NewTrendMag.org
 
News
 # 
1414
[
Click on NEWS for back issues
][
OUR BOOKS
][
Previous Issue
]
Dhulhijja 18, 1432/November 14, 2011 # 47
National Islamic Shoora of Jamaat al-Muslimeen: Historic 
Meeting held on November 12.
Peaceful Resistance to War, Occupation, Zionism, Racism & 
the Exploitation of Women
Imam Badi Ali hosted the Central Committee [National Islamic 
Shoora] of Jamaat al-Muslimeen In Greensboro, North Carolina 
on November 12. The meeting lasted 13 hours with breaks for 
prayers, lunch and dinner. The local community provided 
abundance of delicious Arab style food. Prayers, Zuhr, Asr,  
Maghreb and Isha were led by Dr. Abdulalim Shabazz.
[
DrAAS.info
]
Jamaat al-Muslimeen is spreading its message of peaceful 
resistance to oppression, exploitation and war in:
Maryland,
Washington, DC.,
North Carolina
Pennsylvania
Tennessee
New York
Michigan
California
Texas and
Louisiana
The  Central Committee of the Shoora was addressed on 
November 12 by:
Dr. Kaukab Siddique, Ameer of JAM. He quoted extensively 
from the Qur'an and the Hadith to explain the Islamic 
concepts of organization and communication to bring up 
effective opposition to the power structure within the 
limits of the law.
Dr. Abdulalim Shabazz, distinguished and famous professor of 
Mathematics, spoke in detail about the links between racism 
and Zionism. He introduced  a new research work on slavery 
produced  by the NOI. He showed how "white supremacy" now 
appears in the shape of Zionist Jews and their networks in 
America.
Imam Khalil Abdur Rahman spoke on the struggle of Imam Jamil 
Abdullah al-Amin, being held in a sound proof cell in a 
maximum security prison in Colorado. He stated the latest 
situation of Imam Jamil, his steady efforts to stand for 
Islam in his life, and the legal steps being taken on his 
behalf which are facing challenges from the authorities
Various brothers and sisters led discussions on the 
following:
Jamaat al-Muslimeen's Mission and Message.
"Occupy Wall Street."
Extending hand of friendship to Christians: Methodology for 
Approach to Christians.
JAM activities in support of African Americans, Native 
Americans, homeless people, other non-Muslims.
Overview of the activities of puppet groups [also known as 
the 4 letter groups]
Conditions of Muslim prisoners in the US prison systems. 
Palestine, Pakistan, the re-colonization of Africa, the Arab 
Spring.
Resolutions Passed Unanimously by the National Islamic 
Shoora at 11 PM on November12.
Advice to the Muslim Ummah and its friends. [Please 
distribute widely.]
Resolutions about our home, America:
- 
We urge US Muslims to unite on the basis of the Qur'an 
and the authentic Hadith. That's the only Islamic unity. 
 - 
America's ten million Muslims should work through 
independent organizations to give a positive direction to 
America's policies related to Muslim countries.
 - 
We condemn the murders, rapes and violence being 
committed against American women on an ongoing basis as 
evidenced almost on a daily basis in the local news. Many 
rapes are not reported.
 - 
We condemn the battering of approximately 4,000,000 women 
in America . These horrendous official figures indicate that 
domestic violence is a permanent ingredient of life in 
America.
 - 
Exploitation by commercial interests, demeaning behavior 
on a daily basis, trivialization on the media, all under the 
umbrella of captalism, have eroded respect for women and has 
led on to mistreatment of minors.
 - 
We oppose capitalism in all its details, including 
interest on loans and credit cards, the debt trap through 
mortgage, the Obama bail out for capitalistic exploiters. 
 - 
We support the Occupy Wall Street movement and we oppose 
police brutality against the protestors. However. we see the 
protests as related to various sectors of society. Some of 
the protestors are from the "99%" but others are there for 
political reasons and some are simply from the well -to- do 
sections of society griping about their comfortable lives. 
 - 
We support the rights of political prisoners being held 
across America in humiliating conditions. We also condemn 
police brutalities which spark tension and instability in 
cities across America.
 - 
In view of the deteriorating economic conditions in 
America, the massive doses of aid  the US government and its 
ancillaries keep sending to Israel should be stopped. It's a 
moral outrage against Americans.
 - 
We support the creation of independent media owing to 
the low quality and slanting of the corporate media 
productions.
 - 
Racism should be changed through education which focuses 
on God [Allah Almighty].
 - 
We should not be surprised at the awful sexual acts 
carried out against children under the aegis of Pennsylvania 
State University. This evil is widespread in America and 
remains unchallenged in any decisive way.
 - 
The judicial system in America, the death penalty, the 
life long prison sentences are linked to the development of 
the prison industrial complex. Related to the injustices is 
the tremendous growth of perjured witnesses. What happened 
to Troy Davis and Tookie Williams, and is happening to 
Peltier, Ali Timimi, the Blind Shaikh and many others 
indicates the collapse of justice and the prevalence of 
perjury and injustice.
 
Resolutions on Issues overseas
- 
PALESTINE is the central issue for the Muslim world. 
There is potential in the "Arab Spring" for the liberation 
of Palestine. Zionism is racism and global unity against 
Israeli crimes is needed.
 - 
US Muslims oppose and condemn the occupation of ALL 
Muslim lands, be it Palestine, Kashmir, Iraq, Afghanistan, 
Chechnya, as well as moves against the Muslims of  Somalia, 
Nigeria, Sudan and Libya.
 - 
We strongly oppose all extra judicial killings be it 
those of Shaykh Osama or Shaykh Anwar al-Awlaki. Without due 
process of  law, America is destroying its own moral 
foundations.
 - 
As Muslims, we oppose poverty, terror, hunger and 
oppression as much as we oppose aggression and occupation. 
 - 
Western intelligence agencies [including those of Israel, 
Japan and Russia] are working against Islam and Muslims. We 
urge Muslims to be aware of the disinformation which comes 
from these sources.
 - 
As American and European economies are hurting, the 
wealth of Africa is luring these powers to try the 
recolonization of Africa. We urge the people of Africa to 
unite under the banner of Islam.
 - 
The bombing of Pakistani villages by US drones is an 
ongoing violation of international law. Pakistani civilians 
are being killed
 
With thanks to Sis. Kristi
[Horrific Crimes against Children at Top US University were 
Covered up as far back as 1998
The Investigator Disappeared! - Ed]
Missing DA investigated Sandusky case
By Jean Casarez, November 10, 2011 [From HLN].
Editor's note: Jean Casarez is a correspondent for In 
Session on truTv.
I spoke with Detective Matthew Rickard, who has been leading 
the investigation into the 2005 disappearance of the elected 
District Attorney of Center County Pennsylvania, Ray Gricar. 
In 1998, Gricar decided not to pursue charges after the 
mother of a young man reported to Penn State Police that her 
son had been inappropriately touched by Jerry Sandusky as 
they showered together in thePennStatelocker room.
Rickard tells me he is currently working to see if there 
could be any possible link between Gricar's disappearance 
and the currently charged activity againstPennStateathletic 
officials, but says there has been nothing to suggest Gricar 
-- who is still missing -- had knowledge of any of the other 
alleged activities.
Read: Shocking details from the Penn State grand jury 
report
Although the conspiracy theories are being pushed forward, 
Rickard tells me, from knowing Gricar himself, and the type 
of prosecutor he was, there must not have been the evidence 
to prosecuteSanduskyback in 1998. Rickard admits that is 
speculation on his part, and is in the midst of finding out 
more information on Gricar's investigation ofSanduskyback in 
1998.
In April, 2005 Gricar disappeared from the District 
Attorney's office never to be seen again. He called his 
girlfriend and said he was going to take a leisurely drive 
that afternoon. His abandoned car was found near an antiques 
store inLewisberg,Pennsylvania. His computer was found later 
in theSusquehanna River, but the hard drive had been taken 
out. Months later when the river banks receded, the hard 
drive was found about 100 yards from where the computer had 
been located. It was determined by investigators that the 
hard drive had been intentionally removed from the computer 
and repeated tests, including one done by the FBI, could not 
retrieve any data. The hard drive was too damaged
From the Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust. 
November 2.
Jewish Groups's Attempt to Muzzle Free Speech & Research
The German Ambassador and the International Association of 
Jewish Lawyers and Jurists
Ambassador Peter Ammon
Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany
2300 M Street NW, Washington, DC 20037
Dear Ambassador Ammon:
We are writing to call attention to the worrisome activities 
of the International Association of Jewish Lawyers and 
Jurists (IAJLJ). It is holding a promotional event in Berlin 
entitled Holocaust Denial and Freedom of Speech in the 
Internet Era November 15-19 2011.
The agenda of the IAJLJ is presented in a string of policy 
statements posted at http://tinyurl.com/3j6fzp9 the tenor of 
which can be seen in the following quote:
"The Hamas so-called  Charter is a cruder and more 
action-oriented version of Mein Kampf, calling explicitly 
for the destruction of the State of Israel and the murder of 
all Jews. The release of the Hamas prisoners by the 
Palestine Authority constitutes an invitation to these 
artisans of death to resume their terrorist bombing campaign 
in Israel's population centres, for the consequences of 
which the Palestinian leadership will be held directly 
responsible."
IAJLJ policies include a defense of  Sharon's infamous 2000 
"Strut through the Mosques," a demand for the release of 
convicted spy Pollack, a call for the revocation of United 
Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379, a denunciation of 
the Durban World Conference Against Racism, and a demand 
that a human rights conference be canceled because it "will 
have prominently on its agenda allegations of violations of 
the human rights of the inhabitants of the Palestinian 
territories."  No mention is made of thousands of deaths of 
Palestinians. In short, the IAJLJ does little more than 
promote the reactionary, racist, and repressive agenda of 
the extremist right-wing. The IAJLJ is noteworthy only for 
its brazen hypocrisy of masquerading as a human rights 
organization and its notorious stand against free speech. 
Unfortunately, this group solicits governmental officials of 
good will to participate in its pseudo-educational 
promotional events by touting itself as "a membership 
organization whose object is to advance human rights 
everywhere." In fact the International Association of Jewish 
Lawyers and Jurists now has the sinister distinction of 
being the most militant anti-free speech group in the world. 
We are a group of historians, scholars and concerned laymen 
who feel that the up-coming conference in Berlin will only 
serve as a propaganda tool for restricting free speech and 
open discussion.
The IAJLJ regularly defames Revisionists as "anti-Semites 
who claim the Holocaust is only Jewish propaganda." That is 
not what we at CODOH argue. Briefly, we believe that much of 
the history we are taught today has been influenced by 
Soviet, British and American wartime propaganda which 
exaggerated and exploited real tragedies for propaganda 
purposes. This concerns not just Jews but Slavs, Roma, 
Jehovah's Witnesses and, in some versions, Gays. There is 
considerable research that supports this point of view and 
it should be inconceivable that anyone be threatened with 
prison for stating in public that they doubt what they 
believe they have good reason to doubt.
The one-sided presentation of anti-Revisionist Conferences 
like this one have led to Draconian laws in a number of 
European nations against "Denial," laws that go against 
fundamental Western ideals of free speech and open 
discussion. We respectfully request that the government of 
the Federal Republic of Germany reconsider its participation 
in the IAJL show.
Bradley Smith
Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust (CODOH)
PO Box 439016
San Ysidro, California
[Sarkozy's attack on the Niqab and prayers in the streets 
backfired - Editor]
Islam Overtaking Catholicism in France
Hudson New York
http://www.hudson-ny.org/2355/france-islam-overtaking-catholcism
Islamic mosques are being built more often in France than 
Roman Catholic churches, and there now are more practising 
Muslims in the country than practising Catholics. Nearly 150 
new mosques currently are under construction in France, home 
to the biggest Muslim community in Europe. The 
mosque-building projects are at various stages of completion 
.. ..By contrast, the Roman Catholic Church in France has 
built only 20 new churches during the past decade, and has 
formally closed more than 60 churches, many of which are 
destined to become mosques.
Yemen: From Yemen On Line
Anti-Terrorist Chief Killed: Countrywide Breakdown as masses 
Rally
November 4: A car bomb killed Ali al-Haddi the head of the 
anti-terror force near the coastal city of Aden in Yemen's 
restive southern Abyan province , a Yemeni security official 
said.
Security has broken down across Yemen during the nine-month 
popular uprising against autocratic President Ali Abdullah 
Saleh, who has ruled the country for more than 30 years. 
Demonstrations raged around the country on Nov. 4 .
Al-Qaida-linked militants have taken over a number of towns 
in Abyan, along the country's south coast, where they 
regularly engage in deadly clashes with security forces. 
Yemeni authorities also accuse them of targeting security 
officials.
Tens of thousands marched in anti-government demonstrations 
across Yemen . Protesters have been on the streets nearly 
every day since January, despite a bloody government 
crackdown.
In the central city of Taiz, security forces opened fire on 
marchers carrying the bodies of protesters killed in recent 
days, wounding five people, activists said.
Thousands also marched in the capital Sanaa, where 
government troops have been clashing with army defectors who 
have joined the protests and armed men loyal to Yemen's most 
powerful tribal chief, who supports the opposition.
A medical official said a 28-year-old woman was killed in 
crossfire Friday in Sanaa during a gunbattle between the two 
sides.
[Photo below dated November 10 shows Yemeni Muslim women 
rallying in San'a, urging the US-backed dictator to 
"leave."]
Debunking the Iran "Terror Plot"
by Gareth Porter
At a press conference on October 11, the Obama 
administration unveiled a spectacular charge against the 
government of Iran: The Qods Force of the Islamic 
Revolutionary Guard Corps had plotted to assassinate the 
Saudi ambassador to the United States, Adel al-Jubeir, right 
in Washington, DC, in a place where large numbers of 
innocent bystanders could have been killed. High-level 
officials of the Qods Force were said to be involved, the 
only question being how far up in the Iranian government the 
complicity went.
The US tale of the Iranian plot was greeted with unusual 
skepticism on the part of Iran specialists and independent 
policy analysts, and even elements of the mainstream media. 
The critics observed that the alleged assassination scheme 
was not in Iran's interest, and that it bore scant 
resemblance to past operations attributed to the foreign 
special operations branch of Iranian intelligence. The Qods 
Force, it was widely believed, would not send a person like 
Iranian-American used car dealer Manssor Arbabsiar, known to 
friends in Corpus Christi, Texas as forgetful and 
disorganized, to hire the hit squad for such a sensitive 
covert action.
But administration officials claimed they had hard evidence 
to back up the charge. They cited a 21-page deposition by a 
supervising FBI agent in the "amended criminal complaint" 
filed against Arbabsiar and an accomplice who remains at 
large, Gholam Shakuri. It was all there, the officials 
insisted: several meetings between Arbabsiar and a man he 
thought was a member of a leading Mexican drug cartel, Los 
Zetas, with a reputation for cold-blooded killing; 
incriminating statements, all secretly recorded, by 
Arbabsiar and Shakuri, his alleged handler in Tehran; and 
finally, Arbabsiar's confession after his arrest, which 
clearly implicates Qods Force agents in a plan to murder a 
foreign diplomat on US soil.
A close analysis of the FBI deposition reveals, however, 
that independent evidence for the charge that Arbabsiar was 
sent by the Qods Force on a mission to arrange for the 
assassination of Jubeir is lacking. The FBI account is full 
of holes and contradictions, moreover. The document gives 
good reason to doubt that Arbabsiar and his confederates in 
Iran had the intention of assassinating Jubeir, and to 
believe instead that the FBI hatched the plot as part of a 
sting operation.
The Case of the Missing Quotes
The FBI account suggests that, from the inaugural meetings 
between Arbabsiar and his supposed Los Zetas contact, a Drug 
Enforcement Agency informant, Arbabsiar was advocating a 
terrorist strike against the Saudi embassy. The government 
narrative states that, in the very first meeting on May 24, 
Arbabsiar asked the informant about his "knowledge, if any, 
with respect to explosives" and said he was interested in 
"among other things, attacking an embassy of Saudi Arabia." 
It also notes that in the meetings prior to July 14, the DEA 
informant "had reported that he and Arbabsiar had discussed 
the possibility of attacks on a number of other targets," 
including "foreign government facilities associated with 
Saudi Arabia and with another country," located "within and 
outside the United States."
But the allegations that the Iranian-American used car 
salesman wanted to "attack" the Saudi embassy and other 
targets rest entirely upon the testimony of the DEA 
informant with whom he was meeting. The informant is a drug 
dealer who had been indicted for a narcotics violation in a 
US state but had the charges dropped "in exchange for 
cooperation in various drug investigations," according to 
the FBI account. The informant is not an independent source 
of information, but someone paid to help pursue FBI 
objectives.
The most suspicious aspect of the administration's case, in 
fact, is the complete absence of any direct quote from 
Arbabsiar suggesting interest in, much less advocacy of, 
assassinating the Saudi ambassador or carrying out other 
attacks in a series of meetings with the DEA informant 
between June 23 and July 14. The deposition does not even 
indicate how many times the two actually met during those 
three weeks, suggesting that the number was substantial, and 
that the lack of primary evidence from those meetings is a 
sensitive issue. And although the FBI account specifies that 
the July 14 and 17 meetings were recorded "at the direction 
of law enforcement agents," it is carefully ambiguous about 
whether or not the earlier meetings were recorded.
The lack of quotations is a crucial problem for the official 
case for a simple reason: If Arbabsiar had said anything 
even hinting in the May 24 meeting or in a subsequent 
meeting at the desire to mount a terrorist attack, it would 
have triggered the immediate involvement of the FBI's 
National Security Branch and its counter-terrorism division. 
The FBI would then have instructed the DEA informant to 
record all of the meetings with Arbabsiar, as is standard 
practice in such cases, according to a former FBI official 
interviewed for this article. And that would mean that those 
meetings were indeed recorded.
The fact that the FBI account does not include a single 
quotation from Arbabsiar in the June 23-July 14 meetings 
means either that Arbabsiar did not say anything that raised 
such alarms at the FBI or that he was saying something 
sufficiently different from what is now claimed that the 
administration chooses not to quote from it. In either case, 
the lack of such quotes further suggests that it was not 
Arbabsiar, but the DEA informant, acting as part of an FBI 
sting operation, who pushed the idea of assassinating 
Jubeir. The most likely explanation is that Arbabsiar was 
suggesting surveillance of targets that could be hit if Iran 
were to be attacked by Israel with Saudi connivance.
"The Saudi Arabia" and the $100,000
The July 14 meeting between Arbabsiar and the DEA informant 
is the first from which the criminal complaint offers actual 
quotations from the secretly recorded conversation. The 
FBI's retelling supplies selected bits of conversation — 
mostly from the informant — aimed at portraying the meeting 
as revolving around the assassination plot. But when 
carefully studied, the account reveals a different 
story.
The quotations attributed to the DEA informant suggest that 
he was under orders to get a response from Arbabsiar that 
could be interpreted as assent to an assassination plot. For 
example, the informant tells Arbabsiar, "You just want the, 
the main guy." There is no quoted response from the car 
dealer. Instead, the FBI narrative simply asserts that 
Arbabsiar "confirmed that he just wanted the 'ambassador.'" 
At the end of the meeting, the informant declares, "We're 
gonna start doing the guy." But again, no response from 
Arbabsiar is quoted.
Two statements by the informant appear on their face to 
relate to a broader set of Saudi targets than Adel 
al-Jubeir. The informant tells Arbabsiar that he would need 
"at least four guys" and would "take the one point five for 
the Saudi Arabia." The FBI agent who signed the deposition 
explains, "I understand this to mean that he would need to 
use four men to assassinate the Ambassador and that the cost 
to Arbabsiar of the assassination would be $1.5 million." 
But, apart from the agent's surmise, there is no hint that 
either cited phrase referred to a proposal to assassinate 
the ambassador. Given that there had already been discussion 
of multiple Saudi targets, as well as those of an unnamed 
third country (probably Israel), it seems more reasonable to 
interpret the words "the Saudi Arabia" to refer to a set of 
missions relating to Saudi Arabia in order to distinguish 
them from the other target list.
Then the informant repeats the same wording, telling 
Arbabsiar he would "go ahead and work on the Saudi Arabia, 
get all the information that we can." This language does not 
show that Arbabsiar proposed the killing of Jubeir, much 
less approved it. And the FBI narrative states that the 
Iranian-American "agreed that the assassination of the 
Ambassador should be handled first."  Again, that curious 
wording does not assert that Arbabsiar said an assassination 
should be carried out first, but suggests he was agreeing 
that the subject should be discussed first.
The absence of any quote from Arbabsiar about an 
assassination plot, combined with the multiple ambiguities 
surrounding the statements attributed to the DEA informant, 
suggest that the main subject of the July 14 meeting was 
something broader than an assassination plot, and that it 
was the government's own agent who had brought up the 
subject of assassinating the ambassador in the meeting, 
rather than Arbabsiar.
The government reconstruction of the July 14 meeting also 
introduces the keystone of the Obama administration's public 
case: $100,000 that was to be transferred to a bank account 
that the DEA informant said he would make known to 
Arbabsiar. The FBI deposition asserts repeatedly that 
whenever Arbabsiar or the DEA informant mention the 
$100,000, they are talking about a "down payment" on the 
assassination. But the document contains no statement from 
either of them linking that $100,000 to any assassination 
plan. In fact, it provides details suggesting that the 
$100,000 could not have been linked to such a plan.
The FBI deposition states that the informant and Arbabsiar 
"discussed how Arbabsiar would pay [the informant]," but 
offers no statement from either individual even mentioning a 
"payment," or any reason for transferring the money to a 
bank account. Furthermore, it does not actually claim that 
Arbabsiar made any commitment to any action against Jubeir 
at either the July 14 or 17 meetings. And when the informant 
is quoted in the July 17 meeting as saying, "I don't know 
exactly what your cousin wants me to do," it appears to be 
an acknowledgement that he had gotten no indication prior to 
July 17 that Arbabsiar's Tehran interlocutors wanted the 
Saudi ambassador dead. The deposition does not even claim 
that Arbabsiar's supposed handlers had approved a plan to 
kill Jubeir until after the Iranian-American returned to his 
native country on July 20.           Nevertheless, Arbabsiar 
is quoted telling the informant on July 14 that the full 
$100,000 had already been collected in cash at the home of 
"a certain individual." Preparations for the transfer of the 
$100,000 had thus commenced well before the assassination 
plot allegedly got the green light.
The amount of $100,000 does not even appear credible as a 
"down payment" on a job that the FBI account says was to 
have cost a total of $1.5 million. It would represent a mere 
6 percent of the full price. Bearing in mind that the DEA 
informant was supposed to be representing the demand of a 
ruthlessly profit-motivated Los Zetas drug cartel for a 
high-stakes political assassination well outside its 
purview, 6 percent of the total would represent far too 
little for a "down payment."
The $100,000 wire transfer must have been related to an 
understanding that had been reached on something other than 
the assassination plan. Yet it has been cited by the 
administration and reported by news media as proof of the 
plot — and key evidence of Iran's complicity therein. [2]    
       The Qods Force Connection           The FBI account 
of the July 17 meeting shows the DEA informant leading 
Arbabsiar into a statement of support for an assassination. 
The informant, obviously following an FBI script, says, "I 
don't know what exactly your cousin wants me to do." But the 
deposition notes "further conversation" following that 
invitation for a clear position on a proposal coming from 
the informant, indicating that what Arbabsiar was saying did 
not support the administration's allegation that 
assassination plot was coming from Tehran.
After the FBI evidently sought again to get the 
straightforward answer it was seeking, however, Arbabsiar is 
quoted as saying: "He wants you to kill this guy." The 
informant then presents a fanciful plan to bomb an imaginary 
restaurant in Washington where Arbabsiar was told the Saudi 
ambassador liked to dine twice a week and where many "like, 
American people" would be present. "You want me to do it 
outside or in the restaurant?" asks the informant, to which 
question the Iranian-American replies, "Doesn't matter how 
you do it." At another point in the conversation, Arbabsiar 
goes further, saying, "They want that guy done. If the 
hundred go with him, fuck 'em."
These statements appear at first blush to be conclusive 
evidence that Arbabsiar and his Iranian overseers were 
contracting for the assassination of Jubeir, regardless of 
lives lost. But there are two crucial questions that the FBI 
account leaves unanswered: Was Arbabsiar speaking on behalf 
of the Qods Force or some element of it? And if he was, was 
he talking about a plan that was to go into effect as soon 
as possible or was it understood that they were talking 
about a contingency plan that would only be carried out 
under specific circumstances?           The deposition 
includes several instances of Arbabsiar's bragging about a 
cousin who is a general, out of uniform and involved in 
covert external operations, including in Iraq — clearly 
implying that he belongs to the Qods Force. Arbabsiar is 
said to have claimed that the cousin and another Iranian 
official gave him funds for his contacts with the drug 
cartel. "I got the money coming," he says. Subsequently, in 
one of the most extensive quotations from the recorded 
conversations, Arbabsiar says, "This is politics, so these 
people they pay this government...he's got the, got the 
government behind him...he's not paying from his pocket." 
The FBI narrative identifies the person referred to here as 
Arbabsiar's cousin, a Qods Force officer later named as 
Abdul Reza Shahlai, but again, there is not a single direct 
quotation backing the claim. And the reference to "these 
people" who "pay this government" suggests that "he" is 
connected to a group with illicit financial ties to 
government officials.
This excerpt could be particularly significant in light of 
press reports quoting a US law enforcement official saying 
that Arbabsiar had offered "tons of opium" to the drug 
cartel and that he and the informant had discussed what the 
New York Times called a "side deal" on the Iranian-held 
narcotics. [3] If these reports are accurate, it seems 
possible that Arbabsiar approached Los Zetas on behalf of 
Iranians who control a portion of the opium being smuggled 
through Iran from Afghanistan, while seeking to impress the 
drug cartel operative with his claim to have close ties to 
the Qods Force through Shahlai. But if the DEA informant 
then pressed him to authenticate his Qods Force connection, 
he may have begun discussing covert operations against 
Iran's enemies in North America.
The only alleged evidence that Arbabsiar was speaking for 
Shahlai and the Qods Force is Arbabsiar's own confession, 
summarized in the criminal complaint. But, at minimum, that 
testimony was provided after he had been arrested and had a 
strong interest in telling the FBI what it wanted to hear.   
        The deposition makes much of a series of three phone 
conversations on October 4, 5 and 7 between Arbabsiar and 
someone who Arbabsiar tells his FBI handlers is Gholam 
Shakuri, presenting them as confirmation of the involvement 
of Qods Force officers in the assassination scheme. But the 
FBI apparently had no way of ascertaining whether the person 
to whom Arababsiar was talking was actually Shakuri. After 
the October 4 call, for example, the FBI account merely 
records that Arbabsiar "indicated that the person he was 
speaking with was Shakuri."           On their face, 
moreover, these conversations prove nothing. In the first of 
the three calls, the person at the other end of the line, 
whom Arbabsiar identifies to his FBI contact as Shakuri but 
whose identity is not otherwise established, asks, "What 
news...what did you do about the building?" The FBI agent 
again suggests, "based on my training, experience and 
participation in this investigation," that these queries 
were a "reference to the plot to murder the Ambassador and a 
question about its status."
But Arbabsiar is said to have claimed in his confession that 
he was instructed by Shakuri to use the code word 
"Chevrolet" to refer to the plot to kill the ambassador. In 
a second recorded conversation, Arbabsiar immediately says, 
"I wanted to tell you the Chevrolet is ready, it's ready, 
uh, to be done. I should continue, right?" After further 
exchange, the man purported to be "Shakuri" says, "So buy 
it, buy it." Despite the obvious invocation of a code word, 
it remains unclear what Arbabsiar was to "buy." "Chevrolet" 
could actually have been a reference to either a 
drug-related deal or a generic plan having to do with Saudi 
and other targets.
In a third recorded conversation on October 7, both 
Arbabsiar and "Shakuri" refer to a demand by a purported 
cartel figure for another $50,000 on top of the original 
$100,000 transferred by wire earlier. But there is no other 
evidence of such a demand. It appears to be a mere device of 
the FBI to get "Shakuri" on record as talking about the 
$100,000. And here it should be recalled that the account in 
the deposition shows that the transfer of the $100,000 had 
been agreed on before any indication of agreement on a plan 
to kill the ambassador.
The invocation of a fictional demand for $50,000, along with 
the dramatic difference between the first conversation and 
the second and third conversations, suggests yet another 
possibility: The second and third conversations were set up 
in advance by Arbabsiar to provide a transcript to bolster 
the administration's case.
Terrorist Plot or Deterrence Strategy?
Even if Qods Forces officials indeed directed Arbabsiar to 
contact the Los Zetas cartel, it cannot be assumed that they 
intended to carry out one or more terrorist attacks in the 
United States. The killing of a foreign ambassador in 
Washington (not to speak of additional attacks on Saudi and 
Israeli buildings), if linked to Iran, would invite swift 
and massive US military retaliation. If, on the other hand, 
the Qods Force men instructed Arbabsiar to conduct 
surveillance of those targets and prepare contingency plans 
for hitting them if Iran were attacked, the whole story 
begins to make more sense.
Iran lacks the conventional means to deter attack by a 
powerful adversary. In its decades-long standoffs with the 
United States and Israel, amidst recurrent talk of 
"preemptive" strikes by those powers, Iran has relied on 
threats of proxy retaliation against US and allied state 
targets in the Middle East.  The Iranian military support 
for Lebanon's Hizballah, in particular, is widely recognized 
as prompted primarily by Iran's need to deter US and Israeli 
attack. [5]           In one case in 1994-1995, Saudi 
Arabian Shi'i militants carried out surveillance of 
potential US military and diplomatic targets in Saudi 
Arabia, in a way that was quickly noticed by US and Saudi 
intelligence. Although the consensus among US intelligence 
analysts was that Iran was preparing for a terrorist attack, 
Ronald Neumann, then the State Department's intelligence 
officer for Iran and Iraq, noted that Iran had done the same 
thing whenever US-Iranian tensions had risen. He suggested 
that Iran could be using the surveillance for deterrence, to 
let Washington know that its interests in Saudi Arabia and 
elsewhere would be in danger if Iran were attacked.          
 Unfortunately for Iran's deterrent strategy, however, Osama 
bin Laden's al-Qaeda was also carrying out surveillance of 
US bases in Saudi Arabia, and in November 1995 and again in 
June 1996, that group bombed two facilities housing US 
servicemen. The bombing of Khobar Towers in June 1996, which 
killed 19 US soldiers and one Saudi Arabian, was blamed by 
the Clinton administration's FBI and CIA leadership on 
Iranian-sponsored Shi'a from Saudi Arabia, with prodding 
from Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar bin Sultan, despite the 
fact that bin Laden claimed responsibility not once but 
twice, in interviews with the London-based newspaper, 
al-Quds al-'Arabi.
Hani al-Sayigh, one of the Saudi Arabian Shi'a accused by 
the Saudi and US governments of conspiring to attack the 
Khobar Towers, admitted to Assistant Attorney General Eric 
Dubelier, who interviewed him at a Canadian detention 
facility in May 1997, that he had participated in the 
surveillance of US military targets in Saudi Arabia on 
behalf of Iranian intelligence. But, according to the FBI 
report on the interview, al-Sayigh insisted that Iran had 
never intended to attack any of those sites unless it was 
first attacked by the United States. And when Dubelier asked 
a question later in the interview that was based on the 
premise that the surveillance effort was preparation for a 
terrorist attack, al-Sayigh corrected him.            With 
threats of an Israeli or US bombing attack on Iran, with 
Saudi complicity, mounting since the mid-2000s, a similar 
campaign of surveillance of Saudi and Israeli targets in 
North America would fit the framework of what the Pentagon 
has called Iran's "asymmetric warfare doctrine." If 
Arbabsiar spoke of such a campaign in his initial meeting 
with the DEA informant, he certainly would have piqued the 
interest of FBI counter-terrorism personnel. And this 
scenario would also explain why the series of meetings in 
late June and the first half of July did not produce a 
single statement by Arbabsiar that the administration could 
quote to advance its case that the Iranian-American was 
interested in assassinating Adel al-Jubeir or carrying out 
other acts of terrorism.
A plan to conduct surveillance and be ready to act on 
contingency plans would also explain why someone as lacking 
in relevant experience and skills as Arbabsiar might have 
been acceptable to the Qods Force. Not only would the 
mission not have required absolute secrecy; it would have 
been based on the assumption that the surveillance would 
become known to US intelligence relatively quickly, as did 
the monitoring of US targets in Saudi Arabia in 
1994-1995.
The Qods Force officials were certainly well aware that the 
Drug Enforcement Agency had penetrated various Mexican drug 
cartels, in some cases even at the very top level. US court 
proceedings involving Mexican drug traffickers who were 
highly placed in the Sinaloa drug cartel between 2009 and 
early 2011 reveal that the US made deals with leaders of the 
cartel to report what they knew about rival cartel 
operations in return for a hands-off approach to their drug 
trafficking. [10] Further underlining the degree to which 
the cartels were honeycombed with people on the US payroll, 
the DEA informant in this case was not merely posing as a 
drug trafficker but is reportedly an actual associate of Los 
Zetas with access to its upper echelons, who has been given 
immunity from prosecution to cooperate with the DEA.
When Did Arbabsiar Become Part of the Sting?
The Obama administration's account of the alleged Iranian 
plot has Arbabsiar suddenly changing from terrorist 
conspirator to active collaborator with the FBI upon his 
September 29 arrest at John F. Kennedy Airport in New York. 
He is said to have provided a confession immediately upon 
being apprehended, after waiving his right to a lawyer, and 
then to have waived that right repeatedly again while being 
interviewed by the FBI. Then Arbabsiar cooperated in making 
the series of secretly recorded phone calls to someone he 
identified as Shakuri.           For someone facing such 
serious charges to provide the details with which to make 
the case against him, while renouncing benefit of counsel, 
is odd, to say the least. The official story raises 
questions not only about what agreement was reached between 
Arbabsiar and the FBI to ensure his cooperation but about 
when that agreement was reached.
One clue that Arbabsiar was brought into the sting operation 
well before his arrest is the DEA informant's demand in a 
September 20 phone conversation with Arbabsiar in Tehran 
that he either come up with half the $1.5 million total fee 
or come to Mexico to be the guarantee that the full amount 
would be paid.           Yet the FBI account of that 
conversation shows Arbabsiar telling the informant, without 
even consulting with his contacts in Tehran, "I'm gonna go 
over there [in] two [or] three days." Later in the same 
evening, he calls back to ask how long he would need to 
remain in Mexico. Even if Arbabsiar were as feckless as some 
reports have suggested, he would certainly not have agreed 
so readily to put his fate in the hands of the murderous Los 
Zetas cartel — unless he knew that he was not really in 
danger, because the US government would intercept him and 
bring him to the United States. Making the episode even 
stranger, Arbabsiar's confession claims that when he told 
Shakuri about the purported Los Zetas demand, Shakuri 
refused to provide any more money to the cartel, advised him 
against going to Mexico and warned him that if he did so, he 
would be on his own.
Further supporting the conclusion that Arbabsiar had become 
part of the sting operation before his arrest is the fact 
there was no reason for the FBI to pose the demand — through 
the DEA informant — for more money or Arbabsiar's presence 
in Mexico except to provide an excuse to get him out of 
Iran, so he could provide a full confession implicating the 
Qods Force and be the centerpiece of the case against Iran.  
         The larger aim of the FBI sting operation, which 
ABC News has reported was dubbed Operation Red Coalition, 
was clearly to link the alleged assassination plot to Qods 
Force officers. The logical moment for the FBI to have 
recruited the Iranian-American would have been right after 
the FBI recorded him talking about wiring money to the bank 
account and casually approving the idea of bombing a 
restaurant and before his planned departure from Mexico for 
Iran. The only way to ensure that Arbabsiar would come back, 
of course, would be to offer him a substantial amount of 
money to serve as an informant for the FBI during his stay 
in Iran, which he would receive only upon returning. If 
Arbabsiar had already been enlisted, of course, it would 
also mean the keystone of the case — the wiring of $100,000 
to a secret FBI bank account — was a part of the FBI 
sting.
FBI Trickery in Terrorism Cases
FBI deceit in constructing a case for an Iranian terror plot 
should come as no surprise, given its record of domestic 
terrorism prosecutions based on sting operations involving 
entrapment and skullduggery. Central to these stings has 
been the creation of fictional terrorist plots by the FBI 
itself. In 2006 the "Gonzales Guidelines" for the use of FBI 
informants removed previous prohibitions on actions to 
"initiate a plan or strategy to commit a federal, state or 
local offense."
Perhaps the most notorious of all these domestic terrorism 
sting operations is the case in which Yassin Aref and 
Mohammed Hossain, leaders of their Albany, New York mosque, 
were sentenced to 15 years in federal prison for allegedly 
laundering profits from the sale of a shoulder-launched 
missile for a Pakistani militant group that was planning to 
assassinate a Pakistani diplomat in New York City.
In fact, there was no such terrorist plot, and the alleged 
crime was the result of an elaborate FBI scam directed 
against two innocent men. It began when an FBI informant 
pretending to be a Pakistani businessman insinuated himself 
into Hossain's life and extended him a $50,000 loan for his 
pizza parlor. Only months after the informant had begun 
loaning the money did he show Hossain a shoulder-launched 
missile, and suggest that he was also selling arms to his 
"Muslim brothers." It was a devious form of entrapment; the 
prosecutors later argued that Hossain should have known the 
loan could have come from money made in the sale of weapons 
to terrorists and was therefore guilty of money 
laundering.
The FBI approach to entrapping Hossain's friend Aref was 
even more underhanded. Aref was never even made aware of the 
missile or the phony story of the illegal arms sale. But on 
one occasion, when he was present to witness the transfer of 
loan money, what was later said to have been the missile's 
trigger system was left on a table in the room. Prosecutors 
then argued the theory that Aref had seen the trigger, which 
looks much like a staple gun, and thus had become part of a 
conspiracy to "assist in money laundering."
Many other domestic terrorism cases have involved deceptive 
tactics and economic inducements deployed by the FBI to 
involve American Muslims in fictional terrorist plots. The 
Center for Human Rights and Global Justice at New York 
University's Law School found more than 20 terrorism cases 
that involved some combination of "paid informants, 
selection of investigation based on perceived religious 
identity, [and] a plot that was created by the government." 
This history makes it clear that the Justice Department and 
FBI are prepared to go to extraordinary lengths to fabricate 
terrorism cases against targeted individuals, and that 
misrepresenting these individuals' intentions and actual 
behavior has long been standard practice. The trickery and 
deceit in past "counter-terrorism" sting operations provides 
further reason to question the veracity of the Obama 
administration's allegations in the bizarre case of Manssor 
Arbabsiar.
GARETH PORTER  is an investigative historian and journalist 
with Inter-Press Service specialising in U.S. national 
security policy. The paperback edition of his latest book, 
"Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War 
in Vietnam", was published in 2006.
My thanks to the Middle East Research and Information 
Project
Do Muslims know that Sects are Prohibited in Islam?
Compiled by Ehtesham Khan [Chicago]
- 
Muslims Should be United
It is a fact that Muslims today, are divided amongst 
themselves. The tragedy is that such divisions are not 
endorsed by Islam at all. Islam believes in fostering unity 
amongst its followers.
The Glorious Qur'ân says: "And hold fast, all together, by 
the rope which Allaah (stretches out for you), and be not 
divided among yourselves" [Al-Qur'ân 3:103]
Which is the rope of Allaah that is being referred to in 
this verse? It is the Glorious Qur'ân. The Glorious Qur'ân 
is the rope of Allah which all Muslims should hold fast 
together. There is double emphasis in this verse. Besides 
saying 'hold fast all together' it also says, 'be not 
divided'.
Qur'ân further says,
"Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger" [Al-Qur'ân 4:59]
All the Muslim should follow the Qur'ân and authentic 
Ahaadeeth and be not divided among themselves.
 - 
It is Prohibited to make sects and divisions in Islaam
The Glorious Qur'ân says: "As for those who divide their 
religion and break up into sects, thou hast no part in them 
in the least: Their affair is with Allah: He will in the end 
tell them the truth of all that they did." [Al-Qur'ân 6:159]
In this verse Allah (swt) says that one should disassociate 
oneself from those who divide their religion and break it up 
into sects.
But when one asks a Muslim, "who are you?", the common 
answer is either 'I am a Sunni, or 'I am Shia'. Some call 
themselves Hanafi, or Shafi or Maliki or Hanbali. Some say 
'I am a Deobandi', while some others say 'I am a Barelvi'. 
 - 
Our Prophet was a Muslim
One may ask such Muslims, "Who was our beloved prophet 
(pbuh)? Was he a Hanafi or a Shafi, or a Hanbali or a 
Maliki?" No! He was a Muslim, like all the other prophets 
and messengers of Allah before him.
It is mentioned in chapter 3 verse 52 of Al-Qur'ân that 
Jesus (pbuh) was a Muslim.
Further, in chapter 3 verse 67, Al-Qur'ân says that Ibrahim 
(pbuh) was not a Jew or a Christian but was a Muslim.
 - 
Qur'ân says call yourselves Muslim
- 
If anyone poses a Muslim the question who are you, he 
should say "I am a MUSLIM, not a Hanafi or a Shafi". Surah 
Fussilat chapter 41 verse 33 says "Who is better in speech 
than one who calls (men) to Allah, works righteousness, and 
says, 'I am of those who bow in Islaam (Muslim)?' " 
[Al-Qur'ân 41:33]
The Qur'ân says "Say I am of those who bow in Islam". In 
other words, say, "I am a Muslim".
 - 
The Prophet (pbuh) dictated letters to non-Muslim kings 
and rulers inviting them to accept Islam. In these letters 
he mentioned the verse of the Qur'ân from Surah Ali Imran 
chapter 3 verse 64:
Say ye: "Bear witness That we (at least) are Muslims (bowing 
to Allah's Will)." [Al-Qur'ân 3:64]
 
 - 
Respect all the Great Scholars of Islaam
We must respect all the great scholars of Islam, including 
the four Imaams, Imaam Abu Hanifa, Imaam Shafi, Imaam Hanbal 
and Imaam Malik (may Allah be pleased with them all). They 
were great scholars and may Allah reward them for their 
research and hard work. One can have no objection if someone 
agrees with the views and research of Imam Abu Hanifa or 
Imam Shafi, etc. But when posed a question, 'who are you?', 
the reply should only be 'I am a Muslim'.
 - 
Some may argue by quoting the hadeeth of our beloved 
Prophet from Sunan Abu Dawood Hadeeth No. 4579. In this 
hadeeth the prophet (pbuh) is reported to have said, "My 
community will be split up into seventy-three sects."
This hadeeth reports that the prophet predicted the 
emergence of seventy-three sects. He did not say that 
Muslims should be active in dividing themselves into sects. 
The Glorious Qur'ân commands us not to create sects. Those 
who follow the teachings of the Qur'ân and Sahih Hadeeth, 
and do not create sects are the people who are on the true 
path.
According to Tirmidhi Hadeeth No. 171, the prophet (pbuh) is 
reported to have said, "My Ummah will be fragmented into 
seventy-three sects, and all of them will be in Hell fire 
except one sect." The companions asked Allah's messenger 
which group that would be. Whereupon he replied, "It is the 
one to which I and my companions belong."
The Glorious Qur'ân mentions in several verses, "Obey Allah 
and obey His Messenger". A true Muslim should only follow 
the Glorious Qur'ân and the Sahih Hadeeth. He can agree with 
the views of any scholar as long as they conform to the 
teachings of the Qur'ân and Sahih Hadeeth. If such views go 
against the Word of Allah, or the Sunnah of His Prophet, 
then they carry no weight, regardless of how learned the 
scholar might be.
If only all Muslims read the Qur'ân with understanding and 
adhere to Sahih Hadeeth, Inshallaah most of these 
differences would be solved and we could be one united 
Muslim Ummah
 
"0, our Lord! We have wronged our souls a great wrong, and 
none forgiveth sins save Thou alone. Then forgive us and 
have mercy on us. Verily, Thou art the oft Forgiving, and 
most Merciful." (Al Baqarah)
*Duniya is for Test, Aakhirat is for rest, Life is only best 
when Quran is in our chests*
MAY ALLAH GUIDE US AND SHOW US THE STRAIGHT PATH (AMEEN) 
2011-11-15 Tue 17:18:09 cst
NewTrendMag.org