Pakistan: 50 Islamic scholars
issue fatwa for jihad against U.S., order Muslims to stop calling America a
"super power"
The term "aggression" used in the fatwa is vague, and likely to be
deliberately so: all hell can break loose at a time and place of their choosing.
"Fatwa for Jihad against America," from The Nation, September 26:
LAHORE – As many as 50 religious scholars
associated with the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC), a conglomerate of 20 Barelvi
school of thought groups, have declared that Jihad against the US would be
obligatory for the entire [sic] in case of aggression against the
country.
In recent months, the SIC has threatened "anarchy" if Asia Bibi is pardoned for blasphemy, and staged protests demanding Pope Benedict XVI apologize
for criticizing the blasphemy law.
According a press release issued here on Sunday, the scholars had
issued a decree for Jihad against the US, terming it
real Jihad in defence of the homeland.
The fatwa also declared as haram (illegitimate) calling the US super
power, saying only Allah Almighty deserved the title.
The scholars called upon the government to end the country’s role as
front-line state in the so-called US war on terror and try to establish a new
bloc comprising China, Turkey, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan. They also urged
the government to start preaching Jihad in the way of God with the armed forces
making preparations to counter any foreign aggression. They urged all
politicians to bring back their assets from abroad as well as returning bank
loans got through political influence.
A human rights conference descended into a brawl within
minutes of it being opened by a Labour peer, a court
heard.
Baroness Uddin, the first
female Muslim peer, had been invited to chair the conference by the
International Bangladeshi Foundation in July last year.
But the event was abandoned as supporters of the ruling party in Bangladesh, the Awami League,
and opposition Bangladesh National Party, clashed.
A number of delegates were injured.
BNP supporter Sharef Chowdhury, 44, of Bethnal Green, and Awami
League subscriber Montor Ali, 37, of East Ham, admitted affray at Inner London crown
court.
Judge Austin Issard-Davies sentenced Chowdhury and Ali to a community order
with 100 hours' unpaid work.
The judge told them: "It is central to democracy that debate can take place
free of violence.
"It is disgraceful that at a meeting chaired by a member of the House of Lords, a fracas like
this should take place."
Ahmed Ali, of Canning Town, and Shahreyar Rahman, 34, of Clacton-on-Sea, were
cleared of the same charge.
The UK government has granted police the right to prevent far-right groups
from marching through five London boroughs for 30 days, prompting concerns that
a dangerous precedent has been set in terms of police power and freedom of
expression.
Scotland Yard says it applied for the ban over fears of violence and disorder
planned by the English Defence League earlier this month.
The view of workers’ rights activists on the Home Office ban on marching is
quite clear. “It is an attack on the basic democratic rights of working
people in this country,” says Patrick O’Regan from the Workers’
Revolutionary Party.
Through September, in six areas of London, anyone marching as thousands of
people did last winter is liable to be arrested and fined, or even
imprisoned.
The ban was prompted by plans by the anti-Muslim English Defence League to
repeat their February
protest in Luton by marching through Tower Hamlets, the area with the
highest concentration of Muslims in the country.
But instead of banning one march on one day, the Home Office banned all
marches in six boroughs for an entire month. Activist Richard Seymour sees a
wider motive. “Once the ban is passed, that does not necessarily mean to say the march
is not going to happen, it just means the police just have more powers,”
says Seymour. “And that is a part of the wider problem. If you are
restricted to a static demonstration, the police have a right to pen you in and
arrest you very easily for relatively small offences or non-offences.”
In Lambeth people still can march, just by pure accident of geography. It is
not one of the six boroughs affected by the ban.
But if, as many fear, the government extends and widens the ban to take in
more parts of London, both small and large marches through London and many other
cities across the country could be a thing of the past.
The ban comes hot on the heels of widespread rioting in
many English cities in August. It also coincides with the introduction of
government austerity measures, which some say amount to the dismantling of the
entire welfare state.
Many say public fear of civil unrest is being manipulated to prevent unions
from turning out to protest fierce cuts. And Patrick O’Regan says it is just the
tip of the iceberg. “They are talking about area curfews, they are talking about shutting
down Facebook [and other] social network sites,” he said. “They are
talking about dictatorial civil war measures because what they are doing in
Britain is creating a historic change, in which inevitably the majority of
Britain will oppose them.”
The Home Office can only stop marching – it is powerless to prevent people
from gathering. But workers’ organizations argue it is no good just standing
there. You have to be able to march in order to make a statement, as the unions
did in March, when more than a quarter of a million people turned out to protest
the cuts.
Activists say that is exactly what the government is trying to stop. “Just in terms of where we are at the moment with the process of
austerity being pushed through by the government, trade unions are one of the
major blocs opposed to that,” said Richard Seymour. “Public order
legislation does tend to be used against striking workers. That has been very
clear and there have been some recent examples of that – people being pulled off
the picket lines. And that obviously weakens any resistance to the
cuts.”
Freedom of expression and association are enshrined in UK and European law,
with the UK renowned for its powerful union organizations. But the ban gives
police the ultimate power to step in and arrest demonstrators merely for
exercising their right to speak out against the government. And that is a
dangerous precedent to set.
ASHLAND, Mass. -- An Ashland man was arrested Wednesday and accused of
plotting to destroy the Pentagon and U.S. Capitol by attacking the buildings
with large, remote-controlled aircraft armed with lethal amounts of
explosives.
Rezwan Ferdaus, 26, was arrested Wednesday in Framingham after undercover
federal agents delivered materials he'd allegedly requested for his plan,
including grenades, six machine guns and what he believed was 24 pounds of C-4
explosive.
The Department of Justice took Ferdaus, a Northeastern University graduate,
into custody. The suspect made an appearance in court Tuesday in Worcester. He
did not enter a plea and was held without bail until his detention hearing
Monday afternoon.
Authorities say he had rented a storage facility in Framingham under a false
name where he planned to use the unit to build his attack plan and maintain all
his equipment.
In recorded conversations with the government’s cooperating witness that
began in January 2011, Ferdaus said he planned to attack the Pentagon using a
small drone aircraft filled with explosives and guided by GPS equipment.
In April he allegedly expanded his attack to include the U.S. Capitol. In the
affidavit, Ferdaus is quoted as looking for, “…A connection that would be able
to gather, ah, some material where we can build some of the explosive enough to
take out a target that’s like three football fields, say a radius of one or two
blocks?”
He also made his goal clear to the cooperating witness saying, “Because that,
that’s the target to eliminate and terrify all enemies of Allah. We have this
project started…This is, this is what we have to do. This is the righteous way…
[to] terrorize enemies of Allah.”
Authorities say Ferdaus was upset at the death of Osama Bin Laden in May. He
was recorded as referring to the terrorist leader as “our boss.”
Ferdaus is also accused of trying to work with Al-Qaeda to carry out attacks
on U.S. soldiers stationed overseas.
Wednesday, he was in Worcester court. He is being represented by Boston
attorney, Catherine Byrne.
Federal authorities said the public was never in danger.
