[Biggest 
Islamic 
web site in the 
U.S.]
P.O. Box 356, Kingsville, MD 21087.
Phone: 410-435-5000.
Disclaimer: Views expressed are not necessarily 
shared by editorial committee.
Responses (positive or negative) up to 250 words are welcome.
Names will be withheld on request.
----------------------------------------------------------
Scroll down to end for important statement on the 
arrest of Prof. Sami 
al-Arian
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Transformation of Saddam Hussain
by Buut Shikan (Idol Breaker)
Why does Saddam Hussain fight? Can we 
understand this complex 
personality who is evil incarnate for the 
Bush 
administration?
Much has been written about the terrible 
actions Saddam has committed 
against Iran, against the Kurds and against the 
Shi'ites. He is not alleged 
to have committed any crimes against 
America 
but 
America wants to punish him 
for what he has allegedly done against Iran, the 
Kurds and the Shi'ites. 
America is very conveniently generous in its 
sympathies.
Is it skeptical to say that an accused 
person is innocent until proven 
guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? As far as I 
know, American law, Islamic 
law, international law are all based on this 
presumption of innocence.
If there is evidence against Saddam, why is 
it not presented while he 
is free to defend himself? No such verifiable 
evidence has ever been 
presented against Saddam Hussain. We only have 
the word of Sharon, Bush, 
Christopher Hitchens and "hojjat al-Islam" 
Qazvini's  for it. All these 
"honorable" men say, he did do terrible things; 
so for the sake of 
discussion, let's accept it.
But don't people change? Can we think of any 
great person who never 
changed, for the better or for the worse? No such 
instance can be cited. 
[Perhaps our readers will cite some such.]
There are some standards, universally 
acceptable, by which a person can 
be judged. Let's try to apply them to Saddam 
Hussain. [I like to break my 
points into numbered items for ease in reading. 
Essays are difficult to read 
in the TV/computer generation.]
1. Corrupt people, especially dictators, like to 
live in luxury, if the 
choice is between death/disgrace and luxury. 
Saddam was urged by the U.S. to 
go into exile and live comfortably (perhaps in a 
palace in Saudi Arabia or at 
a dacha in Russia). He declined. That's not the 
sign of a corrupt person. [The 
Shah of Iran was a corrupt person: He took that 
choice and left his 
government for overseas.]
2. Dictators are also cowards. They are used to 
bullying their people but 
when faced with the weapons of a superpower, they 
bow down and lick the boots 
of the superpower. 
Mubarak 
the dictator of 
Egypt 
is a coward. He dare not 
decline any order from the White House although 
he tortures the sons and 
daughters of Islam. Musharraf of 
Pakistan 
is a 
coward. He said "yes sir" on 
getting just a phone call from the White House. 
He went ahead and betrayed 
Pakistan's closest and trustworthy allies to 
please Bush. Saddam, in spite of 
threats of destruction from the White House, has 
shown no cowardice. He is 
certainly no coward.
3. Even the toughest rulers when faced with 
overwhelming military force will 
surrender. This can be called "discretion" or 
simply "fear of human power." 
In the case of Saddam Hussain, the imbalance 
between his forces and those of 
his opponents is startling, to say the least. The 
military force he is facing 
is the strongest in the world. Anything the 
Iraqis have is bound to face 
American firepower of such destructive potential 
that the disparity boggles 
the mind. Yet, Saddam does not surrender. He is 
definitely not in fear of 
human power.
Who then is the real Saddam Hussain? What keeps 
him so strong and willing to 
face overwhelming odds. Perhaps he sees himself 
as Salahuddin (Saladin) 
waiting to liberate Jerusalem. His opposition to 
the terrorist entity known 
as Israel is unambiguous.
Perhaps he sees himself transforming gradually 
into Husain who sacrificed 
himself at Kerbala in defiance of overwhelming 
odds. Of course, no one today 
has the purity and goodness of Imam Husain. The 
comparison is not to be taken 
in a literal sense. My effort is to apply the 
symbolic value of Imam Husain 
to human beings who at a certain stage of their 
development can become strong 
enough to stand defiant before human power.  Can 
human beings achieve 
greatness? Can great beauty emerge from darkness 
and great human weakness?
Yeats wrote about the Irish patriots who 
were hanged by the British 
but who refused to bow down in front of British 
power even when they were 
about to be put to the gallows. One of them Yeats 
had despised. When he saw 
the despised man fearless, for the sake of God 
and Ireland, he wrote his 
poem, "a terrible beauty is born."
No one knows how the saga of Saddam Hussain 
will end. Will he continue 
the way he is going, willing to accept death 
instead of humiliation? In that 
case, his place in the history of the oppressed 
people, the Arab masses, the 
Islamic resurgence is assured.
Wasn't it the sage Imam Ghazzali who wrote 
that those who are seen as 
pious worshipers of God might end up in the last 
row of the believers by the 
time they die, while those who are seen as in the 
last row, might be in the 
front row of Islam by the time they die.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
FRIDAY PRAYER LEADERS CONDEMN U.S. ASSAULT ON 
IRAQ as 
Zionist 
Inspired
The Muslim World in Turmoil
News is coming in from around the Muslim 
world. The masses of the world 
community have emerged strongly and totally 
against 
U.S.-British-Israeli 
attack on Iraq.
1. In 
Palestine 
today, both in Gaza and in the 
refugee camps, there were huge 
pro-Saddam and anti-U.S. demonstrations. In the 
occupied holy city of 
Jerusalem, peaceful worshipers were attacked by 
the Israeli police with tear 
gas when they protested against the invasion of 
Iraq.
2. In Pakistan, in tens of thousands of mosques 
around the country, at the 
appeal of the Islamic coalition and the jihad 
movement, imams condemned the 
U.S. invasion and the crimes of Sharon and Blair 
against the Muslim nations. 
Numerous small protests were held. [The city of 
Lahore is preparing for a 
mammoth pro-Iraq, anti-U.S. demonstration on 
March 23, which may compare with 
the unprecedented anti-war demonstrations in 
Karachi and Lahore.]
The U.S. embassy and consulates in Pakistan have 
announced that they are 
closing down for "security' reasons.
3. YEMEN gave the first three martyrs to the 
peaceful anti-war movement on 
March 21 when tens of thousands of Yemenis 
demonstrated in the city of Sana. 
In their attempts to close down the U.S. embassy, 
they clashed with police. 
Three demonstrators were martyred by the police 
while one of the police was 
also killed.
4. There was a second day of demonstrations in 
Cairo and Amman including 
clashes with police. The Mubarak dictatorship is 
getting nervous because the 
whole population opposes the war on Iraq while 
Mubarak supports it. [Mubarak 
allowed U.S. warships to pass through the Suez 
without allowing any 
discussion in his rubberstamp "parliament" and 
clamped down on demonstrations 
at the Suez canal.]
5. Although Karzai signed up to support the U.S. 
attack, 
AFGHANS 
RALLIED IN 
KABUL to oppose the invasion.
6. Numerous demonstrations have erupted against 
the war in 
Indonesia. 
Indonesians have given the U.S. embassy 48 hours 
to close down.
7. SUDAN's 
people by the thousands condemned the 
invasion.
8. Even IRAN's spiritual leader Khamene'i has 
spoken against the U.S. attack 
but Iran made it clear that it would not do 
anything against the U.S.
9. Numerous anti-war demonstrations took place in 
LEBANON 
after Friday 
prayers.
[We are waiting for reports from other 
countries.]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sis. Hamdiyeh from South Carolina sent the 
following two stories
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
40,000 pounds of Explosives and Napalm Dropped 
on Tiny Safwan Village
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/21/1047749944836.html
"Dead bodies are everywhere," a US officer 
reported by radio. 
Later in the day, the American firepower was 
turned on Safwan Hill, an Iraqi 
military observation post a couple of kilometres 
across the border. About 
six hours after US marines and their 155mm 
howitzer guns pulled up at the 
border, they opened up with a deafening barrage. 
Safwan Hill went up in a 
huge fireball and the Iraqi observation post was 
obliterated.
"I pity anybody who's in there," a marine 
sergeant said. "We told them to 
surrender."
The destruction of Safwan Hill was a priority for 
the attacking forces 
because it had sophisticated surveillance 
equipment near the main highway 
that runs from Kuwait up to Basra and then 
Baghdad. The attacking US and 
British forces could not attempt to cross the 
border unless it was 
destroyed.
Marine Cobra helicopter gunships firing Hellfire 
missiles swept in low from 
the south. Then the marine howitzers, with a 
range of 30 kilometres, opened 
a sustained barrage over the next eight hours. 
They were supported by US 
Navy aircraft which dropped 40,000 pounds of 
explosives and napalm, a US 
officer told the Herald.
A legal expert at the International Committee of 
the Red Cross in Geneva 
said the use of napalm or fuel air bombs was not 
illegal "per se" because 
the US was not a signatory to the 1980 weapons 
convention which prohibits 
and restricts certain weapons. "But the US has to 
apply the basic principles 
of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and take 
all precautions to protect 
civilians. In the case of napalm and fuel air 
bombs, these are special 
precautions because these are area weapons, not 
specific weapons," said 
Dominique Loye, the committee's adviser on 
weapons and IHL. 
When dawn broke on Safwan Hill, all that could be 
seen on top of it was a 
single antenna amid the smoke. The marines then 
moved forward, their 
officers saying they were determined to push on 
as quickly as possible for 
Baghdad.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Kurds attack militant Islamists
SULAIMANIYA (Reuters) - An Iraqi Kurdish faction 
controlling part of 
northern Iraq says it has launched an offensive 
to crush an Islamist group 
that both it and Washington have accused of 
having links to al Qaeda. 
A senior official of the Patriotic Union of 
Kurdistan (PUK), which runs part 
of the Kurdish enclave it helped wrest from 
Baghdad in 1991, said on 
Saturday PUK forces were determined to wipe out 
Ansar al-Islam during the 
U.S.-led war to oust Iraqi President Saddam 
Hussein.
Ansar al-Islam (Supporters of Islam) holds a 
string of villages near the 
border with Iran.
"We have begun attacking their positions with 
rockets. There is no way that 
we can move south during the liberation with them 
in place, we have to be 
able to protect our backs," the PUK official 
said.
There were no immediate reports of casualties 
from the area, which runs up 
against a chain of jagged mountain peaks 
alongside the Iranian border. PUK 
says it was unable to get permission to attack 
Ansar al-Islam's positions 
from across the frontier.
Washington accuses Ansar al-Islam of working with 
Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda 
network to produce chemical weapons in its 
mountainous hideout and of having 
ties to an al Qaeda figure it believes played a 
part in the killing of a 
U.S. diplomat in Jordan last year. 
The PUK, which is coordinating with U.S. 
intelligence officials in northern 
Iraq, blames the group -- which has several 
hundred mainly Kurdish 
fighters -- of directing a string of attacks on 
its officials, including an 
attempt on the life of its prime minister.
The clash comes as U.S.-led forces bombard 
Baghdad and cities near the 
fringe of Kurdish-held territory. PUK officials 
have indicated the early 
stages of the war would be a likely time to move 
against the group. 
In Oslo, a Norwegian court ruled on Friday that 
police could detain a former 
leader of Ansar al-Islam, Mullah Krekar, for four 
weeks in an anti-terrorist 
investigation.
Krekar, who has had refugee status in Norway 
since 1991 and denies any links 
with terrorism, told an Oslo court he was no 
longer leader of Ansar 
al-Islam.
He has launched an appeal against his detention.
22 Mar 2003
<
http://www.reuters.co.uk/home.jhtml?source=rtr
>
----------------------------------------------------
From Badi Ali, North Carolina
-----------------------------------------------------------
Friends,
Here is the statement on the arrest of Sami 
Al-Arian with an updated list of 
signatories.
Statement by the Blue Triangle Network 
on the Arrest of Professor Sami Al-Arian
The Blue Triangle Network expresses grave concern 
over the arrest of 
Professor Sami Al-Arian in Tampa, Florida and 
four others on 
terrorism-related allegations. Professor Al-Arian 
has undertaken a hunger 
strike in jail to protest his arrest, and this 
too is a cause for concern.
After his arrest, Al-Arian made this statement: 
"I'm crucified today because 
of who I am: a stateless Palestinian, an Arab, a 
Muslim, an outspoken 
advocate for Palestinian rights, but more 
significantly a persistent defender 
of civil and constitutional rights on the home 
front."
Whether or not the government is able to prove 
that Professor Al-Arian, or 
the others indicted, carried out any of the 
specific acts of which they are 
accused, the central issue here is this: the 
unlimited power of the 
government to single out a person for his or her 
political stance, conduct 
unlimited covert surveillance and then bring 
criminal charges. To be blunt, 
that is just what a police state looks like.
Professor Al-Arian has been the target of U.S. 
government surveillance for 15 
years, during which time he was known as a vocal 
supporter of Palestinian 
rights. He also attracted government attention 
because of his participation 
in the campaign against the use of secret 
evidence as a tool to detain Muslim 
and Arab immigrants in the years before 
Sept. 11, 2001. 
In the period since 
9/11, Professor Al-Arian became an outspoken and 
eloquent critic of the 
attacks on civil liberties and attacks on Muslim, 
Arab and South Asian 
immigrants that were carried out by the U.S. 
Government.
Immediately after Sept. 11, 2001, Professor 
Al-Arian was suspended from his 
University of South Florida position because of 
his political views. 
Unsubstantiated accusations were made that 
alleged he was connected with 
Palestinian groups which had been labeled as 
"terrorist" by the U.S. 
government. In particular, he was singled out for 
using the phrase "death to 
Israel" during a speech. It is a long established 
standard in the U.S. legal 
system that such political advocacy is protected 
free speech. In the past few 
months, he had won some victories in his court 
fights to prevent the 
University from firing him.
After 15 years of surveillance, the government 
had not been able to bring any 
criminal charges against Professor Al-Arian. Now 
come the indictments and 
arrests of February 20.
The indictment against Al-Arian details political 
statements and political 
activity over the years. For example, the 
indictment states he attended an 
April 7, 1991 conference in Cleveland, Ohio and 
that allegedly "SAMI AMIN 
AL-ARIAN further mentioned the Gulf War, and 
questioned why they stopped the 
protests against it. He then said they should 
continue the protests, continue 
to damn America, continue to damn Israel, and 
continue to damn the allies of 
America and Israel until death." (It should also 
be pointed out that while 
the indictments of Professor Al-Arian and the 
others have been handed down in 
the name of U.S. national security, the things 
they are accused of doing were 
entirely focused in Palestine and Israel.) We 
must ask, why are perfectly 
legal political speech and activities listed in a 
criminal indictment? What 
is this meant to prove?
The government is basing its indictments on 
alleged evidence gathered from 
wiretaps authorized by the secret Foreign 
Intelligence Surveillance Court. 
This is a court which meets in secret and whose 
proceedings are totally 
unknown to the subjects of its deliberations. For 
25 years any information 
gathered by these wiretaps could not be used in a 
criminal case. This was 
because, until late last year, these wiretaps had 
been supposedly for 
counterintelligence purposes, i.e. for spying on 
people who the government 
said were spying on the U.S., and not for 
gathering evidence for criminal 
prosecutions. The constitutional standards that 
apply in criminal courts and 
which must be met to obtain the wiretaps, did not 
apply. Late last year a 
secret appeals court ruled that this information 
could now be used as 
"evidence" in criminal cases. The government says 
it can now use the 
"evidence" gathered over the last 15 years 
against Professor Al-Arian.
What does this mean in reality? A secret court 
can authorize secret 
surveillance that will be used to collect secret 
evidence based only on the 
government's claim that someone is "working as an 
agent of a foreign power." 
There is absolutely no requirement, as in a 
criminal court, to present 
factual evidence that a crime has been committed 
or is about to be committed 
in order to obtain a wiretap. Instead, the 
government can place people under 
electronic surveillance permanently without 
claiming that they have evidence 
of criminal activity.
What is wrong with this picture? Why is it 
legitimate for there to be a 
separate legal system that applies completely 
different standards of rights 
and justice towards anyone the government wants 
to label as a "terrorist?"
Under this system there is no protection for 
people targeted in this way. The 
restrictions on government spying on people 
inside this country that were put 
into place in the past were necessary because it 
had been shown that the 
government often blatantly fabricated "evidence" 
against opponents of its 
actions. The FBI's plots against leaders and 
organizations in the people's 
movements of the 1960's are well documented. The 
surveillance and 
disinformation campaigns waged against Martin 
Luther King, Jr., the 
Black Panther Party 
and the anti-war movement were also 
justified as necessary for 
"national security."
This has a double chilling effect. It is a 
warning to all political 
activists, as White House Press Secretary Ari 
Fleischer stated after 9/11, 
"People have to watch what they say and watch 
what they do." It is also a 
threat to people from other countries that they 
may face criminal charges in 
the U.S. if they carry out political opposition 
to U.S. actions around the 
world while they are here.
These methods have been directed against Muslim, 
Arab and South Asian 
immigrants in the U.S. in a wholesale dismantling 
of civil liberties. These 
are all measures, which, in effect, portray the 
Muslim, Arab and South Asian 
immigrants in this country as "the enemy within." 
They have made the very 
fact of being a Muslim cause for suspicion by law 
enforcement, government 
officials and uninformed citizens. This 
demonization has produced calls for 
mass detentions of Arab-Americans similar to the 
rounding up of 
Japanese-Americans in 1942. Such alarming 
proposals have been expressed by 
government officials and elected representatives 
such as U.S. Civil Rights 
Commissioner Kirsanow and U.S. Congressman Coble.
This is cause for serious alarm for all those 
concerned with protecting civil 
liberties and stopping the repression being 
directed against Muslim, Arab and 
South Asian immigrants. (March 9, 2003)
Signed by:
 Blue Triangle Network
 Solidarity-USA
 South Asians against Police Brutality and 
Racism, New York, NY
 Lucas Martinez, Spokeperson for Libros 
Revoluciσn, Los Angeles, CA
 Jim Oines, Lutheran Pastor and Sanctuary 
Movement leader
 Catherine Podojil, Blue Triangle 
Network/Cleveland, OH
 The Islamic Center of the Triad, Greensboro, NC
 Muslims for A Better North Carolina, 
Greensboro, NC
 New Jersey Solidarity, New Brunswick, NJ
 Roman Gurrola
 Nina McLellan, Cleveland, OH
 Erin Wiegand
 Fredrick Cloyd, San Francisco USA
 Miah Arnold, Houston, Texas
 Helen McDonald, member, Committee for the 
Political Resurrection of Detroit
 Red Bandanna: Roma Against Racism
 American Islamic Institute, San Diego, CA
 Vietnam Veterans Against the War 
Anti-Imperialist
* Jamaat al-Muslimeen International
To add your organization or individual name to 
this statement, please reply 
to: 
NationalOffice@bluetriangle.org
 
Blue Triangle 
Network 
P.O. Box 7451, Dearborn, MI 48121-7451(313) 
942-7187
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2003-03-23 Sun 08:48ct