Dr Kaukab Siddique | Editor-in-Chief ---------------------------------------------------------
Jamada al-thani 21, 1426/July 27, 2005 #57

An Exchange of Letters with the BBC World Service

Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2005 16:41:17 -0700 (PDT)
From: Nadrat Siddique <nadratsiddique@yahoo.com>
Subject: Censorship in "Reporting Religion" - 7/24 Edition
To: worldservice@bbc.co.uk

To: Trevor Barnes
Producer, "Reporting Religion,"
BBC World Service
Re: Sunday, July 24 edition

Dear Mr. Barnes,

I am writing on behalf of Dr. Kaukab Siddique, who is a Muslim writer, editor, and journalist based out of the Baltimore/Washington, DC area. On July 19, Firdes Robinson of the BBC Religion Section contacted Dr. Siddique, perhaps due to his clear stance on the London bombings.

She spoke with him at length, and indicated that the BBC wanted his participation for a program to be aired on that subject in the next few days. During this conversation, he indicated his opposition to Israel, and the controversial nature of his stance on the issues. Ms. Robinson said she was aware of this, that the BBC was familiar with his writings, and that this would not be a problem. She concluded that the producer would call Dr. Siddique the following day to give him the exact time of the interview. The following day, however, the BBC neither called to interview nor to cancel.

We would like to know why the BBC did not call back.

If a person's stance on Israel causes one to be excluded from the media, is this not a clear case of censorship? Also, is there a blacklist of Muslim leaders, who are articulate and can clearly delineate views opposing the U.K./U.S./Israeli war policies (unlike the Muslim speaker whom the BBC selected to participate in today's religion program), who are systematically excluded from media coverage? Also, it would seem common courtesy to call back and cancel the interview with Dr. Siddique, if the BBC no longer desired the interview.


Nadrat Siddique,
Staff Volunteer
The New Trend Forum
"An Independent Forum for the Oppressed"

Subject: Re: Your e mail dated 25 July 2005
"Censorship in Reporting Religion"
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 12:41:52 +0100
From: "Firdevs Robinson" firdevs.robinson@bbc.co.uk
To: Nadratsiddique@yahoo.com
CC: "World Service" worldservice@bbc.co.uk,
"David Stead-BU" david.stead@bbc.co.uk

Ms Nadrat Siddique
Staff Volunteer
The New Trend Forum
Baltimore, Washington DC

Dear Ms Siddique,
Re: Your e mail dated 25 July 2005 "Censorship in Reporting Religion"

Thank you for your message that has been passed on to me by Audience Relations-BBC World Service.

I am sorry to hear that Dr Kaukab Siddique felt that he has not been treated fairly by the BBC. I called Dr Siddique to explore a possibility of an interview on the subject of Islam in history.
We were planning to debate whether Islam had an ahistoric approach through the ages as it was claimed in the press here and I was well aware of Dr Siddique's views on the recent events and the controversy it caused in the US.

On Thursday, 21st July, we had another bomb threat in London, as a result of which an editorial decision was made to drop the discussion on history and to concentrate on anti-terrorism measures in the UK instead.

Reporting Religion strives to reflect all significant strands of opinion by exploring the range and conflict of views. Last weekend's programme had a spokesman from Hezb-ut Tahrir and a representative of the Forum for Islamic Dialogue.

You are right to state that I had promised to get back to Dr Siddique to confirm whether we would go ahead with the interview. My colleague Siobhann Tighe did call Dr Siddique and left messages on his answering machine the next day.

Later, in response to an inquiry by Dr Siddique, our programme assistant confirmed once more that we were not able to go ahead with the debate but were very grateful to Dr Siddique for his time he so generously spent talking to me during my research. I hope this clears any misunderstanding that might have occurred.

Yours Sincerely,
Firdevs Robinson
New Trend's Editorial Comment: Ms. Robinson's reply is inaccurate. Ms. Tighe did leave a phone message for a call back but did not giving a cancellation notice as Ms. Robinson claims, and this was before the news of the July 21 attack. Dr. Siddique immediately called back and was told that ms. Tighe had left but the producer would be contacted and Dr. Siddique would be informed if the interview was still on. No such call was received. This does look like a case of censorship. Dr. Siddique's "mistake" was that he told ms. Robinson that the Muslim problem with Britain goes back to the Balfour declaration which led to the creation of Israel and the Radcliffe Award which sowed the seeds of the ongoing tragedy in Kashmir. It was a simple lesson in history.


Before the Iraq war and after the war, the British people protested against the invasion. Blair paid no attention. As the war continued, the protests in Britain grew in size till the rallies became HUGE. Blair paid no attention. At its height, the British anti-war movement counted 70 to 80% of the people in its numbers. But BLAIR PAID NO ATTENTION. He was definitely not amenable to peaceful pressure.

Cracks appeared within the British power structure. Inside information started coming out that Blair and Bush had conspired to carry out the war in Iraq though they knew that the story of Saddam's WMDs was false. Blair continued to pretend that the disclosures did not mean what they obviously were. He vigorously attacked the disclosures.

All peaceful attempts to stop Blair failed. Then came the attacks of July 7 and the failed attacks of July 21. Within three weeks, the political map of Britain changed. In one blow, the bombers turned Britain against the basic premise of the British system: Rule of Law and freedom of expression.

Blair is getting paranoid after just one successful attack. Try to understand why Saddam was paranoid. The U.S. tried to kill him 33 times and fueled armed uprisings among extremist groups among the Shias and the Kurds.

By contrast, the quick reversal of democracy in Britain shows how fragile the British system is. Already Muslim Imams and leaders have been called in and personally pressured by Blair to purge the ranks of the Muslim community and to carry out a witch hint.


He did not know English. He had no idea who was chasing him because the British agents were in plain clothes. The agents chased him down and murdered him in broad daylight, with 7 shots in the head and one in the shoulder. And the British Prime Minister defended the murder and claimed that this kind of thing has to be done to stop "terrorism."

[Why no appeal for condolences to the Brazllian people? Where are the "lick spittle" groups?]


In an extensive press conference on July 26, Prime Minister Blair rambled on about all kinds of issues in a way which showed that he is becoming delusional. Here are some of the points he made: Blair talk was full of anger and hatred. Backing him is the Zionist-Jewish lobby using him to make war on Islam. His behavior has become totally irrational because the only people he cares for are his Zionist handlers.

Recently released World War II documents indicate that Churchill was not the great hero of the British people he pretended to be. His close friend and adviser was a Jew known as "The Prof" who made sure war would not stop. He also had constant relationship with Wiezmann and the Zionists, and the future Israeli army was trained as part of the British army.

When will the British people ask: What right has Blair to hold the entire nation to ransom in a war in which the only gainers are Israel and International Jewry?
Bizarre Press Conference by Muslim "Leaders"

What does Islam say about Cooperation with Oppressors?
Can Such People Claim to be Followers of Islam? They Want to be 'Snitches' {spies} Against Muslim Communities.

by Kaukab Siddique, Ph.D.

America's Muslims are getting used to degrading and demeaning behavior by their self-appointed 'leaders' but a press conference by a group which calls itself MAS Freedom outcaired Cair in its anti-Islam teachings.

The conference was held at the National Press Building in Washington DC, starting at 9.40 AM on July 25, and was addressed by a person named Mahdi Bray, who seemed to be in charge, Esam Omeish, who was introduced as the President of MAS, Imam Johari Abdul Malik, a supporter of W.D. Muhammad, and others.

Some of the statements made were as follows: These people are mediocrities and definitely do not represent America's deep Islamic culture which is thoroughly with the Muslims of Palestine, Afghanistan and Iraq. My concern is not with these persons but with the falsehoods they are spreading about Islam.

Are Bush and the American power structure not the biggest oppressors and exploiters in the world? Let alone Palestine, Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan, Kashmir, Chechnia, think of what is happening right here in America. How can any persons claim to be Muslim in America and not have these cases of oppression at the center of their program: Can there be any doubt that this is a government of oppressors? What does the Qur'an say about cooperation with such people?

" ...Stand firm as you are commanded, you and those with you: turn [unto Allah], and trangress not (from the path), for He sees well all that you do. And INCLINE NOT towards those who oppress, or the Fire will touch you, and ye [shall] have no protectors other than Allah, nor shall ye be helped."

[The Qur'an 11:112-113]

Scholars have noticed that these verses are condemning not only cooperation with oppressors but even an INCLINATION towards oppressors. Classical commentaries on the Qur'an discuss the depth of meaning in the Arabic text of this verse "wa la taraknu" [do not incline or bend or have the slightest positive feeling] for oppressors.

Commentators as varied as Zamakhshari and Beidawi agree that "wa la taraknu" is about the stage before actual physical cooperation takes place. The desire to bend slightly towards the oppressors becomes punishable by the Fire.

Qurtubi, another classical scholar, points out that this "inclination" includes dependence and a LIKING for the oppressors. These meanings are supported by the comments of Ibn Abbas, r.a., one of the companions of the Prophet, who was the earliest mufassir of the Qur'an. He says that this verse also implies that one should not keep quiet when one observes oppression being carried out.
[Such as in our times the destruction of Fallujah during Ramadan or the degradation of the great scholar of Islam, Shaikh Omar 'Abdel Rahman, or the 'cavity search' of Imam Jamil.]

Qatada and 'Ikrima, of the first generation after the Sahaba [companions of the Prophet, pbuh] say that such inclination towards oppressors also implies obedience to them
[such as the happiness of these "leaders" that they were called to meet Bush and rushed to meet him].

Imam 'Auzai, from the first generation of Islam after the sahaba, says that his understanding of hadith on these verses is that NOTHING IS MORE CONDEMNABLE WITH ALLAH THAN A PERSON WHO CLAIMS TO BE AN IMAM [or 'Alim] BUT MEETS AN OPPRESSOR, be it a king or his functionaries. In the Arabic there is a play on the words 'Alim [Islamic scholar] and 'Amil [functionary].

The best comment comes from a classical Hadith scholar of the first era, Muhammad ibn Maslama, that:

"The approach of one who recites the Qur'an to the door of oppressors is WORSE THAN the likeness of the FLY WHO SITS on SHIT."

In our own tmes, Maulana Shabbir Ahmed Usmani, the Islamic teacher of Mohomed Ali Jinnah, founder of Pakistan, wrote the following note on 11:113 in his tafseer:

"Do not be inclined or attracted to the oppressors [those who have broken the bounds of Islam] in the slightest. Do your best to stay away from their friendship and companionship, refrain from respecting and honoring them, praising or exalting them, looking like them in appearance, jointly working with them, in short everything to do with oppressors, otherwise the fire will envelop you and you will find that you have no helper and Allah will no longer help you."

The learned Maulana then points to the solution for Muslims, given in 11:114, which we have not quoted, which is to incline towards Allah and to worship Allah morning and evening ..

The Prophet Muhammad, pbuh, too has given us clear Hadith not to cooperate with oppressors. These are general teachings, in addition to the specific verses from the Qur'an:

From Abdullah ibn Mas'ud, r.a. the Prophet, pbuh, said: ...."By him in whose hand is my life, you will not achieve salvation unless you stop the oppressor and give the oppressed their right."
[Hadith, Jami Tirmidhi, Abwab tafseer al-Qur'an]

From Abu Bakr Siddiq, r.a. .....I heard the messenger of Allah, pbuh, say, When people see an oppressor and do not stop him with both their hands, sooner or later the punishment of Allah will overtake them [the passive ones] too. [Hadith Jami Tirmidhi, Ibid.]

When such are the rules for non-cooperation with "Muslims" who become oppressors, there is absolutely NO BASIS in Islam for cooperation with oppressors who in addition to being oppressors are also kuffar.

I would urge the misled people of MAS and others like them, repent, do Tawba, do not become snitches and tools of the oppressors. If you are going to go ahead in any case, then stop claiming to be Muslims. In that case you are spies, hiding among the Muslims, and no more.
U.S. Bagram Prison is notorious for Torture

ESCAPE FROM HELL: Syrian, Kuwaiti, Saudi, Libyan United in Epic Story of Freedom thru Faith & Guts

Taliban say Qaeda escapees safe in guerrilla haven
Thursday July 14, 2005

KABUL (Reuters) - Four Arab al Qaeda militants who escaped from a heavily fortified U.S. detention center in Afghanistan this week reached a Taliban haven safely on Thursday, a spokesman for the guerrilla movement said.
"The Taliban found and recovered four al-Qaeda mujahideen this morning,"
Taliban spokesman Abdul Latif Hakimi said from an undisclosed location.

Hakimi, whose information has often proved unreliable, declined to say where the escapees were, but added: "They are far away from Kabul. They are safe and now taking rest."

The Pakistani-based Afghan Islamic Press news agency quoted another, unnamed, Taliban spokesman as saying the men were in the south of the country. "They are alright. They had some bruises to their feet ... they are being given medicines."

The U.S. military said it was pressing on with an "aggressive" hunt for the four, who escaped from the detention center at Bagram Air Base50 km (30 miles) north of Kabul on Monday. It declined to comment on the Taliban claim.

"The only comment I have is that the search is ongoing and we are investigating the circumstances of how they were able to escape," Lieutenant-Colonel Jerry O'Hara said.

The escape was the first known from the Bagram base and a major embarrassment for the U.S. military, which has refused to identify the escapees except as "dangerous enemy combatants."

But Afghan officials named the men as Syrian Abdullah Hashimi, Kuwaiti Mahmoud Ahmad Mohammad, Saudi Mahmoud Alfatahni and Libyan Mohammad Hassan.


The Bagram detention center has housed hundreds of militant suspects since U.S.-led forces overthrew the Taliban in late 2001 for refusing to give up al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden after the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States.

They have included senior al Qaeda suspects arrested in neighboring Pakistan and elsewhere. The U.S. military said at the weekend about 450 militant suspects were held there.

Monday's escape followed a painful two weeks for the U.S. military during which it suffered 19 deaths in a clash in the eastern province of Kunar, its heaviest losses in a single combat operation in Afghanistan since ousting the Taliban.

The losses, amid stepped-up militant violence ahead of Sept. 18 parliamentary elections, included 16 U.S. troops killed when insurgents shot down their helicopter.

Mullah Dadullah, a member of the Taliban's leadership council, told Qatar-based Al Jazeera television in an interview broadcast on Thursday that the group possessed anti-aircraft weapons and was seeking to obtain even more powerful arms.

"By the will of God, we will obtain weapons more powerful than what we have," he said. "We have weapons that can down aircraft but we cannot reveal what they are."

Taliban spokesman Hakimi has said the guerrillas shot down the helicopter with a "new type of weapon."

U.S. military officials have said it was probably shot down by a rocket-propelled grenade and there was no indication that a more sophisticated ground-to-air system was involved.

(Reporting by Sayed Salahuddin and David Brunnstrom in Kabul and by Saeed Ali Achakzai in Spin Boldak)

click here to email a link to this article

2005-07-28 Thu 20:39ct