Safar 6, 1426/March 17, 2005 #22
Jamaat al-Muslimeen News
P.O. Box 10881
Baltimore, MD 21234
HONOR RACHEL CORRIE
On the anniversary of the murder of peace activist Rachel Corrie by
driving a caterpillar bulldozer, her parents are filing suit both
against the criminal entity known as Israel and Caterpillar company.
JUSTICE FOR AHMED 'ABDEL SATTAR
A committee to gain mass support for Ahmed 'Abdel Sattar is being
set up. Ahmed is the
origin who has been convicted of talking on the telephone for
several years to Egyptian dissidents who want to overthrow the
tyranny of dictator Hosni
Ahmed is facing LIFE IN PRISON for this "great crime" of talking
to Islamic people who wanted the support of the blind Shaikh to
A direct link to Ahmed's attorney will be provided by the Committee.
LYNNE STEWART TO SPEAK
Jamaat al-Muslimeen supports the rallies to be held in New York
on the anniversary of the U.S. war on
March 19. Lynne Stewart will be a main speaker at the rallies. She
is the self-sacrificing human rights attorney who fought for the
of the blind
Shaikh, Dr. Omar 'Abdel Rahman,
spiritual guide of Gamaa' al-Islamiyya in Egypt.
The rallies, under the heading of "U.S TROOPS ... OUT NOW" will
begin in New York's Marcus Garvey Park [124th street to 5th Ave]
at 10 AM and proceed to Central Park's East Meadow [97th street &
5th Ave] by 12 Noon, where Ms. Stewart will speak.
Ms. Stewart has been convicted of helping the blind Shaikh. If she
is sentenced, it will destroy the client-attorney privilege on
which the U.S. legal system rests.
The representative of the Jamaat is
Sis. Khalidah Tunkara
who is famous because she refused to take off her Hijab even
under powerful police pressure.
WAR NEWS: [by our
During Dr. Condoleeza Rice's visit, there have been a number of
Taliban attacks. U.S. TV channels reported an attack on March 16
in which one U.S. soldier was killed and 3 wounded. In another
attack, in Kandahar city, March 17, 5 people were reported killed.
are no longer reporting attacks on U.S. troops. However,
information published by the Pentagon indicates that another
11 U.S. troops have been killed one week in
attacks. The wounded total of U.S. troops is now over 11,000.
One report which the
did put out was that 2 U.S. defense contractors were killed on
the airport road outside Baghdad. This brought out the fact that
till now the mujahideen have killed a total of 280 U.S. defense
contractors, which is not added to the military losses.
Numerous reports of fighting in Kashmir have come in along with
atrocities against the helpless population.
THE JEW BEHIND THE WAR LEAVING:
[From our Economics observer]
Paul Wolfowitz, one of the main people behind the U.S. invasion of
Iraq, is being removed by
and being moved into the World Bank. The Jew in charge of the
World Bank, Wolfensen, is retiring. Between them, these Jewish
wolves have torn humanity apart.
Wolfowitz's removal is a sign that the U.S. has lost the war
in Iraq. Support for the Iraq war has dipped into the low 40%.
Amina A. Wadud's New Crusade: She Wants to Lead Prayers.
Bring About Change? A Look at Amina's Basic Misunderstanding of Islam.
This article will look at the primary issues about
Islam in America
regardless of Dr.Amina Abdul Wadud's serious secondary blunders.
Some people think she has already left the fold of Islam.
Her statements and actions in a public meeting in
do support this view.
My hope is that she will realize her errors and repent. The
three steps she took would put her outside Islam if she does
not repent. [It is possible that she was going through a serious
bout of doubt and depression when she carried out this drama.]
These three were public statements and she
has not claimed that she was misreported:
She claimed that she can decide which texts of the
are acceptable within the realm of "civilization" and which are
not. For instance, she finds that the cutting off of the hand of
a thief is not acceptable for a civilized person like her. For
a Muslim, there can only be acceptance of Allah's word. There
can't be any rejection. The Qur'an is open to interpretation and
the Prophet, pbuh, and his Companions (r.a.) implemented the
Qur'an according to the needs of society. However, Dr. W.
was not talking of interpretation but of acceptance and rejection.
She claimed that "same sex" marriages are okay. However, in Islam
there is absolutely no place for "same sex" marriages and
homosexuality. We know that America is a free society and people
here can indulge in all kinds of sexuality, from group sex to
hard porn techniques, [polygamy alone being forbidden] without
any serious problem. That does not mean that a follower of
Islam should succumb to these pressures and start proving how
"progressive" she is by turning HARAM into HALAL.
There is no place for
and nationalism in Islam, although Islam does not stop us from
helping our own communities and nations. Dr. W. made a deliberate
attempt to divide
She took out her hair, showed it to her audience and claimed
that her Arab audience did not respect her because she is a "nigger"
[her word]. This was a deliberate provocation which Bush and all
the enemies of Islam would love. Some think that this tactic
shows that Dr. W. might be working for the
and is helping the CIA to widen the rift between Arabs and Africans.
I doubt it. Most probably she is under great mental pressure and
wants her audiences to accept her as a leader, and when they didn't
she carried out this drama.
Now Dr. W. has decided to carry her crusade even further. She's
going to give the khutba and lead juma' prayers at a place in
New York. Muslims are discussing whether this is an Islamically
valid action or not. One Muslim woman, Sis. Bint Waleed has
pointed out that Dr. W's "juma prayer" is being held under the
patronage of an art gallery with a Hindu name.
Gallery in New York]. Also, that almost ALL the founding members
of her "event" are non-Muslims. [We have received the list of
For me, the underlying issues, behind Dr. W's attitudes, are
much more important than her actions.
She seems to have misunderstood Islam altogether.
All of us should focus on these basic requirements so that
Islam, as it develops in America, should be according to
the Qur'an and the Sunnah and not an "American Islam"
according to the wishes of George Bush and Paul Wolfowitz.
Here are the essential considerations which Dr. W. has missed completely:
In the light of these principles, let us look at Dr. Amina Wadud's
crusade. I have no grudge or problem with her. I am simply citing
her as an example of what has gone wrong with Muslims in America.
Islam is ONE UMMAH. [The Qur'an 49:10]. The basic prayer recited
in every unit of worship is: "...Show us the straight way." [1:6],
not 'show me the straight way.' There is no individual way to
salvation in this Path. We will stand alone only on the Day of
Judgement but here, in this world, we have to be ONE UNIFIED
BODY as the
says it. Thus, individualism, resulting from ego worship
and capitalistic socio-economic systems, is anathema to Islam.
Prophet Muhammad's (pbuh) way is to organize a Jamaat or group dedicated to the Cause of Allah, to end oppression and slavery. The Hadith specifically teach that the "Hand of Allah" is in support of the Jamaat.
The process of Islam is that of Shoora [mutual consultation leading to decisions based on consent].
The way of Islam is a natural process of:
Da'wa, the calling or invitation to Islam, creates the Jamaat.
Muslims do not demand or call for their own leadership. "I want
to lead" is not an Islamic attitude. An Islamic leader is the
servant of the people, soft-spoken and not strident. Leadership
emerges naturally from the Islamic struggle, just as the
Caliphate of Abu Bakr (r.a.) emerged naturally. Owing to
his role, his sacrifices and support for the Prophet, pbuh,
the Muslims took Abu Bakr, r.a., as their natural leader
after the Prophet, pbuh. He did not have to canvass votes
A person who cooperates with the oppressive power structure,
who supports or condones war against the Muslims, one who
seeks recognition by the forces of wealth, exploitation and
oppression cannot be called an Islamic leader or even a
good Muslim. The Qur'an and Hadith are very clear on these teachings.
Dr. W. has not tried to join any Islamic organization opposed to
the American power structure. Instead she has tried hard for
acceptance by the people in power.
She has not fulfilled her basic duty as a Muslim to oppose the
American invasion of Afghanistan and then of Iraq. Many non-Muslims
have done better than her. What Islamic
credibility is left for her and others like her?
Even when Muslim women took bold initiatives to stand against
tyranny, oppression and the denial of women's rights, she did not
come forward to help. Here are a few specific examples:
Sis. Ashira helped men coming out of prison and put them on
their feet to start a new life. She helped set up a masjid. She
led women and children in prayer when the NOI were planning to
join the Muslim mainstream. Dr. W. did not join this effort and
in fact has not joined any masjid.
Sis. Nadrat organized the Committee to Free Shaikh Omar 'Abdel Rahman
[the blind shaikh]. It was a landmark in the history of struggle by
Muslim women in America. Dr. W. did not join and did not help in any way.
Sis. Hadayai organized an effort to help female victims of domestic
abuse. Again Dr. W. support was only marginal.
Sis. Karen organized the boycott of businesses which support Israel.
Of course Dr. W. did not join this effort; it would have ruined her
entire program to gain acceptance by the power structure.
[These examples can be multiplied a hundred fold. These are only
the most outstanding. Dr. W. does not figure in any of these.]
People are known by the company they keep. Dr. W. is not with
the activist Muslims. Jamaat al-Muslimeen elected women to its
national shoora. Women in Jamaat al-Muslimeen have served at
every level of leadership, based on taqwa [Allah consciousness].
Dr. W. was nowhere to be seen in all these years of struggle.
Her preferences have been opportunistic.
The TIMING of Dr. W.'s crusade is very important. We are living in
war times, the second term of George Bush, an era of moral darkness
aggression. It is a time when Muslims are engaged in Jihad in Kashmir,
Afghanistan, and Iraq. Israel has torn
apart. Serious Zionist attempts are underway to destroy
to legitimize Israel.
This is certainly not a time for making a break with TRADITION.
The issue right now is not whether women can lead prayers. The issue
is: How should Muslims in America respond to genocide.
Lancet magazine says, the U.S. air force has killed 100,000
Muslims in Iraq. Earlier, more than a million Iraqis, many of
them CHILDREN, died slow deaths owing to sanctions imposed by
the USA/UN on Iraq. What should be the role of American Muslims
in that context? That's the most important issue.
Even General Musharraf was shocked when the U.S. decided to
BOMB AFGHANISTAN DURING
Then this past Ramadan, the U.S. destroyed FALLUJAH, house by house,
mosque by mosque, sowing death and destruction during the nights
of LAILATUL QADR.
In that context, Bush held "elections" in Iraq. Earlier, after
killing thousands of civilians in Afghanistan, the U.S. claimed
that it was "liberating Afghan women" as if women are not part
of the families which our "heroic" air force wiped out.
It's time for UNITY, where the existing traditions must be upheld.
Learn from the Muslims of
When India invaded in 1965, Maulana Maudoodi urged Pakistanis
to fight in Allah's name, regardless of the fact that Field Marshal
Ayub Khan had imprisoned Maudoodi and his entire Shoora.
Learn from the Afghans: Regardless of how much money the U.S. is
making available to Afghan mercenaries, Afghan women are proud of
sending their children into the Jihad. They are not going to break
tradition and remove their burqas while the UMMAH is under attack.
In conclusion, there CANNOT BE AN AMERICAN ISLAM. There is only
ONE ISLAM, which was perfected and completed in the Qur'an and in
the example of Muhammad (pbuh). Bush and his publicity machine are
calling forth "moderate Muslims" to break Muslim unity.
There have been positive responses to Bush from some Iraqi-Americans
who claim that the "elections" in Iraq were "great," [Qazwini has
done his part], from opponents of Hadith who have made it their
permanent occupation to denigrate and abuse the Hadith, from W.D.
Muhammad who has come forth with an "American Islam" which
sees the supporters of Israel as friends and Muhammad, pbuh, as NOT
the last messenger. The icing on the cake is Dr. Amina A. Wadud who
wants to gain rights for Muslim women by leading Juma' prayers,
thus creating an ideological diversion, while ignoring the millions
of women hurt by the enemies of Islam.
Inshallah, Islam in America will develop according to the model
preserved in the Qur'an and the Hadith. Muslims in America are part
of the Ummah and should have the humility to learn that we are a
very small part of it.
Al-Quds, Baghdad, Cairo, Kandahar, Khartoum, Kano, Lahore,
Dhaka, Grozny, Jakarta, Samarkand .. are and should be much
more important for Muslims than New York and Washington. Ego
is an American problem because here it is enhanced by the racist
attitudes of White supremacy ["I am number one"] which infect
this entire country and people of non-White races too.
Our leaders are in prison.
Imam Jamil al-Amin
is in prison. Shaikh Omar 'Abdel Rahman is in prison,
Siddique Abdullah Hasan is in prison, as are many activist
Muslims who never dreamt of opposing the U.S., including
Ahmed 'Abdel Sattar, Sami Al-Arian, Masaud Khan, Hammad ...
Anyone who does not support them should not speak in the name of Islam.
I am tired of people claiming to be Muslim leaders, be it of
prayers or groups, when they can't speak a word of truth about
Muslims being held in the American gulag. kufr, tughyan and nifaq,
fed by the U.S. power structure, are rampant.
Shia View: A Critique of
Study of Shia'ism
by Hasnain Naqvi
[New Trend's rebuttal of this view will be published in the next issue.
We are publishing Naqvi's letter as is, without any editing. Hopefully
one day Shia publications will do the same for New Trend.]
This is in reference to an article, written by Kaukab Siddique titled,
"Mohurram 10, 1426: A non-sectarian look at Islamic History". I have
read some articles written by Mr. Siddique in the past and I have a
lot of respect for his knowledge & views, but I think that in this
case, either his knowledge of the "Shia faith" lacks the in depth
research or his source of knowledge is not correct, although he
did not even mention one source.
Before I present my point of view I would like to mention that, I
am not a scholar or any authority on religion, but I will try to
correct his misconceptions & of other with similar views about
the "Shia Faith" point by point, as much as I can.
First of all let may say that, I agree with Mr. Siddique, that
the leadership of both Shias & Sunnis is to be blamed for
misguiding Muslim Ummah, because of their ignorance & some
times mixing religion with politics.
Mr. Siddique said that, "Hazrat Ali (Aalayis Saalam) was man of
great piety & physical courage, was not comparable to the
Prophet (Sullalaho Wa Aalahi Wassullam) or with Hazrat Abu Bakr
(Razi Allahano) , Hazrat Umar (r.a.) and Hazrat Usman (r.a.).
With him the Caliphate was re-located from Madinah to Kufa &
underwent a steep decline", in short he was (Naozobillah) incapable.
This is the basic point and if I can some how the other remove
this misconception, the later points will automatically become
more simple and clear. Mr. Siddique statement is partially
correct, Yes, Hazrat Ali (a.s.) can not be compared to the
Prophet (swaw) Period. Nobody can be compared to the Prophet
(swaw), and his personality is only second to Allah (Subhanao Taala).
It is the later part of the statement that, I disagree with him.
In order to explain my point of view, I think it is important
to mention how different muslim sects view the personality of
the Prophet (swaw). The Shia school of thought & majority of
the other sects, believe that the Prophet (swaw) is "Maasoom",
whatever he said & did was because of Allah (ST) asked him to
say or do & they were not his own words or actions. The layman
definition of a 'Maasoom" is, "Maasoom can not and will not make
any mistake or commit any sin". As I said before the majority
of the Muslim Umah believes that the Prophet (swaw) was a "Maasoom",
his words & actions were the actions of Allah (ST), but some do not,
and these are the people who have the misconceptions mentioned in
Mr. Siddique's statement and they some times even quote the
Holy Quran to prove their point of view, (Surah 41:6), "Say
(O Muhammad (swaw): I am only a human being like you, except
that I receive revelations". But this only means that the
Prophet (swaw) looks like us, he has two eyes, one nose etc.
etc., he is a human being like us in appearance but later part
of the verse changes the whole concept. How many of us receive
the revelation? It is this, that makes the Prophet (swaw)
different from us, that we can not even imagine becoming one.
This argument is like, as if I could say to an animal that, "I
am a living being like you, except that I have more brain than
you". Can then, a frog or a fish say, that we both are same? I
guess not. In order to prove their point of view that, the Prophet
(swaw) was a human being like us, they also quote "Rewaiats" (stories),
of which I will mention few with many regrets & Toba.
At one time a blind person was reciting the verses from the
Holy Quran, the Prophet (swaw) said, "May Allah bless you, you
reminded me a verse which I had forgotten" (Naozobillah).
Bukhari Sareef Volume 3, Page 152.
One time the Prophet (swaw) went to sleep during his Naamaz
(Naozobillah). Bukhari Sareef Volume 1, Page 37, 44 & 171.
That the Prophet (swaw) used to forget how many Rakaat he did in
a Naamaz (Naozobillah). Saheeh Bukhari Volume 1, Page 123 & Volume 2,
There are many more "Rewaiats", like the one I have mentioned here
& some are so offensive that I can not even dare to put them in
writing. The sad part is that they are not quoted by any Jew or a
Hindu, but they are in books written by renowned muslim "scholars".
The logic behind this argument is that, if for a moment we accept
that (Naozobillah) Prophet (swaw) was not a 'Masoon', that he could
lie, make mistakes & commit sins, then we open up a Pandora box of
questions such as, was he lying (toba) when he said, that he receives
revelations? Did he lie (toba) when he told us that, he is the Prophet?
Did he lie (toba), when he told us to pray five times or how to perform
Hajj? Did he make a mistake (toba) at Hudaybiyyah and on & on. This is
the reason that, majority of the muslims may disagree on other matters
but they believe that the Prophet (swaw) was a 'Masoom' & that the
Holy Quran was, is & will remain pure for ever.
Now, going back to point that, if we agree that, what ever the
Prophet (swaw) said were words of Allah (ST), then the Hadith which
is written in both Shia & Sunni books & I quote, "Aana Madina Tul
Alimmo Wa Ali Un Babaha", (I am the city of knowledge and Ali is
its main door), tells us that, it is Allah (ST) which is saying
that, if some has to enter the city, 'The Prophet (swaw)', he/she
has to go through the door 'Hazrat Ali (a.s)'. When the Prophet
(swaw) was returning after performing his last Hajj in the year
10 Hijri, he stopped at a place called 'Gadirakum'. At this
strategic point, the revelation descended upon the Prophet (swaw)
& Hazrat Gabriel (a.s.) came to the Prophet (swaw) with this verse,
"O' Apostle! Deliver what has been revealed to you from your Lord &
if you do not then you have not delivered His message, and Allah
will protect you from the people, surely Allah will not guide
the unbelieving people". (5:67). At this time the Prophet (swaw)
held the hand of Hazrat Ali (a.s.) & said in front of thousands
of muslims, "Mun Kun Tho Mola Fahaza Ali Un Mola .", I will write
the translation here, "who ever considers me as his Mola (savior),
should also consider Ali as his Mola, where ever Ali is, Haq
(Correct Path) is, Where ever Haq is, Ali is, where ever Ali
will go, Haq will go". At this moment, upon the completion of
his speech, Hazrat Gabriel (a.s.) again descended upon the Prophet
(swaw) with the final revelation, "Today I have perfected your
religion for you and completed my favor unto to you, and have
chosen for you as religion al-Islam". (5:3). This is narrated by
some of the most prominent Sunni scholars, like Ar-Razi, Suyuti,
Tabari, Ahmad bin Hanbal & Bakhari. Now if that was Allah (ST)
asking the Prophet (swaw) to say this then, is it not our duty
to obey Him, does this not mean that, who ever comes against Ali
will be on the wrong path?
Now, can any one quote a single Hadith that the Prophet (swaw)
said, which is in both Sunni & Shia books, about any other muslim
who ever it may be, his wife, his relative or any of his Sahabas,
please let me know as I have not read a single one and it may be
because of my lack of knowledge. Now, this does not change the
"Ruthba" (Position) of the Sahabas, his relatives or any his wife,
the contributions made by them in the name of Islam are many, and
can not be ignored.
So, once we understand the true personality of Hazrat Ali (a.s),
every thing else will become crystal clear. Issues like, condemning
Muawiyya (son of Hinda, who chewed the liver of Hazrat Hamza (r.a.),
to quench her thirst for the vengeance of her father & because of
this, people use to call him, 'Son of the liver eater'), and
re-locating the Caliphate from Madinah to Kufa, become very
simple. When Ali was fighting the Kafirs, he was on the correct
path and when the "Muslims" were fighting with Ali, he was on
the correct path, remember what the Prophet (swaw) said, i.e.
what Allah (ST) said, "Haq is where Ali is". Regarding re-location
the Caliphate, one simple reason I can think of is that, Hazrat
Ali (a.s) knew that, the future leaders of the Muslim Ummah will
be power hungry, that they will even kill the grandson of the
Prophet (swaw), just to become the Khalifa. He wanted to avoid
the bloodshed in the Holy city of Madinah. He wanted the Holy
city of Mecca & Madinah to be used for only worship and not
for kingship. I will not try to go into the allegations, such
as who took the garden of Fedak etc., as Mr. Siddique did not
mention his source & moreover this is not a point of view of
the majority of the Shias. As I said before & Mr. Siddique also
mentioned, there are few people in both camps who are misguided.
One thing that he also mentioned with some reference is, "the
systematic & ritualistic self-flagellation & taking out of
processions about the martyrdom of Hazrat Hussain (a.s.). Mr.
Siddique tries to make to two points here. First of all, according
to him the Prophet (swaw) condemned such behavior & display of
mourning as part of paganism. Secondly he says that, this
ritual was started by the autocratic sultan, named Muiz-ud-Dawla
in year 352 of the Hijra. Let me answer the second point first,
Yes, the official ritual of this mourning was started during that
year, but again the statement is half-correct. Let me explain
this by giving an example. If after 9/11/01, the mayor of
New York city decided that, the muslims can not pray in 'Jamaat'
in any public place in New York city and then in the year 2015,
a Muslim mayor gets elected, who lifts this ban. Can the statement
made by some one in the year 2020 that, "the muslims of New York
city started praying in 'Jamaat', in the year 2015, be correct?
No, not at all, because people were praying in 'Jamat', in their
homes since they were scared to do it in a public place.
Mr. Siddique is forgetting that since the day Hazrat Hussain
(a.s.) was martyred his family & his followers were taken
prisoner & since then people who wanted to mourn his martyrdom
had to do it in hiding, leave alone take out processions. Since,
Muiz-ud-Dawla was the first person, who was also a part of the
establishment he could do that openly with no fear of the
establishment, pretty simple. Now, the first point, weather
the Prophet (swaw) condemned mourning or not. Again, he did
not mention his source. First of all, in the Holy Quran,
'Surah Yosuf' (12:84) it is written, "And he turned away from
them and said: 'Alas, my grief for Yosuf'! And he lost his sight
because of the sorrow'. What does this verse tells us, that Hazrat
Yaqub (a.s.) mourned by crying & he mourned so much that he lost
his eyesight. If mourning was forbidden in Islam, why would a
Nabi cry for his son so much? As far as the Prophet (swaw),
condemning the mourning & self-flagellation let me quote an
incident which happened during the war of "Ohud". As we all know,
that the Prophet (swaw) lost two teeth during this war. When one
of his Sahaba (the only person who never met the Prophet (swaw),
but was among his Sahabas), named Hazrat Owais-al-Qarni (r.a)
heard this news, he first took out two of his teeth, but then
he said "I don't know if they were the front teeth or the back,
upper or the bottom", so he took all of his teeth out. When
some "Muslims" told the Prophet (swaw), that your friend has
done this and "is this not an act of a mad person", the Prophet
(swaw) replied "If any body wants 'Junnat', he can go to
Owais-al-Qarni's house, he will get it from there"
(Mishkat-al-shaeef). Does this sound like condemning
mourning & self-flagellation, not even close.
Mr. Siddique also mentioned in his article that, Hazrat Hassan
(a.s.) accepted the rule of Muawiyya. No, he did not, it is like
saying that when the Prophet (swaw) signed the treaty of
"Hudaybiyyah", he (Naozobillah) accepted the rule of the
Kafirs, he did not.
In his article Mr. Siddiques has written that, "In more recent
days, the Shias have gone completely against the teachings of
Imam Hussain (a.s.), because leaders like Sistani & Chalabi
are cooperating with the American & participating in the elections,
where as Imam Hussain (a.s.) would not even accept the tyranny of
a muslim leader". First of all, Mr. Siddique contradicts his
own statement by saying that, "Imam Hussain (a.s) would not
even accept the tyranny of a muslim leader". Well he is
absolutely right, that is why the Shias of Iraq wanted to
remove Saddam in the first place, was he not a "muslim tyrant"?
Also, it was not just the Shias, what about the Kurds, they
are Sunnis, why did he not mention them, why mention Shias only.
Now, I have just one question for Mr. Siddique, where was the
whole muslim Ummah when Saddam systematically killed more
than 500,000 Shias in Iraq, when he destroyed the 5000 year
old civilization of the marsh Arabs in the southern Iraq by
putting dykes in rivers, just because they happen to be Shias,
when he fired more skud missiles on his own city of Najuf than
he fired on Israel, when his army with tanks killed women &
children inside the Roza of Imam Hussain (a.s). How come not
a single country except Iran, said a single word & try to stop
Saddam's brutal & heinous crimes. The way I look it is that, if
there is a kid & his father beats him every day & there are
chances that he will be killed, since he has already killed
his younger brother, one day he will call some one for help
from outside, even if it means that his father will end up
in prison, this is called human instinct of survival.
The last misconception I want to clear is, about policies of Iran
in that region. Again Mr. Siddique forgot what happened few years
back, when in 1991 all the muslim countries, such as Jordan, Egypt,
Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria & many others became a part of the
coalition just to please America, Iran was the only country which
stayed neutral although it had the best chance to avenge the war
thrust upon it by Saddam. Again if I have a neighbor who is constantly
harassing me, has stolen my belongings, beaten my kids, has made
attempts to destroy my house and one day police arrests him, do
you think I will go & try to save him, No, it is not the human
nature. Today, it is Iran which says anything when it comes to
defending the muslim Ummah and it is that reason why it a target
of America & Israel.
I hope this will clear some misconceptions of Mr. Siddique & people
with similar views. May Allah bless them and guide them (Aameen).
click here to email
a link to this
2005-03-17 Thu 20:26ct