Dr Kaukab Siddique | Editor-in-Chief Shawwal 24, 1425/December 7, 2004 #119

W. Deen Muhammad's visit to Lincoln University. Supporter of Bush Tried to Undermine Main Islamic Belief. $3,000 is too little for him, he declared.

[Eye Witness Account part 2]
W. Deen's visit to Lincoln University happened in a period all Muslims will agree is the best of times to have witnessed life. He came on eve of Lailat-ul-Qadr (the night of power). For the fact that I had heard a lot about his message from his supporters, I must say I was not only looking forward to witnessing him speak but I was also expecting to hear some strong message of awakening. It is however depressing to admit that a Muslim American Leader would stand before a crowd of majority non-Muslim college students to proclaim a message that would have otherwise caused tremor among muslims. W. Deen came to Lincoln University to stand before a few novel, expectant listeners like myself to nullify one of the strong tenets of Islamic belief; that Seyyidna Muhammad (P.B.U.H) is the last messenger and prophet. He categorically said, "We muslims should stop saying that Muhammad is the last messenger cause he is not!!" Surprisingly his "followers" in the audience found no fault in this statement. What was particularly shocking which I found hard to believe was: if Muhammad (pbuh) is not the last messenger, is he (W. Deen) a messenger? What type of Messenger charges outrageous amounts for a divine message? Another shocking statement uttered by this blasphemous speaker who calls himself Muslim was that of ingratitude about the expenses incurred to get him to speak. If I recall precisely, a young brother stood to express how hard he had tried to get him to come while he was a student on Lincoln campus but that bro. Dhuhan Abdullah had succeeded in getting him to come ten years later. He responded saying that of course it would have been impossible to get him to come if all we (the Muslim Students Association) had to offer him was $3,000! Should I bring to our attention that the semester before his visit was made possible, Bro. Dhuhan Abdullah had failed in getting him to come because of financial constraints. Would a sincere "messenger" not have been humble and grateful that college students had gone through days of funding raising to get him to deliver his "message." Perhaps there was a reason all attempts of his visit proved abortive. Being a first time listener, now I know why W. Deen was never meant to have visited Lincoln University. His visit was a loss to us (the Muslim Students Association) and to Islam. I am indeed bitter with disappointment!!!
[To be continued.]


Monday, December 6.2004 was the first day of the presentation of Ahmed's case. It has been estimated that the defense for Ahmed will need two weeks to complete. Please try to make time in your day to come out and show support for Ahmed these two weeks. If you cannot make it to the court house please make dua' for him and keep him in your prayers. God Willing, next Eid we will all be together.

Thankfully Yours,

Please come as often as you can, even for just a few hours. Court is in session Monday through Thursday, from 9:00am until 12:45, then from 2:00pm until 4:30.
United States District Court
Southern District of New York
40 Foley Square, Courtroom 110
(Centre Street - old federal courthouse) 

Closest Subways:
4,5 or 6 to Brooklyn Bridge
or the A, C or E to Chambers
1 or 2 to Franklin
N or R to City Hall
WAR NEWS: [Collected by our Media Monitor]


"We have broken the back of the terrorists. We are ready to talk to all Kashmiri groups." Indian government statement.
December 5. A major in the Indian army and 10 Indian troops were killed in a bomb attack on the highway to Srinagar. Hizbul Mujahideen has taken responsibility.
December 3. All three camps set up by the Indian Central Reserve Police [CRP] in Srinagar were attacked simultaneously. After intense fire fights, the mujahideen withdrew without loss, leaving behind 11 Indian security forces killed and some injured. Indian forces sealed off all routes to the city and carried out house-to-house searches.

"Saudi" Arabia:

"We have broken the back of the terrorists in the [Saudi] Kingdom."
[Saudi government statement.] [Six months back.]
December 6: Five mujahideen attacked the U.S. Consulate in Jedda, the most heavily guarded building in the entire country. After three hours of fighting, Associated Press reports, three of the fighters were killed and two wounded and captured. Five non-Saudis security men working for the Consulate were killed and 9 wounded. Four Saudi security force men were also killed.


"We have broken the back of the insurgency [with the capture of Fallujah]." [U.S. military General]
December 3 to 5 was one of the bloodiest weekends in recent Iraqi history as the mujahideen launched numerous attacks in rapid succession. By the end of Sunday, 71 Iraqis working for the U.S. security agencies were killed, including 17 Kurdish Peshmerga trained in Israel. U.S. troops were repeatedly attacked and 11 of them were killed. Amazingly, there were no mujahideen losses this weekend. A part of the northern oil pipeline was also set on fire. The attacks ranged all the way from Baghdad to Tikrit to Mosul to the Jordan border.
[There was new fighting in Fallujah on December 6.]

President Bush: Confused or Uninformed?
[New Trend analysis.]

The U.S. is disturbed that the mujahideen successully breached Saudi security and attacked the U.S. Consulate in Jeddah. Both President Bush and Secretary Powell issued statements condemning the attack. President Bush seemed to confuse Saudi Arabia with Iraq. He said the terrorists want to get us out of Saudi Arabia and Iraq and hence elections in Iraq are important. Strange logic, or lack of logic? Saudi Arabia is one of the most repressive regimes in the world. It ignores the rule of law and practices torture against opponents. Islamic scholars are forced by the regime to come on TV and condemn the mujahideen [shades of Stalin]. By supporting the Saudi regime, Bush is showing that he does not support democracy. The Iraqis want Bush and the U.S. military out of Iraq, but Bush wants to hold "elections" there. Even a child could figure out the contradiction in such thinking. ANY ELECTION HELD UNDER MILITARY OCCUPATION IS NULL AND VOID in both International Law and Islamic Law. Who advises Bush? The man's thought processes are quite tangled. The Saudi kingdom spends more than $2 billion on INTERNAL SECURITY to keep the relatively small population of Arabia under the Saudi tyranny. If that EXTREMELY TIGHT security cannot suppress the mujahideen, then it's only a matter of time before the corrupt, anti-Islamic monarchy
[which exploits the name of religion] will go down in flames. Any wise U.S. government would open channels of communication with the mujahideen who will sooner or later abolish the monarchy and rule by the Qur'an and the authentic Hadith. The oil has to be sold. There is absolutely no reason why it should be sold by a family of playboys. Why are Somalia, Sudan, Eritrea, Ethiopia poverty stricken while right across the water, the biggest bonanza of wealth is being squandered by effeminate, corrupt, dirty princes who have violated every law of the Qur'an by establishing hereditary monarchy. Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) taught that the earth BELONGS TO ALLAH.
[Source: Sahih Bukhari.]
The Saudi monarchy claims that the earth, at least in Arabia, belongs to the mentally/morally sick Saudi "royal" family. President Bush cannot save the Saudis. If he keeps trying, the whole Muslim world will mobilize against America. This is no ordinary land. This is the land of Makka and Madinah.

SHEDDING LIGHT ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE ELMASRY AFFAIR. Challenged Zionist Right to Kill Palestinians. Denounced in Orchestrated Campaign.

[By Marjaleena Repo, Saskatoon, Canada.] =======================================================================
The "Elmasry Affair" has for over a month now produced a virulent crop of media frenzy. It could have been a tempest in a teapot were it not for the hurricane that was deliberately created, devastating the name and reputation of Dr. M. Elmasry, president of the Canadian Islamic Congress and a leading spokesperson on issues affecting Canadian Muslims -- and casting a shadow on all Muslims in the country who are habitually blamed for actual and perceived misdeeds of their fellow religionists.

On October 19, Dr. Elmasry was one of four panelists on Michael Coren's Toronto TV show, confronting the difficult task of defining terrorism.
The one-hour show, with its countless commercial interruptions, is by its choppy nature ill-suited for complex and controversial matters, but the guests nevertheless wrestled with the topic, producing a fair amount of heat but, predictably, less light.

Early in the show, a panelist, Adam Aptowitzer, chair of B'nai Brith's Institute for International Affairs, declared that the Israeli state is morally justified in using terror against Palestinians, such as razing of homes in payback for a family member's suicide bombing mission: "When Israel uses terror to go in and I say, it uses terror to destroy a home and convince people, you know, to be terrified of what the possible consequences are, I say that that is an acceptable use of [terror], to terrify someone." He restated his position several times during the show.

Another panelist, "terrorism consultant" Peter. Merrifield, likewise declared from "a tactical standpoint " (his words) that "...by targeting their loved ones and their families, it is in essence a deterrent, I am not saying it is right, but I understand the concept behind it." All of this was received by the host with nary the lifting of an eyebrow. But when Dr. Elmasry attempted to differentiate between the aggressor and the victim, with examples of the illegal U.S, invasion of Iraq and the decades of lawless occupation of Palestinian lands by Israel, all hell broke loose. During his efforts to define terrorism as acts against "totally innocent" people (children and others not involved in the confrontation), he ended up stating that Palestinian "terrorists" would view all Israeli citizens over the age of 18 as part of the illegal occupation, and therefore as "legitimate targets." He did not endorse this view, in my opinion, but merely presented it in the same fashion Mr. Merrifield had done.

The host would have none of it, and losing all his charm and civility proceeded from then on to prevent Dr. Elmasry from elaborating and clarifying his position, interrupting, scowling and barking at him, and adding some gratuitous insults as well. Even the parallel Dr. Elmasry drew between the resistance to Nazi occupations in various European countries and the resistance by the Iraqis and Palestinians drew another loud dismissal from Mr. Coren

In his post-debate column in the Toronto Sun the same Michael Coren who had slid by statements defending Israel's state terrorism, continued his attack on Dr. Elmasry. Mr. Merrifield could say that he "understood the concept behind it" but Dr. Elmasry was not allowed such "understanding" when it came to Iraqis and Palestinians engaged in acts of resistance against illegal military invasions and occupations of their territory. To understand is not necessarily to endorse, except in Dr. Elmasry's case. In an instant he had become an anti-Jewish, anti-semitic terrorism supporter, despite his track record and repeated statement during the show to the contrary.

The rest is history. Dr. Elmasry's name was mud and major newspapers demanded his resignation at the head of the CIC, by Jewish and other organizations (including the Canadian Auto Workers). His job as a professor has been threatened and someone launched a complaint against him under Canada's hate law. Columnists have had a heyday piling on Dr. Elmasry, with one vicious and derogatory article after another, all sounding as if they had been waiting for a long time for the opportunity to take him down. Perhaps the most outrageous were the two columns by Rosie DiManno of the Toronto Star who had just lost an Ontario Press Council case in which Dr. Elmasry had complained about her demeaning generalization of all things Muslim in an earlier column. Her columns now reeked of revenge. Christie Blatchford in the Globe and Mail and Diane Francis in the National Post were similarly merciless in their attacks Dr.Elmasry and the CIC, demanding severe consequences, and even, as in Francis' column, projecting a deportation of Dr. Elmasry along the lines planned for holocaust- denier Ernst Zundel.

Oddly anti-climatic was the brief news item two weeks later on November 3 that Adam Aptowitzer had had to resign his position with the B'nai Brith for his statements on the show, which were brought to light in news releases by Arab Canadian organizations. Beyond a few news reports about Mr. Aptowitzer's resignation (and a mild mea culpa by Toronto Star's ombudsman), there has been complete silence: no apologies, no recanting and no corrective editorials and columns from those who previously rushed to judgment. (It is doubtful to me, after having viewed the tape half-a-dozen times, that any of the critics had actually seen and heard the debate, beyond reading a truncated transcript. Although Ms. Blatchford claims to have done so, she must have repeatedly fallen sleep during Mr. Aptowitzer's and Mr. Merrifields statements -- or simply chose to ignore them to suit her purposes.)

A month later amid vociferous publicity Dr. Elmasry's reputation is in shreds and his organization's clouded, while Mr. Aptowitzer was able to quietly step down and his organization remain on its high horse as if their man's utterances meant nothing. Should he also not be "investigated" and threatened with dire consequences and should the assorted Jewish organizations not be invited to eat some humble pie, too? (Michael Coren has yet to write a column about the pot calling the kettle black.)

There are some lessons here for all of us: Unlike the saying, what is sauce for the goose appears NOT to be sauce for the gander. Double standards and hypocrisy rule the media when it comes to the conflict in the Middle East. No one may entertain any ideas of "understanding" the reason and logic of Palestinian resistance (or Iraqi for that matter), including in their most terrible manifestations. There is no similarity, we are told, between the resistance in Palestine and Iraq and that in Europe during the Nazi occupation of various countries. The latter was good, honourable resistance to foreign aggression; the Iraqis and Palestinians are merely "extremists," "rebels," "insurgents" (in their own countries, yet!) -- and, of course, "terrorists" -- who should find better ways of resisting the violence directed against them by United States and Israel.

These are unacceptable lessons that thinking and fair-minded Canadians will have to challenge to the hilt

click here to email a link to this article

2004-12-08 Wed 05:11ct