NewTrendMag.org
News
#
1226
[
Click on NEWS for back issues
][
OUR BOOKS
]
Jamada al-Thani 17,1429/ June 21, 2008, #35
Foreigners run America?
Scroll way down
to see list of foreigners with dual nationalities.
August 16, 2008:
www.JAM4PEACE.org
[re: Br. Aziz]
International Islamic Conference for Peace and Awareness:
A First in U.S. Muslim History
Challenging the forces of war, conquest and Hegemony
This is your invitation from Imam Badi Ali, North
Carolina, Convener of the August 16 conference.
This will be a historic conference, inshallah. It's not in
any way like the usual conferences held by Muslims in
America. If it were a conference like other conferences,
there would be no need to hold it.
Conferences are quite common in American Muslim communities.
They are held for a variety of local reasons:
Some are held to support the U.S. government and to
condemn "terrorism."
Some are held to raise money for various projects
and buildings.
Some are held for socializing, making "Islamic music,"
selling goods and for finding marriage partners.
Still others are held to extol personalities
and individuals.
Some are held under the topic of civic responsibilities as
if Muslims don't know how to do their daily work
as Muslims.
Last but not least, there are gatherings to learn elementary
Islamic rituals like the salat and to work together to live
as Muslims.
We are inviting you to a conference which is about war and
peace from an Islamic viewpoint. The direction of the
Muslim ummah in America needs to be
changed. These are times of transformation and cataclysm.
America and the world are in the grip of global conflict.
Instead of being the objects of other peoples' agendas and
constantly working for the program of the American power
structure, we need to come up with independent assessments of
the situation.
The American people need to know what is really going on.
From the Islamic viewpoint, war is totally counterproductive
for America and is causing mass death and destruction in
Muslim lands with spiraling poverty and suffering around
the world.
Bombs cannot defeat the Muslims. Israel cannot defeat the
Muslims. Iraq and Afghanistan have absorbed countless
American bombs and remain undefeated and resurgent.
Palestine has suffered beyond all suffering but stands strong
and defiant. We must come up with solutions which are viable
and honest.
Q & A
Does Islam say that the Wife Should Obey the Husband?
Why are Marriages under Stress?
Several readers have pointed to Saudi-linked lists which are
propagating the claim according to Islam, the wife should
Obey the husband. The Saudi-influenced scholars are saying
that if a wife leaves the house for any reason, she must ask
her husband's permission. They say that even the woman's
voice is "awrah" and should not be heard. If she travels, she
must be accampanied by her husband or a male relative. What
do the Qur'an and the Hadith really say? Here is the response
from Dr. Kaukab Siddique:
Answer by Br. Kaukab Siddique: We must realize that
according to the Qur'an, authority belongs to ALLAH ALONE.
[1] Any attempt to give authority to any human being is
SHIRK, which is the only sin Allah does not forgive.
The Qur'an is a progressive revelation which went through
stages of development of the Muslim woman and the Muslim
male. In the final analysis, male-female relations in Islam
are based on TAQWA [Fear of Allah, God-conscious behavior],
not on gender. [2]
In the FINAL revelation about men and women, the Qur'an
proclaimed without ambiguity that the believing men and women
are EACH OTHER'S protecting friends and guardians, not the
woman under the domain of the male. [3]
The Qur'an proclaimed the EQUALITY of men and women even in
such an advanced, complex and cooperative venture as jihad.[4]
Allah Almighty categorically places women TOGETHER in ALL
aspects of Islamic endeavor, without the slightest shade of
inferiority for women. [5]
The Prophet Muhammad, pbuh, took an oath of allegiance from
women which covered their entire existence but does not
include obedience to the husband. [6]
In the earliest stage of the Muslim community in Madinah,
Muslim men were given the authority to discipline their wives
in cases of sexual misconduct [without causing any
significant hurt], but this was taken away at the next stage
when in cases of alleged sexual misconduct, all that a man
could do was to swear that he was telling the truth. If the
wife took a similar oath, the marriage would be dissolved.
[7] Most apologist Muslims focus on this early development in
Islam and ignore the rest of the Qur'an.
In times of insecurity and war, in long journeys, the
Prophet, pbuh, ordained that a woman should travel with her
husband or a male relative. This was meant to help the woman
and to provide security, not to put the woman under the
control of her husband. The issue of travel is used by some
scholars to argue that the wife must obey the husband. There
is a whole series of omissions, either dishonest or out of
ignorance, carried out to use this issue. The following
Hadith is quoted:
Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet (p.b.u.h) said, "It is not
permissible for a woman who believes in Allah and the Last
Day to travel except with a Mahram." [Bukhari]
However, that is not the complete Hadith. Here it is with the
key words in bold type: The Prophet (p.b.u.h) said, "It is
not permissible for a woman who believes in Allah and the
Last Day to travel for one day and night except with a
Mahram." [Bukhari]
One day and night connotes a long journey. Nowadays, one can
travel halfway around the world in a day and a night. This is
certainly not about a woman going shopping or to meet her
friends down in the city. In those days, it was dangerous and
one could lose life, goods and honor to bandits on the way.
There were no highways or electric lights on the sandy desert.
However, the misuse of Hadith does not end there. These
scholars do not note the context and do not let anyone know
that restrictions were put on males too. Here are the
relevant Hadith:
The Prophet, pbuh, said: "Travel is a kind of punishment. It
limits food, drink and sleep. When you have completed the
requirements of travel, return quickly to your family."
[Bukhari and Muslim.]
The Prophet Muhammad, pbuh, spent much of his life in Madinah
in jihad. He traveled extensively for jihad and hence there
are numerous hadith about travel and its rules. It's a shame
for modern Muslims [such as the Saudi elites] who have never
even spoken against the oppressors, let alone gone for jihad,
that they should be using the words of the greatest liberator
of women, Muhammad Mustafa, pbuh, to try and subjugate women.
When a man went out for a journey, his life was often in
danger. Here is another Hadith on the subject which stops men
from going forth alone:
The messenger of Allh, pbuh, said: "A horseman going alone is
satanic. If there are two going by themselves, they are two
satans. and three is the proper [recommended] caravan."
[Sunan of Abu Dawood and Sunan of Nasa'i]
The messenger of Allah, pbuh, said; "If people knew what I
know about the bad aspects of traveling alone, no one would
travel alone at night." [Sahih Bukhari]
The Islamic solution, the Prophet, pbuh, gave was excellent
but we Muslims have forgotten it. Where possible, especially
where satanic forces are at work, Muslims should travel in
groups, even if these are very small groups, and the
traveling should be well organized:
The messenger of Allah, pbuh, said: "When three of you
travel, make one of your companions the ameer." [Sunan of
Abu Dawood]
We are living in times where travel conditions are being
affected by the antagonistic activities of our enemies. So go
forth prepared:
Someone asked the messenger of Allah: "O messenger of Allah,
I have the intention of travel. Please advise me. He [the
messenger, pbuh,} replied: "The fear and awareness of Allah
[taqwa] should always be with you, and at every high point
[in the journey] say takbeer!" [Sunan of Tirmidhi]. [8]
So, if obedience to the husband is not a part of Islam, how
should the family be organized? Wouldn't there be chaos if
there is no "captain" of the team? This argument ignores the
Islamic principle of organization which is called SHOORA or
mutual consultation leading to decision making based on
discussion, consent and consensus. There is a chapter of the
Qur'an titled Shoora. Allah ordains in this chapter that ALL
matters of Muslim activity must be carried out by mutual
consultation and consent. [9] Even the Prophet, pbuh,
divinely inspired as he was, received the command to consult
with the believers. [10]
Maulana Maudoodi's tafsir [commentary] on the
verse of Shoora is the best among all tafsirs. Here is the
key excerpt:
"...Mutual consultation [shoora] is an essential
requirement of the moral character Islam wants to teach the
human being. Evasion of shoora is a major immorality which
islam can never permit. The Islamic way of life requires that
the principle of shoora should be used in all social
relationships, big or small. In domestic life, the husband
and the wife should do mutual shoora and when
children grow up, they too should be included in the family
shoora. When matters of the entire extended family are
involved, all the sane and adult family members should be
involved. If an entire tribe or clan is to be affected and
all of them cannot be in the shoora process, by an agreed
upon method their representatives should be included in a
tribal majlis. If an entire nation is involved, the leader
of the nation should be chosen by the will of the people and
should manage national affairs with the help of the shoora
members whom the nation considers trustworthy...."
[Tafhimul Qur'an, vol.4, p.509]
In Islam, the husband and the wife are each others' friends
and comrades. It's not a relationship of dominance and
submission. Communication and discussion are the keys to
successful Islamic marriage. Attempts at dominance and
control are bound to create stress and the slow deterioration
of the relationship, however well it might have started.
Men often do not listen to the nuances of what the wife says.
Muhammad, pbuh, did. Women communicate differently from men.
The Prophet, pbuh, knew that. Let's follow his example. One
won't find him , in ALL of Hadith literature, trying to
suppress and subordinate 'Ayesha, r.a., or any
other woman.
Textual notes: [Emphasis added.]
1. "Say: For me, I have an obvious sign from my Lord, but you
reject it. What you would see hastened is not in my power.
Authority belongs to Allah alone. He declares the
Truth, and He is the best of Judges." [The Qur'an 6:57.]
"Men are then returned to Allah, their Protector, the
Reality. Authority belongs to Him Alone. and He is the
swiftest in taking account." [6:62]
[Yusuf, pbuh, said] "If not Him, ye worship nothing but names
which ye have named - ye and your fathers - for which Allah
has sent you no ruling: Authority is for None but
Allah; He has commanded that ye worship none but Him;
that is the right religion but most people understand
not." [12:40]
[Jacob, pbuh, said] "O my sons! enter not all by one gate:
enter ye by different gates. Not that I can benefit you
against Allah! None has authority other than Allah.
On Him do I put my trust, and let all that trust put their
trust on Him." [12:67.]
"And He is Allah: there is no god but He! To Him be praise at
the first and at the last! To Him belongs Authority
and to Him shall ye all be brought back." [28:70]
[Notice that even Prophets like Jacob and Yusuf have no
authority. There is no question of an ordinary person like
the husband having authority.]
[Some translators use the word "command' for hukm or
Authority but that is an incorrect translation. Command is
'Amr. However hukm has other uses too depending on the
Qur'anic context.]
2. "O mankind! We created you from male and female and made
you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other.
Surely the noblest of you with Allah are the ones
among you who are best in conduct [taqwa]. Surely
Allah is All Knowing, Aware." [49:13]
3. "The believers, men and women are protectors and
guardians [awliyya] of each other. They enjoin what is
just and fobid what is evil: they establish prayer , give
zakat regularly, and they obey Allah and His messenger. On
them will Allah pour His mercy, for Allah is Exalted in
Power, Wise. Allah has promised the believers, men and women,
gardens under which rivers flow, to dwell therein, and
beautiful mansions, in Gardens of everlasting bliss. But the
greatest Bliss is the Pleasure of [acceptance by] Allah. That
is the supreme felicity." [9:71-72]
[Commentators agree that these were the final verses revealed
on this subject.]
4. "And their Lord has accepted of them and answered them:
'Never will I allow to be lost the efforts of any of you, be
ye male or female: Ye are from each other. Those [men and
women] who left their homes, or have been driven out from
there or suffered injuries in My cause, or fought or been
slain, - surely I will blot out from their sins and admit
them into Gardens with rivers flowing beneath, - a reward
from the presence of Allah, and from His Presence is the best
of rewards.' " [3:195]
5. The Qur'an 33:35
6. 60:12
7. 4:34. Modernists have expended much energy on this verse,
in trying to change its meaning. They forgot that the Qur'an
was revealed progressively over two decades. If this
progression is not taken into account, one can be involved in
tahrif [distortion] of the Qur'an, a deadly sin. For
instance, see the next development of the husband-wife
relationship in 24:6-9, where the husband is no longer called
on to discipline his wife. [Islam followed a similar
progression in dealing with intoxicants, interest and jihad.]
8. For the sake of Islam, women often traveled alone, as in
the first hijra to Ethiopia and the great hijra to Yathrib.
9. The Qur'an, chapter 42, verse 38.
10: 3: 159
Jamaat al-Muslimeen [News] [4 items only]
P.O. Box 10881
Baltimore, MD 21234
New War Budget is a Slap in the Face of the American
People. House passes $162B for wars in Iraq, Afghanistan
WASHINGTON (AP) — The House has voted to provide $162 billion
for President Bush to carry out U.S. military operations in
Iraq and Afghanistan through the end of his term.
The 268 to 155 vote would bring to more than $600 billion the
amount provided by Congress for the war in Iraq since it
started five years ago. For operations in Afghanistan, it
comes to almost $200 billion, according to
congressional analysts.
The bill would give Bush's successor several months to set
Iraq policy after taking office in January — and spares
lawmakers the need to cast any more war funding votes closer
to Election Day.
Comment: Is it a surprise that there was little or no
commentary on this massive war budget, and NO CRITICISM, by
the Zionist-Corporate media! They were busy discussing
Michelle Obama's appearance on "The View" [a pro-lesbian
gossip show].
Hijab in Support of Kufr ?: Obama gets Blind affirmation
from Confused Muslims
Two Muslim women in hijab [an incorrect term for head
covering] who sat down behind Obama during his Michigan rally
were removed drastically and quickly by Obama's organizers.
Obama, like the good politician he is, did damage control and
called the two women to say sorry.
The worst part of this episode is that the two women later
stated their ongoing support for Obama in spite of the
treatment they had received. [Treat us as you will, we are
still your servants.] Looks like the women have no idea of
the significance of hijab. It stands for the rejection of the
power of kufr and tughyan. To wear hijab and then to support
someone who is the champion of Israel, who dare not support
his own church and his own pastor, shows that the women are
totally confused. There are many women who wear hijab for
traditional and family reasons and have no idea what it means.
Dirty organizations which have Muslim names, like CAIR and
ISNA, have worked hard to support this confusion. They
support Keith Ellison who started his campaign from a
synagogue, spent his holidays in Israel and visited Karzai to
show backing for his agent regime. Like Qadianis, ISNA and
CAIR people often have beards and their women cover their
heads, but they are to be found wherever cooperation with the
oppressors is underway. CAIR has been announcing that FBI rep
will be at its banquets. [Check their official invitations.]
Gross Violations of Islam by ISNA, MAS and ADAMS Center:
Playing with Minds of Muslim Children.
When we noted that ISNA's "Islamic" Horizons paper had
published a full page advertisement urging Muslims to join
FBI as Special Agents, one of our readers said that ISNA-CAIR
have reached their lowest point of nifaq [hypocrisy] and
can't get any lower.
Our reader was wrong. ISNA did go even lower. We have
received ISNA's "Islamic" Horizons paper and it has a photo
showing little Muslim girls [23 of them] wearing hijab and
standing in the Pentagon. A bearded, supposedly Muslim man,
all smiles, is standing behind them and behind him is the
large monograph of the Pentagon.
The caption to the photo indicates that this was the work of
the ADAMS center, run by ISNA's Vice President "Imam" Magid,
in tandem with Muslim American Society [MAS]. If you look
at "imam" magid, you would never know that he is a munafiq
and works tirelessly with the FBI and a whole list of
synagogues. He has a turban, a beard and a prayer mark!
Readers can see the photo of these innocent children on page
16 of "Islamic" Horizons, vol. 36, number 5. [We have the
hard copy.]
Making Muslim children wear hijab and then taking them to the
Pentagon. How dirty can you get! What will happen to the
minds of these poor children. The Pentagon which launches
bombing raids on Muslim countries and has killed hundreds of
thousands of civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and
Somalia is being presented to these children as a source of
pride for Muslims in America, especially those who wear hijab.
Decent non-Muslims do not have this sense of pride in
the Pentagon.
[For overseas readers, ISNA stand for Islamic Society of
North America and ADAMS for All Dulles Area Muslim Society, a
suburb of Washington, DC.
100 Books Campaign to Continue: Free Books are available
to help Immigrants Understand America's Underbelly
Sis. Karen English [Jamaat al-Muslimeen Los Angeles] offered
a book list for Muslim immigrants who come to [or plan to]
come to America.
We have decided to continue this offer of free books. The two
books still being offered are:
1. The Autobiography of Malcolm X. [Also ask for the
booklet Malcolm X: Martyr of Islam in America by
Ali Siddiqui.]
2. Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl by Harriet
Jacobs. [The suffering of women under slavery was beyond
anything we can imagine today, but this girl fought back and
won. She was only 14. Why don't we fight back against the
mental slavery of our times?]
To order, go to
www.newtrendmag.org
click on NEWS, use search engine on top left to click
on JAMAAT.
Competing with New Trend: A Blog which must
remain Anonymous
Asalaam-o-alaikum
Dr. Kaukab Siddique's article "Can Muslim men marry
non-Muslim women in America" has been read 705 times
since 3/22/08.
Weber to Speak in Baltimore on July 2
Institute for Historical Review
http://www.ihr.org/news/july08_meeting.shtml
At a special meeting on July 2 in Baltimore, Mark Weber will
tackle enduring myths about World War Two, including lies
about how the conflict began. Weber, who has written and
lectured extensively on history and current affairs, will
also pull apart the myth that World War II was a morally
clear-cut fight between "good" Allies and an "evil" enemy.
He'll explain why the official US mythology about World War
II, promoted in our schools and motion pictures, is not just
bad history, it's also very harmful -- for America and the
world. For details about the meeting, contact the IHR.
Amy Goodman Hoisted with her Own Petard
Ahmad Rashid Mislead America about Taliban in 2001:
In 2008 he is Using Amy Goodman to Try Again.
His line is that of Bush: Pakistan is not Doing Enough to
Fight Islamic Forces!
by Muhammad Idrees Ahmad [by special permission to New Trend]
It is with some alarm and dismay that I watched Amy Goodman's
Democracy Now! provide platform to right-wing Pakistani
journalist Ahmad Rashid, long an apologist for Bush's
war-on-terror, to recycle propaganda from British tabloid
press and other discredited sources. His tale about al-Qa'ida
recruiting "white European converts" for terrorist acts in
Europe originated with the British security services as part
of their fear mongering campaign to build support for the
42-day detention without charge plan. No shred of evidence
was ever offered.
Equally bogus are his claims of organized al-Qa'ida "training
camps with language facilities" etc. Once again, these claims
are the products of the vivid imaginations of the
terrorologists proliferating in the war on terror fear
factory. I suggest Amy ask Rashid to substantiate his claims
or issue a retraction. (When he claims Iraq is an "Arab
Middle East problem" and that it would be resolved when its
neighbors "stop interfering", I would have liked Amy to at
least ask if he was aware the country is under
U.S. occupation.)
He suggests the truce negotiated by the Pakistani government
is tantamount to supporting the Taliban. Quoting U.S.
military officials in Kabul he alleges that Pakistan is
"funding" the resurgence of the Taliban. He faults Pakistan
for not cooperating more enthusiastically in Bush's war on
terror. Rashid appears to be living in a timeless world where
the realities of 10 years past substitute for the present.
Pakistani military's intervention in the FATA region has been
brutal, now extending to the frontier heartland of Swat.
Tactics have included Israeli-style collective punishment;
wholesale demolition of recalcitrant villages; disappearing
of opponents (mostly the tribal homines sacri);
bombing raids; and extrajudicial killings. The
response of the tribesmen — all swept under the handy label
of "the Taliban" by the government and hacks of Rashid's
stripe — is as brutal as it is predictable. Only a few months
back three rockets landed in the very safe neighborhood where
my sister resides in the frontier city of Peshawar.
Kidnapping for ransom has become a common phenomenon. Suicide
attacks on the military have been frequent. The Pakistani
military death toll is now nearing a thousand. So when a
guest on Goodman's show starts claiming that the Pakistani
government is funding and encouraging the slaughter of its
own soldiers I am forced to demur despite my disdain for the
regime. When I hear Amy's guest fault Pakistan for not
allowing US forces on its territory, and refusing CIA a base
in the tribal regions, it's her judgment I must
question for letting this pass without challenge.
The government for some years has shown a preference for a
negotiated political settlement, only to be thwarted every
time by unauthorized US assaults that have reignited the
conflict. On other occasions the government has caved under
pressure and resumed assaults itself to fend off accusations
of the type recycled by Rashid on the show that it is "not
doing enough" in the fight against the Taliban. He even
questions the new peace deal the government is negotiating
with the tribesmen, calling it "a surrender document by the
Pakistan army". This armchair Bonaparte clearly has a
preference for military solutions.
There is no reason why Pakistan should be cooperating with
the US "war on terror". Under its rubric, the Musharraf
regime has already devastated much of the tribal belt and
created enemies where there were none. Contrary to Rashid's
claim that the new government is "prepared to fulfill the US
agenda", it has promised to open dialogue with the tribals in
order to end hostilities. This is a positive development that
makes the US apprehensive, as it does Uncle Toms of Rashid's
stripe who have wedded their careers to the 'war on terror'
as its sanctioned cheer leaders.
I hope Amy shows more care in the future in vetting her
guests. She certainly could not have been unaware of the
political leanings of this guest since in an earlier
appearance on her show he had dismissed Afghan civilian
casualties at the hands of NATO because according to
him "the Taliban are doing the same thing". The "tragedy in
Afghanistan" is, he said, that "there are too few troops on
the ground". The loss of civilian life was bad "because it
becomes a tool for Taliban propaganda" and "it really
doesn't help NATO very much, because NATO and American forces
really need boots on the ground, and clearly, you know, they
don't have enough troops." (July 11, 2007)
This is the second time in a week where Amy's editorial
judgment has left me deeply disappointed. First was the
refusal to cover — yet again! — the AIPAC conference,
with all its implications for US politics and the Middle
East. In a year when even the mainstream media was forced to
take notice, with Jon Stewart of The Daily Show going
so far as to refer to the lobby as the "Elders of Zion",
Democracy Now! appeared alone in missing the irony of
three presidential candidates, each pledged to fight the
stranglehold of lobbyists on Washington, genuflect to the
most powerful of them all.
Amy, what happened to Democracy Now's promise to speak truth
to power? Did you not say once that your aim was to go where
the silence is? How is it that the Washington Post
was able to break the silence (Philip Weiss calls this the
Mearsheimer and Walt-effect) even as Democracy Now
remained AWOL? Why did Democracy Now join MSM in
denying Mearsheimer and Walt a voice, instead allowing their
views to be misrepresented by critics without a chance of
rebuttal? How well placed are you to criticize the mainstream
for refusing to stand up to power when you can yourself be
considered guilty of the same?
Muhammad Idrees Ahmad is at the Department of
Geography and Sociology, University of Strathclyde. He can be
reached at m.idrees@gmail.com. He blogs at Fanonite.org.
Saudi Scholar notes: U.S. Air Attacks are becoming
Intolerable even for Bush's Friends in Pakistan,
Iraq, Afghanistan
A Friendship Marked by Deepening Distrust
by Tariq A. Al-Maeena
Back in 2001 when George Bush drew his infamous line on the
sand with his "you're either with us or against us", I chose
not to cross over to his side. And now, seven years on, with
hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians killed as a
result of his infamous decree in Afghanistan, Iraq and
elsewhere, I am painfully gratified that I was justified in
my reasoning.
Pakistan has not been so fortunate though, as they decided to
cross over. Perhaps it was the claim by Pakistani President
Pervez Musharraf that after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on
America, he was told by Richard Armitage, then the US deputy
secretary of state, to support Washington or his country
would be "bombed back to the Stone Age" that prompted his
sleeping with the devil.
Musharraf, then the army chief and president, states in his
book: "I felt very frustrated by Armitage's remarks. It goes
against the grain of a soldier not to be able to tell anyone
giving him an ultimatum to go forth and multiply, or words to
that effect."
The statement highlights the underlying resentment with which
many Pakistanis view the US-Pakistan relationship: That their
country is a reluctant, bullied US ally dependent on American
charity. Seven years on and it hasn't got any better. Today,
distrust between the two allies is deepening.
The American air and artillery strikes that killed 11
Pakistani paramilitary soldiers on the Afghan border last
week have raised concerns about the deteriorating American
relationship with Pakistan. The dead on the Pakistani side
included a major and were all from a paramilitary detachment
of the Frontier Corps, the force deployed in Pakistan's
tribal areas bordering Afghanistan. The Pakistani military
was quick to release a statement calling the air strikes
"unprovoked and cowardly." It launched a strong protest and
reserved "the right to protect our citizens and soldiers
against aggression."
"The incident had hit at the very basis of cooperation and
sacrifice with which Pakistani soldiers are supporting the
coalition in the war against terror," said a
military spokesman.
This is just a repetition of such brazen acts of infringing
on the sovereignty of Pakistan. There have been several
American strikes recently inside Pakistani territory. In
March of this year, three bombs, indiscriminately dropped by
an American aircraft, killed nine people and wounded nine
others in the tribal area of South Waziristan. Among them
were women and children, innocent pawns in the game of
crossing lines.
Although the US State Department expressed regret for the
deaths of the Pakistani troops, it would be of little comfort
to the families of the dead.
A statement released by the US Embassy in Islamabad conveying
condolences to the families of the dead said, "The United
States regrets that actions ... on the night of June 10
resulted in the reported casualties among Pakistani forces
who are our partners in the fight against terrorism."
And while Pakistan's newly appointed ambassador to the United
States, Husain Haqqani stated that his government would not
regard the military strike as an act of intentional
hostility, feelings to the contrary were on the rise in a
nation fed up being treated like Mr. Bush's war game.
How many such statements of condolences and regrets the
Pakistanis, the Afghanis and the Iraqis have had to put up
with these past seven years. Such brazen acts have been
consistently justified by Bush's administration as
"unfortunate", or "victims of friendly fire" or "collateral
damage", with very little concern to human life.
Expressing condolences after the fact will not bring the dead
back, Mr. Bush.
Pakistanis and others today are unforgiving of the tenure of
Bush, one marked with enough atrocities to inspire a tribunal
to pass judgment against all those associated with such
policies for war crimes against the innocent. It was under
Bush's watch that infamies in the form of Guantanamo, the Abu
Ghraib prison tortures, the bombing of Iraqi and Afghani
schools and hospitals, and scores of other transgressions
took place. All have been recorded and documented.
All have resulted in the wanton destruction of innocent human
lives. Those who chose to disagree with him were quickly
branded as "insurgents" or "militants", or else forced to be
eliminated or shut up. And while Bush will soon leave
office, his crimes would not be easily washed away,
especially among the millions of relatives of
the innocent.
All of these events in the past seven years marred by death
and mayhem under the command of President George Bush lead me
to wonder: How many more victims of air strikes or
"collateral damage" there will be before this man
leaves office?
Tariq Al-Maeena is a Saudi socio/political commentator. He
lives in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia and can be reached at
talmaeena@gmail.com
Letter: Indian Government's Ban on Muslim Students was
Helped by man who wrote against Maulana Maudoodi
Yoginder Sikand the man who circulates an old article by Abul
Hasan Ali Nadvi against Moulana Moududi is a suspicious
character. He writes 'research' articles but the common theme
of all of them is against any Islamic political activity.
Indian intelligence widely used his pieces to go against the
Student Islamic Movement of India. If you go through
his articles you can very well see that he supports the Saudi
style apolitical salafism.
But unfortunately many Muslims carry his reports as
certificates for their good behaviour.
Prof P Koya
India
Letter: Latest New Trend's Last Article
assalam-o-alaikum....the last part of this issue regarding
Maulana Maududi..is very inspiring...
Dr. Shaukat Khan
North Carolina
Letter: Maudoodi did Oppose the Traditional Spirituality
and "Love" which has Destroyed the Muslim Ummah
Discussion on Maulana Maududi's views on the teachings of
Islam has drawn my attention. Maududi's views have been
condemned by many and welcomed by many. I am one of those who
welcome his view. So, I also disagree with the assertion of
Nadwi which is supported by Sikand: "that by emphasizing
political activities aimed at the creation of the Islamic
state, Maulana Maudoodi distracted attention from the love
and spirituality essential to Islam. Political activism
became an end in itself, a sterile activity which evaded the
compassion and nurturing inherent in the way of life of the
Prophet, pbuh." Maududi, of course, was not perfect in his
view in any sense of the term, because he was a simple and
regular human being. Other than those extremists who view
Maududi as heretic, no fair-minded Muslim, I believe, would
think that Maududi purposely wanted to distract Muslims from
the love and spirituality of Islam. Only Allah knows his
intent. What we know is just the contrary to what his
opponents are making out of him. Maududi's teachings reflect
the promotion of the love for Allah by obeying the leadership
and examples of the Prophet, s, as the Quran alludes
to (3:31).
However, in my view, Maududi did reject, and rightly so, the
traditional definition and understanding of love and
spirituality of Islam. That is why he taught a different
method of it which may appear to some -- especially those who
are professional and organized groups of spirituality and
those uneducated or little educated in Islam, hence follow
the leads of organized groups, knowingly or unknowingly -- as
anti love and spirituality of Islam and the Prophet,s.
Probably Maududi thought that the traditional concept of love
and spirituality is un-Quranic, un-Sunnaic, hence un-Islamic.
In his view Muslim Ummah is misguided, by those organized
lovers and spirituals, and needs to be regenerated. This
concept of degeneration of Muslims faith and actions I think
is the situation prevailing in the Muslim world since the
demise of the first generation of Islam during which time
Muslims provided leadership to the world: spiritually,
morally, socially, academically or intellectually,
and politically.
As he understood this reality of Muslim faith and
spirituality, it was difficult for Maududi not to speak out
and teach those who would listen to him about the degenerated
love and spirituality of Muslims. The concept of love and
spirituality that is so dominant in the Muslim world since,
roughly, 1100 AD has not changed at all. I hope it is not a
truly Jahili kind of love and spirituality, no matter how
much Maududi and before him, e.g. Muhamad Ali and Shaukat
Ali, Sayed Ahmad Khan, Jamaluddin Afghani, Muhammad Abdu,
Muhammad Iqbal, Hasanul Banna, Syed Nursi, and Syed Qutb had
tried to change the status quo. They wanted Muslims to work,
and work hard to establish the truth as truth and to condemn
the batil as batil. This truth would be symbolic of love and
spirituality of Islam, of the Prophet,s, and finally of
Allah, but they could only do so much. What I also feel
strongly is that with this prevailing but degenerated concept
of love and spirituality in place, Muslim Umamah will
continue going down and humiliated, in this and in the life
after. I ask Allah to save and guide us to the right path.
Haider Bhuiyan
Georgia
Dual U.S./Israel Citizens in Top U.S. Government
Positions: America's Jewish Elites Put Israel First
Compiled by Chuck Brucks [Florida]
by special permission to New Trend [Corrections if any will
be welcomed.]
Attorney General - Michael Mukasey
Head of Homeland Security - Michael Chertoff
Chairman Pentagon's Defense Policy Board - Richard Perle
Deputy Defense Secretary (Former) - Paul Wolfowitz
Under Secretary of Defense - Douglas Feith
National Security Council Advisor - Elliott Abrams
Vice President Dick Cheney's Chief of Staff (Former) - "Scooter" Libby
White House Deputy Chief of Staff - Joshua Bolten
Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs - Marc Grossman
Director of Policy Planning at the State Department - Richard Haass U.S.
Trade Representative (Cabinet-level Position) - Robert Zoellick Pentagon's
Defense Policy Board - James Schlesinger
UN Representative (Former) - John Bolton
Under Secretary for Arms Control - David Wurmser
Pentagon's Defense Policy Board - Eliot Cohen
Senior Advisor to the President - Steve Goldsmith
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary - Christopher Gersten
Assistant Secretary of State - Lincoln Bloomfield
Deputy Assistant to the President - Jay Lefkowitz
White House Political Director - Ken Melman
National Security Study Group - Edward Luttwak
Pentagon's Defense Policy Board - Kenneth Adelman
Defense Intelligence Agency Analyst (Former) - Lawrence (Larry) Franklin
National Security Council Advisor - Robert Satloff
President Export-Import Bank U.S. - Mel Sembler
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Administration for Children and Families -
Christopher Gersten
Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
for Public Affairs - Mark Weinberger
White House Speechwriter - David Frum
White House Spokesman (Former) - Ari Fleischer
Pentagon's Defense Policy Board - Henry Kissinger
Deputy Secretary of Commerce - Samuel Bodman
Under Secretary of State for Management - Bonnie Cohen
Director of Foreign Service Institute - Ruth Davis
2008-06-25 Wed 18:33:22 cdt
NewTrendMag.org