Mohammed, The Mad Poet Quoted....

81 posted on 10/20/2003 4:47:46 PM PDT by LayoutGuru2 (Call me paranoid but finding '/*' inside this comment makes me suspicious)

82 posted on 10/20/2003 5:16:58 PM PDT by dennisw (G_d is at war with Amalek for all generations)

Next move on to the Hadith which are more vile and in-your-face than the Mein Koran

83 posted on 10/20/2003 5:22:27 PM PDT by dennisw (G_d is at war with Amalek for all generations)

Next move on to the Hadith...

You're the second person to tell me that so I guess I'll have to. Any translations you reccomend or websites?

84 posted on 10/20/2003 5:54:30 PM PDT by PsyOp ( Citizenship ought to be reserved for those who carry arms. - Aristotle.)

The hadith are huge compared to the Koran. Hadith is commentary on the Koran to clarify it for everyday life and more. There are 5 main commentaries by different authors. Hadith of Bukhari is supposed to be representative. I have not read much Hadith

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/sbtintro.html

85 posted on 10/20/2003 6:15:11 PM PDT by dennisw (G_d is at war with Amalek for all generations)

A Blow Against Islamic Extremism

Campus Watch ^ | 10/20/03 | Harris

Posted on 10/20/2003 5:25 PM EDT by pabianice

A Blow Against Islamic Extremism
Campus Watch ^ | 10/20/03 | Harris

Posted on 10/20/2003 5:25 PM EDT by pabianice

Campus Watch has stopped an incident of extremism being forwarded by a North American university. At the behest of CW, the University of Michigan's federally subsidized Center of Middle Eastern and North African Studies (CMENAS) in September removed its embedded web links to a Wahhabist site.

The site is vitriolic and extremist. Answering the question, whether Muslim Americans may serve in the U.S. armed forces in Iraq, it replies:

"This is one of the most evil of evil things. It is not permissible to give them anything that may give them [U.S. forces] the slightest help against the Muslims."[1]

Because CMENAS receives federal funding via the Higher Education Act's Title VI program, the American taxpayer was until recently funding the promotion of a militant Islamic website via a research center. In exchange for federal Title VI grants, these centers are expected to provide educational "Outreach" materials and K-12 teaching aids about their area of expertise to the public.

Here are some more of the eye-opening sentiments the University of Michigan promoted to the high school teachers or students for whom the CMENAS website is mainly intended:

· Waging jihad (sacred war) is incumbent on Muslims "to make the people worship Allah alone and to bring them forth from servitude to people to servitude to the Lord of people."[2]

· Not engaging in jihad "leads to doom in this world and in the Hereafter."[3]

· "Muslims are commanded" to kill non-Muslims when they "are at war with the Muslims and do not have a peace treaty with the Muslims or are not living under Muslim rule."[4] Thus, not only are Muslim U.S. soldiers forbidden to fight for their country against Islamic terrorists, Muslims in the U.S. are commanded to kill non-Muslim Americans.

· Destruction of Israel is the only solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. "A solution cannot be reached in this matter unless it is regarded as an Islamic issue and the Muslims cooperate to find a solution, and wage an Islamic jihad against the Jews...."[5]

In addition, rank anti-Semitism pervades the site. One page indicates that Palestinians face an "unending Zionist arrogance and aggression, which pays no heed to human dignity or any covenant or treaty, or any law." All of this derives from the notion that "their evil rabbis and warlords encourage them."[6]

Despite sponsoring this website, CMENAS has recently been awarded nearly $1 millon dollars in federal aid for the coming three years.

The past director of CMENAS, Michael Bonner, recently stated that the center is "carrying out programs according to the precise requirements" of the Department of Education.[7] Stephen Schwartz, an expert on Wahhabism, takes issue with Bonner's claim. He calls the website, as it was, "a scandal" and rhetorically asks whether the University of Michigan "would guide those studying Christianity to sites run by the Aryan Nation, polygamist Mormon cults, and similar primitive sects?"[8]

When first informed of the site on Sept.9, Bonner disclaimed any knowledge of its connection to Wahhabist propaganda. On futher investigation, however, CMENAS ceded that Campus Watch's concerns were validated and removed all connections to the Wahhabi site on Sept.11.

CMENAS program associate Micheal Fahy informed us that the embedded link was a clerical error resulting from "insufficient oversight" by the center. Fahy conceded that CW's objections to the link "are well founded" and explained that the problem was compounded by the site's design, which "could give the impression that CMENAS endorsed the interpretation of Islam offered in that website." Fahy added, "We most certainly do not endorse those views."[9]

Campus Watch appreciates the frank and rapid response by CMENAS to its inquiry; it also believes that citing a clerical error cannot close the issue. Rather, we have asked the president of the University of Michigan, Mary Sue Coleman, to investigate what happened and what else might be awry in the CMENAS outreach program. After all, the objectionable website is only one of many efforts by CMENAS in their outreach program. What takes place in classrooms, conferences, brown-bag lunches and other activities?

Further, we have asked the Department of Education to examine more closely where federal Title VI money is going, and how these tax dollars are spent. NOTES: [1] Question #33691: Ruling on helping a kaafir army against the Muslims. http://63.175.194.25/index.php?cs=prn&ln=eng&QR=33691&dgn=3&dgn=2

[2] Question #34647: The reason why jihaad is prescribed. http://63.175.194.25/index.php?cs=prn&ln=eng&QR=34647&dgn=3&dgn=2

[3] Question #46807: Punishments for neglecting jihad for the sake of Allaah, http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=eng&ds=qa&lv=browse&QR=46807&dgn=3

[4] Question #11406: Killing non-Muslims. http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=eng&ds=qa&lv=browse&QR=11406&dgn=3

[5] Question #21977: Solution to the Palestinian issue. http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=eng&ds=qa&lv=browse&QR=21977&dgn=3

[6] Question #31888: The situation of the Muslims in Palestine http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=eng&ds=qa&lv=browse&CR=429&dgn=3

[7] CMENAS Newsletter 2002-2003. http://www.umich.edu/~iinet/cmenas/winter2003.pdf

[8] Email from Stephen Schwartz, August 12, 2003.

[9] Email from Michael A. Fahy, September 12, 2003.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1004629/posts

86 posted on 10/20/2003 9:27:41 PM PDT by miltonim

Islam Questions & Answers
www.islam-qa.com

Question Reference Number:: 33691
Title: Ruling on helping a kaafir army against the Muslims
Home > Basic Tenets of Faith > Alliance and Amity, Disavowal and Enmity >
Question:

A Muslim businessman has been offered a golden opportunity to sell equipment and food or to sign a contract to do maintenance on vehicles and equipment for an army that is waging war against the Muslims. What is the ruling on doing such business?.

Answer:

Praise be to Allaah.
The scholars of Islam have stated that it is not permitted to support the kaafirs against the Muslims, and that that is kufr (disbelief) and riddah (apostasy), because Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians as Awliyaa’ (friends, protectors, helpers), they are but Awliyaa’ of each other. And if any amongst you takes them (as Awliyaa’), then surely, he is one of them”
[al-Maa'idah 5:51]
The fuqaha’ of Islam, the imams of the Hanafi, Maaliki, Shaafa’i and Hanbali madhhabs, and other fuqaha’, have stated in their books that it is haraam to sell them anything that may help them against the Muslims, such as weapons, equipment, riding beasts, etc. So it is not permissible to give them food or to sell them food, drink, water, tents, trucks, vehicles, or to make contracts with them to provide maintenance, transaportation, etc. All of that is haraam and the one who consumes profits on such transactions is consuming haraam things, and the Fire is more fitting for him.
It is not permissible to sell them even a date or to give them anything that they can use against their enemies. Whoever does that deserves Hell, and the Fire is more fitting for all evil earnings. Indeed this is one of the most evil of evil things.
It is not permissible to give them anything that may give them the slightest help against the Muslims.
Al-Nawawi said in al-Majmoo’:
With regard to selling weapons to ahl al-harb (those who wage war against the Muslims), it is haraam according to scholarly consensus.
Ibn al-Qayyim said in I’laam al-Muwaqqi’een:
Imam Ahmad said: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) forbade selling weapons at times of fitnah (tribulation)… It is obvious that selling them is helping others in sin and transgression. This also applies to every sale, rental or exchange that helps people to disobey Allaah, such as selling weapons to kaafirs, aggressors and bandits… or renting one’s house to someone who will set up a place for sin in it, or selling candles to someone who will use them to disobey Allaah, and other actions which help people to do that which Allaah hates and is angry with.
End quote.
In al-Mawsoo’ah al-Fiqhiyyah (25/153) it says:
It is haraam to sell weapons to ahl al-harb (those who are waging war against Islam) or to those who are known as bandits who attack Muslims or who stir up fitnah among them. Al-Hasan al-Basri said: It is not permissible for a Muslim to take weapons or horses to the enemies of the Muslims which will strengthen them against the Muslims, or anything that will help them to acquire weapons and horses, because selling weapons to ahl al-harb strengthens them to fight the Muslims and motivates them to declare war and continue fighting.
This issue is not the matter of ordinary or minor sins, rather it is a matter that has to do with the basis of ‘aqeedah (belief) and Tawheed (belief in the Oneness of Allaah), and the Muslim’s support and loyalty towards the Religion of Allaah and his disavowal of the enemies of Allaah. This is what was stated by the imams in their books.
Shaykh ‘Abd al-‘Azeez ibn Baaz (may Allaah have mercy on him) said in his Fataawa (1/274):
The scholars of Islam are unanimously agreed that whoever supports the kaafirs against the Muslims and helps them in any way is a kaafir like them as Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians as Awliyaa’ (friends, protectors, helpers), they are but Awliyaa’ of each other. And if any amongst you takes them (as Awliyaa’), then surely, he is one of them. Verily, Allaah guides not those people who are the Zaalimoon (polytheists and wrongdoers and unjust)”
[al-Maa'idah 5:51].

Islam Q&A (www.islam-qa.com)

©Copyright Islam Q&A 1997-2000
You are granted the right to use and display all the information on this site without any consent from the site maintainer(s). You may copy, distribute, print, link to any document, or translate to any language, as long as the information is quoted in its entirety, the source is mentioned, and without changing the contents.

http://63.175.194.25/index.php?cs=prn&ln=eng&QR=33691&dgn=3&dgn=2

87 posted on 10/20/2003 9:31:36 PM PDT by miltonim

Islam Questions & Answers
www.islam-qa.com

Question Reference Number:: 34647
Title: The reason why jihaad is prescribed
Home > Jurisprudence and Islamic Rulings > Acts of Worship > Striving and migrating for the sake of Allaah >
Question:

Why do Muslims wage jihad?.

Answer:

Praise be to Allaah.
Allaah has enjoined jihad for His sake upon the Muslims, for the great benefits that result from that and because of the harm caused by abandoning jihad, some of which are mentioned in Question no. 34830.
Some of the reasons why jihad for the sake of Allaah is prescribed in Islam are as follows:
1 – The main goal of jihad is to make the people worship Allaah alone and to bring them forth from servitude to people to servitude to the Lord of people. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allaah) and (all and every kind of) worship is for Allaah (Alone). But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az‑Zaalimoon (the polytheists, and wrong-doers)”
[al-Baqarah 2:193]
“And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism, i.e. worshipping others besides Allaah), and the religion (worship) will all be for Allaah Alone [in the whole of the world]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allaah), then certainly, Allaah is All-Seer of what they do”
[al-Anfaal 8:39]
Ibn Jareer said:
So fight them until there is no more shirk, and none is worshipped except Allaah alone with no partner or associate, and trials and calamities, which are disbelief and polytheism, are lifted from the slaves of Allaah on earth, and religion is all for Allaah alone, and so that obedience and worship will be devoted to Him alone and none else.
Ibn Katheer said: Allaah commands us to fight the kuffaar so that there will be no fitnah, i.e., shirk, and the religion will all be for Allaah alone, i.e., the religion of Allaah will prevail over all other religions.
The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “"I have been commanded (by Allaah) to fight the people until they testify that there is no god but Allaah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allaah, and they establish regular prayer and pay zakaah, then if they do that, then they save their lives and property from me except for Islamic laws and then their reckoning will be with Allaah." Narrated by al-Bukhaari (24), Muslim (33).
And he (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “I have been sent just before the Hour with the sword, so that Allaah will be worshipped alone with no partner or associate.”
Narrated by Ahmad, 4869; classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh al-Jaami’, 2831.
This purpose of jihad was present in the minds of the Sahaabah (may Allaah be pleased with them) during their battles with the enemies of Allaah. Al-Bukhaari (2925) narrated that Jubayr ibn Hayyah said: ‘Umar sent people to all the regions to fight the mushrikeen… so ‘Umar recruited us and appointed al-Nu’maan ibn Muqarrin to lead us. When we were in the land of the enemy, the representative of Chosroes came out to us with forty thousand troops. An interpreter stood up and said: “Let one of you speak to me.” Al-Mugheerah said: “Ask whatever you want.” He asked, “Who are you?” He (al-Mugheerah) said: “We are some people from among the Arabs. We used to lead a harsh and miserable life, sucking on animal skins and date stones because of hunger, wearing clothes made of camel and goat hair, worshipping trees and rocks. While we were in this state, the Lord of the heavens and the earth, exalted be His name and glorified be His greatness, sent to us a Prophet from amongst ourselves, whose father and mother we know. Our Prophet, the Messenger of our Lord, (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), commanded us to fight you until you worship Allaah alone or pay the jizyah. Our Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) told us the message from our Lord, that whoever among us is killed will go to Paradise to enjoy delights such as no one has ever seen, and whoever among us is left will become your master.”
This is the truth that the Sahaabah and leaders of the Muslims proclaimed in their military campaigns.
Rab’i ibn ‘Aamir said, when Rustam the commander of the Persian armies asked him, “Why have you come?”: “Allaah has sent us to bring forth whomsoever He wills from the worship of man to the worship of Allaah.
When ‘Uqbah ibn Naafi’ reached Tangiers, he rode his horse into the water until the water was up to its chest, then he said: “O Allaah, bear witness that I have done my utmost, and were it not for this sea I would have travelled throughout the land fighting those who disbelieve in You, until none is worshipped except You.”
2 – Repelling the aggression of those who attack the Muslims.
The scholars are unanimously agreed that repelling the aggression of those who attack the Muslims is fard ‘ayn (an individual obligation) upon those who are able to do that.
Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“And fight in the way of Allaah those who fight you, but transgress not the limits. Truly, Allaah likes not the transgressors”
[al-Baqarah 2:190]
“Will you not fight a people who have violated their oaths (pagans of Makkah) and intended to expel the Messenger while they did attack you first? Do you fear them? Allaah has more right that you should fear Him if you are believers”
[al-Tawbah 9:13]
3 – Removing fitnah (tribulation)
Fitnah is of different types:
(i) That which is caused by the kuffaar who persecute the Muslims or apply pressure to them to make them give up their religion. Allaah has commanded the Muslims to fight in jihad in order to save those who are weak and oppressed. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“And what is wrong with you that you fight not in the Cause of Allaah, and for those weak, ill‑treated and oppressed among men, women, and children, whose cry is: “Our Lord! Rescue us from this town whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from You one who will protect, and raise for us from You one who will help”
[al-Nisa’ 4:75]
(ii) The fitnah of the kuffaar themselves and their preventing others from hearing and accepting the truth. That is because the kaafir systems corrupt the innate nature and reason of people, and make them get used to worshipping and submitting to things other than Allaah, getting addicted to alcohol, wallowing in the mire of sexual licence, and losing all characteristics of virtue. Whoever is like that can rarely tell truth from falsehood, good from evil, right from wrong. So jihad is prescribed in order to remove those obstacles that prevent people from hearing and accepting the truth and getting to know it.
4 – Protecting the Islamic state from the evil of the kuffaar.
Hence the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) ordered that the leaders of the kuffaar be killed, those who incited the enemies against the Muslims, such as the Jews Ka’b ibn al-Ashraf and Ibn Abi’l-Haqeeq.
Another aspect of jihad is to protect the borders against the kuffaar. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) encouraged that as he said: “Guarding the border for one day for the sake of Allaah is better than this world and everything in it.” Al-Bukhaari, 2678.
5 – Frightening the kuffaar, humiliating them and putting them to shame.
Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“Fight against them so that Allaah will punish them by your hands and disgrace them and give you victory over them and heal the breasts of a believing people,
And remove the anger of their (believers’) hearts. Allaah accepts the repentance of whom He wills. Allaah is All-Knowing, All-Wise”
[al-Tawbah 9:14-15]
“And make ready against them all you can of power, including steeds of war (tanks, planes, missiles, artillery) to threaten the enemy of Allaah and your enemy”
[al-Anfaal 8:60]
Hence it is prescribed to fight in a manner that will strike terror into the heart of the enemy.
Shaykh al-Islam [Ibn Taymiyah – may Allaah have mercy on him] was asked whether it is permissible for a soldier to wear silk or gold or silver when fighting or when the envoys of the enemy come to the Muslims.
He replied:
Praise be to Allaah. With regard to wearing silk in order to frighten the enemy, there are two scholarly views, the more correct of which is that it is allowed. The soldiers of Syria wrote to ‘Umar ibn al-Khattaab saying: “When we met the enemy we saw that they had covered their weapons with silk and we found that this struck terror in our hearts.” ‘Umar wrote back to them saying: “You should cover your weapons as they do.” And wearing silk is a kind of showing off, and Allaah likes showing off at the time of fighting, as it is narrated in al-Sunan that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “There is a kind of showing off that Allaah likes, and a kind of showing off that Allaah hates. The showing off that Allaah likes is when a man shows off at the time of war. The kind of showing off that Allaah hates is showing off for the purpose of pride and boasting.” On the day of Uhud, Abu Dujaanah al-Ansaari showed off among the ranks, and the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “This is a kind of walking that Allaah hates except in this situation.” Majmoo’ al-Fataawa, 28/17
6 – Exposing the hypocrites
Allaah says (Interpretation of the meaning):
“But when a decisive Soorah (explaining and ordering things) is sent down, and fighting (Jihaad — holy fighting in Allaah’s Cause) is mentioned (i.e. ordained) therein, you will see those in whose hearts is a disease (of hypocrisy) looking at you with a look of one fainting to death”
[Muhammad 47:20]
At times of ease and plenty, the Muslims may be joined by those who seek to make worldly gains, and they do not want to make the word of Allaah prevail over the word of kufr. These people may conceal their real nature from many of the Muslims, and the most effective means of exposing them is jihad, because jihad means sacrificing oneself but these hypocrites are only indulging in hypocrisy in order to save themselves.
Exposing the hypocrites was one of the major purposes that Allaah wanted the believers to achieve on the day of Uhud.
Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“Allaah will not leave the believers in the state in which you are now, until He distinguishes the wicked from the good”
[Aal ‘Imraan 3:179]
Ibn al-Qayyim said:
This means: Allaah will not leave you in the state in which you are, where the believers are indistinguishable from the hypocrites, until the believers are made distinct from the hypocrites, as they were distinguished by the test on the day of Uhud, and Allaah will not disclose to you the unseen matters by which the one group is distinguished from the other, for they are distinguished from one another in the knowledge of the unseen that He has, but He wants to distinguish them from one another in a clear and visible manner, so that His unseen knowledge will become known and visible.
7 – Purifying the believers of their sins and ridding them thereof
Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“And so are the days (good and not so good), that We give to men by turns, that Allaah may test those who believe, and that He may take martyrs from among you. And Allaah likes not the Zaalimoon (polytheists and wrongdoers).
And that Allaah may test (or purify) the believers (from sins) and destroy the disbelievers.
Do you think that you will enter Paradise before Allaah tests those of you who fought (in His Cause) and (also) tests those who are As‑Saabiroon (the patient)?”
[Aal ‘Imraan 3:140-142]
8 – Acquiring booty
The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “I have been sent ahead of the Hour with the sword so that Allaah will be worshipped alone, and my provision has been placed in the shade of my spear, and humiliation has been decreed for those who go against my command, and whoever imitates a people is one of them.” Narrated by Ahmad, 4869; Saheeh al-Jaami’, 2831.
Al-Haafiz said:
This hadeeth indicates that war booty is permissible for this ummah, and that the provision of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) has been placed in war booty and not in other kinds of earnings. Hence some of the scholars said that it is the best kind of earnings.
Al-Qurtubi said:
Allaah sent provision to His Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) by means of his striving and He made it by means of the best kind of striving which is earning it by means of force and strength.
The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) went out for the battle of Badr to meet the caravan of Abu Sufyaan.
Al-Qurtubi said: The fact that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) went out to meet the caravan indicates that it is permissible to take booty because it is a halaal source of income. This refutes Maalik’s view that this is makrooh, when he said that this was fighting for worldly gains.
Al-Shawkaani said: Ibn Abi Jamrah said: The scholars of hadeeth are of the view that if the primary motive is to make the word of Allaah supreme, it does not matter what else is also achieved.
9 – Taking martyrs.
Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“If a wound (and killing) has touched you, be sure a similar wound (and killing) has touched the others. And so are the days (good and not so good), that We give to men by turns, that Allaah may test those who believe, and that He may take martyrs from among you. And Allaah likes not the Zaalimoon (polytheists and wrongdoers).
And that Allaah may test (or purify) the believers (from sins) and destroy the disbelievers”
[Aal ‘Imraan 3:140-141]
Martyrdom is one of the highest statuses before Allaah, and the martyrs are the closest of His slaves to Him. There is no status higher than that of siddeeq apart from martyrdom. Allaah loves to take martyrs from among His slaves, who shed their blood for His love and to earn His pleasure, preferring His pleasure and His love above themselves. There is no way to attain this status except by circumstances that may lead to it such as enemies coming against the Muslims.
This was said by Ibn al-Qayyim in Zaad al-Ma’aad.
This is the great wisdom and those who try to put the Muslims off jihad and make them fear it, and say that jihad is no more than death, and making women widows and children orphans, pale into insignificance.
10 – Ridding the world of corruption.
Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“For had it not been that Allaah checks one set of people by means of another, monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques, wherein the Name of Allaah is mentioned much would surely, have been pulled down. Verily, Allaah will help those who help His (Cause). Truly, Allaah is All‑Strong, All‑Mighty”
[al-Hajj 22:40]
“And if Allaah did not check one set of people by means of another, the earth would indeed be full of mischief. But Allaah is full of bounty to the ‘Aalameen (mankind, jinn and all that exists)”
[al-Baqarah 2:251]
Muqaatil said:
Were it not that Allaah checked the mushriks by means of the Muslims, the mushriks would have overrun the earth and killed the Muslims and destroyed the mosques.
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah said in al-Jawaab al-Saheeh, 2/216:
So the kuffar are repelled by means of the Muslims and the worse of the two parties is repelled by the better, just as the Magians (Persians) were repelled by the Christian Byzantines, then the Christians were repelled by the believers of the ummah of Muhammad.
Al-Sa’di said: The world would be corrupted if the kuffaar and evildoers were to prevail.
These are some of the reasons why jihad is prescribed.
We ask Allaah to bring the Muslims back to their religion. May Allaah send blessings and peace upon our Prophet Muhammad.

Islam Q&A (www.islam-qa.com)

http://63.175.194.25/index.php?cs=prn&ln=eng&QR=34647&dgn=3&dgn=2

88 posted on 10/20/2003 9:36:13 PM PDT by miltonim

Question #46807: Punishments for neglecting jihad for the sake of Allaah

Question :

Is there a specific punishment that is deserved by those who neglect jihad for the sake of Allaah?.

Answer :

Praise be to Allaah.
The command to wage jihad for the sake of Allaah, and the warning against neglecting jihad, appear in many verses of the Qur’aan and ahaadeeth.
If the Muslims neglect jihad for the sake of Allaah, and prefer a life of ease, and focus only on this world, they will face humiliation and scorn, and all their affairs will be corrupted. They expose themselves to the wrath and anger of Allaah, and they expose Islam to loss and defeat at the hands of kufr. Hence neglecting jihad is a major sin.
Ibn Hajar said in al-Zawaajir:
The 390^th, 391^st and 392^nd major sins are neglecting jihad when it becomes an obligation, which is when aggressors enter the Muslim land or when they seize a Muslim, and it is possible to rescue him from them and the people neglect jihad altogether and when the people in a region neglect to fortify their borders so that there is a risk of the kuffaar overrunning them because of that.” end quote.
Hence it was well known and well established among the Sahaabah that no one refrains from taking part in jihad when it becomes fard ‘ayn (an individual obligation) except one who is weak and is therefore excused or one who is a hypocrite. This is what was narrated by Ka’b ibn Maalik (may Allaah be pleased with him) when he stayed behind from the campaign of Tabook: “When I came out to the people after the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) had gone out, I went around among them and was distressed to see no one except a man who was known to be a hypocrite or weak men whom Allaah had excused.” Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 4066; Muslim, 4973.
The evidence also states some of the punishments that result from that. For example:
1 – Neglecting jihad leads to doom in this world and in the Hereafter.
In this world the craven coward is humiliated and enslaved, he is a follower, not a leader. In the Hereafter, neglecting jihad will be a cause of Allaah's punishment.
Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“And spend in the Cause of Allaah (i.e. Jihad of all kinds) and do not throw yourselves into destruction (by not spending your wealth in the Cause of Allaah), and do good. Truly, Allaah loves Al-Muhsinoon (the good-doers”
[al-Baqarah 2:195]
al-Tirmidhi (2972) narrated that Aslam Abu ‘Imraan said: We were in the city of the Byzantines (i.e., Constantinople) and a great troop of the Byzantines came out to us. One of the Muslim men attacked the Byzantine ranks until he penetrated them, and the people shouted and said “Subhaan-Allaah, he has thrown himself into destruction.” Abu Ayyoob al-Ansaari stood up and said: “O people, you misinterpret this verse in this way; rather this verse was revealed concerning us, the Ansaar. When Allaah caused Islam to prevail and its supporters increased, we said to one another in secret, without speaking to the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him): ‘Our wealth is neglected. Allaah has caused Islam to prevail and its supporters have increased. Why don’t we stay with our property and improve it?’ Then Allaah revealed Qur’aan to His Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), refuting what we had said: “And spend in the Cause of Allaah (i.e. Jihad of all kinds) and do not throw yourselves into destruction” [al-Baqarah 2:195]. This destruction was our staying with our property to improve it, and neglecting to fight (in jihad). Abu Ayyoob never stopped fighting for the sake of Allaah until he was buried in Constantinople. Classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh al-Tirmidhi.
It says in Tuhfat al-Ahwadhi:
This hadeeth indicates that what is meant by throwing oneself into destruction is taking care of one’s family and wealth at the expense of jihad.
2 – Neglecting jihad is a cause of humiliation and scorn
Abu Dawood (3462) narrated that Ibn ‘Umar said: I heard the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) say: “When you engage in ‘aynah transactions (a kind of transaction intended to circumvent the prohibition on riba or usury), and you take hold of the tails of oxen and you are content with agriculture (at the time when jihad is obligatory), and you give up jihad, then Allaah will send upon you humiliation that will not be dispelled until you return to your religion, Allaah will send upon you humiliation that will not be dispelled until you return to your religion, Allaah will send upon you humiliation that will not be dispelled until you return to your religion.” Classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh Abi Dawood.
Our Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) indeed spoke the truth, for the one who looks at the state of the Muslims today will see that they have become very careless about their religion. They consume riba and they are focused on this world, and they have neglected jihad for the sake of Allaah. And what is the result? Allaah has subjected them to humiliation, and they turn to the east and to the west, humiliated and lowly, asking them for support against their enemies, and they do not realize [?] that this humiliation will not be lifted from them until they go back to their religion as the truthful Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said.
Allaah has indeed spoken the truth:
“Give to the hypocrites the tidings that there is for them a painful torment.
Those who take disbelievers for Awliyaa’ (protectors or helpers or friends) instead of believers, do they seek honour, power and glory with them? Verily, then to Allaah belongs all honour, power and glory”
[al-Nisa’ 4:138-139 – interpretation of the meaning]
3 – Neglecting jihad is a cause of Allaah's punishment in this world and in the Hereafter
Abu Dawood (2503) narrated from Abu Umaamah that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Whoever does not fight or does not equip a warrior or support the family of a warrior in his absence, Allaah will strike him with calamity before the Day of Resurrection.” Classed as hasan by al-Albaani in Saheeh Abi Dawood.
Al-Qaari’ah (translated here as calamity) means a disaster that occurs suddenly.
And Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“O you who believe! What is the matter with you, that when you are asked to march forth in the Cause of Allaah (i.e. Jihaad) you cling heavily to the earth? Are you pleased with the life of this world rather than the Hereafter? But little is the enjoyment of the life of this world as compared to the Hereafter.
If you march not forth, He will punish you with a painful torment and will replace you by another people; and you cannot harm Him at all, and Allaah is Able to do all things”
[al-Tawbah 9:38-39]
The punishment of which He warns them is not only punishment in the Hereafter, rather it is punishment in this world and in the Hereafter, the punishment of humiliation that befalls those who do not engage in jihad, the punishment of being deprived of the good things from which the kaafir enemy benefits. In addition to all of that, those who forsake jihad will lose more lives and more wealth than would be lost in jihad, and they offer more sacrifices than those required to retain their honour and dignity. No ummah forsook jihad but Allaah sent humility upon them, thus the cost was far greater than that that may have been required in jihad against the enemy.
Al-Zilaal, 3/1655.
Al-Sa’di (may Allaah have mercy on him) said (p. 532):
“O you who believe” do you not know the requirements of faith, which is that you should hasten to obey the command of Allaah and to seek His pleasure, and to fight His enemies in jihad for the sake of your religion? So “What is the matter with you, that when you are asked to march forth in the Cause of Allaah (i.e. Jihaad) you cling heavily to the earth?” meaning, why are you so lazy and so inclined towards this world.
“Are you pleased with the life of this world rather than the Hereafter?” Your case is that of those who are content with this world and who strive for worldly purposes, caring nothing for the Hereafter because they do not believe in it.
“But little is the enjoyment of the life of this world” towards which you are inclined and which you prefer. Hasn’t Allaah given you reason with which to weigh up matters and see which deserves to be shown preference?
Is not this world – from beginning to end – as nothing in comparison to the Hereafter?
What is a man's lifespan in comparison to the lifespan of this world, so as to make worldly gain his ultimate goal and concern and restrict all his efforts and focus to this short life that is filled with distress and risk?
How can you possibly prefer it to the Hereafter which includes every kind of delight that a person could desire, where you will abide forever? No person who prefers this world to the Hereafter has faith rooted in his heart and he cannot be regarded as a man of wisdom and understanding. Then Allaah warns them if they do not march forth, as He says:
“If you march not forth, He will punish you with a painful torment” – in this world and in the Hereafter, for not marching forth when ordered to do so is a major sin that deserves the most severe punishment, because it causes a great deal of harm, because the one who stays behind(from jihad) has disobeyed Allaah and done something that He has forbidden, and he has not helped to support the religion of Allaah or to protect the Book of Allaah and His Law. He has not helped his Muslim brothers against the enemy who wants to uproot them and eradicate their religion. Perhaps others who are weak in faith will follow his example, and he may even discourage those who are involved in fighting the enemies of Allaah. Thus he will be like those whom Allaah has warned of a severe punishment: “If you march not forth, He will punish you with a painful torment” Allaah has promised to support His religion and make His word supreme regardless of whether you obey the command of Allaah or not.
“and Allaah is Able to do all things” He is not incapable of doing anything that He wants, and none can overwhelm Him.
We ask Allaah to bring the Muslims back to their religion and to remove humiliation from them.
http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=eng&ds=qa&lv=browse&QR=46807&dgn=3

89 posted on 10/20/2003 9:42:57 PM PDT by miltonim

Question #11406: Killing non Muslims

Question :

I've read that in Islam it is a greater sin to kill a Muslim than a non-Muslim. However, on death a Muslim will be in Paradise whereas the non-Muslim will be in Hell.To kill a non-Muslim is to deny them forever the chance of becoming a Muslim, and condemns them to Hell. Is this not then a greater sin?

Answer :

Praise be to Allaah.
Killing a non-Muslim when he is a mu’aahid (one of those who have a peace treaty with the Muslims) is a sin, one of the major sins. Al-Bukhaari narrated that ‘Abd-Allaah ibn ‘Amr ibn al-‘Aas (may Allaah be pleased with them both) said: “The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: ‘Whoever kills a mu’aahid will not smell the fragrance of Paradise, even though its fragrance may detected from a distance of forty days.’” But with regard to non-Muslims who are at war with the Muslims and do not have a peace treaty with the Muslims or are not living under Muslim rule, then Muslims are commanded to kill them, because Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“Fight those of the disbelievers who are close to you, and let them find harshness in you” [al-Tawbah 9:123]
But this should be in the case of jihaad under the leadership of one of the leaders of the Muslims, or his deputy.
Shaykh ‘Abd al-Kareem al-Khudayr . (www.islam-qa.com)
http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=eng&ds=qa&lv=browse&QR=11406&dgn=3

90 posted on 10/20/2003 9:47:53 PM PDT by miltonim

Question #21977: Solution to the Palestinian issue

Question :

What is the way of solving the Palestinian issue which becomes more complicated each day?

Answer :

Praise be to Allaah.
The Muslim is deeply grieved and filled with sorrow as the Palestinian situation goes from bad to worse, and gets more complicated, until it has ended up in the state we have seen in recent days, because of differences among neighbouring nations and their failure to stand together as one against the enemy and their failure to adhere to the rule of Islam on which Allaah has made victory dependent, and has promised those who adhere to it that they will gain power and become powerful in the land, and has warned of grave danger and a severe punishment, if the neighbouring nations do not hasten to unite once more and adhere to the Islamic ruling concerning this matter, which concerns them and the entire Islamic world.
It is worth pointing out in this context that the Palestinian issue is an Islamic issue, first and last, but the enemies of Islam are striving their utmost to remove it from the Islamic map and make the non-Arab Muslims think that it is an Arab issue that does not concern the non-Arabs. It seems that they have succeeded in that to some extent.
Hence I think that a solution cannot be reached in this matter unless it is regarded as an Islamic issue and the Muslims cooperate to find a solution, and wage an Islamic jihad against the Jews, until the land is given back to its people and the Jewish immigrants go back to the countries from which they came, and the original Jewish inhabitants stay in their towns under Islamic rule, not communist or secular rule. In this manner truth will prevail and falsehood will be defeated, and the people whose land it is will return to their land under Islamic rule and none other. And Allaah is the source of strength.

Majmoo’ Fataawa al-Shaykh Ibn Baaz, part 1, p. 1259 (www.islam-qa.com)
http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=eng&ds=qa&lv=browse&QR=21977&dgn=3

91 posted on 10/20/2003 9:51:06 PM PDT by miltonim

Question #31888: The situation of the Muslims in Palestine

Question :

I was wondering wha you believe the fight taking place in the Holy Land is all about and what the end result might be.

Answer :

Praise be to Allaah.
Undoubtedly what is happening to the Muslims in the Holy Land of hardship, torture, expulsion, killing and harm is a matter which causes sorrow to every Muslim, and indeed to every non-Muslim who is reasonable, fair-minded and compassionate, when they see the blatant persecution inflicted upon innocent people, with the intention of driving them out of their homes so that the enemy can take their place, which is an enemy that possesses the most advanced weapons, with which they attack unarmed people who are deprived of the means of defending themselves.
This Muslim people has endured for more than fifty years, facing unending Zionist arrogance and aggression, which pays no heed to human dignity or any covenant or treaty, or any law, except that to which their own whims and desires make them inclined and in which their evil rabbis and warlords encourage them.
The outcome of that is well known to Muslims as well as Jews, which is that the consequences will be in favour of the pious and the party of God will be the victors. The wrongdoer will never enjoy security, stability and prosperity, rather he will be faced with fear, anxiety, grief and shame, until the day comes when the Muslims come back to their religion and are governed by the sharee’ah of their Lord, then they will meet the Jews in battle, where the two sides will face one another, and victory will go to the people of faith.
Al-Bukhaari (2926) and Muslim (2922) narrated from Abu Hurayrah that the Messenger of Allaah SAWS (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “The Hour will not begin until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them, until a Jew will be hiding behind a rock or a tree, and the rock or tree will say, ‘O Muslim, O slave of Allaah, here is a Jew behind me, come and kill him!’ except for the box-thorn (al-gharqad), for it is one of the trees of the Jews.”
We ask Allaah to hasten the Muslims’ return to their religion and to grant them the means of victory. May He grant us the joy of seeing His religion prevail and His enemies humiliated, and may He raise the status of those who are persecuted, tortured or killed for His sake.
And Allaah knows best.

Islam Q&A (www.islam-qa.com)
http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=eng&ds=qa&lv=browse&QR=31888&dgn=4

92 posted on 10/20/2003 9:54:51 PM PDT by miltonim

Question #21509: Role of the khaleefah of the Muslims?

Question :

What is the role of the khaleefah of the Muslims?.

Answer :

Praise be to Allaah.

Al-Maawirdi said, describing the tasks that the imam or ruler is obliged to do:

There are ten things that he is obliged to do that have to do with public affairs:

1 – He must preserve the religion according to its established bases and that on which the salaf of the ummah was unanimously agreed. If an innovator or deviant or one who is confused about some issue emerges, he has to explain the proof to him and tell him what is correct, and deal with him according to the set rights and punishments so that the religion will be protected against being undermined and the ummah will be prevented from deviance.

2 – He must judge between disputing parties and put an end to arguments so that justice and fairness will prevail, aggressors will not get carried away and no person who is wronged will feel helpless.

3 – He must guarantee public safety and security and protect the women and children of the ummah so that people can go about their business and travel around in safety, with no danger to their persons or their wealth.

4 – He must carry out hadd punishments so that the sacred limits of Allaah will not be transgressed and so that the rights of His slaves will be protected.

5 – He must reinforce the borders with equipment and forces so that the enemy will not find any opportunity to violate the borders of the Muslims or shed their blood or the blood of non-Muslims living under the protection of the Islamic state.

6 – He must strive in jihad against those who stubbornly reject Islam after being called to it, until they become Muslim or agree to live under Muslim protection and pay jizyah, so that the rights of Allaah will be fulfilled and His religion will prevail over all others.

7 – He must collect zakaah and charity money in the manner enjoined by the texts and scholarly consensus, without causing fear or being unjust.

8 – He must work out what benefits etc are to be given to those who deserve them from the treasury of the Islamic state (bayt al-maal), without being either extravagant or stingy; he must pay them on time, neither early nor late.

9 – He must appoint people who are honest and sincere to different positions, so that things will be done efficiently and wealth will be kept with trustworthy people.

10 – He should supervise matters directly himself, and check on things so that the ummah will be led in a proper manner. He should not rely on delegating to others because he is too busy indulging in physical pleasures or worship, for he may end up delegating to a supposedly trustworthy person who then betrays him, or a supposedly sincere person who then cheats him. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“O Dawood (David)! Verily, We have placed you as a successor on the earth; so judge you between men in truth (and justice) and follow not your desire * for it will mislead you from the path of Allaah”
[Saad 38:26]

Allaah did not allow him to delegate to others without supervising them or excuse him from that; He even described that as misguidance. Even though these are the duties of the khaleefah as stated in religion, these are also the duties of everyone who has anyone under his care. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Each of you is a shepherd and each of you is responsible for his flock.”

If the imam fulfils the rights of the ummah that we have mentioned above, then he has discharged his duty towards Allaah and to them, and so he is owed the two duties of obedience and support, unless he changes.

Islam Q&A (www.islam-qa.com)
http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=eng&ds=qa&lv=browse&QR=21509&dgn=4

93 posted on 10/20/2003 10:02:06 PM PDT by miltonim

Question #14235: Ruling on Muslims taking on European nationality

Question :

What is the ruling on taking European nationality for a Muslim who has come to a European country fleeing from oppression in his homeland, where he has lost his identity papers and has lost all hope of going back to his country? May Allaah reward you with good?

Answer :

Praise be to Allaah.
In order to answer this question, we must explain two things.
1 – Whether settling in a kaafir country is permissible
2 – Establishing whether there is a need to take the nationality.
With regard to the first matter, settling in a kaafir country is not permissible unless the following conditions are met:
       1-     There should be a legitimate need for settling in their country, which cannot be met in the Muslim lands, such as trade, da’wah, officially representing a Muslim country, or seeking knowledge that is not available in a Muslim country either because it does not exist there, or what is available is not of good quality. Or there should be fear of death, prison or torture, not mere harassment, for oneself or for one’s family and children, or fear for one’s wealth.
2-     Settling there should be regarded as temporary, not permanent. It is not permissible to have the intention of staying there permanently; rather one should have the idea that it is temporary, because settling there permanently means that one has migrated (made hijrah) from the land of Islam to the land of kufr. This clearly goes against the ruling of sharee’ah that it is obligatory to migrate from the land of kufr to the land of Islam. Having the intention of staying there temporarily means that when the need to stay in the kaafir country no longer applies, one will get up and leave.
3-     The kaafir country in which one wants to settle should be one which is at peace with the Muslims, not one which is at war with them. Otherwise it is not permissible to settle there. A country is regarded as being at war with the Muslims if it is hostile towards the Muslims.
4-     There should be religious freedom in the kaafir country, so that the Muslim will be able to practise his religion openly.
5-     He should be able to learn the laws of Islam in that country; if it is difficult for him to do so then it is not permissible for him to settle there because that implies that he is turning away from learning the religion of Allaah.
6-     He should think it most likely that he will be able to protect and maintain his religious commitment, and that of his family and children, otherwise it is not permissible for him to settle there, because preserving one’s religious commitment takes precedence over preserving one’s self, one’s wealth and one’s family. Whoever meets this condition – and how difficult it is to meet it – is permitted to settle in the land of the kuffaar, otherwise that is forbidden to him, because of the texts which clearly forbid settling there and enjoin migrating from such lands, as is well known, and because of the great danger which that poses to religion and morals, which no one can deny except one who is arrogant.
Secondly: there should be a legitimate need for taking the nationality, such as the benefits for which the Muslim has settled in the kaafir country being dependent upon his taking the nationality. Otherwise that is not permissible for him, because taking the nationality is an obvious manifestation of befriending the kuffaar, and because it involves speaking words which it is not permissible to believe in or adhere to, such as approving of kufr or man-made laws. Moreover, taking the nationality may lead to staying in the kaafir land permanently, which is not permissible, as stated above. Having established these two points, I hope that Allaah will forgive the Muslims who settle in kaafir lands for the great danger that they have exposed themselves to, because either he is forced to settle there and necessity makes permissible that which is ordinarily forbidden, or to serve an interest which outweighs the harms. And Allaah knows best.

Shaykh Khaalid al-Maajid, Faculty Member, College of Sharee’ah, Imaam Muhammad ibn Sa’ood Islamic University. (www.islam-qa.com)

http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=eng&ds=qa&lv=browse&QR=14235&dgn=4

94 posted on 10/20/2003 10:08:03 PM PDT by miltonim

Hollywood Avoids the War on Terror PABAAH: Patriotic Americans Boycotting Anti-American Hollywood ^

Posted on 10/20/2003 3:56 PM EDT by jonalvy44

According to Daniel Pipes: Jonathan V. Last notes in today's Wall Street Journal that the war on terror is not the subject of a single U.S. feature film already produced or in the works. When asked why should be, head of the Motion Picture Association of America, Jack Valenti, replies with questions of his own: "Who would you have as the enemy if you made a picture about terrorism? You'd probably have Muslims, would you not? If you did, I think there would be backlash from the decent, hard-working, law-abiding Muslim community in this country."

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1004569/posts

95 posted on 10/20/2003 10:17:18 PM PDT by miltonim

The Church and Islam. “La Civiltà Cattolica” Breaks the Ceasefire

www.Chiesa ^ | 10/21/03 | Sandro Magister

Posted on 10/21/2003 8:46 PM PDT by Land of the Irish

The Church and Islam. “La Civiltà Cattolica” Breaks the Ceasefire
Through the prestigious magazine, the Vatican denounces with unusual harshness the oppression of Christians in Muslim countries. A testimony from Egypt

by Sandro Magister

ROMA – There is a conspicuous absence among the new cardinals created on October 21 by John Paul II: Archbishop Michael Louis Fitzgerald, president of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue.

The current explanation is that Fitzgerald was not made cardinal because of his excessively placid approach to Islam.

And it is true that, together with this exclusion, an article was printed in “La Civiltà Cattolica” that contrasts markedly with the matter of Fitzgerald’s rebuke.

“La Civiltà Cattolica,” edited by a group of Jesuits in Rome, is a very special magazine. Every one of its articles is reviewed by the Vatican secretary of state before publication. So the magazine reflects his thought faithfully.

In its October 18 edition, “La Civiltà Cattolica” published a strikingly severe article on the condition of Christians in Muslim countries. The central thesis of the article is that “in all of its history, Islam has shown a warlike and conquering face”; that “for almost a thousand years, Europe lived under its constant threat”; and that what remains of the Christian population in Islamic countries is still subjected to “perpetual discrimination,” with episodes of bloody persecution.

What follows is an ample extract from the article printed in “La Civiltà Cattolica” no. 3680, October 18, 2003, and used here with the kind permission of the magazine:

Christians in Islamic Countries

by Giuseppe De Rosa S.I.

How do Christians in Muslim-majority countries live? [...] We must first highlight a seemingly rather curious fact: in all the countries of North Africa (Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco), before the Muslim invasion and despite incursions by vandals, there were blossoming Christian communities that contributed to the universal Church great personalities, such as Tertullian; Saint Ciprian, bishop of Carthage, martyred in 258; Saint Augustine, bishop of Hippo; and Saint Fulgentius, bishop of Ruspe. But after the Arab conquest, Christianity was absorbed by Islam to such an extent that today it has a significant presence only in Egypt, with the Coptic Orthodox and other tiny Christian minorities, which make up 7-10 percent of the Egyptian population.

The same can be said of the Middle East (Lebanon, Syria, Palestine, Jordan, Mesopotamia), in which there were flourishing Christian areas prior to the Islamic invasion, and where today there are only small Christian communities, with the exception of Lebanon, where Christians make up a significant part of the population.

As for present-day Turkey, this was in the first Christian centuries the land in which Christianity bore its best fruits in the areas of liturgy, theology, and monastic life. The invasion of the Seljuk Turks and the conquest of Constantinople by Mehmet II (1453) lead to the founding of the Ottoman empire and to the near destruction of Christianity in the Anatolian peninsula. Thus today in Turkey Christians number approximately 100,000, among whom are a small number of Orthodox, who live around Phanar, the see of the ecumenical patriarchate of Constantinople, who has the primacy of honor in the Orthodox world and who holds communion with eight patriarchs and many autocephalous Churches in both East and West, with approximately 180 million faithful.

In conclusion, we may state in historical terms that in all the places where Islam imposed itself by military force, which has few historical parallels for its rapidity and breadth, Christianity, which had been extraordinarily vigorous and rooted for centuries, practically disappeared or was reduced to tiny islands in an endless Islamic sea. It is not easy to explain how that could have happened. [...]

In reality, the reduction of Christianity to a small minority was not due to violent religious persecution, but to the conditions in which Christians were forced to live in the organization of the Islamic state. [...]

THE WARRIOR FACE OF ISLAM: “JIHAD”

According to Islamic law, the world is divided into three parts: dar al-harb (the house of war), dar al-islam (the house of Islam), and dar al-‘ahd (the house of accord); that is, the countries with which a treaty was stipulated. [...]

As for the countries belonging to the “house of war,” Islamic canon law recognizes no relations with them other than “holy war” (jihad), which signifies an “effort” in the way of Allah and has two meanings, both of which are equally essential and must not be dissociated, as if one could exist without the other. In its primary meaning, jihad indicates the “effort” that the Muslim must undertake to be faithful to the precepts of the Koran and so improve his “submission” (islam) to Allah; in the second, it indicates the “effort” that the Muslim must undertake to “fight in the way of Allah,” which means fighting against the infidels and spreading Islam throughout the world. Jihad is a precept of the highest importance, so much so that it is sometimes counted among the fundamental precepts of Islam, as its sixth “pillar.”

Obedience to the precept of the “holy war” explains why the history of Islam is one of unending warfare for the conquest of infidel lands. [...] In particular, all of Islamic history is dominated by the idea of the conquest of the Christian lands of Western Europe and of the Eastern Roman Empire, whose capital was Constantinople. Thus, through many centuries, Islam and Christianity faced each other in terrible battles, which led on one side to the conquest of Constantinople (1453), Bulgaria, and Greece, and on the other, to the defeat of the Ottoman empire in the naval battle of Lepanto (1571).

But the conquering spirit of Islam did not die after Lepanto. The Islamic advance into Europe was definitively halted only in 1683, when Vienna was liberated from the Ottoman siege by the Christian armies under the command of John III Sobieski, the king of Poland. [...] In reality, for almost a thousand years Europe was under constant threat from Islam, which twice put its survival in serious danger.

Thus, in all of its history, Islam has shown a warlike face and a conquering spirit for the glory of Allah. [...] against the “idolaters” who must be given a choice: convert to Islam, or be killed. [...] As for the “people of the Book” (Christians, Jews, and “Sabeans”), Muslims must “fight them until their members pay tribute, one by one, humiliated” (Koran, Sura 9:29). [...]

THE REGIME OF THE “DHIMMA”

According to Muslim law, Christians, Jews, and the followers of other religions assimilated to Christianity and Judaism (the “Sabeans”) who live in a Muslim state belong to an inferior social order, in spite of their eventually belonging to the same race, language, and descent. Islamic law does not recognize the concepts of nation and citizenship, but only the umma, the one Islamic community, for which reason a Muslim, as he is part of the umma, may live in any Islamic country as he would in his homeland: he is subject to the same laws, finds the same customs, and enjoys the same consideration.

But those belonging to the “people of the Book” are subject to the dhimma, which is a kind of bilateral treaty consisting in the fact that the Islamic state authorizes the “people of the Book” to inhabit its lands, tolerates its religion, and guarantees the “protection” of its persons and goods and its defense from external enemies. Thus the “people of the Book” (Ahl al-Kitab) becomes the “protected people” (Ahl al-dhimma). In exchange for this “protection,” the “people of the Book” must pay a tax (jizya) to the Islamic state, which is imposed only upon able-bodied free men, excluding women, children, and the old and infirm, and pay a tribute, called the haram, on the lands in its possession.

As for the freedom of worship, the dhimmi are prohibited only from external manifestations of worship, such as the ringing of bells, processions with the cross, solemn funerals, and the public sale of religious objects or other articles prohibited for Muslims. A Muslim man who marries a Christian or a Jew must leave her free to practice her religion and also to consume the foods permitted by her religion, even if they are forbidden for Muslims, such as pork or wine. The dhimmi may maintain or repair the churches or synagogues they already have, but, unless there is a treaty permitting them to own land, they may not build new places of worship, because to do this they would need to occupy Muslim land, which can never be ceded to anyone, having become, through Muslim conquest, land “sacred” to Allah.

In Sura 9:29 the Koran affirms that the “people of the Book,” apart from being constrained to pay the two taxes mentioned above, must be placed under certain restrictions, such as dressing in a special way and not being allowed to bear arms or ride on horseback. Furthermore, the dhimmi may not serve in the army, be functionaries of the state, be witnesses in trials between Muslims, take the daughters of Muslims as their wives, be the guardians of underage Muslims, or keep Muslim slaves. They may not inherit from Muslims, nor Muslims from them, but legacies are permitted.

The release of the dhimma came about above all through conversion of the “people of the Book” to islam; but Muslims, especially in the early centuries, did not look favorably upon such conversions, because they represented a grave loss to the treasury, which flourished in direct proportion to the number of the dhimmi, who paid both the personal tax and the land tax. The dissolution of dhimma status could also take place through failure to observe the “treaty”; that is, if the dhimmi took up arms against Muslims, refused to remain subject or to pay tribute, abducted a Muslim woman, blasphemed or offended the prophet Mohammed and the Islamic religion, or if they drew a Muslim away from Islam, converting him to their own religion. According to the gravity of each case, the penalty could be the confiscation of goods, reduction to slavery, or death – unless the person who had committed the crimes converted to Islam. In that case, all penalties were waived.

CONSEQUENCE: THE EROSION OF CHRISTIANITY

It is evident that the condition of the dhimmi, prolonged through centuries, has led slowly but inexorably to the near extinction of Christianity in Muslim lands: the condition of civil inferiority, which prevented Christians from attaining public offices, and the condition of religious inferiority, which closed them in an asphyxiated religious life and practice with no possibility of development, put the Christians to the necessity of emigrating, or, more frequently, to the temptation of converting to Islam. There was also the fact that a Christian could not marry a Muslim woman without converting to Islam, in part because her children had to be educated in that faith. Furthermore, a Christian who became Muslim could divorce very easily, whereas Christianity prohibited divorce. And apart from all this, the Christians in Muslim territories were seriously divided among themselves – and frequently even enemies – because they belonged to Churches that were different by confession (Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian Churches) and by rite (Syro-oriental, Antiochian, Maronite, Coptic-Alexandrian, Armenian, Byzantine). Thus mutual assistance was almost impossible.

The regime of the dhimma lasted for over a millennium, even if not always and everywhere in the harsh form called “the conditions of ‘Umar,” according to which Christians not only did not have the right to construct new churches and restore existing ones, even if they fell into ruins (and, if they had the permission to construct through the good will of the Muslim governor, the churches could not be of large dimensions: the building must be more modest than all the religious buildings around it); but the largest and most beautiful churches had to be transformed into mosques. That transformation made it impossible for the church-mosques ever to be restored to the Christian community, because a place that has become a mosque cannot be put to another use.

The consequence of the dhimma regime was the “erosion” of the Christian communities and the conversion of many Christians to Islam for economic, social, and political motives: to find a better job, enjoy a better social status, participate in administrative, political, and military life, and in order not to live in a condition of perpetual discrimination.

In recent centuries, the dhimma system has undergone some modifications, in part because the ideas of citizenship and the equality of all citizens before the state have gained a foothold even in Muslim countries. Nevertheless, in practice, the traditional conception is still present. [...] The Christian, whether he wish it or not, is brought back in spite of himself to the concept of the dhimmi, even if the term no longer appears in the present-day laws of a good number of Muslim-majority countries.

To understand the present condition of these Christians, we must refer back to the history of the 19th and 20th centuries. In the Ottoman empire of the 19th century, where the millet system was in force, the tanzimat, “regulations” of a liberal character, were introduced. [...] From the second half of the 19th century to the end of the first World War, there was a “Reawakening” (Nahda) movement in the Arab world, under Western influence, in the fields of literature, language, and thought. Many intellectuals were conquered by liberal ideas.

On another front, the Christians created strong ties with the Western powers – France and Great Britain in particular – which, after the dissolution of the Ottoman empire, obtained the protectorate of the countries that had belonged to the empire. This permitted the Christians both greater civil and religious liberty and cultural advancement. Moreover, during the first half of the 20th century various political parties of nationalist and socialist, and thus secularist, tendencies were born, such as the Ba’th, the Socialist Party of the Arab Renewal, founded at the end of the 1930’s in Damascus by Syrian professor Michel ‘Aflaz, a Greek Orthodox. In 1953 this party was united with the Syrian Popular Party, founded in 1932 by Antun Sa’ada, a Greek Orthodox from Lebanon. In brief, political regimes inspired by the liberal and secular principles of Western Europe rose up in various Islamic countries.

THE BIRTH OF RADICAL ISLAM

These events provoked a harsh reaction in the Islamic world, due to fears that the secularist ideas and “corrupt” customs of the Western world, identified with Christianity, would endanger the purity of Islam and constitute a deadly threat to its very existence. This reaction was fed by strong resentment against the Western powers, which had dared to impose their political rule upon Islam, “the greatest nation ever raised up by Allah among men” (Koran, s. 3:110), and against their customs “despised” by the “nation (umma) that urges to goodness, promotes justice, and restrains iniquity” (ibid, s. 3:104).

Thus was born “radical Islam,” which set itself up as the interpreter of the frustrations of the Muslim masses. Hasan al Banna, Sayyd Qutb, Abd al-Qadir ‘Uda in Egypt with the Muslim Brotherhood; Abu l-A‘li al-Mawdudi in Pakistan, and the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran are its most significant witnesses, and their followers have spread from Dakar to Kuala Lumpur. [...]

THE PRESENT CONDITION OF CHRISTIANS IN THE MUSLIM WORLD

Radical Islam, which proposes that shari’a law be instituted in every Islamic state, is gaining ground in many Muslim countries, in which groups of Christians are also present. It is evident that the institution of shari’a would render the lives of Christians rather difficult, and their very existence would be constantly in danger. This is the cause of the mass emigration of Christians from Islamic countries to Western countries: Europe, the United States, Canada, and Australia. [...] The estimated number of Arab Christians who have emigrated from Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, and Israel in the last decade hovers around three million, which is from 26.5 to 34.1 percent of the estimated number of Christians currently living in the Middle East.

Furthermore, we must not underestimate grave recent actions against Christians in some Muslim-majority countries. In Algeria, the bishop of Orano, P. Claverie (1996), seven Trappist monks from Tibehirini (1999), four White Fathers (1994), and six sisters from various religious congregations have been brutally killed by Islamic fundamentalists, although the murders were condemned by numerous Muslim authorities. In Pakistan, which numbers 3,800,000 Christians among a population of 156,000,000 (96 percent Muslim), on October 28, 2001, some Muslims entered the Church of St. Dominic in Bahawalpur and gunned down 18 Christians. On May 6, 1998, Catholic bishop John Joseph killed himself for protesting against the blasphemy law, which punishes with death anyone who offends Mohammed, even only “by speaking words, or by actions and through allusions, directly or indirectly.” For example, by saying that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, one offends Mohammed, who affirmed that Jesus is not the Son of God, but his “servant.” With this kind of law, Christians are in constant danger of death.

In Nigeria – where 13 states have introduced shari’a as state law – several thousand Christians have been the victims of incidents. Serious incidents are taking place in the south of the Philippines and in Indonesia, which, with its 212 million inhabitants, is the most populous Muslim country in the world, to the harm of the Christians of Java, East Timor, and the Moluccas. But the most tragic situation – and, unfortunately, forgotten by the Western world! – is that of Sudan, where the North is Arab and Muslim, and the South black and Christian, and in part, animist. Since the time of president G.M. Nimeiry, there has been a state of civil war between the North, which has proclaimed shari’a and intends to impose it with fierce violence on the rest of the country, and the South, which aims to preserve and defend its Christian identity. The North makes use of all of its military power – financed by oil exports to the West – to destroy Christian villages; prevent the arrival of humanitarian aid; kill the cattle, which are the means of sustenance for many South Sudanese; and carry out raids, for Christian girls in particular, who are brought to the North, raped, and sold as slaves or concubines to rich, older Sudanese men. According to the 2001 report of Amnesty International, “at the end of 2000, the civil war, which started again in 1983, had cost the lives of almost two million persons and had caused the forced evacuation of 4,500,000 more. Tens of thousands of persons have been compelled by terror to leave their homes in the upper Nile region, which is rich in oil, after aerial bombardments, mass executions, and torture.”

We must, finally, recall a fact that is often forgotten because Saudi Arabia is the largest provider of oil to the Western world, and the latter therefore has an interest in not disturbing relations with that country. In reality, in Saudi Arabia, where wahhabism is in force, not only is it impossible to build a church or even a tiny place of worship, but any act of Christian worship or any sign of Christian faith is severely prohibited with the harshest penalties. Thus about a million Christians working in Saudi Arabia are deprived by violence of any Christian practice or sign. They may participate in mass or in other Christian practices – and even then with the serious danger of losing their jobs – only on the property of the foreign oil companies. And yet, Saudi Arabia spends billions of petrodollars, not for the benefit of its poor citizens or of poor Muslims in other Muslim countries, but to construct mosques and madrasas in Europe and to finance the imams of the mosques in all the Western countries. We recall that the Roman mosque of Monte Antenne, constructed on land donated by the Italian government, was principally financed by Saudi Arabia and was built to be the largest mosque in Europe, in the very heart of Christianity.

__________

A link to the historic magazine of the Jesuits in Rome:

> "La Civiltà Cattolica"

__________

The following is an interview published in the latest edition of “Il Regno,” the biweekly of the Sacred Heart congregation of Bologna. The man interviewed is a Coptic Orthodox Christian, the director of a Cairo weekly. The picture he paints of the condition of Christians in Egypt – usually classified among the “moderate” Arab countries – fully confirms what was more generally described by “La Civiltà Cattolica”:

Christians in Egypt. The Humiliation Continues

An interview with Youssef Sidhom, director of “Watani”

CAIRO – Youssef Sidhom is the director of the weekly “Watani” (“My Homeland”). Founded in 1958 by his father, Antoun Sidhom, it has always published news and commentary on the Church and Christianity, themes completely overlooked by all the other Egyptian newspapers. Many believe it to be a newspaper of the Coptic Orthodox Church, but that’s not true. It is independent, and has no particular relationship with that Church, nor does it receive financial support from it. [...]

What are the main problems of the Christians in Egypt?

“The most striking problem is the extreme difficulty in receiving permission to build a church. Current legislation offers all of the incentives for the construction of mosques, but it poses almost insurmountable obstacles to the construction of churches. In 1934, the undersecretary for the minister of the interior, Muhammad al-‘Azabi, made ten conditions for giving permission for the construction of a church, and those conditions are still valid. Let’s cite a few of them: a church must not be built on farm land; it must not be close to a mosque or monument; if it is to be constructed in a zone in which Muslims also live, one must first obtain their permission; there must be a sufficient number of Christians in the area; there must not be other churches nearby; police permission must be obtained if there are bridges or canals of the Nile near or if there is a railroad; the signature of the president of the republic must be obtained. All these conditions cause insurmountable difficulties. In fact, more than ten years can go by while waiting for police permission, and in the meantime mosques are hurriedly erected in the vicinity of the area where the church was meant to be, and the project stumbles against another prohibition. Moreover, it is not specified how many Christians there must be for them to have the right to a church. If, for example, there are 1,500, the government can say that that’s not a sufficient number, when a hundred would be enough to fill one of our churches.”

But hasn’t President Mubarak facilitated the granting of these permissions by delegating the matter to the provincial prefects?

“Yes, he allowed the permits to be given by the provincial prefects, and a year later he ruled that they can also be given by the territory’s local authority. But this delegated authority only regards the permits to repair and restructure the churches. The permission to construct a new church is still the sole prerogative of the president of the republic. [...] This discrimination in the matter of the construction of churches leads Christians to the bitter conviction that the state considers them second-class citizens. For the state, a Christian is a kafir, an infidel, he doesn’t know the true religion or have the true faith, so it’s not worth it to listen to him. In Egypt we live with humiliating discrimination on religious grounds.” [...]

Does the discrimination regard only the construction of churches, or other aspects of social life for Christians in Egypt as well?

“It regards our entire life. There’s discrimination in state offices. According to the constitution, the president must be a Muslim. The Islamic religion is the foundation of Egyptian legislation. Today, no Christian can be prime minister, even though there have been Christian prime ministers in the past. Of the thirty-two ministers, only two are Christians: the finance minister and the minister of the environment. No city or village mayor can be a Christian. The high posts in the military, the police, and the presidential guard are filled only with Muslims. There are hundreds of persons in the diplomatic corps, but only two or three Christians. No Christian can attain high office in the tribunals. According to the law, two witnesses are necessary to justify a sentence, but if one of them is Christian, the judge may refuse his testimony because it comes from an infidel. The rectors of the universities must be Muslim. [...] In any office, the career of a Muslim who has just arrived will advance beyond that of a Christian who has been in his post for years. In the 2000 elections, the al-Watani party, which dominates politics in the country, listed only three Christians among 888 candidates. A Christian may not teach Arabic, because this material is linked to the teaching of the Islamic religion. Discrimination is at work even on our identity card, where the religion of one’s father is shown.”

And in case of divorce?

“The law provides that the children should remain with their mother. But if the father wants to divorce because he has become a Muslim, which happens frequently, the judge rules that the children should remain on the side that has the true faith, meaning the father. So children born to Christians grow up in a completely Muslim family.”

“Is changing religions permitted?”

“Anyone who becomes Muslim is welcomed with big parties. They change his identity card very quickly; he is helped in his job, with his house, etc. But if a Muslim wants to become Christian, they not only seek to dissuade him by any means, but his very life is in danger. I believe that every day there are Egyptians who change religions, but it’s impossible to know how many. Al-Ahzar would willingly publish the statistics, which would be a sign of victory and glory, but the Church could never make a choice like this, because it would bring about many tragedies. In any case, there is a ruling by the tribunal that establishes that if an Egyptian is born non-Muslim, becomes Muslim, and then wants to return to his original faith, he may do it. But a Muslim by birth may never change religions, on pain of exclusion from his inheritance and from the society to which he belongs – with danger to his own safety.”

(Interview by Camillo Ballin and Francesco Strazzari)

__________

The complete text of the interview is in the September 15, 2003 edition of

> “Il Regno”

__________

A link to the Cairo weekly directed by Youssef Sidhom, with articles in English:

> “Watani”

__________

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1005566/posts

96 posted on 10/21/2003 10:59:27 PM PDT by miltonim (The Sinner's Guide)

Taliban Kill Eight Policemen in Afghan Attack

Reuters ^ | 10-12-03

Posted on 10/12/2003 10:21 AM EDT by PatrioticCowboy

Taliban Kill Eight Policemen in Afghan Attack

Sun October 12, 2003 09:37 AM ET

Taliban Kill Eight Policemen in Afghan Attack

Sun October 12, 2003 09:37 AM ET

KABUL (Reuters) - Up to 100 Afghan Taliban guerrillas attacked a district office in the volatile southern province of Zabul early Sunday, killing eight policemen and wounding two others, a local official said.

The latest attack by a resurgent guerrilla movement occurred in Zabul's Arghandab district shortly before 2 a.m., district officer Haji Qudratullah told Reuters.

He said up to 100 Taliban fighters were involved, who burned down the district office and destroyed four vehicles.

Qudratullah said he had no figure for Taliban casualties, though he had heard that some of the attackers had been killed.

"People said they took dead bodies with them," he said. Government forces had reoccupied the area after dawn.

The attack was just the latest in a series by the Taliban movement, ousted from government by U.S.-led forces in late 2001 for sheltering the al Qaeda network blamed for Sept. 11 attacks on the United States that year.

The period since the start of August has been the bloodiest in Afghanistan since the fall of the Taliban, with more than 300 people killed, many of them in guerrilla attacks.

The dead have included Afghan aid workers, government soldiers, policemen and U.S. troops from the 11,500-strong U.S.-led force still searching for Taliban remnants and al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. U.S. SOLDIER SLIGHTLY WOUNDED

Sunday's attack follows an audacious escape by 41 Taliban prisoners from the main jail in Kandahar province, Zabul's neighbor.

Among the escapees was Mawlavi Abdullah, brother of former Taliban defense minister Obaidullah, and a commander named Aziz Agham who officials say mounted a number of guerrilla attacks in the months before his capture earlier this year.

Afghan and U.S. forces pursuing Islamic militants accuse neighboring Pakistan, the main backer of the Taliban until the September 11 attacks, of providing sanctuary for the guerrillas and allowing them to slip across the border to mount attacks.

But Pakistan says recent operations it has launched against militants in its tribal borderlands are proof of its commitment to the "war on terror."

In another incident involving suspected militants, a soldier from the U.S.-led force was slightly hurt in a gunbattle on the outskirts of Kabul Saturday night.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/999795/posts

97 posted on 10/21/2003 11:14:57 PM PDT by miltonim (The Sinner's Guide)

Saddam's Terror Ties - Iraq-war critics ignore ample evidence.

National Review Online ^ | October 21, 2003 | Deroy

Murdock - NRO Contributing Editor

Posted on 10/22/2003 12:20 AM EDT by Matchett-PI

As President Bush more robustly promotes his Iraq policy, he should confront directly those who dismiss Saddam Hussein's ties to terrorism and, thus, belittle a key rationale for Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Bush's critics employ a flimsy argument that nonetheless enjoys growing appeal among a largely hostile press corps. Since Hussein did not order the September 11 attacks — the fuzzy logic goes — he has no ties to terrorists, especially al Qaeda. Therefore, the Iraq war was bogus, and Bush should be defeated.

"Iraq was not a breeding ground for terrorism. Our invasion has made it one," said Senator Ted Kennedy (D., Mass.) on October 16. "We were told Iraq was attracting terrorists from al Qaeda. It was not...We should never have gone to war in Iraq when we did, in the way we did, for the false reasons we were given."

West Virginia's Jay Rockefeller, the Senate Intelligence Committee's ranking Democrat, told the Los Angeles Times that Iraq's alleged al Qaeda ties were "tenuous at best and not compelling."

In a September 16 editorial, the Times slammed Vice President Dick Cheney for making "sweeping, unproven claims about Saddam Hussein's connections to terrorism." On August 7, former vice president Al Gore stated reassuringly: "The evidence now shows clearly that Saddam did not want to work with Osama bin Laden at all."

Bush and his national-security team should repeatedly devote entire speeches and publications — complete with documents, names, and visuals, including photographs of terrorists and their innocent victims — to remind Americans and the world that Baathist Iraq was a general store for terrorists, complete with cash, training, lodging, and even medical attention.

The evidence for Hussein's cooperation with and support for global terrorists is abundant and increasing. Recall, for instance:

Hussein paid bonuses of up to $25,000 to the families of Palestinian homicide bombers. "President Saddam Hussein has recently told the head of the Palestinian political office, Faroq al-Kaddoumi, his decision to raise the sum granted to each family of the martyrs of the Palestinian uprising to $25,000 instead of $10,000," Iraq's former deputy prime minister, Tariq Aziz, declared at a Baghdad meeting of Arab politicians and businessmen on March 11, 2002, Reuters reported two days later.

Mahmoud Besharat, who the White House says dispensed these funds across the West Bank, gratefully said: "You would have to ask President Saddam why he is being so generous. But he is a revolutionary and he wants this distinguished struggle, the intifada, to continue."

Between Aziz's announcement and the March 20 launch of Operation Iraqi Freedom, 28 homicide bombers injured 1,209 people and killed 223 more, including at least eight Americans.

According to the State Department's May 21, 2002 "Patterns of Global Terrorism," the Abu Nidal Organization, the Arab Liberation Front, Hamas, the Kurdistan Worker's party, the Mujahedin-e-Khalq Organization and the Palestinian Liberation Front all operated offices or bases in Hussein's Iraq.

Hussein's hospitality towards these mass murderers placed him in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, which prohibited him from giving safe harbor to or otherwise supporting terrorists.

Coalition forces have found alive and well key terrorists who enjoyed Hussein's hospitality.

Among them was Abu Abbas, mastermind of the October 1985 Achille Lauro hijacking and murder of Leon Klinghoffer, a 69-year-old Manhattan retiree who Abbas's men rolled, wheelchair and all, into the Mediterranean.

Khala Khadr al-Salahat, accused of designing the bomb that destroyed Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in December 1988 (259 killed on board, 11 dead on the ground), also lived in Baathist Iraq.

Before fatally shooting himself four times in the head on August 16, 2002, as Baghdad claimed, Palestinian terrorist Abu Nidal had resided in Iraq since 1999.

As the AP's Sameer N. Yacoub reported on August 21, 2002, the Beirut office of the Abu Nidal Organization said he entered Iraq "with the full knowledge and preparations of the Iraqi authorities." Nidal's attacks in 20 countries killed at least 275 people and wounded some 625 others.

Among other atrocities, ANO henchmen bombed a TWA airliner over the Aegean Sea in 1974, killing all 88 people on board.

Coalition troops destroyed at least three terrorist training camps including a base near Baghdad called Salman Pak.

It featured a passenger-jet fuselage where numerous Iraqi defectors reported that foreign terrorists were instructed how to hijack airliners with utensils.

(The Bush administration should bus a few dozen foreign correspondents and their camera crews from the bar of Baghdad's Palestine Hotel to Salman Pak for a guided tour. Network news footage of that ought to open a few eyes.)

As for Hussein's supposedly imaginary ties to al Qaeda, consider these disturbing facts:

The Philippine government expelled Hisham al Hussein, the second secretary at Iraq's Manila embassy, on February 13, 2003. Cell-phone records indicate that the diplomat had spoken with Abu Madja and Hamsiraji Sali, leaders of Abu Sayyaf, just before and just after this al Qaeda-allied Islamic militant group conducted an attack in Zamboanga City.

Abu Sayyaf's nail-filled bomb exploded on October 2, 2002, injuring 23 individuals and killing two Filipinos and U.S. Special Forces Sergeant First Class Mark Wayne Jackson, age 40. As Dan Murphy wrote in the Christian Science Monitor last February 26, those phone records bolster Sali's claim in a November 2002 TV interview that the Iraqi diplomat had offered these Muslim extremists Baghdad's help with joint missions.

Journalist Stephen F. Hayes reported in July that the official Babylon Daily Political Newspaper published by Hussein's eldest son, Uday, ran what it called a "List of Honor."

The paper's November 14, 2002, edition gave the names and titles of 600 leading Iraqis, including this passage: "Abid Al-Karim Muhamed Aswod, intelligence officer responsible for the coordination of activities with the Osama bin Laden group at the Iraqi embassy in Pakistan."

That name, Hayes wrote, matches that of Iraq's then-ambassador to Islamabad.

Carter-appointed federal appeals judge Gilbert S. Merritt discovered this document in Baghdad while helping Iraq rebuild its legal system.

He wrote in the June 25 Tennessean that two of his Iraqi colleagues remember secret police agents removing that embarrassing edition from newsstands and confiscating copies of it from private homes. The paper was not published for the next ten days.

Judge Merritt theorized that the "impulsive and somewhat unbalanced" Uday may have showcased these dedicated Baathists to "make them more loyal and supportive of the regime" as war loomed.

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, formerly the director of an al Qaeda training base in Afghanistan, fled to Iraq after being injured as the Taliban fell. He received medical care and convalesced for two months in Baghdad.

He then opened a terrorist training camp in northern Iraq and arranged the October 2002 assassination of U.S. diplomat Lawrence Foley in Amman, Jordan.

While Iraqi Ramzi Yousef, ringleader of the February 26, 1993 World Trade Center bombing plot, fled the U.S. on a Pakistani passport, he arrived here on an Iraqi passport.

Author Richard Miniter reported September 25 on TechCentralStation: "U.S. forces recently discovered a cache of documents in Tikrit, Saddam's hometown, that show Iraq gave Mr. Yasin both a house and a monthly salary."

Indiana-born, Iraqi-reared al Qaeda member Abdul Rahman Yasin was indicted for mixing the chemicals in the bomb that exploded beneath the World Trade Center, killing six and injuring some 1,000 New Yorkers.

Along Iraq's border with Syria, U.S. troops captured Farouk Hijazi, Hussein's former ambassador to Turkey and suspected liaison to al Qaeda.

Under interrogation, Hijazi "admitted meeting with senior al Qaeda leaders at Saddam's behest in 1994."

While sifting through the Mukhabarat's bombed ruins last April 26, the Toronto Star's Mitch Potter, the London Daily Telegraph's Inigo Gilmore and their translator discovered a memo in the intelligence service's accounting department.

Dated February 19, 1998 and marked "Top Secret and Urgent," it said the agency would pay "all the travel and hotel expenses inside Iraq to gain the knowledge of the message from bin Laden and to convey to his envoy an oral message from us to bin Laden, the Saudi opposition leader, about the future of our relationship with him, and to achieve a direct meeting with him." The memo's three references to bin Laden were obscured crudely with correction fluid.

Despite the White House's inexplicable insistence to the contrary, tantalizing clues suggest Saddam Hussein might not have shared the world's shock when fireballs erupted from the Twin Towers.

Recall that his Salman Pak terror camp taught terrorists air piracy on an actual jet fuselage.

On January 5, 2000, Ahmad Hikmat Shakir — an Iraqi airport greeter reportedly dispatched from Baghdad's embassy in Malaysia — welcomed Khalid al Midhar and Nawaz al Hamzi to Kuala Lampur and escorted them to a local hotel where these September 11 hijackers met with 9/11 conspirators Ramzi bin al Shibh and Tawfiz al Atash.

Five days later, according to Stephen Hayes, Shakir disappeared. He was arrested in Qatar on September 17, 2001, six days after al Midhar and al Hamzi slammed American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon, killing 216 people.

On his person and in his apartment, authorities discovered papers tying him to the 1993 WTC plot and "Operation Bojinka," al Qaeda's 1995 plan to blow up 12 jets over the Pacific at once.

The Czech Republic stands by its claim that 9/11 leader Mohamed Atta met in Prague in April 2001 with Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim an-Ani, an Iraqi diplomat/intelligence agent. He was expelled two weeks after the suspected meeting with Atta for apparently hostile surveillance of Radio Free Europe's Prague headquarters, from which American broadcasts to Iraq emanate.

Clinton-appointed Manhattan federal judge Harold Baer ordered Hussein and his ousted regime to pay $104 million in damages to the families of George Eric Smith and Timothy Soulas, both killed in the Twin Towers along with 2,790 others. "I conclude that plaintiffs have shown, albeit barely, 'by evidence satisfactory to the court' that Iraq provided material support to bin Laden and al Qaeda," Baer ruled.

An airtight case? No, but sufficient evidence tied Hussein to 9/11 and secured a May 7 federal judgment against him.

If one has the time or professional duty to connect these dots, a portrait emerges of Saddam Hussein as sugar daddy to global terrorists, including al Qaeda and perhaps the 9/11 conspirators.

Why won't Team Bush paint this picture? One administration communications specialist told me the government is bashful on this front because these links are difficult to prove.

Yes, but prosecuting the informational battle in the war on terror is not like prosecuting a Mafia don, with wiretaps, hidden cameras and deep-cover "stool pigeons." Evidence of terrorist ties can be even more shadowy than a Costa Nostra whack job.

While this makes metaphysical proof elusive, the White House and relevant agencies owe it to America's national security to highlight what they know about Saddam Hussein and terrorism, even if some of the evidence against him is only circumstantial.

Assuming he wishes to sway domestic and global opinion, President Bush and his administration should guide Americans and the world through the sometimes-murky data and identify the patterns and conclusions that arise.

While Saddam Hussein never may endure a courtroom cross-examination, plenty already exists in the public record (and surely more should be declassified) to confirm that his ouster, the liberation of Iraq and its current rehabilitation were and are necessary phases of the war on terror.

The president and his top advisers should present the case, not haphazardly, but systematically and in as comprehensive, well-documented, and well-illustrated a fashion as their vast resources will allow.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1005579/posts

98 posted on 10/21/2003 11:24:24 PM PDT by miltonim

Condoleeza Rice Is Mistaken In Her Claim That Anti-Semitism "Is Not Emblematic Of The Muslim World"

ZOA ^ | October 21, 2003

Posted on 10/22/2003 12:18 AM EDT by yonif

NEW YORK- President Bush's National Security Adviser, Condoleeza Rice, is mistaken in her claim that the Malaysian prime minister's anti-Semitic speech was "not emblematic of the Muslim world."

Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad told the Organization of the Islamic Conference on October 16, 2003, that "The Jews rule the world by proxy: they get others to fight and die for them." His speech "received a standing ovation from Muslim leaders" at the conference. (New York Times, Oct. 21, 2003)

Four days later, Dr. Rice condemned the remarks, but added: "I don't think they are emblematic of the Muslim world." (New York Times, Oct. 21, 2003)

Morton A. Klein, National President of the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA), said: "Hatred of Jews is widespread throughout the Muslim world. It is taught in the schools and preached in the mosques. Cartoons in Muslim newspapers routinely portray Jews in blatantly anti-Semitic terms. In Muslim countries, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the 19th-century forgery claiming to reveal the Jewish plan to conquer the world, is widely distributed, quoted, and believed. I myself have seen huge stacks of copies of the Protocols for sale in Egyptian and Jordanian book stores. It's time for the Bush administration to acknowledge this reality and take active steps to combat it, such as using U.S. leverage to bring about change in Muslim educational systems."

Egypt: In November and December 2002, official Egyptian Government Television broadcast a 40-part series claiming that for the past century, Jews have been trying to take over the world in accordance with the plan described in The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

Palestinian Authority: The official PA daily Al-Hayat Al-Jadida asserted on November 18, 2001: "The purpose of the [Israeli] military policy is to impose this situation on the residents and force them to leave their homes, and this is done in the framework of The Protocols of Zion."

Jordan: Former Jordanian Queen Noor, in her new autobiography Leap of Faith, writes that "Jews...achieved influence and power at the highest levels ... [They] are the CEOs of large American corporations and representatives of the top levels of media and entertainment businesses, financial institutions, legal and medical professions and, increasingly, the highest reaches of government." Former senior Clinton adviser Dick Morris notes: "It's good old-fashioned anti-Semitism, dressed up to sound better. Instead of 'Shylock,' she speaks of the dominance of Jews over 'financial institutions.' Instead of the Elders of Zion, she speaks of Jews' power over the 'highest reaches of government.' Instead of going after Jews in Hollywood, it's the 'top levels of media and entertainment businesses. Bigotry and prejudice leaps out from each page of the book." (New York Post, May 5, 2003)

Saudi Arabia: A February 2003 study of Saudi Arabian school textbooks, by the American Jewish Committee and the Center for Monitoring the Impact of Peace, found numerous references to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and other alleged Jewish conspiracies to rule the world, including in such major standard textbooks as Hadith and Islamic Culture and Biography of the Prophet and History of the Muslim State. (For the report, see http://www.edume.org/reports/report1.htm )

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1005578/posts

99 posted on 10/21/2003 11:28:09 PM PDT by miltonim

Plan To Arrest Maverick Iraqi Cleric For Murder (Sadr)

The guardian (UK) ^ | 10-22-2003 | Michael Howard

Posted on 10/21/2003 10:22 PM EDT by blam

Plan to arrest maverick Iraqi cleric for murder

Michael Howard in Baghdad
Wednesday October 22, 2003
The Guardian (UK)

Coalition and Iraqi officials are preparing an arrest warrant for the firebrand Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr over his alleged involvement with the brutal murder of a rival cleric last spring, sources close to the Iraqi governing council told the Guardian yesterday. The warrant, which has yet to be finalised, cites Mr Sadr for instigating a deadly attack on Abdel Majid al-Khoei, who was stabbed to death by a mob in the Shia holy city of Najaf on April 10.

It is said to be signed by Tahir Jalil Habboush - a senior mukhabarat officer under the former regime who now works with the coalition authorities - and is based on the confessions of 23 men who were involved in the killing.

"The belief of the coalition is that al-Sadr is not containable," the council source said. "They believe there is enough evidence that Muqtada was involved in the Khoei assassination and want to act to clip his wings before he can cause any more damage."

Since his swift rise to prominence in the days following regime change in Iraq, Mr Sadr, 30, has been a constant thorn in the side of the US-led administration in Iraq. He has been the most vocal opponent of occupation, while his well-organised followers have been involved in armed confrontations with US soldiers. Last week he declared a rival government to the US-appointed authority and urged his supporters on to the streets.

But with tension running high between US forces and Mr Sadr's supporters, Iraqi police fear an explosion of anger in the disaffected areas of Baghdad and Najaf and Karbala if Mr Sadr is seized.

"If they go down to Najaf to arrest him, his house will be surrounded by a human shield, and there would be a massacre before they get him," said Murtadha Nouri, a journalist with the newspaper Al-Adala. He warned that the planned showdown could backfire: "Given the antipathy towards the US, that could well play into his hands."

Mr Sadr's popularity is based in part on the ability of his supporters to provide basic services and security to parts of Sadr city immediately after the US-led bombing.

With unemployment at between 60% and 70% in Iraq, his radical rhetoric also resonates with those struggling beneath the poverty line. But observers say Mr Sadr has lost some of his early momentum. He has been criticised for strongly challenging the Shia religious establishment, represented by Grand Ayatollah Ali Hussein al-Sistani, who has condoned cooperation with Iraq's new government.

"Muqtada's fight is essentially over controlling the donation of the money to the shrines, and people begin to suspect those motives," said a member of the rival Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, which has a seat on the governing council.

Abbas al Robai, a spokesman for Mr Sadr, said yesterday: "Any talk of involvement in violence is just by politically motivated rivals. Al-Khoei happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and was the victim of local score settling. Muqtada al-Sadr had nothing to do with it."

The killing of the moderate Mr Khoei, who had recently returned from exile in Europe, heralded a series of attacks on prominent Shia figures in Iraq, culminating in the car bomb in Najaf on August 29 that killed more than 90 Iraqis, including Ayatollah Bakir al-Hakim The violence has -intensified feelings of confusion and insecurity among Iraq's majority Shia population.

The bulk of the evidence against Mr Sadr is understood to be based on confessions from 23 men arrested after the attack. Three are reported to have confessed to the stabbing while another 20 said they prevented Mr Khoei from seeking help while bleeding to death. Under questioning, they admitted receiving direct instructions from the young cleric, the source said.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1005528/posts

100 posted on 10/21/2003 11:37:22 PM PDT by miltonim

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794

Islam Questions & Answers www.islam-qa.com

Islam Questions & Answers www.islam-qa.com

Islam Questions & Answers
www.islam-qa.com

Islam Questions & Answers
www.islam-qa.com