Dr Kaukab Siddique | Editor-in-Chief ---------------------------------------------------------
Rajab 17, 1426/August 23, 2005 #65

August 23, 2005: Pat Robertson, of the Christian Coalition, closely allied to Israel and the Bush administration, called for the assassination of Hugo Chavez, the President of Venezuela.
[Source: Fox News.] Robertson was speaking on his own TV station.

Will Robertson be arrested for his open call for a terroristic act against the popular and elected leader of a sovereign state? Not a chance!

Strident calls for terrorism have become commonplace among Israel's extreme right wing American supporters. Only recently, a Republican, Tancredo, said that Makka, the holiest city of Islam, should be nuked. Before that, on the O'Reilly show, a Jewish nut from the Ayn Rand Institute called for the destruction of mosques and Muslim cities around the world by American air power. Before that, another Israel supporter, Falwell, called the best of men, Muhammad, pbuh, a "terrorist," and before that another nutty preacher abused the marriage between Muhammad, pbuh, and 'Ayesha, r.a., the best woman the world has known.

Another fluffy right wing "thinker" Michelle Malkin has been urging the internment of America's Muslims in camps as the Japanese were in World War II.

All these abusive, terroristic, calls, demands, and diatribes indicate that the American power structure's ability to think has disintegrated. These are mentally defeated and backward people .... They don't have a chance against the penetrative power of Islam.

America, in the hands of these nuts, is dangerous. It is the danger which innocent people face from a powerful bully who finds that he cannot defeat, or even find, his enemies.

It's a blessing for the American continent, south and north, that Cuba and Venezuela are working together to transform society by peaceful means. Both Chavez and Castro, whatever their difficulties might be, have mass support.
From New Trend's Media Monitor

Bush's Way: Sad Reality

August 21, 2005: President Bush declared that he would "stay the course" in Iraq. This means that the war will continue as long as Bush is President and many more people will be killed, wounded and maimed.

Understanding Iraq: It's Slowly sinking in...

Americans are starting to realize that not only Bush and Wolfowitz but the entire "mainstream media" have been lying to them about Iraq. Rumsfeld used to call the freedom fighters "dead enders." He hasn't used that term in 10 months.

With 138,000 U.S. troops occupying Iraq and hunting for resistance fighters with the help of Shi'ite and Kurdish colloaborators, martyrdom operations can only be launched with the full support of the public. The U.S. forces have millions of dollars in cash at their disposal. The would-be-martyrs would be turned in at a moment's notice if the the entire population were not with them.

So when the media talk about "insurgents," they mean the Iraqi people. When they talk about Kurds, they mean two Israel-oriented Kurdish groups, living in Americanized enclaves, not the Islamic Kurds who spearhead the resistance. When the Zionists talk about Shi'ites, they mean pro-Iran elements like Ali Sistani, Jaafari and Allawi, not Muqteda al-Sadr and the large number of Shi'ites who are nationalists.

A Key Question About Iraq: How Many Shi'ites?

The media keep repeating "60 % Shi'ites, 20% Sunnis, 15% Kurds, others..." in Iraq. The fact is that these figures are most probably not true and have not been based on any evidence. THERE HAS BEEN NO CENSUS AFTER BUSH INVADED IRAQ. Even Basra is not all Shi'ite. At least 25% of Basra is reportedly Sunni. We are not told by U.S. media that Kurds are Sunnis, and all of them are NOT secularized pro-Israeli alienated types. The Islamic Kurds are numerous and strong but have been dubbed "terrorists" by the U.S.
WAR NEWS: By New Trend's Media Monitor

AFGHANISTAN: A Lesson in Geography

On August 21, 2005 there was a Taliban attack on U.S. forces in the Day Chopan area of Zabul province. The U.S. says 4 of its troops were killed and 3 wounded. The reader should look at a map of Afghanistan. Day Chopan is more than a 100 miles from the Pakistan border. This attack, like others in Zabul, undermines the U.S. media story that Taliban are "slipping in" from Pakistan to attack U.S. troops and then they "slip right back." There are no south-north roads from the Pakistan border to Day Chopan. So the idea of a "slip in" and "slip back" does not ariise for a force which lacks vehicles more sophisticated than pick up trucks.

Earlier in another Taliban attack in Zabul province, 11 troops from Karzai's force in Kabul were killed. The Kabul troops are brought in on the Ghazni-Kandahar highway.

Fighting in July took place in Oruzgan and Ghazni provinces, which are even further inland. These events lend credence to the Taliban claim that they control most of southern, southwestern and southeastern Afghanistan but have to take cover during the day when the U.S. air force is active. It's not very different from the situation during the Soviet occupation..

August 21: Taliban blew up a U.S. army oil tanker on the Torkhum-Jalalabad highway in which the driver of the truck, a hired Afghan, was killed, and his guard wounded.

In a daring raid NEAR KABUL the same day, Taliban hit a convoy of the U.S. embassy. Details have not been released but several people in the convoy were reported wounded.

In Kandahar, Taliban killed 4 Pakistanis ferrying oil for the U.S. forces. Their bodies have been returned to Pakistan.

Saudi Government Raids Holy City of Madinah:

August 21: Details are lacking but Al-Jazeerah reported six Saudi military raids in the holy city of Madinah aimed at killing anti-American mujahideen said to be connected to Al-Qaidah. Among five Muslims killed by the Saudis was a mujahid leader who had fought in Chechnya against the Russians. The Muslims fought back but Saudi losses were not reported.

Observers say that Saudi attempts, in a holy city, to kill Islamic fighters who oppose the Saudi regime's links with the U.S. and Israel are building up a situation which could lead to general conflagration in the Muslim world.Some Muslims see the desecration of Madinah by the Saudis and the desecration of Al-Aqsa in Jerusalem by the Jews as major flashpoints towards war. Muslim masses are still unaware of the attacks in Madinah and don't fully understand the link up of the Saudis with the Bush administration.

Soldier Accused of Attack on Musharraf Executed

On August 20, 2005 Abdus Salam Siddiqui, 35 years old, was executed in Multan's New Central Prison. He was tried by a secret military tribunal and was denied due process of law. He pleaded his innocence right to the end. He was accused of involvement in the December 14, 2003 attack on General Musharraf. His appeals for mercy to the army Chief of Staff as well as to General Musharraf himself were rejected.

He was from Jacobabad in Sindh province, where a U.S. military base has been established. His body was handed over to his father. He has three children, two sons and a daughter, aged 4 to 10 years.
Book Review
Schwartz: Israel's Foolish Friend.

Analytical Look atStephen Schwartz' "Wahhabi" Bogey.
Maulana Maudoodi was a "Wahhabi!"

by Kaukab Siddique, Ph.D

A learned sister in North Carolina, Bilqis, wanted me to look at Stephen Schwartz' book The Two Faces of Islam: The House of Saud from Tradition to Terror [Doubleday, 2002, 312 pages] because she said it mentions me by name 4 times. I didn't want to buy it, so she sent me her copy.

It's a difficult book to read because the author considers repetition of the word "wahhabi' a substitute for evidence and thought. Everyone he dislikes is supposed to be a "wahhabi." The only "good guys" are those Sufis and Shias who are not opposed to Israel: an interesting criterion by which to judge Muslims. Shwartz' book probably sets a record for the number of times the word "wahhabi" has been used in any book.

The question arises, are there any Wahhabis in real life? Whom is Shwartz refererring to? Consider the following: Two major targets of Schwartz' abusive book are two of the foremost leaders of Islamic thought in modern times: Syed Abu 'Ala Maudoodi and Syed Qutb. Someone must have played a joke on Schwartz by convincing him that these two giants of modern Islamic thought were "wahhabies." It might shock Schwartz to know that Maudoodi [r.a] followed the most quiescent of Islamic Schools of Thought, the Hanafi mazhab. Schwartz could well become the butt of jokes among his Sufi friends [like Kabbani] if they know the following self-revalatory statement of Maudoodi:

" I am from a family line in which for 1300 years, the process of teaching and preaching and otherworldliness and spirituality prevailed. An outstanding name in this family line is that of Maulana Abu Ahmad Abdal Chishti [d.355 H]. He is the one with whom the famous Sufi silsila known as Chishtia began. Hazrat Nasiruddin Abu Yusuf's elder son was hazrat Khwaja Qutubuddin Maudood Chishti [d. 527 H] who was the Shaikh of Shaikhs of the entire Chishtia silsilas of India and the ancestor of the Maudoodi family."
[Monthly Tarjumanul Qur'an, May 2004, Special Issue on Syed Abul 'Ala Maudoodi, p.307]

One can safely say that Schwartz knows little, if anything, about Maudoodi. From somewhere he got the idea that Maudoodi called for the "destruction of existing governments." [p.132] No such instruction is given in any of Maudoodi's vast literature.

Perhaps what tied Maudoodi and Syed Qutb to "wahhabism'"in Schwartz' mind is the connection with Ibn Taymiyyah who died in 728 H. Shah Waliullah [1176 H/1762 CE] too was immensely inspired by Ibn Taymiyyah as were many others through Shah Waliullah. None of this has anything to do with "wahhabism" or terrorism. Islamic learning and the development of Islamic thought is much too complex a subject for Schwartz' seemingly limited mental abilities.

Schwartz is unable to see any difference between the Saudi ruling family and Osama bin Laden. That inability leads me to believe that I have wasted my time by reading Schwartz' book. I would suggest that he read Imperial Hubris by the U.S. intelligence officer whose task it was to study Osama bin Laden. The officer documents Osama's Islamic authenticity and debunks people like Schwartz who consider the leader of the armed international Islamic movement as a mere criminal.

Schwartz tried to taint my name by using my writings against the Saudi funded Muslim groups in America. He was unable to understand why the Saudis funded groups like ISNA. The purpose was not to spread something called "wahhabism" but to depoliticize the Muslims of America and to make them uncritical friends of the U.S. administration. Schwartz' reference to the AMC-ISNA operative Abdur Rahman al-Amoudi indicates how na´ve Schwartz is. He presents Al-Amoudi as an "extremist" supporter of Hamas! [p.237]. He does not know that Al-Amoudi was a friend of Hosni Mubarak [as related in Al-Amoudi's own AMC newsletter], the Egyptian dictator, and helped to put Shaikh Omar 'Abdel Rahman in prison.

When Al-Amoudi himself was arrested, he pleaded for his freedom recalling the services he had rendered to the U.S. State Department, including the use of money to buy out critics of the U.S.
[See Al-Amoudi's letter to the Washington Post published last year in New Trend.]

The Bush administration considers ISNA, CAIR and their offshoots funded by the corrupt Saudi regime as loyal friends, efficient at spreading government propaganda among Muslims. The FBI trusts these groups. Schwartz thinks these are "wahhabies" out to destroy America. Whom should we believe?

It appears that Schwartz has mistakenly "outed" the government agents working among the Muslims of America. Owing to his pressure
[through his "progressive" Muslim group, yes he claims to be a Muslim, and fellow travellers], ISNA-CAIR etc "leaders" revealed themselves much too early. They had been working quietly and successfully in Muslim communities when, after 9.11, Schwartz and other made-in-USA 'progressive Muslims' created tremendous pressure for conformity.

Feareful of being branded "wahhabies" and supporters of terrorism, ISNA-CAIR-ICNA etc showed their hand. They wanted to make it clear that they are 100% with the Bush administration. Hence, when the London bombings happened, these "leaders" rushed to show their loyalty. Finding that condemnation of the bombing was not considered enough by the Zionist power structure, they put on their Islamic garb and issued a "Fatwa against Terrorism" which did not mention the U.S. bombing of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Of particular interest is the case of Mahdi Bray, "leader" of a group calling itself MAS Freedom. Bray was a staunch supporter of Abdur Rahman Al-Amoudi. Details of their relationship, as related to funding, are not available yet
[Al-Amoudi always had stacks of cash on hand]. However, Bray prided himself on getting himself photographed with Al-Amoudi and loudly proclaimed al-Amoudi's innocence after he was arrested. He has not mentioned that relationship after Al-Amoudi's letter to the Washington Post was published.

After the London bombings, Bray, Johari Abdul Malik et al, jumped to out do CAIR. They stated that they would not only put an end to "extremism" in Muslim communities but would actually hand over alleged "exremists" to the FBI [thus opening the door to large scale spying and 'snitching' in the Muslim communities.].
{The entire Bray, Johari episode is available on C-Span and was also reported on by New Trend.}

Schwartz is a foolish friend of the Bush administration. He did not realize that if these pro-government groups had not been pressured to reveal their blind loyalty to the government, they would have been much more successful. Now they cannot get most Muslims to support them above the age group of 16-24. One has to be mentally unformed, largely assimilated and unaware to be influenced by these groups now.


One of the grotesque aspects of Schwartz' book [even by his own standards] is his attempt to link the Egyptian intellectual and martyr Syed Qutb to "wahhabism." The idea that Qutb would have ANYTHING to do with the amalgam of kingly despotism and controlled "externals only" religion epitomized by the Saudi dynasty is unthinkable for one who has read Syed Qutb. Here is a typical quote from Qutb:

"The absolute equality of all mankind was the message of Islam; that and an absolute freedom of conscience from all values and considerations that would detract from such equality."
[p.186, Social Justice in Islam by Syed Qutb, translated in 2000 from the Arabic of Adalah al-ijtimaiyah fi al-Islam (1949) by Prof Hamid Algar.]

Qutb goes on to illustrate from the life of the Prophet, pbuh, that former slaves and former masters were brought into one family of EQUALS by Islam. He gives specific examples.

There is absolutely no connection between Syed Qutb and the concept of "wahhabism" Schwartz conjures up. Qutb's writings were abandoned by his own group, the Ikhwan al-Muslimeen [Muslim Brotherhood] when it turned coat and sold out to the tyrants of Egypt. His writings link up with the Jihad movement's understanding of Islam and that could be the real reason for Schwartz' rancor. The issue of "wahhabism" has no relevance here.

click here to email a link to this article

2005-08-24 Wed 21:49ct