News  #  1008
[ Arabic ][ Deutsch ][ Español ][ Français ][ Italiano ]

Dr Kaukab Siddique | Editor-in-Chief Zulhijjah 22,1426/January 23, 2006 #6

[Scroll down 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.]

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 Umar)

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, 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 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.

Hamdiyah Fatimah

Charleston, SC

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 rendered impossible.

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.

2005-12-24 11:58:48

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 "politically motivated".

"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 humanitarian aid."

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."

Treated well

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