السبت، يونيو 25، 2005

Islamic Manners That Pertain To Speech

Islamic Manners That Pertain To Speech

The Merits Of Limiting One’s Speech And The Blameworthiness Of Talking Too Much

Because talkativeness leads to sinning and because carelessness in choosing one’s words leads to mistakes, we are encouraged to limit our speech. Al-Mugheerah Ibn Sho’ban (ra) related that the Messenger of Allah (saas) said:

‘Indeed, Allah has forbade you from being undutiful to your mother; from wrongfully preventing others from wealth, or wrongfully asking fro (or taking) wealth; and from burying your daughters alive.

And He (swt) has disliked for you gossip, asking too many questions, and wasting wealth.” “Gossip,” as An - Nawawee explained, refers to one speaking about the conditions and actions of others when they do not concern him.

Jaabir Ibn ‘ Abdullah (ra) reported that the Messenger of Allah (saas) said,

“Verily, the most beloved of you to me and the one among you who will be seated closes to me on the Day of Resurrection is the best of you in manners. The most hateful of you to me and those among you will be seated farthest from me on the Day of Resurrection are the Ath-Tharthaaroon (those who speak too much in an affected manner), Al-Mutashaddiqoon (those who feign; one way they do that is in the exaggerated movement of their mouth when they speak), and Al-Mutafaihiqoon.”

The Companions (ra) asked, “ O’ Messenger of Allah, we know that meaning of Ath-Tharthaaroon and Al-Mutashaddiqoon, but who are the Al-Mutafaihiqoon? “ He (saas) said,

“ The arrogant ones.” 1

Abu Hurairah (ra) said, “There is no good to be found in superfluous speech.” And ‘Umar Ibn Al-Khattaab (ra) said, “Whoever speaks frequently errs frequently.” And Ibn Al Qaasim said, “ I heard Maalik say, “ There is no good to be found in abundant speech,’ and he said that this quality is found most among women and children, who speak continuously without ever remaining silent…”

1) Related by Al-Tirmidhee from the Hadeeth of Jaabir (ra) (2018); the above mentioned wording is taken from his narration, about which he said “This hadeeth is Hasan Ghareeb.” And Ahmad related it from the Hadeeth of Abu Tha’labah Al-Khushanee (17278).

You are the best community (Ummah) raised up for (the benefit of) humanity; enjoining what is right and forbidding what is wrong and believing in Allah
[AL QUR'AN 3:110]
Read More

الأحد، يونيو 12، 2005

Bolton The Fixer

Bolton The Fixer
John Prados
June 09, 2005

John Prados is a senior fellow with the National Security Archive in Washington, D.C. He is author of Hoodwinked: The Documents That Reveal How Bush Sold Us a War (The New Press).

As the Bush administration pushes to secure confirmation by the United States Senate of John R. Bolton in his appointment as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, controversy continues to simmer—over failure to provide materials requested by the Foreign Relations Committee, over Bolton’s efforts to have intelligence officers fired for their views, over his arrogant management style.

But the truly important issue remains the one few have focused upon: Bolton’s role in making sure that the “intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy,” as British intelligence chief Sir Richard Dearlove told Tony Blair at a July 2002 meeting of the British Cabinet. Contrary to the mainstream narrative, Bolton’s was no private war with U.S. intelligence. Rather, his actions were crucial in creating the highly charged atmosphere in which the CIA and other U.S. intelligence agencies bit the bullet, ignored the gaps in their data and told Bush, Cheney, and the rest of the warhawks what they wanted to hear.

To a considerable extent, Bolton was one of Bush’s primary fixers.

The heart of the matter lies in the months before the Iraq war. The evidence shows that Bolton at the State Department acted in parallel with the Office of Vice President Richard Cheney at the White House and with the Office of Special Plans at the Pentagon—the unit created by Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith. The combination of their efforts had a chilling effect on the U.S. intelligence community, particularly that unit of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) that would be responsible for actually crafting the top level report, called a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), on Iraq.

Cheney focused directly on the Iraq intelligence, the allegation that Saddam Hussein’s regime was busily producing weapons of mass destruction. The vice president actively participated, visiting CIA headquarters to press analysts on their data, pushing back when CIA brought him Iraq items in the President’s Daily Brief reports, and sending his chief of staff I. Lewis Libby out to CIA to underline Cheney’s demands. Not surprisingly, many sources have reported that Cheney’s office cooperated closely with both John Bolton at State and Douglas Feith at the Pentagon. When things potentially useful in buttressing the White House position appeared, Cheney specifically followed up on them. This is exactly what happened with the (false) allegation that Saddam was seeking uranium ore in Niger, an intelligence story that came to a head in March 2002.

The Pentagon piece in this ensemble had built up speed by precisely that time. Soon after 9/11, Douglas Feith convinced Donald Rumsfeld to back his initiative for a special intelligence staff. Cutting through the palaver about how that unit was intended merely to find bits of data overlooked in conventional intelligence reporting, in fact the staff explicitly crafted a frontal attack on CIA’s terrorism data, rearranging it so as to maximize the impression there existed some alliance between Saddam and Osama bin Laden. That exercise came to a head at a meeting at CIA headquarters in August 2002.

Which brings us to John Bolton. Over the months culminating in July 2002 Bolton tried to have two different analysts fired for refusing to accede to intelligence claims he wanted to make in behalf of the administration. A State Department analyst, Christian Westerman, became the target in February. That amounted to more than an in-house fight because the analyst was known throughout the intelligence community (read CIA) and his troubles became known as well. In fact, Bolton made sure of it: his chief of staff, Frederick Fleitz, a CIA officer on detail from the Weapons Intelligence Proliferation and Arms Control (WINPAC) Center at the agency, kept his home office informed at every step along the way.

It would be WINPAC chief Alan Foley who, one month later, had to deal with the report from Ambassador Joseph Wilson that there was nothing to the Niger uranium claims. The debrief of Wilson’s trip to Niger, the Senate Intelligence Committee report on Iraq tells us, was held within CIA headquarters and not briefed to Vice President Cheney. Instead Cheney was told (on March 5, 2002) simply that the agency which had originally put out the uranium allegation had no new information.

That month also, according to the British newspaper The Guardian , John Bolton went public with a campaign to fire an international civil servant, U.N. official Jose Bustani, who ran the unit responsible for enforcement of the global treaty banning chemical weapons. Washington was displeased with U.N. inspection initiatives in the United States, but the immediate issue in March 2002 was Bustani’s attempt to bring Iraq into the treaty framework and send inspectors to establish whether Saddam had chemical weapons. Bolton flew to Europe and demanded that Bustani resign. A U.S. position paper attacked Bustani’s management style and in April, having failed to secure Bustani’s dismissal by his governing board, the United States called an unprecedented meeting of all treaty members where it secured a vote to fire the official. More than a year later the administrative tribunal that oversees the U.N. system ruled the U.S. allegations “vague” and the dismissal “unlawful.” From Bolton’s perspective the danger with Bustani was that his inspectors would find no chemical weapons in Iraq. That time he was successful.

Equally telling is Bolton’s next maneuver, which began when CIA’s National Intelligence Officer (NIO) for Latin America disagreed with Bolton’s claims about Cuba in a May 2002 speech. Bolton not only took umbrage, he recruited allies to demand the NIO be reassigned. Bolton’s office drafted a letter the allies could separately send the CIA making this demand, then, in late July, within a few days of the British prime minister’s being told that Washington was “fixing” its intelligence, Bolton instead carried his demand directly to the NIO’s boss, Stuart Cohen, then acting chairman of the National Intelligence Council, which supervises the NIEs. Ultimately it would go as high as John McLaughlin, the deputy director of central intelligence. As before, Bolton’s staff chief kept WINPAC in the picture on the efforts to get an analyst—this time a senior CIA estimator—fired.

At his meeting with Tony Blair on June 7, George Bush first went on the record regarding Sir Richard Dearlove’s observation about “fixed” intelligence. “There’s nothing farther from the truth,” Bush said. But consider—what was the state of play on September 11, 2002, when Congress asked the CIA for an NIE on Iraq and then-CIA director George Tenet ordered Cohen’s Council to create the report?

Stuart Cohen at the National Intelligence Council had to know that Tenet considered the Iraq charges a “slam dunk.” Cohen had been the direct recipient of a demand that he fire a subordinate for displeasing a consumer of CIA intelligence, and a witness of the Pentagon’s attacks on CIA’s reporting about Iraqi connections to Bin Laden. Tenet knew the terrorism position had come under attack. Both knew that Vice President Cheney would be hyperactive on an Iraqi intelligence issue. The WINPAC, responsible for what became the NIE’s outlandish claims on Iraqi nuclear weapons and aluminum tubes for uranium enrichment, knew that a Cheney associate, John Bolton, stood ready to demand blood on the floor if the intelligence did not come out the way he wanted it. Bolton’s actual portfolio specifically covered proliferation and arms control. Bolton had actually gotten a U.N. official fired in an Iraq matter.

It is no longer possible to argue that the Iraqi intelligence estimates of 2002 were not affected by politicization. And John Bolton helped create the chilling climate in which that Iraq NIE had to be written. This was no mere intelligence failure. Sir Richard Dearlove had that exactly right, at the time. The intelligence was fixed and Bolton was a prime fixer.

Bush said the accountability moment has passed. In fact, accountability has yet to be enforced. A good place to begin might be with the man who Boltonized this situation.

الأحد، يونيو 05، 2005

America is Doomed to Defeat

The Muslim International Newsletter
-- from Dr. Amir Ali -- amirali@ilaam.net

Note by Dr. Amir Ali: Abid Ullah Jan has used the phrase “security forces” which a mild and courteous way putting the matter. I would call them “officially ordained terrorist forces” of the bully and his faithful dog, Karzai. Similarly, in Iraq also there are officially ordained terrorist forces of faithful dogs and rats of Bush, the biggest Bully in the world.

Regarding desecration of the Qur’an, in the Muslim culture children are raised to respect all books especially religious books including the Qur’an. Instructions to the children are given never to put any book on the floor, never take any book to the bathroom and so on. The Qur’an occupies a higher place above all other books, for example, Muslims never place any book or any object on top of the Qur’an. This is part of the Muslim culture.

Today (June3, 2005) I was watching News Hour of Jim Lehrer on PBS, he had two commentators, one liberal and one conservative- they opined that as long as Guantanamo Bay prison (Gitmo) continues to exist, every day is American defeat. Indeed they are being truthful. America that gives lessons to the world about open society and democracy when itself operating secret prisons is an utter shame and defeat of the American system. If this is the example of democracy and open society, who would want such a society! This is exactly what Muslims are fighting against.


Sent: Saturday, May 28, 2005 8:51 PM

Why the War Lords will lose the “War of Ideas”

Abid Ullah Jan

Reaction of the US war lords to the reports of the “civilized” world’s desecrating the Qur’an for adding a new dimension to torturing human beings shows the yawning gap between the perceptions and ideologies of Muslims and those who are pitted against Islam.

Imagine the depth of ideas when Suzanne Fields argues: “Toilets don't kill people, fanatics do” (Washington Times, May 22, 2005).[1]

Or guess the crux of Thomas Friedman’s ideas when he writes: “…the Arab-Muslim world must also look in the mirror when it comes to how it has been behaving toward an even worse crime than the desecration of God's words, and that is the desecration of God's creations. In reaction to an unsubstantiated Newsweek story, Muslims killed 16 other Muslims in Afghanistan in rioting, and no one has raised a peep.” (NY Times, May 20, 2005)[2]

Interestingly, their denial of the reports about extremely debased ways of torturing human beings comes before their so-what justification. Suzanne Fields calls it “the inaccurate Newsweek item,” whereas to Friedman it was “unsubstantiated story.” Friedman adds: “Newsweek may have violated journalistic rules,” which, in other words mean: Don’t tell the truth if it exposes the inner filth of modern day crusaders.

Here we see an example of how the war lords attempt to distort the candid facts. The protesters didn’t “kill each other” in a “frenzy of hatred against America” as these analysts would like the world to believe.[3]

The truth as reported in the press is: “Fifteen people died and scores were injured in violence between protesters and security forces, prompting U.S. promises to investigate the allegations.”[4]

The obvious killers in this case are Afghan security forces. Everyone knows who commands them: the US installed mayor of Kabul, Mr. Karzai. He believes: “Those people demonstrating is against the strategic partnership of Afghanistan with the international community, especially the United States."[5]

For Karzai the desecration of the Qur’an was not the issue. Instead, he believes the protesters were “against the strengthening of the peace process."[6] Hence the killing was justified. His justification is hardly any different from Karimov’s ruse that those who died in his bloodbath “wanted to establish Khilafah.”

The second most important factor is the kind of labels these analysts are using to blame the killing of 16 people on the protesters and Imams, ignoring the US butchery of more than 150,000 people which the US has butchered in Afghanistan and Iraq since October 7, 2001.

Death of 16 protestors is the “desecration of the God’s creations.” But the routine torture in many US-run Abu Ghraibs around the world is not. To them, starving 1.8 million to death, flattening entire villages and every other U.S. crime against the humanity is nothing but just “collateral damage.”

Lastly, the difference between Muslims’ reverence for the Qur’an and the Americans’ not killing “each other over burning the Bible” is an evidence of the very basic difference in the perceptions, beliefs, ideology and the way of life of Muslims and those who have pitted the US and its allies against them.

Such a colossal misunderstanding of Muslims is going to cost the war lords their little empire. It shows that despite being guilty of the worst spiritual desecration of the Qur’an, Muslims would never allow others to physically desecrate it and then get themselves off the hook with arguing, “toilets don't kill people.”

It shows that although 99.9 per cent of Muslims are not living by Islam. But, when it comes to forcing them away from the Sunnah and asking them not to believe in the totality of the Qur’an, they will definitely react and do exactly the opposite.

Suzanne Fields argument that “toilets don’t kill” and Friedman’s twisted logic that killing is worse than desecrating the Qur’an shows their materialist mentality. Muslim’s global reaction on the other hand proves that despite being away from living by the Qur’an, Muslims still give preference to the rewards of their actions in the hereafter. Belief in the life after death dominates their subconscious mind and all major decisions.

The war lords could have win the war provided Friedman & Co. were not telling the world on weekly basis that the US and its allies must defeat “jihadists” in “the heart of the Muslims world.”

Regardless of Muslims running away from Islam, none of the Muslims appreciates the Islamophobes’ call for promoting “a war within Islam.” Most importantly, the war lords can hardly realize that their calls for defeating Muslims in the “war of idea” amount to a war on the ideas of the Qur’an and the Sunnah. These are the only two basic sources of Muslims’ ideology and ideas.

What confirms the impending embarrassing defeat of the war lords is their direct call to keeping Muslims away from the Qur’an and the Sunnah (e.g. Sam Harris, Washington Times, December 2, 2004 and Lawrence Auster, Front Page Magazine, January 28, 2005).

War lords are blinded to this factor despite the continuous protests on the Qur’an issue around the world. Even their most favored tyrant, General Musharraf has added his voice by calling it “reprehensible act.”[7] This shows when push comes to shove, the war lords will find most Muslims as one.

The bottom line of the war lords’ ideas is: Muslims must set aside the Qur’an and the Sunnah, and live by “our way of life” as Bush calls it.[8] Double speak and misnomer wars can hardly hide their objective of not allowing Muslims the right to self-determination and living by Islam without outside interference.

As a result, the war lords are facing a serious dilemma. In case they come out, talk straight and try to use violence to keep Muslims away from Islam, they not only get violence in return but also lose even the so-considered “moderate” allies because most of them are not so sure of the real objectives of their promoters.

In case the war lords continue to talk from both sides of their mouth, calling Islam a religion of peace publicly and privately working to deny Muslims the opportunity to live by it, they risk prolonging the conflict. Moreover, there is no guarantee that they will succeed in keeping people blind with their hypocrisy for too long.

In both cases, the war lords are destined to be big time losers. Their “war of ideas” will end with far more ignominious defeat than any people in history who launched wars to impose their ideas on others.

The more the war lords continue their present strategy, the more they dig a deep hole for themselves and many innocent people on both sides of the divide they are working to widen.

Abid Ullah Jan is the author of “A War on Islam?” and “The End of Democracy.”

[1] Suzanne Fields, “More than the Koran,” Washington Times, May 22, 2005. http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20050522-110113-4604r.htm

[2] Thomas L. Friedman, “The Best P.R.: Straight Talk ,” New York Times, May 20, 2005, Section A , Page 25 , Column 1

[3] Ibid Suzanne

[4] “Magazine erred in Quran story,” By Record Searchlight news services, May 16, 2005. http://www.redding.com/redd/nw_local/article/0,2232,REDD_17533_3781104,00.html

[5] STEPHEN GRAHAM, “Karzai Address unrest in Afghanistan,” CNews, May 14, 2005. http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2005/05/14/1039788-ap.html


[7] “He called on the US to conduct a comprehensive inquiry and individuals who may be found guilty of committing this reprehensible act should be awarded stern punishment,” said a statement issued by the foreign office after the meeting. Daily Dawn, May 27, 2005. http://www.dawn.com/2005/05/27/top1.htm

[8] See Bush’s “Address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American People,” September 2001, URL: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html

For other articles please visit Dr. Amir Ali's article collection at http://www.ilaam.net. Dr. Amir Ali may be reached at amirali@ilaam.net.


If you like the work of Dr. Amir Ali you are requested to support the following Da'wah organization financially by sending your donation in any amount in U.S. dollars to:

The Institute of Islamic Information and Education
P.O. Box 410129
Chicago, IL 60641-0129

Alternately, please go the III&E web site at http://www.iiie.net/Main/HelpDawah.html

For publications of the Institute visit http://www.iiie.net.
Views articulated in the articles circulated by Dr. Amir Ali are not necessarily representative of the Institute of Islamic Information and Education (III&E) or its Board of Trustees, Board of Directors, employees or volunteers.

The Case against Invading Iraq

Shaking Hands With the Butcher

By Paul Harris
Columnist (Canada)

This article was originally published in YellowTimes.Org

There is a wonderful photograph floating around the Internet these days. It is not a fake; it is not doctored; it is real. It shows the smiling face of a much younger Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with the Butcher of Baghdad.

This photo was taken December 20, 1983, when Rumsfeld was sent to Iraq as a special envoy of Ronald Reagan. It has come to light recently as part of a series of documents that have been declassified and that tell the tale of an obnoxious U.S. policy that was every bit as indefensible as the present U.S. policy.

During the 1980s, U.S. policy embraced Saddam Hussein. Diplomatic relations with Iraq had been suspended since 1967 (Arab-Israeli conflict) but the United States wanted to renew ties and to provide assistance to Iraq. During the period where the U.S. moved to establish this good rapport with Iraq, the American interest was in ensuring that Iraq was not defeated by Iran in a war that was ongoing between the two nations. Iran, you will remember, had done a nasty thing to America by taking over the U.S. embassy in Tehran and holding several dozen Americans hostage for over a year. Even though that situation was resolved by the time the U.S. renewed its relationship with Baghdad, memories of hatred for Iran died slowly.

And during this period of renewed friendship, it was well known to the U.S. that Saddam Hussein had invaded Iran and had long-range nuclear aspirations that probably included an eventual nuclear weapon capability. It was also known that terrorists were being harbored in Baghdad, that the human rights of Iraqi citizens were being abused, that Saddam possessed chemical weapons and had probably used them on his own people as well as on the Iranians.

The declassified documents include a lot of material that reports on two Rumsfeld trips to Baghdad, on Iraq's use of the chemical weapons, and decision directives signed by President Reagan that reveal the specific U.S. policies for the region: preserving oil access, expanding U.S. ability to exert military influence in the area.

They also include a U.S. cable recording the conversation between Rumsfeld and Saddam on the day this photo was taken. Rumsfeld apparently told CNN during an interview on September 21, 2002 that he had cautioned Saddam about the use of chemical weapons during this meeting but the transcript shows this is not the case.

There is also a National Security Decision Directive dated April 5, 1984, which calls for an "unambiguous" condemnation of the use of chemical weapons, although it does not mention Iraq. What it does state, though, is a stress on protecting Iraq from Iran's "ruthless and inhumane tactics" and ensuring a plan of action to avert an Iraqi collapse.

In 1984, the United States and Iraq consulted about a resolution proposed to the United Nations by Iran, in regard to Iraq's chemical weapons. The Iranian resolution was presented to the Security Council and called for a condemnation of Iraq's use of these weapons. Iraq conveyed to the United States that it wanted a lower-level response that did not name any country in regard to the chemical warfare; the U.S. supported this request.

Astoundingly, there is also a U.S. document that publicly condemns the use of chemical weapons in the Iraq-Iran war, without naming names. Ayatollah Khomeini had refused to end hostilities until Saddam Hussein was ejected from power. The written and public U.S. response was: "The United States finds the present Iranian regime's intransigent refusal to deviate from its avowed objective of eliminating the legitimate government of neighboring Iraq to be inconsistent with the accepted norms of behavior among nations." Well, pardon me. Did I miss the point where the legitimate government of Iraq became the illegitimate government? Did I miss the memo that said eliminating governments is acceptable for the United States but no one else?

The United States claimed to be officially neutral during the Iraq-Iran war and claimed that it provided arms to neither side. Well, not directly maybe. Arms were shipped to Iran via Israel and various countries in Europe, Asia, and South America. Initially, the Iraqis started with a Soviet-supplied arsenal but needed more as the war raged. By mid-1982, Iraq was on the defensive and the United States decided that an Iranian victory would not be in U.S. interests. So they accelerated contact with Baghdad, removed Iraq's name from a State Department list of nations supporting terrorism, pressured the Export-Import Bank to provide Iraq with financing and to enhance its credit standing to allow it to obtain loans from other international financial institutions. The United States Agriculture Department provided taxpayer guaranteed loans to Iraq for the purchase of American commodities.

Although formal relations with Iraq were not established until November 1984, the U.S. had begun several years earlier to provide Iraq with intelligence and military support (in secret, and contrary to official U.S. neutrality policies) on direct order of Ronald Reagan. And about this time, the U.S. began to funnel weaponry and military equipment to Iraq. It came either through intermediary nations or by deliberately turning a blind eye to the obvious; for instance, in April 1984 the State Department willingly accepted the declaration of Bell Helicopter Textron that the helicopters they were selling to Iraq's Ministry of Defense were not in any way configured for military use. No doubt they were for covering the morning traffic reports for Radio Baghdad.

During the spring of 1984, the U.S. reconsidered its policy of selling nuclear-related equipment and knowledge to Iraq. The documents reveal the U.S. was certain that even after the conflict with Iran was ended, Iraq would continue to develop its nuclear program up to the point of possessing nuclear weapons. Although Iraq resides in a dangerous part of the world, no one had blinked when Israel stockpiled a large cache of nuclear weaponry because proliferation was not a priority for Reagan's administration. Throughout the earlier part of the 1980s, the Reagan White House had downplayed Pakistan's nuclear program in order to avoid congressionally mandated sanctions against Pakistan. This was to ensure that the U.S. could continue to provide massive military assistance to Pakistan in return for its support of the Afghanis who were fighting the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.

What makes this whole matter so perverted is that the current U.S. administration uses against Iraq exactly what a former U.S. administration gave to Iraq. Bush and Rumsfeld describe Iraq in stark, moralistic terms to persuade a skeptical world that a premeditated and pre-emptive attack on Iraq is just. They claim that this all arises because Saddam has nasty weapons, although the U.S. administration, partly with the assistance of Rumsfeld, looked the other way during the time that Saddam may actually have been using those nasty weapons. In Reagan's days in office, chemical warfare conducted by a country with which the U.S. wanted to be friendly was a potential embarrassment but they found a way around that obstacle. Now, a past history of chemical warfare is enough reason for the Bush government to wipe away the former position of the United States that the "objective of eliminating the legitimate government of neighboring Iraq (is) inconsistent with the accepted norms of behavior among nations."
At least now we can all see clearly that the morals of the United States are only those of convenience.


Posted By: wtnf
Date: 11, March 03, at 2:51 p.m.آ
JON RAPPOPORT www.stratiawire.com

MARCH 11. Very little attention has been paid to Stephen Pelletiere's op ed piece in the New York Times (Jan. 31, "A War Crime or an Act of War").

Pelletiere was the CIA's senior political analyst on Iraq during the 1980s war between Iraq and Iran, and later served as a professor at the US Army War College (1988-2000).

His op ed piece attacks the theory that Saddam gassed the Kurds. You know, "Saddam gassed his own people." That oft-repeated charge that makes up a significant part of the administration's argument for war now.

Pelletiere had access to a lot of the classified data that was generated around the Kurd matter. He was in charge of the 1991 Army probe that investigated the question: How would Saddam fight a war against the US?

The major gassing incident occurred in March 1988 at a town called Halabja. "But the truth is," Pelletiere writes, "all we know for certain is that Kurds were bombarded with poison gas that day." This occurred near the end of the Iraq-Iran war.

Pelletiere writes, "…immediately after the battle [at Halabja] the United States Defense Information Agency investigated and produced a classified report, which it circulated within the intelligence community on a need-to-know basis. That study asserted that it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds, not Iraqi gas."

Obviously, this report has been intentionally ignored by several presidents and their major mouthpieces.

Pelletiere goes on to write that both the Iraqis and the Iranian troops used gas at Halabja. "The condition of the dead Kurds' bodies, however, indicated that they had been killed with a blood agent---that is, a cyanide-based gas---which Iran was known to have. The Iraqis, who are thought to have used mustard gas in the battle, are not known to have possessed blood agents at the time."

If Bush were simply saying that Saddam deserves to die because he used mustard gas, then Bush might want to mention, as well, that the US employed tons and tons of Agent Orange (a chemical, the last time I looked) in Vietnam.

Then Pelletiere raises and answers a very interesting question. Why was the battle of Halabja fought?"... Iraq has the most extensive river system in the Middle East... Iraq had built an impressive system of dams and river control projects, the largest being the Darbandikhan dam in the Kurdish area. And it was this dam the Iranians were seeking to take control of when they seized Halbja."

Pelletiere points out that a water pipeline through Iraq "could bring the waters of the Tigris and Euphrates south to the parched Gulf states, and by extension, Israel."

To date that pipeline has not been built. But after Gulf War 2? Would Israel become one of the prime beneficiaries in the aftermath?

Remember, the charge that has been leveled at Saddam is, he gassed his own civilians. Pelletiere is offering evidence collected by US intelligence and military analysts that refutes that charge.

Bush, Powell, Blair, and the rest of the crew are brushing all this off without a glance.


السبت، يونيو 04، 2005

Having the Inner Intention for Jih?d

Bismillaahir Rahmaanir Raheem


All Praise is for All?h who has obligated Jih?d upon his servants, and has promised them firm establishment on Earth and dominance over the people of disbelief. And may Prayers and Peace be upon the best of His servants, the one who truly struggled in the Path of All?h until he achieved that which was certain (death). May All?h send Prayers and Peace upon him and his household and his fine and pure Companions.

As for what follows:

My noble brothers: the times in which we live are times ofsuch tribulation and estrangement for Isl?m which history has not witnessed before, where strangeness has become the norm and tribulation has become widespread, and where the entire Earth has become a stage for this conflict and for the expulsion of those who are firm upon their D?n and hold onto it and defend it with their tongues and weapons… therefore, the entire world has announced its war on terrorism – or, rather, on Jih?d – and its opposition to it and its various forms from being utilized by the Muslims.

So, Isl?m attacked from a single bow, and the nations of disbelief and their helpers from every corner of the Earth gathered against the Aided Group (at-T?'ifah al-Mans?rah) that took upon its shoulders this war against disbelief and the disbelievers - a clear and intense war void of any rest or mercy - until the Command of All?h arrives while they are upon that, and they will not be harmed by those who betray them from the treacherous or defeated Muslims or those who have drowned in the mud of this lowly worldly life. And they will not be harmed by those who oppose them from the groups of disbelief and the gangs of apostates and deniers, nor from the misguided innovators. And there is no doubt that Jih?d today is from the most virtuous means of gaining nearness to All?h. Rather, it is an obligation that All?h has obligated upon us, and there is nothing more obligatory upon the Muslims after having ?m?n in All?h than Jih?d and repelling the invader who has occupied the lands of the Muslims.

If you turned towards Isl?m in a land * You would find it to be like a bird whose wings have been cut off.

Jih?d today is the Ummah’s only choice, as the enemy today has occupied the lands of the Muslims – one by one – as All?h the Exalted said: {…And they will never cease fighting you until they cause you to turn back from your D?n, if they are able to do so…}.

So, the Muslims today are left with no choice but that of Jih?d and the language of weaponry.

Tell me, by your Lord: an invading enemy who has occupied lands, violated honor, made orphans out of children and widows out of women, has begun to strike at Isl?m in every valley… after all of this, is there a doubt that the only way to come to an understanding with this enemy is through the language of force and revenge?

So, iron is not to be fought except with iron, and force is not to be met except with force…

And it has been established for us in the Qur’?n and the Sunnah – and reality bears witness to this and confirms it – that negotiations and peace do not bring back upon those who seek them except clear loss and dismal failure, and an increase in servitude to other than All?h and submission to the transgressors. You are warned of those who seek them (negotiations) in the name of the Muslims from the treacherous rulers who are not from us and whom we are not from them. Rather, they are an archenemy to us, as through them, the disbelievers have toyed with us, and through their plans and deceptions, our rights have been taken and lost.

How can it be otherwise while All?h has said in His Book and has informed us that they have started the war with us for one specific goal, and that is : {… until they cause you to turn back from your D?n if they are able to…}?

There is no solution except for the greatest Jih?d * World peace no longer satisfies us,

There is no peace for the enemy. This is a legislation * and belief in every Muslim heart.

From this standpoint, and since Jih?d is the choice of the Ummah and the necessary and ordained obligation, I decided – after consulting one of the brothers – to write about some steps that everyone can take to serve the Jih?d and its people, and to energize the train of Jih?d that is moving quickly despite the overwhelming arrogance of the transgressors.

… asking All?h for Guidance and assistance and firmness, and to ordain for it acceptance and benefit for the people.

Written by:

Muhammad ibn Ahmad As-S?lim (pen name of Shaykh ‘?s? Al-‘Awshin, may All?h accept him as a Shah?d) - 19/5/1424 H

From the upcoming At-Tiby?n Publication,
"39 Ways to Serve and Participate in Jih?d"

1) Having the Inner Intention for Jih?d

Having the inner intention to fight – the true inner intention which leads to one seeking to answer the call of Jih?d whenever the caller calls: "Saddle up, O cavalry of All?h!" and to make the person promise himself that he would jump forth to join the fight and go forth if he is called to go forth and if his aide is sought from his brothers, in accordance with the saying of the Prophet (peace be upon him): "…and if you are called to go forth, then go forth."

And if the person intends with himself to go fight, then he misses the chance to go or he is not able to do so, then he becomes pained by this, as All?h says regarding the Ash'ariyy?n – the Companions who were unable to find preparation for themselves to go fight - :

ولا على الذين إذا ما أتوك لتحملهم قلت لا أجد ما أحملكم عليه تولوا
وأعينهم تفيض من الدمع حزناً ألا يجدوا ما ينفقون

{"Nor (is there blame) on those who came to you to be provided with mounts, when you said: "I can find no mounts for you," they turned back with their eyes overflowing with tears of grief that they could not find anything to spend (for the Jih?d)."} [At-Tawbah; 9:92]

So, this is from the perfection of having the true intention to fight, and the grief and regret that the person feels out of what he missed of fighting in the Path of All?h.

As for the one who says, when the path is closed to him or he is unable to go fight: "Praise for All?h who has saved me from possessing the necessities for Jih?d," then this is one who hates fighting and does not seek it; he is like the hypocrites who hate to fight and do not march forth except while they hate to do so. And if they march forth, they discourage the army and run away when the battle begins. And what a clear difference – by All?h – between the one who weeps out of the grief of missing out on fighting and Jih?d, and the one who hides his happiness and joy that he has found an excuse or reason for himself not to fight, and All?h knows all that which is hidden and all that the hearts conceal…

And having the intention with one's self to go fight removes a characteristic of hypocrisy from a person, as is shown in Sah?h Muslim from the had?th of Ab? Hurayrah (may All?h be pleased with him) that the Messenger of All?h (peace be upon him) said: "Whoever dies without having fought (in the Path of All?h), or did not have the intention to fight, then he dies upon a branch of hypocrisy."

Shaykh ul-Isl?m Ibn Taymiyyah said:

"And as for the minor hypocrisy (nif?q), then it is hypocrisy in actions and what is related. For example, the person lies if he speaks, or breaks his promise if he makes it, or is treacherous if he is trusted with something, or is foul-mouthed if he is at odds with someone… and included in this is avoiding Jih?d, for it is from the characteristics of the hypocrites (Mun?fiq?n). The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: "Whoever dies without having fought (in the Path of All?h), or did not have the intention to fight, then he dies upon a branch of hypocrisy." And All?h revealed S?rat Bar?'ah (At-Tawbah) that is also known as 'The Exposer' (Al-F?dihah), because it exposed the hypocrites… So, All?h clarified in this chapter the situation of the hypocrites and described them in it with cowardliness and abandonment of Jih?d, and He described them as being stingy to spend in the Path of All?h and coveting their wealth, and these are two dangerous diseases: cowardliness and stinginess… All?h said:

إنَّمَا الْمُؤْمِنُونَ الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا بِاللَّهِ وَرَسُولِهِ ثُمَّ لَمْ يَرْتَابُوا وَجَاهَدُوا بِأَمْوَالِهِمْ وَأَنْفُسِهِمْ فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ أُولَئِكَ هُمُ الصَّادِقُونَ

{"…Verily, the believers are those who have believed in All?h and His Messenger and do not doubt after that, and struggled with their wealth and lives in the Path of All?h. Those! They are they truthful."} [Al-Hujur?t; 49:15]

So, he has limited the believers to those who believe and make Jih?d. And All?h said:

لَا يَسْتَأْذِنُكَ الَّذِينَ يُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الْآخِرِ أَنْ يُجَاهِدُوا بِأَمْوَالِهِمْ وَأَنْفُسِهِمْ وَاللَّهُ عَلِيمٌ بِالْمُتَّقِين* إنَّمَا يَسْتَأْذِنُكَ الَّذِينَ لَا يُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الْآخِرِ وَارْتَابَتْ قُلُوبُهُمْ فَهُمْ فِي رَيْبِهِمْ يَتَرَدَّدُونَ َ

{"Those who believe in All?h and the Last Day would never ask you to be exempted from fighting with their wealth and their lives in the Path of All?h, and All?h is the All-Knower of those who are pious. It is only those who do not believe in All?h and the Last Day and whose hearts are in doubt that ask for you to exempt them, so in their doubts they waver."} [At-Tawbah; 9:44-45]

So, All?h is informing us that the believer would never ask the Messenger to exempt him from the Jih?d, but the ones who ask him for this are those who do not believe. So, how would it be for the one who abandons it (Jih?d) without asking the Prophet's permission?" [Majm?' al-Fat?w?; 28/436]

So, be warned and be warned, my Muslim brother, from being like the hypocrites or dying upon a branch of hypocrisy. And as for the one who criticizes the Muj?hid?n and those who leave for Jih?d in various ways – one time saying he is too impatient, another time blaming him for not seeking advice – then we say to him:

O you who have discouraged our youth from Jih?d * Hold back your slander and rejection.

Is the one blameworthy who desires the Gardens and their essence * And is constantly traveling the path of the Companions?

Is the one blameworthy who has abandoned this life and its emptiness * And with heated determination went and marched forth?

Is the one blameworthy who submitted his life for All?h * Seeking with it the Firdaws – the best of destinations?

So relieve the Jih?d and its people from your admonishment * Be warned of the description of hypocrisy, be warned...

Whoever does not fight or intend to fight * And dies, dies a terrible death…

Verily, Jih?d is the way to our honor * And by leaving it we are humiliated and live a lowly life.

[From the upcoming At-Tiby?n Publication, '39 Ways to Serve and Participate in Jih?d']


أرشيف المدونة الإلكترونية