Rabi' al-Thani 19,1427/May 17, 2006 #31
THINKING ABOUT AFRICA: Editor's musings:
It's the richest continent in the world but its people
are among the poorest. Why? A young speaker from
Sierra Leone whom I met warns about "blood
diamonds." The blood of the African people might well
be on the diamonds De Beers sells [Jews again?].
Aids is rampant in South Africa. Rape and
dishonor of women is rife. Mandela's deal with Europe
and America did not pay off. The Eurpean life style
is destroying South Africa with AIDS. Like the small
pox blankets the White man gave the Red man, the
European no-holds barred sexuality, which randomizes
fornication, legitimizes adultery, honors homosexuality
and opens up the doors to child pornography, is
undermining the foundations of South Africa.
By contrast, northern Nigeria is still safe
from AIDS because the masses of people there opted
for SHAR'IA. Africa is 80% Muslim but the missionaries
are hard at work, preaching European ideas while
hobnobbing with Israel.
Sierra Leone: What a tragedy! The workers in the
diamond mines get 30 cents a day and no
Sierra Leonese can own a diamond!
BLOOD DIAMONDS > DE BEERS. Think about it.
Bush claimed Saddam Hussain was buying raw uranium
from NIGER but poor Niger does not own any
of its uranium. It's all owned by FRANCE!
New Trend urges readers to visit Africa, before
the missionaries successfully enslave it. Go to
Nigeria, Uganda, Ghana, Senegal, Mali, Egypt.
Ah Egypt, the African land from whence came
the blind Shaikh, Dr. Omar 'Abdel Rahman, his
heartfelt recitation of the Qur'an now buried in
an American cell in the Mid-West, his teachings about
Jihad [it is Fard 'Ayn, he taught before all the people
of modern jihad] now a worldwide phenomenon. We live in
times of American terror and British hypocrisy! Strange
times, in which a stranger, Islam, is gradually
re-emerging from the pages of the Qur'an, and the
glorious example of Muhammad of Arabia, peace be on
him is becoming a reality for many young people,
especially in Africa.
The people of West Africa believed that Bilal, r.a.,
had moved from Arabia to live among them and they were
his descendants. Did you read the epic of
Son Jara carefully?
PERSONAL from the Editor of New Trend: It's quite a
treat for me to receive a handwritten letter from
David Irving who is languishing in a prison in
Vienna, in the fake democracy of Austria. Mr. Irving
got my letter of March 28 on April 18 owing to censorship.
He is allowed to have all kinds of mail but the JUDGE
HIMSELF reads the mail sent to him.
The indefatigable Mr. Irving is working even in prison
on his book on Heinrich Himmler. Mr. Irving is ever the
optimist. He believes, he will be released in December
and his new lawyer has lodged an appeal for this purpose.
He has sacked his previous lawyer as "incompetent."
Mr. Irving's memory is so good that he remembers me from
among the thousands he met in his trips across America.
He begins his letter thus: " Dear Kaukab. It seems ages
since we last met in DC."
If you would like to donate to the 'David Irving Legal
Fighting Fund,' let me know. I have his account number.
See below my introduction to David Irving's stunning book
Nuremburg: The Last Battle. It will help you to understand,
in terms of World War II history, the pseudo-legal process,
the mind-set, the double standards being used AGAINST
SADDAM HUSSAIN by the Americans and their allies. It will
help you to understand the basics of international law so
you won't be fooled by the ongoing propaganda to legalize
the occupation of Iraq.
Correction on Nigeria:
[Re: New Trend report on clashes in Maiduguri]
I just want to make a little correction on the write up about Nigeria.
Maiduguri is actually inhabited by the kanuri who claimed
to have migrated from Yeman. Kanuri was derived from
the Arabic Kan Nur.
Maiduguri is not dominated by the Evvera, please.
Letter: [Re: Question which New Trend published from Br. Shoaib, UK]
Question about Muslim Women who Wear Face Covering
[Niqab],Cloaks and Gloves
Hope you are well. As always, I feel encouraged by your articles.
I, too, would like the answer to the last letter
regarding niqab and black. Our local mosque
contains the kind of men who will not speak to, give
salam to or acknowledge a woman who is in the mosque.
However, at a social pot luck gathering, not within
the confines of the prayer area, they will speak to
a sister, and if met up with in a private home, will
also speak with the sister. None of this makes any
logical sense. It appears to be Saudization. In addition,
there is a trend of American women who live 24 hours in
a "scarf", including when in an inner room with only
other women and no possibility of being seen by a man
and they usually wear the abaya constantly as well, even
when with women. I am very uncomfortable with these
kinds of gatherings. This trend seems only to be here
in the US. Certainly, in Saudi, it is not done, as I
have personally experienced. Is it not a form of bidaa?
May Allah continue to bless your endeavors.
Bilquis [Gaithersburg, Maryland]
Reply by Kaukab Siddique:
I talked to a sister who dresses the way you have
described before answering you.
My answer will, hopefully, bring out the complexity of the issue.
i. There is nothing in the Qur'an or the Hadith which
makes it obligatory for Muslim women to wear the
niqab or face covering. In fact the two verses
of the Qur'an about outer-garments do not not contain
any word for the "face." 
To the contrary, hadith indicate that women
companions of the Prophet Muhammad, pbuh, did not
cover their faces. [1a]
ii. Many Muslims and their opponents are often
confused by verses of the Qur'an which refer to
the wives of the Prophet, pbuh, when men were
commanded to speak to his wives from in front
of a hijab or screen. The ruling became
necessary because the Prophet's [pbuh] home was
very small and visitors could look right int
his private apartments.
These verses do not apply to all Muslims and the
distinction of the wives of the Prophet, pbuh,
is clearly stated in the Qur'an.
iii. However, in the verses of the Qur'an about
outer-garments for women, there is scope for
interpretation. If a woman sincerely follows an
interpretation which leads to her covering her face
and wearing black clothes and gloves, we should respect
her for her sincerity. Is she following [sincerely and
without pressure] an interpretation of the Qur'an? If
so, please don't crticize her. In fact I would honor
her because, like the sister I talked to, she is
rejecting the "take it off" culture of materialism.
iv. I would urge Muslims to stop making women's dress
a topic of discussion. The issue for every Muslim
should be: Is he/she supporting or opposing the power
structure? Is he/she standing up against kufr
[rejection of Allah's guidance], tughyan [authority
based on laws other than those of Allah], and nifaq
[hypocrisy]? Don't we see men with beards and women
all covered up rushing off to White House briefings
or talking about the "liberation of Iraq [!]" and
"democracy in Afghanistan [!]." If tawheed and honor
of the Prophet, pbuh, is not part of a Muslim's life,
and the struggle of the Muslims worldwide is not relevant
to a person's consciousness, then the dress does not make
v. Muslims nowadays do not realize that Allah taught
men FIRST how to behave towards women. Our men often
do not know how to talk to women. Either they don't
talk to them at all or they become too familiar, but
that's a separate subject....
1. "And say to the believing women that they
should lower their gaze and guard their modesty;
that they should not display their beauty and
ornaments except what (ordinarily) appear thereof;
that they should draw their coverings over their
bosoms, and not display their beauty except to their
husbands ...." The Qur'an 24:31.
"O Prophet! Tell thy wives and daughters, and the
believing women, that they should cast their
outergarments over their persons [when out of doors]:
That is most convenient, that they should be known
(as such) and not molested. And Allah is oft-Forgiving,
Most Merciful." 33:59.
[This verse also indicates that the Prophet, pbuh,
had MORE than one daughter, which the Shi'a sect denies.]
1a. From Zainab, r.a., the wife of Abdullah, r.a.,
"I was in the masjid [mosque] when the messenger of
Allah saw me and said .... "[Hadith Sahih Muslim, kitabuz-zakat]
Same Hadith in a slightly different narration goes
on to say: "Bilal, r.a., came out and we asked him:
Go to the messenger of Allah and say that there are
two women at the door....the messenger of Allah asked:
Who are they? Bilal, r.a., replied: A woman of the Ansar
and Zainab. The messenger of Allah asked: which Zainab?
Bilal, r.a., replied: The wife of Abdullah." [Hadith, Sahih Muslim]
2. "... Such behavior annoys the Prophet: he is too
shy to dismiss you....And when ye ask [his wives] for
anything ye want, ask them from before a screen
[hijab]..." The Qur'an 33:53.
3. "O wives of the Prophet! Ye are not like any
other women..." 33:32 [This is another verse which
shows the superiority of 'Ayesha, r.a., and other
Mothers of the believers over all other Muslim women,
including the daughters of the Prophet, pbuh, one of
whom the Shia sect tries to extol beyond the limits
acceptable in Islam.]
Nuremburg: Anatomy of Injustice Posing as
Rule of Law. World War II Drama helps Explain
the Show Trial of President Saddam Hussain.
by Kaukab Siddique
Nuremburg. The Last Battle by David Irving,
377 pages plus 32 pages of photographs, hardback,
1996, Focal Point, $25. [A few copies are available
from New Trend, P.O. Box 356, Kingsville, MD 21087.]
Most people today take for granted that Hitler
violated international law while the victorious
allies adhered to the rule of law and built a postwar
world based on justice. Hitler was the devil incarnate
and committted the most heinous acts imaginable
against the people of Europe, yet, we are told even
Nazi criminals were given full benefit of due process,
with defense attorneys, documentary evidence and witnesses.
Similar stories are being told today about Iraq's President
Saddam Hussain and the "justice" being meted out to him
and his cronies. Few people know that this pattern of
justice has been borrowed almost wholesale from the
Nuremburg trial of German leaders.
Irving's book, Nuremburg, can be a shattering
experience for those who believe that the victors of
World War II meted out even-handed justice to the
alleged German warmongers and the perpetrators
of the Jewish "Holocaust."
With telling brevity, Irving sums up the objective
of the conferences, starting June 1945, the victorious
powers held before the trials: "...their purpose was
to choose the defendants, and to draft the new laws
they were to be accused of having broken, and the
rules of the court which was RETROACTIVELY to apply
those laws." [p. 69, emphasis added.] Thus the allies
were preparing the entire format into which the
defendants they selected would be trapped. Incredibly,
after it was all over, the United Nations declared on
December 10, 1948 that RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION of
criminal law is a VIOLATION of HUMAN RIGHTS!
[Families of Muslim prisoners in the U.S. should check this out.]
Yet the Allies were concerned that the German leaders
would escape the clutches of of the show trial by
invoking two major principles of defense strategy:
That as soldiers they were simply following the
orders of their superiors and could not do otherwise
under a dictator like Hitler, and secondly that under
the rule of tu quoque ["you did it too"] the
Germans could not be prosecuted for crimes similar
to which the Allies themselves had committed.
[P. 109] So the Allies put together a ruling called
the London Statute under which such defense was inadmissable.
ATROCITIES AGAINST GERMANS
In his typical low key style, Irving patiently but
systematically points out from the Archives of the
Allies themselves that they had committed crimes
against the Germans very similar to those which
they accused the Germans of having committed. The
book has an astounding photograph of an American
soldier machinegunning ordinary German soldiers
who had been taken prisoner at Dachau while other
U.S. troops look on. Five hundred and forty of the
German POWs, including "a doctor carrying a Red
Cross flag" were thus summarily executed.
[Irving found the photo in the U.S. Army Signal Corp
documents deposited in the National Archives in Washington, DC.]
One of America's most famous heroes, General
George S. Patton, has entries in his private diaries
about the executions of German prisoners of war. One
rather quaint one reads: "There were also some
unfortunate incidents in the shooting of prisoners.
I hope we can conceal this." [p.45]
No senior American or allied officer was put on trial
for the execution of prisoners.
Most unfit to sit in judgement at Nuremburg was the
Soviet Union [today's Russia] which had perpetrated
mass murder and rape on a scale almost unknown in
human history as its armies advanced into Germany
[comparable only to the slaughter of American
"Indians" and the 400 years of slavery in America
but in a much shorter time]. The most sickening
aspect of the Soviet Russian behavior was that
while judging Germany, the Russians knew full well
that they had wiped out the ENTIRE officer corp
of the Polish army and buried the executed
officers in the forest of Katyn. The Russians
claimed that the Germans had murdered the Polish
officers. The Russians went to the extent of of
publicly hanging in Leningrad "several German
officers whom their judges found guilty of the
murders in the Katyn forest." [Only after the
fall of Stalin were the mass murders in Katyn
admitted by the USSR and the gory details were
given out much later.]
The book provides a wealth of information which
shows that the victors who judged Germany at
Nuremburg were devils themselves and had absolutely
no high moral ground from which to judge the Germans
however evil they might have been. Be it in waging
war or in violation of neutrality rights or the
destruction of civilian populations, the Allies
had outdone the Germans. The city of Nuremburg,
where the trial was held, itself had been subjected
to genocide by the occupation forces. Irving has a
memorable photo of American tanks rolling through
the streets of the devastated city of Nuremburg
where thousands of German civilians lay dead under
the ruins [not unlike Iraq and Afghanistan where
"democracy" is being installed on the uncounted
piles of the Muslim dead.]
HOW the AUSCHWITZ STORY BEGAN:
A coalition of Jewish organizations sent their
lawyers to meet the chief American prosecutor at
Nuremburg, Judge Jackson, and gave him the now
famous figure of SIX MILLION JEWS killed by Hitler.
This meeting was on June 11, 1945! The war had
ended hardly a month back and there was no way
this figure of Jewish losses could have been counted
in a scientifically acceptable way. Jackson was
skeptical. He wanted to know how the figure was
computed? [Jackson noted in his diary that he had
no "authentic data" on the Jewish losses. Jackson
had more information available to him at that time
than any other American]
The Jewish attorney, Dr. Jacob "Robinson said that
he had arrived at his figure by extrapolation from
the known statistics for the Jewish population in
1929 and those believed to be surviving now." [p.62]
With his wry sense of humor, Irving comments:"his
figure was somewhere between a hopeful estimate and
an educated guess." Incredibly this SIX MILLION figure,
drawn out of thin air, has become the bedrock of Jewish
propaganda about World War II.
How a "Confession" Was Extracted from the Commandant of Auschwitz:
After the war, Rudolf Hoss, the first commandant of
Auschwitz, where it is claimed that 4 millions Jews
were "gassed," went into hiding. On March 11, 1946,
British military police forced his wife to reveal his
place of hiding. He was captured and handcuffed for
three weeks. He was stripped naked and beaten repeatedly
till a medical officer warned the British soldiers: "Call
them off unless you want to take back a corpse." He was
marched naked through a blizzard to his cell where he was
"kept awake" and repeatedly interrogated. Three British
soldiers jabbed him with pick axes every time he fell
asleep. [Forty years later, one of the soldiers gave
these details in an interview with the
Wrexham Leader of October 17, 1986.]
Thus Hoss signed a "confession" which was submitted
to the Nuremburg Tribunal as document No-1210 and
went on to become the basis of the Jewish propaganda
about Auschwitz. Later Hoss was so much broken down
that he signed a "confession" written in English of
which he could not understand a word. His "confession"
was explained to him and he then had to support in
court everything he had allegedly done, including a
claim that he had "gassed" 2.5 million Jews. He hoped
that he would escape execution but after every kind
of atrocity story had been extracted from him, he was
handed over to Poland and executed on April 2, 1947.
LOOK AT PARALLELS in the ONGOING DRAMA of SADDAM
HUSSAIN: After the destruction of Iraq's infrastructure
in 42 days of bombing and the decade of sanctions which
left a million Iraqis dead, Saddam Hussain is on trial.
Five Iraqi cities have been destroyed. Fallujah went
down house by house mosque by mosque. On the ruins of
Iraq, not unlike the shattered city of Nuremburg,
Saddam is being tried for crimes not very different
from those of his tormentors
2006-05-17 Wed 19:48:24 cdt