UNESCO’s Political Decision and the Temple Mount

5 11 2016


by Harun Yahya

Last week, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Executive Board approved the decision taken by the external relations commission regarding “Al-Aqsa region having no affiliation with Judaism”. The decision, which met with negative reactions from the Israeli government and all the Jews around the world, passed after 24 out of 58 member countries voted in favor of the measure. Regarding the issue, the executive board spokesperson Michael Worbs said the following: “The result shows it is a very divisive issue. And the origin of this division is not from inside UNESCO, it’s from the real world.”

Prepared and proposed as a draft by seven countries including Egypt, Algeria, Lebanon and Qatar, the resolution aimed to “preserve the Palestinian cultural heritage and the distinct character of East Jerusalem.” The historical city center of Jerusalem, wherein the Islamic holy sites Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock are located, was also addressed within this scope. The decision taken ruled that the region in question only belonged to the Muslims.

There are some conspicuous factors regarding the aforementioned vote held by UNESCO, which undertakes a cultural mission within the United Nations. The first one is that the countries voting in favor of the decision are those who have had a problematic past with Israel. The point in question shows that the assessment has more of a political ground rather than “cultural heritage”. The fact that 26 countries abstained from voting is another factor that supports this opinion. Twenty-six countries refraining from announcing any decisions regarding a cultural assessment clearly indicates some political reservations on their part. Upon reactions, the decision is expected to be voted once again in the upcoming days.

However, the main problem lies in questioning via an international vote “which religion the Temple Mount, wherein Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock is located, belongs to.”

The location and significance of the Temple Mount along with all the religious symbols within was relayed to us through Sacred Books. While the Torah deems the Temple Mount and the Al-Aqsa Mosque inside it holy for the Jews, the Quran places importance on Al-Aqsa as the place of our Prophet, Hazrat Muhammad’s Ascension [Mi’raj]. Al-Aqsa Mosque is also the first qibla [the direction that should be faced during prayers] for Muslims. Christians also consider this region important as the place of the ascension of the Prophet Jesus (pbuh).

The claim that the site is only holy for Muslims is, first and foremost, in contradiction with the Quran. Because, the Quran explicitly expresses that the Jews have the right to live on the Holy Land, which includes Jerusalem as well.

In the Quran, God informs about the Prophet Moses’ call for his tribe, saying; “My people! Enter the Holy Land which God has ordained for you. Do not turn back in your tracks and so become transformed into losers.”(5/21) God rendered the Holy Land a sacred location for the tribe of Israel to settle and live according to the Torah of the Prophet Moses (pbuh).

Likewise, in another verse of the Quran, God says, “We settled the tribe of Israel in a noble place and gave them good things as provision” (10/93), stating that He chose these lands exclusively for the Jews.

In the 58th verse of the Surah al-Baqara, saying, “Remember when We said, ‘Go into this town and eat from it wherever you like, freely. Enter the gate prostrating and say, Relieve us of our burdens!” Your mistakes will be forgiven. We will grant increase to all good-doers,’” our Lord grants Jerusalem to the Jews as their homeland and points out to the fact that the region is a sacred location for them.

Through the aforementioned verses of the Quran, our Lord enunciates to the Muslims that the Jews have the right to live on the Holy Land, and that these lands are considered sacred for them as well. If a Muslim claims that this land is not sacred for the Jews, he is either acting in contradiction with the Quran, or he is oblivious to this major fact that is stated in the Quran.

When the Torah and the Quran deem these lands sacred for the Jews, certain Islamic countries coming together and trying to render this commandment invalid via an international cultural organization is objectionable both in logical and religious sense. Trying to invalidate a fact specified by our Almighty Lord through Sacred Books is clearly an exercise in futility. The status and sacredness of the region has been defined by Almighty God. Trying to deny and annul it might have major consequences in the Sight of God.

The decision in question also has other objectionable points.

The organization’s spokesperson, Worbs, says that the achieved result originates from the issue being “divisive.” However, the decision taken by UNESCO is the actual factor that paves the way for a very harmful division.

The fact that location of the Al-Aqsa Mosque is considered holy by all three Abrahamic religions is quite significant for the unity and solidarity among religions. This is undoubtedly one of the reasons why our Almighty Lord deems this blessed city sacred for all three religions. Members of the three religions worshiping and praying at the same locations is a beauty and a blessing. However, claiming via a vote that this city is only sacred for the Muslims is a potential danger, which might give rise to discrimination among nescient individuals, paving the way for polarization and possible dissension. Making such a radical claim for an exceedingly fragile region beset with major problems caused by superstitious religious conception will result in nothing but escalated tension in the region.

It should be known that a location sacred for Muslims is also considered sacred for the Jews, and should be considered a blessing for the entire Islamic world. As Muslims, the Prophet Moses is our prophet as well. Sharing the beauty of these lands his followers lived should be seen as a merit and beauty.

What is expected from Islamic countries is to stand for this obvious and beautiful fact that is in complete conformance with the Quran, not to cover it up. What is expected from an organization protecting historical and cultural values such as UNESCO is to take the Holy Books into consideration rather than individual and governmental political interests and views when addressing religious and spiritual values. And what is needed for all these to happen is for the Islamic community to make rationalistic decisions based on the Quran by abandoning superstitious, traditional orthodox and bigoted conceptions, and for international organizations to cast the political priorities of certain “masterminds” aside and become conscientious institutions.

In the meantime, there is no reason for sincere Jews and sincere Muslims to worry. If God is willing, the Temple Mount is the site where King Moshiach will soon open the Ark of the Covenant along with Muslims and Jews. Then, those who are currently in denial will unquestionably witness that the region is a holy site for both the Jews and the Muslims. No one has the power to obstruct a truth destined by God.


The writer has authored more than 300 books translated in 73 languages on politics, religion and science. He may be followed at @Harun_Yahya and www.harunyahya.com

The Quran Protects Rights, Freedoms

24 10 2016

by Harun Yahya

There are fundamental rights and freedoms that form the basis of modern constitutions, laws and declarations. Freedom of thought and belief are also essential in this regard. The extent that these freedoms can be exercised is considered a concrete indication of the difference in the levels of development in Western and Eastern societies.

The general perception in some Western communities is that the freedoms of thought and belief are dramatically restricted in the Middle East and Islamic countries. The popular view among them states that a life based on the Islamic faith and rules is being forced upon people and that those who act contrary face severe pressure, threats, sanctions and penalties.

Regrettably, that is the case, to a certain extent, not for all Islamic countries and communities of course, but for many of them. Yet, the fallacy of these claims is that they unjustly argue that Islam is the reason for these adverse conditions.

These criticisms and claims, arising from prejudice and ignorance, are often raised without taking into consideration the fact that the Quran is the only and true source of Islam. The misunderstandings and malpractices of both people and societies, the interpretations and explanations contradicting the Quran made by some people regarded as religious scholars, the use of sources other than the Quran and the groundless rumours fabricated using the name of our Prophet are presented as evidence of these claims.

As a matter of fact, when only the Quran is taken as reference, it would easily be seen that Islam entails an understanding of freedom far more advanced than that of all of the civilisations, philosophies and ideologies of all time. The concept of freedom explained by the Quran is far beyond the restrictions adopted by advanced and modern societies.

The Quran ensures the rights and freedoms of belief, thought and worship of the members of all religions and forbids behaviours restricting these rights and freedoms. Provided that the meaning of the concept of “secularism”, today manipulated to imply atheism, is “to respect the freedoms of religion, belief and worship”, it would be clear to anyone that this concept is a teaching prevalent in the Quran.

The following verses of the Quran refer to the freedom of belief in Islam in the most succinct way: “(Say:) I do not worship what you worship and you do not worship what I worship. Nor will I worship what you worship, nor will you worship what I worship. You have your religion and I have my religion.” (Surat Al-Kafirun 2-6) Such freedom holds true for all religions, from Christianity to Judaism, and all belief systems — and disbelief — including Buddhism and atheism.

In the same way, with the verse that reads, “If God had not driven some people back by means of others, monasteries, churches, synagogues and mosques, where God’s name is mentioned much, would have been pulled down and destroyed…” (Surat Al-Hajj, 40) God protects the places of worships that belong to not only Muslims, but also members of other religions.

The Quran definitively declares that no one may be forced to adopt Islam or practise the rules entailed by Islam under any circumstances. The following verses are just a few of the many verses in this regard: “There is no compulsion where the religion is concerned. Right guidance has become clearly distinct from error…” (Surat Al-Baqara, 256); “You are not a dictator over them. So remind, with the Quran, whoever fears My Threat” (Surah Qaf, 45); “Do you think you can force people to be believers?” (Surah Yunus, 99); “So remind them! You are only a reminder. You are not in control of them” (Surat Al-Ghashiyya, 21-22). Even these few verses are clear demonstrations that the Quran does not permit the lightest compulsion that will intervene in beliefs and worships, let alone any restriction or pressure, violence or terrorism.

For that reason, any matter on Islam should be addressed not based on malpractices, misinterpretations or use of other resources, but the only valid resource of the religion, namely the Quran. Moreover, the fact of which many people are not aware is that some countries regarded as “free” are indeed not all that free.

The United States and many countries in Europe, considered as the cradle of civilisation, human rights and freedom, are enchained by countless laws and codes developed by states and communities.

The people, who consider themselves free in these countries, are actually oppressed by thousands of sanctions, restrictions and prohibitions, fabricated rules of morality or public pressure.

The extreme right-wing, racist mentality that first escalated after a flow of immigrants into Europe in the 1950s — and a mentality that does not have any tolerance for different cultures and belief systems — has reached dangerously high levels. The political parties with such a mentality are receiving the highest number of votes by means of their Islamophobic propaganda. There is more and more news every day on attacks and murders of innocent, inoffensive Muslims and arson attacks on mosques in the US and Europe. For instance, threats such as “the enforcement of a deportation and an exclusion order for Muslims”, made to gain votes in the US presidential election primaries, have gained the support of millions of Americans.

Furthermore, many countries in the West have remained silent about the disgraceful massacres that still take place in Myanmar and in east Turkestan, as well as what happened in Bosnia some two decades ago on account of different beliefs. Actually, the situation of some countries in the West, which criticise and denounce other societies in regard to freedom of belief and thought at every turn, speaks for itself.

On the other hand, it is a historical fact that human rights and freedoms are severely trampled by irreligious communist systems, similar to that of North Korea, which spy on the private lives of their people, prohibit every idea, thought or belief other than their official ideologies and brutally punish those who act contrary to it.

However, the Quran abolished such pressures, prohibitions and tyranny 1,400 years ago and ensured not only the freedoms of thought and opinion, but also all other human rights and freedoms in the most comprehensive way. Other than the lawful and unlawful — of which the believers are accountable to God — the limited number of social rules and restrictions in the Quran are defined to protect the rights and freedoms of people, to prevent the exploitation of these freedoms and the use of these freedoms to violate the rights and freedoms of others or to prevent the harm and unsettling of others and ensure social order. None of these rules aim to create pressure or restrictions.

As it has always been and always will be, the system brought by the Quran stands head and shoulders above all of the civilisations, ideologies, philosophies and political orders. The happiness of not only Muslims, but every individual in the world, depends on the adoption and implementation of this system that values people the most.


The writer has authored more than 300 books translated in 73 languages on politics, religion and science. He may be followed at @Harun_Yahya and www.harunyahya.com

Murder, By Any Other Name

15 10 2016


by Harun Yahya

A FEW days ago, the life of a 17-year-old terminally ill minor was ended by medical intervention in Belgium. Authorities issued a statement, saying euthanasia was performed on the request of the minor. Wim Distelmans, chairman of Belgium’s Federal Control and Evaluation Committee on Euthanasia, who approved the request, justified the astounding practice on the grounds of a strange reason, such as “children should not be denied a dignified death”, trying, in his own way, to present euthanasia as an honourable practice.

Euthanasia is divided into various categories, such as “patient giving consent”, “patient is unconscious and unable to give consent”, “assisting a patient to commit suicide by medical means” and “killing the patient by withholding treatment or direct medical intervention”. The categories are given names, such as “active”, “passive”, “voluntary”, “involuntary”, “assisted suicide”, etc.

Just like Distelmans, advocates of euthanasia try to justify the practice in their own way with seemingly innocent definitions, such as “an honourable, dignified and comfortable death” or “a civil right to die”. However, in truth, euthanasia is no different from the act of suicide or premeditated murder. Regardless of the health or mental status of the individual requesting euthanasia, making the decision for it means ending a person’s life. In other words, deciding on that person’s death and performing it with the consent of the victim or through medical methods does not change the absolute truth.

Today, in countries such as Belgium, Holland, Colombia and Luxembourg, and in certain states in the United States and Canada, euthanasia and assisted suicide have been legalised and are performed frequently. In China and Switzerland, it is performed in exclusive clinics.

Among these countries, Holland and Belgium are the only ones where performing euthanasia on children under 18 is legal. The laws of Holland require that the child to be euthanised is older than 12. On the other hand, owing to legislation enacted in 2014 given the strong reaction from international public opinion, Belgium legalised performing euthanasia on children of all ages.

Euthanasia laws require that certain conditions be met before it can be performed, such as the patient requesting euthanasia must be mentally healthy, terminally ill, or suffering from unbearable physical or psychological pain.

However, these laws have been inconsistent from the beginning because it is medically impossible to talk about the sanity and mental health of an individual who wants to commit suicide, and further, make another person an accomplice to the act. Considering the decision made by a patient, who is of unsound mind and judgment, has a weak willpower and is mostly suffering from depression due to physical problems, regarding euthanasia as valid is a grave mistake. Most particularly, it is most abnormal to honour as extreme a request as the “suicide” of a child, who is not considered psychologically and mentally mature, and not granted authority or liability by laws.

Therefore, it is quite clear that just as a person who has attempted suicide is provided psychological support and administered rehabilitative treatment or medication, so, too, should those requesting euthanasia. Otherwise, killing such patients through medical methods or assisting them in committing suicide will be no different than pushing an unconscious person who has gone up to the roof of a building to commit suicide.

The most appropriate and humane way to act towards terminally ill patients is to exert all available medical and humanitarian means to treat and cure them, and bring them back to health, not unperturbedly and remorselessly deciding on their deaths.

There are countless cases where patients overcome the most hopeless illnesses, recover from the most severe paralyses or wake up from years-long comas. Therefore, killing or assisting in the suicide of those who might have the chance to recover at any moment as long as they are alive, and denying them this chance, is utterly unacceptable. The condition that “the patient must be suffering from unbearable physical pain”, which is included in euthanasia decisions, is exploited to legitimise euthanasia. After all, there are various medications and treatment methods that relieve pain of all kinds and severity, and their quality and effectiveness are constantly being improved.

“Psychological pain”, another reason for euthanasia, is, as the name implies, a psychological disorder, and its remedy does not lie in killing or assisting in the suicide of a patient; again — it lies in treating and curing the patient.

Furthermore, euthanasia is a practice that is susceptible to exploitation.

In Switzerland, there are clinics that fulfil euthanasia requests in exchange for thousands of dollars. In Holland, where euthanasia is performed in the thousands every year, records show that only a very small percentage of patients undergo a psychological evaluation. What’s more is that one does not have to be terminally ill for this; patients can be sent to death merely over regular psychological complaints, such as depression and anxiety.

This situation has escalated to such a point that even reasons like “the elderly suffering psychological pain for being a burden on their relatives” can be considered sufficient for the approval of euthanasia requests. Some elders being forced into taking the decision for reasons of inheritance or intra-familial grudges and enmity are among the possibilities that cannot be ignored.

Dutch laws even permit the killing of disabled babies through active euthanasia. Statistics reveal horrifying information regarding how euthanasia is performed on some patients without their open consent and how doctors rarely face inquiry for this.

For that reason, today, euthanasia laws, which can be stretched to the point of killing patients, the crippled, the disabled, babies, coma patients, the elderly and unwanted people, should urgently be investigated, and necessary measures should be taken. The ever-expanding rights on euthanasia are also disquieting in the sense that they bring to mind the atrocious practice of eugenics of the Nazi era, which aimed at weeding out those who were unwanted, considered to be lesser and sick, while increasing the number of healthy individuals.

Let alone being a humanistic right, euthanasia is an utterly inhumane and barbaric practice. It reflects the materialistic and apathetic approach towards human life of societies that have departed from spiritual values, such as faith, love, compassion and mercy, and among which a lacklustre, languid, selfish and loveless lifestyle quickly becomes prevalent.

It is quite apparent that, be it voluntary or involuntary, active or assisted, ending a human life does not conform with a good conscience, and should be considered a major crime. Although the parliaments of a few countries and states have legalised the inhumane practice, the majority of the world considers euthanasia to be murder, and those who commit the crime will stand trial and face the possibility of lifelong imprisonment or even the death penalty. Divine religions consider it a cardinal sin to take a person’s life, including one’s own. Believer or not, it is the duty of every person, as a human being, to express the wrongness of the practice and offer a solution.

The writer has authored more than 300 books translated in 73 languages on politics, religion and science. He may be followed at @Harun_Yahya and www.harunyahya.com

Turkey-Russia Rapprochement

8 10 2016


by Harun Yahya

After the start of normalization between Turkey and Russia, and the subsequent coup attempt on July 15, Turkish and Russian governments stepped up their efforts to solidify an alliance. Both countries began developing common strategies with respect to regional issues, most notably those regarding the Black Sea and Syria. It is also expressed that once this alliance reaches maturity, Iran, Azerbaijan and even Pakistan might also join in. As a matter of fact, Iran started to take steps in that direction and initially made its Hamedan airbase available for use by Russian planes.

This alliance, proposing that only the regional nations can find solutions to the regional problems, is a valuable step that has real potential to bring peace longed for by the entire world. However, this is certainly not the first instance of a rapprochement between the two nations. In 1833, the Treaty of Hunkar Iskelesi (Unkiar Skelessi) brought about a joint defense alliance. Sultan Mahmud II and Russian Tsar Nicholas I prudently realized that such a treaty could block the plots of third party countries. According to the treaty, if one party requested military assistance, the other would offer that help with all its resources. Furthermore, according to the confidential clause of the treaty, in case of a war, the Ottomans would close Dardanelles to all warships except for the Russian ships.

This treaty became possible due to Russia’s support for Ottoman during Mehmet Ali Pasha’s riot. Upon the request of Mahmud II, the Russian army helped suppress the riot. Mehmet Ali Pasha, who had achieved military successes against the Ottoman army up to that point, dared not fighting the Russian army and signed the peace deal. This move effectively ended the riot. The positive outcome prompted the two leaders to make their cooperation official.

With the Treaty of Hunkar Iskelesi, two sides guaranteed the safety of each other. However, even though the treaty was confidential, the European countries managed to acquire its details with the help of the British ambassador Ponsonby. Britain and France immediately protested against the treaty and British fleets were dispatched to the shores of Izmir. Facing such reaction, Ottoman Empire had to retreat and signed the Baltalimani Treaty with the British, which included heavy economic terms. Due to European threats of war and political pressure, the treaty had been revoked by the London Treaty of 1840.

One can see similar traces of foreign intervention in the wars between Turkey and Russia. Two countries were pitted against each other over and over again by means of insidious plans, and war was shown as the only solution. Spies, diplomats, treacherous soldiers, double-dealing politicians, paid warmongers in the media considered their personal gains over their respective countries’ interests. As a result, two neighboring countries fought while others took advantage of these conflicts.

Another example of the historical Russian-Ottoman rapprochement took place during the reign of Sultan Abdulaziz. Son of Mahmud II, Abdulaziz too considered Russia a close ally and friend and started an alliance process one more time. Russian ambassador to Istanbul, Mr. Ignatiev mediated in this process of friendship. However, once again, a group of British-sympathizing soldiers staged a coup and ousted Sultan Abdulaziz. The policies of Mithat Pasha, who came to power, ”British” Said Pasha and the new sultan caused another war between the Ottomans and Russians, which ended with a death toll of 250 thousand people.

Similar plots and schemes continued throughout 18th and 19th centuries and gave rise to a total of six wars. During these wars, certain European countries led by the British, sometimes sided with the Ottomans and sometimes with the Russians. These powers, provoking and giving rise to the wars, then acted as mediators to assist in signing peace treaties. Regardless of the winner on paper, it was actually both countries who lost in all those wars. Innocent people died, cities came down and both empires eventually collapsed as a result of such plots.

In the 20th century, Turks have always received a friendly hand from their northern neighbor Russia. For instance, it was the Russians who revealed the existence of the Sykes-Picot Agreement. During Turkish war of independence, we enjoyed military and financial support from Russia. Indeed, as a gesture of appreciation, statues of two Russian generals, General Frunze and Marshall Voroshilov were erected in Taksim Square, the heart of Istanbul, among others who won the Independence War. Russia supported the Turkish industrial efforts during the first years of the Republic. This friendship contributed in the recovery of war-torn Anatolia. However, our young Republic fell victim to similar past plots; whenever the two countries created warm friendly ties, civil unrest and military coups followed in Turkey. Clearly, certain circles didn’t like the friendship between Russian and Turkish nations.

20th century brought pains to both nations. Russian and Turkish lands were occupied, dismembered and foreign powers made ambitious plans to share them. Nevertheless, the brave people of the two countries didn’t allow such sinister plans to be successful, even if it meant losing their lives.

In the 21st century, under the leadership of President Erdogan and President Putin, the two countries started on an unnamed alliance in areas of politics, economy and trade. Mega projects were announced one after another. Joint companies and friendships were established. Russians and Turks enjoyed the comfort of friendship and fraternity. Even the regrettable incident of plane downing in December 2015 was not able to eclipse the long-time friendship. Despite the heavy domestic and foreign pressure otherwise, Turkey and Russia entered a normalization process and today continue to improve their relations, picking up where they left off. There are no longer any obstacles before the two countries’ common action. We have to pay special tribute to President Putin and President Erdogan for their devoted efforts to making this friendship possible.

It should be remembered that countries that built great civilizations in history will never completely disappear. Indeed, both countries today enjoy sizable influence and power in their regions. As a matter of fact, Russia hosts a Muslim population that is larger than many Islamic countries. 20 million Muslims in Russia are siblings to the nations of both countries. Considering this magnificent power potential, it is obvious that only the Russian-Turkish alliance can bring peace to conflict zones. Therefore, it shouldn’t come as a surprise that some circles that feed off wars are targeting this alliance. What the 230 million people of Russia and Turkey should do is to protect our common goals with all our might and work to further reinforce this unity.

The writer has authored more than 300 books translated in 73 languages on politics, religion and science. He may be followed at @Harun_Yahya and www.harunyahya.com

An Urgent Plea on Behalf of the Children of Syria

28 09 2016


by Harun Yahya

“The day I saw those people being cut in front of me, yes, I was afraid. I started crying.”

These words belong to a little Syrian girl that has suffered so much for her age. Many adults wouldn’t be able to stand the things she has been through, but she bravely embraces it with an admirable composure.

As brave as she is, her situation is very difficult, and she is not the only one. According to UNICEF, more than 80 percent of all Syrian children were affected by the civil war in their country. Regrettably, Syrian child refugees constitute almost half of the total number of Syrian people in need. Naturally, these vulnerable children suffer disproportionately from psychological problems. Experts have reported that 2 million of them are in urgent need of support and psychological treatment.

However before the war, they were like other children of the world. They had normal, happy lives; they had families, homes and schools. The sudden start and dramatic escalation of the civil war took them by surprise. Bombs began pummeling their neighborhoods, forcing them to witness the horrific ways their loved ones sustained injuries, or died. After a while, their houses joined the rubble that became the new Syria, and poverty and hunger kicked in. In the next couple of months, the struggle was no longer against bombs, violence or clashes alone. Water, electricity and heating were gone and food began running out. People, especially children, started dying of hunger in full view of the world. While obesity continued to kill thousands in different parts of the world, children in Syria tried to feed on grass to stay alive.

Little Ahmad from Kafrenboodeh is one Syrian child that remained in Syria. He explains how he lost his brother and grandfather in front of his eyes, with a greasy auto body shop as his background. He is there because he has to work, despite everything that has happened. He asks the question the world doesn’t want to hear: “What’s the difference between us and the other children of the world?” Walaa, 5, in Lebanon, says that resting her head on the pillow is the worst thing because that’s when the attacks came. Roua’a, from Eastern Ghouta, is a little girl, but, she, with her little friends, has to lift heavy buckets of water, maybe fifty times a day, using a pulley. This is the only way the family can get water for their daily needs.

Most of the Syrian refugees are women and children and among those that left Syria with the hopes of a safer, better life, not more than a couple of hundred, if not less, actually found the peace, respect and dignity that they deserve. However, there is no question that they deserve it like every other human being on this planet. Just like anyone else in their position would they tried to get away from the imminent danger, from an inhumane way of life. They walked through deserts under the scorching sun with nothing but the clothes on their backs, jammed into the backs of trucks with strangers, all with the hopes of attaining safety somewhere else. Although Turkey, Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon admirably shouldered the majority of the burden, millions of Syrian refugees were failed by the rest of the world, which offered almost no help to them.

Masses drowned in high seas of the Mediterranean or the Aegean, tear-gassed and manhandled women, children and the elderly at the hands of the European border officers and facing accusations of being terrorists are only a few examples of the indescribable ordeal these people had to go through.

Imagine, how all these must be affecting the vulnerable soul of an innocent child? Living, seeing and experiencing things adults cannot even bring themselves to see on horror movies, these children were forced to turn into resilient adults at an extraordinarily young age; they had to be strong enough to embrace pain, injury, death, the loss of loved ones, discrimination, abuse, poverty and hunger. As a result, some of them turn angry and aggressive, while others become withdrawn and quiet. The experts believe that the majority of these children are suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

Although the tragedy in the region is unprecedented, and experts rush to evaluate the situation of the children from a psychological point of view, we all perfectly know that it is possible to make a change and help these children so that they can have better lives. The real action that must be taken in Syria should be restoring the atmosphere of love and brotherhood that children in particular need. It is crucial to show that the best asset is conscience. In order to compensate the deep damage caused by tyranny, the atmosphere in the region should be built on a policy of love, which seems to have been long forgotten. However, to do that, the weapons must be laid down and people should be given hope that days of peace and love will come soon.

Financial support is no doubt crucial for the people in the region. Indeed, it should continue without any interruption, and should be coupled with safety measures for Syria, constructive decisions and hope-inspiring plans. This should be done not only for Syria, but also for the refugees outside Syria. It is also crucial that the leaders of the countries hosting Syrian guests emphasize that the Syrians in their countries are their “own citizens.” These people — and especially the children — shouldn’t ever be made to feel like they are “the others” or “a burden.”

Together we can help these innocent children who have absolutely no fault in anything that happened in their country. Children are the beauties, the ornaments of the world, the innocent souls God created as a blessing for us. Therefore it is our duty to protect them. Let’s rise to the task and help these children like they are our own.


Harun Yahya has authored more than 300 books, translated into 73 languages, on politics, religion and science.

StopExecutionOf MirQuasemAli – There is no evidence supporting claims that Mir Quasem Ali is guilty

3 09 2016


As you are no doubt aware, Bangladesh recently has been a scene of shocking human rights violations with a number of executions involving seniors, for crimes alleged to have been committed decades ago, without presence of any substantial evidence.

Mir Quasem Ali, who lives in Bangladesh, is a famous Bangladeshi philanthropist and dedicated his entire life to helping people who have to live in difficult conditions.  Today, he is facing execution seemingly for politically charged reasons.

Mir Quasem Ali seems to be the latest victim of Bangladeshi government’s intolerance towards opposition. There are strong concerns that his arrest might be due to the criticism of the government in his newspaper. The fact that there is no documentary evidence or eyewitnesses to prove his guilt only reinforces these doubts.  Furthermore, the Chief Justice pointed out to the fact that there is no substantial evidence against him and was therefore removed from his duty. This and many other details make it clear that Mir Quasem Ali didn’t get a fair trial.

However, the real point that we would like to draw attention to, is not if he got a fair trial or not.

No human being deserves execution. Executing a person is not a punishment; this practice is ending the life of someone without giving him/her any opportunity for redemption.

Executing people, which is an extension of the darkness of the Middle Ages, is ruining the civilization of our world.

Even if it is proven that a person is guilty, the maximum punishment should be life sentence. Capital punishment can never be acceptable. Furthermore, at this point, there is not any evidence supporting the claim that Mir Quasem Ali is guilty.

We are kindly asking you to take action and urge the Bangladeshi government and courts to stop these executions and call for the stay of execution of Mir Quasem Ali.


Page 4 of 111« First...23456...102030...Last »