Jihad: Paradoxes and Defining Moments

http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/oct2001-daily/14-10-2001/main/main3.htm

Musharraf among patrons of Rabita Trust: US

By Amir Mateen

WASHINGTON: US authorities say President Pervez Musharraf was one of the patrons of Rabita Trust, a charity organisation whose assets have been frozen by the US because of its links with Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda organisation.

US officials said on Friday they had warned Musharraf of the impending order against the Rabita Trust and encouraged him to disassociate himself from what they described as its founder`s links to Al Qaeda.

The new list of 39 individuals and groups, which adds to 27 identified in a White House executive order last month, also named Jaish-i-Mohammad and four Pakistani individuals. The Rabita Trust has helped resettle refugees from Bangladesh to Pakistan for three decades. It had President Musharraf, among many other prominent Pakistani philanthropists, on its board. The main charge against the Rabita is that its secretary-general, Wael Hamza Jalaidan, was allegedly an original founder of Al Qaeda along with Osama bin Laden.

Some of the names enlisted by US authorities - including those of bakeries and corner honey shops -- may have raised some doubts about its credibility. Nevertheless, the naming of a havala dealer, Haji Abdul Mannan confirms about the impending crackdown on hawala and hundi dealers all over the world, particularly in Pakistan. US authorities are investigating if Al Qaeda used hundi system for their transactions.

Besides, Mufti Rashid of Al Rashid Trust, there are the names of Mohammad Zia and Dr Amin al Haq, described as an Afghan-born doctor practicing in Pakistan. He is believed to be security coordinator for Osama. The diplomatic sensitivity of Musharraf`s relation to the Rabita Trust was evident in the State Department`s handling of news inquiries about his role. A report in The New York Time said US officials initially drafted a standard response noting Musharraf`s involvement and making clear he was a well-respected figure with no knowledge of what it called al Qaeda`s `infiltration` of the trust. But later dropped any reference to Musharraf from its prepared response.

A State Department official said the Rabita Trust is ``a highly regarded Islamic trust with several prominent board members``. ``Our feeling is that Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda deliberately infiltrated the Rabita Trust and corrupted a reputable organization,`` the official said and added: ``We don`t think the prominent people who have their names on it were aware of the infiltration.``

It acknowledges that Rabita Trust is affiliated with a Pan Islamic organisation Rabita Alam-e-Islami, which is known in different countries with different names. In Pakistan, they have links with Jamaat-i-Islami. US authorities claim it has a multibillion-dollar budget financed by many wealthy Saudis.

Many Muslims scholars have protested over the accusation. Mustafa Alani, a British expert on Islamic groups, expressed shock that the US government listed the Rabita Trust, given its ties to a revered, decades-old charity. ``I am surprised, to say the least,`` he told The Times. ``This could turn into a witch hunt. This will make many Islamic foundations very nervous,`` he added.

The Treasury Department said the Rabita Trust`s secretary-general is Wa`el Hamza Jalaidan, whom it described as ``logistics chief`` and co-founder of Bin Laden`s organisation. Jalaidan lived in Arizona in the early 1980s and headed an Islamic centre there before joining Bin Laden in the fight against the Soviets in Afghanistan, terrorism expert Emerson said.

The list also names some of the biggest names in Saudi Royal family and may affect the US relations with Riyadh. It names Yasin al-Qadi, a Saudi businessman who has run a foundation with trustees that have included some of the kingdom`s most prominent families.

The Washington Post points out that the new list puts increased pressure on both Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, two countries whose help the United States has solicited in its war against terrorism. Today`s list, says the report, ups the ante by naming individuals and groups tied to countries considered vital in the alliance against terrorism.

rE: Rsridhar

``Why are non-muslims not allowed at Mecca?``

Why are non-Hindus not allowed in Puri? in Pushkar? and numerous other temples in India? Heck, why are scheduled castes not allowed either?

BTW, am I correct in observing that over the past few months your stance has shifted from a muslim-neutral one to an overt muslim-hostile one?

Re: Mansoor Ijaz`s comments

Saw Mansoor Ijaz on CNN. This guy is simply brilliant. He seems to suggest that though Musharraf is in control of the Army at the managerial level, he will have problems if large scale riots occur in Pak and the Army needed to be called, since the Army soldiers have sympathies with the demonstrators on the streets.

Commenting on Colin Powell`s visit to the region, he said that Vajpayee should accept Musharraf`s invitation to visit Pak and should accept to give concessions on Kashmir. Pak is going to be getting lot of aid (more than 800 million dollars so far he said)he said and India should co-operate with Pak. What is in it for India? Political and economic benefits. He said that India is behaving like a bride left out at the altar. Very evocative i thought. He ended the conversation by saying Kashmiris should be allowed self-determination and Pak should desist from encouraging terrorsists who were non-Kashmiris.

The question is will ABV respond? He will probably insist on Pak washing its hands off all Jehadi elements in Kashmir as a pre-condition. I also feel he may not agree to any concessions on Kashmir to a dictator but may make some conciliatory noises.

Sridhar

My #546 is addressed to # 537

Mr. Rodebaugh # 527

I suppose that was your article you were talking about. I see a good debate that should follow. You should have waited until Sunday night, that is, when Chowk changes its articles. I will try to write a critical note in a day or two and post it here if Chowk doesnt print your article. Plz use the ``previous 10`` button to see the response if this thread slips.

Saigalph # 527

Since you have given me only Yes/No choice, I will only answer as such. BUT :) I will advice strictly against drawing conclusions based on simple yes and No answers.

1. All adult citizens of an Islamic state ought to be treated with ABSOLUTE equality without regards to race, religion, gender, etc?

A. Yes

2. Non-Muslims, whether in peace or war, are infidels or kafirs?

A. No

3. If Muslims win a battle against non-Muslims, the property, the womenfolk, and the children of the vanquished becomes the war-booty of Muslims?

A. Yes

4. Ahmadiyas are Muslims?

A. No

5. A woman can be head of state in an Islamic Republic?

A. Yes

6. The perpetrators of the Sept 11 massacre in NYC ought to be punished without ifs, ands, buta?

A. Yes

7. A man can marry four women(under limuted circumstance) but a woman can marry only one man?

A. Yes

temporal #1 ``…can you tell us if you doodled this on the napkin or the restaurant menu?…" probably on the hem of the burqa of the afghan lady sitting next to him in the restaurant. But nothing wrong with doodling...you and I do it all the time on chowk. I guess the article could have demonstrated scholarship by going back not to 1960 AD, but to 300 AD or so when the evil cloth was passed on from Europe: yes, not even Arab pre-Islamic, but European!! And perhaps some insights into purdah in India, where it was observed at some historical times and in a certain fashion by hindu women, I understand. But what the heck, this is chowk, not the official PhD thesis website of the Harvard University, or even the official website of english language essays by first year students at the Chichawatni Intermediate College. We can live with an article that describes the differences between paki and afghan burqas, and provides profound revelations on how the upper and lower classes dont wear the burqa in Pakistan. Just as we can visit Islamabad zoo to check out the cute goats and the chicken, but if we want something more substantial, we spend a summer studying the gorillas of southern uganda, or the remains of the post-dinosaur monster birds of south america, or perhaps search for the coelocanth off the coast of madagascar.

sharia makes proud debut in another part of ummah

Nigeria ready to stone its first woman to death. She is pregnant.

Read about sharia

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-000081790oct13.story?coll=la%2Dheadlines%2Dworld

Re: Ahmadiyas

Another question asked by a layperson who phoned into CNN`s Larry King live was: why have the Ahmadiyas been ex-communicated? Does Islam allow ex-communication? This man sounded like a desi. In answer to his question, Abdullah again went on a tangent. Hannan Ashrafi of Palestine denied that anyone could be so ex-communicated. Can the Islamic intellectuals (Fuzair and others)on chowk please throw some light?

Sridhar

Re: A question for all the muslims on this forum

I have asked this question before and never got an answer.

WHY ARE NO NON-MUSLIMS ALLOWED ON THE HOLY SITE OF MECCA?

This question was asked by an American who phoned into Larry King Alive on CNN. No one on the panel (which included Hannan Ashrafi of Palestine, Abdullah Abdullah of Northern Alliance, a spokeswoman from RAWA,a woman`s organisation in Afghanistan and Imran Khan of Pakistan)seem to know the answer. Abdullah went on a tangent and started talking about terrorism. Ashrafi first said she does not know the answer but later added that perhaps it was because Mecca was a holy site. She also said Islam was all inclusive and was the only religion which recognised other religions. I did not get the last part of her answer. Does Hinduism not recognise Islam or does Christianity deny Islam.

Anyone from both sides of border may respond to this question.

Sridhar

Sadna,

Isn`t it amazing that PM thinks YLH and Sarwari are the future leaders of Pakistan? Pakistan to gaya bhaad me.

Both bigots of the first order.

One will go to the extent of lying before conceding a point and the other will pat him on the back for doing so.

And there`s PM being the effusive father figure to both of them.

PM,

```one foreign source` but about the validity of it, which ylh has ably discredited``

And how has YLH descredited that article. May I know?

PM Sahib,

``assuming you and MaheshG aren`t fabricating -- which itself is something of a leap of faith``

What did I do to you that you are accusing me of making up stuff?

Your love for that bigoted idiot seems to be clouding your judgement to the extent of calling white black.

Another Indian attempt to insult Pakistan, a direct attempt. I hope sarwari, PM, ylh and such others get very insulted.

CD 7444 ‘hijacked’ again by hoax callers

Swati Chaturvedi

(New Delhi, October 13) (HindustanTimes)





Anonymous callers tried to provoke Indian civil aviation into another round of nervous reaction this afternoon, barely 10 days after the hoax that led to the ``comedy of terror``.

Investigators suspect it to be the work of the same set of callers who pushed the nation to an edge on October 3.

Two calls were made to the number 5671197 at the Alliance Air office in Delhi at 3.30 pm and 3.48 pm, warning that the airline`s Mumbai-Delhi flight CD-7444, scheduled for 11 pm, ``would this time be hijacked for real``.

This is the same telephone number on which the hoax call was made the first time. The warning was also about the same flight.

The response appeared more controlled this time. The watch supervisory officer who received the calls immediately informed the Commissioner, Bureau of Civil Aviation Security, and the airlines top brass. This information was promptly relayed to the IB chief KP Singh. And the Crisis Management Group (CMG) was also briefed.

This time the investigators were luckier. One of the callers was a woman, while the other seemed a child. The calls were traced to a mobile number (9837229447) in Bajpur, UP. This is a cash card number, and investigators have not been able to identify the user yet. However, the several calls made from this number between 2.30 pm and 4.09 pm are leads for intelligence agencies.

The flight was, meanwhile, cleared to take off at its scheduled time.

re urstruly, too many posts

Okay, you have muddled everything too much. Lets get it straight. Here are several yes/no questions that, if you are bold/courageous enough, you can answer and set things beyond doubt:

Do YOU believe, as a Muslim, that:

1. All adult citizens of an Islamic state ought to be treated with ABSOLUTE equality without regards to race, religion, gender, etc?

2. Non-Muslims, whether in peace or war, are infidels or kafirs?

3. If Muslims win a battle against non-Muslims, the property, the womenfolk, and the children of the vanquished becomes the war-booty of Muslims?

4. Ahmadiyas are Muslims?

5. A woman can be head of state in an Islamic Republic?

6. The perpetrators of the Sept 11 massacre in NYC ought to be punished without ifs, ands, buta?

7. A man can marry four women(under limuted circumstance) but a woman can marry only one man?

On all of the above, only a yes/no answer can suffice. Anything else is a cop-out.

Unlike what you think or like to think, according to the words of our

holy Prophet (pbuh) the difference (of opinion) is a blessing for his

nation. The debate keeps an ideology and an idea dynamic and

the process of evolution keeps on going. I dont understand, on one

hand you accuse us of being rigid and on the other hand you

accuse us of debating our disagreements. You have to make up

your mind. On one hand you take pride in the rational thinking

which is spurred by debate and difference of opinion and on the

other hand you think that it is a sin if we do the same. So which

one is it. Is it possible that your opinion about us is biased

because of your prejudices and your objectivity is blinded by mere

hate. If you cant make up your mind, ask, debate but if you have

already make up your mind then have decency to admit it.

UrsTruly:

There is nothing wrong in debating. The problem is that debate has no meaning in the realm of beliefs. If the Holy Prophet (PBUH) encourages debate, that is a good thing. But when you come down to ideas that are spiritual, and then tend to debate them in a temporal realm, the result is chaos. That is what scares me, and yes, that fear leads to hatred.

You are right, my objectivity is blinded, not against everyone who disagrees with me, but against those whose points of reference are based on belief not fact. It`s not just possible, it is fact that I am biased against you. By that I mean I am biased against any man who wnats to judge me on crimes against God. I am not an athiest, but even if I was, then it is upto God to judge. No man has that right. If I am a sinner, not of man`s laws, but of God`s laws, it is God`s right to judge me, and no man`s.

I have Sikh friends who believe in Sikhism being the ultimate salvation. They insist that religion has a role in public life, and say that there should be a dialogue between faiths. The problem is that if religion is based upon faith and belief, is there any purpose to dialogue?

If you are to talk about matters temporal, then at least I can listen to what you say, and there will be facts on the ground to enable us to achieve a correct solution. In matters of faith, if I believe in my religion and you do in yours, then what good is debate. If you talk to a Christian fundamentalist, he/she will say that unless you believe in Jesus Christ as God, you are condemned to hell. How are you going to argue that? It says so in the Bible. Nothing you say will change that person`s mind, because the Bible to the Christian fundamentalist resembles the Ultimate Truth.

So, to answer your question, yes I am not objective and yes I hate. Not because I am an unreasonable person, but because I see no middle ground, no point of context to even begin to argue with you. Your type want to interpret God`s word for all of humanity thereby playing God yourself. My type want to interpret God`s word just for ourselves as individuals, thereby retaining our humble positions as mere mortals. Politically speaking, just as you say you are not a liberal, I say I am not either. Therefore, neither of us will give an inch, debate is futile, and either your kind will survive, or mine. The result is upto God.