MUSLIMS LAUNCH MASS AWARENESS CAMPAIGN EXPOSING IRAQ’S JUNE 30TH ‘HANDOVER’ London, UK, June 17 – As Iraq’s June 30th ‘handover’ approaches, Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain, in conjunction with the Muslim community has launched a mass awareness campaign to highlight the true motives of the ‘handover’. At Friday prayers tomorrow [June 18th], the Muslim community will be urged to raise a strong debate in Britain against the continued interference of Western governments in Iraq and the Muslim world. In the first stage of the campaign, hundreds of thousands of leaflets and petitions will be distributed outside mosques, community centres and workplaces. Muslims are being urged to raise the debate amongst the non-Muslim masses, media and intelligentsia. Later phases of the campaign will see the distribution of tens of thousands of leaflets in city centres, campaign stalls and a petition campaign for Muslims and non-Muslims who are opposed to continued interference in Iraq. The campaign will culminate in a large national conference in London on June 30th 2004. While it is claimed that ‘sovereignty’ is to be handed back to the people of Iraq, the handpicked Iraqi Interim Government will ensure that Iraq remains firmly under the influence of Western governments and corporate entities. Through UN Security Council Resolution 1546, the USA and Britain will be able to control the future security, government, economy, culture and strategic assets of Iraq. It appears that the new Iraqi regime will be yet another subordinate state on the political horizon of the Muslim world. Imran Waheed, a UK based doctor and the Representative of Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain, said, “We must create an environment in the West where governments can no longer pursue colonial policies in the Muslim world. This means debating Western foreign policy at all levels of society.” “The British public must see through the Iraq ‘handover’ and pressure their government to end all forms of interference in the Muslim world, so that the Muslim masses can be masters of their own political destiny.” Notes to Editors: (1) The campaign website is www.mindspring.eu.com (2) Hizb ut-Tahrir is an independent political party whose ideology is Islam. The party works throughout the Islamic world, including Iraq, to resume the Islamic way of life by re-establishing the Islamic Khilafah [Caliphate]. The party adheres to the Islamic Shari’ah in all aspects of its work. It considers violence or armed struggle against the regime, as a method to re-establish the Islamic State, to be forbidden by the Islamic Shari’ah. In the Western world, the party seeks to explain the Islamic ideology to Muslims, to create a dialogue with Western thinkers about Capitalism and to present Islam as an ideological alternative. June 17, 2004 www.1924.org/press FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 17th June 2004 CONTACT: Dr Imran Waheed Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain Suite 301 28 Old Brompton Road London, SW7 3SS, United Kingdom Email: imran.waheed@hizb-ut-tahrir.org.uk Web: www.1924.org/press Phone: +44-(0)7074-192400 / Fax +44(0)7074-192456

The People that are saying that the jilbaab is not an obligation are failing to bring evidence for their view, i can understand this because none exists.

A 15-year-old girl has lost her High Court battle to wear a style of Islamic dress to school. Shabina Begum has been out of her Luton school since September 2002 in a row over her wish to wear an ankle-length jilbab gown. She said her religious rights and education were being denied. But the High Court judge said the school's uniform policy was aimed at the proper running of a multi-cultural, multi-faith secular school. Dismissing Shabina's application for judicial review, Mr Justice Bennett said the school uniform policy had "a legitimate aim - the proper running of a multi-cultural, multi-faith secular school". The limitations placed on what she could wear was "proportionate" to that aim, and her human rights had not been infringed. "Having considered the matter carefully, it seems to me unrealistic and artificial to say that the claimant's right to education has been denied in the particular circumstances of this case," he said. Guidance for schools discouraged them from excluding pupils for breaching school uniform policy, he noted. But that did not mean schools could not do so "if the pupil flatly refuses to wear the appropriate school uniform", he said. 'Inclusive uniform' Outside court, the school's solicitor Iqbal Javed said the uniform had been agreed after wide consultation and the focus would now be on readmitting Shabina to school. "The uniform is designed to be inclusive and takes into account the cultural and sensitive needs of the pupils," he said. "We now want to concentrate our efforts on reintegrating Shabina Begum back into school as quickly as possible to prevent any further loss to her school career." But Shabina's lawyer Yvonne Spencer said her client was devastated and would not be returning to Denbigh school. She said talks with the local education authority to find a new school place would start later on Tuesday. "The family feels this decision doesn't help integrate Muslims within our society," she said. The judge has refused permission to appeal, but Shabina can still ask the Court of Appeal to hear the case on the basis that it raises issues of general importance over the question of dress in multi-cultural schools. The family would consider this, her lawyer said. Human rights claim Denbigh is a 1,000-pupil comprehensive where almost 80% of pupils are Muslim. The case echoes controversy in France, where politicians have voted for a ban on religious symbols in schools, including the hijab, the headscarf worn by Muslim girls and women. Ms Spencer had argued the school's ban on her chosen Islamic dress amounted to "constructive exclusion" and breached both domestic law and the European Convention on Human Rights. But the school argued an alternative uniform option for Muslim girls was on offer, while the jilbab could divide Muslim pupils and presented a health and safety problem. Opinion divided Originally, Shabina wore a shalwar kameez to school, but her deepening interest in her religion led to her wearing the jilbab. The long gown is worn by some Muslim women who seek to cover their arms and legs, but not faces or hands. When she turned up for the first day of the new school year in 2002 she was told to go home and change. The judge said: "Although it appears that there is a body of opinion within the Muslim faith that only the jilbab meets the requirements of its dress code, there is also a body of opinion that the shalwar kameez does as well. "In my judgment, the adoption of the shalwar kameez by the defendant as school uniform for Muslim (and other faiths) female pupils was, and continues to be, a reasoned, balanced, proportionate policy." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/3808073.stm

NAZARETH - Israel's transport minister, Avigdor Lieberman, continues to make racist statement against Palestinians. After presenting a plan to expel 90 per cent of Arab Israelis, in which he asked the Israeli prime minister to prepare the ground for such expulsions from their lands, he came up yesterday with yet another racist outburst as the Israeli daily, Yadhout Ahronot, quoted him as saying that most Arab Israelis have been contributing, in the last few years, in all areas of 'terrorism' against Israel. In another incitement step against Arab Israelis, a military correspondent of the Israeli Army Radio said that, according to official report in her possession, more than 200 young Israeli women convert to Islam every year and leave to stay in Arab towns, villages and societies after getting married to Arab Israelis. The reporter said this phenomenon was on the increase in recent years, which has aroused grave concern among Jewish religious organisations who are calling for a move to convince those young women to return to Judaism and end their marital relations with their Muslim and Arab husbands. Source: Agencies

THE CORRECT ISLAMIC RULING ON THE MUSLIM WOMAN’S DRESS The recent plans to introduce anti-hijab laws in France and Germany have thrown into the limelight once again, numerous discussions on the Islamic dress code for women. Many have asked, is the hijab an actual obligation in Islam or an issue of personal choice for the woman? Should the dress code take a specific form or is it the right of the woman to decide for herself what she considers as being modest attire? There are a few Muslims that argue that the hijab or khimar (headcovering) is not an Islamic obligation commanded by the Islamic texts but rather a personal choice of the woman. They argue that it is sufficient for the woman to dress modestly according to her own opinion of what modesty entails. For example, Gammal Banna, an Egyptian author of several books on the rights of Muslim women and brother of the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood commented, “The head scarf is not an obligation, but derives from an erroneous reading of the Koran ... Wearing the headscarf or not is part of a debate on morals and not on religious obligations ... Whether a woman wears a scarf or a mini-skirt is a matter of individual liberty.” He also stated that he did not support the French President’s decision to ban the hijab because it interfered with the personal choice of the woman to wear a headscarf. Such comments have been introduced in recent times by those whose lives have been afflicted by the western thoughts. Such misguided notions were noticeably absent throughout the glorious history of the Islam, over the past thousand years. The commands and prohibitions of Islam are contained in the texts of Islam, the Quran and Sunnah, and it is these that one should examine when seeking the rule of Allah (swt). It is clear that the covering of the hair in the presence of non-Mahrem men (those men the woman can marry) by the hijab or khimar is definitely an Islamic obligation (fard) commanded clearly by the Islamic texts. Allah(swt) says in Surah Nur, وَلْيَضْرِبْنَ بِخُمُرِهِنَّ عَلَى جُيُوبِهِنَّ “Let them draw their head-coverings (khumur) over their necks and chest” [TMQ An-Nur: 31]. The head-coverings (khumur) were worn by the women of Quraish in the time of the Prophet (saw). They used to cover their heads, and the cloth would run down their backs exposing their necks and chests. Hence the command to wear the head-covering specifies also how to cover (covering all the head, neck and chest). In one hadith reported by Aisha (ra), she said that Asmaa bint Abu Bakr entered the quarters of the Messenger of Allah (saw) wearing thin clothes. The Messenger (saw) turned his face away and said, “Oh Asmaa, if the woman reaches puberty, it is not allowed to be seen from her except this and this”, and he pointed to his face and hands. Fortunately, most Muslim women understand the hijab as an obligation but there is often confusion or misconceptions of what the hijab is, and what the dress code is for the woman in public life. So some may view the dupatta (the see-through scarf that accompanies the shalwar kameez) as sufficient even though the hair and neck can be seen. Some may place a loose scarf over their heads while some of their hair remains exposed. Some wear the bandanna, covering all the hair but exposing the ears and neck. Finally, there are those who may wear the hijab correctly and cover all their hair, neck and ears but accompany it with a T-shirt and tight jeans or above ankle skirt, exposing their arms, legs and showing the shape of their body. In Islam, the rules pertaining to the covering of the woman both in private life and in the public arena are not a matter of personal interpretation according to the concept of modesty, personal choice, or personal opinion. Rather they are detailed and specific as with all the Ahkham (rules) of Islam. For example, Allah (swt) has not commanded the prayer and then left people to choose for themselves how to pray. Rather the actions in each and every prayer have been described and specified. Similarly, Allah (swt) has not ordered the woman to wear the hijab or khimar and then left it to personal preference as to its form. Rather the rules of the Islamic dress code for the woman have been described in detail. In such a matter, the Muslimah would follow the obligation to cover in the defined manner, the way she would follow the rules for prayer. The mind, and personal opinions have no part to play in the hijab, as they have no part to play in the prayer. Allah (swt) says, فَلاَ وَرَبِّكَ لاَ يُؤْمِنُونَ حَتَّىَ يُحَكِّمُوكَ فِيمَا شَجَرَ بَيْنَهُمْ ثُمَّ لاَ يَجِدُواْ فِي أَنفُسِهِمْ حَرَجًا مِّمَّا قَضَيْتَ وَيُسَلِّمُواْ تَسْلِيمًا “But no, by thy Lord, they can have no (real) faith until they make thee judge in all disputes between them, and find in their souls no resistance against thy decisions but accept them with the fullest of submission” [Al-Nisa: 65] As clear in the ayah and hadith mentioned earlier, the adult Muslim woman should cover everything except her face and hands in the presence of all non-mahrem men (those to whom she can marry). The clothes should not be thin such that her skin can be seen, or tight such that the shape of her body can be seen. The whole body of the woman, including her neck and hair (even one hair), except for her face and hands are awrah (that which it is haram to reveal to any non-mahrem man). In Surah An-Nur, Allah (swt) says, وَقُل لِّلْمُؤْمِنَاتِ يَغْضُضْنَ مِنْ أَبْصَارِهِنَّ وَيَحْفَظْنَ فُرُوجَهُنَّ وَلَا يُبْدِينَ زِينَتَهُنَّ إِلَّا مَا ظَهَرَ مِنْهَا وَلْيَضْرِبْنَ بِخُمُرِهِنَّ عَلَى جُيُوبِهِنَّ وَلَا يُبْدِينَ زِينَتَهُنَّ إِلَّا لِبُعُولَتِهِنَّ أَوْ آبَائِهِنَّ أَوْ آبَاء بُعُولَتِهِنَّ أَوْ أَبْنَائِهِنَّ أَوْ أَبْنَاء بُعُولَتِهِنَّ أَوْ إِخْوَانِهِنَّ أَوْ بَنِي إِخْوَانِهِنَّ أَوْ بَنِي أَخَوَاتِهِنَّ أَوْ نِسَائِهِنَّ أَوْ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُهُنَّ أَوِ التَّابِعِينَ غَيْرِ أُوْلِي الْإِرْبَةِ مِنَ الرِّجَالِ أَوِ الطِّفْلِ الَّذِينَ لَمْ يَظْهَرُوا عَلَى عَوْرَاتِ النِّسَاء وَلَا يَضْرِبْنَ بِأَرْجُلِهِنَّ لِيُعْلَمَ مَا يُخْفِينَ مِن زِينَتِهِنَّ وَتُوبُوا إِلَى اللَّهِ جَمِيعًا أَيُّهَا الْمُؤْمِنُونَ لَعَلَّكُمْ تُفْلِحُونَ “And tell the believing women to lower their gaze (from looking at forbidden things), and protect their private parts (from illegal sexual acts, etc.) and not to show off their adornment except only that which is apparent and to to draw their head-coverings all over Juyubihinna (i.e. necks and chest, etc.) and not to reveal their adornment except to their husbands, their fathers, their husband's fathers, their sons, their husband's sons, their brothers or their brother's sons, or their sister's sons, or their women , or the slaves whom their right hands possess, or old male servants who lack vigour, or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex. And let them not stamp their feet so as to reveal what they hide of their adornment. And all of you beg Allah to forgive you all, O believers, that you may be successful.” [An-Nur:31] Ibn Abbas explained the words, “...beyond what may (decently) be apparent thereof” as referring to the face and hands. In addition, when the woman leaves her home and enters the public arena, she has been commanded to wear the khimar (a head cover that covers the entire head, neck, and the chest) and the jilbab (a one piece outer dress that covers her indoor clothes and drapes down to the floor). It is not sufficient that she wears the khimar accompanied by a skirt and blouse or shirt and trousers. Allamah ibn Al Hazam writes, "In the Arabic language of the Prophet, Jilbab is the outer sheet which covers the entire body. A piece of cloth which is too small to cover the entire body could not be called Jalbab." [Al Muhalla, vol. 3, p. 217]. If she leaves the home without these two pieces of clothing then she would be sinful for she has neglected a command from Allah (swt). The evidence for the jilbab is also clear. Allah (swt) says in Surah Al-Ahzab, يَا أَيُّهَا النَّبِيُّ قُل لِّأَزْوَاجِكَ وَبَنَاتِكَ وَنِسَاء الْمُؤْمِنِينَ يُدْنِينَ عَلَيْهِنَّ مِن جَلَابِيبِهِنَّ ذَلِكَ أَدْنَى أَن يُعْرَفْنَ فَلَا يُؤْذَيْنَ وَكَانَ اللَّهُ غَفُورًا رَّحِيمًا “Oh Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks (Jalabeeb) all over their bodies.” [Al-Ahzab:59] In addition, in one hadith narrated by Umm Atiyya (ra), she said, “The Messenger of Allah (saw) ordered us to bring out the young women, the menstruating women and veiled women for the two Eid festivals. The menstruating women were to keep away from prayer, yet witnessing the goodness and the dawa (address) to the Muslims. I asked, ‘O Messenger of Allah, what about the one who does not have a Jilbab?’. He said, ‘Let her use the Jilbab of her sister.’” The Prophet (saw) maintained the insistence that the women wear the jilbab even if she did not possess one, i.e. she would have to borrow one. A Muslim woman should not imitate the western woman who uses her own mind to decide what to wear, and what is appropriate to be seen in. Aisha (ra) is narrated as having said to some women from the tribe of the Bani Tamim who were wearing dresses made of thin material when they were visiting her, "If you are mumin (true believers) this is not the type of dress suitable for mumin women. But if you are not mumin, then do as you please." Muslim women of today should take guidance from the Muslim women of the past who were praised by the Messenger (saw) and gained the Pleasure of Allah (swt). When the verses for covering were revealed they responded immediately without a second of delay by covering their awrah with whatever they could find of material. Safiyyah, daughter of Shaybah, said that Aisha (ra) mentioned the women of Ansar, praised them and said good words about them. She then said, “When Surat an-Nur came down, they took the curtains, tore them and made head covers (veils) of them.” (Sunan Abu Dawud). Hence the hijab is much more than covering modestly, or following traditional or contemporary customs and practices. It is an Islamic obligation that has precise rules, and needs to be fulfilled in the manner that Islam has prescribed. Dr. Nazreen Nawaz

The point in the posting was not the issue of killings of western civilians but rather the call of the Government backed scholars and the hypocrisy they have know shown. - Where were their fatwas before the Iraq war? - Where were their fatwas at the torture of Muslims in Abu Ghraib? - Where are their fatwas when the rulers rule by kufr? - etc.... I personally cannot believe how a scholar who knows about Islam (its one thing being ignorant) yet still does not comply with it despite knowing that Allah (swt) will account them. They are in a priveledged position with even the Prophet (saw) stating that they are the inheritors of the Prophet. The issue of killing civilians is haram, however how you determine what a civilian is could be argued from my understanding, but this was not the purpose of the thread.

A committee headed by the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, Sheikh Abdul-Aziz al-Sheikh, has issued a fatwa condemning the recent attacks on western targets in the Kingdom, and instructing people to inform on those preparing further attacks. The committee urged those plotting to attack western interests to "fear God almighty and come to their senses". One has to ask, why are such government-backed committees and Sheikhs so ready to issue fatwa upon fatwa defending western interests? They were noticeably silent about the western invasion, occupation and mass bloodshed in the Muslims lands of Iraq and Afghanistan? In fact, some of them even issued fatwa to justify these evil actions, and backed their wretched rulers assistance of the western aims. Clearly these government-backed Sheikhs, who ally themselves with slaves of the western world, should pay attention to their own advice, "fear God almighty and come to their senses". June 05, 2004 www.1924.org

how is the hijab a religious requirement and the jilbab isn't?

the important thing to note from this is that the israeli's know who has the real power as they went to America for the compensation, not the Iraqi Governing Council. This despite the USA saying that Iraqi's will have sovereignty on June 30th.

What did everyone think of the recent series on Channel 4 called Sharia TV?

A 15-year-old Muslim girl from Luton should be in school studying for her GCSE exams. Instead, she has spent the last year at home because of a bitter row between herself and her school, which has sparked a legal battle that has gone all the way to the High court. The dispute in question is not related to truancy, disruption or violent behaviour as one might expect, but simply that she regards the jilbab (an full flowing outer garment) as the correct dress “for a mature Islamic woman in public”, in accordance with her Islamic beliefs. On the first day of the new academic year in September 2002, she arrived at school attired in the jilbab - a long, loose fitting garment that she wore over her clothes. She was rebuked for violating the school’s dress code and was ordered to go home and change into the one of the alternative uniform options that was offered for its high proportion of Muslim students - the traditional shalwar kameez. However despite this, she insisted upon wearing the jilbab, a matter she considered as fard (an Islamic obligation) and therefore as important to her as her prayers. The school informed her that she could not attend her lessons unless she chose an approved uniform. Last week saw her case come before the High Court in London, where the arguments for and against wearing the jilbab in school were aired. A representative for the School had argued that they were a multi-cultural and multi-faith secular school, which permitted Muslim girls to wear trousers, skirts or traditional shalwar kameez. It was argued that young woman had not been excluded but she had chosen to stay away. The school also stated that girls could rely on the school policy to ‘resist’ pressures that could be brought upon them to wear the jilbab. Further, it was said there would be the risk of division if the jilbab were to be adopted. This could lead to two classes of people - those who wore jilbab and those who wore shalwar kameez, with those wearing the jilbab being regarded as ‘better Muslims.’ In addition concerns were raised on health and safety grounds - namely the dangers of “slipping or tripping” while wearing the jilbab. The school argued that if an accident were to occur, it would be no defence to say the school had allowed pupils to exercise their human rights. This case highlights to the Muslim community a clear dilemma that is faced not just in schools, but also in the workplace and wider society. As Muslims become increasingly aware of their religion and identity, they are beginning to understand the fact that many of the practical principles of Islam contradict with established norms and values of western society. These include not only dress code, but also issues as broad ranging as educational curricula, personal conduct, rites of citizenship, political participation, and contract law to name but a few. What is of note about this particular case is the weakness and glaring contradictions that appear within the arguments presented by the school authorities. For example, if wearing a jilbab risked creating a ‘division’ or ‘judgement about piety’ with those girls who chose not to wear it, then why could not the same distinction be drawn for those who chose to wear the hijab (headscarf) and those who do not, or those who elect the shalwar kameez instead of trousers? Wider still than the Muslim community, why is the same risk not highlighted about the Sikhs who chose to wear the turban and those who do not, or the Jews who wear the skull-cap and those who do not? With respect to the fear of the jilbab being a risk to health and safety, are not those who wear long skirts or sport the current trend of extra-long baggy trousers, just as likely to trip over? Additionally, the jilbab is not a new phenomena limited to Britain, it is standard attire worn by millions of Muslim women throughout the world. These women go about their daily chores and activities without any greater risk to health and safety than their western counterparts. The clear fact is that all the arguments brought against pupils in school wearing the jilbab are baseless and self-contradictory. The notion of banning the jilbab in school is nothing other than a direct attack against Islamic values, the reasons for which go far deeper than what is professed. It is not the garment itself that is the subject of the attack, but rather the thought and belief behind the decision to wear it, which is being challenged. The arguments presented are nothing but a thinly veiled attack against that which would motivate a young Muslim student to decide to wear Islamic attire. This is especially important since we find these arguments being made by the school itself. Schools and schoolteachers often see themselves as guardians of liberal secular values, whose duty is to impart their elevated beliefs into their students. However, the growing shift in the Muslim mindset towards ideological Islam, a belief that establishes the worship of a Creator and manifests in both personal and public life, not only contradicts the core values of a secular establishment but also poses as a real threat for them. This is why outward signs of adherence to Islam, especially by Muslim girls who are seen as ‘oppressed’, very often agitate schools into taking punitive measures to force adherence to the western values. However, by taking such oppressive measures and justifying them with weak and baseless excuses, the defenders of ‘liberal ideals’ have miserably failed to win the intellectual struggle. The firm stance that this brave young Muslim woman has taken for the sake of preserving her Islamic identity is to be commended, and is no doubt a strong indication of the growing revival of Islam in Britain and throughout the West. Nazia Jalali

Israel looks set to pursue a compensation claim on behalf of Jews who left Iraq over 50 years ago, despite no such similar consideration for Palestinian refugees. Tel Aviv has sent copies of over 800 documents to Washington, not Baghdad, in a bid to claim compensation for Israeli citizens who "were forced to abandon their property". A diaspora affairs ministry spokeswoman told Aljazeera.net on Tuesday that records have already been sent to the US State Department. Comprising "a partial list of Jewish properties as well as hundreds of marriage and death certificates from between 1949 and 2001", the papers were found by US-led occupation forces in Baghdad. They had been water-damaged and were difficult to decipher. Nevertheless, spokeswoman Rivka Kanarek said the documents "contribute to an evaluation of properties" in Baghdad. Sudden emigration Iraq's minister for reconstruction and planning, Bayan Sulagh, said on 31 March that Jews who left en masse "after coming under massive pressure in the wake of Israel's creation" would be entitled to reclaim their property. "Everyone knows there used to be Jews in Iraq and they owned property. Under the law, every Iraqi has the right to reclaim what belongs to them." There are less than two dozen Jews left in Baghdad today But any compensation claim will necessarily have to look into the causes of the mass emigration. Why would a community of 120,000, settled for over 2000 years in Baghdad, suddenly abandon their homes? The Jewish community was well integrated into Iraqi society, and generally prosperous. Yet during 1950 and 1951, more than 95% of the Jewish population left Iraq for Israel via airlifts known as Operation Ezra and Nehemiah. Historically accurate? But historians are now questioning the traditional Zionist explanation for the exodus. Speaking at a Jewish Studies Conference in Australia earlier this year, historian Philip Mendes of Latrobe University dismissed as simplistic the Israeli claim that the exodus was a response to a long history of persecution. He contends that the exodus from Iraq can also be attributed to numerous other factors, such as the prominent and popular identification of Jews with Communism and a British-Iraqi fear of political domination by the Soviet Union. Nevertheless, Tel Aviv will continue to push for compensation over an exodus it may have partially helped to engineer while refusing to even consider financial compensation for the Palestinians who have been refugees for over half a century. No disapora affairs ministry official was prepared to comment on the apparent paradox. Source: Aljazeera + Agencies

Most Americans were shocked by the sadistic treatment of Iraqi detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison. But we shouldn't have been. Not only are inmates at prisons in the U.S. frequently subjected to similarly grotesque treatment, but Congress passed a law in 1996 to ensure that in most cases they were barred from receiving any financial compensation for the abuse. We routinely treat prisoners in the United States like animals. We brutalize and degrade them, both men and women. And we have a lousy record when it comes to protecting well-behaved, weak and mentally ill prisoners from the predators surrounding them. Very few Americans have raised their voices in opposition to our shameful prison policies. And I'm convinced that's primarily because the inmates are viewed as less than human. Stephen Bright, director of the Southern Center for Human Rights, represented several prisoners in Georgia who sought compensation in the late-1990's for treatment that was remarkably similar to the abuses at Abu Ghraib. An undertaker named Wayne Garner was in charge of the prison system at the time, having been appointed in 1995 by the governor, Zell Miller, who is now a U.S. senator. Mr. Garner considered himself a tough guy. In a federal lawsuit brought on behalf of the prisoners by the center, he was quoted as saying that while there were some inmates who "truly want to do better . . . there's another 30 to 35 per cent that ain't fit to kill. And I'm going to be there to accommodate them." On Oct. 23, 1996, officers from the Tactical Squad of the Georgia Department of Corrections raided the inmates' living quarters at Dooly State Prison, a medium-security facility in Unadilla, Ga. This was part of a series of brutal shakedowns at prisons around the state that were designed to show the prisoners that a new and tougher regime was in charge. What followed, according to the lawsuit, was simply sick. Officers opened cell doors and ordered the inmates, all males, to run outside and strip. With female prison staff members looking on, and at times laughing, several inmates were subjected to extensive and wholly unnecessary body cavity searches. The inmates were ordered to lift their genitals, to squat, to bend over and display themselves, etc. One inmate who was suspected of being gay was told that if he ever said anything about the way he was being treated, he would be locked up and beaten until he wouldn't "want to be gay anymore." An officer who was staring at another naked inmate said, "I bet you can tap dance." The inmate was forced to dance, and then had his body cavities searched. An inmate in a dormitory identified as J-2 was slapped in the face and ordered to bend over and show himself to his cellmate. The raiding party apparently found that to be hilarious. According to the lawsuit, Mr. Garner himself, the commissioner of the Department of Corrections, was present at the Dooly Prison raid. None of the prisoners named in the lawsuit were accused of any improper behavior during the course of the raid. The suit charged that the inmates' constitutional rights had been violated and sought compensation for the pain, suffering, humiliation and degradation they had been subjected to. Fat chance. The Prison Litigation Reform Act, designed in part to limit "frivolous" lawsuits by inmates, was passed by Congress and signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1996. It specifically prohibits the awarding of financial compensation to prisoners "for mental or emotional injury while in custody without a prior showing of physical injury." Without any evidence that they had been seriously physically harmed, the inmates in the Georgia case were out of luck. The courts ruled against them. This is the policy of the United States of America. Said Mr. Bright: "Today we are talking about compensating prisoners in Iraq for degrading treatment, as of course we should. But we do not allow compensation for prisoners in the United States who suffer the same kind of degradation and humiliation." The message with regard to the treatment of prisoners in the U.S. has been clear for years: Treat them any way you'd like. They're just animals. The treatment of the detainees in Iraq was far from an aberration. They, too, were treated like animals, which was simply a logical extension of the way we treat prisoners here at home. Source: New York Times

Why do you use this forum?

Assalamu alaikum The article raises a number of points that a number of people have also raised in the discussion. First of all the punishment for homosexuality is stoning to death and this sentence just shows how the Laws of islam are no longer applied and islam is shown as backwards (one style is by showing the 'barbaric' nature of the penal system). As to the point of how freedom promotes such morality is clear you are either given islam or somehting else (kufr) hence this will be the predominate thought in life. In all society's islam is not fully promoted and what is promoted is freedom and what this freedom expounds is man is to enjoy himself. Because this concept is pushed people define there own levels fo satisfacation hence you have people that will satsify their sexual instincs through homosexuality, but because this concept is pushed so fiercly you will have people who will go further and practice paedophilia. The point is in a islamic society you have islamic thought pushed and this expounds marriage (in this case) as to satisfy the sexual instinct hence you do not give rise to such abomination. But the problem is we do not have islam in society. The muslims are realising the contradiction between how we live our lives to that of the kufr (the incompatibility) and this gives rise to the inevitable clash of civilisations. Going back to the issue of Zanzibar this makes it clear where in a muslim land kufr is implemented and has given rise to gays, the people have realised that Islam is being eroded away. a detailed discussion but i hope ive given some insight into my point, im happy to clarify or expand any points or stand to be corrected...

We know that Michael Moore is a well known critic of the Bush administration but does this move not illustrate the influence big business has in western politics. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/film/3685633.stm Controversial director Michael Moore has said film studio Disney is refusing to release his new documentary, which heavily criticises President Bush. Fahrenheit 911 was to be distributed by Miramax, a division of Disney. But Disney has "officially decided to prohibit" Miramax from distributing the film, the director said on his website. Moore, who won an Oscar for Bowling for Columbine in 2003, questioned whether in a "free and open society" Disney should be making such a decision. Fahrenheit 911 links Mr Bush with powerful families in Saudi Arabia, including that of Osama Bin Laden, and attacks his actions before and after 11 September. Some people may be afraid of this movie because of what it will show Michael Moore Miramax, run by Hollywood moguls Harvey and Bob Weinstein, agreed to distribute the documentary but Disney signalled it was not happy with the deal. Disney bought Miramax 10 years ago but retained the rights to block films it deemed against its interests, such as adult-rated films. But the New York Times said Miramax did not agree this was a situation where that clause should be invoked. "For nearly a year, this struggle has been a lesson in just how difficult it is in this country to create a piece of art that might upset those in charge," Moore said on his official site. Michael Eisner is chief executive of Disney "Some people may be afraid of this movie because of what it will show. "But there's nothing they can do about it now because it's done, it's awesome, and if I have anything to say about it, you'll see it this summer - because, after all, it is a free country." Miramax spokesman Matthew Hilzik told the New York Times: "We are discussing the issues with Disney. We're looking at our options and look forward to resolving this amicably." But Zenia Mucha, a Disney spokesman, said: "We advised both [Moore's] agent and Miramax in May of 2003 that the film would not be distributed. That decision stands." Moore's agent, Ari Emanuel, accused Disney and its chief executive Michael Eisner of fearing a loss of tax breaks if it backed the release in the US. Moore will give Fahrenheit 911 its world premiere at the Cannes Film Festival, but no date has been set for a US release.

Zanzibar is an Island in the Indian Ocean and has a majority Muslim population; it was formed in 1964 when the people rose up to challenge the puppet government that had been put in place by the British colonialist administration. 17,000 people died in this revolution to rid the British of any influence on its Island. This loss of life removed any physical presence the British had but it failed to remove the western culture that the British also provided. Zanzibar’s Parliament recently passed a bill that outlaws homosexuality, this has been found necessary due to the high levels of homosexuality apparent in society. The government fears that this continued rise would erode its Islamic identity; hence we see that the government has reacted by putting forward 25-year prison sentence for Homosexuality, seven years for lesbians and life imprisonment for those found sodomising minors. It would seem that from these measures that the government is clearly focussed on removing such behaviour from its society yet we find that the government has in fact promoted and given rise to homosexuality through encouraging in society the concept of personal freedom of individuals. The ruling party of Zanzibar the Chama cha Mapinduzi, Deputy Secretary General Saleh Rahmadan Feruzi told of the successes of Zanzibar since revolution were due to “freedom of movement and freedom of expression. That legacy lives on." A society that encourages freedom of expression inevitably allows people to satisfy the sexual instinct as they wish allowing the rise of homosexuality and other forms of sexual deviation. This problem is not just present in Zanzibarian society but is apparent in all societies because this very notion of freedom is promoted, throughout the world. In the West this notion of Freedom has given rise to startling statistics of record number of teenage pregnancies, rapes and child abuse. This is clearly due to the notion that society has promoted to individuals the freedom to satisfy their sexual instinct as they wish. Unfortunately due to the absence of Islam in the Muslim world, this concept of freedom is promoted by the puppet governments and will inevitably give rise to the clear sexual deviation apparent in the West. It is only through the application of Islam on a state level can society be moulded with the Islamic viewpoint and direct the sexual instinct to its correct method of satisfaction – Marriage between male and female.

Pakistan’s President Pervez Musharraf highlighted the importance of the Pakistan army by stating that the "defence of the motherland is the foremost responsibility of the armed forces". Having said this one would also assume that the President would support the army with the relevant resources to enable this to be a reality. However recent actions have far from achieved this but rather have weakened the army, these include: Reduction of the overall army by 50,000 soldiers, this is a nine-percent reduction and the first one ever undertaken in the history of Pakistan. These cuts will take place in vital aspects of the army such as logistics, which are imperative for a modern day army to be effective. Officials have been quoted as stating that "the projections for the defence budget in the forthcoming federal budget would not introduce an increase in real terms". Further more we know that the key proponents of reducing army expenditure are the World Bank, this highlights how once again policy decisions are made by the Western institutions. The insistence of America to provide troops for the Iraqi occupation will further weaken defences and will also reduce the morale of the army that is already suffering from the recent Waziristan operations where many personnel were killed. Clearly the army sees this as a clear contradiction in its role as it seen as a vanguard of Muslim interests not the Western colonialist nations and they’re anti Muslim agenda. The sacking of Abdul Qadeer Khan the Chief Nuclear scientist has created a Vacuum in terms of experience and knowledge in this vital Nuclear deterrent and defence field and is in agreement with American objectives of removing the nuclear strength of Pakistan. The constant removal and redeployment of Army command has weakened the leadership ability of the army, this has been done with the objective of securing the position of President Musharraf to any possible threat to his authority regardless of the negative consequences it has had on the military structure. In contrast we see that the Indian military also making clear the importance of its army with the Indian Finance Minister stating that modernising the Indian armed forces and equipping them with latest equipment was non-negotiable and "any additional requirement that may emerge on account of modernisation needs of the three defence services will be fully met." These are not like the empty slogans given by President Musharraf but are supported with the necessary resources and policy decisions, which are clearly seen with the Indian budget for FY 2003-2004 of Rs.653 billion being earmarked for expenditure on defence. It represents an increase of 16.6% over the last year’s budget estimates of Rs.560 billion. In terms of long term trends, the Indian defence spending jumped from $7.53 billion in 1991 to $12.87 billion in 2001. During the same period Pakistan's allocation for defence showed a negligible increase from $3.07 billion to $3.15 billion. While India has been sharply increasing its defence expenditure, Pakistan's defence budget during the last three years has remained almost static with considerable decrease in real terms, highlighting the failure of this and previous governments of providing the Military with the resources it requires. Its clear that Pakistan is becoming an insignificant nation in the eyes of its enemies with India continuing to increase its strength and we also see the rise of the enemy in Afghanistan, Its clear that the army has a clear role but a role that President Musharraf is failing to support with the necessary resources and policy decisions. The only hope for the Muslims is a sincere leadership that is not run as a satellite state of the American government. It is only a sincere leadership that has the will to strengthen the army to safeguard and bring dignity to this Ummah.