Point Bro. My Point was that 2, 3 are fundemental departure from the Banking Model that relies only on lending business, Islamic "banking" is in reality a business front for depositors to earn profit thru Sharia Compliant ventures ( Muraabaha, Mushaaraka, Istisnaac, etc." Below I am attaching an article I read today about the imminent collapse of the Ribaa economy and the socialization of the capitalist America. Save The Rich. Comrades Bush, Paulson and Bernanke Welcome You to the USSRA (United Socialist State Republic of America) By Nouriel Roubini 09/09/08 "Roubini Global Economics" -- - The now inevitable nationalization of Fannie and Freddie is the most radical regime change in global economic and financial affairs in decades. For the last twenty years after the collapse of the USSR, the fall of the Iron Curtain and the economic reforms in China and other emerging market economies the world economy has moved away from state ownership of the economy and towards privatization of previously stated owned enterprises. This trends was aggressively supported the United States that preached right and left the benefits of free markets and free private enterprise. Today instead the US has performed the greatest nationalization in the history of humanity. By nationalizing Fannie and Freddie the US has increased its public assets by almost $6 trillion and has increased its public debt/liabilities by another $6 trillion. The US has also turned itself into the largest government-owned hedge fund in the world: by injecting a likely $200 billion of capital into Fannie and Freddie and taking on almost $6 trillion of liabilities of such GSEs the US has also undertaken the biggest and most levered LBO (“leveraged buy-out”) in human history that has a debt to equity ratio of 30 ($6,000 billion of debt against $200 billion of equity). So now Comrades Bush, Paulson and Bernanke (as originally nicknamed by Willem Buiter) have now turned the USA into the USSRA (the United Socialist State Republic of America). Socialism is indeed alive and well in America; but this is socialism for the rich, the well connected and Wall Street. A socialism where profits are privatized and losses are socialized with the US tax-payer being charged the bill of $300 billion. This biggest bailout and nationalization in human history comes from the most fanatically and ideologically zealot free-market laissez-faire administration in US history. These are the folks who for years spewed the rhetoric of free markets and cutting down government intervention in economic affairs. But they were so fanatically ideological about free markets that they did not realize that financial and other markets without proper rules, supervision and regulation are like a jungle where greed – untempered by fear of loss or of punishment – leads to credit bubbles and asset bubbles and manias and eventual bust and panics. The ideologue “regulators” who literally held a chain saw at a public event to smash “unnecessary regulations” are now communists nationalizing private firms and socializing their losses: the bailout of the Bear Stearns creditors, the bailout of Fannie and Freddie, the use of the Fed balance sheet (hundreds of billions of safe US Treasuries swapped for junk toxic illiquid private securities), the use of the other GSEs (the Federal Home Loan Bank system) to provide hundreds of billions of dollars of “liquidity” to distressed, illiquid and insolvent mortgage lenders, the use of the SEC to manipulate the stock market (restrictions on short sales), the use of the US Treasury to manipulate the mortgage market (Treasury will now for the first time outright buy agency MBS to manipulate and prop up this market), the creation of a whole host of new bailout facilities (TAF, TSLF, PDCF) to prop and rescue banks and, for the first time since the Great Depression,to bail out non-bank financial institutions, and a whole range of other executive and legislative actions (including the recent bill to provide a public guarantee to mortgage for banks willing to reduce their face value). This is the biggest and most socialist government intervention in economic affairs since the formation of the Soviet Union and Communist China. So foreign investors are now welcome to the USSRA (the United Socialist State Republic of America) where they can earn fat spreads relative to Treasuries on agency debt and never face any credit risks (not even the subordinated debt holders who made a fortune yesterday as those claims were also made whole). Like scores of evangelists and hypocrites and moralists who spew and praise family values and pretend to be holier than thou and are then regularly caught cheating or cross dressing or found to be perverts these Bush hypocrites who spewed for years the glory of unfettered wild west laissez faire jungle capitalism (and never believed in any sensible and appropriate regulation and supervision of financial markets) allowed the biggest debt bubble ever to fester without any control, have caused the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression and are now forced to perform the biggest government intervention and nationalizations in the recent history of humanity, all for the benefit of the rich and the well connected. So Comrades Bush and Paulson and Bernanke will rightly pass to the history books as a troika of Bolsheviks who turned the USA into the USSRA. Fanatic zealots of any religion are always pests that cause havoc and destruction with their inflexible fanaticism; but they usually don’t run the biggest economy in the world. But these laissez faire voodoo-economics zealots in charge of the USA have now caused the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression and the nastiest economic crisis in decades. So let them be shamed in public for their hypocrisy and zealotry that has caused so much financial and economic damage. Copyright © 2008 Roubini Global Economics

Empire and Imperialism and the USA By James Petras 09/09/08 "ICH" -- - Modern empires and therefore imperialism which constructs them are ubiquitous: Whether through large-scale multinational corporations or through technologically advanced massive military power, the peoples and nations of the worlds confront the problem of great concentration of corporate and state power on an unprecedented scale. This stark reality and the evidence of US prolonged wars of conquest and occupation has forced a general recognition of the relevance of the concept of imperialism to understanding global power relations. Only a decade ago writers, intellectuals and academics discarded imperialism and empire in favor of ‘globalization’ – to describe the world configuration of power. But globalization with its limited focus on the movement of multinational corporations could not explain the centrality of the state in establishing and imposing favorable conditions for the ‘movement’ or expansion of multinationals. Corporate globalization could not explain wars of conquest, like the first Gulf War, or wars of occupation or colonization, such as the US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. Nor could globalization explain the large-scale, long-term expansion of Chinese public corporations throughout Africa and the vast extraction of raw materials and sale of finished goods. By the new millennium, the language of empire even entered the vocabulary of the Right, the practitioners and ideologues of imperialist power. Contemporary imperial conflicts had their effects: Imperialism and empire once again became common language on the Left, but in many cases poorly understood, at least in all of its complexities and structures. This essay clarifies some of the basic theoretical and practical features of contemporary imperialism, which are poorly understood. There are at least five major aspects of the political economy of imperialism that focus our attention in this book: (1) Imperialism is a political and economic phenomenon. The multinational corporations (MNC) operate in many countries, but they receive their political support, economic subsidies and military insurance from the imperial state (IS) concerned with the MNC. The IS negotiates or imposes trade and investment agreements favorable to the MNC. At the same time the IS uses the MNC to influence overseas regimes to concede military bases and submit to its sphere of influence. Imperialism is the combined forceful overseas expansion of state and corporations. (2) There are multiple forms of empire building. While all imperial states possess military and economic apparatuses, the political and economic driving force behind the construction of a global empire vary according to the nature of the governing class of the imperial state. In the contemporary world there are essentially two types of empire building – the US military-driven empire building and the Chinese economic empire. The US governing class today is made up of a powerful militarist-Zionist ideological elite, which prioritizes war and military force as a way of extending its domination and constructing client/colonial regimes. China and other newly aspiring economic empire builders expand overseas via large-scale, long-term overseas investments, loans, trade, technical aid and market shares. Obviously the US militarist approach to empire building is bloodier, more destructive and more reprehensible than market-driven empire building. However the structure of power and exploitation, which result from both types of empire, is a political-economic system, which oppresses and exploits subject peoples and nations. (3) Imperialism has multiple interacting facets, which mutually reinforce each other: The mass media and culture in general are weapons for securing consent and/or acquiescence of the masses in pursuit of empire building which prejudices their material and spiritual existence. Imperialism cannot be isolated and reduced to simple economic reductionism. Economic exploitation is only possible under conditions of subjective subordination and that refers to education, entertainment, literature and art as terrains of class relations and class struggle linked to the empire. (4) The social, ideological and political loyalties of the political elite, which direct the imperial state, determines the tactics and strategy which will be pursued in empire building. One cannot automatically assume that the political leadership will prioritize the interests of the MNCs in every region of the world at all times. When imperial leadership has divided loyalties with another state imperial policies may not coincide with the interests of the MNCs. Under these special circumstances of rulers with divided imperial loyalties, the ‘normal’ operations of the imperial state are suspended. The case of Zionist power in the US imperial state is a case in point. Through powerful and wealthy socio-political organizations, representation on powerful Congressional committees and strong presence in senior Executive offices (Pentagon, State Department, National Security Council, Homeland Security, Justice, Treasury) and the mass media, the Zionist elite dictates US Middle East policy. The US military serves Israeli colonial-expansionist interests even at the expense of the major US oil companies which are prevented from signing billion-dollar oil contracts with Iran and other oil-rich countries at odds with Israel. (5) The world of competing imperial countries has created complex international organizations, which conflict, compete and collaborate. They operate on all levels, from the global to the cities and villages of the Third World. Imperialist powers enter and exploit through a chain of collaborator classes from the imperial center through international organizations to local ruling, economic and political classes. The imperial system is only as strong as its local collaborators. Popular uprisings, national anti-colonial struggles and radical mass movements, which oust local collaborators, undermine the empire. Anti imperialists attempt to establish diverse ties among imperial competitors and among the newly emerging powers to isolate the US military-centered empire. James Petras is a retired Bartle Professor (Emeritus) of Sociology at Binghamton University, SUNY, New York, U.S., and adjunct professor at Saint Mary's University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada who has published prolifically on Latin American and Middle Eastern political issues.

Was America Attacked by Muslims on 9/11? By David Ray Griffin 09/09/08 "ICH" -- - Much of America's foreign policy since 9/11 has been based on the assumption that it was attacked by Muslims on that day. This assumption was used, most prominently, to justify the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. It is now widely agreed that the use of 9/11 as a basis for attacking Iraq was illegitimate: none of the hijackers were Iraqis, there was no working relation between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, and Iraq was not behind the anthrax attacks. But it is still widely believed that the US attack on Afghanistan was justified. For example, the New York Times, while referring to the US attack on Iraq as a "war of choice," calls the battle in Afghanistan a "war of necessity." Time magazine has dubbed it "the right war." And Barack Obama says that one reason to wind down our involvement in Iraq is to have the troops and resources to "go after the people in Afghanistan who actually attacked us on 9/11." The assumption that America was attacked by Muslims on 9/11 also lies behind the widespread perception of Islam as an inherently violent religion and therefore of Muslims as guilty until proven innocent. This perception surely contributed to attempts to portray Obama as a Muslim, which was lampooned by a controversial cartoon on the July 21, 2008, cover of The New Yorker. As could be illustrated by reference to many other post-9/11 developments, including as spying, torture, extraordinary rendition, military tribunals, America's new doctrine of preemptive war, and its enormous increase in military spending, the assumption that the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were attacked by Muslim hijackers has had enormous negative consequences for both international and domestic issues.1 Is it conceivable that this assumption might be false? Insofar as Americans and Canadians would say "No," they would express their belief that this assumption is not merely an "assumption" but is instead based on strong evidence. When actually examined, however, the proffered evidence turns out to be remarkably weak. I will illustrate this point by means of 16 questions. 1. Were Mohamed Atta and the Other Hijackers Devout Muslims? The picture of the hijackers conveyed by the 9/11 Commission is that they were devout Muslims. Mohamed Atta, considered the ringleader, was said to have become very religious, even "fanatically so."2 Being devout Muslims, they could be portrayed as ready to meet their Maker---as a "cadre of trained operatives willing to die."3 But this portrayal is contradicted by various newspaper stories. The San Francisco Chronicle reported that Atta and other hijackers had made "at least six trips" to Las Vegas, where they had "engaged in some decidedly un-Islamic sampling of prohibited pleasures." These activities were "un-Islamic" because, as the head of the Islamic Foundation of Nevada pointed out: "True Muslims don't drink, don't gamble, don't go to strip clubs."4 One might, to be sure, rationalize this behavior by supposing that these were momentary lapses and that, as 9/11 approached, these young Muslims had repented and prepared for heaven. But in the days just before 9/11, Atta and others were reported to be drinking heavily, cavorting with lap dancers, and bringing call girls to their rooms. Temple University Professor Mahmoud Ayoub said: "It is incomprehensible that a person could drink and go to a strip bar one night, then kill themselves the next day in the name of Islam. . . . Something here does not add up."5 In spite of the fact that these activities were reported by mainstream newspapers and even the Wall Street Journal editorial page,6 the 9/11 Commission wrote as if these reports did not exist, saying: "we have seen no credible evidence explaining why, on [some occasions], the operatives flew to or met in Las Vegas."7 2. Do Authorities Have Hard Evidence of Osama bin Laden's Responsibility for 9/11? Whatever be the truth about the devoutness of the hijackers, one might reply, there is certainly no doubt about the fact that they were acting under the guidance of Osama bin Laden. The attack on Afghanistan was based on the claim that bin Laden was behind the attacks, and the 9/11 Commission's report was written as if there were no question about this claim. But neither the Bush administration nor the Commission provided any proof for it. Two weeks after 9/11, Secretary of State Colin Powell, speaking to Tim Russert on "Meet the Press," said he expected "in the near future . . . to put out . . . a document that will describe quite clearly the evidence that we have linking [bin Laden] to this attack."8 But at a press conference with President Bush the next morning, Powell reversed himself, saying that although the government had information that left no question of bin Laden's responsibility, "most of it is classified."9 According to Seymour Hersh, citing officials from both the CIA and the Department of Justice, the real reason for the reversal was a "lack of solid information."10 That same week, Bush had demanded that the Taliban turn over bin Laden. But the Taliban, reported CNN, "refus[ed] to hand over bin Laden without proof or evidence that he was involved in last week's attacks on the United States." The Bush administration, saying "[t]here is already an indictment of Osama bin Laden" [for the attacks in Tanzania, Kenya, and elsewhere]," rejected the demand for evidence with regard to 9/11.11 The task of providing such evidence was taken up by British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who on October 4 made public a document entitled "Responsibility for the Terrorist Atrocities in the United States." Listing "clear conclusions reached by the government," it stated: "Osama Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, the terrorist network which he heads, planned and carried out the atrocities on 11 September 2001."12 Blair's report, however, began by saying: "This document does not purport to provide a prosecutable case against Osama Bin Laden in a court of law." This weakness was noted the next day by the BBC, which said: "There is no direct evidence in the public domain linking Osama Bin Laden to the 11 September attacks. At best the evidence is circumstantial."13 After the US had attacked Afghanistan, a senior Taliban official said: "We have asked for proof of Osama's involvement, but they have refused. Why?"14 The answer to this question may be suggested by the fact that, to this day, the FBI's "Most Wanted Terrorist" webpage on bin Laden, while listing him as wanted for bombings in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, makes no mention of 9/11.15 When the FBI's chief of investigative publicity was asked why not, he replied: "The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden's Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11."16 It is often claimed that bin Laden's guilt is proved by a video, reportedly found by US intelligence officers in Afghanistan in November 2001, in which bin Laden appears to report having planned the attacks. But critics, pointing out various problems with this "confession video," have called it a fake.17 General Hamid Gul, a former head of Pakistan's ISI, said: "I think there is an Osama Bin Laden look-alike."18 Actually, the man in the video is not even much of a look-alike, being heavier and darker than bin Laden, having a broader nose, wearing jewelry, and writing with his right hand.19 The FBI, in any case, obviously does not consider this video hard evidence of bin Laden's responsibility for 9/11. What about the 9/11 Commission? I mentioned earlier that it gave the impression of having had solid evidence of bin Laden's guilt. But Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, the Commission's co-chairs, undermined this impression in their follow-up book subtitled "the inside story of the 9/11 Commission."20 Whenever the Commission had cited evidence for bin Ladin's responsibility, the note in the back of the book always referred to CIA-provided information that had (presumably) been elicited during interrogations of al-Qaeda operatives. By far the most important of these operatives was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM), described as the "mastermind" of the 9/11 attacks. The Commission, for example, wrote: Bin Ladin . . . finally decided to give the green light for the 9/11 operation sometime in late 1998 or early 1999. . . . Bin Ladin also soon selected four individuals to serve as suicide operatives. . . . Atta---whom Bin Ladin chose to lead the group---met with Bin Ladin several times to receive additional instructions, including a preliminary list of approved targets: the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and the U.S. Capitol.21 The note for each of these statements says "interrogation of KSM."22 Kean and Hamilton, however, reported that they had no success in "obtaining access to star witnesses in custody . . . , most notably Khalid Sheikh Mohammed."23 Besides not being allowed to interview these witnesses, they were not permitted to observe the interrogations through one-way glass or even to talk to the interrogators.24 Therefore, they complained: "We . . . had no way of evaluating the credibility of detainee information. How could we tell if someone such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed . . . was telling us the truth?"25 An NBC "deep background" report in 2008 pointed out an additional problem: KSM and the other al-Qaeda leaders had been subjected to "enhanced interrogation techniques," i.e., torture, and it is now widely acknowledged that statements elicited by torture lack credibility. "At least four of the operatives whose interrogation figured in the 9/11 Commission Report," this NBC report pointed out, "have claimed that they told interrogators critical information as a way to stop being "-tortured.'" NBC then quoted Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, as saying: "Most people look at the 9/11 Commission Report as a trusted historical document. If their conclusions were supported by information gained from torture, . . . their conclusions are suspect."26 Accordingly, neither the White House, the British government, the FBI, nor the 9/11 Commission has provided solid evidence that Osama bin Laden was behind 9/11. 3. Was Evidence of Muslim Hijackers Provided by Phone Calls from the Airliners? Nevertheless, many readers may respond, there can be no doubt that the airplanes were taken over by al-Qaeda hijackers, because their presence and actions on the planes were reported on phone calls by passengers and flight attendants, with cell phone calls playing an especially prominent role. The most famous of the reported calls were from CNN commentator Barbara Olson to her husband, US Solicitor General Ted Olson. According to CNN, he reported that his wife had "called him twice on a cell phone from American Airlines Flight 77," saying that "all passengers and flight personnel, including the pilots, were herded to the back of the plane by . . . hijackers [armed with] knives and cardboard cutters."27 Although these reported calls, as summarized by Ted Olson, did not describe the hijackers so as to suggest that they were members of al-Qaeda, such descriptions were supplied by calls from other flights, especially United 93, from which about a dozen cell phone calls were reportedly received before it crashed in Pennsylvania. According to a Washington Post story of September 13, [P]assenger Jeremy Glick used a cell phone to tell his wife, Lyzbeth, . . . that the Boeing 757's cockpit had been taken over by three Middle Eastern-looking men. . . . The terrorists, wearing red headbands, had ordered the pilots, flight attendants and passengers to the rear of the plane.28 A story about a "cellular phone conversation" between flight attendant Sandra Bradshaw and her husband gave this report: She said the plane had been taken over by three men with knives. She had gotten a close look at one of the hijackers. . . . "He had an Islamic look," she told her husband. 29 From these calls, therefore, the public was informed that the hijackers looked Middle Eastern and even Islamic. Still more specific information was reportedly conveyed during a 12-minute cell phone call from flight attendant Amy Sweeney on American Flight 11, which was to crash into the North Tower of the World Trade Center.30 After reaching American Airlines employee Michael Woodward and telling him that men of "Middle Eastern descent" had hijacked her flight, she then gave him their seat numbers, from which he was able to learn the identity of Mohamed Atta and two other hijackers.31 Amy Sweeney's call was critical, ABC News explained, because without it "the plane might have crashed with no one certain the man in charge was tied to al Qaeda."32 There was, however, a big problem with these reported calls: Given the technology available in 2001, cell phone calls from airliners at altitudes of more than a few thousand feet, especially calls lasting more than a few seconds, were not possible, and yet these calls, some of which reportedly lasted a minute or more, reportedly occurred when the planes were above 30,000 or even 40,000 feet. This problem was explained by some credible people, including scientist A.K. Dewdney, who for many years had written a column for Scientific American.33 Although some defenders of the official account, such as Popular Mechanics, have disputed the contention that high-altitude calls from airliners were impossible,34 the fact is that the FBI, after having at first supported the claims that such calls were made, withdrew this support a few years later. With regard to the reported 12-minute call from Amy Sweeney to Michael Woodward, an affidavit signed by FBI agent James Lechner and dated September 12 (2001) stated that, according to Woodward, Sweeney had been "using a cellular telephone."35 But when the 9/11 Commission discussed this call in its Report, which appeared in July 2004, it declared that Sweeney had used an onboard phone.36 Behind that change was an implausible claim made by the FBI earlier in 2004: Although Woodward had failed to mention this when FBI agent Lechner interviewed him on 9/11, he had repeated Sweeney's call verbatim to a colleague in his office, who had in turn repeated it to another colleague at American headquarters in Dallas, who had recorded it; and this recording---which was discovered only in 2004---indicated that Sweeney had used a passenger-seat phone, thanks to "an AirFone card, given to her by another flight attendant."37 This claim is implausible because, if this relayed recording had really been made on 9/11, we cannot believe that Woodward would have failed to mention it to FBI agent Lechner later that same day. While Lechner was taking notes, Woodward would surely have said: "You don't need to rely on my memory. There is a recording of a word-for-word repetition of Sweeney's statements down in Dallas." It is also implausible that Woodward, having repeated Sweeney's statement that she had used "an AirFone card, given to her by another flight attendant," would have told Lechner, as the latter's affidavit says, that Sweeney had been "using a cellular telephone." Lechner's affidavit shows that the FBI at first supported the claim that Sweeney had made a 12-minute cell phone call from a high-altitude airliner. Does not the FBI's change of story, after its first version had been shown to be technologically impossible, create the suspicion that the entire story was a fabrication? This suspicion is reinforced by the FBI's change of story in relation to United Flight 93. Although we were originally told that this flight had been the source of about a dozen cell phone calls, some of them when the plane was above 40,000 feet, the FBI gave a very different report at the 2006 trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, the so-called 20th hijacker. The FBI spokesman said: "13 of the terrified passengers and crew members made 35 air phone calls and two cell phone calls."38 Instead of there having been about a dozen cell phone calls from Flight 93, the FBI declared in 2005, there were really only two. Why were two calls still said to have been possible? They were reportedly made at 9:58, when the plane was reportedly down to 5,000 feet.39 Although that was still pretty high for successful cell phone calls in 2001, these calls, unlike calls from 30,000 feet or higher, would have been at least arguably possible. If the truth of the FBI's new account is assumed, how can one explain the fact that so many people had reported receiving cell phone calls? In most cases, it seems, these people had been told by the callers that they were using cell phones. For example, a Newsweek story about United 93 said: "Elizabeth Wainio, 27, was speaking to her stepmother in Maryland. Another passenger, she explains, had loaned her a cell phone and told her to call her family."40 In such cases, we might assume that the people receiving the calls had simply mis-heard, or mis-remembered, what they had been told. But this would mean positing that about a dozen people had made the same mistake. An even more serious difficulty is presented by the case of Deena Burnett, who said that she had received three to five calls from her husband, Tom Burnett. She knew he was using his cell phone, she reported to the FBI that very day and then to the press and in a book, because she had recognized his cell phone number on her phone's Caller ID.41 We cannot suppose her to have been mistaken about this. We also, surely, cannot accuse her of lying. Therefore, if we accept the FBI's report, according to which Tom Burnett did not make any cell phone calls from Flight 93, we can only conclude that the calls were faked---that Deena Burnett was duped. Although this suggestion may at first sight seem outlandish, there are three facts that, taken together, show it to be more probable than any of the alternatives. First, voice morphing technology was sufficiently advanced at that time to make faking the calls feasible. A 1999 Washington Post article described demonstrations in which the voices of two generals, Colin Powell and Carl Steiner, were heard saying things they had never said.42 Second, there are devices with which you can fake someone's telephone number, so that it will show up on the recipient's Caller ID.43 Third, the conclusion that the person who called Deena Burnett was not her husband is suggested by various features of the calls. For example, when Deena told the caller that "the kids" were asking to talk to him, he said: "Tell them I'll talk to them later." This was 20 minutes after Tom had purportedly realized that the hijackers were on a suicide mission, planning to "crash this plane into the ground," and 10 minutes after he and other passengers had allegedly decided that as soon as they were "over a rural area" they must try to gain control of the plane. Also, the hijackers had reportedly already killed one person.44 Given all this, the real Tom Burnett would have known that he would likely die, one way or another, in the next few minutes. Is it believable that, rather than taking this probably last opportunity to speak to his children, he would say that he would "talk to them later"? Is it not more likely that "Tom" made this statement to avoid revealing that he knew nothing about "the kids," perhaps not even their names? Further evidence that the calls were faked is provided by timing problems in some of them. According to the 9/11 Commission, Flight 93 crashed at 10:03 as a result of the passenger revolt, which began at 9:57. However, according to Lyzbeth Glick's account of the aforementioned cell phone call from her husband, Jeremy Glick, she told him about the collapse of the South Tower, and that did not occur until 9:59, two minutes after the alleged revolt had started. After that, she reported, their conversation continued for several more minutes before he told her that the passengers were taking a vote about whether to attack. According to Lyzbeth Glick's account, therefore, the revolt was only beginning by 10:03, when the plane (according to the official account) was crashing.45 A timing problem also occurred in the aforementioned call from flight attendant Amy Sweeney. While she was describing the hijackers, according to the FBI's account of her call, they stormed and took control of the cockpit.46 However, although the hijacking of Flight 11 "began at 8:14 or shortly thereafter," the 9/11 Commission said, Sweeney's call did not go through until 8:25.47 Her alleged call, in other words, described the hijacking as beginning over 11 minutes after it, according to the official timeline, had been successfully carried out. Multiple lines of evidence, therefore, imply that the cell phone calls were faked. This fact has vast implications, because it implies that all the reported calls from the planes, including those from onboard phones, were faked. Why? Because if the planes had really been taken over in surprise hijackings, no one would have been ready to make fake cell phone calls. Moreover, the FBI, besides implying, most clearly in the case of Deena Burnett, that the phone calls reporting the hijackings had been faked, comes right out and says, in its report about calls from Flight 77, that no calls from Barbara Olson occurred. It does mention her. But besides attributing only one call to her, not two, the FBI report refers to it as an "unconnected call," which (of course) lasted "0 seconds."48 In 2006, in other words, the FBI, which is part of the Department of Justice, implied that the story told by the DOJ's former solicitor general was untrue. Although not mentioned by the press, this was an astounding development. This FBI report leaves only two possible explanations for Ted Olson's story: Either he made it up or else he, like Deena Burnett and several others, was duped. In either case, the story about Barbara Olson's calls, with their reports of hijackers taking over Flight 77, was based on deception. The opening section of The 9/11 Commission Report is entitled "Inside the Four Flights." The information contained in this section is based almost entirely on the reported phone calls. But if the reported calls were faked, we have no idea what happened inside these planes. Insofar as the idea that the planes were taken over by hijackers who looked "Middle Eastern," even "Islamic," has been based on the reported calls, this idea is groundless. 4. Was the Presence of Hijackers Proved by a Radio Transmission "from American 11"? It might be objected, in reply, that this is not true, because we know that American Flight 11, at least, was hijacked, thanks to a radio transmission in which the voice of one of its hijackers is heard. According to the 9/11 Commission, the air traffic controller for this flight heard a radio transmission at 8:25 AM in which someone---widely assumed to be Mohamed Atta---told the passengers: "We have some planes. Just stay quiet, and you'll be okay. We are returning to the airport." After quoting this transmission, the Commission wrote: "The controller told us that he then knew it was a hijacking."49 Was this transmission not indeed proof that Flight 11 had been hijacked? It might provide such proof if we knew that, as the Commission claimed, the "transmission came from American 11."50 But we do not. According to the FAA's "Summary of Air Traffic Hijack Events," published September 17, 2001, the transmission was "from an unknown origin."51 Bill Peacock, the FAA's air traffic director, said: "We didn't know where the transmission came from."52 The Commission's claim that it came from American 11 was merely an inference. The transmission could have come from the same room from which the calls to Deena Burnett originated. Therefore, the alleged radio transmission from Flight 11, like the alleged phone calls from the planes, provides no evidence that the planes were taken over by al-Qaeda hijackers. 5. Did Passports and a Headband Provide Evidence that al-Qaeda Operatives Were on the Flights? However, the government's case for al-Qaeda hijackers on also rested in part on claims that passports and a headband belonging to al-Qaeda operatives were found at the crash sites. But these claims are patently absurd. A week after the attacks, the FBI reported that a search of the streets after the destruction of the World Trade Center had discovered the passport of one of the Flight 11 hijackers, Satam al-Suqami.53 But this claim did not pass the giggle test. "[T]he idea that [this] passport had escaped from that inferno unsinged," wrote one British reporter, "would [test] the credulity of the staunchest supporter of the FBI's crackdown on terrorism."54 By 2004, when the 9/11 Commission was discussing the alleged discovery of this passport, the story had been modified to say that "a passer-by picked it up and gave it to a NYPD detective shortly before the World Trade Center towers collapsed."55 So, rather than needing to survive the collapse of the North Tower, the passport merely needed to escape from the plane's cabin, avoid being destroyed or even singed by the instantaneous jet-fuel fire, and then escape from the building so that it could fall to the ground! Equally absurd is the claim that the passport of Ziad Jarrah, the alleged pilot of Flight 93, was found at this plane's crash site in Pennsylvania.56 This passport was reportedly found on the ground even though there was virtually nothing at the site to indicate that an airliner had crashed there. The reason for this absence of wreckage, we were told, was that the plane had been headed downward at 580 miles per hour and, when it hit the spongy Pennsylvania soil, buried itself deep in the ground. New York Times journalist Jere Longman, surely repeating what he had been told by authorities, wrote: "The fuselage accordioned on itself more than thirty feet into the porous, backfilled ground. It was as if a marble had been dropped into water."57 So, we are to believe, just before the plane buried itself in the earth, Jarrah's passport escaped from the cockpit and landed on the ground. Did Jarrah, going 580 miles per hour, have the window open?58 Also found on the ground, according to the government's evidence presented to the Moussaoui trial, was a red headband.59 This was considered evidence that al-Qaeda hijackers were on Flight 93 because they were, according to some of the phone calls, wearing red headbands. But besides being absurd for the same reason as was the claim about Jarrah's passport, this claim about the headband was problematic for another reason. Former CIA agent Milt Bearden, who helped train the Mujahideen fighters in Afghanistan, has pointed out that it would have been very unlikely that members of al-Qaeda would have worn such headbands: [The red headband] is a uniquely Shi'a Muslim adornment. It is something that dates back to the formation of the Shi'a sect. . . . t represents the preparation of he who wears this red headband to sacrifice his life, to murder himself for the cause. Sunnis are by and large most of the people following Osama bin Laden [and they] do not do this.60 We learned shortly after the invasion of Iraq that some people in the US government did not know the difference between Shi'a and Sunni Muslims. Did such people decide that the hijackers would be described as wearing red headbands? 6. Did the Information in Atta's Luggage Prove the Responsibility of al-Qaeda Operatives? I come now to the evidence that is said to provide the strongest proof that the planes had been hijacked by Mohamed Atta and other members of al-Qaeda. This evidence was reportedly found in two pieces of Atta's luggage that were discovered inside the Boston airport after the attacks. The luggage was there, we were told, because although Atta was already in Boston on September 10, he and another al-Qaeda operative, Abdul al-Omari, rented a blue Nissan and drove up to Portland, Maine, and stayed overnight. They caught a commuter flight back to Boston early the next morning in time to get on American Flight 11, but Atta's luggage did not make it. This luggage, according to the FBI affidavit signed by James Lechner, contained much incriminating material, including a handheld flight computer, flight simulator manuals, two videotapes about Boeing aircraft, a slide-rule flight calculator, a copy of the Koran, and Atta's last will and testament.61 This material was widely taken as proof that al-Qaeda and hence Osama bin Laden were behind the 9/11 attacks. When closely examined, however, the Atta-to-Portland story loses all credibility. One problem is the very idea that Atta would have planned to take all these things in baggage that was to be transferred to Flight 11. What good would a flight computer and other flying aids do inside a suitcase in the plane's luggage compartment? Why would he have planned to take his will on a plane he planned to crash into the World Trade Center? A second problem involves the question of why Atta's luggage did not get transferred onto Flight 11. According to an Associated Press story that appeared four days after 9/11, Atta's flight "arrived at Logan . . . just in time for him to connect with American Airlines flight 11 to Los Angeles, but too late for his luggage to be loaded."62 The 9/11 Commission had at one time evidently planned to endorse this claim.63 But when The 9/11 Commission Report appeared, it said: "Atta and Omari arrived in Boston at 6:45" and then "checked in and boarded American Airlines Flight 11," which was "scheduled to depart at 7:45."64 By thus admitting that there was almost a full hour for the luggage to be transferred to Flight 11, the Commission was left with no explanation as to why it was not. Still another problem with the Atta-to-Portland story was the question why he would have taken this trip. If the commuter flight had been late, Atta, being the ringleader of the hijackers as well as the intended pilot for Flight 11, would have had to call off the whole operation, which he had reportedly been planning for two years. The 9/11 Commission, like the FBI before it, admitted that it had no answer to this question.65 The fourth and biggest problem with the story, however, is that it did not appear until September 16, five days after 9/11, following the collapse of an earlier story. According to news reports immediately after 9/11, the incriminating materials, rather than being found in Atta's luggage inside the airport, were found in a white Mitsubishi, which Atta had left in the Boston airport parking lot. Two hijackers did drive a blue Nissan to Portland and then take the commuter flight back to Boston the next morning, but their names were Adnan and Ameer Bukhari.66 This story fell apart on the afternoon of September 13, when it was discovered that the Bukharis, to whom authorities had reportedly been led by material in the Nissan at the Portland Jetport, had not died on 9/11: Adnan was still alive and Ameer had died the year before.67 The next day, September 14, an Associated Press story said that it was Atta and a companion who had driven the blue Nissan to Portland, stayed overnight, and then taken the commuter flight back to Boston. The incriminating materials, however, were still said to have been found in a car in the Boston airport, which was now said to have been rented by "additional suspects."68 Finally, on September 16, a Washington Post story, besides saying that the Nissan had been taken to Portland by Atta and al-Omari, specified that the incriminating material had been found in Atta's luggage inside the Boston airport.69 Given this history of the Atta-to-Portland story, how can we avoid the conclusion that it was a fabrication? 7. Were al-Qaeda Operatives Captured on Airport Security Videos? Still another type of evidence for the claim that al-Qaeda operatives were on the planes consisted of frames from videos, purportedly taken by airport security cameras, said to show hijackers checking into airports. Shortly after the attacks, for example, photos showing Atta and al-Omari at an airport "were flashed round the world."70 However, although it was widely assumed that these photos were from the airport at Boston, they were really from the airport at Portland. No photos showing Atta or any of the other alleged hijackers at Boston's Logan Airport were ever produced. We at best have photographic evidence that Atta and al-Omari were at the Portland airport. Moreover, in light of the fact that the story of Atta and al-Omari going to Portland was apparently a late invention, we might expect the photographic evidence that they were at the Portland Jetport on the morning of September 11 to be problematic. And indeed it is. It shows Atta and Omari without either jackets or ties on, whereas the Portland ticket agent said that they had been wearing jackets and ties.71 Also, a photo showing Atta and al-Omari passing through the security checkpoint is marked both 05:45 and 05:53.72 Another airport video was distributed on the day in 2004 that The 9/11 Commission Report was published. The Associated Press, using a frame from it as corroboration of the official story, provided this caption: Hijacker Khalid al-Mihdhar . . . passes through the security checkpoint at Dulles International Airport in Chantilly, Va., Sept. 11 2001, just hours before American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon in this image from a surveillance video.73 Continued David Ray Griffin is Emeritus Professor of Philosophy of Religion at Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Graduate University. He has published 34 books, including seven about 9/11, most recently The New Pearl Harbor Revisited: 9/11, the Cover-Up, and the Exposé (Northampton: Olive Branch, 2008).

Kheyr brother. Attending the Janaza of a non Muslim is forbidden , while Sympathy and visiting of the dying and calling them to accept Islam before they die, is highly commendable, which is what the Prophet SAWS did.

The Point bro. You ask: ":Is my understanding correct? What of the above steps is markedly different than from western financial institutions which would make the Islamic system different from riba based systems?" Answer: Steps 2, 3 are different. Usury based Banks do not sell and buy properties, they have it easy, you borrow money, they hedge it with a collateral, they earn their capital plus interest. Less activities before earning money means less risk. You write: "This fails to address the perceived 'scarcity' of wealth and people's innate selfishness. Is money 'free' in Islam? If I have an extra 30k that I have saved up for years - why should I lend to my neighbour who wishes to buy a car as opposed to investing it in some profit producing entreprise? Isn't it better for the whole community if I invest it in an entreprise rather than finance someone's consumption? Is it appropriate in Islam to ask for loans to finance what is in essence personal consumption (cars, houses etc) as opposed to a business concern? " Answer: When faced with scarcity, a community places wealth where its mostly needed, infrastructure, education, food, agriculture, or entreprenurial activities to cerate more wealth for the community. But scarcity should not drive poverty through usury, as its the case today in the world, where the entire planet is in debt financing illegal wars for an insatiable energy and an imminent financial collapse is looming over our heads. If you have saved 30k, paid your Zakat to the community, you have a choice to help someone in need, as opposed to finance a luxury. Consumption drives economy, so by helping a needy with an interest free loan, you may have averted a crime of theft that would have made you pay the money as a tax to incarcerate that thief. Allah will reward you too for that benevolence and the remaining wealth will be blessed. The mindset that created the Economic theory of " Scarcity" is behind the principle of Usury that is forbidden. Allah SWT says in Quraan : "Maa cindakum yanfad, wa maa cinda Alla baaq". Your wealth depreciates, and Allah's endures" What is elluding many Muslims who study economics is that scarcity of goods is different than scarcity of the transaction instruments known as money. Treating money like commodities is where the violation of the verse " innamal baycu mithlu ribaa" (Sale of goods is like Ribaa ( lending of money for profit) ) begins. The Prophet SAWS correcting Fatuma, His daughter when she described sadaqa she gave away " The Whole Lamb is gone except for a leg" The Propeht SAWS Corrected her " The Whole lamb is saved except for the leg" , therefore a Dollar today is better than a dollar tomorrow is false in Islamic Aqeedah. Allah says: "Yamxaqulllahu Al Ribaa wa yurbii al sadaqaat" Allah makes usury fail, while increasing the value of wealth that is employed in benevolence projects. What is important to note is that the principle of scarcity of goods and services on which modern Economic theory is built upon, falters when viewed through Islamic Aqeedah lens. No one said that islamic financial principles are against investments, nor does it imply that wealth should be distributed and not created in business, industry and agriculture. As a matter of fact, all projects that add value to people's lives and happiness in islam, including play grounds are charitable , its known as AWQAAF. Money should work for people, not the other ways around, otherwise, money becomes the goal instead of a mean for a higher goal. In Islam, Allah created man for a higher purpose, His worship, wealth was placed on earth to serve man, so man can serve Allah SWT. Nur

Kheyr bro Thanks for the good observation of the institution of Baitul Maal Al Islami ( Islamic Wealth Depository) is where public wealth is stored to be dispensed for the public. Its where the Zakat funds are stored and where welfare payments are administered for the poor or government spending on public projects in an Islamic state. The Bank on the other hand is a private institution whose sole business is lending money for profit. The Banks securitize the loans the give, in essence they have the same wealth in different forms all the time ( Collaterals or deposits) and as time ticks, money is being generated with time, a risk free business. In Islam, our lives are centered around our faith, to be specific around Allah our creator, so we are Allah Centric. As such, we value Allah more than anything else, since He created everything else. In Islam the more a pious a person is, the closer he/she is to Allah SWT. Capitalism on the other hand is Capital Centric ( As its name implies), money matters more than anything else including people in Capitalism, for money's sake wars are initiated and millions die, . In Capitalism, the more wealth a person is worth, the higher he/she is regarded no matter how the wealth is earned, this is known as Upward Mobility. As for wealth management, Allah entrusted wealth in our care so: First: We earn it equitably ( Fairly) Second: We spend it wisely ( Not wasting it on forbidden activities) Third: We share it with those in need in three ways: a. Loan with no interest b. Gift. c. Poors Due( Sadaqa) While wealth is in our care, we invest it and grow it by circulating it in the community, so that everone has access to wealth to generate more wealth through entrepre(Nur)ial activities . Contrary to usury based Wealth Management, Islamic Wealth Management is benevolent, community oriented to satisfy the needs of all segments so that evil is not committed due to poverty. ( crimes are mostly driven by unfair financial disparities in a society, prostitution, drugs, murder etc.) Islamic Wealth Managemnt takes many forms such as : 1. Investment in public infrastructure 2. Investment in Education 3. Trade Finance ( Muraabaha, Mushaarka etc.) 4. Investment in Manufaturing ( Istisnaac) 5. Investment in public and private Housing. 6. Investment in Agriculture ( Ijaara, Istizraac) Nur

Its that suvivalist mentality that rendered a large segment of Somalis abroad to adobt the "maxaa la sheegay" mentality, always laid back minding daily bread and qaat over impending disaster brought by loose members of their own clan. bringing Allah's wrath on all of us due to lack of proactive participation to take control of events toward what is right and to stop evil on its heels. We want Somalia liberated, but we call resistance volunteers "deluded", some of us even are sympathetic to warlords who have blood of the nation in their hands. We believe the UN will deliver peace in Somalia it purposefully opposed and devastated its prospects when we finally witnessed it delivered by the Islamic Courts Union,( "Islam" being the bad omen) by allowing Ethiopia's Tigre army with American blessing to get away with utter destruction, genocide and rape of Somalis both within present borders and in occupied Western Somalia to this date. Somalis are now defacto International Orphans for which no one will cry! ( international Looma Ooyaan). Just compare how much crying and tears were shed for Kenya and Zimbabwe as they tipped toward anarchy! and how stable they are today, thanks for the "International Community" No One cares for a nation that does not care for its own! Nur

The prophet SAWS not only consoled a dying Jewsih boy in his deathbed, but if my memory does not fail cried for losing a soul that did not return to Allah as prescribed. We need to show sympathy and compassion as He (SAWS) did. Nur

Xiin and S.O.S brothers Your are missed this Ramadan, where are you hanging around for iftaar these days? your iftar time inpiration (after a gulp of fresh Camel milk) is missed here! Nur

Nomad Bishan Ramadaan , waa bil aad u barakeysan, habeen ka mid ahna, waa habaanka Qadarka, oo uu Allah karaameeyo dad badan oo ku qornaa ahlul naar in la cafiyo oo loo qoro iney noqdaan ahlul Jannah, hadaba ha is dhigan bishan, inta hartay badso cibaadada, salaadda habeenkii iyo sadaqada, si Allah uu kuu waafajiyo Leilatul Qadar. Nur

Nehanda sis Sorry for this late response ( almost 2 years ). The English language ( which is not my mother tongue has its subtleties) but the words and expressions in English do evolve with time, I am fixated with the old expressions, when "being in love" meant literally being in a state of pure love, a form of halal ecstacy, like our Sufi brothers describe it, which could be for anything that I have discussed above in Somali. In my above writing, I chose that expression for getting attention, and it did the trick. Nur

Nomads Ramadan, 1429 is upon us shortly, tighten your belts for worship, this is a lifetime opportunity. Nur

Where is Bint Abee Saeed and the SOL old guard nowadays? Nur

A thought provoking poem indeed! Nur

Baarakallahu feekum, brothers Sahal and Abu Salman. the proper understanding of this pivotal concept in Islam differentiates bewteen surrender and resistance to Allah's sovereignty. May Allah reward Sheikh Mawdudi and His teachers ( Xujjatul Islam, Al Dahlawi) and His students. Amin. Nur

Rahima sis You write: "the bank must have ownership of the house before you approach it, because then it is not making the profit on your lack of money/credit" Walaalo, this is not a condition to conform to risk sharing between Bank and buyer, because a buyer can default, or simply escape once the Bank has bought the property for them, which exposes the Bank to risk, thus sharing it with custoner, this is different than straight Riba deal. However, if the Bank securitizes against customer default and asks for a collateral before buying the property for the customer, then its a an expensive Riba deal inf favor of Bank. Here is the motivation of what I termed as "Islamic Spirit" : Wealth in Islam belongs to Allah alone, he is the holder of the deeds of all properties, real or otherwise on planet earth. Allah made mankind His Khalifa on earth ( Care Taker of His wealth) honored mankind above all creatures for the purpose that mankind uphold Justice on earth and treat other creatures and his own with kindness and compassion. For that above reason, Allah regulated transfer of this trust, aka wealth from one caretaker to another in five basic arrangements: 1. Inheritance 2. Gift 3. Sale 4. Loan 5. Sadaqah ( poors due) The first case had been regulated in a detailed way in Quraan. It began with the Khilaafa ( Inheritance of man of wealth from Allah, and it trickles down to progeny) The second way, is also mentioned in Quraan ( Queen Sheba and King Prophet David), and also in Hadeeth, " To love each other, exchange gifts" The third case is sale, or exchange of (goods/ services) in excess with (goods/services) in need. Allah who is the real owner of all properties including the very humankind, offered to buy our souls and properties in exchange with Paradise. The fourth way is Loan, Again, Allah SWT asks mankind to give Allah a loan ( Man dha ladee yuqridu Allaha qardhan xasanan fa yudaacifuhu lahu adcaafan katheera, wallaahu yaqbidu wa yabsudu wa ileyhi turjacuun) ( Is there anyone willing to give Allah a loan so that Allah will pay him back with multiples of his capital, knowing that Allah is the one who released the funds to mankind in the first place and the one who can withhold it and to him mankind will eventually return for an audit" So in essence, Allah gives better return than Banks for investors if they help the needy with an interset free loans for their needs. When this verse was revealed, our cousins of the people of the Book aka Jews, said "Allah is poor and we ar rich" then Allah revealed " Allah had heard the claim of those who said Allah is poor and we are rich, We shall record their claim and their crimes of slaying of prophets unjustly ( attempt on Jesus included)" Why does Allah need a loan? well it was intended for the welfare of the poor. The Fourth is Sadaqah. Allah SWT revealed, " Dont they know that Allah accepts the repentance of his servants and takes Sadaqaat (from them) to offset ( forgive) their sins. With that quick tour of what wealth is and how is lawfully transferred between caretakers we make the following conclusions: 1. Allah made Trading Halaal. 2. Allah made Ribaa Xaraam Despite the claim of the Jewish traders in Madina who said (in Quraan) : Sale of goods is the same as the sale of money ( Ribaa). Here lies the root of confusion, sale of goods is not the same as the sale of money. Money is not a product, its an instrument of transaction. In Islam, sale is halaal, with no roof of profit as long as hoardding and other illegal ways are not used. ( goods such as water and foods are regulated) While a LOAN is tantamount to SADAQAH, philanthropy, its to help someone in need. Taking advantage of a needy person by burdening them with more financial burden is abominable and evil. In Islam if you need a loan and approach a person, there is a moral responsibility to give a loan with no interest. If that person, out of gratitude offers on their own to give back the loan plus some extra , its rightfully halaal to take ( Based oon Hadeeth of the Camel loaned to Prophet Muhammad SAWS), but to make it a condition before giving the laon is the Haraam. From the above treatment, we see that a Bank in the present form is un islamic, so to say " Islamic Bank" is an oxymoron, money in Islam should never be parked in vaults, its meant to circulate to benefit the community like a vital blood vein , Allah SWT says in Quraan " So that money does not (unjustly) circulate among the wealthy" which is the case in present day Banking. To get a loan today, you fill a kilometer long form, to prove to the Banker that you dont need any money to be trusted with a loan. Islamic Banks are on the heals of Modern Banks, they have translated the terms and practices, but the spirit remains the same, the Maqaasidul Shariica ( Moral of Allah's law) is being violated. That is what I meant by the "spirit" or Maqaasid Ul Shariica, my dear sister. is it Halal? That is a tough question, the best thing I can say, is: Allah says in Quraan : "Fattaquullaha mas tadactum" (Beware Allah as much as you can). Its a personal call, for me, in a time when my sphere of influence is limited, I use personal judgement I can sleep with at night and look myself in the mirror in the morning after. Nur

Sayyed bro. If that is what you have ( Specific situation as you have described), be it from an Islamic Bank or HSBC Amana, it seems as a valid instrument for aquiring a property from Owner . You are not responsible for how the Bank raised the money, riba or halal, that is not in your sphere of influence, yours begins with how you aquire the property and how you dispose it, the Prophet SAWS is said to have taken a loan from a Jewish Lender in Madina. Jewish traders have historically dealt in usury with the Arabs in Madina. Wa Allahu Aclam Nur

Muslim01 bro. If the purpose of Ramadan is TAQWA, then let us find out what is TAQWA. Let us see what taqwa means. For starters, Taqwa was defined by Ali Radiya Allahu canhu as: 1. Al Khawfu Minal Jaliil ( Fear Of the Al Mighty) 2. Al Camalu Bit Tanziil ( Acting according to Revelation) 3. Al Ridaa bil Qaliil ( satisfaction with limited resources aka austerity) 4. Al Isticdaadu Li Yawmi Raxiil ( Preparing for the day of departure ( Death)) Those who have taqwa enjoy the following: 1. Allah loves them. 2. Allah is on their side. 3. Allah provides for them a way out of any inconvenience or hardship. 4. Allah provides for them Rizq ( Sustenance) from sources they do not expect. ( Since they restrain themselves from getting it from sources they expect, for Allah's sake) 5. In the day of Judgement, only Mattaqoon friends will stay friends, others will curse each other in enemity. 6. Useful Knowledge ( For Akhira) is granted as a reward for Taqwa ( Wattaqullaaha wa yucallimukumu Allah) 7. A person with taqwa is at ease ( Yusraa) of all her/his affairs. 8. A Group of Muslims with Taqwa, will be granted Clarity of purpose ( Furqaan) and forgiveness. Thats is my quick recollection, and the Quraan has more and more rewards for Al Mutaqeen. This is the month we need to cultivate Taqwa in all of our actions according to Ali's definition and the Quraan. Nur

Rahima sis Your question has a short answer and a long one, depending on depth. In the above example, the Bank buys after your request for financing. The fact that the Bank buys for you satisfies two Islamic principles: 1. No one is allowed to sell what they dont own. 2. The Bank has to take a risk in aquiring the property ( Al Ghurmu Bil Ghunm), which offsets your risk ( Sharing Risk), but, at times, the "Islamic" Banks make a killing as they end up with more profit than giving conventional mortgages, this has been the case lately as Muslim devotees insist on islamic instruments even if it costs more to satisfy their spiritual needs which in itself is a VALUE the Banks are meeting with high "interest" level . Your second question has a very long answer, but let me give you the sgort version. You ask :" what is the difference between that and fixed interest? The bank is making a profit on your lack of funds, or on credit" Rahima sis The principle of selling time value of money in Islam is a form of Shirk. How you may ask. You ses sis, everything on earth depreciates, common sense then tells us that money also should, but in the Riba based economy, Money is set to appreciate against all kinds of market forces. That makes the Dollar a quasi GOD, Sovereign on its own merit, and as a result it is worshipped in many money markets worldwide, the biggest church being Wall Street Congregation, and from there devotees from all over the world find themselves bound to this unscapable force. The basic financial instrument in Islamic Banking is known as BBA ( Bayc Bi Thaman Aajil, aka Murabaha) ( iib lagu iibanayo qiimo dib loo dhigay), in Reality, this instrument is still against Islamic spirit which I will explain at length when I have more time inshAllah. Here is how BBA works: There are three parties in the BBA Deal. 1. Bank 2. Customer 3. Owner Of Asset First Step: Customer identifies property to be aquired. Second Step: Bank purchases property from owner on cash basis. Third Step: Bank sells property it aquired to Customer at cost plus profit margin. Forth Step. Customer repays Bank in N installments (eg n=60) You see sis, Allah SWT says in Quraan, "Allah made trading lawful, and forbade Usury ( Interst), in my upcoming thread Titled: "A Euro Tomorrow is better than a Euro Today! Time Value of Money In Islam. (Hint : Hadeeth Fatima and the leg of the lamb ) " which goes against conventional finance, I will explain the philosophy behind the prohibition of Ribaa and why its different from sale of a property in any arrangement to satisfy your question in depth inshAllah. Nur

Sayid*Somal bro. Below find some of my old responses on the issue of Mortgage and Ribaa. posted May 13, 2007 03:33 PM I have been battling with the concept of how halal are these Halal Morgages? I want to invest in a property,but ofcourse cant afford the whole price and for along time had been pondering on taking a morgage. I have been doing research and had been to the bank, but while the manager was talking, all I could hear was my moms voice, "nayaa waan kuogaa inaa galo galo iskadigtii..hadaa waxaan keentee inaad xaraantaa kudarsatoo".So I really didnt hear much of the ups and downs of Halal Morgages..I know there is Ijara,which sounds ideal.BUT,,, I want to hear your opinion on the matter, and advice.Please enlight the sister! Signed: Munira Answer: Munira sis The basic idea of Islamic finance is JUSTICE. In Islam the default of all actions is that they are permitted unless otherwise indicated to be prohibited (Except for Money and Sex, those two, the default is prohibition except for permitted transactions and relationships) Trading present money with larger future money ( Ribaa ) presents INJUSTICE as it exposes undue risk to the needy borrower while guaranteeing profit for lender. Trading goods with money is known as selling ( Bayc). A homeowner is permitted to sell a house for cash or in future installments. As an incentive, she is permitted to lower price of cash sale ( Bayc Caajil) and to charge more for series of future payments,( Bayc aajil) Banks in the west convert unIslamic lending instruments to Islamized instruments, and there are many variants of these structured instruments. What you have to look for is 1. That you are not exposed to more risk than the lender. ( Risk and reward in Islamic trading must be shared, otherwise it conflicts with moral of the Sharia) 2. Seller is selling own property. 3. Property is real as opposed to a proposed development. 4. The term mortgage is unIslamic, its defined as: A loan to finance the purchase of real estate, usually with specified payment periods and interest rates. The borrower (mortgagor) gives the lender (mortgagee) a lien on the property as collateral for the loan. In Islamic Sharia, the Bank buys the property and then sells/rents to you in installments (hence sharing risk and reward), The Bank thus sells to you a property it rightfully owns (holding its deed) in FIXED installments ( No compounding), regardless of amount of profit, if mutually agreed. ie ( Bank buys Present house value @ 200,000 Pounds, and sells to you @ 300,000 Pounds equal monthly payments of 1000 Pounds for 25 years.) Wallaahu Aclam That is my two cents, hope it helped. Nur ------------------------------------------------- My Response regarding a question on permissibility of taking student loans, posted October 19, 2003 Q. Salaama calaykum wr wb. Brother i have this Question wich is,if some one takes a loan from the bank and knowing that they have to pay the money back with interes fees on it. the person knows that it's haraam to pay or take riba. What the person has to face i mean what are the consiquences? danbiga uu sameeyay how bad that danbiga could be? thank you p.s Reason was they needed the money and didn't had no other choice. Signed: Asraa Response: Dear Asraa Alxamdulillah, wa bihi nastaciin, wa salaamu calaa rasuulihi alladii istafaa wa calaa aalih wa saxbih wa sallim. Ribaa or what is termed as interest in banks around the world is a financial transaction that grew from greed and Kufr, all three revealed religions, Judaism, Christaianity and Islam forbid it as these messages were issued by the same God regardless of the name adherents call him. Before we answer the question, let us look into the drivers of making Ribaa haraam, and what makes the one who indulges in it a sinner of a KABEERA, a major sin even greater than Fornication, as it was reported by the Prophet Muhammad SAWS that he said a hadeeth whose gist is " Ribaa is of many types, with different degrees of severity in Punishment, the least significant type of Ribaa is equivalent to the sin of a man who fornicated with his mother some thirty( thirty six) times, in the Quraan Allah SWT placed taking Ribaa even higher by sayin to ribaa dealers, takers and givers " Beware of a war from Allah and his appostle" Allah SWT says again " Allah has made business transactions lawful, but made Ribaa Xaraam" Now, what is very important is to simplify the concept of Ribaa. Ribaa is the act of lending money so that the time factor is sold, the longer the period the more ( Rent) has to be paid on the capital. The reason this is haraam is that the lender is not doing busines here, he is securing the loan and at the same time securing profit which is against the concept of Tijaaraa, or commerce which is sharing risk and profit. In Ribaa, you take the Risk, the Bank takes the Profit, an unjust deal. In Islam, when someone is need, we help them out by either giving them grant or a loan, a loan with no interest given to a needy person is a form of worship to Allah SWT and it is that missed opportunity of benevolemce and the choice of greed that creates hatred in any community. Hatred is against the concept of brotherhood, which if not protected by benevolence can lead to theft, and loss of life. Thereby Ribaa destroys the fiber of love and community. To see the result fo this, just visist your local Psychologist who advices people whose house and cars are repossesed by banks aftre they lost tgheir jobs. That pesron is bitter at society and when able will not spare any law unviolated. Now, as you have asked, a student who needs a loan applies at a local Bank, the Bank particpates in a government sponsored and secured student loan program, the Bank is guarnateed of his return, by two ways, one by the government and two by FDIC ( Federal Deposit Insurance in USA or equivalent in other jurisdictions) the inusrance for banks that insure participating banks with hundreds of millions. Now the Banks is milking the poor worker who has to pay more than their fair share. I saw this bumper sticker on a car ahead of me " I owe, I owe, so off to work I go" . The Ribaa feature is an evil result of greed, the more caring a society is to its members the more help it offers its members. Most student loan applications clearly say the amount of interest payable after graduation, some applications give you a grace period, say 9 months interest free period after graduation after which you will incur penalties and more Ribaa to make you come crawling and begging for loan consolidation and collectors will be terrorizing you by placing your name in the most wanted list, so your credit worthiness diminishes so bad, your cash may not be accepted. So, signing that document even if you beleive that you will pay the money before the grace period with no ineterst is a minor sin at best, " Wal ladiina laa yash haduuna al ZUUR" Sister Asraa, we are undergoing a test here, just like materials, when engineers test them to see how much hardships these materials can tolerate, we are being tested likewise, with temptations our hands can reach , to see who is mindful of Allah in the Ghaib ( without seeing him). Paradise is no cheap. Besides, any Muslim who resists temptation, Allah SWT will replace that which he forgone, with something better, it is matter of faith, and faith should not be compromised or sold for mere dollars. We must remember that our Rizq (sustenance) is in the heavens as Allah SWT said, " wa fis samaa-e rizqakum wa maa tuucaduun" and not with Ribaa Banks. Wallaahu Aclam Nur

US IRAQI CONTRACT LEAKED! Read all about it, plus the funny Iraqia TV show, SUNNIS SHIAS UNITED TO SERVE CASINOS IN GREEN ZONE! What happens in the Green Zone, Stays in the Green Zone. US-Iraqi Agreement: Leaked Full Text By Raed Jarrar 09/01/08 -- - - I read about a leaked copy of the US-Iraqi agreement a few days ago when a radio station in Iraq mentioned some of its details, then it was mentioned in some Arab newspapers like Al-Qabas and Al-Sharq Al-Awsat. A couple of days ago, one Iraqi website (linked to an Iraqi armed resistance group) published the leaked draft on their web page for less than a couple of days before their website went offline. (Thankfully, I downloaded the 21 pages agreement and saved them before their server went down) I spent this weekend translating it, and just finished now. you can read the 27 articles August 6th draft below. The title of this draft is "Agreement regarding the activities and presence of U.S. forces, and its withdrawal from Iraq", but this is the same agreement that is referred to as a "status of forces agreement" or "SOFA" or framework or whatever. It's the result of months of negotiations after Bush and Al-Maliki signed the "Declaration of Principles for a Long-Term Relationship of Cooperation and Friendship Between the Republic of Iraq and the United States of America" by the end of last year. This leaked draft is a treasure of information. It's the first time any document related to this topic is made public. It shows how weak the Iraqi negotiations team is (it is really pathetic to read their "suggestions" on how to fix the disaster of an agreement). There are many outrageous articles in the agreement that violates Iraq's sovereignty and independence, and gives the U.S. occupation authorities unprecedented rights and privileges, but what has draw my attention the most (so far) are three major points: 1- the agreement does not discuss anything about a complete US withdrawal from Iraq. Instead, it talks about withdrawing "combat troops" without defining what is the difference between combat troops and other troops. It is very clear that the US is planning to stay indefinitely in permanent bases in Iraq (or as the agreement calls them: "installations and areas agreed upon") where the U.S. will continue training and supporting Iraqis armed forces for the foreseeable future. 2- the agreement goes into effect when the two executive branches exchange "memos", instead of waiting for Iraqi parliament's ratification. This is really dangerous, and it is shocking because both the Iraqi and U.S. executive branches have been assuring the Iraqi parliament that no agreement will go into effect without being ratified by Iraq's MPs. 3- this agreement is the blueprint for keeping other occupation armies (aka Multi-national forces) in Iraq on the long run. This explains the silence regarding what will happed to other occupiers (like the U.K. forces) after the expiration of the UN mandate at the end of this year. It is really disturbing to read how the U.S. government is still going down the same path of intervention and domination in Iraq. This agreement will not be accepted by the Iraqi people and their elected representatives in the Iraqi parliament, and if the U.S. and Iraqi executive branches try to consider it valid anyway it will lead to more violence in Iraq. Agreement Regarding the Activities and Presence of U.S. forces, and its Withdrawal from Iraq August, 6th, 2008 4:00pm Foreword Iraq and the U.S., referred to here as “both sides”, affirm the importance of: supporting their joint security, participating in global peace and stability, fighting terrorism, cooperation in the fields of security and defense, and deterring threats against Iraq’s sovereignty, security, and territorial integrity. Both sides affirm that this cooperation is based on mutual respect of both sides’ sovereignty in accordance with the United Nations’ goals and principles. Both sides want to achieve mutual understanding to support their collaboration, without jeopardizing Iraq’s sovereignty over its land, water, and sky, and based on the mutual guarantees given as equal and independent sovereign partners. Both sides have agreed on: Article One Scope and goal This agreement specifies the rules and basic needs that regulate the temporary presence and activities of the U.S. troops and its withdrawal from Iraq. Article Two Definitions 1- “Installations and areas agreed upon” are the installations and areas agreed upon owned by the Iraqi government and used by the U.S. forces from the date this agreement goes into effect. Such installations and areas agreed upon will be decided in a list provided by the U.S. forces and reviewed by both sides. Such “installations and areas agreed upon” include those provided to the U.S. forces during the time of this agreement after the approval of both sides. Iraqi suggestion: The Iraqi delegation has asked the U.S. delegation to submit a list of structures and areas requested to be discussed and agreed upon and add it to the agreement as an appendix. 2- “U.S. forces” is the entity that includes the members of the armed forces, civilian members, and all the equipments and materials owned by the U.S. forces in Iraq. 3- “Members of the armed forces” include any member of the U.S. army, navy, air force, marines or coast guard. 4- “Civilian members” include any civilian working for the U.S. Ministry of Defense, excluding those members who usually reside in Iraq. 5- “U.S. contractors” or “workers hired by U.S. contractors” include non Iraqi persons and entities and employees who are U.S. or third country citizens and who are in Iraq to supply goods, services or security to the U.S. forces or on behalf of it in accordance to a contract. This does not include Iraqi entities. 6- “Official vehicles”: commercial vehicles that may be modified for security reasons, and are designed originally to transport individuals on different terrains. 7- “Military vehicles”: include all vehicles used by the U.S. armed forces, that were originally designed for combat operations, and have special numbers and signs in accordance to the regulations and laws of U.S. armed forces. 8- “defense equipment” include systems, weapons, ammunition, equipment, and materials used in conventional wars only, that the U.S. forces need in accordance to this agreement, and that are not connected in any way to weapons of mass destruction (chemical weapons, nuclear weapons, radiological weapons, biological weapons, and waste related to such weapons). 9- “storage”: keeping defense equipment needed by the U.S. forces for activities agreed upon in this agreement. 10- “taxes and custom”: include all taxes, customs (including border customs), and any other tariffs enforced by the Iraqi government and its entities and provinces in accordance to Iraqi laws and regulations. This does not include money paid for the Iraqi government in exchange for services required or used by the U.S. forces. Article Three Rule of Law All members of the U.S. armed forces and civilian members must follow Iraqi laws, customs, traditions, and agreements while conducting military operations in accordance to this agreement. They must also avoid any activities that do not agree with the text and spirit of this agreement. It is the responsibility of the U.S. to take all necessary measures to insure this. Article Four Responsibilities For the purpose of deterring external and/or internal threats against the Republic of Iraq, and to continue the collaboration to defeat Al-Qaeda in Iraq and other outlaw groups, temporarily, both sides have agreed on: 1- The Iraqi government asks for the temporary help of the U.S. forces to support Iraq’s effort in maintaining security and stability of Iraq, including the collaboration in conducting operations against Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups and outlaw groups, including the remains of the former regime. - Military operations that are conducted in accordance to this agreement with the approval of the Iraqi government and with full coordination with Iraqi authorities. Coordinating such military operations will be supervised by a joint mobile operations command centers (JMOCC) created in accordance with this agreement. Any military issues that are not resolved by these centers are submitted to a joint committee of ministries. 3- Operations must respect the Iraqi constitution and laws, and Iraqi sovereignty and national interests as defined by the Iraqi government. The U.S. forces must respect the Iraqi laws, traditions, and customs. 4- Both sides will continue their efforts in collaboration and improving Iraq’s security capacity, including training, supplying, supporting, founding, and upgrading administrative systems. 5- There is nothing in this agreement that limits either sides’ rights of self defense. Article Five Property Ownership 1- Iraq owns all non-mobile buildings and structures that are built on the ground in the installations and areas agreed upon, including those built, used, enhanced, or changed by the U.S. forces. 2- The U.S. is responsible for all expenses of construction, remodeling, modification in installations and areas agreed upon used exclusively by the U.S.. The U.S. forces will consult with the Iraqi authorities regarding the works of construction, remodeling, and modification. The U.S. will seek the Iraqi government’s approval for major construction or modification projects. In case of shared use of installations and areas agreed upon both sides are responsible for expenses. The U.S. forces will pay the fees of services used exclusively by the U.S.Both sides cover the expenses of shared installations and areas agreed upon. 3- In the case of a discovery of historic or cultural sites, or the discovery of a strategic natural resource, in the installations and areas agreed upon, all work of construction or modification or remodeling must stop immediately, and the Iraqi representatives in the joint committee must be informed. 4- The United States will return all installations and areas agreed upon and any non-mobile buildings that were constructed, remodeled, or modified under this agreement, according to mechanisms and priorities agreed upon by the joint committee. They will be returned to Iraq without charge, unless both sides agree otherwise. 5- The U.S. will return all installations and areas agreed upon that have special cultural or political importance and that were constructed, remodeled, or modified under this agreement, according to mechanisms and priorities agreed upon by the joint committee. When this agreement goes into effect, the U.S. will immediately return the properties listed in the attached appendix and mentioned in the letter sent by the U.S. embassy to the Iraqi minister of foreign affairs dated (…) 6- What remains of installations and areas agreed upon will be returned to the Iraqi authorities after this agreement expires or if the U.S. forces no longer needs them. 7- The U.S. forces and U.S. contractors maintain their ownership of all equipment, materials, supplements, mobile structures, and other mobile properties imported to Iraq or obtained in Iraq in accordance to the agreement. Article Six Usage of Installations and areas agreed upon 1- Iraq guarantees the accessibility of the U.S. forces and U.S. contractors to installations and areas agreed upon according to what both sides agree on, while insuring that Iraq’s sovereignty is not undermined. Installations and areas agreed upon will be returned to Iraq without charge, unless both sides agree otherwise. 2- Iraq authorizes the U.S. forces to practice all the authorities and have all the rights to manage construct, use, maintain, and secure installations and areas agreed upon. Both sides coordinate and collaborate regarding shared installations and areas agreed upon. 3- The United States forces control the entrances of the installations and areas agreed upon. Both sides coordinate their work in shared installations and areas agreed upon based on mechanisms put by the joint military operations committee. Article 7 Storage of defense equipments 1- The U.S. forces are authorized to store in the installations and areas agreed upon systems, weapons, ammunition, equipment, and materials used by the U.S. forces and related to the U.S. temporary mission in Iraq. Weapons that are used by the U.S. forces are not connected in any way to weapons of mass destruction (chemical weapons, nuclear weapons, radiological weapons, biological weapons, and waste related to such weapons). The U.S. forces control the use and transportation of such weapons. The U.S. forces guarantees than no weapons or ammunition will be stored near residential areas, and it will inform the Iraqi government with important information regarding their amount and types. Article 8 Environmental Protection Both sides agree to implement this agreement while protecting nature and human security and health. The U.S. complies with Iraqi environmental laws, and Iraq should comply with its laws and regulations to protect the health of the U.S. armed forces. Article 9 Movement of vehicles, ships, and airplanes 1- U.S. forces’ vehicles and ships are permitted to enter and exit and move inside Iraqi territories for the purposes of this agreement. The joint committee puts the appropriate regulations to control this movement. 2- U.S. government airplanes and civilian airplanes contracted with the U.S. Department of Defense are authorized to fly in the Iraqi airspace, refueling in the air, landing and departing in Iraq. The Iraqi authorities will give a one year authorization to the mentioned airplanes to land and depart from Iraq for the purposes of this agreement. No parties are allowed aboard U.S. government airplanes and civilian airplanes contracted with the U.S. Department of Defense and related ships and vehicles without U.S. forces consent, and they cannot be searched. The joint committee puts the appropriate regulations to facilitate their movement. 3- Air traffic control and surveillance are handed over immediately to the Iraqi authorities as soon as this agreement goes into effect. 4- Iraq can ask for the U.S. forces to temporarily take responsibility of the control and surveillance of the Iraqi airspace, and these tasks will be handed over to the Iraqi government upon its request. The Iraqi authorities will participate in the control and surveillance of the Iraqi airspace during the temporary period. 5- U.S. government airplanes and civilian airplanes contracted with the U.S. Department of Defense are not subject to taxes or related fees, including any fees related to flying in Iraqi airspace, refueling in the air, landing and departing in Iraq. Also, U.S. ships and civilian ships contracted with the U.S. Department of Defense are not subject to taxes or related fees during using Iraqi ports. Airplanes and ships are not subject to any search, and all Iraqi requirements of registration are waived. 6- U.S. forces pay money for any services or materials obtained or received in Iraq. 7- Both sides exchange maps and other information on mines and other obstacles in the Iraqi lands and waters that might jeopardize either side’s movement in Iraq’s land and waters. Article Ten Contracting U.S. forces are permitted to sign contracts in accordance to U.S. law to obtain materials and services in Iraq, including construction services. U.S. forces can obtain such materials and services from any source, and they must respect Iraq laws when signing contracts, and they will choose Iraqi contractors when possible as long as their bids have the best value. The U.S. forces will inform the Iraqi authorities of the Iraqi importers and Iraqi contractors names and the amount of relevant contracts. Article Eleven Services and telecommunications 1- U.S. forces are permitted to produce and generate water and electricity and other services for the installations and areas agreed upon in coordination with the Iraqi authorities through the joint committee. 2- The Iraqi government owns all frequencies. The Iraqi authorities allocate special waves for the U.S. forces based on what both sides decide through the joint committee (JMOCC). The U.S. forces will give these waves back after it is done with using them. - The U.S. forces are permitted to operate their own wired and wireless telecommunications (according to the definition of wired and wireless telecommunications in the Convention of the International Telecommunication Union of 1992), including all the special services needed to secure the full capacity of telecommunications operations. The U.S. operates its systems in accordance to the Convention of the International Telecommunication Union whenever it is possible to implement these regulations. 4- For the purposes of this agreement, all fees related to the U.S. usage of telecommunications frequencies are waived, including any administrative or other related fees. 5- U.S. forces will coordinate with the Iraqi authorities regarding any telecommunications infrastructure projects outside the installations and areas agreed upon. Article Twelve Legal Jurisdictions 1- The U.S. has exclusive legal jurisdiction over U.S. armed forces members and civilian members inside and outside installations and areas agreed upon.Iraqi Suggestion: the Iraqi delegation has suggested the following: The U.S. has the legal jurisdictions over the U.S. armed forces members and civilian members inside installations and areas agreed upon at all times, and outside the installations and areas agreed upon while conducting missions except for intentional crimes and major mistakes. U.S. suggestion: The U.S. delegation suggested the following: As a temporary regulation, and until the withdrawal of the U.S. combat forces is complete as indicated in paragraph 1 of article 26, until the combat missions are over the U.S. has the exclusive legal jurisdiction over U.S. armed forces members and civilian members inside and outside installations and areas agreed upon. 2- The U.S. will give its full attention to any complaint submitted by Iraq over intentional crimes and major mistakes that break Iraqi laws committed by U.S. armed forces members and civilian members. All complaints submitted by the Iraqi legal authorities will be dealt with by the joint committee and settled by mutual agreement of both sides. Iraqi Suggestion: the Iraqi delegation has suggested the following: Iraq has legal jurisdiction over U.S. armed forces members and civilian members who commit intentional crimes or major mistakes that break the Iraqi laws. The related joint committee concerning jurisdictions takes the appropriate action to solve disputes based on mutual agreement. 3- Iraq has legal jurisdiction over U.S. contractors and their employees when they break Iraqi laws. 4- U.S. forces will inform the Iraqi authorities of any criminal investigations that relate to members of the U.S. armed forces or civilian members involved in a crime against a victim that usually lives in Iraq. Both sides put the appropriate regulations to contact people related to incidents, provide details of the case and court dates, and help persons involved contact lawyers in accordance to article 21 of this agreement. The U.S. will work on holding the court in Iraq when that is appropriate and when both sides agree on it. In case the court was based in the U.S., the United States will make its best effort to facilitate bringing victims into the court. 5- Both sides agree to help each other in incidents’ investigations and collecting evidences to support a fair judgment. 6- All members of U.S. armed forces or civilian members who get arrested by the Iraqi authorities must be surrendered immediately to the U.S. forces authorities. Iraqi Suggestion: the Iraqi delegation has suggested the following: All members of U.S. armed forces or civilian members who get arrested by the Iraqi authorities must be surrendered to the U.S. forces authorities within 24 hours. Article Thirteen Baring Guns and wearing uniforms U.S. armed forces members and civilian members are authorized to carry U.S. government guns during their presence in Iraq based on the authorities and orders given to them. U.S. armed forces members are also permitted to wear their official uniforms during duty in Iraq. Article Fourteen Entering and Exiting 1- For the purposes of the agreement, U.S. armed forces members and civilian members can enter and exit Iraq from official borders using U.S.-issued ID cards. The joint committee puts a mechanism for the Iraqi verification process. 2- For purposes of verification the U.S. forces will submit to the Iraqi authorities a list with the names of U.S. armed forces members and civilian members entering and exiting Iraq or through the Installations and areas agreed upon. 3- The Iraqi entering and exiting laws can be implemented on others, but not on the U.S. armed forces members and civilian members. Article Fifteen Importing and Exporting 1- For the purposes of the agreement, including training and services, the U.S. forces and their contractors are permitted to import into Iraq and export from Iraq and re-export from Iraq and transport and use any equipments, supplements, materials, technology, training, or services except for those materials banned in Iraq at the time of signing this agreement. These materials are not subject to search or to license requirement or any other limitations. Exporting Iraqi goods by the U.S. forces is not subject to search or any other limitations either except the license discussed later in this agreement. The joint committee will coordinate with the Iraqi ministry of trade to facilitate getting the required export license in accordance to the Iraqi laws related to exporting goods by U.S. forces. 2- U.S. forces members and civilian members are permitted to import, re-export, and use their personal equipment and materials for consumption or personal use. Such materials are not subject to any licenses, limitations, taxes and customs or other fees defined in paragraph 10 of article 2, except for required or obtained services. The amount of imports must be reasonable and for personal use. The U.S. forces authorities will put the needed regulations to insure no materials or articles of cultural or historical value are exported. 3- Materials mentioned in paragraph 2 will be searched in a speedy fashion in a specific location agreed upon according to the joint committee. 4- If the tax exempt materials in accordance to this agreement were to be sold in Iraq to individuals or entities not included in tax exemption, taxes and customs as defined in paragraph 10 of article 2 are to be paid by the buyer. 5- It is not permissible to import any of the materials mentioned in this article for commercial reasons. Article Sixteen Taxes 1- Services and goods obtained by U.S. forces in Iraq for official use are not subject to taxes and fees as defined in paragraph 10 of article 2. 2- U.S. forces members and civilian members are not subject to any taxes or fees in Iraq except for services obtained or requested by them. Article Seventeen Licenses and Permits 1- Iraq agrees to accept valid U.S.-issued drivers’ licenses held by U.S. forces members, civilian members and U.S. contractors without subjecting them to any tests or operation fees for vehicles, ships, and airplanes owned by the U.S. forces in Iraq. 2- Iraq agrees to accept valid U.S.-issued drivers’ licenses held by U.S. forces members, civilian members and U.S. contractors to operate their personal cars in Iraq without subjecting them to any tests or fees. Article Eighteen Official and Military Vehicles For the purposes of this article: 1- Officials vehicles are commercial vehicles that might be modified for security reasons, and they will carry Iraqi license plates to be agreed upon by both sides. Iraqi authorities will issue, based on a request by the U.S. forces authorities, license plates for U.S. forces official cars without fees, and U.S. forces will reimburse the Iraqi authorities for the cost of these plates. 2- Iraq agrees to accept the validity of U.S.-issued licenses and registrations for the U.S. forces official vehicles. 3- All U.S. military vehicles are exempt from registration and licenses requirements. These vehicles will be identified with distinguishable numbers and signs. Article Nineteen Support Services 1- U.S. forces, or others acting on its behalf, are permitted to create and manage activities and entities inside the installations and areas agreed upon. This includes providing services to U.S. forces members, civilian members, and their contractors. These activities and entities might include military post offices, financial services, stores selling food, medicine, goods and other services, and it includes other areas providing entertainment and telecommunications. All of the mentioned services do not require a permit. 2- Radio, media, and entertainment activities that reache beyond the installations and areas agreed upon must comply with Iraqi laws. 3- Support services are for the exclusive use of the U.S. forces members, civilian members, their contractors, and other entities to be agreed upon. U.S. forces will take the required measures to ensure none of the mentioned support services are misused, and to insure services and goods will not be re-sold to unauthorized individuals. The U.S. forces will limit radio and TV broadcasting to authorized receivers. 4- Entities and facilities offering services indicated this is article enjoy the same tax exemptions offered to the U.S. forces, including those exemptions mentioned in articles 15 and 16 of this agreement. These entities and facilities offering services are to be operated in accordance to U.S. regulations, and will not be obligated to collect or pay any taxes or fees on its operations. 5- Outgoing mail, sent through military postal services, is verified by the U.S. authorities and is exempt from being searched, examined, or confiscated by the Iraqi authorities. Article Twenty Currency and Foreign exchange 1- U.S. forces are permitted to use any amount of U.S. currency or bonds for the purposes of this agreement. Using Iraqi currency in U.S. military banks must be in compliance with Iraqi laws. 2- U.S. forces are permitted to distribute or exchange any amount of currency to the U.S. forces members, civilians’ members, and their contractors for purposes of travelling, including vacations. 3- U.S. forces will not take Iraqi currency out of Iraq, and will take all required measures to insure none of the U.S. forces members, civilian members, or their contractors take Iraqi currency out of Iraq. Article Twenty One Claims 1- Except for contract related claims, both sides waive their rights to request compensation because of any harm, loss, or destruction of property, or request compensation for injury or death of forces members or civilian members from both sides occurring during their official duties. 2- Us forces authorities will pay fair and reasonable compensation to settle third party claims arising due to a member of the armed forces or civilian members during their official duties, or due to non-combat accidents caused by U.S. armed forces. The U.S. forces’ authorities may settle claims caused by non-official duties actions. Claims must be dealt with urgently by the U.S. forces’ authorities in accordance to U.S. laws and regulations. When settling claims, the U.S. forces authorities will take in consideration any investigation reports, opinions regarding responsibility, or opinions regarding amount of damages issued by the Iraqi authorities. - The joint committee will study issues related to claims resulting from paragraph 1 and 2 of this article and find resolutions in accordance to U.S. and Iraqi laws. Article Twenty Two Detention 1- All detention operations in this agreement must be conducted in accordance to the Iraqi law, constitution, sovereignty and national interest as decided by the Iraqi government in accordance to the international law. - All individuals detained by U.S. forces must be prepared to be handed over to the Iraqi authorities within 24 hours. 3- No detention operations can take place without a warrant issued by the specialized Iraqi authorities in accordance to the Iraqi law. 4- When Iraqi authorities conduct detention operations, they may ask for the help of the U.S. forces. 5- Detainees are kept in locations prepared by the Iraqi authorities and under its exclusive supervision and control. 6- U.S. forces are not permitted to search houses and other properties without a judicial warrant, unless there was an active combat operation, and in coordinating with the specialized Iraqi authorities. Article Twenty three Extending this agreement to other countries 1- Iraq may reach an agreement with any other country participating in the Multi-National forces to ask for their help in achieving security and stability in Iraq. 2- Iraq is permitted to reach an agreement that includes any of the articles mentioned in this agreement with any country or international organization to ask for help in achieving security and stability in Iraq. Article twenty four Implementation The following entities are responsible of the implementation of this agreement and the settlement of any disputes over its interpretation and application: 1- A joint committee of ministers from both sides that deal with the basic issues needed to interpret the implementation of this agreement. 2- A joint committee to coordinate military operations. This committee will be formed by the joint committee of ministers and includes representatives from both sides. The joint committee to coordinate military operations will be jointly led by both sides. 3- A joint committee formed by both sides that includes representatives chosen by both sides. This committee deals with all issues related to this agreement that do not fall under the mandate of the joint committee to coordinate military operations; this committee will jointly led by both sides. 4- Sub-committees in all different areas created by the joint committee. Subcommittees will discuss issues related to interpretation and implementation of this agreement each in accordance to its expertise. Article twenty five Implementation Arrangements Both sides enter into implementation arrangements to execute this agreement. Article Twenty Six Targeted times to handover complete security responsibilities to the Iraqi security forces, and withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq Iraqi Suggestion: the Iraqi delegation has suggested the following title to this article: Transferring security responsibilities to Iraqi authorities, and the withdrawal of the U.S. forces from Iraq U.S. Suggestion: the U.S. delegation has suggested combining paragraphs 1 and 2 as follows: 1- Both sides have agreed on the following time targets to handover complete security responsibilities to the Iraqi security forces and the withdrawal of the U.S. forces from Iraq: A- U.S. combat troops will withdraw from Iraq completely at the latest on (…) B- U.S. forces will withdraw from all cities, towns, and villages at latest by June 30, 2009 unless the Iraqi authorities request otherwise. Note: the head of the U.S. delegation offered to accept the new title only if their combined paragraph is accepted, and he linked the two as one deal 3- All U.S. combat troops regroup in installations and areas agreed upon after the date mentioned in paragraph 2 of this article. 4- After the withdrawal of all combat troops as mentioned in paragraph 1 of this article, the rest of these forces will stay based on a request from the Iraqi government in accordance to this agreement. The joint committee for operations and coordination will determine the tasks and level of the troops that will focus on training and supporting Iraqi security forces. 5- Both sides review the progress towards achieving dates mentioned in this article and the conditions that might lead to one side asking the other to extend or reduce the time periods mentioned in paragraph 1 and paragraph 2 of this article. Any extension or reduction of the time period is subject to both side's approval. 6- U.S. forces may withdraw from Iraq before the dates indicated in this article if either of the two sides should so request. Both sides recognize the Iraqi government's sovereign right to request a withdrawal of U.S. forces at anytime. Article Twenty Seven Contract Validity 1- This agreement is valid for (…) years unless it is terminated earlier based on a request from either sides or extended with the approval of both sides. 2- This agreement can be modified with the written approval of both sides and in accordance to constitutional procedures in both countries. 3- Cancellation of this agreement requires a written notice provided on year in advance. 4- This agreement goes into effect on the day that diplomatic memos confirming all constitutional procedures have been met in both countries are exchanged. 5- These memos will be exchanged before the expiration of UN resolution number 1790 at latest by December 31st, 2008. Translated from the original Arabic by Raed Jarrar - Visit his blog http://raedinthemiddle.blogspot.com http://raedinthemiddle.blogspot.com

Why Fast? In order to increase our iman ( Lacallakum tattaquun) Nur

B. Geeljire bro. You write: "sometimes too much focus on akhira and martydom seeking can deluded mens rational thinking and lead them to committ gross errors of judgement" Brother. Allah says: " They are the ones who said about their killed brethren while they themselves sat (at home watching TV): "If only they had listened to us, they would not have been killed." Say: "Avert death from your ownselves, if you speak the truth" " 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), We give to men by turns, that Allah may test those who believe, and that He may take martyrs from among you. And Allah likes not the Zalimun (wrong­doers)." Every issue has many perspective views. I can understand yours, and Xiin's. Attributing defeat to poor training and material dimension alone, could it be that Allah took away that victory because we dont deserve it yet! as most of us are armchair Generals. The zeal and fervor ( Xamaasada) of the youth in Somalia is as important as the wise judgement of our elderly, they complement each other, together, they can liberate Somalia from the Ethiopian occupation and their bloody warlord prostitutes. A person who is focused on akhira is never in dilusion, never has the longing for akhira been interpreted as a delusion. If the word has any application, its the love of this world, its power, success, and goodness which is what the Quraan has described as " Ghuruur" (meaning delsuion) and "lacibun wa lahw" meaning (waste of time and fun). A quick examination of the Quraan shows that the longing for akhira is a quality in people Allah SWT loves. About the best men who walked on earth, the Prophets and Messengers , Allah SWT says , " Innaa akhlasnaahum, bi khaalisatin dhikraa ad daar, wa innahum cindanaa laminal mustafaynal akhyaar" meaning ( We have chosen these (prophets) for the characteristic of longing for the akhira, and because of that reason, they are in (Allah's perspective) the best honorable picks) As for errors of judgement, the youth of the Somali resistance as well as the superpowers and surrogates in between, they all commit them, what counts most at the end of this life's journey is " Fa man zuxzixa cani naari wa udkhila al jannata faqad faaz, wa mal xayaatu dunyaa illaa mataacul ghuruur" meaning ( He who is caused to slide away from hell and casued to enter paradise is indeed the WINNER, life on earth is but an enjoyment of DELUSION. If we judge events that took place in the confrontation of battle of UXUD (in which the Muslims initially won the battle only to be routed after their distraction with WORLDLY gains and spoils of the battle )with your perspective, can we say that, those archers remaining alone on top of the mountain of Uxud following the order of the Prophet SAWS were DELUDED with their love of akhira?. Nur

Blessed sis Waa bishii Ramadaan ee barakeysneyd, bishii loogu talagalay in iimaanka la sara mariyo ( Lacallakum Tattaquun), sidaa darteed waxaa lagu qiyaasaa faaidada bishan hadba intuu dareenkeenna iimaanka gaaro, waa bishii nafta lagu tababarayay iney hiigsato meel sare, jannooyinka Firdows, iyo agagaarka Carshiga Allah. Wuxuu Yiri Imaam Shaafici: Waxaan raadinnay sidaan dunuubta uga tagi laheyn, waxaan ka helnay salaadda duxaa Waxaan raadinnay nuurka qubuurta markaan galno, waxaan ka helnay akhriska Quraanka Waxaan raadinnay gudbidda siraadka, waxaan ka helnay soonka iyo sadaqada. Waxaan raadinnay sidaan ku hoos hadhsan laheyn carshiga Raxmaanka, waxaan taas ka helnay asxaabta akhayaarta ah oon isku jeclaanno Allah dartii. Ramaadan Mubaarak! Nur

Fading superpower, rising rivals By Bernd Debusmann 31/08/08 "Kuwait Times" - -- At the Beijing Olympics, China trounced the United States in the contest for gold medals. In the Caucasus, Russia inflicted a humiliating military defeat on Georgia, America's closest ally in the region. At home, the US economy is in deep trouble. The misery index, a combination of the rates of inflation and unemployment, stands at its highest in 16 years (11.3 percent in July) and there are forecasts of worse to come. The Olympics marked China's status as a world power and the first time since 1996 that Americans did not win most gold medals. In the Caucasus, Russia showed that it can do as it sees fit in its own backyard, no matter how loudly Washington protests. That includes recognising as independent states the two breakaway provinces, South Ossetia and Abkhazia, that Georgia claims as its own. In the Great Power game in the region, the score so far is Russia 1, US nil. Does all this mean that the oft-predicted end of America's role as the world's only superpower is near? Depends on the definition of "near". Political power grows from the barrel of a gun, as China's Mao Tse Tung observed, and the United States spends more on its armed forces than the rest of the world combined. There are more than 700 US military bases in some 130 countries. And despite its current troubles, the US economy is larger than those of the next three countries put together. Still, the US is no longer number one in all the fields where its dominance was once taken for granted. The world's leading financial center, for example, is no longer New York, it is London. The world's largest investment fund is in Abu Dhabi. The world's tallest building will soon be in Dubai. Predictions of shrinking (or rising) American power have been wrong in the past. In his book "the Rise and Fall of Great Powers," the Harvard historian Paul Kennedy foresaw the imminent decline of the United States. The book was published just before the Soviet Union collapsed, a turn of history that left the US as the world's only superpower. On the opposite end of wrong forecasts was Francis Fukuyama's famous essay "The End of History," written after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. It argued that m ankind's "ideological evolution" had ended, to be replaced by "the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government." Things didn't quite turn out that way. In an essay for the Washington Post this month, Fukuyama, a professor at Johns Hopkins University, conceded that "today, US dominance of the world system is slipping; Russia and China offer themselves as models, showing off a combination of authoritarianism and modernization that offers a clear challenge to liberal democracy. They seem to have plenty of imitators. Both Russia and China are members of the world's biggest emerging market economies, the so-called BRIC club - Brazil, Russia, India and China. They account for 40 percent of the world's population, sit on vast foreign exchange reserves, and have geopolitical ambitions. BRIC foreign ministers had their first formal meeting in May, in the Russian city of Yekaterinburg. Given the perils of crystal-gazing into the future shape of the world, it is not easy to find an expert willing to hazard a guess on how long American supremacy will last. But there is at least one, Nouriel Roubini, an economics professor at New York University who two years ago correctly forecast the bursting of the US housing bubble and the dismal chain of events that followed. At the time, many of his fellow economists snickered. Roubini thinks that it will take a couple of decades for "US policy mistakes in economic, financial and foreign policies (to) ... erode the power of the American empire." That would make it relatively short-lived. Depending on how you count, the Roman empire lasted more than 500 years, the British 460 or so, the Spanish around 400. One of America's most serious problems, Roubini writes on his website, is the fact that the US is the world's biggest net borrower and net debtor. The countries financing the Am erican deficits are its rivals, China and Russia, and Middle Eastern oil exporters. History, he says, provides lessons on the importance of financial prudence. "Empires ... tend to be net lenders, i.e. run current account surpluses. The decline of the British Empire started in World War II when the British fiscal deficits in the war and the current account deficits turned the empire into a net borrower and a net debtor." The British twin deficits were being financed by a rising power that was a net lender and a net creditor - the United States. Whether it will ever return to that state depends, in part, on the competence, or lack of it, of the next US administration. President George W Bush's team did not set a good example