RAMADAN & SHAWWAL 1431 (2010)

First day of Ramadan will be Wednesday, August 11, 2010 and Eid al-Fitr will be on Friday, September 10, 2010, insha’Allah.
“O you who believe, fasting is prescribed to you as it was prescribed to those before you, that you may (learn) self-restraint.” Qur’an 2: 183

The Fiqh Council of North America (FCNA) and the European Council for Fatwa and Research (ECFR) recognize astronomical calculation as an acceptable Shar’i method for determining the beginning of lunar months including the months of Ramadan and Shawwal. FCNA & ECFR use Makkah al-Mukarramah as a conventional point, and take the position that the conjunction must take place before sunset in Makkah and the moon must set after sunset in Makkah.

On the basis of this method the dates of Ramadan and Eid ul-Fitr for the year 1431 AH are established as follows:

1st of Ramadan will be on Wednesday, August 11, 2010

1st of Shawwal which marks the start of Eid ul-Fitr – will be on Friday, September 10, 2010

Ramadan 1431 AH:

The Astronomical New Moon is on August 10, 2010 (Tuesday) at 11:08 am Makkah Time. Sunset in Makkah on August 10 is at 6:55 pm. On that day, the Topocentric Altitude of the moon in Makkah at sunset is 1.6 degrees. Therefore, the first day of Ramadan is on August 11, 2010 (Wednesday), making the first Tarawih prayer will be on the night of Tuesday August 10, 2010.

Eid ul-Fitr 1431 AH:

The Astronomical New Moon is on September 8, 2010 (Wednesday) at 6:30 pm Makkah Time. Sunset in Makkah on September 8 is at 6:31 pm. On that day, the moon in Makkah at sunset is below the horizon. Therefore, the first day of Shawwal, which marks the start of Eid ul-Fitr is on Friday, September 10, 2010, insha’Allah.

May Allah (swt) keep us on the right path, and accept our fasting and prayers. Ameen. For more detailed information, please visit: www.fiqhcouncil.org or www.moonsighting.com

Sincerely,

Dr. Maher Hathout, Dr. Muzammil Siddiqi

Chairman – Islamic Shura Council Chairman, Fiqh Council of North America; 2115 W. Crescent Ave., Suite 261, Anaheim, CA 92801. Tel: 714.239.6473 – Fax: 714.239.6493 – Email: info@shuracouncil.org. URL: www.shuracouncil.org

12-27

By Geoffrey Wawro, Huffington Post

Gen. Mohammad Zahir Azimi (L), Afghanistan’s Ministry of Defense spokesman, and Gen. Josef Blotz, NATO’s International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) spokesman, talk with journalists about the recent media reports on the leaking of classified U.S. documents by website Wikileaks, in Kabul July 28, 2010. The publication of tens of thousands of classified documents by whistleblower WikiLeaks has cast new light on Afghanistan – particularly the impact of the war on civilians, and Pakistan’s role in the conflict. REUTERS/Sayed Wali/Pool

Julian Assange has done America a service by releasing the new “Pentagon Papers” on Afghanistan. He reveals to a citizenry that has been left in the dark about the true nature of the war just what is going on. To the historian, the American predicament (and inevitable defeat) is foreshadowed by the Soviet experience. That the Obama administration “surged” this losing battle, embraced a two-faced Pakistan, and kept the Bush-era nation-building going (to the tune of $7 billion/month) despite all of the sobering news delivered by Wikileaks is astounding.

To see how this draggletailed war will end, let us consult the Soviet playbook, which has become ours. The Soviets invaded Afghanistan on Christmas Day 1979. The invasion was designed to place Moscow closer to the Persian Gulf oil fields, but also — in common with US efforts today — to strike a mortal blow against Islamic fundamentalism, which had begun to creep into Russia’s southern ‘stans. Like us, the Soviets pushed modern ideas: they abolished sharia, unveiled women, introduced co-ed classrooms, redistributed land, built schools and medical clinics, and expanded roads and infrastructure. They abolished the Afghan tricolor flag because it was striped with Muslim green.

The Afghan provinces rebelled against this assault on tradition. Mujahideen (read Taliban) fled across the 1,400-mile border with Pakistan and armed themselves in safe havens staked out by the I.S.I. Pakistan’s leader, General Zia-ul-Haq (read Musharraf) considered the insurgency a marvelous opportunity to rake in American dollars ($3.2 billion after the Soviet invasion), prove his Islamic credentials to Pakistan’s Muslims, and create strategic depth against the surrounding Soviets and Indians. Riven between rich and poor, Pakistan might be reinvented on a more enthusiastic basis by the embrace of “political Islam” and holy war.

Four years later, C.I.A. Director Bill Casey briefed President Reagan on the progress of the Afghan insurgency. The mujahideen had surpassed all expectations. They had clawed back 62 percent of Afghanistan, killed and wounded 17,000 Soviet troops, shot down 400 Soviet aircraft, destroyed 2,750 Soviet tanks and armored vehicles, and torched 8,000 Soviet trucks and jeeps. At a conservative estimate, the war had cost Moscow about $45 billion (in 2010 dollars) in direct costs alone; its price would surge if the Kremlin tried to reverse the skid. Casey told Reagan that the Red Army would have to triple or quadruple its troop deployments in Afghanistan to have any hope of beating the mujahideen.

The Soviet war in Afghanistan was essentially over by 1985. American and Saudi aid to the mujahideen had stymied the Red Army, and a surging heroin and opium trade was filling the coffers of the mujahideen with home-grown revenues as well. Fifty-four year-old Mikhail Gorbachev (read Obama) downgraded Afghanistan from a “socialist country” to a “developing” one, and vowed to get out. At a Kremlin meeting in November 1986, he voiced his exasperation: “People ask, ‘what are we doing there?’ Will we be there endlessly? Or should we end this war?” Even with 115,000 troops in Afghanistan, there was no end in sight. Gorbachev impatiently lowered the bar for success in Afghanistan. Moscow would now be content with a “neutral country” on its southern border. There would be no more talk of “democratic republics.” Gorbachev set a timeline for withdrawal, a year, or two at the most, and then “get out of there,” as he put it. Since the mujahideen refused to negotiate with Babrak Karmal (read Karzai) — a discredited puppet figure — the Soviets brusquely demoted him and installed thirty-nine year-old Muhammed Najibullah in his place. “Najib the Bull” — twenty years younger than Karmal — was ordered to get the Afghan house in order with an energetic program of “national reconciliation” and prepare for life without Soviet Special Forces and occupation troops. Gorbachev resented the continuing American aid to the insurgents. Instead of recognizing that the Soviets — who had rotated a million troops through Afghanistan — would naturally insist on stability in their southern regions, the Reagan administration seemed determined to continue and even intensify the jihad. “The U.S. has set itself the goal of disrupting a settlement in Afghanistan by any means,” Gorbachev protested in December 1986.

Casey was hell-bent on disruption. If the Soviets were trying to secularize the Afghans (or the Yemenis or any of their other clients), the U.S. would counter by funding religious zealotry. Casey increasingly outsourced the war to the Pakistani I.S.I. Director: “he is completely involved in the war and certainly knows better than anyone else about his requirements. We simply have to support him.” It was an eyes-tight-shut strategy, which the Pakistanis exploited by inserting silver-tongued I.S.I. “barbarian handlers” between the Americans and their mujahideen clients. When Casey insisted in 1984 that he be taken to the Afghan frontier to look at mujahideen camps, the I.S.I., fearing the impression the real camps would make on Casey, hurriedly built a fake one in the hills behind Islamabad, staffed it with model freedom fighters, then drove Casey around in circles all night — simulating a drive to the tribal areas — before depositing him in the bogus camp before daybreak. Casey was impressed, his belief in the efficacy of jihad confirmed. Congressman Charlie Wilson and Casey secured a stunning expansion of funding for the mujahideen by reaching into the Pentagon budget and diverting unused dollars. When matched by the Saudis, the annual aid surged to $700 million in 1986. Historians looking back for the roots of the Taliban and al-Qaeda can find some in that flood of cash, which armed and empowered the proselytizing I.S.I. generals, as well as jihadis like Osama bin Laden, Mullah Omar, and Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. The last has been extensively exposed in the newly released Wikileaks papers. Hekmatyar – sustained by Iranian and Pakistani money — drifts today between Iran and Pakistan, and coordinates the purchase and delivery of North Korean and Iranian weapons that the Taliban uses to kill U.S., coalition and Afghan troops.

As Gorbachev admitted defeat and prepared to leave Afghanistan, a younger Robert Gates warned that the country was going to implode into civil war and extremism. “No one should have had any illusions about these people coming together — before or after a Soviet defeat,” he wrote. The mujahideen armies were girding for civil war — and the failed state that would fledge the Taliban — even as they administered the death blows to the Soviet army in Afghanistan.

Bin Laden moved his family to Pakistan as the Soviets loosened their grip. He rented a two-story house in Peshawar and began organizing in a way that alarmed even his Pakistani mentors. He and his Egyptian sidekick, Ayman al-Zawahiri, now denigrated the Afghan war as a mere “incubator” for bigger campaigns to come in Europe and the U.S. As a parting gift to Najibullah, the Soviets launched a sequence of attacks in 1987 (read Kandahar operation) to rub out as many mujahideen as they could and pinch off the supply lines to Pakistan before they departed. One of their offensives – with 200 ground troops supported by airstrikes and a hailstorm of cluster-bomblets — struck at Jaji, Osama bin Laden’s Arab-only redoubt near Khost. There, in a week of combat, the legend of Osama was born. Although bin Laden, with his soft hands and weak smile, had been late into combat (visiting the front for the first time in 1984), he and fifty Arab fighters held off four times as many Red Army regulars and Spetsnaz operators for a week before retiring. Fortified with regular insulin injections for his diabetes, bin Laden fought and was wounded in the foot. Though sheltered by a massive C.I.A.-funded tunnel complex fitted with bunkers and hospital beds, he sedulously manufactured the cult of personality that would make him a household name. When the smoke cleared over Jaji, Osama produced a fifty-minute video, showing him leading troops, directing fire, briefing Arab volunteers, and scampering along mountain tracks on horseback. Bin Laden distributed the video to sympathetic Arab journalists, and posted copies around the Arab world. He twinned this media strategy — to leverage his little Afghan militia into a worldwide movement — with a chilling new goal. He would, as his Egyptian follower Zawahiri put it, “hit the snake on the head,” which was to say, move past the fading Russians to strike the Americans.

At this critical juncture, Washington lost control of bin Laden forever. With Reagan aging and losing his grip on affairs, Casey dead from a stroke, Congress and the press asking awkward questions about about Iran-Contra, Zia’s martial law regime reluctantly liberalizing and shuffling I.S.I. directors, the Afghan portfolio flopped open and scattered its pages. Najibullah had made a good faith effort to bind up Afghanistan’s wounds, erase the Soviet experiment (and presence), bring home the 2 million refugees in Pakistan and Iran, and blend the traditional and fundamentalist strains in Afghan society to restore “normal political life.” Washington took no hand in that all-important end game other than to cast a distracted glance — in 1987 — at Reagan’s radical protegés in Afghanistan. Although the Arab Afghans — the “brigade of strangers” circulating in Peshawar — were still a relatively unknown danger, many analysts and congressmen were incensed by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar’s refusal to travel to Washington to sit down with Reagan and the other American “infidels” who had been bankrolling and arming him for seven years. Milton Bearden, who ran the C.I.A. field office in Afghanistan, defended the tilt toward the Islamists — which was much more pronounced than revealed in congressional audits because of all the secret Saudi funding — in the usual way. The Islamists — Hekmatyar and the Arabs — killed Russians, and the secularists didn’t. The C.I.A., Bearden fumed, was not going to entrust its jihad “to some liberal arts jerkoff.”

In September 1987, Soviet Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze had a remarkable meeting with his American counterpart — George Shultz — in Washington. “We will leave Afghanistan,” Shevardnadze conceded. The Soviets had poured scarce billions into the country; they admitted to 20,000 dead, but the real number was probably four times that. The timeline to leave was five to twelve months. Gorbachev had authorized Shevardnadze to “associate the United States with the political solution” for Afghanistan, to help build a successor government that would hold back the Pakistani-fostered Islamists. Shultz did nothing with the offer. When Gorbachev invited Vice President Bush to co-write the last act in Afghanistan — to “avoid a bloody war in the country” — Bush too failed to stir. Both Bush and Shultz were hemmed in by Reagan administration “group-think” on the Soviets, and did not want to appear “soft.” Soviet warnings about the dangers of Islamic radicalism and the global threat posed by Afghanistan’s mujahideen armies were discounted in the White House and the C.I.A. Inside Afghanistan, the mujahideen cemented their victory not by joining Najibullah’s Commission for National Reconciliation, but also by assassinating its leaders and delegates.

Lunching with K.G.B. Director Vladimir Kryuchkov in December 1987, acting C.I.A. Director Robert Gates heard Kryuchkov’s warning that the U.S. was holding the stirrups in Afghanistan for the rise of a Sunni equivalent of the Shiite regime in Iran. Because two-thirds of the mujahideen had been fundamentalists, they had received most of the billions in U.S. and Saudi subsidies delivered over the course of the struggle. Killers and bigots like Hekmatyar and bin Laden had used that money not only to kill Russians, but also to build networks for the future. That explained their unwillingness to join Najibullah in reconciling the Afghan factions. They had no interest in Najibullah’s moderate vision — a return of King Zahir Shah from exile, a separation of religious and political Islam, private enterprise, women’s rights, a jihad against illiteracy, and land reform — they wanted a jihad against Westerners, Najibullah’s overthrow, and an Islamic republic where sharia would be strictly observed. “You seem fully occupied in trying to deal with just one fundamentalist Islamic state,” Kryuchkov said, alluding to Khomeini’s Iran. Another one, in Afghanistan, could be just as dangerous, or even more so. Bin Laden and the other Arab jihadis were inculcating a weird cult of death and martyrdom in Afghanistan that frightened even the war-calloused Afghans. With the Soviets beaten, the Arab Afghans were stockpiling unused cash and arms, and — under bin Laden and Zawahiri — creating “the base” — al-Qaeda — for a worldwide assault on the West, “to lift the word of God and make His religion victorious.”

Al-Qaeda, formally created in 1988 as a conglomerate of Islamist terrorist cells in twenty-six countries, planned “to establish the truth, get rid of evil, and establish an Islamic nation.” Bin Laden considered the U.S. a “crocodile,” the Arab world “a helpless child.” By the late 1980s, he spoke publicly of killing Americans. Vietnam had killed nearly 60,000 Americans and provoked anti-war demonstrations. To get the Americans out of Arab affairs — in Lebanon, Palestine and the Persian Gulf — bin Laden proposed more killing: “the Americans won’t stop… until we give them a lot of blows.” But Washington still took little notice of apparent lunatics like bin Laden, and Gates considered Kryuchkov’s offer of cooperation in Afghanistan to be a deception, and brushed it off. Washington was busy managing the collapse of Soviet power in Europe, owed in no small part to Moscow’s investment in the fruitless Afghan War, as well as the end of the Iran-Iraq War in the Persian Gulf. Afghanistan seemed like a sideshow by comparison. Moreover, with its seven warring political parties and innumerable sects and factions, Afghanistan was just too complicated. It was also a mess: 1.3 million Afghans had died in the nine-year war with the Soviets, 1.5 million had become disabled (by landmines and promiscuous Soviet fire) a third of the population had migrated to refugee camps in Pakistan and Iran, and much of the remaining population had flooded into relatively safe cities like Kabul, which filled up with slums and shanties. Ten years of Soviet attacks had smashed roads, schools and houses, and poisoned wells, irrigation systems and farmland. With other matters to deal with and the Soviets gone, Washington defaulted to the strategy that had rooted out the Soviets — Saudi subsidies and “the de facto promotion of Pakistani goals as carried out by Pakistani intelligence.” No one in Washington gave Afghanistan much thought as the Berlin Wall came tumbling down. Those who did generally reckoned that even if Afghanistan did fall apart, it would make sense to let the U.N., the Saudis and the Pakistanis — regional experts and U.S. allies — put the country back together.

The smash-up of Soviet hopes is now our smash-up. The bloody denouement of the 1990s is well-known. With no superpower holding the bag, Afghanistan collapsed into a vicious sectarian war that was eventually won by the Taliban. President Clinton briefly favored the Taliban as the only force capable of uniting Afghanistan and walling it off from Russian or Iranian influence. The Taliban were Sunnis, efficient, anti-Iranian, anti-Russian, and only too willing to authorize the construction (by the Union Oil Company of California) of a $2.5 billion gas pipeline from Turkmenistan, across Afghanistan to Pakistan. Unocal’s 900-mile pipeline would have given U.S. investors access to Turkmenistan’s gas (11 percent of world reserves), powered the Indian subcontinent, and sneaked the rich prize of what Turkmen were calling “the second Kuwait” onto world markets without a single dollar sticking to Russian or Iranian fingers. But even with rich incentives like that, the pro-Unocal Taliban regime became too hot to handle in the 1990s by its massacres and ethnic cleansing, its links to transnational terrorists, and its repression of women. The last offense was by no means trivial in American eyes; Clinton had appointed Madeleine Albright secretary of state for his second term and pledged that “concerns related to women will be incorporated into the mainstream of U.S. foreign policy.” The Taliban, who liked to say that “the only two places for an Afghan woman are in her husband’s house and the graveyard,” were certainly going to lose Albright’s fight, with or without a pipeline. Still safe in his Afghan redoubt, bin Laden began to plan the attack on the U.S.S. Cole as well as the 9/11 operation.

Just as the Soviets had no appetite and cash for peacekeeping after their departure, we’ll have none either. It will be like the retreat from Vietnam — weakness magnified by humiliation and anger — and the Taliban will rapidly consolidate their victory. It’s time for President Obama to start planning for that outcome. Vice President Biden was not so foolish after all when he pushed back against the Pentagon and the cabinet and called for mere counter-terrorism operations instead of the counter-insurgency and continued investment in Karzai’s hated, rotten state. The Afghan security forces will fall apart after we leave, and the weapons we have provided them will fall into Taliban hands. We need to bypass Karzai and begin looking for capable allies in Afghanistan. The war will go on, but without the happy ending of the Bush “freedom agenda.” Afghanistan will be another Somalia or Yemen: a sanctuary for terrorists. Iranian Shiite influence will wane, as will Pakistan’s, as Pakistani Taliban attacks on Islamabad accelerate. This will be one more front for us to manage, not master. Afghanistan is a place to watch, not transform.

Dr. Geoffrey Wawro is the General Olinto Mark Barsanti Professor of Military History and Director of the Military History Center at the University of North Texas. He is the author of Quicksand: America’s Pursuit of Power in the Middle East (Penguin Press, 2010.)

12-31

Part one of a two-part article

By Geoffrey Cook, MMNS

San Francisco–Your author is denoting the City of composition of this exercise, for nothing can be further from the influence  of Washington’s “Beltway,” or the Metropole Of the American hegemony.  This piece of work does not deny representing the Obama-era North American view of an evolving bi-lateral relationship after a tragic  and unnecessary conflict. It is based on primarily U.S. sources – including the Islamic niche press here – and secondarily the British and Pakistani press.

If California (where San Francisco stands) were a separate country, it would be one of the ten largest economies in the world, but it is often at odds with the center of sovereignty on the Atlantic Coast (and the rest of much of the country, for that matter).  Succinctly, it is much more progressive and innovatively forward-looking!

This is the part of America that is more a part of the Asia-Pacific region than Europe.  Whereas Washington has much more of an impact east across the Atlantic than Westward across its own Continent, those on the Pacific Coast stringently opposed and resented the Iraqi War and the Bush Administration.  Thus, your essayist derives out of an environment much different from the rest of his nation, and the worldview of the previous Administration. He believes that the aggression upon Mesopotamia was one of the least thought through blunders in the entire history of the American Republic!

New York was attacked in 2001 by an extra-governmental  agency based in Afghanistan, and not in Iraq.  Under International law the U.S. had the right to counter-attack the Taliban State out of self-defense, for they were protecting Al’Quaeda, and would not expel them.  It was an act of self-defense in that Osama bin Laden, the leader of the “Base” (the translation of their name from the Arabic), had formally declared War upon America.

By diverting energies to Iraq, the Hegemon (i.e., the U.S.) still has a major unfinished War in the Hindu Kush, and the American response in the Middle East strengthened “our” true enemies, Al-Qaeda, changing the struggle from a “sub-subnational” one into a Pan-Islamic multi-national  struggle which has even made inroads into the Western heartland.  

Gautam Mukhopadhaya, the first Indian Ambassador to Kabul  after the initial collapse of the Taliban, stated to your reporter that whereas “Iraq was [is] a War of choice…Afghanistan is one of necessity!”  Therein lays the great blunder of the Bush Administration which President Obama now has to sort out at a great “price.”  For his government, and the eventual domestic economic recovery of the American nation, the BushPresidency’s foreign adventurism — based on the dominant  Neo-Conservative ideology of the first decade of our present Century – has to be replaced with a more respectful policy towards the Middle East, South and Southeast Asia, and largely to the Islamic world as a whole which Obama is attempting to do.

In a recent — official – (U.S.) State Department dossier, re leased by D.C.’s Embassy in Brussels (Belgium) [the headquarters of NATO – the North Atlantic Treaty Organization], entitled The United States Policy  toward Iraq…” President Barrack Obama promised as early as the opening months of 2009, in a speech before his troops as their Commander-in-Chief. “…our combat mission will end by the end of…” next month [August].  His regime is running close to his schedule, but the fact that he did not withdraw in disarray much as the American Army was forced to do in 1975 from Saigon, or stay in Mesopotamia under the theory of perpetual War as some of George W. Bush’s advisors had developed for Israel before they held  the fasces in Washington both the Left and Right have opposed his strategy.  (Bush’s policy in Iraq only demonstrated America’s incestuous relation with Tel Aviv.  The sacrifice of the Coalition’s soldiers and Marines benefited more the I.D.F. [the Israel Defense Force] than it did the District of Columbia or London, for, if the Jewish State did take part in the aggression, it was very likely that the assault would have lead to a region-wide war – if not proceeding to a World War itself.)

During the past week from the date of this writing, the American Military has handed over the last Arab prisons back to Iraqi control.  Foreign soldiers have been keeping as low a profile as possible in the countryside outside of the cities for some time, but ready to re-enter the urban areas in case of a Mutiny emanating from civil society, or if the smoldering insurgency would flare too high for the Coalition-trained Iraqi police and/or Army to contain, the Americans would be able to re-occupy their former positions quickly.  There is fear within  the current recognized regime in Baghdad that if a rebellion broke out, the Iraqi armed services may not be able to suppress it.  Therefore, a small contingent of American soldiers could remain in bases there for possibly years there at the request of their central government — much like the American presence in Korea.  At the same time,  a nationwide study conducted there discovered that “the [elected] Iraqi government has…made no…progress toward its fundamental goal of national reconciliation.”  This represents a lack of confidence in the rulers by the ruled, and the populace just may not accept a continuing American presence — even if the request emanates from their elected officials.  Still, this examination concluded, “..[an] optimistic possibility permeated all…seemingly diverse groups of Iraqis.”

The quotes above come from a late 2007 report in the Washington Post based on a Gallup Poll conducted in Iraq.  The assessment discovered that there was an  overwhelming opinion amongst a large number of a “scientifically” picked sampling of citizens that they would be better off if the Americans left their nation.  Of course, as mentioned above, now Iraq has its own government, while still under the external constraints of the Americans as, further, intimated in the previous paragraph.  The general sense of those surveyed was that the Americans are the pivotal element that is encouraging the ethnic strife.

12-31

By Imam Abdullah El-Amin, MMNS

This article contains many quotes and the feeling of Imam Warith Deen Mohammed, the late leader of the Mosque Cares.  Most of us know that Imam Mohammed is credited with turning an entire nation of Muslim from a nationalist agenda, to the world-wide teachings of the Umma of Prophet Muhammad, Peace be on him.
Ramadan is the ninth month of the lunar calendar.

The Holy Qur’an enjoins upon Muslims to observe the fast consecutively for 29 or 30 days, depending on when the crescent of the new moon appears.  This year the first day of fasting is slated to begin on August 11, 2010. The period must be consecutive so the full purpose of the fast may be realized.  If the time period were spread out, the training that one receives for bearing with thirst and hunger would not be acquired.  By observing the fast, I mean abstaining from eating, drinking, smoking, allowing anything whatsoever to enter into what is understood to be the interior of the body.  Also voluntary vomiting, sexual intercourse etc. is forbidden.  This is observed from the break of dawn to sunset throughout the duration of the month.

This brings us to the “Real Significance of Fasting”.  ALLAH tells us that fasting will (should) bring us into more awareness of Him (GOD-Consciousness).  Realizing that ALLAH is always present can only help the believer gain more self-control and thus more power over yourself and your surroundings.  You will be able to save yourself from being an easy victim to the temptation that beckons us constantly.  This in turn will make the practice of virtue easier and lead one nearer to the Kingdom of ALLAH. If you can voluntarily give up that which is ordinarily lawful to you, then how much easier would it be after Ramadan to abstain from that which is unlawful.

ALLAH, in His Infinite Wisdom and Mercy, realizes that everyone is not able to fast.  Men and women too old and feeble to bear the hardships of a fast are exempted, but they should feed a poor or needy person every day or they may pay a soup-kitchen or masjid to feed the person for them.  Small children unable to comprehend the fast are also exempt; however they are not required to feed a person or make up the fast.   A woman that is pregnant or suckling a child, and there is danger of reduction in the supply of milk if she fasts, is also exempt.

These exemptions, and others, demonstrate the Mercy of Almighty ALLAH.  He is our Creator and He knows us better than anyone else.  He is also the Most Compassionate so He would not order us to deny ourselves food and drink if it would hurt us.

“….He does not wish to put you into difficulty.  He only desires for you to complete the fast…”

It is very important to take care of your physical body during the fast.  If you have a habit of sleeping late or not eating breakfast, break that habit, at least for these 30 days.  Prophet Muhammad, the prayers and Peace be on him, said “partake suhoor (morning meal) for there is blessing in doing so.”  Drink as much water as you can to prevent dehydration during the day.  This simply means that you will experience much less discomfort because you have consumed the water, and you are aware you have consumed it.

Also be aware of the fact that during Ramadan we can consume at least 2 meals a day.  Now who cannot make it two meals a day?  Some people in the world have no meals a day.  Being aware that we can eat at least two meals a day gives us strength during lunchtime periods and the time between Asr and Maghrib.  We are less likely to get weak because we know in a few hours we can eat and drink – and we are gaining the strength ALLAH intends for us.

There are many people who have taken the Shahada during the last year and this will be their first Ramadan.  Pay close attention to the above words that you may gain in knowledge.

A Blessed and generous Ramadan is wished for all.  InshaALLAH. Let us strive to make this the most fruitful of our lives.

As Salaam alaikum
Al Hajj Imam Abdullah El-Amin

12-31

Reuters

BEIJING, July 7 (Reuters) – Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari urged Chinese companies to invest in his country, telling them on Wednesday that his government was looking to nuclear, hydro and alternative sources to meet an acute thirst for power.

Zardari made the remarks on the second day of a six-day visit to China that has underscored the strategic bond between the two neighbours who both look warily at India.

His remarks, reported by the Associated Press of Pakistan, the country’s official news service, did not touch on a nuclear energy deal with China that has prompted questions from New Delhi, Washington and other capitals.

But Zadari made clear his country was looking to China to help shore up Pakistan’s economy and expand an energy sector that has struggled to keep up with a growing population.

Zardari told the Chinese business chiefs in Beijing that “Pakistan was facing acute power shortage and intended to add tens of thousands of megawatts of power to its national grid in the next 25 years through combined hydro, coal, gas, nuclear and renewable energy sources”, said the APP report, citing the Pakistani President’s spokesman, Farhatullah Babar.

An executive of China’s Three Gorges Corporation, which runs the huge hydro power dam in southwest China, said his company agreed to look to hydro and wind power projects in Pakistan, the report said.

The Chinese companies present included NORINCO, one of the country’s biggest sellers of conventional arms.

The report did not mention any Chinese nuclear companies.

Beijing and Islamabad appear unlikely to use Zardari’s visit to trumpet their nuclear power deal, which has unsettled some other governments, worried that it could erode non-proliferation rules.

Zardari will also meet Chinese President Hu Jintao.

Regional rivals Pakistan and India both have nuclear weapons, and refuse to join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which would oblige them to scrap those weapons.

The United States sealed a nuclear energy deal with India in 2008, despite the objections of critics who said it eroded the integrity of non-proliferation rules.

China has said it has the right to pursue nuclear power projects with Pakistan — which China treats as a counter-weight to Indian influence.

Chinese nuclear companies have built one reactor unit at the Chashma atomic complex in Pakistan’s Punjab province, and they are building another one likely to be finished in 2011 or 2012.

Chinese companies have also unveiled plans to build another two bigger reactors at Chashma in coming years.

But those plans have been questioned by other governments.

The NPT rules say that if countries not authorised to possess nuclear weapons want to receive nuclear materials from countries adhering to the Treaty, such as China or the U.S., they should accept comprehensive nuclear safeguard agreements.

When the United States sealed its nuclear agreement with India, it won a waiver from that requirement. Washington and other governments have said China should at least seek a similar exemption for the planned reactors in Pakistan.

(Reporting by Chris Buckley; Editing by Nick Macfie)

12-31

HHRD-USA Annual Dinner

Amjad Hussain With His Admirers At HHRD Annual Dinner in Houston…

Seasoned presenter of Pakistan, who received for his talents President of Pakistan Pride of Performance Award in 1989, Amjad Hussain Qureshi was here in Dallas & Houston this past Friday-&-Saturday and truly moved everyone present with his heart wrenching presentation of motivational Pakistani nationalistic poetry; then the poetry about the Praises & Signs of God (Hamd-e-Bari-Ta-Allah); poetry about the Life of & Respect For Messenger Mohammad May Allah SWT Peace and Blessings Be Upon him (Naat-e-Rasool-e-Maqbool). He presented from the famous poems of Late Mahirul Qadri. In Dallas Region, the program was held in Garland Special Events Center, while in Houston, it was well-organized by Youth at the Arab American Cultural & Community Center.

In a communiqué thanking the communities, ILyas Hasan Choudry, U. S. South Central Region Coordinator has conveyed this message: “On behalf of Helping Hand For Relief & Development – USA (HHRD-USA), I want to thank from the bottom of my heart all those, who attended HHRD-USA Annual Dinners this past weekend in Dallas and Houston, Texas. Those who attended will indeed attest that presentations by Dr. Farhan Abdul Azeez, Sheikh Yousuf Islahi and Amjad Hussain were By the Grace of God excellent and heartwarming; enhancing the overall spirits. Also HHRD-USA feels blessed by God to have offered this opportunity of learning, gratification, and philanthropy to the communities of Dallas and Houston. Those who missed the event hopefully will attend our future programs and become volunteers & voice for our projects like Sponsor an Orphan in one of 16 countries with just $1/Day or $30/Month or $365/Year; Sponsor a Business or Skills Development of a family to bring them out of poverty with just $250/Business (this money circulates on the long run to establish a viable Enterprise); Education for Gaza Children (via UNO); Water For Life Program; etc. During these dinners as we encouraged those who attended, we want to encourage everyone to become part of the philanthropic efforts of HHRD-USA by supporting one or more businesses at $250/Business to bring families out of poverty through the concept of Micro-Financing and Recycling your Charity (Sadaqae-Jariyah). Please forward this message to your family members and friends.”

For more information and giving, HHRD-USA Royal Center’s Office in Houston can be visited at 11955 Bissonnet Street, Houston, Texas 77099; or one can go to www.hhrd.org or call Maaz Adil 281.468.2238 or ILyas Choudry 832.275.0786.

Emergence of Emerge USA

This past weekend, U. S. Congressman Keith Ellison provided a boost to EMERGE-USA Fundraiser. While on a private visit to Texas, US Congressman Keith Ellison visited a fundraiser for EMERGE-USA (Empowering Motivating Educating Resourceful Grassroots Entities) held on July 25 to raise funds for the local “Get Out To Vote (GOTV) Efforts”. The fundraiser was held at the home of State Democratic Executive Committeeman (SDEC) Farrukh Shamsi.

Mr. Ellison encouraged the political activists and community leaders at the event to contribute generously to EMERGE as the funds would be well utilized for local community political awareness based on EMERGE’s impressive track record in several states and specifically in Houston. He quipped that “if you are not on the table, you could be on the menu.”

EMERGE-USA is a national grassroots non-partisan organization that seeks to promote political activism in under-represented communities. EMERGE aspires to ensure that under-represented communities have the same constitutional rights, social privileges, and political opportunities afforded to all Americans. EMERGE aims to politically empower and train its constituents to be effective community organizers and work in coalitions to advance policies and legislation that help protect and enforce the rights afforded by the United States Constitution.

More information is available on website www.emerge-usa.org.

12-31

By Parvez Fatteh, Founder of http://sportingummah.com, sports@muslimobserver.com

It was a week of rising and falling fortunes for Indian tennis star Sania Mirza. The Hyderabad native has had, for the most part, a disappointing tennis year thus far, experiencing a combination of injuries and early exits. So the plan was to then play a somewhat lower level tournament to help regain her form and her confidence, and to help re-establish her health. The Aegon Great Britain Pro-Series event at Wrexham, England presented just such an opportunity.

Mirza was cruising along in both the singles and doubles events. In doubles, she ultimately took home the title, as she and her Finnish partner, Emma Laine, won the final match over a couple of Brits, Tara Moore and Francesca Stephenson, 2-6, 6-3, 13-11. As the number 1 seed in singles, she was establishing her dominance there as well. And in the semifinals she defeated her doubles partner, Laine, 6-1, 6-4, to make it to the ladies’ finals. The championship proved to be a let-down for Mirza, however. Going up against 18-year-old Brit Heather Watson, Mirza was overmatched and went down relatively easily 6-2, 6-4. It may have been some consolation to know that Watson was the reigning Junior U.S. Open winner. But that is small consolation indeed when combined with the fact that Watson was ranked only 252 in the world.

The new Women’s Tennis Association (WTA) rankings were released the Monday after the tournament, and they showed that Sania’s ranking had subsequently slipped from 11 points from 131 to 142. However, she had moved up 6 points in the ladies’ doubles rankings, from 93 to 87.

On the men’s side, Pakistan’s Aisam-Ul-Haq Qureshi is ranked 39 in the Association of Tennis Professionals (ATP) men’s doubles rankings. Qureshi will be playing in an upcoming string of doubles tournaments with his partner Rohan Bopanna of India, beginning with the Farmers ATP Classic in Los Angeles beginning the week of Monday July 26.

12-31

By Nilofar Suhrawardy, MMNS India Correspondent

NEW DELHI/AHMEDABAD: Gujarat has hit headlines again for reasons that may hardly be viewed as anything pleasing for the state government as well as the party that forms it, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). After tendering in his resignation from Gujarat government as home minister on July 24, Amit Shah surrendered the following day before the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in Gandhinagar (Gujarat). Shah faces charges of being involved in murder, kidnapping, extortion and destruction of evidence in fake encounter killings of Sohrabuddin Sheikh and his wife Kausar Bi in 2005. The Gujarat police claimed in 2007 that Sohrabuddin, allegedly a terrorist, was planning to assassinate Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi as a revenge for the 2002-Gujarat carnage which targeted the Muslims.

The Supreme Court’s intervention, however, led to admissions that senior police officers were directly involved in murders of Sohrabuddin and his wife. The Supreme Court asked CBI to take up the case. Shah faces charges of calling up the policemen responsible for killings of Sohrabuddin and Kausar Bi. Describing charges against him as “fabricated, politically motivated and framed on behest of the Congress government,” Shah said: “I have full faith in the judiciary and I am sure the allegations against me will be cleared by the courts.” Shah alleged that 40 AK-47 rifles, about a 100 grenades and $2,200 worth of ammunition were recovered from Sohrabuddin’s house.

Shah was first summoned by CBI on July 22. As he failed to appear, CBI issued a second summon with July 23 as the deadline. Shah’s anticipatory bail was rejected on July 23, making his arrest imminent. The CBI Judge AY Dave sent Shah to 14 days judicial custody on July 25.  Senior advocate Ram Jethmalani filed a bail plea for Shah in CBI special court on July 26. The court fixed Aug 2 for the bail plea’s hearing.

BJP leaders have echoed Shah’s stand on charges against him being “fabricated” by the Congress. They have accused Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government of “misusing” and “pressurizing” CBI to arrest Shah.

Refuting BJP’s charges, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said: “It is not true that the CBI is an agent of the Congress.” Speaking to media persons ahead of monsoon session of the Parliament, he said: “I refute this allegation that the CBI is Congress Bureau of Investigation. The center was not misusing the CBI in the former Gujarat Home Minister Amit Shah’s case.” “The opposition knows that the Sohrabuddin Sheikh case is a part of the Supreme Court directive. The matter is with the Supreme Court. The central government has no hand in it. The BJP is indulging in false propaganda,” he pointed out.

Unmoved by Prime Minister Singh’s stand, BJP president Nitin Gadkari said: “The Congress party is using CBI as a weapon against opposition leaders to blackmail them.” “The CBI, which was entrusted by the honorable Supreme Court with the task of investigating the Sohrabuddin encounter, death of Sohrabuddin and killing of his wife Kausar Bi began to target the Gujarat government from the word go,” Gadkari said.

Senior BJP leader Venkaiah Naidu described CBI as “political arm” of the Congress-led government. He said: “There are umpteen numbers of cases where CBI has bungled and has been under political pressure of the government. We will expose it because the CBI has become a political arm of the government.”

On their part, Congress leaders questioned BJP’s charges. Congress spokesman Abhishek Singhvi asked: “Do you think the CBI is full of a bunch of fools, who will risk their entire career by making false allegations, non-existing allegations which are going to be examined by the Supreme Court?” Speaking to reporters, he said that BJP was trying to “fool the country” by saying that charges against Shah were “fabricated.” “Charge sheet is not made overnight. Charge sheet is a collection of evidence. Here, in over five-six months of investigation the CBI has got enough evidence against Shah. The law will take its own course. There have been attempts to delay that course and obstruct it,” he said.

Congress spokesman Shakeel Ahmed said that BJP was “nervous” about developments which may take place after Shah’s arrest. “Shah was only a minister of state for home. The transfers of many senior police officers in the state were made by Narendra Modi. It is our understanding that these uncomfortable questions will be asked and Modi will have to answer them.” “The BJP is nervous and afraid that the investigation may go beyond Amit Shah and, hence, are using pressure tactics to block further investigation into the case,” Ahmed said.

Congress leaders believe that Shah is being made a “scapegoat by BJP to save Modi.” BJP is of the opinion that there isn’t substantial evidence against Shah. BJP spokesperson Ravi Shankar Prasad said: “The entire case against Shah is based upon sweeping investigations by CBI without any legally sustainable evidence. This motivated investigation would boomerang on the Congress.”

Meanwhile, CBI was granted permission by court to interrogate Shah in jail. The court asked CBI to provide Shah the charge sheet before beginning the interrogation. In the charge sheet, Shah has been named as a key accused together with (former) senior police officers D.G. Vanzara, Rajkumar Pandian, M.N. Dinesh and Abhay Chudasama. Shah, according to the charge sheet, had entrusted the task of killing Sohrabuddin to Vanzara, Pandian and Chudasama.

One of the accused, suspended police officer Narendra Amin was for long associated with Vanzara and his “encounter team.” He has moved application for turning “approver” in the case. He has also sought pardon and a transfer from Sabarmati Jail, where other co-accused have been housed. With his having turned an “approver” and having “exposed” the involvement of other accused in the fake encounter, Amin feels that his life was threatened in Sabarmati Jail.

12-31