Group items tagged

Urdu is not a basic language it is a derived language, actually it is the mixture of many other basic and derived languages like Arabic, Turkish, Persian and Hindi and even there are some words in Urdu which are borrowed from English. The term Urdu was derived from a Turkish word "Ordo", which means camp, army or group. The Urdu language was developed between the Muslim soldiers of the Mughals armies, these soldiers originally belonged to different civilizations and they were Turks, Arabs, Pathans, Persians, Rajputs, Jats, Afghans, Balochis and Punjabis. These soldiers lived together for many years of their lives to fight against their common enemy during which they used to interact with each other by communicating in their respective dialects, which gradually merged into each other and evolved into the present form of Urdu. It is due to this reason that Urdu was first known as "Lashkari Zaban" or the language of the army, which was later changed to "Urdu-e-Muallah" meaning the exalted army which was given by the great Shah Jahan, who was a Mughal Emperor. "Rekhta" meaning scattered was another name used for this language until the present name Urdu came into use.

'Salat' means five daily prayers prayed regularly in Muslims religion. Its vital meaning is 'supplication'. The prayer indicates various relations with God. Salat is the second pillar of Islam among the five pillars in which Islam based on. It comes after the Kalama, the very first pillar of Islam. The Muslims do their prayer five times in a day. Salat has much religious importance and it saves one from indulgence and horrible work. Student life is the best time when one should learn to control over his evil wants. So, for Muslim students it is must learn the teaching of Salat, for his religious and social welfare. Salat can purify man's life.

CAIR poster - they say it is badly misunderstood, that people aren't getting the real meaning. And I actually agree with them - there is even a deeper meaning that just "distrust the government" - read on!

I've written before about the crisis of inequality in the United States and about the quasi-religious abhorrence of "wealth redistribution" that causes many Americans to oppose tax increases, even on the ultra rich. The conviction that taxation is intrinsically evil has achieved a sadomasochistic fervor in conservative circles-producing the Tea Party, their Republican zombies, and increasingly terrifying failures of governance. Happily, not all billionaires are content to hoard their money in silence. Earlier this week, Warren Buffett published an op-ed in the New York Times in which he criticized our current approach to raising revenue. As he has lamented many times before, he is taxed at a lower rate than his secretary is. Many conservatives pretend not to find this embarrassing. Conservatives view taxation as a species of theft-and to raise taxes, on anyone for any reason, is simply to steal more. Conservatives also believe that people become rich by creating value for others. Once rich, they cannot help but create more value by investing their wealth and spawning new jobs in the process. We should not punish our best and brightest for their success, and stealing their money is a form of punishment. Of course, this is just an economic cartoon. We don't have perfectly efficient markets, and many wealthy people don't create much in the way of value for others. In fact, as our recent financial crisis has shown, it is possible for a few people to become extraordinarily rich by wrecking the global economy. Nevertheless, the basic argument often holds: Many people have amassed fortunes because they (or their parent's, parent's, parents) created value. Steve Jobs resurrected Apple Computer and has since produced one gorgeous product after another. It isn't an accident that millions of us are happy to give him our money. But even in the ideal case, where obvious value has been created, how much wealth can one person be allowed to keep? A trillion doll

ARE YOU READY FOR $8.00 A GAL GAS?

 Howdy Halloween... and how about the symbolism as the dead seem ready to rise up, in the coming election?  And yes, I connect the two events, especially with one network pushing a zombie movie at us, just before we vote, in a blatant political ploy! 

The rapper takes an insightful look at what the news of Osama Bin Laden's death means for the U.S. now and from a historical perspective in this critical breakdown…

Both the Bible and Quran make mention of a beast that will try mankind before the Day of Judgment.

What is the relation between Islam and democracy? This is a burning question of this era de facto. There has been already a term "Islamic democracy". This term seems to demand something to add in Islam to be democratic or somehow it means that democracy is very different view where Islam lacks the core insight of democracy. What is the governmental view of Islam? What Islam thinks about the system of government in Islamic state? Does the system ensure the democratic right of the people or more than the so called democratic right? The questions are often and frequently asked by the Muslims as well as Non-Muslims. However, the truth is very significant. Islam is not alike democracy. When you hear about that you get a bad idea and get a sudden shock that Islam is not alike democracy! But let me be a little more specific. The fact is that, Islam is not alike democracy because Islam ensures the rights of the people far better than the western ideas of democracy. The governments of Islamic ages proved what the government system Islam says to adhere. If you notice about the governmental system of Khelfat-e-rasheda, you will get the point how honest they were with their promise and pledges. They ensured all the democratic right of the people. But they were not confined within the system we understand as the unique democratic system rather they were far more better and benevolent ruler of the people.

Islam is a balanced religion. It believes in respecting all sects, all cultures and all civilizations. All laws relate to Islam are meant for Muslim benefits . It is true that in the recent years, Islam has become a victim of extremism. The purpose of Islam has never been to spread Islamophobia. Islamic ideas have been exploited to give them the shape of Islamophobia. Islam does not define a mosque and state as distinctive. A mosque is there, to provide a forum to the Muslim to unite and pray. The gesture is to promote congregational prayers, which is also an aspect of Christianity. Islam does not believe in forcing its concepts upon Non-Muslims. Unethical Jehad has never been an Islamic thought. It is just that some extremist groups are trying to manipulate Islam and use the Ideals to their benefit. Islam believes in respecting all religions. That is what the Holy Prophet (PBUH) taught the Muslims. Islam does not preach unkindness to any. May it be your enemy or slave. These are not the aspects of Jihad. A woman can legally have a physical relationship with her husband only. It is definitely no concept of Jihad. Islam believes in respecting a woman, not exploiting her dignity and respect. Islam does not allow illegal confiscation of property during Jihad. Islam does not promote destruction. Taxes does not mean degrading. Taxes are defined to establish a system and maintain a proper division of wealth. If Christian and jews had to pay Jiziah, Muslims had to pay Zakat .Brutality is not a custom of Islam. A Muslim derives so much contentment from Islamic values, that they do not need to run away from the religion. Anything , which drives a person from sanity is not liked in Islam. The reason being that all wrongs can be committed, when a person is drunk and is not in a normal state of mind. This is human nature, that we cannot drive contentment until we avenge someone for the bad they have done to us. However Islam prefers forgiveness. Sometimes a harsh punishment

Well. Notice that RT notes that "So far, the only drones making incursions into Pakistani skies have been US Predators used to attack Taliban insurgents." Making this distinction means that UAVs would be flying for a reason distinct from attacking the Taliban, i.e. war with Pakistan. This is in response to the bombing which killed many Pakistani soldiers due to NATO forces fucking up and thinking they were 'terrorists'.

A general introduction to the motivation behind the Occupy movement. This film is by no means an extensive documentary of their agenda but more of a general overview for anyone who doesn't understand 'what it's all about'. I hope this can help to re-address the, largely distorted view, that the mainstream media presents of the Occupy movement. Filmed at College Green, Bristol, UK.

My dad emailed this article to me. The Koch brothers lied about solar energy raising energy expenses for their own agenda. I told my dad "Sounds like capitalists compelled to do evil by the were-wolf hunger of capital. Know what I mean?" The article's own abstract: On July 11, Georgia's Public Service Commission will determine if Georgia Power, run by Southern Company, will have to acquiesce to local government demands to add 525-megawatts (MW) of solar power, despite already agreeing to acquire 270MW of solar. In the controversial debate, billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch have pressured regulators to reject the plan. But ahead of the vote, the Associated Press found the billionaires' group, Americans For Prosperity, has used misleading data to tip the debate. The billionaires claimed that new solar mandates would raise energy bills by 40%. But an analysis shows that even if solar power is more expensive than conventional energy, the amount demanded is equal to only 1% of Georgia Power's electric fleet. As a result, it's highly unlikely that adding more solar will impact electricity rates so significantly.

Why More Equality? Our thirty years research shows that: 1) In rich countries, a smaller gap between rich and poor means a happier, healthier, and more successful population. Just look at the US, the UK, Portugal, and New Zealand in the top right of this graph, doing much worse than Japan, Sweden or Norway in the bottom left.

No serious person denies that Reagan's 1981 tax cuts and military increases threw the country into a pattern of borrowing and borrowing that we have not escaped. When Reagan took office the national debt was $995 billion. When Reagan left office it was $2.87 trillion and climbing fast. No serious person denies that Bush's 2001 tax cuts and continued military increases dramatically worsened the problem. Bush's last budget year ended with a record single-year deficit of $1.4 trillion. As the country discusses what to do about the borrowing the elephant in the room is that everyone understands that restoring top tax rates to pre-Reagan levels and cutting the military budget in half would solve the problem completely. But we can't do that. We can't even discuss it. And we all know why. And we all know why. It is because the Reagan Revolution transformed the country from a democracy to a plutocracy -- a country run by and for the wealthy. Such sensible and simple ideas are considered off-limits. To even bring up the idea of restoring tax rates to pre-Reagan levels and cutting military spending invites terrible consequences. The speaker risks becoming the target of the money's noise machine: Limbaugh, Hannity, Drudge, Fox. Smears. Humiliation. Banishment. Or the noise machine cranks up a campaign of misinformation, convincing people --especially DC people -- that what they see in front of their eyes just isn't so. Repeat it enough and it becomes solid knowledge. We all know this is the way it is. So don't tell me that "we don't have the money" to keep 300,000 teachers from being laid off, or to help the long-term, mostly older unemployed workers get something to live on and keep their health care. The money is right there in front of us, but the Congress is bought and paid for. What do we do? We have to demand representatives who represent us, not make excuses for representing the wealthy. The unfortunate, poor and disadvantaged must count every bit as much as the