Re-Writing Muslim Political History | TwoCircles.net

Re-Writing Muslim Political History
Submitted by admin3 on 1 May 2009 – 11:35pm.

* Articles
* Indian Muslim

By Yoginder Sikand, TwoCircles.net,

Based in New Delhi, Maulana Waris Mazhari is a leading Indian Deobandi scholar. He is a graduate of the Dar ul-Uloom at Deoband, and is the editor of Tarjuman Dar ul-Uloom, the official organ of the Deoband Madrasa’s Graduates’ Association.

In this interview with Yoginder Sikand, Maulana Mazhari talks about his views on Islam, historiography and politics.

Q: Muslim history has generally been written in the form of a series of battles and a succession of rulers and military generals. This, in turn, has had a deep impact on the way Muslims imagine their past and their identity and on the way they relate to people of other faiths. What do you feel about this way of presenting Muslim history?

A: I have major problems with the traditional approach, including the traditional way of presenting the sirat, the history of the Prophet Muhammad, who Muslims consider as the model for all humankind. Typically, sirat-writing has taken the form of a narration of events that focus mainly on the maghazis or military confrontations and victories of the Prophet. This tradition goes back to early times. In fact, one of the first available sirat texts that we have, by Ibn Ishaq, is also known as Maghazi Ibn Ishaq. This is a reflection of how Ibn Ishaq portrayed the Prophet’s life. Ibn Ishaq was by no means an isolated case. In fact, many other sirat writers followed in that mode, and still continue to do so.

By focusing so much on the battles of the Prophet, most sirat-writers gave much less attention to other crucial aspects of the Prophet’s life, in particular his efforts, both in Mecca and then in Medina, to communicate, through peaceful persuasion and dialogue, the message of the Quran to people of other faiths. Since these aspects have been given little attention in the corpus of sirat literature, it is made to appear as if battling was the major occupation of the Prophet, which was not really the case at all, because this was just a minor part of the Prophet’s life. His major focus was actually the peaceful propagation of God’s message and moulding the beliefs and morals of his followers.

I think there is an urgent need for reappraising our approach to writing Islamic history. Many aspects of the Prophet’s life, which numerous sirat-writers, in their obsession with war and conquest, ignored or else gave little attention to, must be highlighted as these are particularly relevant for Muslims living in a plural society today. For instance, the Mithaq-e Medina, the pact between the Prophet and the non-Muslims of Medina, which set out the rights and duties of the different communities residing in the town. And, of course, the thirteen years of the Prophet’s peaceful preaching in Mecca. These things need to be highlighted in sirat writings, for they are particularly relevant to Muslims in India today, living as a minority in a very diverse country.

Q: Some radical Islamists might counter that by arguing that the Medina model of the Prophet—of establishing political power and supremacy—is the one that Muslims should follow, because it came after the Meccan period of the Prophet’s life.

A: Those who argue in this way give a political interpretation of Islam, but they have no solid basis for their claims. The whole life of the Prophet is a model for Muslims to follow, not just one phase of it. If the absurd argument that the Medinan phase of the Prophet’s life eclipses or abrogates the Meccan phase is accepted, it would lead to the bizarre conclusion that only some aspects of the Prophet’s life are worth following and that the others must be rejected. This is a conclusion that no real Muslim would ever accept. It would be tantamount to claiming that the verses of the Quran that were revealed in Mecca, that have to do with tolerance, patience in the face of adversity, peaceful persuasion and so on, have no validity. Needless to say, almost all the ulema would vehemently denounce this argument.

Q: Radical Islamists might argue that in Medina the Prophet succeeded in establishing a state or polity, and that, hence, struggling for such a state is a duty incumbent upon Muslims for all time.

A: God bestowed upon the Prophet the opportunity to establish and lead a polity in Medina, but this was a result of a long process of peaceful persuasion or dawat which the Prophet began in Mecca many years before that. It can be said to have been a stage in the path of the Prophet’s dawat. But this does not mean that winning political power must be the ultimate aim or the natural result of the peaceful missionary work of dawat. God gives political power to whomsoever He wills. But that should not be the main aim of the Islamic dawat, whose major focus is to communicate God’s message and to shape human beings’ minds and character in line with that message. If, in the course of the work of Islamic dawat, God provides political power, it is to be accepted as a gift, but it is not, and should not be, the real aim of the dawat. And if political power, to establish a polity that would enforce God’s laws, does not come into being, it is not a sin, contrary to what radical Islamists claim.

Q: But radical Islamists, such as Maududi, the founder of the Jamaat-e Islami, argue that what they call an ‘Islamic state’ is indispensable in order to ‘enforce’ God’s laws, in the form of the shariah, in their entirety. How do you look at this argument?

A: Maududi and others like him, ideologues like Hasan al-Banna and Syed Qutb, have indeed argued in this way, but their arguments have been heavily critiqued by many well-known ulema. If we accept Maududi’s insistence that struggling for establishing what he calls an ‘Islamic polity’ is the central aspect of Islamic dawat, many serious questions arise. It would, God forbid, mean that many prophets of God had failed in their mission because they did not establish any religion-based polity. Muslims accept the Prophet Muhammad as being of the same stature as the other prophets, and the Quran warns against making any distinctions between the prophets. All the prophets, the Quran says, taught the same primal religion or deen, which, in Arabic, is called al-Islam or ‘The Submission’, although their methods may have been different in some respects. Now, from the Quran it appears that only a few of them were also political rulers. Most were not, and focused only on peaceful persuasion or dawat. God gave the Prophet Muhammad the opportunity to establish a polity, but Jesus did not, so, would this mean that Jesus should be regarded as having failed in his mission? Obviously no. No Muslim would ever say or think so.

So, I would repeat, contrary to what people like Maududi have claimed, the final culmination of Islamic dawat does not have to necessarily be the establishment of a religious polity. The establishment of Islam does not depend on such a state.

Q: Some have argued that the notion of Islam as a total system of life (nizam-e hayat), including the concept of an ‘Islamic state’, is a modern invention, the product of people like Maududi, Qutb and the like, and not an integral part of Islamic tradition. What is your own view?

A: The notion of an Islamic system or order is definitely part of Islamic tradition, although not in the same stark, radical way as it is presented by people like Maududi who have a totalitarian understanding of Islam and who believe that Islam is incomplete without a state to enforce the shariah. Maududi made the Islamic state as the real basis of his version of Islam, but this is something quite different from the traditional approach. It is absent
in traditional Islamic thought, which does not countenance the notion that Islam and what Maududi termed as the nizam-e islam are virtually synonymous. Traditional thinkers saw Islam as a religion, a basis for morality, a relationship between the individual believer and God, and as a means for success in the hereafter. They also believed that Islamic teachings must influence and shape society and governance, but they did not equate this with the notion of an Islamic state in the way Maududi developed it. In contrast to the ulema, Maududi based his entire understanding of Islam on the notion of the state as the pivot, and he sought to interpret Islam solely in a political framework.

Q: Maududi argued that Islam calls upon Muslims to work for establishing its supremacy (ghalba) over other religions and political systems. This, he claimed, was an exhortation to struggle for the establishment of an ‘Islamic state’. How do you relate to this argument?

A: The Quran refers to the ghalba of Islam, but many traditional ulema understand this to mean the establishment of the ideological supremacy of Islam through offering proofs (dala‘il). People like Maududi have, however, taken it to mean the political supremacy of Islam. Naturally, this has created major problems, as evidenced by the violence that numerous radical Islamist groups have unleashed in the name of struggling for establishing the ghalba of Islam.

I think Maududi and others who saw Islam in this fashion were a product of their times, and were reacting to the fact of Western colonialism, which had reduced almost the whole of the Muslim world to European control. What they wanted to argue was that it was not enough if Muslims were allowed to pray or fast or build mosques by the colonial rulers. If they had said that Muslims, not Europeans, should rule their lands, it would have been understandable. However, they instead made the contentious claim that Islam should rule. They saw the state as an end in itself, rather than as a means. This was in contrast to the ulema’s position. Hence, it is not surprising that, for instance, the majority of the Indian ulema opposed Maududi and his understanding of Islam. Even now the Jamaat-e Islami, the outfit established by Maududi, does not have much support among the traditional ulema of South Asia. In the years leading up to the Partition of India, the Deobandi ulema, who are commonly thought of as the most ultra-conservative, consistently opposed Maududi’s ‘Islamic state’ demand, as well as the Pakistan scheme of the Muslim League, and demanded a united India where Hindus and Muslims, who it considered to be members of the same qaum or nation, would have equal rights. This, it based on the model of the Mithaq-e Medina, the Treaty of Medina between the Prophet and the various Muslim and non-Muslim tribes of the town. So, it is important to note the opposition of numerous traditional ulema to the political project of radical Islamists, something that is unfortunately not widely known or recognized.

Another point that many traditional ulema have made with regard to radical Islamists is that the latter have, by seeking to reduce Islam to a political ideology, ironically sought to secularise it, in the sense of making it an instrument of worldly power. The Islamist vision of Islam, they claim, is drained of true spirituality, and appears like any worldly ideology, an alternative to, say, capitalism or socialism or nationalism or whatever.

Q: Do you see any shifts emerging within Islamist movements in their approach to capture of state power, their attitudes to democracy and secularism and to relations with people of other faiths?

A: I think religious worldviews of people are often shaped by social and political contexts and conditions. So, as I said, colonialism provided the context and conditions for radical Islamism to emerge as a means to seek to challenge it. Likewise, today the demands of living as a marginalised minority in religiously plural India has forced the Jamaat-e Islami to make a major departure from Maududi’s rigidly doctrinaire thinking. Maududi was vehemently opposed to democracy and secularism, branding them as wholly un-Islamic. But now in India the Jamaat is planning to launch its own political party, which would function under the Indian Constitution, and which would naturally have to accept the Constitution’s secular and democratic character. The Jamaat has realized that, given the context in India, there is no feasible alternative to this. So, it is the force of circumstance and the feasibility or otherwise of something that forces such changes, which then get translated into modifications in ideology, and then all sort of arguments are sought to be marshaled to seek to ‘prove’ the new position as ‘Islamic’, and the previous position as ‘mistaken’. The same thing happened with Maududi himself. To begin with, he denounced the Pakistan plan as ‘un-Islamic’, but no sooner was Pakistan created than he migrated there. He consistently opposed the notion of women in politics, but, when he felt he had no alternative, he openly supported Jinnah’s sister, Fatima, as presidential candidate.

So, yes, I would say, force of circumstances is making several radical Islamists reconsider their approach to politics. In many countries, including in the Arab world, Islamist groups have witnessed fierce repression, and, despite decades of struggle, are no closer to achieving their dream of an ‘Islamic state’. In fact, they find that the ground is slipping further from under their feet in many places. Many of them are now realizing that violence does not pay, and, from their point of view, is even counter-productive. As a result, many are now convinced that the Islamic state that they aspire to create cannot come about by force—that it cannot be imposed, and that to attempt to do this is totally unrealistic. Rather, they are now realizing, it can only happen through democratic means, through peaceful persuasion which leads to the people themselves wanting it.

This sort of change in approach has taken place in some Islamist circles as a result of the experience of Islamist groups in the last few years. It has to do with the realization that holding on to a certain ideology is one thing, but that if it is too utopian its implementation is quite another matter, and then this leads to ideological modification. And so you see moves in some Islamist circles that suggest a reappraisal of standard Islamist approaches to crucial political issues. For instance, the head of the Egyptian Ikhwan ul-Muslimun recently went on record as saying that Christian Copts must have the same political rights as Muslims. Some Islamists are now willing to consider a woman as head of state. Rashid Ghanouchi, the Tunisian Islamist leader, now talks about the pressing need for Islamists to dialogue with people of other faiths, to work with them for issues of common concern, to value pluralism and to adopt a secular, democratic, humane approach, insisting that this is not at all un-Islamic. Of late a number of books have appeared in the Arab world dealing with what is called Marajat, or turning away by former radical Islamists from what they now consider to have been a deviant, terror-driven interpretation of Islam.

Q: In today’s context, when the nation-state itself is being questioned, and when the centre of power has shifted from the nation-state to international bodies, multinational corporations, the media, etc. how do you think Islamic political thought, which has hitherto been obsessed with the state and the capture of state power, should respond?

A: I think Muslim groups should give much more focus to issues such as the economy, education, media and interaction with civil society. These are major centres of power and influence. No community can progress if it is weak in terms of economics, education and media presence. Because Muslims, not just in India, but globally as well, lag behind others in these spheres, their mar
ginalization is hardly surprising. And, being marginalized, it is not likely that others will bother to listen to them. Even from the point of view of Islamic dawat, Muslim empowerment in these sectors is crucial. This must get much more attention from Muslim community organizations than it has so far. One often hears Muslims lament about how backward we are in these spheres, and all sorts of conspiracy theories purporting to explain this do the rounds, but, sadly, few Muslim leaders are willing to do anything practical to address these issues in a positive and constructive way.

This, of course, is related to revisiting our understanding of what ‘Islamic awakening’ means. There is this very warped understanding, especially in Islamist circles, that it is synonymous with political activism for establishing an ‘Islamic state’ or simply greater commitment to Islamic rituals and laws. I disagree. I think Islamic awakening must also be thought of in terms of working to strengthen Muslims in such spheres as the media, education and economics, because only thereby can they have greater voice and influence and be able to put across their message and views more effectively and also be able to engage in Islamic dawat. After all, is not that the secret of the success of the Jews, who, despite being such a numerically small community, are so powerful at the international level because of their strong presence in the Western media, economy and educational institutions?

Sadly, though, I do not see Islamist movements making any major shift in their approach to the capture of state power, although, as I said, some of them are now advocating democratic, as opposed to violent, means for the purpose. I do not see them giving more stress to strengthening their presence in the non-political spheres, the new nodes of power. They have not realised that this can also be a major means for Islamic dawat. They still tend to cling to the notion of the capture of political power as the solution, and obviously here it is not simply loyalty to traditional thought that is involved but also, in many cases, a host of vested interests.

One must also add that working to strengthen the Muslim presence in the media, economy and education requires serious planning, organization and rational thinking, but, sadly, we Muslims are easily swayed by emotionalism, by emotional slogans about Islam, and are just not prepared to do any serious thinking and work. Many Muslims simply don’t want to learn from others, because of a misplaced sense of superiority and also intellectual lethargy, although the Prophet clearly said that wisdom should be accepted no matter where it is found.

There is another issue that I want to touch upon here. Experiments by radicals to impose an Islamic state by force have failed throughout the world, and these efforts have often been opposed by the people in whose names these states were set up, because they soon turned totalitarian and even fascistic. This shows the failure of the top-down approach to Islamisation and the Islamic state, through capture of state power. As I suggested earlier, this approach reflects a deep-rooted notion in traditional Muslim political thought and modern Islamism. This belief in the primacy of the state and of its capture needs to be urgently reconsidered, because the sort of change that Islam demands is possible not only through political power, but through other means, such as peaceful dawat, working together in solidarity with non-Muslims for common aims and empowering Muslims in the fields of economics, education and the media. The failed experiments at seeking to impose Islamic states by force, as in Iran and Afghanistan, should makes us realise that the nurturing of truly moral and Islamic individuals, rather than the state, should be the principal focus of Islamic movements. And in this the activists of these movements should not be like militia men, as radical Islamists conceive themselves to be, but guides, social reformers and missionaries of love and mercy, inviting people to God’s path through peaceful means. This is precisely what the Prophet Muhammad himself did.

Sadly, radical Islamists do precisely the opposite of this. So, for instance, Maududi, the founder of the Jamaat-e Islami, once proudly declared that his movement was like a train, whose passengers were forced to go to the destination decided by the driver, although many of them might have wanted to go elsewhere. This forcing of people to agree to live under what is proclaimed as an Islamic state, which is so characteristic of the attitude of radical Islamists, is not at all in accordance with Islam. It breeds hypocrisy and violates the Quranic dictum that there should be no compulsion in religion. It is also totally counter-productive. Seeking to force Muslims and others to accept and live under the state that the radical Islamists want to impose on them just cannot work for too long if the people themselves do not want it. That is why many Iranians are now vehemently opposed to the mullah regime in their country and many Afghans to the Taliban.

Q: To come back to the issue of Muslim historiography, the history of Muslims after the Prophet also tends to take the form of political history, being a narration of the military exploits and successes of various Muslim kings. What do you have to say about this?

A: I suppose this is a universal phenomenon, and not one peculiar to Muslims alone. Although Islam is a democratic religion, and hence Muslim historiography ought to have been much more egalitarian, it has not generally been the case. One factor for this is the influence of pre-Islamic Iranian monarchical traditions, which the Arab conquerors soon absorbed. Muslim rulers employed historians to pen treatises to sing and exaggerate their praises, and in that stern feudal age the masses naturally got little or no attention in history-writing.

Today’s context is vastly different, and so we need a new way of understanding and presenting Muslim history. If traditional Muslim historiography was triumphalist, chauvinist and stressed Muslim supremacy over others, this was a result of the general social climate of those times. The same was true in the case of other communities in those days. Things have changed now, and we need to understand and present our religion, tradition and history in the context of the demands of the plural society in which we live. We need to shed the communal approach to writing our history. We also need to move away from the obsession with the history of Muslim political and religious elites and retrieve and highlight the histories of ‘ordinary’ Muslim people, whom our historians have cruelly ignored. Work in this direction has begun in some Arab countries. Unfortunately, this has not been attempted in ulema circles in India, one reason being that our ulema do not have access to new forms of history writing coming out from elsewhere because their English and Arabic language skills continue to be very limited.

Q: What sort of mind-set do you think develops as a result of the way Islamic or Muslim history is presented, as mainly a series of military conquests directed by Muslim rulers against non-Muslims?

A: I think it has seriously negative consequences for how people imagine what Islam is, what Islam demands of its followers and how Muslims should relate to people of other faiths. It makes Muslims think that non-Muslims are enemies who should be opposed, through military means if need be. It rules out the possibility for good and harmonious relations with non-Muslims, which is really indispensable in our day and age. It also tends to overlook the Islamic imperative of dawat or peacefully inviting others to God’s path, which is the fundamental duty of a true Muslim.

Since the history of Islam or of Muslims comes to be seen essentially as the story of a series of wars between Muslims and others, the misleading impression is definitely created that Islam demands constant physical confrontation with
non-Muslims, that the principal aim of Muslims must be to capture political power and so on, which, in my view, represents a gross distortion of what Islam really stands for. And because of the way our history is written, the stress that Islam gives to peaceful relations with people of other faiths, to the fundamental duty of Muslims to peacefully dialogue and communicate with others and to think and work for the welfare of the whole of humankind, and not just Muslims alone, is completely shut aside.

Unfortunately, there is also a stifling defensiveness about many of the negative aspects of Muslim history, which most Muslims are still unwilling to admit, leave alone confront. They see the whole of Muslim history as somehow something to be ardently defended, ignoring the fact that, after the short period of the Prophet and a few decades thereafter, there was no truly Islamic polity and society in existence, with the onset of monarchy and despotism, which gave rise to all sorts of distorted interpretations and versions of Islam. It is wrong to consider this latter part of our history as sacrosanct, as something to be defended as ‘Islamic’. We have to admit that many of our rulers, for instance, including several of those who claimed to be champions of Islam, were bloody tyrants. We have to critique them if they strayed from Islamic teachings—for instance if they oppressed non-Muslims or destroyed their places of worship, which Islam does not allow for, even though in taking some of these actions they were instigated by worldly-minded ulema in order to please them. We have to look at our historical heritage critically, and critique un-Islamic actions that may also have been done by Muslims in the name of Islam. Unfortunately, we shy away from all this that is indefensible from the Islamic point of view. Moreover, we tend to glorify and romanticize everything about the Muslim past—warts and all—as if Muslims are the epitome of virtue and non-Muslims have a monopoly of vice. We have to make a crucial distinction between Islam and Muslims, Islamic history and Muslim history, and this should be reflected in the way we approach and write our history.

Q: The only noticeable radical Islamist group in post-Partition India, the now-banned Students’ Islamic Movement of India (SIMI), is reported to have exhorted the Indian Muslims to struggle to establish an Islamic Caliphate (Khilafah) in India, and to resort to what it called armed jihad. What do you feel about this approach?

A: The SIMI’s ideological roots lie in the Jamaat-e Islami, of which it was, till some years ago, an official part. Its vision of Islam is the same as that of Maududi, whom it regards as its ideological mentor. I believe the SIMI’s approach was stupid. It was totally wrong and un-called for. Muslim political and religious leaders ought to have nipped the SIMI in the bud when it began mouthing its radical rhetoric in response to Hindu fascism. They should have discouraged it and not let it spread. But, sadly, for whatever reason, they took no action against it. And the whole thing backfired on the Muslims, making their position even more vulnerable.

However, one thing is clear. If the ban on the SIMI is lifted, I am sure that the new avatar of SIMI will not be extremist or radical. They would have learnt the hard way that their misplaced utopianism and sloganeering was not at all feasible or practicable, that it was as foolish as trying to drill a tunnel into the face of a mountain by banging one’s head against it.

I also want to say something about the concept of the Khilafah, which groups like the SIMI insist are integral to Islamic politics. They lament the abolition of the Ottoman Caliphate in 1924 by Kemal Attaturk, but little do they realize that it was hardly an Islamic form of governance. It was horribly corroded from within and so its demise was not unexpected. It was like a terminally ill patient who had suddenly been removed from his artificial supply of oxygen. These ardent advocates of the Caliphate stupidly imagine that if Attaturk had not abolished the Caliphate, it would still be there, and that, because of it, Islam would have been triumphant. This is foolish thinking.

There has been a lot of debate on whether the Caliphate, as the Sunnis traditionally understand it, is really necessary or not. Personally, I don’t think it is an article of faith for a Muslim to believe or desire that all the Muslims of the world should be governed by a single Caliph, as some radical Islamists insist. In fact, almost the whole of Muslim history is against this fallacious notion. It is not possible or realistic, nor, in my view, necessarily desirable. It is not at all feasible in today’s world of nation-states. Were this something that Islam demanded, it would go against the Quran’s assurance that God does not put any burden on us more than we can bear. So, I would say that the concept of Khilafah is not an indispensable or integral feature of Islam.

Q: Radical Islamists consider lands not under Islamic rule to be abodes of war (dar ul-harb) that must be conquered and brought under what they regard as Islamic rule. What do you feel about the notion of dar ul-harb?

A: The term dar ul-harb is not mentioned in the Quran. It was developed after the demise of the Prophet. I think this concept has lost its validity today, if ever it had any validity at all. I would like to refer here to the noted Deobandi scholar Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanavi who once remarked that the whole world should now be considered as dar ul-ahad or dar ul-mu‘ahida, the ‘abode of treaty’, because, following the setting up of the United Nations, all the countries of the world are bound together by common treaties. One could also consider the whole world to be dar ud-dawa, or an abode where Muslims must continue with their mission of peacefully communicating God’s message to everyone, Muslims and others.

Q: A final question. From an Islamic point of view, what do you think the Muslim political approach and agenda in India should be?

A: I think the Muslims of India must seek inspiration from the life of the Prophet in Mecca, where he spent the first thirteen years of his prophethood, when Muslims were a relatively small minority lacking political power—a situation analogous to that of the Indian Muslims today. We need to learn from the tolerance and patience exhibited by the Prophet at this time, despite the painful opposition that he faced, and his determination to carry on with the work of inviting people to God’s path. Despite the odds that he was confronted with, the Prophet did not resort to violence. He did not demand Muslim communal rights. His only concern was to communicate God’s message and win people’s hearts through peaceful persuasion and concern for their welfare. And that, I think, is what we Indian Muslims should also be doing. He accepted the conditions set by his foes, as at Hudaibiyah, as long as they let him carry on with the work of inviting humankind to God’s path, and did not get involved in communal controversies with them. We have a valuable lesson to learn from his noble example in this regard.

Muslim students at JNU being targeted by ABVP activists

No difference between congress and BJP

var so = new SWFObject(‘/images/player.swf’,’flash_player’,’448′,’356′,’9.0.115′); so.addParam(“allowfullscreen”,”true”); so.addVariable(“file”,”/chapter_list/3418/4″); so.addVariable(“playlist”,”none”); so.addVariable(“skin”,”/images/noskip.swf”); so.addParam(“wmode”, “transparent”); so.addVariable(“autostart”,”false”); so.addVariable(“bufferlength”,”4″); so.addVariable(“quality”,”high”); so.addVariable(“item”,0); so.addVariable(“repeat”,”list”); so.addVariable(“streamer”,”lighttpd”); so.addVariable(“image”, “/images/dntv.jpeg”); so.write(‘swfplayer’); function dn_interceptor(p, h, c) { this.player = p; this.has_pre_roll = h; this.pre_roll_campaign = c; this.current_item = -1; this.donate_tripped = false; this.state = ‘IDLE’; p.addModelListener(“TIME”, “interceptor.time_listener”); p.addModelListener(“STATE”, “interceptor.complete_listener”); p.addControllerListener(“ITEM”, “interceptor.item_listener”); } dn_interceptor.prototype.item_listener = function(obj) { this.current_item = obj.index; } dn_interceptor.prototype.time_listener = function(obj) { this.trip_donate_link(); } dn_interceptor.prototype.complete_listener = function(obj) { this.stop_if_first_item_complete(obj.newstate); } dn_interceptor.prototype.stop_if_first_item_complete = function(state) { // prevent the player looping back to 1st story when viewing the whole show var is_pre_roll_item = this.has_pre_roll && this.current_item == 0; if (!is_pre_roll_item && state == “COMPLETED”) { setTimeout(function() { interceptor.player.sendEvent(“STOP”); }, 100); } } dn_interceptor.prototype.trip_donate_link = function() { // update the donate button to reflect campaign // if they watch the pre-roll if (this.has_pre_roll && this.current_item == 0 && !this.donate_tripped) { var db = document.getElementById(‘donate_link’); if (db) { db.href = ‘/donate/’ + this.pre_roll_campaign; this.donate_tripped = false; } } } var interceptor; function playerReady(obj) { interceptor = new dn_interceptor(document.getElementById(obj[‘id’]), false, ‘ye08-preroll’); };

Sheikh Zoubir Bouchikhi, speaking from immigration prison.

AMY GOODMAN: We’re here in Austin, Texas, as we end today’s show by looking at the case of Sheikh Zoubir Bouchikhi, who has been held without bail at a private immigration prison in Houston for the past four months.

Imam Zoubir, as he’s known, is a native of Algeria, has lived in the United States for the past eleven years. He has four children, three of them American-born citizens. He first came to the United States in 1998 on a student visa. He earned a master’s degree in Islamic Studies, then moved to Houston, where he applied for a religious worker visa and was hired in 2001 by the Islamic Society of Greater Houston, or ISGH, a coalition of mosques and schools . Since then, he has served as the spiritual leader of the Abu Bakr Siddqui in southeast Houston.

In 2003, Imam Zoubir applied for permanent residency status as a religious minister. He also applied for his wife and the couple’s oldest child, who was born outside the country. In 2007, the family received a notice that the US Citizenship and Immigration Services had denied their application. They appealed, but the appeal was rejected in November of 2008. A month later, immigration officials arrested him at his home and led him away in handcuffs in front of his wife and children. He has been held without bail ever since. The case has angered many in the local Houston community, who are rallying to support him with letter-writing campaigns, petitions and websites.

A few days ago, I had a chance to interview Imam Zoubir. He called in from the private immigration prison run by the Corrections Corporation of America, where he is being held. This is his first national broadcast interview. I began by asking him to explain why he’s being held.

SHEIKH ZOUBIR BOUCHIKHI: I am here because the ICE is charging me with arriving alien. And I am denied bond, because I am under that category, called “arriving alien,” although I have been here in the United States legally for eleven years.

AMY GOODMAN: Can you describe how you were arrested? Did you have any warning? What are the reasons that they are giving you now? And have you had a hearing since you were jailed?

SHEIKH ZOUBIR BOUCHIKHI: Yes. The way I was detained, ICE officers came to my home around 6:30 in the morning, and they were waiting for me, because they knew I was at the mosque leading the morning prayer. And they detained me in front of my children, while coming back to the house, and my wife kindly requested them that “Let his children please give him a hug before you take him.” And my hands were handcuffed behind my back, and still they refused even a hug to their father.

I have—I met—I had the chance to be in front of Judge Benton, who belongs to the immigration circle, but they completely refused to give me a bond or to let me go on my recognizance. And this is where I am.

AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about your own family? How old are your children?

SHEIKH ZOUBIR BOUCHIKHI: OK. My oldest son is twelve years old, and his younger brother is ten years old. I have another daughter who is eight years old and another daughter who is almost two years old.

AMY GOODMAN: Are you able to see them?

SHEIKH ZOUBIR BOUCHIKHI: Yes, I am able, but behind the—between—I cannot see them directly; there is glass between me and them.

AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about your work in the mosque of Houston?

SHEIKH ZOUBIR BOUCHIKHI: Sure. I am an imam here in Houston, Texas. I lead a congregation of almost 700 people in my mosque, which is called the Masjid Abu Bakr in the southeast of Houston. I belong to an organization called the Islamic Society of Greater Houston, which is my employer.

And I do teach my community several things, such as, for example, I counsel them, I perform marriages, I perform funerals, funerals and burials, I teach the children values and ethics. I’m very deeply involved in interfaith dialogue and comparative studies. I work with Christian churches, synagogues. I work with the Interfaith Ministries here in Houston. We do provide food for the hungry, such as Meals on Wheels.

And I’m deeply involved in many other activities, such as speaking against injustice, speaking against the war in Iraq. And I think that these are some of my problems, how I’m perceived by the authori
ties.

AMY GOODMAN: What do you mean?

SHEIKH ZOUBIR BOUCHIKHI: I do think that they are just punishing me for helping people and speaking against injustice.

AMY GOODMAN: I’m looking at a Houston Chronicle piece of March 6th, and it is quoting an attorney for the Islamic Society of Greater Houston, saying that “In 2007, the family received a notice that USCIS revoked the [Islamic Society of Greater Houston]’s petition and denied Bouchikhi’s request for permanent residency.” Your request.

“According to Cowan, the government said ISGH,” the Islamic Society of Greater Houston, “had failed to prove Bouchikhi had been continuously employed for the two years prior to filing of its petition and had not demonstrated its ability to pay Bouchikhi’s salary.

“The government also questioned why ISGH had not proved Bouchikhi was an imam by submitting a formal certificate of ordination.”

Can you respond to those points?

SHEIKH ZOUBIR BOUCHIKHI: Yes. I’m glad you brought that, Ms. Goodman. Actually, every issue mentioned by the USCIS in its letter of notice of intent to revoke on January the 16th, 2007, and I have received this letter three-and-a-half years after my approval of the I-360. Three-and-a-half years. It has been fully addressed. Everything mentioned in that letter has been fully addressed by my attorney and by my employer, and all documents requested were made available on February the 15th, 2007. So, we were like perplexed by this statement and this allegation that we didn’t have enough documents. Still, we went and gave them everything, everything they asked.

The concerns raised by the USCIS have changed at each stage. Each stage, the USCIS sent us a letter. Each time, there is what we call a change of arguments. So we knew that they were not really trying to help me, because each time we answered their letters, they come up with something new.

AMY GOODMAN: That issue of a certificate of ordination?

SHEIKH ZOUBIR BOUCHIKHI: Mm-hmm. Oh, yeah. We, in Islam, we don’t have an ordination, unlike maybe Catholicism or other faiths, where a religious leader is given something by a higher authority. In Islam, we go by the amount of knowledge that the person has in this field of Islamic studies. So, having two master’s degrees in Islamic studies, I am fully qualified to be an imam. And we have given them everything.

AMY GOODMAN: Are you acting as an imam in the detention center? Are you leading prayers?

SHEIKH ZOUBIR BOUCHIKHI: Yes, yes, yes. I’m leading the prayer. I’m counseling the inmates. I’m even talking to non-Muslims, helping them with their problems. And we are being discriminated against even here inside the CCA.

AMY GOODMAN: How?

SHEIKH ZOUBIR BOUCHIKHI: OK. For example, there was a huge problem about the kufi that I use, which is a head cover. Forty-nine days after my detention, there was no problem. After forty-nine days, they raised this problem, and they told me that “You need to take it off. You have no right to walk in the hallways with it.” And I told them, even in Guantanamo the detainees have the right to wear their headscarf if they want, their head covers if they want. And I didn’t keep quiet. I took it to the higher authorities here, and they finally accepted that I use it with a pass.

AMY GOODMAN: So you’re in a prison, in a detention center that is run by a private corporation, by the—

SHEIKH ZOUBIR BOUCHIKHI: Private corporation, yes.

AMY GOODMAN: —Corrections Corporation of America. What are the conditions in the jail?

SHEIKH ZOUBIR BOUCHIKHI: Well, we had encountered so many difficulties. For example, Ms. Amy, they do not allow more than thirty-four detainees to perform their obligatory prayers Friday, although we have over fifty detainees here who are Muslims. And although the Constitution of the United States gives every right to any group to perform their religious duties, they don’t want to give us more than thirty-four, under the pretext of capacity. And when we told them, “OK, give us a bigger place or space,” they are not really helping.

AMY GOODMAN: Have you had a hearing since you’ve been jailed—

SHEIKH ZOUBIR BOUCHIKHI: Yes.

AMY GOODMAN: —on December 17th? Was this on April 13th?

SHEIKH ZOUBIR BOUCHIKHI: It was December the 17th.

AMY GOODMAN: You were jailed on December 17th. When was your hearing?

SHEIKH ZOUBIR BOUCHIKHI: My hearing was April the 13th.

AMY GOODMAN: And what happened?

SHEIKH ZOUBIR BOUCHIKHI: I went in front of Judge Benton, and he heard the arguments of my attorney, as well as the DA, and he said that he would give his final verdict on May the 14th.

AMY GOODMAN: And what are they weighing right now? Are you facing deportation at this point?

SHEIKH ZOUBIR BOUCHIKHI: I don’t know what honestly goes in his mind.

AMY GOODMAN: Your children are American citizens?

SHEIKH ZOUBIR BOUCHIKHI: Yes, they are. Three of my children are US citizens. They were born here in Houston, Texas.

AMY GOODMAN: In 2003, the Islamic Society of Greater Houston filed a petition on your behalf for permanent residency as a religious minister?

SHEIKH ZOUBIR BOUCHIKHI: Mm-hmm.

AMY GOODMAN: That was what? Six years ago. What happened?

SHEIKH ZOUBIR BOUCHIKHI: Yeah. Since 2003, October 2003, I have been waiting for my green card, and suddenly, in January 2007, I received a letter of intent to revoke. When we answered completely and fully that the allegations or the documents that they needed, a month later, they gave me a letter of revocation. When I appealed, again the arguments changed. We appealed to the AAO in Washington. They seemed to agree with every answer we gave, yet they went with the Texas Service Center’s decision, and they dismissed my appeal. It was November the 5th, 2008.

AMY GOODMAN: So, what is the next step? The final decision?

SHEIKH ZOUBIR BOUCHIKHI: Yeah, the final decision, we are waiting for the judge, Judge Benton, to give his decision, and we will see if it’s in our favor, and thanks God; if it is not, then thanks God again, but we’re going to appeal it to the BIA.

AMY GOODMAN: The Bureau—

SHEIKH ZOUBIR BOUCHIKHI: BIA.

AMY GOODMAN: —of Immigration Affairs.

SHEIKH ZOUBIR BOUCHIKHI: Immigration Appeals, yes.

AMY GOODMAN: Of Bureau of Immigration Appeals.

SHEIKH ZOUBIR BOUCHIKHI: The Board of Immigration Appeals in Virginia.

AMY GOODMAN: What has been the response outside the jail, where you are in the Greater Houston community?

SHEIKH ZOUBIR BOUCHIKHI: Well, I thank—I take this opportunity to thank each and every man, woman, young children, everybody, Muslim, non-Muslims, who stood up by me and by my family, knowing that this is an injustice done to a human being, to a family. They are punishing me and punishing my family, punishing my community, just for who I am. So I thank them. It was tremendous support. They came to the court. And they were not allowed, unfortunately, to enter the courtroom.

AMY GOODMAN: Why?

SHEIKH ZOUBIR BOUCHIKHI: I don’t know. I don’t know. They said only ten people can come, and then later on they changed their mind.

AMY GOODMAN: I was reading the Houston Chronicle piece about your youngest daughter, your wife not wanting to bring her to the jail to see you. Have you s
een her?

SHEIKH ZOUBIR BOUCHIKHI: Yes, I did. Finally, I told her that things are going to go along, just bring her. And when she came in, it was heartbreaking. She was like trying to kiss me through the glass.

AMY GOODMAN: What are your final thoughts in this interview? What would you like people to understand in this country about your situation?

SHEIKH ZOUBIR BOUCHIKHI: I just want them to know that I am really surprised that this is happening in the Obama administration time, although it started in the Bush administration. Every problem that I’m facing and my family and my community are facing started in the Bush administration, but it is continuing. And we really wanted change, and we were hoping for change, but I don’t see it. I don’t see it.

And they are denying me—by the way, they gave me a bond after ninety days. DHS gave me a bond, and they did not honor it until today. They gave me the bond on March the 17th. And just like that, they did not, when a friend of mine, a dear friend of mine, went to pay the bond, which was $20,000—I mean, they are bonding out criminals. I have no criminal history whatsoever. I have never committed even a misdemeanor in my life. And they did not even honor what they have given me.

AMY GOODMAN: They revoked the bond when it was—

SHEIKH ZOUBIR BOUCHIKHI: No, they didn’t even—they didn’t even send me a letter or anything to say that it’s revoked. Just verbally, they said, “We are not going to give it to you.”

AMY GOODMAN: When you say they are punishing you for who you are, what do you mean?

SHEIKH ZOUBIR BOUCHIKHI: I mean, I strongly believe that I am targeted because of my political views, especially I was against the war in Iraq, against bombing innocent civilians in Lebanon in 2006, and for my clear stance that I am pro-democracy and values that this country was founded on. And they don’t want for somebody who is free-minded and outspoken.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, I want to thank you very much for being with us. And finally, your message to your own children—when they come to see you, do they ask you why you’re behind glass, why you’re in jail?

SHEIKH ZOUBIR BOUCHIKHI: Yes, yes. Like my third child, Bushra, who is eight years old, she keeps telling me, “Why, Daddy? Why are you here? Why don’t you come home?” And I say, “It’s not yet time, my daughter.” She said she thinks I am actually—for three months, she thought I was in a conference, because she’s used that I travel for conferences. And she said, “This time, you took long time.” Then, when her mother brought her to the detention center, she was crying, and she told me, “Why are you staying here? This is not your place.” I said, “I know, my daughter. But I’m coming very soon.”

And they decorated the home, by the way, on the 18th of March. They decorated the home. They bought balloons. They bought a sign, “Welcome, Daddy.” And their father didn’t come, just because DHS didn’t honor its bond.

AMY GOODMAN: Sheikh Zoubir Bouchikhi, speaking to us from the private detention facility he has been detained at for the last four months in Houston.

Zakia Jafri welcomes SC order on Narendra Modi and others | TwoCircles.net

Zakia Jafri welcomes SC order on Narendra Modi and others
Submitted by admin3 on 29 April 2009 – 7:12pm.

* Crime/Terrorism
* India News
* Indian Muslim

By TwoCircles.net Correspondent

Ahmedabad: Welcoming the Supreme court order on Monday directing the special Investigation Team(SIT) headed by former CBI director R K Raghavan to investigate the roles of Chief Minister Narendra Modi and seven of his ministers, including VHP international general secretary Pravin Togadia as also senior bureaucrats and police officers, into the communal riots in the state from February 27,2002, to Mary 31, 2002, wife of slain ex-Congress MP Ehsan Jafri and human rights activist termed it a tremendous relief towards fight for justice in Gujarat.

The SC orders came on a petition filed by Zakia. According to the order, SIT has to submit its report to the apex court within a period of three months. The SIT recently completed investigations in 10 most heinous riot cases of 2002 and submitted its report to the Supreme Court. It was because of SIT investigation that Maya Kodnani, a minister in Modi’s cabint and a senior VHP functionary Jaideep Patel were arrested and both are colling their haeels in jail.

Reacting to the order, she said: “I have immense faith in Allah and I am hopeful that those who conspired, planned and executed the riots in which my husband Ehsan Jafri and more than two thousand others were killed in Gujarat, will get justice’’.

Zakia, who shifted to Surat after her husbands killing un Gulberg Society in Ahmedabad on Febvruary 28, 2002, is living with her elder son Tanvir Jafri, a senior executive with Larsen and Toubro.

Commenting on it, noted human rights activist J S Dandukwala said that the apex court orders was a tremendous relief to all victims of 2002 riots.

“We have always viewed Narendra Modi as a principal culprit of the killings of over 2000 people’’, he said, adding that `sadly, Modi used his political clout and administrative power to cover up his 2002 footprints’’.

“Horribly, many top industrialists and even Muslim bureaucrasts like retired additional director general of police A I Saiyed and several maulanas have endorsed Modi in spite of his Hitler-like records’’, commented Bandukwala, himself a victim of 2002 riots as he was the first to be targeted when the anti-Muslim riots began following torching of Sabarmati Express train at Godhra on February 27, 2002, in which 59 passeners, all Hindus, were killed.

Senior advocate and JSM representative Mukul sinha said that he had long ago demanded before Nanavati Commission probing the godhra and post-Godhra riots to summon Modi and his ministers to quiz them for their omission and commission during the riots.

However, he expressed happiness over SC ordering probe int the roles of political bigwigs into the riots who had gone scot-free.

Zakia had for the first time sent a detailed letter on June 8, 2006, to the then DGP A K Bhargava, demanding registration of FIR against 63 persons including chief minister Narendra Modi under Section 154 of CRPC. However, her plea was not entertained.

On May 1, 2007, Zakia and Mumbai-based Teesta Setalvad of Citizens for Justice and Peace(CJP) filed a petition in the Gujarat High Court, praying it to direct the police to register FIR against Modi, his cabinet ministers, administrative and police officials, including the then director general of police K Chakravarti and handing over the case to CBI for investigation.

However, the Gujarat High Court rejected the petition on November 2, 2007, asking the petitioners to approach the magisterial court in this regard.

After that Zakia and CJP filed a petition in the Supreme Court seeking apex court’s direction for an FIR to be filed against Modi and 62 others, and for an investigation into their alleged role in 2002 anti-Muslim riots.

Zakia’s petition in the Supreme Court raised several questions. An excerpt of these questions is given here.

1. Why were there no minutes of the meeting with chief minister held with senior officers for a review of the situation arising out of Godhra training burning incident?

2. There are some state intelligence reports of a Vishwa Hindu Parishad(World Hindu Council) held at 4 p.m. at Ahmedabad on February 27, 2002. Who attended this meting? Were any elected members of the Gujarat legislature , and the state cabinet present?

3. Why were the bodies of the victims of Godhra train carnage brought to Ahmedabad, and why were they paraded in streets?

4. Did senior police officials or DGP report to Chief Minister or higher officers in writing about the likely repercussions of parading the bodies?

5. Why was no preventive action taken when a bandh call had already been given by VHP?

6. Why was not Army called out immediately and why was there delay in deployment of Army when it reached Ahmedabad?

7. Why was there a delay in declaration of curfew in Ahmedabad?

8. Despite rules for this, why was there no arrangement for videography of the violence by mobs in all districts of the state?

9. Why were there more casualties of Muslims in police firing during riots?

10. Why was the response to distress calls from prominent Muslims like ehsan Jafri, delayed?

11. Why was there no monitoring of the instructions of senior officials, including chief secretary, officials of the home department and the DGP?

12. Why was there no action against officials who failed to register FIRs and why was there no adequate response to the complaints of riot victims?

13. Why was no action taken against supervisory officers, from district superintendents of police to the level of police commissioners and DGP, who violated the Gujarat Police Manual by not properly supervising investigations of serious riot-related crimes and thereby committing culpable omission and grave misconduct?

14. Why was no action taken on the supervisory officers who had done the misconduct of negligent supervision of Bilkis banu and Best Bakery mass massacre cases, whose trials had been transferred by Supreme Court to Maharashtra?

15. Why has there been no further investigation on the depositions of IPS officer Rahul sharma before Nanavati Commission, to reveal the location of BJP leaders and senior officers of police during the riots?

16. Many calls were made to Modi,his cabinet ministers, the then Ahmedabad police commissioner P C Pandey and the then DGP K Chakravarti during the riots. Their phone records must be examined to unearth the facts.

Following is the list of the accused against whom Supreme Court has ordered investigation.

1. Narendra Modi, the then and present chief minister. Charges: Alleged to be architect of criminal conspiracy; unleash unlawful and illegal practices during mass carnage and then protecting the accused having played direct and indirect role and abeeted the commission of the crime.

2. Ashok Bhatt, the then minister of health and now state assembly speaker. Charges: Accused of using political influence to prevent the administration from carrying out their constitutional duty to prevent violence and protect the citizens life.

3. Indravijaysinh Jadeja, the then minister of urban development and now roads and Building Minister. Charges: Accused of using political influence to prevent the administration from carrying out their constitutional duty to prevent violence and protect the citizens life.

4. Prabhatsinh Chauhan, the then tourism and civil aviation minister. Sat in Ahmedabad police control room at the instance of Modi and allegedly
carried out conspiracy and other crimes.

5. Gordhan Zadaphia, the then Minister of state for home. Charges: Conspiracy and instructions to DGP and police officials to allow Hindus to give vent to their anger on Muslims. Allegations of communal bias as alleged by the then Bhavnagar SP Rahul Sharma.

6. Ranjitsinh Naharsinh Chavda, the then MLA. Charges: Accused of using political influence to prevent the administration from carrying out their constitutional duty to prevent violence and protect the citizens life.

7. Kaushik Jamnadas Patel, the then MLA and now minister: Charges: Accused of using political influence to prevent the administration from carrying out their constitutional duty to prevent violence and protect the citizens life.

8. C D Patel, the then MLA and now a minister. Charges: Accused of using political influence to prevent the administration from carrying out their constitutional duty to prevent violence and protect the citizens life.

9. Niteenbhai Ratibhai Patel, the then MLA. Charges: Accused of using political influence to prevent the administration from carrying out their constitutional duty to prevent violence and protect the citizens life.

10. Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah, presently home minister. Charges: Accused of using political influence to prevent the administration from carrying out their constitutional duty to prevent violence and protect the citizens life.

11. Anil Tribhovandas Patel, now MLA and Minister for Industries. Charges: Accused of using political influence to prevent the administration from carrying out their constitutional duty to prevent violence and protect the citizens life.

12. Narayan Lalludas Patel, the then transport minister and now MLA. Charges: Accused of using political influence to prevent the administration from carrying out their constitutional duty to prevent violence and protect the citizens life.

13. Kalubhai Hirabhai Maliwad, the then and present MLA. Charges: Accused of using political influence to prevent the administration from carrying out their constitutional duty to prevent violence and protect the citizens life.

14. Dilip Manibhai Patel, the then and present MLA from Anand. Charges: Accused of using political influence to prevent the administration from carrying out their constitutional duty to prevent violence and protect the citizens life.

15. Madhu Srivastava, the then and present MLA from WAghodia. Charges: Accused of using political influence to prevent the administration from carrying out their constitutional duty to prevent violence and protect the citizens life.

16. Dr. Maya Kodnani, the then and present MLA . Charges: Accused of using political influence to prevent the administration from carrying out their constitutional duty to prevent violence and protect the citizens life.

17. Nalin Kantilal Bhatt, the BJP general secretary and now Bahujan samaj party leader in Vadodara. Charges: the author of the affidavit of the BJP before the Nanavati-shah Commission.

18. Rajendrasinh Rana, the then BJP spokesperson and the then BJP lok sabha MP from Bhavnagar. Charges: He called the `bandh’ the day after the Godhra train burning incident on February 27, 2002.

19. Dr.Kaushikbhai Jamnashanker Mehta, joint secretary, VHP, Gujarat.

20. Dr. Praveen Togadia, International general secretary, VHP. He is the author, verbal and written, of several incendiary speeches that have reportedly breached criminal law by inciting violence against the religious minorities.

21. Dr. Jaideep Patel, the then VHP Gujarat secretary. Charges: Accompanied the road procession of victims of Godhra train carnage from Godhra to Ahmedabad and allegedly instigated crowds to violence against Muslim residents of Naroda Gam.

22. Babu Bajrangi, VHP/Bajrang Dal leader. Charges: accused in Naroda Patiya mass massacre and also responsible for publicly intimidating victim survivors and eyewitnesses outside Nanavatyi commission office in August 2004.

23. Prof. Keshavram Kashiram Shastri(now dead), the then chairman of Gujarat VHP and editor of Vishwa Hindu Samachar. Charges: In an interview to Rediff.com, he detailed how VHP had targeted the Muslims and their properties by using electoral rolls.

24. Babubhai Rajput, BJP worker. Charges: Involved in criminal conspiracy and violence.

25. K. Chakravarti, the then DGP. Charges: Conspiracy with chief minister Narendra Modi and participating in the meeting chaired by Modi asking officials to let Hindus vent out their anger, failure to take action against the accused, subverting the criminal justice system, dereliction of his supervisory responsibility and professional commitment by not enforcing the Gujarat police manual regulations.

26. A K Bhargava, former DGP. Charges: alleged to have participated in a meeting where illegal instructions were issued by Modi. Not filed any affidavit before Nanavati commission , negligence in supervision of riot related cases.

27. Subba Rao, former chief secretary. Charges: alleged to have participated in a meeting where illegal instructions were issued by Modi. Not filed any affidavit before Nanavati Commision.

28. Ashok Narayan, former home secretary. Charges: alleged to have participated in a meeting where illegal instructions were issued by Modi. Not filed any affidavit before Nanavati Commision.

29. P C Pande, the then Ahmedabad police commissioner. Charges: Giving false information, delay in requisition and deployment of army, delayed the imposition of curfew in Ahmedabad city. Responsible for utter collapse of law and order in Ahmedabad city, the worst affected during 2002 riots.

30. K Srinivasan, former ZAhmedabad district collector. Charges: Responsible for lack of adequate relief operations and hence part of dictated criminal conspiracy. Not filed affidavit before Zanavati commission.

31. Dr. P K Mishra, the then principal secretary to chief minister. Charges: alleged to have participated in a meeting where illegal instructions were issued by Modi. Not filed any affidavit before Nanavati Commision.

32. Kuldeep Sharma, the then IGP, Ahmedabad police range. Charges: failed to protect Muslims in Kheda district under his range. Not filed affidavit before Nanavati commission about what went wrong in 2002 violating the Commission of Inquiry Act.

33. M K Tandon, the then Additional Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad(now retired). Charges. Negligence of duty in protecting people in Gulberg Society, Naroda Gam and Naroda Patiya under his jurisdiction. Not filed affidavit before Nanavati commission about what went wrong in 2002 violating the Commission of Inquiry Act.

34. K Nityanand, the then home secretary. Charges: alleged to have participated in a meeting where illegal instructions were issued by Modi. Not filed any affidavit before Nanavati Commision.

35. Rakesh Asthana, the then Vadodara Range Inspector General of Police. Charges. Failed to protect the life and property of citizens in his range in Godhra and other areas.

Not filed affidavit before Nanavati commission about what went wrong in 2002 violating the Commission of Inquiry Act.

36. A K sharma, the then Superintendent of Police. Charges: Conducive situations not created for rehabilitation of victims, compromising with perpetrators of violence, inaction facilitating riots. Not filed affidavit before Nanavati commission about what went wrong in 2002 violating the Commission of Inquiry Act.

37. G C Murmu, the then secretary, Law and Order. Charges. alleged to have participated in a meeting where illegal instructions were issued by Modi. Not filed any affidavit before Nanavati Commision.

38. Shivanand Jha, the then secretary, home. Charges: Allegations of criminal conspiracy.

39. D H Brahmbhatt, the then collector, Panchmahals district. Charges: Collector of Panchamahals where mass graves
were discovered in December 2005 and a vital accused to understand the allegations of continuing subversion of the law and order machinery in the state.

40. Deepak Swaroop, the then IGP, Vadodara Range. Charges. Failed to take adequate action resulting in large scale violence in Dahod and Panchmahals district, conducive situations not created for rehabilitation of victims, compromising with perpetrators of violence. Not filed any affidavit before Nanavati Commision. Responsible for further subversion of eviudence during the Best Bakery retrial as commented upon in the judgement of judge Abhay Thipsay.

41. Sudhir sinha, former Vaddoara police commissioner. Charges: Played an unholy role for facilitating a few major witnesses of the Best Bakery case turning hostile.

42. K. Kumarswamy, the then additional Vadodara police commissioner. Charges: Played an unholy role for facilitating a few major witnesses of the Best Bakery case turning hostile.

43. B S Jebaliya, the DSP, Anand. Charges: did not supervise the investigators of riot cases against pro-BJP accused, compromised with perpetrators of violence, connived with the accused and the political class.

44. D G Vanzara, senior IPS official. Charges: responsible for many encounter killings.

45. Rahul Sharma, IPS officer and former DSP, BHavnagar. Prevented violence in Bhavnagar, witness to subversion of justice process by a connivance between the accused and influential politicians.

46. Raju Bhargava, senior IPS official and the then DSP, Panchmahals. Charges: Making false statements, conducive situations not created for rehabilitation of victims, compromising with perpetrators of violence, inaction facilitating riots.

47. Anju Sharma, then then Bharuch collector. Charges. Did not do proper relief work, was allegedly involved in criminal conspiracy.

48. D D Tuteja, the then Vadodara police commissioner and now retired. Charges: Allegedly made false statements, conducive situations not created for rehabilitation of victims, compromising with perpetrators of violence, inaction facilitating riots.

49. Bhagesh Jha, the then Vadodara district collector. Charges: Giving false information, forcing closing down of relief camps in first week of August 2002 to project a false image of normalcy.

50. Nitiraj solanki, the then DSP, Sabarkantha district. Charges: Making false statements, conducive situations not created for rehabilitation of victims, compromising with perpetrators of violence, inaction facilitating riots.

51. Amrutlal Patel, the then District coleector, Mahesana district. Charges:Giving false information, not taking action against print media publishing communally provocative reports, forcing closing down of relief camps in first week of August 2002 to project a false image of normalcy.

52. Upendra Patel. , DSP, Rajkot district. Charges: Making false statements, conducive situations not created for rehabilitation of victims, compromising with perpetrators of violence, inaction facilitating riots.

53. P N Patel, the then district collector, rajkot. Charges: Giving false information, not taking action against print media publishing communally provocative reports, forcing closing down of relief camps in first week of August 2002 to project a false image of normalcy.

54. V M Pargi, the then Deputy commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad. Charges: Questionable role in Best Bakery case for manufacturing evidence.

55. K G Erda, the then police inspector at Meghaninagar police station. Charges: Dereliction of duty when massacre was taking place in gulberg Society from 7.30 a.m. to 5.30 p.m. on February 28, 2002.

56. Kerman Khurshed Mysorewala, the the Naroda Police Inspector. Charges. Dereliction of duty when mass carnage took place in Naroda Patiy and Naroda Gam from 9 a.m. on February 298 to 2 a.m. on March 1, 2002.

57. M T Rana, the then Assistant Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad city. Charges: Allegedly dereliction of duty and involved in subvwersion of justice and tampering of evidence.

58. Tarun Barot, former Crime Branch inspector. Charges: ): Involved in many encounter killings in Ahmedabad city. Involved in many controversial mass carnage investigations subverting process of justice and tampering of evidence.

59. Narendra Amin, Dy SP. Charges: involved in encounter killings.

60. G C Raiger, the then additional director general of police(intelligence), now retired. Charges: attended Chief Minister Narendra Modi’s meetings and privy to information between February 27, 2002 and April 9, 2002 but did not file affidavit before Nanavati commission.

61. K R Kaushik, senior IPS officer and the then ADGP(crime), now retired. Charges: Attended meetings chaired by Modi and other senior officials but did not file affidavit before Nanavati commission.

62. Amitabh Pathak, the then Range IGP, Gandhinagar. Charges: Making false statements, compromising with perpetrators of violence, inaction facilitating riots. conducive situations not created for rehabilitation of victims.

63. Satish Verma, the then Kutch Range IGP. Charges: connived with the accused and political class, compromised with the perpetrators of violence.

A World Leader’s Comments On The War On Terrorism

(We have decided to include these two articles from The Star newspaper in Malaysia as part of Islamic World’s position on the “war on terrorism” because they come from an influential world leader, Datuk Seri Dr. Mahathir Mohamed, Prime Minister of Malaysia, and they are very much in line with what we have been saying, and what we consider to be a reasonable and representative position from the Muslim perspective. These quotes are from a conference on terrorism organised by the Institute for Strategic and International Studies.) .

Target the Roots of Terror

By SA’ODAH ELIAS

KUALA LUMPUR: The best solution to the global terrorist problem is to remove the causes of terrorism, thus making the activity no longer tenable, Datuk Seri Dr. Mahathir Mohamed said yesterday. The Prime Minister said once the causes were removed, terrorists would lose their power base as support for their actions would be much reduced, if not cease altogether. “This is the best approach because the process of identifying and hunting the terrorists will be very difficult and will take a long time. But we may not want to remove these causes because we do not like to give the impression that the terrorists have succeeded, but such an attitude will not help. The terrorists must be hunted and brought to justice, but the causes of their committing the acts of terror must also be removed. Even terrorists would not want to sacrifice their lives for nothing,” he said when opening a conference on terrorism organised by the Institute of Strategic and International Studies.

Dr. Mahathir also said, The world must be serious and not be selective in the fight against terrorists, as the cost of turning around the world’s economy thrown into recession because of terrorist attacks would be very high. If the whole world, including the Muslim world, was to participate in eliminating terrorism, all terrorists, irrespective of their race or religion, must be targeted and the cause of their anger and disaffection removed. If we have to determine who is a terrorist and who is not then we have to base it on the act and not on the person or the group or the race or the religion. And no one must be spared, whether their cause is right or not. They must include state terrorists as well, including the Israeli government of Ariel Sharon, the man responsible for the massacre of thousands of Palestinians in Shabra and Shatila and is still the man behind the systematic killing of the Palestinians today”.

Determining who were terrorists was important because people who some described as terrorists were regarded as noble freedom fighters by others. More confusing still, he said, there were many ambivalences in the definition of terrorist as some who were condemned as terrorists one day might be considered respectable leaders another day. “The Jewish Hagana, Irgun and Stern Gang were at one time regarded and hunted as terrorists, but later became respected leaders of Israel. Jomo Kenyatta and Robert Mugabe were considered terrorists and were condemned by the British but later became the acknowledged leaders of independent states. The Irish Republican Army is a terrorist organisation in the eyes of the British but is regarded as freedom fighters worthy of financial support by the Americans. With such differing views at different times, it is difficult to get the whole world to join in the fight against terrorism and if some countries provide shelter and protection for the terrorists because in their eyes these are not terrorists, it would be impossible to eliminate terrorism,” Dr Mahathir said.

Dr. Mahathir also said Muslims could not be faulted if they were under the impression that the current act against terror by the United States and its allies in Afghanistan was beginning to look more like a war against Muslims, especially with their talk of meting out the same punishment on Iraq. This impression, he said, could only be eliminated if similar actions were taken against those who terrorised the Muslims, like in Palestine, the Bosnians, Chechens and the people of Kosovo.

Dr. Mahathir reiterated that attacking Afghanistan was not going to result in the capture of the terrorists believed to be involved in the Sept 11 attack in New York and Washington, but instead might likely anger a lot of Muslims. “Their governments may not, though some are likely to be angered by the wanton acts against a brother Muslim country, but certainly from the vast number of Muslims. There would be quite a few who would join the ranks of terrorists to avenge what they see as gross injustice and cruelty. “So the bombing of Afghanistan, far from progressing the war to eliminate terrorists, would actually result in the spawning of more terrorists, saddling the world with the problem forever,” he said.

Dr Mahathir said Malaysia was familiar with terrorism and the war against terrorists, having to face the problem for 42 years between 1948 and 1990, but in the end the terrorists were defeated by the government campaign to win the hearts and minds of the people so as to cut off their civilian support. “We studied the causes of their disaffection and that of their supporters and we took remedial actions. Our decision to accord citizenship rights to over a million non-Malays then was not a victory for the struggle of the terrorists, but was a means to win the loyalty of the disaffected people and to get them to co-operate in the war against the terrorists,” he said.

Speaking to reporters later, Dr Mahathir said he had already written to President George W. Bush urging the United States to halt the bombing in Afghanistan and expressing the hope that the war in that country would end soon. “I am talking of a stop to the bombing because of the damage it can do to the innocent civilians. The use of ground forces is better because the damage is more contained,” he added.

Palestinian Issue the Cause of Muslim Anger

KUALA LUMPUR: Prime Minister Datuk Seri Dr. Mahathir said yesterday that Israel is a terrorist state and that the issue of Palestine is the principle cause of anger and frustration among Muslims, some of whom had resorted to terrorism. To resolve the issue, he said, the first step must be to accord recognition to Palestine as a state and for the United Nations peacekeeping force to forcibly separate the two. However, he said that while the Palestinians were willing to have the UN peacekeeping force, the Israelis objected to it and the world pandered to the wishes of the Israelis, resulting in more killings and terrorism. “It all started because the Israelis came and occupied lands which are not theirs by right. Their only claim is based on a 2,000-year-old history, and if that is the basis of their claim, then even Malaysia can make similar claims on some countries,” he said after opening a conference on terrorism.

In his opening speech, he said there was a great deal of anger in the Muslim world over this issue which the West could never understand. Because the Muslim world was weak and unable to be of any help to the Palestinians, he said, they viewed the unwillingness of the West to stop the Israelis as a sign that the West was anti-Palestine, anti-Arab and anti-Muslim. He said while most Muslims would only feel anger, there were some among the one billion Muslims whose anger could not be contained, and had resorted to terror tactics. “It is reasonable to believe if there is no Palestinian issue, if the Palestinians are not being oppressed and children killed, the anger of the Arabs and Muslims would not be there or would be much less. Certainly there would not be those who would be willing to kill themselves in the horrible manner as in the attack of Sept 11,” he added.

He said in Palestine civilians including children were being shot and killed every day and in retaliation the Palestinians killed Israelis. “Eve
ryday Palestinians face the possibility of being killed. Can it be said that they do not live in terror of being the next victim? The Israelis too are in that position but they have superior firepower and obviously they instill more terror in the hearts of the Palestinians,” he said. “In frustration, he said, Palestinians, including children, resorted to throwing stones, but the Israelis retaliated with live bullets and yet the Palestinians were described as terrorists and their peace overtures rejected”.

“We must not glorify these terrorists but we need to understand their minds and their mentality. We need to do this if we want to understand the reason why they did this. If we don’t then we will not be able to remove the causes and reduce the incidence of terrorism,” he said.

Indian Madrasas discussing launch of courses on Islamic economics and finance

Indian Madrasas discussing launch of courses on Islamic economics and finance

Kamran Pasha: Why Suicide Bombing Violates Islam

Why Suicide Bombing Violates Islam

The evil of suicide bombings must be defeated by Muslims, as it violates every tenet of Islam. In the past two days alone, at least 150 people were killed in Iraq in a wave of suicide bombings which have torn apart any illusion of security in that tragic country.

As a Muslim, as a human being, I am filled with horror at images of men, women and children torn to shreds by the madness of people who turn themselves into incendiary devices. And I am filled with outrage and fury at the diabolic forces that seek to present this monstrous, murderous, terrorist activity as somehow sanctioned by my faith.

Let me put this in as simple terms as possible. Suicide bombings, indeed all forms of terrorism, are rejected by mainstream Islam, and always have been.

The Holy Qur’an says it in very clear, without any ambiguity:

“Do not kill yourselves, for truly God is merciful. And if any do that in rancor and injustice, soon shall We cast them in the Fire. ” (Surah 4:29-30)

The Qur’an makes it clear that there are rules to human conflict and limits that must be followed:

“And fight in the way of God against those who fight you. But do not transgress the limits. Truly God does not love transgressors.” (Surah 2:190)

As I discuss in my new novel Mother of the Believers, traditional Islamic law established very clear rules of war based on the practice of Prophet Muhammad and his early followers: Do not kill civilians. Do not kill women and children. Do not harm monks or priests of other religions. Do not destroy the environment.

Abu Bakr, the first leader of Islam after Prophet Muhammad, gave these commandments when Muslims were fighting the forces of the Byzantine Empire, which had sought to destroy the new religion and killed the Prophet’s ambassador:

“Stop, O people, that I may give you ten rules to keep by heart: Do not commit treachery, nor depart from the right path. You must not mutilate, neither kill a child or aged man or woman. Do not destroy a palm tree, nor burn it with fire and do not cut any fruitful tree. You must not slay any of the flock or herds or the camels, save for your subsistence. You are likely to pass by people who have devoted their lives to monastic services; leave them to that to which they have devoted their lives. You are likely, likewise, to find people who will present to you meals of many kinds. You may eat; but do no forget to mention the name of God.”

Muslims always took great pride in the fact that they acted honorably, even in war. They looked with contempt upon the warriors of Europe, who slaughtered civilians mercilessly during the Crusades. When the Muslim leader Saladin (Salahuddin Ayoobi) defeated the Christian kingdom of Jerusalem and retook the holy city, he spared its Christian populace and pointedly said: “We will not do to you what you did to us.”

His comment was in reference to the First Crusade, where Christian “holy warriors” massacred tens of thousands of civilians upon taking Jerusalem in 1099. Muslims were slaughtered en masse, the Jews of Jerusalem were locked into its main synagogue and set on fire. And Arab Christians were murdered by their co-religionists for the sin of having dark skin and looking like the enemy. The Gesta Francorum, a Crusader chronicle of their activities, proudly notes that the “the slaughter was so great that our men waded in blood up to their ankles.”

In the town of Ma’arra in Syria, the Crusaders committed the ultimate atrocity — cannibalism. As Crusader chronicler Radulph of Caen wrote: “In Ma’arra, our troops boiled pagan adults in cooking-pots; they impaled children on spits and devoured them grilled.”

To this day, the Crusaders are referred to in the Muslim world as “the cannibals of Ma’arra.”

The Muslims looked at this kind of atrocity committed in the name of God as unworthy of any great religion, and held themselves above such monstrous behavior.

So how is it possible that its modern equivalent, the mass murder of civilians through suicide bombings, should now be done in the name of Islam?

In Dying to Win, Robert Pape, a scholar at the University of Chicago, analyzes the history and motivation of suicide bombers. Many people who read the book will be surprised to learn that suicide bombing was a tactic that was first used regularly by Hindu terrorists known as the Tamil Tigers. One of the most prominent victims of this tactic, Rajiv Gandhi, the Prime Minister of India, was killed on May 21, 1999 by a female suicide bomber from the Tamil Tigers. According to Pape, Gandhi’s murder marks the first use of the “suicide vest” which has become the tool of suicide bombers throughout the world today.

A full chronology of the history of suicide bombing among Hindu extremists can be found at:

http://www.spur.asn.au/chronology_of_suicide_bomb_attacks_by_Tamil_Tigers_in_sri_Lanka.htm

(A warning that the link contains graphic photos of the carnage caused by suicide bombers.)

One of the greatest tragedies of modern Islam is that Muslim extremists began to adopt this horrific tactic of suicide bombing over the past two decades. Palestinian militants, arguing that they had no other effective way to combat Israeli oppression, began to employ these tactics, and the image of the “Muslim suicide bomber” began to take hold in the media.

I remember at the time most Muslims I spoke with expressed disgust at these horrific acts, but some added the caveat — “What else can these poor people do? They have no tanks or jets to take on Israeli tanks and jets. This is their only way to fight.”

My response then and now is that Islam is a religion that has established rules of war for a reason. Human conflict is perhaps inevitable, but unless there is a sense of morality among warriors, even among the warriors of the oppressed, human beings will descend into monstrosity. The nobility of a cause is forever tainted when dipped in the blood of innocents. The argument that Israeli military activities kill countless Palestinian civilians is not an argument that is supported by the noble spirit of Islam. As Saladin pointed out, the Muslims would not inflict on the Christians the atrocities that the Crusaders had inflicted on their victims, simple because we as Muslims were better than that.

And I warned those who would excuse the suicide bombers as long as they targeted “the unbelievers,” that in Islam all human beings are brothers and sisters and have rights before God and man. I predicted that once some Muslims turned their back on Islam’s strict rules of war and went beneath themselves in order “to win,” the wrath of Allah would be unleashed upon the Islamic community. If we allowed suicide bombings against non-Muslims, then soon would God punish our sins by inflicting the same horror on Muslims.

Tragically, my prediction came true. Suicide bombers in Iraq and Afghanistan now kill thousands of Muslims a year, innocent people going to pray or shop in the marketplace, their only crime being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

This kind of monstrous behavior is not Islam. It never has been Islam. And it will never be Islam, no matter what kind of self-serving justifications the terrorists use.

For those who wish to learn more about mainstream Muslim positions about war, terrorism and suicide bombing, I refer you here:

http://islam.about.com/cs/currentevents/a/suicide_bomb.htm

http://www.harunyahya.com/terrorism3.php

It is time for Muslims and people of all faiths to stand together in love and justice and end this horrific scourge of terrorism and suicide bombing on humanity.

I look forward to the day that the world will no longer associate such monstrosity with my beloved faith. And that one day, mankind will believe that Islam really does represent what its name stands for: “Peace.”

Kamran Pasha is a Hollywood filmmaker and the author of Mother of the Believers, a novel on the birth of Islam as told by Prophet Muhammad’s wife Aisha (Atria Books; April 2009). For more information please visit: http://www.kamranpasha.com

MEMRI: Latest News

April 24, 2009 No. 2326

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: The Idol of Zionism Created by the West Must Be Shattered

According to reports in the West, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad toned down his speech at the Durban Review Conference, held April 22-24, 2009 in Geneva, due to public criticism. However, when he returned to Iran he stepped up his anti-West and anti-Israel statements. In an April 23, 2009 speech in Eslamshahr, near Tehran, Ahmadinejad said that the West is worshipping the idol it had created in the form of Zionism, and is forcing the entire world to worship it as well – but that this idol “must be shattered in order to save humanity.” He also claimed that the West fabricated the Holocaust and made it a sacred issue, and is using it to take over the entire world.

Also, in a speech the previous day at an international conference of prosecutors of Islamic countries in Tehran, he accused the West of “prepar[ing] the ground for the fulfillment of Zionism’s aspirations.”

The following are excerpts from speeches he made after returning from Geneva:

“This Idol of Zionism Must Be Shattered in Order to Save Humanity… Iran’s Revolution Has Already Been Exported”

In his speech in Eslamshahr, Ahmadinejad said: “Wherever we want to visit and at every conference in which we participate, they [the Western countries] say: ‘Who do you want to criticize? [You can] criticize the U.S., Europe, the [Second] World War, the Vietnam War, or the Korean War, but you must not criticize the Zionists.’ The people of the West fabricated what is known as the Holocaust and Zionism, and they have sanctified it and placed it at the top of all holy beliefs. They have all united around it, and by hoisting the banner of Zionism, while using violence and aggression, spreading civil strife, and [perpetrating] Zionist crimes, they have taken over the world and wish to rule it.

“I say to them: ‘In your countries, you permit [even] the affronting of the divine prophets, the holy of holies of the world.’ They respond by saying: ‘That’s freedom of speech.’ But when it comes to [the issue of] the Zionists, they say: ‘Shut up, and don’t utter a word.’ They [the Western countries] have fabricated an idol called Zionism, which they worship and want to force all the nations to worship.

“I declare from [this pulpit] that this idol of Zionism must be shattered in order to save humanity… [1] They must know that the free nations, the Iranian nation, and the people of Eslamshahr will not tolerate this modern idol-worshiping, that they will shatter this idol with force… Indeed, they have already shattered this idol.

“A journalist asked me: ‘Do you still want to export your revolution?’ I said to him: ‘Iran’s revolution has already been exported. The world’s nations chant the slogans of the Iranian nation, and talk about brotherhood, justice, and peace, and about the confrontation with oppression and with the crimes of the Zionists. The Islamic Revolution of Iran has already been exported. Can’t you see that? Can’t you discern that? If you go to America, [you will see] that there too people chant the slogans of the Iranian nation.” [2]

“The Zionists are the Ones Running International Relations… The Mask of Judaism [Behind which Zionism Hides] is False”

At an April 22, 2009 speech at the international conference of Islamic prosecutors, which convened in Tehran, Ahmadinejad said: “Let me say a few words about the Durban [2] conference in Geneva: The Zionists are the ones running international relations… Everybody knows that Zionism is a political party, and you all know that the mask of Judaism [behind which they hide] is false, because Zionism is devoid of religion, and they are against religion, against race, and against humanity.

“Zionism is a convoluted and crude party, which operates contrary to the teachings of the divine prophets and against humanity [in an effort] to take over the foundations of the world. Their management of the world takes two forms: One is behind-the-scenes control – they have arranged the [international] institutions so that they will continuously strive to achieve the Zionist goals. They [i.e. Westerners] have prepared the ground for the fulfillment of Zionism’s aspirations, and they fully support the Zionist regime, without donning the mask of Zionism [themselves].

“All the organizations – the [U.N.] Security Council and the international political and judicial institutions – wholeheartedly support the Zionists, even though the Zionist mark is not branded on their foreheads.

“I believe that behind the scenes, the Zionists are running these institutions to their own advantage.” [3]

“Over 70% of the Europeans Support Iran … [Because] the Statements of the Iranian Nation Stem from Divine Inspiration”

Upon his return from Geneva, Ahmadinejad said in a speech at Mehrabad airport in Tehran: “A journalist asked me in Geneva: ‘Why do you say these things? The Europeans are concerned about your statements.’ I told him: Let’s test what you say, and hold a referendum in Europe. You will see that over 70% of the Europeans support the Iranian nation. This is because the statements of the Iranian nation stem from divine inspiration.” [4]

[1] Fars (Iran), April 23, 2009.

[2] ISNA (Iran), April 23, 2009.

[3] The Institution of the Iranian Presidency, April 22, 2009.

[4] Kayhan (Iran), April 22, 2009.