News  #  1226
[ Click on NEWS for back issues ][ OUR BOOKS ]

Dr Kaukab Siddique | Editor-in-Chief Jamada al-Thani 17,1429/ June 21, 2008, #35

Foreigners run America? Scroll way down to see list of foreigners with dual nationalities.

August 16, 2008: [re: Br. Aziz]
International Islamic Conference for Peace and Awareness: A First in U.S. Muslim History
Challenging the forces of war, conquest and Hegemony

This is your invitation from Imam Badi Ali, North Carolina, Convener of the August 16 conference.

This will be a historic conference, inshallah. It's not in any way like the usual conferences held by Muslims in America. If it were a conference like other conferences, there would be no need to hold it.

Conferences are quite common in American Muslim communities. They are held for a variety of local reasons:

Some are held to support the U.S. government and to condemn "terrorism."
Some are held to raise money for various projects and buildings.
Some are held for socializing, making "Islamic music," selling goods and for finding marriage partners.
Still others are held to extol personalities and individuals.
Some are held under the topic of civic responsibilities as if Muslims don't know how to do their daily work as Muslims.
Last but not least, there are gatherings to learn elementary Islamic rituals like the salat and to work together to live as Muslims.

We are inviting you to a conference which is about war and peace from an Islamic viewpoint. The direction of the Muslim ummah in America needs to be changed. These are times of transformation and cataclysm. America and the world are in the grip of global conflict. Instead of being the objects of other peoples' agendas and constantly working for the program of the American power structure, we need to come up with independent assessments of the situation.

The American people need to know what is really going on. From the Islamic viewpoint, war is totally counterproductive for America and is causing mass death and destruction in Muslim lands with spiraling poverty and suffering around the world.
Bombs cannot defeat the Muslims. Israel cannot defeat the Muslims. Iraq and Afghanistan have absorbed countless American bombs and remain undefeated and resurgent.
Palestine has suffered beyond all suffering but stands strong and defiant. We must come up with solutions which are viable and honest.

Q & A
Does Islam say that the Wife Should Obey the Husband? Why are Marriages under Stress?

Several readers have pointed to Saudi-linked lists which are propagating the claim according to Islam, the wife should Obey the husband. The Saudi-influenced scholars are saying that if a wife leaves the house for any reason, she must ask her husband's permission. They say that even the woman's voice is "awrah" and should not be heard. If she travels, she must be accampanied by her husband or a male relative. What do the Qur'an and the Hadith really say? Here is the response from Dr. Kaukab Siddique:

Answer by Br. Kaukab Siddique: We must realize that according to the Qur'an, authority belongs to ALLAH ALONE. [1] Any attempt to give authority to any human being is SHIRK, which is the only sin Allah does not forgive.
The Qur'an is a progressive revelation which went through stages of development of the Muslim woman and the Muslim male. In the final analysis, male-female relations in Islam are based on TAQWA [Fear of Allah, God-conscious behavior], not on gender. [2]
In the FINAL revelation about men and women, the Qur'an proclaimed without ambiguity that the believing men and women are EACH OTHER'S protecting friends and guardians, not the woman under the domain of the male. [3]

The Qur'an proclaimed the EQUALITY of men and women even in such an advanced, complex and cooperative venture as jihad.[4]

Allah Almighty categorically places women TOGETHER in ALL aspects of Islamic endeavor, without the slightest shade of inferiority for women. [5]

The Prophet Muhammad, pbuh, took an oath of allegiance from women which covered their entire existence but does not include obedience to the husband. [6]
In the earliest stage of the Muslim community in Madinah, Muslim men were given the authority to discipline their wives in cases of sexual misconduct [without causing any significant hurt], but this was taken away at the next stage when in cases of alleged sexual misconduct, all that a man could do was to swear that he was telling the truth. If the wife took a similar oath, the marriage would be dissolved. [7] Most apologist Muslims focus on this early development in Islam and ignore the rest of the Qur'an.

In times of insecurity and war, in long journeys, the Prophet, pbuh, ordained that a woman should travel with her husband or a male relative. This was meant to help the woman and to provide security, not to put the woman under the control of her husband. The issue of travel is used by some scholars to argue that the wife must obey the husband. There is a whole series of omissions, either dishonest or out of ignorance, carried out to use this issue. The following Hadith is quoted:

Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet (p.b.u.h) said, "It is not permissible for a woman who believes in Allah and the Last Day to travel except with a Mahram." [Bukhari]

However, that is not the complete Hadith. Here it is with the key words in bold type: The Prophet (p.b.u.h) said, "It is not permissible for a woman who believes in Allah and the Last Day to travel for one day and night except with a Mahram." [Bukhari]

One day and night connotes a long journey. Nowadays, one can travel halfway around the world in a day and a night. This is certainly not about a woman going shopping or to meet her friends down in the city. In those days, it was dangerous and one could lose life, goods and honor to bandits on the way. There were no highways or electric lights on the sandy desert.

However, the misuse of Hadith does not end there. These scholars do not note the context and do not let anyone know that restrictions were put on males too. Here are the relevant Hadith:

The Prophet, pbuh, said: "Travel is a kind of punishment. It limits food, drink and sleep. When you have completed the requirements of travel, return quickly to your family." [Bukhari and Muslim.]

The Prophet Muhammad, pbuh, spent much of his life in Madinah in jihad. He traveled extensively for jihad and hence there are numerous hadith about travel and its rules. It's a shame for modern Muslims [such as the Saudi elites] who have never even spoken against the oppressors, let alone gone for jihad, that they should be using the words of the greatest liberator of women, Muhammad Mustafa, pbuh, to try and subjugate women.

When a man went out for a journey, his life was often in danger. Here is another Hadith on the subject which stops men from going forth alone:
The messenger of Allh, pbuh, said: "A horseman going alone is satanic. If there are two going by themselves, they are two satans. and three is the proper [recommended] caravan." [Sunan of Abu Dawood and Sunan of Nasa'i]
The messenger of Allah, pbuh, said; "If people knew what I know about the bad aspects of traveling alone, no one would travel alone at night." [Sahih Bukhari]

The Islamic solution, the Prophet, pbuh, gave was excellent but we Muslims have forgotten it. Where possible, especially where satanic forces are at work, Muslims should travel in groups, even if these are very small groups, and the traveling should be well organized:
The messenger of Allah, pbuh, said: "When three of you travel, make one of your companions the ameer." [Sunan of Abu Dawood]

We are living in times where travel conditions are being affected by the antagonistic activities of our enemies. So go forth prepared:
Someone asked the messenger of Allah: "O messenger of Allah, I have the intention of travel. Please advise me. He [the messenger, pbuh,} replied: "The fear and awareness of Allah [taqwa] should always be with you, and at every high point [in the journey] say takbeer!" [Sunan of Tirmidhi]. [8]

So, if obedience to the husband is not a part of Islam, how should the family be organized? Wouldn't there be chaos if there is no "captain" of the team? This argument ignores the Islamic principle of organization which is called SHOORA or mutual consultation leading to decision making based on discussion, consent and consensus. There is a chapter of the Qur'an titled Shoora. Allah ordains in this chapter that ALL matters of Muslim activity must be carried out by mutual consultation and consent. [9] Even the Prophet, pbuh, divinely inspired as he was, received the command to consult with the believers. [10]
Maulana Maudoodi's tafsir [commentary] on the verse of Shoora is the best among all tafsirs. Here is the key excerpt:

"...Mutual consultation [shoora] is an essential requirement of the moral character Islam wants to teach the human being. Evasion of shoora is a major immorality which islam can never permit. The Islamic way of life requires that the principle of shoora should be used in all social relationships, big or small. In domestic life, the husband and the wife should do mutual shoora and when children grow up, they too should be included in the family shoora. When matters of the entire extended family are involved, all the sane and adult family members should be involved. If an entire tribe or clan is to be affected and all of them cannot be in the shoora process, by an agreed upon method their representatives should be included in a tribal majlis. If an entire nation is involved, the leader of the nation should be chosen by the will of the people and should manage national affairs with the help of the shoora members whom the nation considers trustworthy...." [Tafhimul Qur'an, vol.4, p.509]

In Islam, the husband and the wife are each others' friends and comrades. It's not a relationship of dominance and submission. Communication and discussion are the keys to successful Islamic marriage. Attempts at dominance and control are bound to create stress and the slow deterioration of the relationship, however well it might have started.
Men often do not listen to the nuances of what the wife says. Muhammad, pbuh, did. Women communicate differently from men. The Prophet, pbuh, knew that. Let's follow his example. One won't find him , in ALL of Hadith literature, trying to suppress and subordinate 'Ayesha, r.a., or any other woman.

Textual notes: [Emphasis added.]
1. "Say: For me, I have an obvious sign from my Lord, but you reject it. What you would see hastened is not in my power. Authority belongs to Allah alone. He declares the Truth, and He is the best of Judges." [The Qur'an 6:57.]
"Men are then returned to Allah, their Protector, the Reality. Authority belongs to Him Alone. and He is the swiftest in taking account." [6:62]
[Yusuf, pbuh, said] "If not Him, ye worship nothing but names which ye have named - ye and your fathers - for which Allah has sent you no ruling: Authority is for None but Allah; He has commanded that ye worship none but Him; that is the right religion but most people understand not." [12:40]
[Jacob, pbuh, said] "O my sons! enter not all by one gate: enter ye by different gates. Not that I can benefit you against Allah! None has authority other than Allah. On Him do I put my trust, and let all that trust put their trust on Him." [12:67.]
"And He is Allah: there is no god but He! To Him be praise at the first and at the last! To Him belongs Authority and to Him shall ye all be brought back." [28:70]
[Notice that even Prophets like Jacob and Yusuf have no authority. There is no question of an ordinary person like the husband having authority.]
[Some translators use the word "command' for hukm or Authority but that is an incorrect translation. Command is 'Amr. However hukm has other uses too depending on the Qur'anic context.]

2. "O mankind! We created you from male and female and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other. Surely the noblest of you with Allah are the ones among you who are best in conduct [taqwa]. Surely Allah is All Knowing, Aware." [49:13]

3. "The believers, men and women are protectors and guardians [awliyya] of each other. They enjoin what is just and fobid what is evil: they establish prayer , give zakat regularly, and they obey Allah and His messenger. On them will Allah pour His mercy, for Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise. Allah has promised the believers, men and women, gardens under which rivers flow, to dwell therein, and beautiful mansions, in Gardens of everlasting bliss. But the greatest Bliss is the Pleasure of [acceptance by] Allah. That is the supreme felicity." [9:71-72]
[Commentators agree that these were the final verses revealed on this subject.]

4. "And their Lord has accepted of them and answered them: 'Never will I allow to be lost the efforts of any of you, be ye male or female: Ye are from each other. Those [men and women] who left their homes, or have been driven out from there or suffered injuries in My cause, or fought or been slain, - surely I will blot out from their sins and admit them into Gardens with rivers flowing beneath, - a reward from the presence of Allah, and from His Presence is the best of rewards.' " [3:195]

5. The Qur'an 33:35

6. 60:12

7. 4:34. Modernists have expended much energy on this verse, in trying to change its meaning. They forgot that the Qur'an was revealed progressively over two decades. If this progression is not taken into account, one can be involved in tahrif [distortion] of the Qur'an, a deadly sin. For instance, see the next development of the husband-wife relationship in 24:6-9, where the husband is no longer called on to discipline his wife. [Islam followed a similar progression in dealing with intoxicants, interest and jihad.]

8. For the sake of Islam, women often traveled alone, as in the first hijra to Ethiopia and the great hijra to Yathrib.

9. The Qur'an, chapter 42, verse 38.

10: 3: 159

Jamaat al-Muslimeen [News] [4 items only]
P.O. Box 10881
Baltimore, MD 21234

New War Budget is a Slap in the Face of the American People. House passes $162B for wars in Iraq, Afghanistan

WASHINGTON (AP) The House has voted to provide $162 billion for President Bush to carry out U.S. military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan through the end of his term.
The 268 to 155 vote would bring to more than $600 billion the amount provided by Congress for the war in Iraq since it started five years ago. For operations in Afghanistan, it comes to almost $200 billion, according to congressional analysts.
The bill would give Bush's successor several months to set Iraq policy after taking office in January and spares lawmakers the need to cast any more war funding votes closer to Election Day.
Comment: Is it a surprise that there was little or no commentary on this massive war budget, and NO CRITICISM, by the Zionist-Corporate media! They were busy discussing Michelle Obama's appearance on "The View" [a pro-lesbian gossip show].

Hijab in Support of Kufr ?: Obama gets Blind affirmation from Confused Muslims

Two Muslim women in hijab [an incorrect term for head covering] who sat down behind Obama during his Michigan rally were removed drastically and quickly by Obama's organizers. Obama, like the good politician he is, did damage control and called the two women to say sorry.

The worst part of this episode is that the two women later stated their ongoing support for Obama in spite of the treatment they had received. [Treat us as you will, we are still your servants.] Looks like the women have no idea of the significance of hijab. It stands for the rejection of the power of kufr and tughyan. To wear hijab and then to support someone who is the champion of Israel, who dare not support his own church and his own pastor, shows that the women are totally confused. There are many women who wear hijab for traditional and family reasons and have no idea what it means.

Dirty organizations which have Muslim names, like CAIR and ISNA, have worked hard to support this confusion. They support Keith Ellison who started his campaign from a synagogue, spent his holidays in Israel and visited Karzai to show backing for his agent regime. Like Qadianis, ISNA and CAIR people often have beards and their women cover their heads, but they are to be found wherever cooperation with the oppressors is underway. CAIR has been announcing that FBI rep will be at its banquets. [Check their official invitations.]

Gross Violations of Islam by ISNA, MAS and ADAMS Center: Playing with Minds of Muslim Children.

When we noted that ISNA's "Islamic" Horizons paper had published a full page advertisement urging Muslims to join FBI as Special Agents, one of our readers said that ISNA-CAIR have reached their lowest point of nifaq [hypocrisy] and can't get any lower.

Our reader was wrong. ISNA did go even lower. We have received ISNA's "Islamic" Horizons paper and it has a photo showing little Muslim girls [23 of them] wearing hijab and standing in the Pentagon. A bearded, supposedly Muslim man, all smiles, is standing behind them and behind him is the large monograph of the Pentagon.

The caption to the photo indicates that this was the work of the ADAMS center, run by ISNA's Vice President "Imam" Magid, in tandem with Muslim American Society [MAS]. If you look at "imam" magid, you would never know that he is a munafiq and works tirelessly with the FBI and a whole list of synagogues. He has a turban, a beard and a prayer mark!

Readers can see the photo of these innocent children on page 16 of "Islamic" Horizons, vol. 36, number 5. [We have the hard copy.]

Making Muslim children wear hijab and then taking them to the Pentagon. How dirty can you get! What will happen to the minds of these poor children. The Pentagon which launches bombing raids on Muslim countries and has killed hundreds of thousands of civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Somalia is being presented to these children as a source of pride for Muslims in America, especially those who wear hijab.

Decent non-Muslims do not have this sense of pride in the Pentagon.
[For overseas readers, ISNA stand for Islamic Society of North America and ADAMS for All Dulles Area Muslim Society, a suburb of Washington, DC.

100 Books Campaign to Continue: Free Books are available to help Immigrants Understand America's Underbelly

Sis. Karen English [Jamaat al-Muslimeen Los Angeles] offered a book list for Muslim immigrants who come to [or plan to] come to America.
We have decided to continue this offer of free books. The two books still being offered are:

1. The Autobiography of Malcolm X. [Also ask for the booklet Malcolm X: Martyr of Islam in America by Ali Siddiqui.]

2. Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl by Harriet Jacobs. [The suffering of women under slavery was beyond anything we can imagine today, but this girl fought back and won. She was only 14. Why don't we fight back against the mental slavery of our times?]

To order, go to click on NEWS, use search engine on top left to click on JAMAAT.

Competing with New Trend: A Blog which must remain Anonymous

Dr. Kaukab Siddique's article "Can Muslim men marry non-Muslim women in America" has been read 705 times since 3/22/08.

Weber to Speak in Baltimore on July 2
Institute for Historical Review

At a special meeting on July 2 in Baltimore, Mark Weber will tackle enduring myths about World War Two, including lies about how the conflict began. Weber, who has written and lectured extensively on history and current affairs, will also pull apart the myth that World War II was a morally clear-cut fight between "good" Allies and an "evil" enemy. He'll explain why the official US mythology about World War II, promoted in our schools and motion pictures, is not just bad history, it's also very harmful -- for America and the world. For details about the meeting, contact the IHR.

Amy Goodman Hoisted with her Own Petard
Ahmad Rashid Mislead America about Taliban in 2001: In 2008 he is Using Amy Goodman to Try Again.
His line is that of Bush: Pakistan is not Doing Enough to Fight Islamic Forces!

by Muhammad Idrees Ahmad [by special permission to New Trend]

It is with some alarm and dismay that I watched Amy Goodman's Democracy Now! provide platform to right-wing Pakistani journalist Ahmad Rashid, long an apologist for Bush's war-on-terror, to recycle propaganda from British tabloid press and other discredited sources. His tale about al-Qa'ida recruiting "white European converts" for terrorist acts in Europe originated with the British security services as part of their fear mongering campaign to build support for the 42-day detention without charge plan. No shred of evidence was ever offered.
Equally bogus are his claims of organized al-Qa'ida "training camps with language facilities" etc. Once again, these claims are the products of the vivid imaginations of the terrorologists proliferating in the war on terror fear factory. I suggest Amy ask Rashid to substantiate his claims or issue a retraction. (When he claims Iraq is an "Arab Middle East problem" and that it would be resolved when its neighbors "stop interfering", I would have liked Amy to at least ask if he was aware the country is under U.S. occupation.)
He suggests the truce negotiated by the Pakistani government is tantamount to supporting the Taliban. Quoting U.S. military officials in Kabul he alleges that Pakistan is "funding" the resurgence of the Taliban. He faults Pakistan for not cooperating more enthusiastically in Bush's war on terror. Rashid appears to be living in a timeless world where the realities of 10 years past substitute for the present. Pakistani military's intervention in the FATA region has been brutal, now extending to the frontier heartland of Swat. Tactics have included Israeli-style collective punishment; wholesale demolition of recalcitrant villages; disappearing of opponents (mostly the tribal homines sacri); bombing raids; and extrajudicial killings. The response of the tribesmen all swept under the handy label of "the Taliban" by the government and hacks of Rashid's stripe is as brutal as it is predictable. Only a few months back three rockets landed in the very safe neighborhood where my sister resides in the frontier city of Peshawar.
Kidnapping for ransom has become a common phenomenon. Suicide attacks on the military have been frequent. The Pakistani military death toll is now nearing a thousand. So when a guest on Goodman's show starts claiming that the Pakistani government is funding and encouraging the slaughter of its own soldiers I am forced to demur despite my disdain for the regime. When I hear Amy's guest fault Pakistan for not allowing US forces on its territory, and refusing CIA a base in the tribal regions, it's her judgment I must question for letting this pass without challenge.
The government for some years has shown a preference for a negotiated political settlement, only to be thwarted every time by unauthorized US assaults that have reignited the conflict. On other occasions the government has caved under pressure and resumed assaults itself to fend off accusations of the type recycled by Rashid on the show that it is "not doing enough" in the fight against the Taliban. He even questions the new peace deal the government is negotiating with the tribesmen, calling it "a surrender document by the Pakistan army". This armchair Bonaparte clearly has a preference for military solutions.
There is no reason why Pakistan should be cooperating with the US "war on terror". Under its rubric, the Musharraf regime has already devastated much of the tribal belt and created enemies where there were none. Contrary to Rashid's claim that the new government is "prepared to fulfill the US agenda", it has promised to open dialogue with the tribals in order to end hostilities. This is a positive development that makes the US apprehensive, as it does Uncle Toms of Rashid's stripe who have wedded their careers to the 'war on terror' as its sanctioned cheer leaders.
I hope Amy shows more care in the future in vetting her guests. She certainly could not have been unaware of the political leanings of this guest since in an earlier appearance on her show he had dismissed Afghan civilian casualties at the hands of NATO because according to him "the Taliban are doing the same thing". The "tragedy in Afghanistan" is, he said, that "there are too few troops on the ground". The loss of civilian life was bad "because it becomes a tool for Taliban propaganda" and "it really doesn't help NATO very much, because NATO and American forces really need boots on the ground, and clearly, you know, they don't have enough troops." (July 11, 2007)
This is the second time in a week where Amy's editorial judgment has left me deeply disappointed. First was the refusal to cover yet again! the AIPAC conference, with all its implications for US politics and the Middle East. In a year when even the mainstream media was forced to take notice, with Jon Stewart of The Daily Show going so far as to refer to the lobby as the "Elders of Zion", Democracy Now! appeared alone in missing the irony of three presidential candidates, each pledged to fight the stranglehold of lobbyists on Washington, genuflect to the most powerful of them all.
Amy, what happened to Democracy Now's promise to speak truth to power? Did you not say once that your aim was to go where the silence is? How is it that the Washington Post was able to break the silence (Philip Weiss calls this the Mearsheimer and Walt-effect) even as Democracy Now remained AWOL? Why did Democracy Now join MSM in denying Mearsheimer and Walt a voice, instead allowing their views to be misrepresented by critics without a chance of rebuttal? How well placed are you to criticize the mainstream for refusing to stand up to power when you can yourself be considered guilty of the same?

Muhammad Idrees Ahmad is at the Department of Geography and Sociology, University of Strathclyde. He can be reached at He blogs at

Saudi Scholar notes: U.S. Air Attacks are becoming Intolerable even for Bush's Friends in Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan
A Friendship Marked by Deepening Distrust
by Tariq A. Al-Maeena

Back in 2001 when George Bush drew his infamous line on the sand with his "you're either with us or against us", I chose not to cross over to his side. And now, seven years on, with hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians killed as a result of his infamous decree in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere, I am painfully gratified that I was justified in my reasoning.
Pakistan has not been so fortunate though, as they decided to cross over. Perhaps it was the claim by Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf that after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on America, he was told by Richard Armitage, then the US deputy secretary of state, to support Washington or his country would be "bombed back to the Stone Age" that prompted his sleeping with the devil.
Musharraf, then the army chief and president, states in his book: "I felt very frustrated by Armitage's remarks. It goes against the grain of a soldier not to be able to tell anyone giving him an ultimatum to go forth and multiply, or words to that effect."
The statement highlights the underlying resentment with which many Pakistanis view the US-Pakistan relationship: That their country is a reluctant, bullied US ally dependent on American charity. Seven years on and it hasn't got any better. Today, distrust between the two allies is deepening.
The American air and artillery strikes that killed 11 Pakistani paramilitary soldiers on the Afghan border last week have raised concerns about the deteriorating American relationship with Pakistan. The dead on the Pakistani side included a major and were all from a paramilitary detachment of the Frontier Corps, the force deployed in Pakistan's tribal areas bordering Afghanistan. The Pakistani military was quick to release a statement calling the air strikes "unprovoked and cowardly." It launched a strong protest and reserved "the right to protect our citizens and soldiers against aggression."
"The incident had hit at the very basis of cooperation and sacrifice with which Pakistani soldiers are supporting the coalition in the war against terror," said a military spokesman.
This is just a repetition of such brazen acts of infringing on the sovereignty of Pakistan. There have been several American strikes recently inside Pakistani territory. In March of this year, three bombs, indiscriminately dropped by an American aircraft, killed nine people and wounded nine others in the tribal area of South Waziristan. Among them were women and children, innocent pawns in the game of crossing lines.
Although the US State Department expressed regret for the deaths of the Pakistani troops, it would be of little comfort to the families of the dead.
A statement released by the US Embassy in Islamabad conveying condolences to the families of the dead said, "The United States regrets that actions ... on the night of June 10 resulted in the reported casualties among Pakistani forces who are our partners in the fight against terrorism."
And while Pakistan's newly appointed ambassador to the United States, Husain Haqqani stated that his government would not regard the military strike as an act of intentional hostility, feelings to the contrary were on the rise in a nation fed up being treated like Mr. Bush's war game.
How many such statements of condolences and regrets the Pakistanis, the Afghanis and the Iraqis have had to put up with these past seven years. Such brazen acts have been consistently justified by Bush's administration as "unfortunate", or "victims of friendly fire" or "collateral damage", with very little concern to human life. Expressing condolences after the fact will not bring the dead back, Mr. Bush.
Pakistanis and others today are unforgiving of the tenure of Bush, one marked with enough atrocities to inspire a tribunal to pass judgment against all those associated with such policies for war crimes against the innocent. It was under Bush's watch that infamies in the form of Guantanamo, the Abu Ghraib prison tortures, the bombing of Iraqi and Afghani schools and hospitals, and scores of other transgressions took place. All have been recorded and documented.

All have resulted in the wanton destruction of innocent human lives. Those who chose to disagree with him were quickly branded as "insurgents" or "militants", or else forced to be eliminated or shut up. And while Bush will soon leave office, his crimes would not be easily washed away, especially among the millions of relatives of the innocent.
All of these events in the past seven years marred by death and mayhem under the command of President George Bush lead me to wonder: How many more victims of air strikes or "collateral damage" there will be before this man leaves office?

Tariq Al-Maeena is a Saudi socio/political commentator. He lives in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia and can be reached at

Letter: Indian Government's Ban on Muslim Students was Helped by man who wrote against Maulana Maudoodi

Yoginder Sikand the man who circulates an old article by Abul Hasan Ali Nadvi against Moulana Moududi is a suspicious character. He writes 'research' articles but the common theme of all of them is against any Islamic political activity. Indian intelligence widely used his pieces to go against the Student Islamic Movement of India. If you go through his articles you can very well see that he supports the Saudi style apolitical salafism.
But unfortunately many Muslims carry his reports as certificates for their good behaviour.

Prof P Koya

Letter: Latest New Trend's Last Article
assalam-o-alaikum....the last part of this issue regarding Maulana very inspiring...

Dr. Shaukat Khan
North Carolina

Letter: Maudoodi did Oppose the Traditional Spirituality and "Love" which has Destroyed the Muslim Ummah

Discussion on Maulana Maududi's views on the teachings of Islam has drawn my attention. Maududi's views have been condemned by many and welcomed by many. I am one of those who welcome his view. So, I also disagree with the assertion of Nadwi which is supported by Sikand: "that by emphasizing political activities aimed at the creation of the Islamic state, Maulana Maudoodi distracted attention from the love and spirituality essential to Islam. Political activism became an end in itself, a sterile activity which evaded the compassion and nurturing inherent in the way of life of the Prophet, pbuh." Maududi, of course, was not perfect in his view in any sense of the term, because he was a simple and regular human being. Other than those extremists who view Maududi as heretic, no fair-minded Muslim, I believe, would think that Maududi purposely wanted to distract Muslims from the love and spirituality of Islam. Only Allah knows his intent. What we know is just the contrary to what his opponents are making out of him. Maududi's teachings reflect the promotion of the love for Allah by obeying the leadership and examples of the Prophet, s, as the Quran alludes to (3:31).

However, in my view, Maududi did reject, and rightly so, the traditional definition and understanding of love and spirituality of Islam. That is why he taught a different method of it which may appear to some -- especially those who are professional and organized groups of spirituality and those uneducated or little educated in Islam, hence follow the leads of organized groups, knowingly or unknowingly -- as anti love and spirituality of Islam and the Prophet,s. Probably Maududi thought that the traditional concept of love and spirituality is un-Quranic, un-Sunnaic, hence un-Islamic. In his view Muslim Ummah is misguided, by those organized lovers and spirituals, and needs to be regenerated. This concept of degeneration of Muslims faith and actions I think is the situation prevailing in the Muslim world since the demise of the first generation of Islam during which time Muslims provided leadership to the world: spiritually, morally, socially, academically or intellectually, and politically.
As he understood this reality of Muslim faith and spirituality, it was difficult for Maududi not to speak out and teach those who would listen to him about the degenerated love and spirituality of Muslims. The concept of love and spirituality that is so dominant in the Muslim world since, roughly, 1100 AD has not changed at all. I hope it is not a truly Jahili kind of love and spirituality, no matter how much Maududi and before him, e.g. Muhamad Ali and Shaukat Ali, Sayed Ahmad Khan, Jamaluddin Afghani, Muhammad Abdu, Muhammad Iqbal, Hasanul Banna, Syed Nursi, and Syed Qutb had tried to change the status quo. They wanted Muslims to work, and work hard to establish the truth as truth and to condemn the batil as batil. This truth would be symbolic of love and spirituality of Islam, of the Prophet,s, and finally of Allah, but they could only do so much. What I also feel strongly is that with this prevailing but degenerated concept of love and spirituality in place, Muslim Umamah will continue going down and humiliated, in this and in the life after. I ask Allah to save and guide us to the right path.

Haider Bhuiyan

Dual U.S./Israel Citizens in Top U.S. Government Positions: America's Jewish Elites Put Israel First
Compiled by Chuck Brucks [Florida]
by special permission to New Trend [Corrections if any will be welcomed.]
Attorney General - Michael Mukasey
Head of Homeland Security - Michael Chertoff
Chairman Pentagon's Defense Policy Board - Richard Perle
Deputy Defense Secretary (Former) - Paul Wolfowitz
Under Secretary of Defense - Douglas Feith
National Security Council Advisor - Elliott Abrams
Vice President Dick Cheney's Chief of Staff (Former) - "Scooter" Libby
White House Deputy Chief of Staff - Joshua Bolten
Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs - Marc Grossman
Director of Policy Planning at the State Department - Richard Haass U.S.
Trade Representative (Cabinet-level Position) - Robert Zoellick Pentagon's
Defense Policy Board - James Schlesinger
UN Representative (Former) - John Bolton
Under Secretary for Arms Control - David Wurmser
Pentagon's Defense Policy Board - Eliot Cohen
Senior Advisor to the President - Steve Goldsmith
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary - Christopher Gersten
Assistant Secretary of State - Lincoln Bloomfield
Deputy Assistant to the President - Jay Lefkowitz
White House Political Director - Ken Melman
National Security Study Group - Edward Luttwak
Pentagon's Defense Policy Board - Kenneth Adelman
Defense Intelligence Agency Analyst (Former) - Lawrence (Larry) Franklin
National Security Council Advisor - Robert Satloff
President Export-Import Bank U.S. - Mel Sembler
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Administration for Children and Families -
Christopher Gersten 
Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
for Public Affairs - Mark Weinberger 
White House Speechwriter - David Frum
White House Spokesman (Former) - Ari Fleischer
Pentagon's Defense Policy Board - Henry Kissinger
Deputy Secretary of Commerce - Samuel Bodman
Under Secretary of State for Management - Bonnie Cohen
Director of Foreign Service Institute - Ruth Davis

2008-06-25 Wed 18:33:22 cdt