From: samir@tfs.com (Samir Elias)
Subject: Re: Saddam
Organization: TRW Financial Systems
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 10:59:36 GMT

In article <4998@copper.Denver.Colorado.EDU> aaldoubo@copper.denver.colorado.edu (Shaqeeqa) writes:
>In article <1jnv0bINNfgk@life.ai.mit.edu> steel@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Nick Steel) writes:
>>
>>I'd like to address here the term "Islamic unity" and how
>>that is related to Saddam.  Islamically, are you supposed to
>>be on the side of Iraq or USA during that bloody war?
>>The intentions of the West/Israel/USA was known, that's
>>why *ALL* of Jihadic/islamic movements around the world was
>>in support or at least on the side of Iraq.  All of less
>>islamic poppet governments, such as Saudia/Qatar/...etc
>>took the other side.  Can you really say there was an
>>islamic split?  I don't think so.
>
>Actually, as we are referring to the Gulf War, the scholars
>rejected and denounced both Western intervention and Saddam's
>invasion.  

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??
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.
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 ?

>			Of course the Islamic position was to "resist the
>imperialist invasion ... which is pan-Arab, Islamic, and universal
>responsibility", "to liberate the Islamic world from any foreign
>tutelage".  [Dr. Arabiyyat, Brotherhood spokesman]

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

>													The overall
>philosophy was in accordance with mainstream Islamic thought in
>that "disputes must be settled within an Arab or Islamic framework",
>but there was still the question of Saddam's vindication of his
>invasion of another Muslim nation [nation comprised of Muslim peoples
>verses structure of government].  

At some point in the struggle of any religous or political movement
it must break all the ties and activley try to prove that what
it believes in is not only "theoratical" but ideas that can and
must be part of reality.
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??

>									Furthermore, the legitimacy,
>Islamically of declaring jihad [especially on Israel], as a means of
>fueling support among Muslims.  There was still the uncertainty with
>the concepts of jihad and what it meant and how it was applied in
>"international politics", apart from the fact that Saddam is not a
>Muslim leader. 
>
>In Algeria, for example, the Islamic groups merged their ideas on
>the issue, but Dr. Abassi Madani [FIS leader] condemned Saddam
>Hussein/Iraq of its invasion of Kuwait from the beginning, stating
>that the FIS leadership refused "Saddam's pretensions to be leading
>a jihad", and discouraged his supporters from "elevating Saddam into
>a hero". 
> 
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??
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??
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". 
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"??
Frankly as long as the brotherhood is not supplying a good 
practical alternative the arab/muslim masses will always try 
to find someone who they think is representing some of their ideas and ideals.

>The Arab states were still in a difficult position between "public opinion
>favorable to Saddam Hussein and their financial dependence on the
>Gulf states", and this separation cause difficulties in "creating consensus
>on foreign policy and national security issues'.  There was pressure, but
>the deployment of troops produced distress among Arabs and Muslims in view
>of Arab unity.  [All quotes from "Islamic Fundamentalism and the Gulf States"
>by James Piscatori:  pp. 196, 75, 140, 19, 20]
>
>>As to the islamism of Saddam, I cannot judge his heart really,
>>but his previous deeds prove otherwise.  You can ALWAYS BE 
>>a bad person, but when on the Freeway you see you are about
>>to die from a big truck that's about to hit you, you say:
>>Ya Allah out of fear.  i.e. you *remember* God when you 
>>are under pressure, serious pressure.  I think *WE* ALL 
>>can relate to issues like this in our lives.
>
>There are too many Islamic positions to be taken against Saddam Hussein
>in view of his sincerity Islamically - especially in view of his
>leadership and record of causing the murders and misfortunes of Muslims
>in Iraq, 

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.

>		and, as a key player and [then] puppet utilized by the United
>States.  Without being completely familiar with Sharia, as Muslims, we
>know that there are legitimate judgement calls on such a ruthless
>dictator, who only applies Islam when and to his advantage politically.
>

Many people seem to be following the lead of the "west" in accusations
and then "legitimizing" their accusations using the media,money and
all other means of people manipulation and influence.
The "west" started to say "we do not have problems with the iraqi
people,only with their (ruthless dictator)",and they started to kill
and destroy the livlyhood of the iraqis who most of them were living
comfortably under the "ruthless/brutal dictator",as long as they do
not participate in any political avtivities.
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 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"??
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.

>>I am not a Saddam supporter, but I cannot say that he's not
>>a true islamic believer at this point.  Under pressure you
>>can turn into a Salah-Adden, Abdullah Azzam, Omar,
>>or Abu Bakr.
>
>And Assad, also under pressure, declared 'ashado anla ellaha elallah,
>wa ashado ana Mohammeden rasool Allah' publically, because he knew
>that no Muslims could call on his assassination.  How can you say
>that you do not support Saddam Hussein as a Muslim believer, yet claim,
>with knowledge of his deeds, that you "cannot say that he's not a
>true islamic believer at this point"?  Remember the words of Allah
>[Subhanna Wa Ta'ala] in Hadith Qudsi:  "O My servants, I have forbidden
>oppression for Myself and have made it forbidden amongst you, so do not
>oppress one another...", "Truly of those devoted to Me the one I favor
>is a believer who is of meagre means and much given to prayer, who has
>been particular in the worship of his Lord and has obeyed Him inwardly,
>who was obscure among people and not pointed out, and whose sustenance
>was just sufficient to provide for him yet he bore this patiently...",
>and, "Paradise and Hell-fire disputed together, and Hell-fire said: In me
>are the mighty and the haughty.  Paradise said: In me are the weak and the
>poor..."
>
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.
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.

>>We could say he wrote "Allah o Akbar" on the iraqi flag
>>to gain islamic support only, but why don't we apply the
>>same analigy to Hamas as well.
>
>The difference is that the Brotherhood calls for an Islamic
>State and justice, fi sabeelellah.  They are pure and
>believers in Allah Subhanna Wa Ta'ala.  Thousands died as a
>result of their belief in Allah and Al-Quoran Al-Kareem.
>
I believe that islamic state and justice is coming and we
should try to protect it when it becomes a reality, and from noW
we should try to make sure that it will come as smoothly and
confidently as possible without having the land that it should
rule be occupied by the "west" the most stern enemy of islam.

>The criminal Saddam has massacred millions of innocent people,
>including gassing women and children, who called on Islam and
>their rights as Muslims.  

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.
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"),
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.

===================================================
"Iraqi Power and U.S. Security in the Middle East"
A study by "Stephen C. Pelletiere, Douglas Johnson and Leif
Rosenberger"
From the "Stratigic Studies Institute" U.S. Army War College
(U.S. Government Printing Office,1990).


This study reveals that both Iran and Iraq used chemical weapons
in attacking the border city of "Halabja" which each side 
mistakenly beleived was being held by the enemy troops.

The study reveals that the kurds had died of "cyanide gas"
possesed only by the IRANIANS: "it seemed likely that it was
the IRANIAN bombardment that had actually killed the kurds".

TURKISH physicians who treated the kurds for various ailments at
that time revealed that they were unable to verify claims of
chemical attaks.

The study concluded that "having looked at all of the evidence
that was available to us,we find it impossible to confirm the
State department's claim that gas was used in this instance".
==============================================================


>						He has waged usless wars for his
>profit and benefit politically, with the toll being the innocent
>Muslim people.  Saddam's Political Party is against the Holy
>Quoran and the Laws of Islam.
> 
The iran-iraq war was started after endless harassments by 
iran,that caused many iraqs to lose their lives,there was
an attempt 10 day after the war started to cease fire and
enter into negotiations but the iranian government refused
hoping to take this as a prelude to control iraq.
So the reason for this war to continue was iran intentions.

The war with the U.S. was started by the "west" that refused 
all possible ways to end the conflict peacfully since the
intent was to destroy iraq as events later had shown.

>>We cannot judge people's heart most of the time except
>>from their behavior.  I saw Saddam pray on TV, can you
>>Anisa say that he's not , at that praying point, bowing
>>to Allah?  Can you say he's not really praying for Him?
>>No you shouldn't.
>
>Can you make the same claim that he is?
>
>If he had the tiniest ounce of fear of Allah The Almighty, he
>would be repenting instead of defiantly breaking the treaties
>that he made with his ex-collaborators, at the further expense
>of Muslim people.
>

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
that iraq agreed and was forced to end the war to prevent the murder
of more Iraqi Muslim people by the "west" and their "heroic" arab
slaves.

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.
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.

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.

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














P.S.
----
The above reflects my opinions only,they by no means reflect
those of my employer.