20/04/2005 Translated for Cageprisoners.com Originally published 11th April 2005 "The Americans urinated on the Qur’an and sexually abused us." Mohamed Mazouz forms part of the five Moroccan survivors from Guantanamo. After more than three years and a half of detention between Pakistan, Kandahar, Bagram and Guantanamo, he has just been released on bail while waiting for the trial verdict in July 4, 2005. In this exclusive interview with La Gazette du Maroc, he reflects on all the stages of his detention, the torture, the parallels with Abu Ghraib prison and the fate of the twelve other Moroccans who are still held by the Americans. LGM: You were arrested in Pakistan, the charges affirmed that it was in Afghanistan. What really happened? The reality that everyone knows is that I was arrested in Pakistan. I went there to get married. It was exactly on August 26, 2001. I had been resident in London for the past few years and I did not have papers. I had to be married with an English national who would have had to have been of Pakistani, Indian or Moroccan origin. It was the only manner for me to lawfully obtain a residence permit. Destiny decreed that I struck up a friendship with a Pakistani. In the course of time, I knew that he had a sister of marriageable age and I asked for her hand. Her family accepted and we decided to leave for Pakistan to celebrate this union. The marriage took place and the things went normally. It should be mentioned here that I had a one month visa. Four days before our return, I was stopped on a Karachi street while I walked with my Pakistani brother-in-law. At the time of speaking, I know nothing about my wife. I don’t know where to contact her. I’ve lost any trace of her since the day when the Pakistani police arrested me. Before considering the causes of your arrest, we would like to speak a little about your sojourn in Russia - true or false? Yes, it is true. I lived in Russia for a time and to be precise, in Leningrad. I was enrolled at the naval university before changing branches so as to study at the University of Architecture. I arrived in Russia on March 8, 1998. I still remember it. For what reasons were you arrested in Pakistan? The situation is simple. I am an Arab man, my physical appearance strongly attests to that and at the time the area effervesced. On this day, we were taking a walk, my brother-in-law and I, in the Karachi streets. We were approached in an unexpected way by the Pakistani police who asked me for my identity papers. The police officers took my papers and having understood where I came from, they asked me to follow them for a light interrogation. I complied without offering the least resistance. They had specified clearly to me that this interrogation in their office would take only 15 minutes. These 15 minutes became 4 years of hell between Kandahar, Bagram and Guantanamo. Under what conditions were you interrogated in Pakistan? I spent four days in the police station. Then very quickly, I was transferred to a prison where I remained for 26 days. The questions were constantly the same: why was I in Pakistan? Which books did I read? Was my family Muslim? Was I part of an Islamic group or organization?... For me, it was the first time of my life that the police interrogated me. I was at the same time shocked and surprised of all that occurred in front of my eyes. Once transferred to another prison, I met another Arab named Kohat. I also met Uzbeks and Tajiks. It is there that the torture started. We were towards the end of the year 2001, in December exactly. Which forms of torture did you undergo? I underwent every form of torture from the Pakistani authorities, without the police having laid any charge against me. I was tortured and I did not even know for what reason I was arrested. Nobody told me the reason for my presence in this horrible prison. We were beaten, trampled underfoot, kept without food, without water, being unable to wash ourselves, being unable to cut our beard and hair, agglutinated the ones on the others, under inhuman conditions. The most important thing to raise here is that all of us were put in chains of iron using a steel stick which bound our feet to our belt. This literally paralysed us. It was if we had a stake, stuck in our body. We ate with it, we relieved our natural needs with it and that lasted for several weeks. They removed these iron bars on the last day before the transfer to Kandahar. It should be also said that there, during this period, I met no Moroccan. Under what conditions were you transferred to Kandahar? I remember the day when the Pakistani police told us that an Amnesty International delegation came to see us. As I speak English, I could verify several times that people who were there to question us were not the representatives of a humane organisation at all. In fact, FBI and CIA agents came for verifications before the later stage. The same day, around 10pm, they took us one by one and gave us other clothes, a kind of blue one-piece suit. We were cooped up near the airport and once on the spot, we were handed over to other men. On account of the smell of the man who seized me, I knew that he was not a Pakistani. There, we had been hooded with sacking. But before that, let me explain to you how they had covered our eyes. At the beginning they put a material on which they put a second band very tight, then they put on the two bands a roller of adhesive plaster before hooding our heads with sacking. And there, arround our neck they made it tighter with a very resistant thread. I did was unable to breathe and I heard the voice of a woman which ordered us to keep quiet and not to try anything which could disturb them. On the airplane, we were placed, one beside the other, tied-up with iron-wire, tied with force arround our arms. We were hog-tied directly with the airplane beneath us, quartered to prevent any chance for even the least of movements. After some time, the airplane landed in Kandahar: the city of torture. Under what conditions did you reach Kandahar? We reached at night. We were hauled like animals, one drawing the other in its walk. They had removed our sandals and had thrown us down, flat on our face. We remained for more than 4 hours in this position. It was winter, the weather was icy and we were stark naked on the ground, shaking. And we were told not to move, nor to shiver. They had us clearly ordered us not to make the slightest movement. "Don't Move"; it was the order not to move even a tiny bit. Obviously, it was impossible with this cold. We couldn’t help it. We all shivered from head to foot. There, the soldiers jumped literally above us, laced boots on the face or on the back, crushing us on the ground. Like everyone, I moved and so a soldier struck a blow with his laced boot between my thighs. I knew that he wanted to crush my testicles. But the blow spared my genitals by a few centimetres. In all this panoply of torture that I endured for four years, this blow, I will never forget it for my all life. After four hours on the ground, they threw us in cells without our clothes. We were searched while naked under humiliating conditions and the soldiers mocked us and provoked us. Afterwards, they started the interrogations. Your name, where you come from, what you were doing here, do you pray, who do you know, what do you think about the attacks, did you meet Sheikh Usama... Were you visited by the Red Cross in Kandahar? Yes, we were. It was the day after our arrival in Kandahar. But I want to underline a point that your readers and the public opinion must know. The Red Cross did not do anything at all for us for all this period of detention in Afghanistan or in Guantanamo. Its presence was useless. The only thing that it did was to procure us some letters. I am even sure that they were there to serve the Americans and to bring assistance to them. In short, the Red Cross contented itself to play the role of postman and that’s all. We remained there for many days without any hygiene so much so that we all had the appearance of wild beasts: dirty and long hair, black bodies because we never washed ourselves, long and dirty nails, the barbs had invaded our faces and gave us the appearance of insane people. The atmosphere was putrid. We were more than twenty persons, in a small cell with worn blankets to keep out an unbearable cold. We had dirty iron buckets for drinking and in the morning, so cold was the air that the water had become ice. We had two small meals, one at midday, and the other at midnight. The vice was to leave us confronted to hunger since waking at dawn until midday. In the evening, they roused us from sleep to eat at midnight. The calls were the hardest moment. They could call us at any time. We stayed there, without a blanket, trembling in the snow for hours. Then, when the desire took them again, there was another call. And the interrogations? The interrogations were daily, conducted by Americans with Arab translators who collaborated with them. That took place in the tents, in the presence of all the other detainees and often, at the beginning we were beaten, face on the ground, by insane soldiers, before starting to answer the questions. There was a precise technique which consisted of throwing the detainee on the ground, to jump on his back and to crash his shoulder before beating him. Many among us had fractured scapulas and had to face cold and hunger, without medication until the departure for Guantanamo. The interrogation could go on for interminable hours. There, they used exceptional measures for torture. First of all there were the electric shocks that hurt us to an unparalleled degree. Then, they threw us in large water barrels to drown us. They had also the vice to put dirty trollops, filled with all that you can imagine of disgusting material, on the mouth and the face. We were held with no prayer, no food, no water, no clothes, without a blanket, for days. After that, you were transferred to Bagram? The prison of Bagram is the twin sister of Abu Ghraib in Iraq. Without giving too many details, we endured the same tortures, the same physical and psychological mistreatments that the detainees endured in Iraq. You know, when I returned to Morocco and I could have access to the newspapers, I discovered what the Iraqi detainees had endured in Abou Ghraib, it was the same techniques and the same abuses. Today I think that Bagram was the laboratory which prepared the way for Abu Ghraib. We were in individual cells and that is the most important so that they could test anything on the detainees without anybody knowing what occurred. We were humiliated in our bodies, bound to strip in front of the others. Still worse, they sent us female soldiers who provoked the detainees touching their genitals, stripping off in front of them or then having sex with other soldiers in front of us. We saw worse than that and many detainees were raped and did everything that they could to hide it. But we knew what they had endured at the hands of the soldiers. Other techniques were employed like hanging us with shackles on iron bars fixed on the walls. We could remain suspended for nights without sleep. Afterwards, they began the stage of injections. By turns, they injected us products which maked us insane. Thereafter we learned that it was injections which induced hysteria. Many of the detainees were completely out of their minds. Others contracted skin diseases, dermic infections, renal diseases, liver complications, headaches... What treatment was reserved for the Quran? Here, I want to be insistent on letting know to the whole world through what I say until where the Americans went to humiliate us and flout our most elementary principles. It concerns the treatment inflicted to the Quran. Anything that could reduce it to nothing was used. They urinated over it, they ripped it; they cut it with scissors in front of us. They defecated on it and painted our faces with it. Yes, all this should be said so that the Muslim world understands which degree of hate this sacred Book inspires in them. I do not see why it came to that. One day, and in the Red Cross presence, they took all the Qurans of the prison to rip them in front of all of us. They behaved as regards to this noble Book as if it were a vulgar object. When we protested, we were tortured very badly. Each time they behaved like that as regards to the Quran, we were roused and obviously we were severely punished. It was a vicious circle. The other forms of torture consisted in unleashing dogs against us when we were naked, in groups in the showers, or then, at interrogation time. Dogs are prowled about this kind of work and sometimes the detainees were violently bitten. We became insane, at the same time experiencing fear, hysteria, hearing the cries of the others, enduring the cold, hunger and strong headaches. As far as I am concerned, I formed part of the first group who arrived and the last to leave. I endured everything. After six months between Kandahar and Bagram, you were transferred again to Guantanamo. How did that occur? I can say that between Kandahar and Bagram, I endured the ice of winter and the hell of summer. I was called for an interrogation on June 14, 2002 and we embarked on airplanes to Guantanamo on June 15. It is the journey which I could never forget for all of my life. First, it was a journey of more than 24 hours. We were all shackled , tied up to the base of the airplane, chained to each other. They put a kind of glasses on our bandage to block the sight as well as large headphones on our ears to prevent us from hearing. They put scotch tape on our mouth and a material on our nose before they hooded us and then they ended by tightening it around our neck as well, as they had done for the first journey to Kandahar. We also wore gloves linked on the hands to prevent us from moving. In short, they had destroyed all our senses: Neither to see, neither to hear, neither to speak, neither to feel, nor to move our fingers. How did you know that you would be transferred to Guantanamo? The journeys had begun with our arrival in Kandahar. We heard talk about these moves. After a few months, we could have some ties with some guards that we questioned about these journeys. It is through them that we learned the destination was Guantanamo in Cuba. Before the arrival in Guantanamo, I had not met any Morrocan neither in Kandahar, nor in Bagram. We did not have to eat for this journey nor the possibility to go to toilets to relieve ourself natural needs. The soldiers bound the detainees to put nappies on to avoid any accidents. In the event of tiredness, the soldiers came to beat us so that we kept upright. We learned that the interrogations took place on the day of your arrival in Guantanamo. Yes, it is true. Once arrived, they took us and threw us under the sun of the Caribbean. We were without clothes, naked. We remained there for hours. Afterwards, we were led to the interrogations. One night in the airplane, tied up and without food, hours under the sun and then directly to torture and question us. As far as I am concerned, they did not have any other answer than a vomit so much was I suffering from headaches and exhaustion. They led me in my 2m length on 1m 80 width cell. How did you live for more than two and a half years in Guantanamo? We were each in a cell and able to leave for a walk twice per week, for 15 minutes each time. We were completely isolated from each other, even at the time of the walks where it was necessary to go all alone on a distance of a few metres. We could not even run or play sports. It was impossible to meet another Morrocan as we were isolated. But we knew by the statements of other detainees who arrived from other sectors that there was a Morrocan of Safi in such quarter, another of Berkane in such other. We asked for the exact description of the Morrocan to recognize him from afar and to make him a sign. It was in this way that I could recognize Abdellah Tabarek, Ibrahim Benchekroun, Redouane Chekkouri and Mohamed Aouzar. Furtively, far from the soldiers’ glances who detained us, we tried to make signs, and we waited the day when the chance could enable us to meet in the same quarter to exchange some words. Sometimes we were found out and there, we were severely tortured by the guards who prohibited any attempt of congregation between ourselves. What did you have like objects in way to live in Guantanamo? A blanket, a mattress that was 5 cm thick and the Quran. From time to time, we were given a small towel and the shower when the soldiers felt like it and a small tooth-brush. About the Quran, I must specify that I rued the fact that they gave us the sacred Book to read. Afterwards they used it as a form of torture, in the same way that they had used it in Bagram to push us to madness. It was a game for them. They came to take it one day, they gave it back again to us another day, then came to take it again and this, for all our detention time, not forgetting all the other aspects which I described above. Obviously, we responded by hunger strikes, cries, suicide attempts, blows and each time, we were broken in blood. They could also come to shave our hair and beard, to make us eat what they wanted, to give us injections and to throw us into isolation. We asked them to torture us physically, but not to touch the Quran, but there was nothing we could do. Their aim was to wound us in whatever we deemed most precious. Were you victim of forced injections? We accepted anything from them. I thought that it was my destiny and I waited patiently. But in fact diseases gave the most troubles. Because of these injections, many among us were sick. Some suffered from the liver, others of the kidneys, others became hysterical and others asthmatic as I am since my stay over there. Others were constantly anaemic and with each injection, they were at death’s door. I do not even speak to you about the skin problems of which almost everyone suffered as well as rheumatism because of cold and moisture. And this problem of haemorrhoids. Is it true that many had heavy haemorrhoidals rises? Absolutely. Everyone of us had this type of infections and I think that it was expected in the way to humiliate us more. Some had operations to avoid the pain. Americans made fun of us while speaking in the way in which they handled the genitals of the detainees. They knew that it was the greatest humiliation for a Muslim to let another man touch his anus and they did everything in order to ensure that we were all sick. Some had anal injections using long tubes which were introduced by the back. We all had complications following this type of injections and we never knew why we were the guinea-pigs of such a secret laboratory. It is clear that we were all very low psychologically after such interventions and that even pushed some of us to suicide attempts. For them, physical torture forms part of the past. They tested on us other forms of mistreatments which affected us more than the beatings. As far as I am concerned, I brought back with me asthma. I needed to return home, to feel better and breathe. There were cases of insanity and suicide attempts? Of course, and we knew. In front of our eyes, men became insane. They could not hold the shock. Here, I want to say that there is a Morrocan who sank in madness. It is necessary that we do something for him. It is necessary that the world knows that he is mistreated, badly nursed and that it is urgent to save him. Source: LGM (La Gazette du Maroc)

Asalamu Aleykum Warahmatu allah Warabakatuh aaway kuwii dhahay dagaalkaan ma aha mid Islaamka Looga Soo horjeedo. please Aqri for your Own Benefit and Also Qaybi/ share garee Insha allah. Fee Amaani Allah. US spending billions to change Islaam http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/a...425/25roots.htm http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=sto...mindsanddollars http://www.skyhen.org/WarAndTerror/...and_dollars.php Hearts, Minds, and Dollars Sat Apr 16, 4:33 PM By David E. Kaplan As war games go, this one was unique: the first-ever exercise on "strategic communications," its sponsors said. It was July 2003, and the government's leading players in winning the "war of ideas" against terrorism had gathered at National Defense University, in Washington, D.C. There were crisis managers from the White House, diplomats from the State Department, Pentagon specialists in psyops--psychological operations. Washington's quick victory over Saddam Hussein's Army that spring had done little to quell surging anti-Americanism overseas. Across the Muslim world--including U.S. allies like Indonesia and Jordan--polls showed Osama bin Laden a more trusted figure than George W. Bush. The war game used an all-too-real scenario: As violent anti-American protests rocked a host of Muslim countries, pro-democracy students were being murdered in Iran while terrorists in Iraq were being hailed as patriots. The job for the government's top information warriors was daunting: improve the image of America in the Muslim world and help foster a stable democracy in Iraq. Halfway through the exercise, however, the war game was abruptly stopped. "Things were so dysfunctional," recalls one participant, "we saw little point in playing through the scenario." The problems, others said, were a mirror of what a dozen studies say has gone wrong in what may be the most critical front in the war on terrorism today--the battle for hearts and minds: no one in charge, no national strategy, and a glaring lack of resources. From the CIA to the State Department, America's once formidable means of influencing its enemies and telling its story abroad had crumbled, along with the fall of communism. "In the battle of ideas," said Marc Ginsberg, a former ambassador to Morocco, "we unilaterally disarmed." "Radioactive." No more. Today, Washington is fighting back. After repeated missteps since the 9/11 attacks, the U.S. government has embarked on a campaign of political warfare unmatched since the height of the Cold War. From military psychological-operations teams and CIA covert operatives to openly funded media and think tanks, Washington is plowing tens of millions of dollars into a campaign to influence not only Muslim societies but Islam itself. The previously undisclosed effort was identified in the course of a four-month U.S. News investigation, based on more than 100 interviews and a review of a dozen internal reports and memorandums. Although U.S. officials say they are wary of being drawn into a theological battle, many have concluded that America can no longer sit on the sidelines as radicals and moderates fight over the future of a politicized religion with over a billion followers. The result has been an extraordinary--and growing--effort to influence what officials describe as an Islamic reformation. Among the magazine's findings: The White House has approved a classified new strategy, dubbed Muslim World Outreach, that for the first time states that the United States has a national security interest in influencing what happens within Islam. Because America is, as one official put it, "radioactive" in the Islamic world, the plan calls for working through third parties--moderate Muslim nations, foundations, and reform groups--to promote shared values of democracy, women's rights, and tolerance. In at least two dozen countries, Washington has quietly funded Islamic radio and TV shows, coursework in Muslim schools, Muslim think tanks, political workshops, or other programs that promote moderate Islam. Federal aid is going to restore mosques, save ancient Korans, even build Islamic schools. This broad engagement with Islam has raised questions about whether the funding is legal, given the constitutional line between church and state. The CIA is revitalizing programs of covert action that once helped win the Cold War, targeting Islamic media, religious leaders, and political parties. The agency is receiving "an exponential increase in money, people, and assets" to help it influence Muslim societies, says a senior intelligence official. Among the tactics: working with militants at odds with al Qaeda and waging secret campaigns to discredit the worst anti-American zealots. Despite the surge of activity, Washington's efforts to win hearts and minds remain chaotic. Staffers on the White House National Security Council have drafted over a hundred papers proposing action against Islamist propaganda and political activity, sources say, yet almost none have been acted upon. To help remedy the situation, the White House is creating a new position, a deputy national security adviser for strategic communication and global outreach. The push for hearts and minds comes amid hopeful signs, with a string of successful elections in the Middle East and anti-Syria protests in Lebanon. The events have boosted the Bush administration's hopes for the region, but some experts on terrorism and the Muslim world say the problems are so deep-seated they may be growing worse, not better. A December report by the CIA-based National Intelligence Council predicts that masses of unemployed, alienated youth in the Arab world "will swell the ranks of those vulnerable to terrorist recruitment." Even as the insurgency in Iraq shows signs of losing steam, anti-Americanism now reaches across every strata of the Muslim world. Rumors that U.S. soldiers harvest organs from dying Iraqis or that Washington caused the tsunami to kill Muslims appear in major Arab media. Slick jihadist music videos and recruiting CD s sell briskly on the streets of Arab capitals. Many of the region's leaders believe America is at war with the Arab world, or with Islam itself, according to a March report by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "U.S.-Arab relations," the report concludes, "are at their lowest point in generations." The tools with which to fight back are varied. To the CIA, they are covert operations involving political influence and propaganda. At the Pentagon, they are called psyops or strategic-influence efforts. At the State Department, it's called public diplomacy. All seek to use information to influence, inform, and motivate America's friends and enemies abroad. Many of these tools have fallen into disuse. Many are controversial, particularly in light of recent revelations that administration officials have peddled fake video news reports and paid columnists to boost policies here at home. But to those toiling on the front lines against terrorism, the war of ideas--and the tools to fight it--are essential. How those tools have come back into use, and what Washington is doing with them, is a story that begins a half century ago, in the heyday of Soviet communism. At the peak of the Cold War, the U.S. government fielded a worldwide network of propagandists, publicists, and payoff artists. The United States Information Agency (USIA) ran hundreds of information specialists abroad and produced enough films to rival Hollywood's top studios, all to sell the world on the goodness of America--and the evils of communism. There were USIA-run cultural centers and libraries in foreign capitals, Fulbright Scholarships and other exchange programs from the State Department, plus the broadcasts of Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty. The CIA's covert payoffs, for better or worse, bought the allegiance of entire political parties in Italy and Japan. Other funds went secretly to sympathetic journalists, scholars, and labor leaders. Exposes of CIA funding and abuses took their toll starting in the late 1960s, curtailing many of the secret programs. With the implosion of communism, Congress set about searching for a "peace dividend" and pared back what programs of influence remained. Convinced that USIA was a Cold War relic, conservatives in 1999 forced the Clinton administration to collapse the agency into the State Department. Hundreds of staffers were let go or retired, cutting the nation's public diplomacy corps by as much as 40 percent. American libraries abroad were shuttered, and exchange programs and foreign broadcasting dropped by a third. By the time al Qaeda's pilots flew their hijacked planes into Lower Manhattan, the U.S. government had ceded management of America's image abroad to Hollywood producers and rap musicians. "Spring chickens?" After the 9/11 attacks, U.S. officials began to ponder how to get their message out. The Taliban, for all their backwardness, were scoring propaganda successes, and much of the Muslim world refused to believe that Arabs were even behind the attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center. To fight back, officials set up Coalition Information Centers in Washington, London, and Islamabad, Pakistan. But the centers focused largely on breaking news, putting out fires in a 24-hour news cycle the likes of which the Cold War had never seen. Responding to the world's media, including the often-inflammatory new Arab satellite network called al Jazeera, left little time to formulate a strategy that got at the roots of Islamic terrorism. Pulling out those roots was a task more fitting for the CIA, the White House concluded. Just weeks after 9/11, in a secret national security directive, President Bush gave the CIA carte blanche to wage a worldwide war against al Qaeda. Among the activities authorized: propaganda and political warfare. But when it came to campaigns of influence, the agency's clandestine service was "dead as a doornail," says former Middle East operative Reuel Marc Gerecht. Once staffed by hundreds, the CIA's strategic influence section was down to some 20 people by late 2001, sources tell U.S. News . "We had precious few assets left," says another agency veteran. "And none of them were spring chickens." When a group of outsiders visited the unit, one recalls, they were literally met by a woman with a walker. At the Pentagon, top officials wondered why more wasn't being done. The military's psyop units ran airborne TV and radio stations, showered millions of leaflets on countries, and distributed everything from comic books to giant kites in order to sway minds. But they had little know-how in combating a global movement of radical Islam. In response, military leaders ordered up their own operation--a new Office of Strategic Influence, charged with waging an information war against Islamic terrorism and the ideology behind al Qaeda. But stung by misleading reports that it would spread disinformation, OSI closed its doors just four months after it opened (box, Page 30). The war of ideas fared little better at the State Department. To run public diplomacy, Secretary of State Colin Powell brought in Charlotte Beers, the only person to have served as chairman of two of the top 10 worldwide advertising agencies. But her workplace, as she later put it, was "a clumsy camel" of an agency--skilled, even brilliant, at dealing with other governments but shy and slow-footed at taking its case to the masses. Worse, the surviving USIA staffers, she found, were a demoralized lot, spread across a bureaucracy that cared little about their work. Nor was there much money. The entire annual budget for public diplomacy was equal to what the Pentagon spent in a day. Despite White House utterances about winning the war of ideas, it was a tough sell, even for one of the world's top ad people. "We were asking them to deal with intangible values like emotion, religion, and trust," she told U.S. News . "It wasn't easy." Beers poured what funds she had into a pilot project to open doors overseas--TV clips showcasing the lives of Muslim Americans. While criticized in the press, the spots actually played well with Muslims abroad, studies showed. But after 18 months, Beers had seen enough. She quit in March 2003, just as U.S. troops headed into Iraq. To millions of Muslims, Washington's toppling of Saddam seemed to confirm the imperialist caricature painted by its worst enemies: an America that invades and occupies an oil-rich Arab nation, thumbs its nose at the world, supports Israel at the expense of the Palestinians, calls for democracy but relies on strongmen from Egypt to Pakistan. "The U.S. could have the prophet Muhammad doing public relations, and it wouldn't help," argued Osama Siblani, publisher of the weekly Arab American News in Dearborn, Mich. "I don't believe that people hate movie stars and Burger King. They hate what the U.S. is doing to their lives." Regardless of where one stood on the Iraq war, it was clear Washington needed to do a far better job at getting out its message. Complaints were piling up at the White House: In fighting for hearts and minds, America had no strategy and few resources for the job. It fell to the National Security Council, charged with coordinating the government's sprawling national security apparatus, to sort things out. Under then National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, officials in mid-2002 formed two interagency committees, whose members were to include the government's top specialists in waging the war of ideas. The first, on "strategic communication," focused on public diplomacy; the other, on "information strategy," was created by classified memorandum and handled covert activity. Neither group fared well. Those working on covert plans tried to jump-start an information offensive that would discredit al Qaeda and its allies. One staffer, Arnold Abraham, ran a panel designed to attack Islamist propaganda. In a paper last year at the National War College, Abraham wrote that his group "developed 50 different position papers with proposed courses of action, but despite very positive feedback on content, only a mere handful of the actions were operationalized." The number of proposals later topped 100, sources say, and almost none were taken seriously by their bosses. Among the ideas: using music, comics, poetry, and the Internet to get across America's views to the Arab world. The fate of the NSC's strategic communication group was worse. Charged with crafting a national strategy on public diplomacy, the group met several times and then fell apart from lack of leadership. Its last meeting was over 18 months ago. Back at the State Department, meanwhile, Ambassador Margaret Tutwiler had, at the urging of the White House, taken on the job of public diplomacy chief. But Tutwiler lasted only six months, and in June last year the job was vacant again. By the end of Bush's first term, the position had lacked an appointed leader for half his administration. "No virgins." Why the lack of priority? Fighting bloody wars in Afghanistan and Iraq took the lion's share of attention, to be sure. Yet in public, top administration officials seemed emphatic. "This is a battle of ideas and a battle for minds," declared the Pentagon's No. 2 man, Paul Wolfowitz, in 2002. "To win the war on terror, we must win a war of ideas," agreed Condoleezza Rice a year later. But those working below them saw a decided lack of interest. "The principals have not indicated this is a priority," bemoaned one key staffer, speaking of cabinet-level officials. "They just didn't get it." There were other reasons. Attempts at forging a national strategy repeatedly failed. Policymakers couldn't even agree on the target--worldwide terrorism or Islamic extremism, or on its root causes--poverty, Saudi funding, misunderstood U.S. policies, or something else. Interagency meetings on the topic were "agonizing," one participant recalled. "We couldn't clarify what path to take, so it was dropped." Another key factor was religion. Going after the roots of Islamic fundamentalism would drag Washington into a battle involving mosques, mullahs, and Scripture, argued some, and that went against 200 years of U.S. church-state relations. The inevitable turf wars also came into play. The war of ideas cut across otherwise-neat lines of responsibility in bureaucratic Washington. At the Pentagon and the NSC, public-affairs staffers warily eyed psyop officers who argued that public diplomacy, press relations, and psychological operations should be united under a single information strategy. White House veterans of tough political campaigns brought a short-term, manage-the-news outlook to what others thought would take a generation to fix. As a result, by mid-2004--nearly three years after 9/11--the government still had no one in charge of winning the war of ideas and no strategy for winning it. That summer, Government Accountability Office investigators told Congress they found public diplomacy staffers without guidance and a department short of linguists and information officers. "Everybody who knows how to do this has been screaming," complained one insider. "There are no virgins in this." A few bright spots emerged. A growing chorus of criticism from Congress and the press helped gain big funding boosts for public diplomacy and foreign aid programs. The administration kicked off major new initiatives in foreign broadcasting--Radio Sawa, a pop music-news station in 2002, and Alhurra, a satellite-TV news network in 2004, both aimed at Arab audiences. The CIA's strategic influence unit and the Pentagon's psyop group also won major funding increases. But the breakthrough finally came last summer, sources say, when the NSC began reworking the White House's National Strategy for Combating Terrorism. In 2003, officials had released an earlier, public version of the document, but there is a larger, classified edition that includes annexes dealing with key objectives, among them terrorism finance and winning the war of ideas. Staffers rewrote the ideas section with bold, new language and fashioned it into a strategy called Muslim World Outreach. Aimed at strengthening the hand of moderates, the plan acknowledges that America has done poorly in reaching out to them. But it goes one big step further, stating that the United States and its allies have a national security interest not only in what happens in the Islamic world but within Islam itself, according to three sources who have seen the document. It further states that because America is limited to what it can do in a religious struggle, the nation must rely on partners who share values like democracy, women's rights, and tolerance. Among those partners: allied Muslim states, private foundations, and nonprofit groups. Approved by President Bush, the Muslim World Outreach strategy is now being implemented across the government. But it has stirred controversy. "The Cold War was easy," says a knowledgeable official. "It was a struggle against a godless political ideology. But this has theological elements. It goes to the core of American belief that we don't mess with freedom of religion. Do we have any authority to influence this debate?" The answer, for now, appears to be yes. "You do it quietly," says Zeyno Baran, a terrorism analyst at the Nixon Center who advised on the strategy. "You provide money and help create the political space for moderate Muslims to organize, publish, broadcast, and translate their work." Baran, an expert on Islam in central Asia, says the dilemma for Americans is that the ideological challenge of our day comes in the form of a religion--militant Islam, replete with its political manifestos, edicts, and armies. "Religion is just not an issue American policymakers are comfortable discussing," she says. "But we're talking about a fascist ideology." In crafting their strategy, U.S. officials are taking pages from the Cold War playbook of divide and conquer. One of the era's great successes was how Washington helped break off moderate socialists from hard-core Communists overseas. "That's how we're thinking. . . . It's something we talk about all the time," says Peter Rodman, a longtime aide to Henry Kissinger and now the Pentagon's assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs. "In those days, it was covert. Now, it's more open." Officials credit publicly funded programs like the National Endowment for Democracy, which have poured millions into Ukraine and other democratizing nations. The role of Saudi Arabia has repeatedly come up in discussions of the new strategy, sources say. Fueled by its vast oil wealth, the Saudis are estimated to have spent up to $75 billion since 1975 to expand their fundamentalist sect, Wahhabism, worldwide. The kingdom has funded hundreds of mosques, schools, and Islamic centers abroad, spreading a once obscure sect of Islam widely blamed for preaching distrust of nonbelievers, anti-Semitism, and near-medieval attitudes toward women. Saudi-funded charities have been implicated in backing jihadist movements in some 20 countries. Saudi officials say they've cracked down on extremists, but U.S. strategists would like to see opportunities for less fundamentalist brands of Islam. Reform may be more likely to come from outside the Arab world. "Look to the periphery," predicts a knowledgeable official. "That's where change will come." One solution being pushed: offering backdoor U.S. support to reformers tied to Sufism, a tolerant branch of Islam (box, Page 32). Another strategy being pursued is to make peace with radical Muslim figures who eschew violence. At the top of the list: the Muslim Brotherhood, the pre-eminent Islamist society, founded in 1928 and now with tens of thousands of followers worldwide. Many brotherhood members, particularly in Egypt and Jordan, are at serious odds with al Qaeda. "I can guarantee that if you go to some of the unlikely points of contact in the Islamic world, you will find greater reception than you thought," says Milt Bearden, whose 30-year CIA career included long service in Muslim societies. "The Muslim Brotherhood is probably more a part of the solution than it is a part of the problem." Indeed, sources say U.S. intelligence officers have been meeting not only with the Muslim Brotherhood but also with members of the Deobandi sect in Pakistan, whose fundamentalism schooled the Taliban and inspired an army of al Qaeda followers. Cooperative clerics have helped tamp down fatwas calling for anti-American jihad and persuaded jailed militants to renounce violence. These sensitive ties have led to at least one breakthrough--the July arrest in Pakistan of al Qaeda's Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan, whose computer held surveillance files of the New York Stock Exchange, the World Bank, and other financial targets. Khan's capture led to a dozen arrests in London. "Engagement," says one official, "is absolutely key." "Blowback" The emergence of the Muslim World Outreach strategy comes as America's frontline troops in the war of ideas may finally be hitting their stride. Despite its slow start, the CIA has received dramatic increases in money, people, and assets. It still lacks an integrated approach to attacking the roots of Islamic terrorism, insiders say, but individual CIA stations overseas are making some gutsy and innovative moves. Among them: pouring money into neutralizing militant, anti-U.S. preachers and recruiters. "If you found out that Mullah Omar is on one street corner doing this, you set up Mullah Bradley on the other street corner to counter it," explains one recently retired official. In more-serious cases, he says, recruiters would be captured and "interrogated." Intelligence operatives have set up bogus jihad websites and targeted the Arab news media, but they are being exceedingly cautious. Unlike the good old days of the Cold War, spreading propaganda in the Internet age can easily result in "blowback," with stories ending up in the U.S. media. "They're a bit sheepish," says a CIA veteran. Indeed, some of the acts seem decidedly minor league. "The biggest that I heard about was a large banner at a major soccer game," adds the former spook. "They considered it a rousing success." Getting talented officers and linguists into the field also continues to be a problem, made worse by the drain of the Iraq war. "In Iraq," jokes a former top spy, "we have 300 there, 400 ready to go, and 400 just back" --virtually the entire overseas staff of the clandestine service. At CIA headquarters outside Washington, the agency's analysts have also been busy. The CIA's Office of Transnational Issues has created a Global Information and Influence Team, charged with pulling together assessments of key U.S. targets. A public diplomacy conference hosted by the group in February focused on strategies to influence six nations, according to an agenda for the meeting. On the list: China, Egypt, France, Indonesia, Nigeria, and Venezuela. Also under CIA auspices is a Cyber-Influence Conference Series, which brings in cutting-edge experts from industry to explore how to combat terrorist use of the Internet. The CIA is not alone in the new push for hearts and minds. Regular budget increases since 9/11 have lifted spending on public diplomacy by more than 40 percent since 9/11, to nearly $1.3 billion, and more is on the way. The government's new Arabic broadcasting services--Radio Sawa and Alhurra TV--are showing some success, despite a barrage of complaints from critics. Radio Sawa, which features pop music interspersed with frequent newscasts, is now one of the most popular stations in the Middle East. Estimates differ, but an ACNielsen survey last year found that Alhurra, after just six months on the air, was reaching between 20 percent and 33 percent of viewers with satellite dishes in a half-dozen key Arab nations. There are new initiatives to bring Alhurra to Arab speakers in Europe, expand Persian broadcasts into Iran, and increase programming in other key languages. Many of the shock troops for America's new war of ideas are coming not from the CIA, nor from the State Department, but from the low-profile U.S. Agency for International Development. In the three years since 9/11, spending by the government's top purveyor of foreign aid has nearly tripled to over $21 billion, and more than half of that is now destined for the Muslim world. Along with more traditional aid for agriculture and education are the kind of programs that have spurred change in the former Soviet Union--training for political organizers and funding for independent media. Increasingly, those grants are going to Islamic groups. "Muppet diplomacy." Records drawn from the State Department, USAID, and elsewhere reveal a striking array of Islamic projects bankrolled by American taxpayers since 9/11, stretching to at least 24 countries. In nine of them, U.S. funds are backing restoration of Muslim holy sites, including historic mosques in Egypt, Pakistan, and Turkmenistan. In Kirgizstan, embassy funding helped restore a major Sufi shrine. In Uzbekistan, money has gone to preserve antique Islamic manuscripts, including 20 Korans, some dating to the 11th century. In Bangladesh, USAID is training mosque leaders on development issues. In Madagascar, the embassy even sponsored an intermosque sports tournament. Also being funded: Islamic media of all sorts, from book translations to radio and TV in at least a half-dozen nations. Often the aid doesn't need an explicit Islamic theme, as in what boosters are calling Muppet Diplomacy. An Arabic version of Sesame Street has become one of the most popular shows on Egyptian TV, and along with lessons on literacy and hygiene, the program stresses values of religious tolerance. Among the show's key backers: USAID, which is helping bring out a pan-Arab satellite edition this year. In no country is the effort more pronounced than Indonesia, the world's largest Muslim nation, with 240 million people. A bastion of moderate Islam, the nation has nevertheless given birth to several radical Islamic groups that include al Qaeda offshoot Jemaah Islamiyah, responsible for the 2002 Bali bombings that killed 202. Working behind the scenes, USAID now helps fund over 30 Muslim organizations in the country. Among the programs: media production, workshops for Islamic preachers, and curriculum reform for schools from rural academies to Islamic universities. One talk show on Islam and tolerance is relayed to radio stations in 40 cities and sends a weekly column to over a hundred newspapers. Also on the grants list: Islamic think tanks that are fostering a body of scholarly research showing liberal Islam's compatibility with democracy and human rights. The grants, technically, aren't secret, but they are, as one official put it, "done in a subtle manner." Open ties to U.S. funds could spell the end of programs in volatile regions and even endanger those who work in them. Indeed, security is such a factor for USAID workers that the agency now relies largely on local hires. In Pakistan, where the agency once fielded hundreds of employees, it now has only two dozen. Even when USAID does want to take credit, anti-American sentiment can make it tough. During a mission to Cairo by a State Department panel on public diplomacy, visitors were repeatedly told how grateful Egyptians were to the Japanese for building their opera house. Yet they seemed wholly unaware that Egypt is the second-largest recipient of U.S. aid--nearly $2 billion a year--and that Americans have funded Cairo's systems for clean water, sewage, and electricity. U.S. funds also saved from water damage that nation's oldest mosque, built in A.D. 642, yet Egyptian officials were reluctant to put USAID's red, white, and blue sign outside the building. Frustrated, top agency officials decided to create their own public diplomacy corps and will soon have information specialists attached to all USAID missions. For those worried about future generations of jihadists, what to do about madrasahs--traditional Islamic schools--is a major concern. The 9/11 commission, in its final report last year, branded the worst of them "incubators for violent extremism." A World Bank study puts the number of madrasah students in Pakistan alone at nearly 500,000. To attack the problem, U.S. officials are employing a variety of tactics. Perhaps the most surprising program is in Uganda, which hosts a large Muslim minority. Last year, the embassy announced it was funding construction of three Islamic elementary schools. "We're in the madrasah business," quipped one terrorism analyst. In the nearby Horn of Africa, the U.S. military is running a model program aimed at winning hearts and minds by, among other things, directly competing with the madrasahs. Military officers gather intelligence on where militants plan to start religious schools, Marine Maj. Gen. Samuel Helland told U.S. News ; they then target those areas by building up new public schools and the local infrastructure. Sisyphus. Elsewhere, U.S. officials are working quietly through third parties to train madrasah teachers to add math, science, civics, and health to their curriculum. The most ambitious program is in Pakistan, where sensitivities run so high that allegations of U.S. funding are enough to prompt parents to pull their children from schools, USAID staffers say. The agency is working through private foundations and the Pakistan Ministry of Education on what officials call a "model madrasah" program that may eventually include over a thousand schools. Drawing the line on engagement, though, can be tough. In January, the U.S. Embassy there ordered an abrupt end to a $1 million contract to supply Internet access to scores of madrasahs and other schools in Pakistan's most restive provinces. The reason: an arrest of a militant mistakenly thought to be tied to one of the schools. U.S. taxpayer dollars going to Islamic radio, Islamic TV, Islamic schools, mosques, and monuments--no wonder some officials find the strategy controversial. USAID staffers argue that as long as they offer assistance to all groups and their grants are meant for secular activities, they are allowed to fund religious organizations. "We structure our programming to be in compliance with 'establishment clause' case law," says Jeffrey Grieco, a USAID spokesman, referring to the First Amendment's church-state divide. But some legal experts question whether America's growing involvement with Islam is legal, given that American courts have found that tax dollars may not be used to support religion. "For us to be doing this is probably unconstitutional," says Herman Schwartz, a constitutional law professor at American University. In 1991, Schwartz and the American Civil Liberties Union won a case against USAID to stop it from funding 20 Catholic and Jewish schools overseas. "But that seems a long time ago," Schwartz adds. "I don't know if anyone would support that kind of suit today." Times have certainly changed. The nation's highest officials now seem convinced that America's greatest ideological foe is a highly politicized form of radical Islam and that Washington and its allies cannot afford to stand by. More proof that the administration is finally engaged in waging a war of ideas came last month, when the president tapped his longtime communications adviser, Karen Hughes, to be the State Department's new head of public diplomacy. Although lacking foreign expertise, Hughes brings proven communications skills and, equally important, a direct line to the top. The White House is also slated to announce a new position at the National Security Council, a deputy national security adviser for strategic communication and global outreach, whose job will be to goad the bureaucracy into further action. The increased focus, already, it seems, is bearing fruit. A poll of Indonesians conducted last month after the tsunami relief efforts led by the U.S. military found that America's unfavorability rating had plunged from a horrid 83 percent to 54 percent; support for bin Laden, by contrast fell by more than half. It would be folly, however, to think that the road ahead will be easy. Veterans of information warfare say the amounts being spent today are still inadequate, while a new Government Accountability Office study highlights an array of problems with U.S. public diplomacy strategy. Hughes's predecessor at State, acting Assistant Secretary Patricia Harrison, told U.S. News that she felt at times like Sisyphus, the Greek king banished to forever push a boulder up a steep hill, only to have it roll down again. The lesson Washington needs to learn, Harrison says, goes back to the Cold War--that the world matters and America needs to stay engaged. "You never declare victory," she warns. "You do not declare that it's the end of history and go home. The job is to continue pushing the boulder up and up, to keep investing, keep connecting." With Aamir Latif, Kevin Whitelaw and Julian E. Barnes

Ilaahoow u naxariiso

Question My wife is a new convert to Islam, she is a English woman and I'm doing my best to help her understand Islam with the little knowledge that I know hoping that God accepts from me . Upon hearing that a Muslim woman is going to lead the Friday prayer for men and women in some US mosque, encouraged by the voices of some associations that fight for the equality of the sexes. I had a discussion with her regarding this matter and as I was myself confused I did not know how to convince her about what's religiously acceptable and what's not. Please help with advise and feedback. Fatwa All perfect praise be to Allaah, The Lord of the Worlds. I testify that there is none worthy of worship except Allaah, and that Muhammad is His slave and Messenger, may Allaah exalt his mention as well as that of his family and all his companions. The position of the Islamic Law about a woman leading a man or men in prayer is clear that it is forbidden and it is not accepted for her to lead (them) in prayer. If a woman leads a man in prayer, his prayer is void and he has to make it up. This is a matter which is agreed upon among the jurists, may Allaah have mercy on them, with the exception of those who deviated from the correct opinion. The evidence that a woman cannot lead a man in prayer is the saying of the Prophet, sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam: "The best rows for women are the last rows and the worst rows for them are the first rows [behind men] and the best rows for men are the first rows, and the worst rows are the last rows." [Muslim] Since the Prophet, sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam, described the first rows of women behind men as the worst rows, it is not permissible for a woman to be in front of men and lead the prayer! Another evidence for the invalidity of a woman leading men in prayers is the narration of Ibn ‘Umar, may Allaah be pleased with him, that the Prophet, sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam, said: "Do not deprive your women from attending the houses of Allaah (i.e. the mosques), but their homes are better (i.e. more rewarding) for them." [Abu Daawood and Ahmad] When explaining this narration, Imaam As-Sindi, may Allaah have mercy upon him, stated: 'The saying of the Prophet sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam: "…their homes are better (i.e. more rewarding) for them" means that they will receive a greater reward for praying at home than if they were to pray in the mosque. This is due to them being further from temptation by remaining at home. This becomes even more apparent and established by the fact that women have begun to adorn themselves and are leaving their homes in a manner which did not exist at the time of the Prophet, sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam. This phenomenon caused ‘Aa’ishah, may Allaah be pleased with her, to state that women must be obliged to pray at home.†[End of quote] If they were commanded to distant themselves from men during prayer and the worse rows of women were those closest to men's, how can it permissible for women to lead men in prayers? One more evidence is the story of Anas, may Allaah be pleased with him, which is that once his grandmother, Mulaykah, invited the Prophet, sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam, to eat food that she had prepared for him. After eating it, he, sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam, said: "Stand up so that I can lead you in prayer." Anas, may Allaah be pleased with him, narrated: "I brought a plastic rug of ours which was stained, and so I washed it with water, then the Prophet, sallallaahu 'alayhi wa sallam, stood up to pray. I lined up behind him along with an orphan who was with us, and the old woman (i.e. his grandmother) stood behind us; the Prophet, sallallaahu 'alayhi wa sallam, then prayed two Rak’ahs." [Muslim] If this old woman stood behind the boys and not next to them, despite the fact that Anas, may Allaah be pleased with him, was her grandson, then can how can women be allowed to stand in front of a group of men and lead them during prayer? Imaam As-Sindi, may Allaah have mercy upon him, said: 'This narration is evidence that it is not permissible for a woman to lead men during prayers. Moreover, the fact that she (i.e., the woman mentioned in the narration) was not allowed to line up with the men during this prayer means that it is even more prohibited for her to stand ahead of them.' [End of quote] The following is yet another proof for the impermissibility of women to lead men during prayers is the statement of the Prophet, sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam, addressing the companions, may Allaah be pleased with them: "Never will they succeed, those who make a woman in charge of their affairs." [Al-Bukhaari] The narration of Sahl ibn Sa`d As-Sa`idi, may Allaah be pleased with him, furthers proves this point, and it is that the Prophet, sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam, said: "If the Imaam makes a mistake in the course of prayer, men should say, 'Subhaanallaah' (i.e. Glory be to Allaah); this is bound to attract the attention of the Imaam, and women should only clap." [Al-Bukhaari and Muslim] If a woman is prohibited from uttering 'Subhaanallaah' (i.e. Glory be to Allaah) during the congregational prayer whilst standing behind men, then how can anyone claim it is permissible for her to ascend the pulpit, deliver the Khutbah, and lead men during prayers? The practice of the Muslims, for the past fourteen centuries, is that women never led men in prayer. Some wives of the Prophet, sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam, and some female companions, may Allaah be pleased with them, were more knowledgeable than the male companions, like 'Aa'ishah and Um Salamah, may Allaah be pleased with them, despite this, it is not reported that one of them led men in prayer. Sound mind and sound natural disposition of men do not accept that a woman would be in front of men as she is a cause of temptation and incites men's desires, standing in front of him bowing down and prostrating, and reciting the Qur'an in an act of worship which is the most important and greatest act of worship. How can men humble themselves in prayer behind her? No sane person would ever say this. Our advice to the dear questioner is that he should teach his wife that the religion of Islam is based on submission to Allaah's Decree and the ruling of His Prophet, sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam. So it is not permissible to contradict the Ruling of Allaah and the Sunnah just because of following one's desires. Allaah says (which means): {It is not for a believing man or a believing woman, when Allaah and His Messenger have decided a matter, that they should [thereafter] have any choice about their affair. And whoever disobeys Allaah and His Messenger has certainly strayed into clear error.}[Qur'an 33:36]. Allaah also says (which means): {O you who have believed, do not put [yourselves] before Allaah and His Messenger but fear Allaah. Indeed, Allaah is All-Hearing and All-Knowing.}[Qur'an 49:1]. Allaah further says (which means): {But no, by your Lord, they will not [truly] believe until they make you, [O Muhammad, sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam], judge concerning that over which they dispute among themselves and then find within themselves no discomfort from what you have judged and submit in [full, willing] submission.}[Qur'an 4:65]. So what is forbidden is what Allaah has forbidden in His Book, or what the Prophet, sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam, has forbidden, or what the Islamic nation agreed in a consensus is forbidden. To know what is forbidden from what is not, we have to resort to the Book of Allaah and the Sunnah of the Prophet, sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam. Moreover, your wife has to know that Islam honoured a woman and gave her the highest position that suits her, Islam honoured her as a mother, as a daughter, as a sister, and as a wife. The punishment and reward applies for both men and women equally, she has the same rights as him but she has obligations and duties that correspond her natural predisposition. The man has also rights that suit his strength, his skin, his physique and his natural disposition, he is her guardian, he protects her with his strength, and spends on her from his earnings. Allaah says (which means): {And they (women) have rights (over their husbands as regards living expenses, etc.) similar (to those of their husbands) over them (as regards obedience and respect, etc.) to what is reasonable, but men have a degree (of responsibility) over them.}[Qur'an 2:228]. This degree is that of responsibility and protection, and the husband does not exceed its limits to torment, humiliate her or spoil her right. It is confirmed that the Prophet, sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam, said: "Women are similar to men in relation to rulings [rights and obligations]." [Ahmad and Abu Daawood] Islam gave the woman her right to spend her wealth as she wishes, and deal in transactions like buying and selling, the right of ownership and the like. Allaah says (which means): {For men is a share of what they have earned, and for women is a share of what they have earned.}[Qur'an 4:32]. Islam has also specified their right in inheritance according to their social situation, Allaah says (which means): {For men is a share of what the parents and close relatives leave, and for women is a share of what the parents and close relatives leave, be it little or much-an obligatory share.}[Qur'an 4:7]. In addition to this, there is in the Qur'an a chapter entitled "The Women" and there is no chapter entitled "The Men". And women have status and rights that we have not mentioned. So when Islam forbade the woman to lead men in prayer, it does not mean that she is demeaned and has fewer rights, but she has rights that are in conformity with her and her physique. The wisdom behind the limitations in matters that Islam has placed upon her are to protect her and repel the difficulties of life from her so that she will be as a preserved pearl, honoured and dignified, is served and not a servant, or a cheap object as the people who pretend to call for her freedom want her to be. For more benefit and information you could refer to the status of women and women's rights in Islam on Islamweb by pressing on the sub-category "Woman" on home page. Allaah knows best. Answerer: Fatwa center supervised by Dr. Abdullah Al-faqih

Babar Ahmad: 'I Can Only Make Dua' Date: 29-Feb-2005 by Babar Ahmad "Verily, they used to hasten to do good deeds, and they used to make dua to Us with hope and fear, and they used to humble themselves before Us." (Quran 21:90) Since my arrival in prison I have received dozens, if not hundreds, of letters that revolve around a central theme: the inability (or unwillingness) to do anything except make dua. They say, ‘I am helpless to do anything else except dua,’ and ‘There is nothing we can do except dua,’ and ‘We can’t do anything so we are making dua for you,’ etc. However, upon close examination of these statements and those making them, we can find some contradictions. To begin with, dua (supplication) is one of the most excellent forms of worship, one of the deeds most beloved to Allah, one of the best gifts that a Muslim can give to another and one of the most formidable weapons in the armoury of a believer. That said, the number of instances mentioned in the Quran and Sunnah where dua is mentioned alone, without any accompanying action, are very few. Rather, the norm in the Quran and the life of the Messenger (SAWS) and his Companions and the Pious Predecessors is dua accompanied by action. For example, at the Battle of Uhud, the Prophet (SAWS) and the believers did not just sit in Madinah and make dua. Rather, they went out to face the army of their enemy and then made dua before, during and after the battle. After establishing authority in Madinah, the Prophet (SAWS) did not just make dua for the spreading of the Message. Rather, he sent out emissaries, propagators and scholars to call the masses to the Message, but made dua before, during and after his efforts. There are numerous other examples in the Quran and Sunnah. In the above verse, Allah the Exalted mentions actions WITH dua: He does not mention dua alone, without actions. Dua is mentioned without action only in a few, emergency circumstances, where action was all but impossible. For example, Yunus (AS) made dua alone in the belly of the whale because there was nothing else practical that he could do in his situation. When Musa (AS) had delivered his people from Firoun, only to be sandwiched between the sea and Firoun’s army, he made dua alone because he had exhausted all of his efforts. Likewise, after the Prophet (SAWS) had called the people of Taif to Islam, and been mocked and beaten by them until his sandals were flowing with blood; he made dua to Allah, having exhausted his efforts. In the hadith of the three men trapped by a rock in a cave, each one in turn made dua alone to Allah because there was practically no action that they could undertake. Therefore, if we examine our own personal lives, we will find a contradiction between dua and action for our own selves and for the causes of other Muslims. When it comes to earning money, how many of us sit in our houses and make dua? When it comes to buying clothes and possessions, how many of us remain at home and make dua? When it comes to beautifying our homes, how many of us sit and make dua without making any practical effort? Yet when it comes to doing things for others, for other Muslims, for Muslim captives, we feel that it is justified to sit at home and make dua without any action or effort. Since my imprisonment began in August 2004, every member of my family has been working day and night, sacrificing, campaigning, telephoning, meeting, writing, speaking, networking and travelling- may Allah reward them. And they have been making dua excessively and plentifully-may Allah answer their duas. Even the babies and children have played their bit by sacrificing their nurseries and comforts to accompany their parents in the cold and rain to a protest or demonstration. And then there is my father, may Allah preserve him, who is probably the last person on the planet that I would imagine giving a speech on civil liberties at a protest outside Downing Street. But why is my father, my family, close relatives and a few close friends, going to all this effort? Why don’t they just sit at home and make dua? Because this time it is personal. This time their own flesh and blood is imprisoned, not some Chinese man sitting in Guantanamo Bay. Therefore, they cannot afford to sit and make dua without acting. So now we enjoy our own lives: money in the bank, children happy, stable job, house, family etc. Then we ‘do our bit’ for the Muslim captives by making dua for them and then we continue with our comfortable lives. But what if tomorrow it was our turn? What if our own door was kicked in tomorrow, our own husband, brother, son or father brutalised by armed thugs, then imprisoned to face extradition and a death behind bars in one of the worst countries of the world in their hatred of Islam and Muslims? Would things be different then? Would we still feel as ‘helpless’ as we did for that Chinese man sitting in Guantanamo Bay? Would we still make our few minutes of dua sitting in our homes then continue with life as normal? Or would all hell break loose in our family system? Or would we telephone, write, collect, organise, meet, travel, campaign etc.? Let’s be honest - our selfish nature and dead hearts would most likely mean that this time we will act. And make dua. So next time you think that you have ‘done your bit’ by making dua, ask yourself honestly if your situation really is like Yunus (AS) in the whale, or Musa (AS) in front of the sea. If anyone would have an excuse only to make dua, it would have been us captives. But even we do more than make dua alone whilst in prison. Those of us that can write, write. Those of us that can draw, draw. And even if we cannot write or draw for the benefit of the people outside, we at least build bridges across to the hearts of violent murderers, evil criminals and fearsome gangsters so that when they leave prison, at least they will have a positive opinion of Muslims and they will think twice before attacking Muslims with their evil. Dua accompanies action. So when we plan a conference, for instance, we make dua prior to the event to help in planning, we make dua during the even and we make dua after the even so that its outcome is beneficial and Allah accepts our efforts. This is the meaning and the role of dua in a difficult situation. So next time Shaytan whispers to us, "I can only make dua," let us consult our hearts and our consciences and we will find that it is only an excuse. A feeble one. SOURCE: The Muslim Weekly

allahu Mustacaan, waxaad u hadlaysaa qof wax og camal, laakiin waxba ma ogid and for your Information CARE is already involved. May allah make it easy for these Families. one of the girls used to come this Forum if you really Don't believe us, Yaa Shabab Shaki waalaga Fiican yahay Especially markuu Qof walaalkaa ah oo Muslim kula ah. http://talk.islamicnetwork.com/showthread.php?t=3167&page=1&pp=10

Socod Badne waxaan kuu sheegaa u are Living a Dream, May allah Show you the Runta and may allah also guide us All.

A debate between the sword and the pen by Zayn al-DÄ«n ‘Umar ibn al-WirdÄ« d. 749 HijrÄ« Written by AbÅ« Jandal al-AzdÄ« Translated by Tibyan Publications In the Name of AllÄh, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful The sword and the pen are instruments of action and speech. They are the support of nations; any nation bereaved of them will lack in strength. They are the pillars of authority that declare who shall be lowered and who shall be raised [in status], and at the forefront of the dispute that arises from them are what is implied and what has been stated. Thus, I thought about which of them is more worthy of pride and status, so I convened a court gathering to judge between them, wherein I portrayed them as being present for the litigation, granted them an equal footing of honour, and vocalized their inner state. The pen said: It shall move its course and set down anchor all in the Name of AllÄh. By the day as it shows up [the sun’s[ brightness, and by the night as it conceals the sun. To proceed; All Praises are due to AllÄh Alone, Who created the pen, Who honoured it with an oath, Who created it before all else, Who beautified the paper with its branch, just as He beautified branches with leaves. May prayers be on the one who said, “The pens have dried,†for the pen has gained mastery, and he who writes with seven pens is from the class of the book in the seven heavens. Fate and predestination have run their course, and have replaced the tongue in its commandments and forbiddances. How many more thrusts and jabs has it made than the blacks and the whites; it has fought those afar and sliced those anear enough to fill its eyelids – what matches the pen in how the people obey it, and how it walks to them ahead of all the rest? So the sword said: In the Name of AllÄh Who lowers and raises, “and We have sent down iron wherein is mighty power and benefits.â€[1] To proceed; All praise is to AllÄh Who revealed the verse of the sword, by which He increased esteem for the wound, and secured the fear over lands. And may prayers be on the one who used the sword to implement what is written on the pages and who was served by the pens judging against the leaders, and on his family and Companions whose swords were sharpened and their edges were made by slicing the enemies. The sword has great power and strong authority, it wipes the lines of eloquence, and stands to face that cannot be faced; he who resorts to anything else to subdue the enemy will be tired away - and how not, when it’s edge defines the limit between seriousness and play?! If the pen is a witness, then the sword is a judge; and if the pen approaches for disputation in a matter, the sword will break it with a swift motion. With it the religion came to light, and it is the means for suppressing the proud. The hand of our Prophet carried it to the exclusion of the pen, by which it was clearly honoured among the nations. Paradise is under its shade - especially when it is unsheathed so you see the torrents of blood flowing through it. The sky of its sheath is ornamented by the stars, and he spoke the truth who said, “The sword brings more truthful news than others.†The carrier does not abuse it, nor does he handle it with the tips of his fingers like the pen. It is not like a pen that resembles a people who are disrobed of their garments, then turned on their heads as is said; rather, it is as though the sword was created from flowing water, or bright star, well-balanced. It is a precious gem that it cannot be bought for a paltry price, like the pen. It does not suffer as does the pen from blackness and obliteration. How much can it tell of traces of a reality, or the reality of a trace? In the sheathe of the people, the sword is the measure of a war, and thus it was fashioned in a form ready for war. So the pen said: Or it is that which is brought up in adornments, and in dispute cannot make itself clear? He is boasting while he is positioned to the left, and I am seated to the right?! I am the one concerned with the intellect, and you are concerned with the echoes - you are a tool of death! You only become soft after entering the flames, and you are only sharpened for a great sin. You are useful for an hour of time, while I spend my life in obedience. You are used for causing fear, and I am used for creating desire. If your vision is one of iron, then my vision is one of golden water. Where does your tradition rank from my efforts, and where does the impurity of your blood rank from the purity of my ink? The sword said: Do the likes of you reproach the likes of me for blood?! As long as I am able command my nestlings the knives, I am like the witches when they blow in the knots, O poor one. Your corpse has been removed from life, your nose has been split and your tongue broken. Woe to you! If you are used for composing poetry collections then you are a grieved teller, or for composition then you are the servant of a master, or for information then you are a censured sorcerer, or for the jurist then you are deficient in knowledge, or for the poet then you are a deprived beggar, or for the witness then you are a poisoned coward, or for the teacher then for the Ever-Living, the Self-Subsisting. As for me, I have a shining face, decoration, jewels, and awe when I am unsheathed. I ascend the pulpit, and I am possessed with authority, but you are like a hermit. I traverse the path and break the ties. So the pen said: Me, I am the son of the water from the sky, the companion of the creek, the ally of the air! But you, you are the son of the fire and smoke, the scatterer of years, the traitor of brothers! You separate that which should not be separated, and you break that which AllÄh commanded to join. Indeed, the sword put on contemptuous airs, thickened its neck, and was given boiling water to drink that tore up its guts. O raven of disunion, O tool of death, O sick-eyed one, O two-faced one, how many have you annihilated and executed? And how many have you widowed and orphaned? The sword said: O son of mud! Are you not skinny when you are in mud?! How many times have you flowed the opposite way, and behaved in a diminishing manner, counterfeited and distorted, undefined and defined, written lines of satire and insult, and immortalized shames and slander?! Rejoice at your excessive splendour and the strength of your fear. If you measure the whiteness of my pages against the blackness of yours, then soften your speech for your life is for but a short time. Beautify your response for I have its force, and lessen your harshness, and turn your attention away from the blood in my face to the ugliness in yours. If not, then the softest strike from me shall uproot you and extract your origins, to irrigate whoever was absent from your woods, and as a pasture for the one who would slice your skin if they called you. So when the pen saw the sword getting angry, he softened his speech to him and said: Manners are learnt from me, and gentleness is taken from me. If you become soft, I become soft, and if you act well, then I act well. We are people of hearing and obedience, and thus a group of us gather together in the same inkwell. As for you, you are people of violence and disunity, thus two swords are never gathered together in the same sheathe. The sword said: Is this a trick under the guise of virtue? For a matter that has not cut off one in disdain! If you are – as you claim to be – one of manners, then you would not meet the head of a writer with the knot of sin. I am the one with the louder voice, and my edge is my tongue delivers the peculiarities of death. I am of fire, free of smoke, and the pen is of sounding clay like pottery. If the pen claims he is like me, I will command he who beats his head on my shoes. So the pen said: Speak not, for the possessor of a sword who has no wellbeing, is as he who is weaponless. The sword said: Be silent, for the pen of the eloquent without its portion is like a empty spindle. So the pen said: I am purer and more chaste. The sword said: I am more dazzling and radiant. So the owner of the pen recited to his pen: ï´¿Ø¥Ùنَّا أَعْطَيْنَاكَ الْكَوْثَرَ﴾ Verily, We have granted you al-Kawthar[2] The owner of the sword recited to his sword: ï´¿Ùَصَلّ٠لÙرَبّÙÙƒÙŽ وَانْحَرْ﴾ Therefore turn in prayer to your Lord and sacrifice[3] So the owner of the pen recited to his pen: ï´¿Ø¥Ùنَّ شَانÙئَكَ Ù‡ÙÙˆÙŽ الأَبْتَرÙï´¾ For he who makes you angry will be cut off.[4] It said: But by my inscribed book, and my frequented house, and by the Torah and the InjÄ«l, and the exalted Qur’Än, if you do not cease your violence with me, and make distant your proximity to me, I will write you among the deaf and dumb, and I will inscribe this ruling upon you with my pen. The sword said: By my firm back, my clear opening, my two moist tongues, and my two solid faces, if you do not keep your blackness away from my whiteness, I will rub your face in your ink! You have acquired your signature of insight and firmness from the lions in the jungle, and although I have not neglected to advise you, shall we pay no attention to your mention? So the pen said: Surrender! If you are higher then I am more knowledgeable, and if you are more beautiful then I am more clement, and if you are stronger then I am more straight, or if you are more crooked then I am more to blame, or if you are softer then I am more delightful, or if you are more expensive then I am more prevalent, or if you are more powerful then I am more admonishing, or if you are lethal, then I am sharper. The sword said: How can I not surpass you, when the such-and-such dwelling is supporting me? So the pen said: How can I not surpass you, when He (may His help be glorified) has taken charge of my affairs? The judge between the sword and pen said: When I saw the diligent arguments from both sides, with their opposing proofs, and when I knew that each of them had some truth to the nobility of their status and a supporting narration from the hadÄ«th literature, I eased the situation and scrutinized the evidences, until I returned the pen to its cover and sheathed the sword. I did not give preference to one, and remained silent on which I felt was more correct, until each is judged for their deeds, their extreme anger is calmed, and the situation grants its own insight. AbÅ« Jandal al-AzdÄ« said: After this wonderful, exciting debate I pondered the annals of Islamic history and found that whoever raises the pen without the sword becomes lowly, and whoever who raises the sword without the pen goes astray and makes mistakes, but the one who raises them both together will be guided and reach his destination. My AllÄh have mercy on Shaykh al-IslÄm Ibn Taymiyyah for he said, “The religion will only be established by a guiding book and a helping sword, and your Lord suffices for you as a Guide and Helper.†AbÅ« Jandal al-AzdÄ« 9/10/1424 HijrÄ« [1] al-HadÄ«d, verse 25 [2] al-Kawthar, verse 1 [3] al-Kawthar, verse 2 [4] al-Kawthar, verse 3

http://www.freetashnuba.tk/

Wednesday, April 06, 2005 Tashnuba Age 16. Jamaica, NY The following information was recorded on April 05, 2005. All information was recorded first hand from the parents of Tashnuba: Two weeks prior to March 24th Tashnuba a 16 year old high school student who attended Environmental Studies High School in Manhattan was visited by two detectives from the local precinct. The detectives came without warrants and spoke to Tashnuba’s mother. The detectives were identified by Tashnuba’s mother as one being Pakistani female and the other white American male who were both in civilian clothing. Tashnuba’s mother told them to come back when her husband was home, but the detectives insisted on talking to her and coming inside the house. They did not show her any warrant or any paper. Tashnuba’s mother sincerely let both detectives in. The detectives came in claiming to investigate Tashnuba’s absence from school while she never been to school since September 2004. Tashnuba’s mother explained that Tashnuba would be doing home schooling and will be obtaining a GED due to problems arising at school with her Islamic dress code and the school’s dress code. The male detective asked if Tashnuba had plans to go to Saudi Arabia. The female detective then proceeded to search the house and entered Tashnuba’s room. There the detective searched through Tashnuba’s belongings for more than one hour without any warrant. The next day Tashnuba’s mother received a phone call from the female detective who fabricated to Tashnuba’s mother that Tashnuba believed in extremist beliefs and promoted concepts like suicide bombing. Tashnuba made it very clear that she was pro-life and was against such concepts. The mother said she didn’t raise Tashnuba with such concepts. Tashnuba validated the fabrication made by the detectives and reaffirmed that she believes in a peaceful and pro-life religion. On March 24th Tashnuba was visited by two agents at 5 AM in the morning. Her mother was approached and the agents told her they were from INS. Two Special Agents came without any form of warrant or paper. They claimed they were from the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. The agents approached the mother, who did not speak English fluently, and requested that she sign a document (the father was not home at that morning). According to the mother the document was permission to only ask Tashnuba questions. The agents told her mother that the reason they were taking Tashnuba was because of a political asylum case and that her case was dismissed because she did not show up at her appointment date. According to Tashnuba’s mother there were about ten to twelve agents who came into the house and searched through the house for almost two hours. They confiscated Tashnuba’s computer, her reading materials including personal journals, notebooks and her mother’s cell phone. The agents insisted they take 16 year old Tashnuba alone with them to Federal Plaza and not her mother because of Tashnuba’s four month infant brother. Even though Tashnuba’s brother and sister were evolved in the same political asylum case only Tashnuba was taken and detained. She was held at the Plaza for eleven hours, from 7AM to 6PM. In tears Tashnuba’s mother said that at the Plaza Tashnuba was not questioned about her immigration but threatened that if she did not comply her brothers and sisters would be sent to foster homes and her parents would be deported back to Bangladesh. After being threatened Tashnuba was asked if she was part of any terrorist organizations and interrogated her about her beliefs and conviction in Islam. Tashnuba was then taken to Pennsylvania and held there at a youth detention facility at the following address: Berks Family Shelter Care Facility 1243 County Welfare Road Leesport, PA 19533 Till today she is being held there. Tashnuba who believes in wearing the Islamic veil the "nikab" is not allowed to wear the dress code at her current detention center. This violates her ability to practice her religion. The parents proceeded to contact an immigration lawyer to free their 16 year old daughter. According to the lawyer the judge has stated that the lawyer needs to provide evidence that she’s not a terrorist. The next hearing scheduled Friday, April 8, 2005. Upon her recent visit Tashnuba’s mother said she saw Tashnuba after two weeks and she was very upset. Officer and supervisor at the facility allowed the mother to see Tashnuba and speak to her. This was the first time they were allowed to speak to her and she told them of what events had taken place in the last two weeks. The family has been torn by the abduction and detention of 16 year old minor Tashnuba. Tashnuba’s family now live in fear. They are unable to sleep at night and keep all their doors and windows locked. They are even afraid to step outside. Tashnuba’s father said that it is a very difficult state for anyone to endure, to watch their child being taken away from them and not hear from them for more than two weeks. Tashnuba’s father believes his family is being singled out as Muslims like all the other Muslim Americans who have been harassed after September 11th.

Allahu akbar ilaahoow Ka dhig Shahiidad Ameen