indeed new. Mainstream US press and officials have long derided those statements, claiming that fatwas are not binding, that 700-year-old religious laws can’t have a position on nuclear weapons, etc. But in so doing they ignore the real significance-that President Rouhani, the Supreme Leader and the rest of Iran’s government have to answer to their own population too. After years of repeating that nuclear weapons would be un-Islamic, would violate a fatwa, etc., it would not be so easy for Iran’s leaders to win popular support for a decision to embrace the bomb. There is a long way to go in challenging aspects of President Obama’s speech at the United Nations-his embrace of American exceptionalism and his recommitment to a failed approach to Palestinian-Israeli negotiations, his view that war and violence can only be answered by military force or nothing, and more. He didn’t explicitly state a willingness to accept Iran’s participation in international talks on Syria. There is a serious danger that any move towards rapprochement with Iran would be matched with moves to pacify Israeli demands-almost certainly at the expense of Palestinian rights. But in the broader scenario of US-Iran relations, this is a moment to move forward, to welcome the new approach in Washington now answering the new approach of Tehran. More flexibility will be required than the United States is usually known for. The usual opponents-in Congress, in Israel and the pro-Israel lobbies-are already on the move, challenging the new opening. But these last weeks showed how a quickly organized demonstration of widespread public opinion, demanding negotiations instead of war, can win. We were able to build a movement fast, agile and powerful enough to reverse an imminent military attack on Syria and instead force a move towards diplomatic solutions to end the war. This time around, the demand to deepen, consolidate and not abandon diplomatic possibilities is on our agenda-and perhaps once again we can

Description:

Social Media and the Cultural Change How did Global Awakening utilize Social Media Connect with us a - Urdu Host : Syed Muhtashim Ali Naqvi Guest : Syed Ali Hamid, Daniyal Hassan, M. Nusrat Abbas Bukhari

Description:

O\' Scholars, why did you remain silent?? Many chose to stay silent in the history of Islam. The cost that we paid was too high. Yet, we see many today, decide to stay indifferent and silent... Is it time to learn from the past, ponder, and act? Duration = 6:03 Follow us at: Shiatv.net/user/PureStreamMedia Telegram.me/PureStreamMedia Fb.com/PureStreamMedia

Description:

What is definition of the Arabic word \\\\\\\'Haya\\\\\\\'; which is commonly translated as modesty, bashfulness, shyness, or shame? And what does the culture prevalent in the world say about \\\\\\\'Haya\\\\\\\' and being shy or bashful? What are the two foundations for \\\\\\\'Haya\\\\\\\' as far as modern-day psychology is concerned? Is it wrong to feel ashamed when one has done something wrong? Is it wrong for one to not want others to know about their errors or sins? And what is the difference between being modest and being lazy when trying to correct ones\\\\\\\' wrongs based upon \\\\\\\'Haya\\\\\\\'? Does \\\\\\\'Haya\\\\\\\' in its Islamic sense, mean that one shouldn\\\\\\\'t defend themselves? Finally, \\\\\\\"Why Did Allah Create \\\\\\\'Haya\\\\\\\'\\\\\\\" in a human being? The late Ayatollah Misbah-Yazdi (R) provides us with a short, but profound lesson on the basics of loving Allah. #Islam #QomTv #Misbah_Yazdi #Akhlaq #Love #Allah #Concepts #Beliefs #Salvation #Spirituality #Shia

Description:

The concept of Infallibility in a nutshell. According to the Shia School of Thought, the Prophets and Messengers did not commit any sins. But did Adam not commit a sin by eating from the tree? Did Ibrahim not tell a lie? Did Yunus not disbelieve in Allah’s absolute power? Did Musa not kill a man? Many look at hadith and even bring Biblical verses to try and prove that the Messengers of God committed terrible sins. But anything that contradicts the Holy Qur’an ought to be disregarded. Here, the BISKIT Guy focuses solely on the Qur’an to prove the concept of Infallibility.

Description:

Is America still a global superpower in the present-day? What had America decided to definitely do in the West Asian region, vis-à-vis The Resistance? And what was the response of The Resistance to these evil actions of America and the Arrogant Powers of the world? What was the end result of the efforts of the Americans and the efforts of The Resistance? What are some of the places in the West Asian region that the Americans and the global Arrogant Powers tried to dominate? What kind of Iraq did the Americans try to create and still want? What are some of the places in the West Asian region where America has failed so miserably, despite their greatest efforts? Who was the champion who caused these heavy losses for the Americans and the global Arrogant Powers in the West Asian region? Finally, how does Imam Sayyid Ali Khamenei answer the question, \" Why Did America Lose So Miserably In West Asia?\" The Leader of the Muslim Ummah, Imam Sayyid Ali Khamenei, speaks about \"Why Did America Lose So Miserably In West Asia\". The Americans tried so hard, but failed miserably. The Resistance tried just a bit, and overcame victoriously.

Description:

How did the U.S. government lead its people to war http://www.leadingtowar.com/ An examination, using government and press reports, of pre-war claims made by the Bush administration - as well as a summary of the tragic consequences of the Iraq War A Mythic Reality An exploration of the misleading ‘mythic reality’ created by the Bush administration to persuade the public to support a war against Iraq A Mechanism for War How the Bush administration constructed a mechanism to propel the nation to war War Through Rose-Colored Glasses Ten assurances given to the U.S. public by the Bush administration about how a war with Iraq would unfold Abuses and Misuses of Intelligence How the Bush administration misrepresented and distorted intelligence in making the case for war Rhetoric and Spin An analysis of how President Bush and his administration skillfully manipulated language and facts How did the U.S. government lead its people to war Bush Administration Claims vs. The Facts A Mythic Reality Mechanism for War War Through Rose-Colored Glasses Abuses and Misuses of Intelligence / Rhetoric and Spin / Items of Note

Description:

As if the Syrian talks in Geneva did not face enough challenges, a new one came into the picture, when US Congress approved continued support for what it called moderate Syrian rebels, raising the question again about a good and a bad terrorist. It also upped the bar on what type of aid: previously from non-lethal like night goggles, to small arms, as well as some more powerful weapons, such as anti-tank rockets. In this edition of the debate, we\'ll ask doesn\'t this contradict the United States\' role as a sponsor of the peace talks? Guests: - National Coordinator, A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition, Brian Becker (WASHINGTON). - Senior Fellow, Center for American Progress, Lawrence Korb (WASHINGTON). Subjects: 1. From non-lethal aid, like nigh vision goggles and army uniforms, to a variety of small arms, as well as some more powerful weapons, such as anti-tank rockets. - Funded by the U-S Congress, in votes behind closed doors, through the end of government fiscal year 2014, which ends on September 30: THAT MEANS FOR THE NEXT 8 MONTHS. - Also the issue that arms may fall into the hands of \"bad terrorists\", something US experienced in Afghanistan, Iraq and in Syria. 2. What about the good terrorist/bad terrorist scenario: this differentiation just can\'t apply, especially to the terrorists inside Syria, which the US calls the moderate Syrian rebels? 3. American military aid, now with explicit congressional approval: Doesn\'t it contradict the United States\' role as a sponsor of the peace talks? Whatever happened to US Sec. of State John Kerry saying repeatedly that there is no military solution? - Russia is working with the US to find a political solution, and suddenly US arms supplies, which contradicts the initiative 4. On terrorists: John Kerry said during opening of Geneva talks: in reference to the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad: \"The Assad regime is a magnet for terrorists. The regime\'s brutality is the source of the violent extremism in Syria today: Is the US completely turning a blind eye to Saudi Arabia\'s support for terrorists? 5. Timeline: Beg. Dec.: the US and Britain announced that they had suspended non-lethal aid: Why? Reports that their aid supplies could end up in hostile hands. Then in late December, reversed that decision: Yet US Congress \"secretly\" approved sending small arms, as well as some more powerful weapons, such as anti-tank rockets, also in Dec.: the US was not telling the truth, or given that this was done in secret, did not want it to be made public? 6. On the Syrian talks in Geneva: According to the divided opposition: the Syrian delegation has accepted the establishment of a transitional government body for the first time: Were it true, how what are the chances for the divided opposition to accept the govt. red line: Assad\'s departure? 7. Syria\'s divided opposition criticized a document presented by the Syrian govt which presented a statement of principles, calling for Syria \'s sovereignty to be respected, rejecting \"foreign interference\" and \"terrorism.\"? 8. Are we looking at u-turn from Turkey on Syria: AS we speak, PM Erodogan is in Iran holding talks with Ian\'s leader, its pres. and FM? 9. What may have happened if Iran was present?

Description:

The Best Thing Sayyid Nasrallah Did in his Life It is such a hard question to answer for anyone. See what Sayyid Hasan Nasrallah says has been the best thing he did in his life so far. He also explains the reason behind it. #MustWatch #MustShare #Act

Description:

How did the U.S. government lead its people to war http://www.leadingtowar.com/ An examination, using government and press reports, of pre-war claims made by the Bush administration - as well as a summary of the tragic consequences of the Iraq War A Mythic Reality An exploration of the misleading ‘mythic reality’ created by the Bush administration to persuade the public to support a war against Iraq A Mechanism for War How the Bush administration constructed a mechanism to propel the nation to war War Through Rose-Colored Glasses Ten assurances given to the U.S. public by the Bush administration about how a war with Iraq would unfold Abuses and Misuses of Intelligence How the Bush administration misrepresented and distorted intelligence in making the case for war Rhetoric and Spin An analysis of how President Bush and his administration skillfully manipulated language and facts

Description:

How did the U.S. government lead its people to war http://www.leadingtowar.com/ An examination, using government and press reports, of pre-war claims made by the Bush administration - as well as a summary of the tragic consequences of the Iraq War A Mythic Reality An exploration of the misleading ‘mythic reality’ created by the Bush administration to persuade the public to support a war against Iraq A Mechanism for War How the Bush administration constructed a mechanism to propel the nation to war War Through Rose-Colored Glasses Ten assurances given to the U.S. public by the Bush administration about how a war with Iraq would unfold Abuses and Misuses of Intelligence How the Bush administration misrepresented and distorted intelligence in making the case for war Rhetoric and Spin An analysis of how President Bush and his administration skillfully manipulated language and facts

Description:

How did the U.S. government lead its people to war http://www.leadingtowar.com/ An examination, using government and press reports, of pre-war claims made by the Bush administration - as well as a summary of the tragic consequences of the Iraq War A Mythic Reality An exploration of the misleading ‘mythic reality’ created by the Bush administration to persuade the public to support a war against Iraq A Mechanism for War How the Bush administration constructed a mechanism to propel the nation to war War Through Rose-Colored Glasses Ten assurances given to the U.S. public by the Bush administration about how a war with Iraq would unfold Abuses and Misuses of Intelligence How the Bush administration misrepresented and distorted intelligence in making the case for war Rhetoric and Spin An analysis of how President Bush and his administration skillfully manipulated language and facts