Zulhijjah 22,1426/January 23, 2006 #6
to report on Abu Hamzah al-Masri's trial in UK.
The British prosecutors are attacking central Islamic
concepts such as Caliphate.]
Anti-U.S. demonstrations in Pakistan took a serious turn on
January 22 when angry crowds in Bajaur, [where the bombed
village is located], the capital, Islamabad, and other places
not only condemned the U.S. but also chanted openly, in
large numbers: "Long Live Osama, Long Live Mullah Omar."
They called for the removal of the U.S. ambassador from
Pakistan and ridiculed General Musharraf's "protest" to the
U.S. [on January 21] as too little too late.
U.S. Media Misleading People about bombing of Pakistan:
Absolutely no Evidence that anyone other than
Local Villagers were Killed.
[On January 21, 2006
Dr. Kaukab Siddique
was interviewed for half an hour by the "On with Leon Show"
which comes out of Maryland and is heard on Exim Radio by
thousands of people across America. Here are the main points he made.]
U.S. bombing of the Pakistani village of Damadola in Bajaur Agency
was a major disaster for both the U.S. and General Musharraf.
Our analysis is based on a comparison of reports in the
Pakistani media and on U.S. Cable and Network TV.
The 18 people killed were all villagers of Damadola.
They included a grandmother, two mothers, a new wife,
8 children and six adult males.
Various local people, interviewed by various Pakistani newsmen,
have indicated that neither Ayman al-Zawahiri nor anyone other
than local villagers was there.
Neither U.S. media nor Musharraf's men have visited there,
so the reports they are putting out are not credible.
U.S. media's claim that DNA has been collected from the
victims is false. No one has visited the village for DNA
collection. In any case, the outraged people of Bajaur
would not allow any such desecration.
U.S.' claim that 4 Al-Qaida men, including a top level leader,
were killed in the raid seems to be an American afterthought
projected to give some validity to the bombing. No one in
Pakistan supports this American story.
There were spontaneous anti-American demonstrations in Bajaur
area on January 14. The same day, Jamaate Islami's leader
Qazi Hussain Ahmad urged the nation to demontrate across
the country against American terrorism. At ONE DAY's NOTICE
countless protests were held in Pakistan on January 15.
The Pakistani people see the bombing as blatant aggression
against Pakistan. The bombing was an outright violation
of international law. The U.S. fired 8 missiles at 3 AM
killing 18 defenseless people in their sleep.
The comments of Condileeza Rice, that the Pakistanis more
or less deserved it, and the lack of remorse in the Bush
administration has disillusioned even those Pakistanis
who thought America is fighting against terrorism and for democracy.
The bombing was a gross act of terrorism. Try to imagine,
if the U.S. were to bomb a restaurant in Washington, DC on
the mere SUSPICION that a fugitive was having dinner there.
THINKING OUTSIDE the BOX:
The Pillage of Africa: Which term is appropriate for racists?
Nazi or Zionist-Jew?
[New Trend Special]
We Americans are so influenced by the Jewish version of
history that we use the term "Nazi" almost on an auto-reflex
when we want to refer to someone as extremely racist and
outside the pale of civlization. However, the fact is that
Nazi power was completely extinguished in May 1945 with
the suicide of Hitler. The Nazis are not in power anywhere in the world.
By contrast, the Jews took over Palestine by force of arms,
commiited genocide against the Palestiinian people and
commit crimes against humanity on an ongoing basis. Yet
they are honored in America and have a seat in the United Nations!
They are so good at propaganda that they have pre-empted
criticism of themselves by equating it with "anti-semitism."
Even Hugo Chavez, the left wing leader of Venezuela, is
being accused of anti-semitism!
Isn't it amazing that we Americans, including Muslims,
continue to equate racism against Africans and people
of African descent in its most extreme form as "nazi-ism."
The fact is that Africa [with the exception of one country]
was NOT colonized by Germany but by "Great" Britain, France,
Spain, Italy and Belgium. America brought in neo-colonialism.
France owns NIGER's uranium even today. CONGO's wealth was
drained by Mobutu and other dictatars installed by the CIA.
NIGERIA's oil wealth has left the country poor as the U.S.
backed military transferred millions to European banks.
Israel's hand is visible as Nigeria, a Muslim majority,
was coerced by the U.S. into recognition of Israel.
France killed ONE MILLION Algerians before it would concede
independence. ALGERIA, an Islamic country, was turned into
a wine producing "province" of France. Imagine the sacrilege!
The French left behind anti-Islamic rulers who only years
back used tanks to crush a democratic Islamic movement.
Death squads from the FLN-French backed regime slit the
throats of thousands of Islam supporters and then attributed
the murders to "Islamic extemists."
Belgium nurtured the tiny Tutsi tribe in RWANDA for decades.
The people of Rwanda, the majority Hutus, finally rose
against the Tutsis. Thousands were killed on both sides
but a Tutsi regime is installed in Rwanda with European
backing while the majority Hutus are accused of "genocide,"
thus turning the majority population into refugees and
criminals. Israeli support for the Tutsi-Ugandan army
which installed the present regime is a fact though cleverly concealed.
In SUDAN, the British destroyed Khartoum after the Mahdi
resisted them, and then rebuilt the city in the shape of
the British flag, the Union Jack. Sudan was saved by an
Islamic revival but has faced a civil war in the south
from a rebel group funded by Israel and the U.S., with
a similar scenario now being enacted in Sudan's Darfur
region. Israeli involvement is very evident with DARFUR
propaganda coming right out of the Jewish "holocaust"
museum in Washigton, DC.
In SOUTH AFRICA, the diamonds and gold are still in European
and Jewish hands. AIDS is spreading owing to free flow of
European values. Almost a quarter of the population is
infected in South Africa and in UGANDA. Homosexuality is
being authenticated by worldwide Zionist media.
America's wealth is flowing to Israel in a steady and endless
stream. The JEWISH HAND behind the war in Iraq is very visible,
all the way from Wolfowitz, to Sharon, to Lieberman, to
Richard Perle, to Feith, to foot soldiers like
Judith Miller and Krauthammer.
It's safe to say that if Hitler had not struck deadly blows
at the British and French empires, Africa would not have
had even the nominal independence it has today.
It is time to drop the "nazi" terminology. It's the trojan
horse of Israel and International Jewry. We must think in
terms of today's racists, the Zionist-Jews and their
running dogs like Bush and Cheyney. When Condoleeza Rice
talks openly of the military [nuclear] option against Iran,
although Iran is cooperating with the U.S. in Iraq and
Afghanistan, one can be assured that the Israeli hand is
behind this dirty game.
Imam Warith Deen Umar Gave Good Advice to Siraj Wahhaj,
Mauri Saalakhan etc. Looks Like it was Ignored.
[Siraj Wahhaj is a central leader of America's leading
bootlicker organization ISNA, the so-called Islamic
Society of North America. Mauri Saalakhan is a
self-proclaimed full time human rights "activist"
who travels from mosque to mosque, collecting money
and selling his books. He recently tried to play a
trick on Imam Umar, which we'll look at later. Imam Umar
wants both of them, and others, to come clean in
front of the Muslim Ummah. -Editor]
I've been reluctant to respond to the many calls for the leaders of the
major Muslim organizations to answer the claims, accusations and
positions they have been called upon to answer to. Because I am
directly affected by the decisions of American Muslim leaders, I have
become especially sensitive to their leadership styles. On December 19,
2005 I attended a fund raising event for Muslims Weekly newspaper, a
local New York paper in its sixth year of publication. The major
speakers were Imam Siraj Wahhaj and my friend and brother Al Hajj Mauri
Salaakhan. Also in attendance as a speaker was Imam Taalib Abdur
Rashid, the Imam of Harlem's Mosque of Islamic Brotherhood where I
attend when I'm in New York City. I have known and worked with all of
these brothers for many years, so I thought I would attend the event in
Queens, NY and talk to my brothers.
My question to them, "why won't you (Siraj and Mauri) answer
the charges being leveled against you by New Trend magazine
and others? Did you make those statements that helped convict
Sheikh Omar? Even if the statements given to the courts were
believed to be made by the Sheikh, why would you give the enemy kuffar
anything to help them act against a good Muslim? If you did something
to be ashamed of why won't you humble yourselves and apologize?
I told Mauri, "I need to have these matters answered." I need also to know
about the fund raising. Does Imam Siraj get a portion of what is
raised? If so, how much. I am particularly concerned because the NY
majlis shuurah has agreed to do a fundraiser for my legal defense that
they have yet to honor after more than nine months.
I told my friend Mauri that I am not on a mission to fight or hurt the
Muslim leadership. I am on the brink of calling for the resignation of
those who don't deserve leadership. This will include a careful review
of ISNA, ICNA, CAIR, AMC, MAS, Imam WD Mohamed's association and other
organizations in the forefront of the Muslim communities. I've talked
to and heard from many who want to hear from Mahdi Bray, Johari Abdul
Malik, Siraj Wahhaj, Mauri Saalakhan, NOW. My naseehah (sincere advice)
to these brothers is to come out now. Don't let this linger another
day. Undeserving leadership is dangerous to the Muslims. The person
selected by the NY majlis shuurah to lead the prison Chaplains in New
York is by far the softest and most inappropriate of the 40 or so
possible candidates. He is a good brother. He is the one the government
can most easily rule. Why was he selected? May Allah bless the Muslims
to speak out now. This is an open communication for publication.
Your brother in service to Allah, Imam Warith Deen Umar (Warithuddin
As Salaamu Alaikum
Resist Oppression Always.
Why Mauri Saalakhan did not Answer Query on Siraj Wahhaj?
Because you have Evidence! Does Saalakhan Believe in the Day of Judgement?
[Siraj Wahhaj, a leader of ISNA, Bush's administration's Muslim-pet
organization, is keeping very quiet about the help he gave a Jewish
judge, Michael Mukasey, to send world famous Islamic leader
Dr. Omar 'Abdel Rahman to prison for life. Saalakhan is one of
Siraj's camp followers and tried to defend Siraj. Confronted
with the evidence, Saalakhan has been quiet as a mouse, not
having the moral courage to apologize.-Editor]
As Salâmu `alaikum wa Rahmatullâh wa Barakatullâh,
Regarding the response of El-Hajj Mauri' Saalakhan to
Chandra_ram@hotmail.com, do you think that Mauri Saalakhan did
not know that some people, such as yourself, possess and provide
evidence of whatever information and guidance they report to
the people? Do you think that people who support those who
are anti-Muslim, while claiming to be Muslim, truly believe
in the Day of Judgment? I often wonder about that – What
about the Day of Judgment? Do they fear the crusaders or
fear loss in status or finances more than they fear Allâh
Ta'âlâ? I really do not understand.
Mauri Saalakhan attacked email@example.com because he
or she did not add salutations to her email message, and
then proceeded to defend someone of whom the actual evidence
indicated something totally different from the account
provided by in Marui Saalakhan "opinion." I do not understand.
I really do not understand. Can the crusaders and their
collaborators possibly believe in the Day of Judgment? Or,
do they believe that their straight-faced lies will go over
easily when presented to The Owner of the Day of Judgment?
I truly do not understand. Do you?
However, I do understand why he has not responded to your
letter – you have the evidence. You did not state an opinion
or defend the indefensible. That. I understand.
Chechen Woman, Zara Murtazalieva, Falsely Charged,
in Russian prison for 12 Months, moved just before 3 monthly Family Visit!
The committee Civil Assistance has received information that
Zara Murtazalieva, at present in prison after having been
falsely convicted of terrorism, is awaiting transfer from
Potma prison colony. Held since April of this year, she is
to be moved to a new location.
The committee wrote in a press release on 21 December that
Zara was due in January 2006 for a three-day visit by relatives.
This is allowed every three months for prisoners in such prison colonies.
She was last visited by her mother Toit in October this year.
She said her daughter receives all letters sent to her,
and writes replies. But these never reach their intended readers.
Toit has received no letter from her daughter since October.
According to Toit, her daughter is under special control –
in all probability the prison administration consider her
"a potential escapee".
Svetlana Gannushkina, chairwoman of the committee, directed
an inquiry to Yuri Kalinin, director of the federal service
of the Ministry of Justice, as to why Zara was being moved
to another penal colony. She also raised the question of why
this move should coincide with the next family visit, thus
Civil Assistance wrote in its release to the press that on
17 January 2005, Moscow court judge Marina Komarova found
Zara Murtazalieva guilty of involving her friends in
terrorism and preparing terrorist strikes. She was sentenced
by the judge to nine years' imprisonment. On 17 March, the
sentence was reduced on appeal by six months, as one of the
charges was reformulated.
The committee mentioned that human rights activists firmly
believe that based on examination with the details
surrounding the case, the charges against the young
Chechen woman were completely false.
The group Common Action has appealed to Amnesty International
to have Zara Murtazalieva recognised as a political prisoner.
German Woman Gives Inside Account of Iraqi Kidnapers:
They do not Harm Women, Children.
'My kidnappers were not criminals'
Monday 26 December 2005, 22:39 Makka Time, 19:39 GMT
A former German hostage who spent 24 days in the hands of
unknown captors in Iraq has said her kidnappers are not
criminals and have demanded humanitarian aid for Sunni Arab regions.
Speaking to Aljazeera satellite channel, Susanne Osthoff said
her captors told her not to be afraid as her kidnapping was
"Do not be afraid. We do not harm women or children and you
are a Muslim," she quoted them as saying. "I was so happy
to know that I had not fallen into the hands of criminals."
Osthoff, a Muslim convert and Arabic speaker, said her captors
demanded German humanitarian aid for Iraq's Sunni Arabs and
stated clearly that they did not want a ransom.
"They said we don't want money ... Maybe we want from Germany
... hospitals and schools in the Sunni triangle [area northwest
of Baghdad], and they would like to get money in the form of
She described her captors as "poor people" and said that she
"cannot blame them for kidnapping her, as they cannot enter
[Baghdad's heavily fortified] Green Zone to kidnap Americans."
She said she lived with her captors in a clean place and that
they treated her "well".
But she repeated more than once that she "was sold", without
making clear what she meant, while expressing her shock at
Berlin's failure to contact her captors.
Osthoff, 43, and Shalid al-Shimani, her Iraqi driver, were
seized on 25 November in the northwestern Nineveh province
of Iraq. She was freed on 18 December, as was her driver.
Who is on trial?
Last week saw the start of the trial in London of
Abu Hamza al-Masri who is charged with 15 offences
relating to comments he made in sermons and talks whilst
he was Imam at Finsbury Park Mosque. Four of his charges
have been brought under the Public Order Act 1986, claiming
he used "threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour
with the intention of stirring up racial hatred". At the same
time, Iqbal Sacranie, the head of the Muslim Council of Britain
(MCB) was also investigated by the police for offences under
this same act after he made comments about homosexuality and
'civil partnerships' (gay marriages) on BBC Radio 4. The
furore surrounding these events has focused not just on
the individuals concerned and their alleged comments, but
also on Muslims living in the West and their aspirations
for the Islamic world. At times it appears that Islam itself is on trial.
At the beginning of Abu Hamza's trial, David Perry the
prosecuting Barrister for the British government, stressed
the case was "not a trial against Islam", or against
its holy book the Qur'an, but had been brought "because of
what the defendant said". However, the prosecution's
case presented by Mr Perry shows that this is not true,
and in fact this trial is clearly about prosecuting certain
Islamic concepts and trying to undermine them in the minds of Muslims.
On the concept of jihad Mr Perry told the court that most Muslims
take jihad to refer to an internal spiritual struggle, whereas
the defendant's idea of "jihad" did not mean an inner spiritual
struggle against sin, but instead physical fighting and murder
of those who would not submit to "the true path" of Islam.
However, this view of jihad as an "internal spiritual struggle"
is definitely not the mainstream view amongst Muslims as Mr Perry alleges.
The physical resistance to the occupation of Muslim lands
whether in Palestine, Iraq, Chechnya, Afghanistan or Kashmir
is termed jihad, and is not an extremist idea. Rather this
resistance has wide support amongst Muslims and even many
non-Muslims. The situation is not so different under
International Law which grants a people fighting an illegal
occupation the right to use 'all necessary means at their
disposal' to end their occupation and the occupied 'are
entitled to seek and receive support'. Thus the notions
are similar in both traditions though Islam doesn't provide
such an open license and constrains the conduct of such
resistance. If this is the mainstream Islamic legal position
and International legal position, then Mr Perry's linking
of jihad as 'physical fighting' to murder and presenting
it as a minority and extremist opinion, is an outrageous
attempt to distort Islam.
On the concept of a caliphate the prosecution told the court
that the [accused] "He is working for a worldwide
caliphate - a world dominated by a caliph sitting in the
White House.", and out of a possible 2700 audio tapes
and 570 video cassettes the prosecution chose their first
video to be shown, as a talk on how to establish a
caliphate. Those areas of the video highlighted by the
prosecution and quoted as headlines in the media promoted
the view that establishing the caliphate required "bleeding
the enemy" and must involve fighting the Muslim governments.
Again this was an attempt to malign the concept of a caliphate
by showing it as an extremist concept and attempting to show
the work for its establishment as a violent struggle. The
British Prime Minister did the same when he referred to the
idea of a caliphate as being part of an 'evil ideology'.
However, the majority of Muslims wish to see the liberation
and unification of the Ummah through the re-establishment
of the caliphate and millions of Muslims worldwide are working
for its re-establishment through political and non-violent
means. The momentum for the return of the caliphate is growing
at an exceptional rate and it has become the main aspiration
of the Muslim masses. In an article by Karl Vick in the
Washington Post, 'Reunified Islam: Unlikely but Not Entirely
Radical' the author interviews many ordinary people in the
streets and cafes of Turkey. Some of their comments included,
"I wish there was a caliphate again, because if there was a
caliphate all the Muslims would unite," and "Before the end
of the Ottoman Empire, there was no problem in the Islamic countries."
The responses made by prominent politicians and journalists to
Iqbal Sacranie's comments on homosexuality and 'civil partnerships',
are clearly aimed at Islam itself and not just the well known
Islamic view on this issue. The criticism leveled against the
head of the MCB has gone beyond that which has been directed
at other religious groups who have said similar things. Rather,
there has been an underlying overtone that when Muslims speak
on contemporary issues they immediately become a 'problem' or
'threat' to British society and are invariably asked to leave
the country if they don't like it. As one of the many 'bloggers'
commented "If Iqbal doesn't like it here, he could go to any
number of Islamic countries where he would no doubt be warmly
welcomed." Alan Duncan, the first openly gay Conservative
MP said: "This is an absurd medieval view. One should separate
the religious from the secular. Such general condemnation is no
longer acceptable in a civilised modern world." Stephen Pound,
the Labour MP for Eailing North, said: "It's a cruel and vicious
blow to strike against people who are born the way they are.
We are living in 21st-century northern Europe, not 7th-century
Arabia." Evan Harris, the Liberal Democrat spokesman on human
rights, said: "To imply that homosexuality itself was
unacceptable is a form of intolerance that's deplorable."
There was a notable silence from these same politicians
when family values campaigner Lynette Burrows took part
in a discussion on BBC Radio Five Live last month, where
she also voiced her opposition to 'civil partnerships' and
the proposals to allow 'gay couples' to adopt children.
Although she too has been investigated by the police, the
media and politicians far from condemning her views actually
supported her stance. Melanie Philips a well-known pro-Israeli
and anti-Muslim journalist wrote "So voicing concern about
gay adoption now gets the police to finger your collar.
Expressing the 'wrong' opinion is no longer considered
acceptable by the state, which has decided what views are
acceptable and what are not. Is this not the definition
of a police state? And are the views of Lynette Burrows
not shared by many, if not most, of the population?"
Melanie Philips remained unsurprisingly silent over the
same comments made by a Muslim -Iqbal Sacranie-highlighting
further the hypocrisy and real agenda behind comments made
against any Muslim who speaks about topical issues.
No doubt over the coming weeks as the anti-terrorism
bill goes through parliament and Abu Hamza's trial
continues more Islamic concepts will be placed "in the
dock". It's important at this time not to allow the
Islamic concepts to be maligned and be shown as the view
of a minority of 'extremists'. Instead Muslims must
explain the correct Islamic concepts and not fall in
to the media trap of becoming defensive and then twisting
the concepts to what the media and politicians want to hear.
2006-01-24 Tue 09:49:10 cst