From: aaldoubo@copper.denver.colorado.edu (Shaqeeqa)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.arabic
Subject: Re: Saddam
Date: 24 Jan 93 23:13:48 GMT
Organization: University of Colorado at Denver

In article <1993Jan23.105936.17116@tfs.com> samir@tfs.com (Samir Elias) writes:
>
>When the "west" conspired with the kuwaitis to try to break
>the iraqi economy by overflowing world markets with cheap
>oils those same sholars where quiet can i ask why,what were
>they busy doing,making money may be??

Samir, let me tell you something first before I proceed with this
post.  The scholars whom I quoted are not from the Gulf nor are
they apologists for the Kuwaiti government.  They are representatives
of the Brotherhood in Algeria and Jordan.  I don't have the time or
the energy at this point to research every perspective of the Islamic
scholars or Brotherhood.  But I can tell you that the material that I
quoted from my last posting is in accordance with mainstream Islam.
Your statements are extremely biased and you are making judgement calls
without knowledge or understanding of what you are saying.  Furthermore,
the statement that you made above reflects the type of propoganda that
Saddam Hussein used to justify his attack and *invasion* on Kuwait.

>if you think that this is not correct,what then do you call,
>and this comes from an iraqi oil engineer,the theft of iraqi
>oil from iraqi Al-rumaila fields using special drilling techniques
>from the kuwati side of the border?? this was done under 
>supervision of the us oil companys,do you think this was
>for the good of the iraqis?? by the way do you know who
>controls these iraqi fields now?? u.s. oil companys.

I don't have inside knowledge into this matter, so I will
not comment.

>if you call iraqi takeover of kuwait an invasion what then
>do you call u.s. actions against iraq?"intervention"? can'nt
>you be a little more harsh?what prevents you,or the scholars ?

But it WAS an invasion!  Iraq crossed the Kuwaiti border and used
military force to take over while killing, pillaging, and raping
Kuwait and its citizens.  Despite the fact that Kuwait paid the
U.S. several million dollars for their cause and the United States
eagerly wanted to intervene for its own interests, this was still
a violation of the security and sovereignty of a nation and of
international law.  Kuwait did try to make concessions with Iraq
over the issues of dispute, but Saddam refused to listen.  He
poised his tanks on the Kuwaiti border weeks before the invasion.
He planned to invade Kuwait regardless of what agreements were made,
because this is how ruthless Saddam is.  But this has been a dream of
Iraq since 1963.  Qasim said, "the Republic of Iraq has decided to
protect the Iraqi people in Kuwait and to demand the land, arbitrarily
held by imperialism, which belongs to Iraq." [Iraq: The Contemporary
State].  In the early 70's there were continual border clashes and in
1972, Iraq threatened to invade Kuwait until Britain was called in.
Eighteen years later, Latif Nassayif Jassim reiterated Qasim's words as
he announced that "Kuwait is the 19th province of Iraq and this fact will
not be changed whatsoever, even if we fight a long war."  [Rocky Mountain
News/October 16, 1990]  Before the invasion, Saddam resorted to propoganda
by accusing Kuwait of conspiring with the U.S. as a way of ruining Iraq's
economy, and of stealing $2.4 billion in oil revenues, which, has been a
source of contention [the oil well in southern Iraq] since 1961. 

If you want to blame the U.S. for its "actions against Iraq", you should
look to the Arab League FIRST and its failure to reach an agreement on 
how to handle the situation.  I am one of the last to ever support the
corrupt policies of the Kuwaiti/Saudi government, nor do I hope to ever
find myself in that position; however, when it comes to wanting to elevate
Saddam Hussein as an Arab hero, you will know exactly where I stand.  In view
of the opinions by the scholars, I told you that they both rejected and
condemned Iraq of its invasion of another Muslim country, Kuwait of "amassing
colossal fortunes against God's Will", and that American intervention and
presence in Saudi Arabia was completely wrong - that "the holy places belonged
to all Muslims and their management should be entrusted to the ulama".  [Dr.
Abassi Madani]  I already explained the position of the Brotherhood in Jordan
and how strongly they condemned the United States.

>I hold a great respect and admiration to the brotherhood movement,
>and i wish it will show more backbone in dealing with tremondous
>problems.

What more do you want?  The Brotherhood in Jordan is a majority in parliament
and limited in power.  The movements around the Arab world are not even
recognized, and as you know, in North Africa, especially in Egypt, are being
oppressed.

>You know you can resist passively for so long but then at some
>point you must actively react?? when will that come from this
>movement?? was this western attack not a big enough action to
>warrant an active reaction from the movement?? or does the movement
>also have its hands tied becuase of saudi money??  please react to
>these questions calmly.

I don't know how much more calmly I can!  How dare you accuse such an
organization with such pure philosophy and beliefs of being bought by
the Saudi government?!?  I did not say that the Brotherhood was financially
dependent on the Gulf States - I said that the Arab countries were;
therefore, were "caught between public opinion favorable to Saddam Hussein
and its financial dependence on the Gulf States".  The overall attitude WAS
that the Gulf War and INVASION of American troops in Saudi Arabia was wrong
Islamically!  But Saddam's invasion and rape of Kuwait was not condoned
either.  Do you expect the Brotherhood to deal in unfair practices as
favorable to one side only?  And I only quoted you a few sources.  Why don't
you do some research yourself instead of criticizing?

>Trying to stick to "imposed" ideas that what iraq did was something
>that should be condemned and that it should be reversed,ignors the
>fact that the same "western" countries that imposed the borders on
>the arabs are the ones trying to inforce them. The assumption always
>was that the brotherhood movement was in conflict with these "western"
>powers, should we assume now that this is no longer true?? and the
>brotherhood platform is going to change to mirror that of the 
>"u.s. republican party" or should it mirror this of the 
>"u.k. conservative party",or should it follow whoever pays more??

The Movement IS in conflict with the West and WILL NOT change to appease
the West.  I strongly urge you to read Mujmu'at Rasa'il Al-Imam Al-Shahid
Hasan Al-Banna.  If you wish to continue the discussion of the "platform
of the Brotherhood", I suggest taking this via email.  Concerning the
border disputes and imposition of, the difference here is that Kuwait was
a recognized state in 1961.  Iraq refused to recognize this; therefore,
has, since then, wanted desparately to annex Kuwait.  Whether or not Kuwait
was actually once a part of Iraq is another discussion.

>Sometimes we muslims do not chose our enemys,they choose us.
>The jihad is an essential part of islam,it has not been declared
>yet after all what has happened to muslims?? when do you think it
>will be declared?? who will declare it?? and who is the enemy??

What do you think about all the Movements around the world?  What
about the Intefada?  Algeria?  Sudan?  Egypt?  Syria?  Jihad does not
come overnight, and it comes in different forms and through different
methods.  Of course you have to look at the root of Jihad itself, and
what it means.  Striving in the Path of Allah Subhanna Wa Ta'ala.  Can
you suggest that there has not been any striving fi sabeel Allah?  What
I am saying, is that the Muslim Ummah need to shake itself of such
anti-Islamic ideologies and leaders, like Saddam Hussein et al.
 
>Does any muslim have any doubt that "western colonialism" can be
>a target of jihad??. do'nt you think that it will lose its value
>if never defined and never declared?? do you think that jihad
>will only be decalred once in the islamic history,
>after which we all die or become victorious??

Jihad will NEVER lose its definition or value!  Jihad is not a single
act in a specific time frame.  It is the continual struggle of good
against evil.  Perhaps you, as a Muslim brother, should read the chapter
of Jihad in Riyad Asalaheen or Sahih Muslim for a clearer picture of
what Jihad is.

>I think the brotherhood leaders should be very carefull who and
>what to condemn, and pull themselves away from following whatever
>they are told by the "west" and by their "financial" supporters,
>since they are responsible for the goodwill of there followers 
>and they will be judged by allah "subhanahu wa ta'alla". 

Samir, it appears that you took my entire article out of context and
misunderstood the quotes to try and legitimize your position.  People
who criticize something they do not understand should be very careful
whom and what they condemn, and pull themselves away from following whatever
they are told by facist leaders and its followers, since they are responsible
for what they say and do and will be judged by Allah Subhanna Wa Ta'ala.

>And please explain to me what the word "hero" means,and why is
>it that everybody trys to caution the arabs/muslims from considering
>anyone of them a "hero"?? is it that they should never have someone
>to follow?? is it that their "hero" should only be their "masters"
>who will contorl them by money and "protection"??

The Muslims are only to look to the Prophet Mohammed [saws] as their
leader - and NOT secular governments and ideologies.  Most Arabs consider
Saddam Hussein and others as their god.  This attachment to a figure
this evil has done more to destroy the people than anything else, since
they are blinded by false propoganda and mislead away from Islam and The
Truth.

>The "Islamic" positions you claim are either non islamic,or they
>extremely lack the sight and vision needed to be of any ligitimacy,
>since they participated directly or otherwise in much more murders
>and misfortunes to muslims in iraq than any one can envision.

I'm afraid that you misunderstood.  As I stated before, it would be
in your best interests to do a little more research instead of
spouting off false judgements and propoganda to support your position
in favor of Saddam Hussein.

>I think that the arabs/muslims who opposed the iraqi people are
>actually applying a "jihad" against the iraqi people under 
>the lead of the "west",so please

Tell me, who opposed or is opposing the Iraqi people?

>tell me who is more "islamic",(based on you interpretation), the
>"west" or the "ruthless/brutal dictator"?? and why should muslims follow
>the "jihad" lead by the "west" and not follow the "jihad" called by
>a self proclaimed muslim "ruthless/brutal dictator"?? what reasons
>can there be other than lack of vision,immidiate financial gains,
>or simply being "puppets"??

Neither one is "more 'islamic'".  Infact, they are both partners in
crime against Muslim peoples, Kurds, and Iranians - whom the United
States supported to stop the Islamic government of Iran under the
leadership of the late Ayatollah Khomeini.  It was the billions of
dollars that Saddam received from his-then allies (including the sheikhs
in the Gulf) to massacre millions of Muslim men, women, and children
just to put a 'lid' on Iran.

>Also when the "west" started declaring that they helped iraq with
>what "800 million dollar" loans,everybody started pointing at the
>"ruthless/brutal dictator" as the puppet of the west,without even
>knowing that the yearly iraqi gnp is approximatily "20 billion dollars",
>which means that what iraq recieved was a drop in the bucket 
>compared to its financial power,mind you that this power was weakened
>by the iran-iraq war but was starting to get back to normal,and that
>the only reason to take this loan was a "western" condition for 
>supplying iraq with some high tech equipment,that it wanted to use
>to develop its own industrial technology,using iraqi brains 
>to achieve iraqi goals.

And you omitted the fact that Kuwait had provided Iraq with a $2 billion
(interest free) loan for post-war damages, and promised Iraq extensive
financial assistance to build gas pipelines which would have brought Iraq
an estimated $500 in annual revenues.

>I support the iraqi people and respect whatever choice they make
>without the influence of any outside powers,persons or personalties
>or "heros" matter less for me,what matters is the well being of 
>iraq and its people.

I think every Muslim agrees with you.  But the Iraqi people have been
subjected to tyranny and the blood-thirsty rule of a leader whom they
are forced to support, which has caused the greatest damage to their
well-being than "any outside power".

>Also quran tells muslims to protect themselves from those who
>want to kill them,even at the personal level,i think that the
>"ruthless/brutal dictator" has had his share of attempts on his
>life by hired killers,the last one being ex-president bush.

So, the Muslims in Iraq should do everything in their power to uproot
evil at its direct source, so as to "protect themselves from".  And 
we are obligated by the Holy Quoran to strive in the Path of Allah by
ridding ourselves of such dictators who inflict pain and suffering on
the Muslim Ummah.

>The shiit in the south have never claimed that they were
>gassed,the shiits who revolted against iraq were sent over
>the border from iran to insite disturbances after the war,
>and they were dealt with quickly.

Never?  What about in 1988?  "Saddam's Army launched a chemical attack
on the town of Halabja, killing 5,000 Kurds and forcing hundreds of
thousands to seek refuge in Turkey and Iran".  [Newsweek/April 15, 1991]

Yes, dealt with quickly - "The Iraqi newspapers reported 'death,
destruction, chaos and looting beyond description', in the predominantly
Shiite Muslim south.  They said hundreds of bodies, some of them mutilated
beyond identification, had been left in the streets of Karbala, one of the
two Shiite holy cities, and nearby Hilla.  Al Thawra, the newspaper of the
ruling Baath Party, said devastation in Karbala was immense, and it blamed
rioters for the violence.  The newspaper quoted the local governor, Ghazi
Mohammed, as saying that government offices, party headquarters, banks,
police stations and civil defense offices had been destroyed and that dozens
of people were killed when rioters attacked the city's main hospital."
"Al Thawra and Al Qadissiyah, the Defense Ministry newspaper, both carried
pictures showing bodies, including that of a child, as well as damaged public
buildings."  "Jawad Malki, a spokesman for the Shiite Fundamentalist Dawa
Party, said 'thousands of women and children' were burned to death and their
'bodies are still strewn on the ground'." [Denver Post/ March 18, 1991]

>The kurds ,who with support of the west started killing
>government officials after torturing them(one point here
>not all government officails are "ruthless/brutal dictators"),

Where do you obtain that information?!

>have never claimed that their movement was/is an islamic
>movement that calls for an islamic state,and they proved lataely
>how "brutal dictators" they are when they murdered their own
>brothers with the help of TURKEY,which is another proof of to
>what length the kurdish leadership will go to assert itselt.

I never said that the Kurds wanted to establish an Islamic state.
I stated that they want autonomy.  "All we want is the right to till
our land in peace, the right to local government, the right to speak
our language and have it taught in our schools." "We realize that an
independent Kurdistan is out of the question."  [Quotes from Barzani
from Time/April 15, 1991]

"In northern Iraq, Kurdish rebels last week raised their red and green
flag over the main border crossing into Turkey; they control most of
the region despite savage pounding by Iraqi helicopter gunships.  Troops
patrolled the streets of Baghdad and manned roadblocks at entrances to
the city.  In the south, refugees said Iraqi Republican Guards stafed
crowds, burned the wounded alive and hanged captives from tank barrels."
"Loyalist Iraqi units retaliated with tanks, artillery and helicopter
attacks, indiscriminately blasting civilian areas.  'The tanks fired on
the houses randomly', said Muhsen Khamas, a 53-year-old shopkeeper who fled
to Iran last week.  Kazwan Fiyasser Kasaf, a teenager who fled from al-Amara
to a refugee camp in the Iranian border towwn of Bostan, said Saddam's forces
'burned young pepole with gasoline and threw women from the top of the bridge'.
U.S. intelligence officials last week said they had reports of rebel areas
hit with artillery rounds and short-range FROG-7 missiles loaded with white
phosphorus."  [Newsweek/March 25, 1991]

"When the people of Zakhu caught a glimpse of the helicopters in the distance,
they started to flee the town in terror.  'When our people see aircraft
coming, they panic', said Khalil Ibrahim.  'They know what Saddam's chemical
weapons and bombs can do'."  "The fleeing Kurds were disppointed, more than
angered, by the lack of support from the United States and other gulf allies.
They were not asking for weapons; they captured a small arsenal from Saddam's
forces a month ago.  But they did want air support against Iraq's helicopters
and tanks, as well as more food and medical aid.  Fearing an uprising among
their own Kurdish populations, the neighboring countries of Turkey, Iran and
Syria have offered little if any assistance."  [Newsweek/April 15, 1991]

[deletions]

>No treaty that iraq signed says anything about the 2 nofly zones,
>that iraq still refuses to aknowledge, also the border 
>arrangement was done solely between kuwait and the U.N. forced
>by the U.S. and enforced using the oil money from stolen 
>Iraqi oil fields in AL-Rumaila,
>iraq was not envolved in this and does not recognise it, and remember

The treaty DID say that Baghdad is PROHIBITED from sending Iraqi army
troops, special police officers and border guards into the security zones!
"'We have made it clear to Iraq that we maintain the capability and the
willingness to undertake further action if necessary', Defense Department
spokesman Pete Williams said."  [Rocky Mountain News/July 13, 1991]  Iraq
did not recognize the boundary, but that doesn't mean that they are exempt
from complying with the U.N. Resolutions.  And they knew what the consequences
would be.  The defiantly opposed this, and the result was that more Iraqi
people were killed.  "Told to move his missiles out of the no-fly zone that
protects Shiites in southern Iraq, Saddam dismantled some sites -- no one could
confirm that he actually withdrew them -- then thumbed his nose at Washington
by moving missiles into the northern no-fly zone, where U.S. air patrols
protect the Kurds.  Condemned by the U.N. Security Council for violating
Kuwait's frontier, Saddam continued to send Iraqi work crews across the border
-- for four days running, under the very noses of U.N. truce observers -- then
rubbed salt in the wound by restating his claim to the emirate.  'Kuwait shall
return to Iraq in defiance of the Security Council and America', Saddam's
press secretary, Abduljabbar Muhsen, wrote in the government newspaper al-
Jumhouriya.  'Kuwait will remain in Iraq's shadow'."  [Rocky Mountain News/
January 14, 1993]

>Finally i hope someday arabs/muslims will recognize that the
>issue is not this person or that and look at a bigger picture
>and look behind the motives and behind the advertised news.

What about advertised propoganda from the Iraq?  The bigger picture is
TO LOOK at the real issues at hand and the people who are determining
the outcome of events yesterday, today, and tomorrow!  When will you
recognize that you are promoting the stereotypes against the Arab and
Muslim people?

>If we all try to participate in each of our nations well being
>without regards to our own personal immediate benifit but at
>the good that may come to our childrean and theirs,then our
>good people will live and prosper and no power can attempt
>to force us to do what we do not want to do.

What personal benefit DO I and other Muslims people have in this?  WE
ARE looking for the IMMEDIATE BENEFIT of MUSLIMS around the world.
GOT IT?

>John F. Kenedy (of all people) said:
>"Ask not what your country can do for you,ask what you can do
>for your country"
>
>A great statement from,may be a not so,great person.

I'm not about to support a tyrannical, secular government who calls on
the death and destruction of anyone who steps in his path.

>Our religion has a lot to offer but some of us chose some of it
>distort it,and then tell the rest of us that their 
>distorted interpretations is the way to go. 

Who is distorting it?  Who quoted accurate sources?

>I wish we can try to understand it and not allow our selfeshness 
>take the better part of our judgment.

And I wish that YOU can UNDERSTAND it and not allow your personal
biasedness and influences to take the better part of your judgement
and rational!!

Anisa

Newsgroups: soc.culture.arabic