Iranian Alert -- February 7, 2004 -- IRAN LIVE THREAD --Americans for Regime Change in Iran

The Iranian Student Movement Up To The Minute Reports ^ | 2.7.2004 | DoctorZin

[freedom44]

Iran celebrates int'l snowboard title
By
Feb 7, 2004, 19:33

Iran was crowned at the second int'l snowboard competitions in Shemshak piste, 40 km northwest of Tehran, friday.

During the three-day event on the silver jubilee of the Islamic Revolution, Iran collected 375 points to lift the trophy.

Italy and Switzerland finished second and third on 300 and 200points respectively.

http://www.iranian.ws/iran_news/publish/article_1650.shtml

[freedom44]

Khatami backstabs reformists
By AP
Feb 7, 2004, 18:37

Iran news - President Mohammad Khatami said on Saturday his government will hold legislative elections on Feb 20, but they would not be fair owing to the disqualification of thousands of reformist candidates.

In a joint letter to Iran's supreme leader, Mr Khatami and Parliament Speaker Mahdi Karroubi warned that, under these circumstances, there would be little motivation for people to vote.

An electoral supervisory body, the Guardian Council has disqualified more than 2,400 pro-reform candidates from the elections, provoking strong protests from reformist lawmakers and criticism from President Khatami. But several attempts to get the candidates reinstated have failed.

Iran's largest reformist party, Islamic Iran Participation Front, has said it will boycott the elections. The party is led by the President's younger brother, Mr Mohammad Reza Khatami.

In their letter, Mr Khatami and Mr Karroubi wrote that the government would hold the elections only because it had been ordered to do so by supreme leader mullah Ali Khamenei.

http://www.iranian.ws/iran_news/publish/article_1643.shtml

[freedom44]

What Do You Think of Shirin Ebadi, Nobel Prize Winner or Mullahs' Spokeswoman?

Mullahs' Spokeswoman 54.0%
Nobel Prize Winner 43.4%
Don't Know 2.7%

Total votes: 1301

http://www.iranian.ws/poll/poll-10.php

[freedom44]

"Without You", from "Masters of Persian Music" album nominated for 46th annual Grammy Awards
By
Feb 7, 2004, 20:35

"Without You," Masters of Persian Music is nominated for grammy in "Traditional World Music Album" category for 46th annual Grammy Awards

At Traditional World Music Album category:

"Without You," Masters of Persian Music; "Kassi Kasse," Kasse Mady Diabate; "Jibaro Hasta El Hueso: Mountain Music of Puerto Rico," Ecos De Borinquen; "The Rain," Ghazal; "Capoeira Angola 2 - Brincando Na Roda," Grupo de Capoeira Angola Pelourinho; "Sacred Tibetan Chant," The Monks of Sherab Ling Monastery.

http://www.iranian.ws/iran_news/publish/article_1654.shtml

[freedom44]

Rezazadeh elected Iran's Sportsman of the Year
The world's strongest man, Hossein Rezazadeh, was again voted as Iran's "Champion of Champions" and "Sportsman of the Year 2003" in Tehran on Friday night, IRNA reported.


Contending in the 4th edition, Rezazadeh, who is the world's +105 kg weightlifting champion, won the prestigious title for the third time -- 2000, 2002, 2003.

Iran's world-class Greco-Roman wrestler, Hassan Rangraz, was named the "Champion of Champions" in 2001.

The Hercules of Ardebil, northwest of Iran, received his prize money, some 30,000 dollars, from Ali Larijani, head of the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting.

President of Physical Education Organization, Mohsen Mehralizadeh, his deputy Ali Kaffashian, and head of National Olympic Committee, Mostafa Hashemi-Taba were present in the ceremony.

The top 10 athletes in 2003 are as follows:


1. Hossein Rezazadeh (weightlifting champion)
2. Mitra Hejazi (chess champion)
3. Enayatollah Bokharaei (disabled shooting champion)
4. Mohammad Torkashvand (volleyballer)
5. Alireza Rezaei (freestyle wrestling champion)
6. Abbas Samimi (discus champion)
7. Mohammad-Ali Falahati-Nejad (weightlifting champion)
8. Youssef Karami (taekwondo champion)
9. Arash Mir-Esmaeili (judo champion)
10. Mehdi Mahdavikia (Asian Player of the Year)

http://www.payvand.com/news/04/feb/1057.html

[freedom44]

EP to debate elections in Iran

Saturday, February 07, 2004 - ©2003 IranMania.com

Brussels, Feb 7(IranMania) -- According to Iran’s State News Agency (IRNA) The European Parliament is to debate and issue a resolution on elections in Iran during its plenary session in Strasbourg.

According to the programme of the EP's session next week, elections in Iran will be debated under the topic "debates on breaches of human rights, democracy and the rule of law."

In a resolution issued last month, the EP called for "an immediate revision" of the decision by the Guardian Council in order to enable the Iranian population "to make a really democratic choice."

http://www.iranmania.com/News/ArticleView/Default.asp?NewsCode=22367&NewsKind=Current%20Affairs

[freedom44]

[nuconvert]

"The alleged Ansar al-Islam member, Warzir Ali Wali Mamoyi, was arrested Thursday at a checkpoint in Kurdish-controlled Sulaimaniyah province, according to Omar Ghareeb, a local civil administration official."

"He described Mamoyi as a member of a committee that issues policy statements for Ansar al-Islam, a mostly Kurdish militant group that follows a strict interpretation of Islam."

"A Kurdish newspaper, Kurdistani Nuwe, said Friday that Mamoyi was planning to travel to the Sunni Triangle area, possibly to link up with anti-U.S. insurgents from the former regime of Saddam Hussein."

[windchime]

Bump!

[nuconvert]

This is a very informative article from last May.

'JIHAD'. What It Means, Who Can Declare It.

Posted by Amir Taheri
Saturday, May 03, 2003

With the campaign to liberate Iraq victorious, it is perhaps time for Muslims to review the improper use, not to say outright abuse, of the term ''Jihad.'' Can the concept of ''Jihad'' be reduced to one of a call for taking up arms to defend just anyone? Can any Tom, Dick, or Harry declare ''Jihad''?

The first so-called ''Jihad'' fatwa in support of Saddam Hussein came from the fugitive terrorist Osama bin Laden. (Or whoever pretends to be him--but in this writer's opinion, bin Laden has long been dead.) That fatwa, of course, had no value because bin Laden, though a rich boy, has no religious qualifications.

A more disturbing fatwa came from Sayyed Hussein Fadhlallah, a mid-ranking Shiite mullah who advertises himself as the spiritual guide of the Lebanese branch of the Hezbollah.

Yet Fadhlallah lacks the qualifications for issuing edicts on so important an issue. His support of Saddam made him an exception within the Shiite clergy that was unanimous in Iraq, Iran, and in Lebanon in denouncing the Ba'athist regime.

Fadhlallah is free to support Saddam. But he has no right to present a political opinion as a religious position.

The race to declare ''Jihad'' gathered pace as the war drew closer. By the end of March we had calls for ''Jihad'' from Saddam Hussein, his psychopathic son Uday, and the clownish information minister, Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf.

More disturbing was the call for ''Jihad'' from Muhammad Saeed al-Tantawi, rector of the government-run Al Azhar Seminary in Cairo. Tantawi's edict illustrated his theological confusion.

He stated, as his premise, that Saddam Hussein was ''a terrorist'' for having invaded Kuwait in 1990. He also said that Saddam was responsible for the war because he could have avoided it by resigning and leaving Iraq. Yet Tantawi drew this astonishing conclusion: ''Martyr operations against the invading forces in Iraq are permitted under religious law.''

Islamic religious law, however, does not permit suicide under any circumstances.

In Islame, suicide is an ''unpardonable sin'' (zunb layughfar lah), in the same category as denying the Oneness of God. People who commit suicide cannot be buried in a Muslim graveyard and are put to rest away from human habitation and in unmarked tombs.

The sheikh of Al Azhar also seemed to be ignorant of another important Islamic principle: No one can choose to become a martyr: Only God decides whom to make a martyr.

Because God chooses martyrs sparingly, we do not have a dime-a-dozen martyrs in Islam. In the various wars waged by the Prophet, hundreds of his best friends, relatives, and aides fell in battle. Only a handful won the status of martyr.

Not everyone who dies in a war becomes a martyr. And he who commits suicide deliberately while killing others is certainly a double sinner, destined for Hell, not a martyr headed for Paradise.

The principle is simple: Only God who gives life has the right to take it. In a Western-style re-reading of Islam, people like bin Laden, Fadhlallah, and Tantawi equate the concept of ''Jihad'' with that of ''Holy War'' in Christianity. They provide ammunition for Islamophobes to portray the entire Muslim community of almost 1.2 billion people, as ''terrorists and suicide-bombers.''

In Islam, however, no war can be holy. Wars can only be ''allowed'' or ''not allowed'' (yajuz wa la yajuz) on the basis of necessity or otherwise. The concept of ''Jihad'' (literally: exertion or effort) covers a range of activities that could include taking arms--in precise, extremely rare, circumstances in pursuit of clearly defined goals. But even then the taking of arms does not produce a ''holy war.''

One could wage ''Jihad'' through diplomatic, cultural, and economic means, but never in defence of a regime or a ruler that oppress Muslims. Islam has no mechanism for excommunication, so Saddam's claim to be a Muslim must be accepted. But anyone familiar with Islamic theology would know that Saddam's regime fitted the definition of ''Taghut'' (rebel against Divine Will).

Here is how the great medieval Muslim theologian Ibn Babyueh described such regimes: ''A government may be led by individual Muslims [and yet] be in rebellion against Divine Will, in which case combating it is the duty of believers.''

Another important theological principle, spelled out by classical Islamic theologians, including Fakhr Razi, is that a Muslim has the right to ally himself with a non-Muslim who is ''friendly but distant'' against a Muslim who is ''near and hostile.'' (On this basis, various Muslim principalities made occasional, and tactical, alliances with this or that Christian force against other Muslim states during the Crusades.)

A call for ''Jihad'' could be considered only if it unites the Muslim community, not if it adds to its divisions. The gentlemen who declared ''Jihad'' in support of Saddam Hussein have, in fact, deepened divisions in both Sunni and Shiite communities. Islamic theology regards the fomenting of such divisions as a sin.

One more important point: The person who declares ''Jihad'' must enjoy a large measure of recognition as the ''a'alam al-ulema'' (The Most Learned of Theologians), at least within his immediate community. And he must be in a position to personally take the lead, to risk his own life and the lives of those near to him (aqruba-ihum), in the enterprise. It is not possible to tell the Iraqis, or the Palestinians, ''Go, kill, and get killed so that we can applaud from a safe distance!''

The gentlemen whose ''Jihad'' declarations we have discussed lack such qualifications. Bin Laden is an adventurer on the loose. Fadhlallah, a politician rather than a theologian, does not enjoy consensus even among Lebanese Shiites. Tantawi, an employee of the Egyptian government, lacks the independence required of theologians. As for Saddam, Al-Sahhaf and Uday, now fugitives, their ''Jihad'' consisted of running to the nearest hole in which to hide.

The non-Muslim world, especially in the West, must beware: The conditions that must be present and the rules that must be applied before 'Jihad' is declared are so complex that one can hardly imagine a situation in which they would be applicable today.

The vast majority of Muslims ignored the numerous calls for 'Jihad' coming from individuals who have no right to do so. Those who declared ''Jihad'' in support of Saddam must be treated as politicians, not religious leaders, and treated as any other politician anywhere. They use the term ''jihad'' as many in the West use the term ''crusade,'' for example as ''a crusade against genetically modified food'' and so on.

Next time you hear someone declaring ''Jihad'' on behalf of Muslims, you can be sure that he is a politician using a sound-bite for good effect--not a theologian expressing a serious Islamic position.

Editor's Note: This article written by Amir Taheri appears in ChronWatch courtesy of Eleana Benador of Benador Associates.

http://www.chronwatch.com/site_search.asp?search=jihad+what+it+means+who+can&mode=allwords

[DoctorZIn]

ABUSING ISLAM

by Amir Taheri
New York Post
February 6, 2004

February 6, 2004 -- CONSIDER the case of Abdul Qadeer Khan, known to his compatriots as AQK — the physicist regarded as the father of Pakistan's atomic bomb.

Some Pakistanis consider him a second father of the nation (after Muhammad Ali Jinah, who led Indian Muslims into secession at the end of British colonial rule).

Until recently, AQK was worshiped as almost a saint by quite a few Pakistanis. Last month, however, he was arrested and charged with the illegal transfer of Pakistani nuclear technology and materiel to Iran, Libya and North Korea. This week, he made a televised confession, admitting the charge and taking sole responsibility. The confession came after a tete-à-tete with Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf.

AQK and Musharraf want the matter wrapped up quickly. But this won't be easy.

If AQK acted without official authorization, he broke Pakistan's national-security laws and could be charged with espionage and high treason. But if he was ordered to sell nuclear technology and materiel to Iran, Libya and North Korea, then successive Pakistani governments would be implicated.

Long known as an ardent Islamist, AQK claims he was only trying to help brotherly Muslim nations acquire nuclear weapons to defend themselves against "the Zionist entity," meaning Israel.

That claim is hard to sustain.

To start with, North Korea, which does not have a single Muslim citizen, can hardly be regarded as a "brotherly Islamic nation." As for Iran and Libya, although their leaders have spoken of their desire to "wipe Israel off the map," there is no indication that their peoples share that obsession.

"There was never ever any kind of authorization for these activities by the government. I take full responsibility for my actions," AQK said on TV. But he is almost certainly being made the fall guy for policies pursued by successive Pakistani governments. His program was supervised by Pakistan's military intelligence agency, the ISI, from the start. It is unthinkable that he could have passed nuclear secrets to foreign powers for years without the ISI knowing.

What is alarming, however, is the reaction of many Pakistanis. AQK has received thousands of emails and letters telling him that, regardless of what the law might say, they approve of what he did. Pakistani media are full of op-ed pieces and editorials praising his devotion to Islam and claiming he was "doing his duty as a Muslim" by helping other Muslim states acquire weapons available to "Jews and Crusaders."

This is a scandalous claim.

A Muslim's duty is to believe in the oneness of God, Muhammad's prophecy and the Day of Judgment. A Muslim is also required to pray every day, fast in Ramadan and live a life of good deeds and decency. Helping others make atomic bombs is certainly not part of those duties.

Efforts to explain away AQK's behavior highlights the moral bankruptcy of the Islamist philosophy. That philosophy divides humanity into Muslim and non-Muslims. It then transforms Muslims into a tribe whose members must remain loyal to it and to one another regardless of moral imperatives common to humanity.

Such an approach abolishes ethics, leaving us not with such concepts as good and evil but "Muslim" and "non-Muslim." It also abolishes politics.

Thus nuclear proliferation, a political issue, is transformed into a theological one. One need not bother about whether the people of Iran want the bomb. What is important is that Iran's Islamist regime must have it to use against real or imagined enemies.

Nor need one worry about the morality of selling nuclear technology to Libya, a country headed by an unstable megalomaniac. Nor about the fact that Libya has been unable to repair the elevators in its only luxury hotel for the past two years. (The only elevator repairman in the country is an Egyptian named Hazim Jawad.)

Having reduced religion to a political ideology, the Islamist has no qualms about considering North Korea's militantly atheist regime as an honorary Muslim state.

All that North Korea, Iran and Libya (at least until recently) have in common is a pathological hatred of the United States. And that echoes the late Ayatollah Khomeini's claim that today it is "impossible to be a Muslim without hating America."

Libyan dictator Moammar Khadafy now says he no longer hates America and welcomes U.S. investment and trade. Would that transform Libya into a non-Muslim nation? The Iranian mullahs hate America because it prevents them from exporting their revolution to the whole of the Middle East, annexing the Shi'ite holy shrines of Iraq and wiping Israel off the map.

The North Koreans? They hate the U.S. because it does not let them invade South Korea and turn it into a Stalinist concentration camp.

The message of the Islamist is stark: No matter how faithfully you perform your religious duties, you cannot be regarded as a "good Muslim" unless you hate America and help its enemies.

This is a recipe for religious and moral chaos. Under it, any individual could decide what action is "Islamic" and what is not. The logic used to justify the transfer of nuclear technology and materiel to Iran, Libya and North Korea would also justify giving it to al Qaeda and the terrorists operating in Iraq.

It would also justify giving nuclear weapons to Pakistani terrorist groups that want to seize power because they claim that Musharraf, and AQK for that matter, are not "Islamic" enough.

A political case could be made for Pakistan having nuclear weapons. There could also be a political explanation why Pakistan sold nuclear technology. Muslims might need to have nuclear bombs like anybody else. But these are political issues on which people may agree or disagree. To turn them into religious issues is an act of betrayal not only of politics and common sense but of Islam.

The claim that AQK should be let loose because he did his "Islamic duty" must be rejected by Muslims. A political scandal must not be covered up as an act of Islamic piety.

E-mail: amirtaheri@benadorassociates.com

http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/1721

[DoctorZIn]

This thread is now closed.

Join Us At Today's Iranian Alert Thread – The Most Underreported Story Of The Year!

"If you want on or off this Iran ping list, Freepmail DoctorZin”